Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

This paper argues that the electron mass during Big Bang nucleosynthesis matched its present laboratory value to within about 1.4%, with best-fit values of 0.504 and 0.510 MeV depending on the nuclear reaction network used.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 04:11 UTC pith:FNZQYXMV

load-bearing objection A new percent-level BBN bound on m_e, but the headline precision hangs on one unreviewed helium-4 measurement. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.05720 v2 pith:FNZQYXMV submitted 2026-02-05 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Early-universe constraints on the electron mass

Michela Garramone , Stefano Gariazzo , Nicolao Fornengo This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords electron massBig Bang nucleosynthesisneutrino decouplingeffective number of relativistic speciesprimordial helium-4fundamental constant variationearly universeneutron-proton ratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the electron mass at temperatures around 0.1–1 MeV, in the first minutes after the Big Bang, was the same as it is today to within about 1.4%. It does so by tracing how a changed electron mass would alter two early-Universe processes: the decoupling of neutrinos from the electron-positron plasma (which sets the effective number of relativistic species, Neff) and the weak-interaction rates that set the neutron-to-proton ratio during BBN. Confronting the resulting predictions for deuterium, helium-4, and Neff with observations yields m_e = 0.504+0.007−0.006 MeV with one reaction-rate compilation and m_e = 0.510±0.007 MeV with another. The helium-4 abundance provides most of the constraining power. If correct, the result extends limits on a time-varying electron mass to a far earlier cosmic epoch than previous CMB-based probes.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the electron mass at MeV-scale temperatures was constant to O(1%): m_e = 0.504+0.007/−0.006 MeV or m_e = 0.510±0.007 MeV (68.27% C.L.) depending on the nuclear reaction network, compared with the laboratory value 0.511 MeV. The paper attributes the tightness of this bound primarily to a recent, more precise measurement of the primordial helium-4 mass fraction, with deuterium and Neff contributing subordinate constraints. Because the change in m_e affects BBN mainly through the phase space of charged-current weak processes—including neutron β-decay and the n↔p interconversion rates—the result is presented as direct evidence that m_e has

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two coupled mechanisms. First, the weak-interaction rates that govern neutron-proton equilibrium and neutron decay have phase-space factors that depend explicitly on m_e; increasing m_e reduces these rates, lengthens the effective neutron lifetime, and pushes more neutrons into 4He. Second, the timing of e± annihilation relative to neutrino decoupling—tracked by a modified set of Boltzmann/continuity equations for photon and neutrino temperatures—maps m_e onto Neff. The analysis introduces a comoving time variable built on a fixed mass scale so that the clock is not rescaled when m_e is varied, then propagates m_e through a full BBN nuclear network and compares deuterium

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the quoted precision of a newly reported helium-4 abundance, Y_P = 0.2458 ± 0.0013, a preprint that appeared during the final stages of manuscript preparation; if that error bar is understated or its central value shifts, the electron-mass constraint loosens by more than one sigma.

What would settle it

Adopting the previously compiled helium abundance (Y_P = 0.245 ± 0.003) in place of the new value shifts the combined PRIMAT best fit from 0.510 MeV to 0.521 MeV — a jump of roughly 1.4σ. A definitive independent helium measurement that lands at or above the old central value would therefore overturn the claimed ~1.4% upper limit on electron-mass variation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A time-varying electron mass, if any, must produce changes smaller than ~1.4% at MeV temperatures, extending percent-level constancy to the first minutes after the Big Bang.
  • Helium-4 is the dominant probe: the bound is driven by the improved helium measurement, so future improvements in Y_P precision will tighten m_e constraints more than CMB measurements of Neff.
  • The two nuclear-reaction-rate compilations agree on the helium-4 channel but differ noticeably on deuterium, implying that deuterium-based m_e constraints carry network-selection uncertainty.
  • The central values, though consistent with the laboratory mass, sit slightly below 0.511 MeV, leaving a ~1σ hint of a marginally lighter electron at early times.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would vary the neutron-proton mass difference Q together with m_e; the present analysis holds Q fixed, so a correlated change in the strong and electromagnetic mass splittings could in principle hide part of the variation.
  • The same χ² machinery could be applied to other parameters that enter weak rates or Neff—such as the Fermi constant G_F or a nonstandard neutrino energy density—yielding joint early-Universe constraints on fundamental constants.
  • The deuterium disagreement between compilations suggests that sub-percent electron-mass precision will require resolving low-energy nuclear reaction rate systematics, not just improving abundance measurements.
  • If the new helium measurement is later revised upward to the previous compiled value, the combined constraint relaxes by roughly a factor of two (central value shifting ~1.4σ), so the claimed constancy at 1.4% is contingent on that single data point.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the electron mass at early-Universe temperatures (MeV scale, during neutrino decoupling and BBN) is consistent with its laboratory value. The authors generalize the NUDEC_BSM code to compute N_eff as a function of m_e and modify PRyMordial to propagate m_e through the weak rates and thermodynamics into D/H and Y_P. They then perform a chi-square analysis combining N_eff, D/H, and helium-4 (excluding lithium-7) using two nuclear networks, NACRE II and PRIMAT. With the new LBT helium determination Y_P = 0.2458 ± 0.0013, they obtain m_e = 0.504^{+0.007}_{-0.006} MeV (NACRE II) and m_e = 0.510 ± 0.007 MeV (PRIMAT) at 68.27% C.L., and interpret this as supporting constancy of the electron mass to about 1.4%.

Significance. If the result is robust, this provides a genuinely new early-Universe probe of the electron mass at percent-level precision, complementing existing recombination-epoch constraints. The paper has real strengths: the SM-limit validation reproduces N_eff ≃ 3.044, the study makes use of public and widely used BBN and decoupling codes, and the authors transparently report results for both nuclear networks and for the PDG helium alternative. The main weakness is that the headline precision is driven almost entirely by a single, not-yet-refereed helium abundance measurement, and the analysis does not propagate the baryon density uncertainty. These issues affect the central claim and need to be addressed before the result can be considered fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V.d, Table I, Eq. (34)] The combined constraint is explicitly said to be 'driven primarily by helium', with Y_P = 0.2458 ± 0.0013 taken from Ref. [40], a preprint that appeared during the final stages of manuscript preparation. As the authors report in the abstract, replacing this with the PDG value Y_P = 0.245 ± 0.003 shifts the PRIMAT combined best fit from 0.510 MeV to 0.521 MeV, a movement of 0.011 MeV relative to a quoted 1σ error of 0.007 MeV. This shows that both the central value and the claimed ~1.4% precision are highly sensitive to the choice of helium input. The paper should either present the PDG-based constraint as the primary result, or quantitatively propagate a more conservative helium uncertainty (e.g., σ_YP = 0.003) into the final m_e intervals, and adjust the abstract/conclusion claims accordingly.
  2. [§V, Eqs. (31)–(35)] The chi-square analysis fixes the baryon-to-photon ratio to η10 = 6.040 ± 0.118 from Ref. [19] and does not propagate its uncertainty into the m_e constraints. Since D/H and, to a lesser extent, Y_P depend on the baryon density, the quoted 1σ intervals on m_e are likely underestimated. The authors should marginalize over η10 or add its variance in quadrature and show how the final intervals change. This is a concrete, checkable step, and it bears directly on the paper's central claim of ~1.4% precision.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Table I/§VI] The abstract quotes m_e = 0.505^{+0.006}_{-0.007} MeV (NACRE II) and 0.509^{+0.005}_{-0.004} MeV (PRIMAT), whereas Table I and §VI quote 0.504^{+0.007}_{-0.006} and 0.510 ± 0.007. These numbers should be reconciled to avoid ambiguity about the actual result.
  2. [§II.A, §II.B] The approximations of thermal neutrino spectra and neglected oscillations are stated and are reasonable for the SM, but for large m_e (e.g., 5 MeV) the non-thermal distortions could be larger than the ~1% SM estimate. A brief quantitative test or a statement of why this remains subdominant for the relevant m_e range would strengthen the N_eff calculation.
  3. [§IV] The modified versions of NUDEC_BSM and PRyMordial are not publicly released. Providing the modified code or a detailed changelog would improve reproducibility and allow independent verification of the m_e-dependent weak-rate implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity: m_e is a fitted parameter constrained by external BBN/CMB data, not an input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The analysis is a standard parameter-estimation exercise. The electron mass m_e is the free parameter in a modified NUDEC_BSM calculation of N_eff(m_e) (Eqs. 11 and 20) and in modified PRyMordial runs for D/H(m_e) and Y_P(m_e) (Figs. 6-7). These predictions are then compared via the chi2 of Eqs. (31)-(32) to independent external measurements: PDG D/H (Eq. 33), the LBT helium value Y_P = 0.2458 +/- 0.0013 (Eq. 34), and Planck N_eff = 2.99 +/- 0.17 (Eq. 35). The code is validated at the standard value: 'For m_e = 0.511 MeV the code reproduces the Standard Model prediction (within rounding, consistent with Ref. [15])'. The only overlapping-author citation is the BBN theory-error budget from Ref. [59]; those uncertainties enter the chi2 but are not the source of the constraint, since the helium measurement dominates and the helium-only fit already gives m_e ~ 0.503 +/- 0.007 MeV. Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing and does not make the result circular. Caveats that affect robustness but not circularity: the helium anchor is an unreviewed preprint that 'appeared during the final stages of manuscript preparation,' and switching to the PDG helium value shifts the PRIMAT combined best fit from 0.510 to 0.521 MeV (~1.4 sigma of the quoted error). The abstract and Table I also disagree on the exact intervals. These are data-quality and presentation issues, not equivalence-by-construction. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a single-parameter fit (m_e) against three observables, with no invented entities. The heavy load sits in inputs the paper did not produce: the brand-new helium-4 measurement (dominant), the two nuclear-rate compilations, and the self-cited theory errors from Ref. [59]. The domain assumptions (FD spectra, no oscillations, fixed Q and couplings, μ = 0) are standard and stated, but the fixed-Q / m_e-only frame limits the constancy interpretation to the case where all other constants co-vary negligibly.

free parameters (3)
  • m_e (early-universe electron mass) = 0.504^{+0.007}_{-0.006} MeV (NACRE II); 0.510±0.007 MeV (PRIMAT)
    Target parameter, fitted via χ² to D/H, Y_P and N_eff (Eqs. 31-32). Not hidden, but the central value and error inherit the chosen nuclear network and helium-4 dataset.
  • η_10 (baryon-to-photon ratio) = 6.040 (fixed; input from Ref. [19])
    CMB-derived input. Its ±0.118 uncertainty is not propagated in the χ²; deuterium predictions scale roughly as η^-1.6, so this matters at the PRIMAT D/H error level.
  • σ_D/H,th and σ_YP,th (BBN theory errors) = σ_D/H,th = 1.0e-6 (NACRE II), 2.6e-7 (PRIMAT); σ_YP,th = 1.4e-4 (NACRE II), 1.1e-4 (PRIMAT)
    Imported from Ref. [59], co-authored by S. Gariazzo. The NACRE II deuterium theory error dominates that channel's error budget and sets the width of the D-based m_e constraint; a self-cited input to the fit.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Only m_e varies; Q = 1.293 MeV, G_F, g_A, V_ud, α_em, and quark masses keep laboratory values
    §IV propagates m_e through the weak rates and thermodynamics while Q and the couplings are fixed; a correlated variation of Q would change the n/p freeze-out ratio. Standard single-parameter framing, but load-bearing for the 'constancy of m_e' interpretation.
  • domain assumption Neutrino spectra remain Fermi-Dirac at a common temperature; no oscillations; zero chemical potentials
    §II.A states these approximations. SM spectral distortions shift N_eff at the ~1% level (Ref. [12]), below the targeted sensitivity but formally unaccounted.
  • domain assumption NACRE II or PRIMAT compilations bracket the true BBN reaction rates
    §IV: the deuterium prediction differs systematically between compilations, and the m_e bound inherits this (the D/H rows of Table I differ visibly).
  • domain assumption The LBT helium-4 measurement (Ref. [40]) is unbiased with a reliable quoted error of 0.0013
    §V: this input dominates the combined constraint; the measurement is a preprint about one month old at submission.
  • standard math η_10 at BBN equals the CMB value 6.040±0.118
    §III: in ΛCDM the baryon-to-photon ratio is conserved between the BBN and CMB epochs; standard assumption.
  • domain assumption Second-order finite-temperature QED corrections (G_1, G_2) apply with standard running and the varied m_e
    Appendix A.d imports Ref. [14]'s FTQED expressions; the paper does not show a re-derivation for m_e ≠ 0.511 MeV.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17678 in / 35586 out tokens · 346103 ms · 2026-08-03T04:11:26.959609+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the impact of a nonstandard electron mass $m_e$ on early-Universe thermal history, focusing on neutrino decoupling and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN). In the standard cosmology, neutrino--electron interactions keep neutrinos in thermal contact with the electromagnetic plasma until shortly before $e^\pm$ annihilation. Varying $m_e$ shifts the decoupling epoch and the entropy transfer from $e^\pm$ annihilation, thereby modifying the neutrino energy density and the inferred effective number of relativistic species, $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Independently, during BBN the rates of charged-current weak processes, and hence the neutron-to-proton ratio, depend on $m_e$. By confronting BBN predictions for the primordial light-element abundances with observations and imposing cosmological constraints on $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$, we obtain the following $1\sigma$ bounds on $m_e$ in the early Universe: $m_e = 0.505^{+0.006}_{-0.007}$ MeV (for the NACRE II nuclear reaction network) or $m_e=0.509^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ MeV (for the PRIMAT nuclear reaction network). These bounds have been derived by adopting the recent determination of the primordial Helium-4 abundance by the Large Binocular Telescope observations of 54 metal-poor H\,\textsc{ii} regions. If instead we adopt the Particle Data Book Helium-4 abundance, the bounds are: $m_e = 0.503^{+0.011}_{-0.015}$ MeV (NACRE II) or $m_e=0.521^{+0.009}_{-0.007}$ MeV (PRIMAT) The obtained allowed ranges are close to the present laboratory value at the level of $\sim 0.4\%-2\%$, depending on the dataset and nuclear network, thus supporting the constancy of the electron mass over cosmological timescales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.05720 by Michela Garramone, Nicolao Fornengo, Stefano Gariazzo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Evolution of the comoving temperatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Evolution of the comoving energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Primordial abundances of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Time evolution of primordial abundances for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Deuterium abundance as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Helium-4 abundance as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Combined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The $H_0$ world cup. II. A comprehensive competition between proposed Hubble tension solutions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Against a common 2025-26 dataset (Planck PR4, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, DESI DR2, Pantheon+), early dark energy and early modified gravity models win the H0 competition (~3σ residual tension), while radiation and late-time sol...

  2. The $H_0$ World Cup. I. Summary of the baseline group stage results

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    In a systematic head-to-head analysis, early dark energy and early modified gravity models reduce the Hubble tension to about 3σ and are favored over ΛCDM, while radiation and late-time alternatives are not.

  3. Cosmological Viability of Exponential Infrared $f(T)$ Gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Exponential IR f(T) gravity Model I alleviates Hubble tension but is disfavoured by combined Planck/ACT/SPT+DESI+Pantheon+ data; Model II is ruled out because background constraints force unphysical shifts in CMB parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Lesgourgues, G

    J. Lesgourgues, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and S. Pastor, Neutrino Cosmology(2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Peebles (2024) arXiv:2405.18307 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Peebles (2024) arXiv:2405.18307 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Grohs and G

    E. Grohs and G. M. Fuller, (2023), arXiv:2301.12299 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Cooke, (2024), arXiv:2409.06015 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Cooke, (2024), arXiv:2409.06015 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astro- phys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astro- phys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Y. Toda, W. Giarè, E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101676 (2024), arXiv:2407.01173 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Toda and O

    Y. Toda and O. Seto, (2025), arXiv:2508.09025 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Smith, E

    A. Smith, E. Özülker, E. Di Valentino, and C. van de Bruck, (2025), arXiv:2510.21931 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Akita and M

    K. Akita and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP08, 012 (2020), arXiv:2005.07047 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Froustey, C

    J. Froustey, C. Pitrou, and M. C. Volpe, JCAP12, 015 (2020), arXiv:2008.01074 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    J. J. Bennettet al., JCAP04, 073 (2021), arXiv:2012.02726 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Fornengo, C

    N. Fornengo, C. Kim, and J. Song, Phys.Rev. D56, 5123 (1997), hep-ph/9702324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  14. [14]

    J. J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, M. Drewes, and Y. Y. Wong, JCAP03, 003 (2020), arXiv:1911.04504 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Escudero, JCAP05, 048 (2020), arXiv:2001.04466 [hep-ph]

    M. Escudero, JCAP05, 048 (2020), arXiv:2001.04466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Escudero, JCAP02, 007 (2019), arXiv:1812.05605 [hep-ph]

    M. Escudero, JCAP02, 007 (2019), arXiv:1812.05605 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Escudero, G

    M. Escudero, G. Jackson, M. Laine, and S. Sandner, (2025), arXiv:2511.04747 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive, and B. D. Fields, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022, 046 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T.-H. Yeh, and C. Young, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020, 010–010 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    B. D. Fields, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence61, 47–68 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    R. I. Epstein, J. M. Lattimer, and D. N. Schramm, Na- ture263, 198 (1976)

    1976

  23. [23]

    Coc and E

    A. Coc and E. Vangioni, International Journal of Modern Physics E26, 1741002 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    P. A. Kislitsyn, S. A. Balashev, M. T. Murphy, C. Ledoux, P. Noterdaeme, and A. V. Ivanchik, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society528, 4068–4081 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Schöneberg, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Schöneberg, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  26. [26]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, R. A. Jorgenson, M. T. Murphy, and C. C. Steidel, The Astrophysical Journal781, 31 (2014)

    2014

  27. [27]

    R.J.Cooke, M.Pettini, K.M.Nollett, andR.Jorgenson, The Astrophysical Journal830, 148 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Riemer-Sørensen, J

    S. Riemer-Sørensen, J. K. Webb, N. Crighton, V. Du- mont, K. Ali, S. Kotus, M. Bainbridge, M. T. Murphy, and R. Carswell, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society447, 2925 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    S. A. Balashev, E. O. Zavarygin, A. V. Ivanchik, K. N. Telikova, and D. A. Varshalovich, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society458, 2188 (2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    Riemer-Sørensen, S

    S. Riemer-Sørensen, S. Kotus, J. K. Webb, K. Ali, V. Du- mont, M. T. Murphy, and R. F. Carswell, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society468, 3239 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    E.O.Zavarygin, J.K.Webb, V.Dumont, andS.Riemer- Sørensen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety477, 5536 (2018). 13

    2018

  32. [32]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, The Astro- physical Journal855, 102 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    E. Aver, D. A. Berg, K. A. Olive, R. W. Pogge, J. J. Salzer, and E. D. Skillman, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 027 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Valerdi, A

    M. Valerdi, A. Peimbert, M. Peimbert, and A. Sixtos, The Astrophysical Journal876, 98 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Fernández, E

    V. Fernández, E. Terlevich, A. I. Díaz, and R. Terlevich, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society487, 3221 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    O. A. Kurichin, P. A. Kislitsyn, V. V. Klimenko, S. A. Balashev, and A. V. Ivanchik, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502, 3045 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    T. Hsyu, R. J. Cooke, J. X. Prochaska, and M. Bolte, The Astrophysical Journal896, 77 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    Valerdi, A

    M. Valerdi, A. Peimbert, and M. Peimbert, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society505, 3624 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    E. Aver, D. A. Berg, A. S. Hirschauer, K. A. Olive, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, J. J. Salzer, and E. D. Skillman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society510, 373 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    E. Aver, E. D. Skillman, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, M. K. Weller, K. A. Olive, D. A. Berg, J. J. Salzer, J. H. Miller, and J. E. Méndez-Delgado, (2026), arXiv:2601.22238 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    E. D. Skillmanet al., (2026), arXiv:2601.22232 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive, B. D. Fields, E. Aver, R. W. Pogge, N.S.J.Rogers, E.D.Skillman, andM.K.Weller, (2026), arXiv:2601.22239 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [44]

    D. N. Schramm and M. S. Turner, Reviews of Modern Physics70, 303–318 (1998)

    1998

  44. [45]

    Steigman, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence57, 463–491 (2007)

    G. Steigman, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence57, 463–491 (2007)

    2007

  45. [46]

    Iocco, G

    F. Iocco, G. Mangano, G. Miele, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serpico, Physics Reports472, 1–76 (2009)

    2009

  46. [47]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, Reviews of Modern Physics88(2016), 10.1103/revmod- phys.88.015004

    doi:10.1103/revmod- 2016

  47. [48]

    Adeet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astronomy & As- trophysics580, A22 (2015)

    P. Adeet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astronomy & As- trophysics580, A22 (2015)

    2015

  48. [49]

    Chluba and Y

    J. Chluba and Y. Ali-Haïmoud, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society456, 3494–3508 (2016)

    2016

  49. [50]

    Hart and J

    L. Hart and J. Chluba, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society474, 1850–1861 (2017)

    2017

  50. [51]

    Prymordial: The first three minutes, within and beyond the standard model,

    A.-K. Burns, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Valli, “Prymordial: The first three minutes, within and beyond the standard model,” (2023), arXiv:2307.07061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [53]

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Physical Review Letters 96(2006), 10.1103/physrevlett.96.032002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.032002 2006

  52. [54]

    New utfit anal- ysis of the unitarity triangle in the cabibbo-kobayashi- maskawa scheme,

    M. Bonaet al.(UTfit Collaboration), “New utfit anal- ysis of the unitarity triangle in the cabibbo-kobayashi- maskawa scheme,” (2022), arXiv:2212.03894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [55]

    A. N. Ivanov, M. Pitschmann, and N. I. Troitskaya, Phys. Rev. D88, 073002 (2013)

    2013

  54. [56]

    Y. Xu, K. Takahashi, S. Goriely, M. Arnould, M. Ohta, and H. Utsunomiya, Nuclear Physics A918, 61 (2013)

    2013

  55. [57]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Physics Reports754, 1–66 (2018)

    2018

  56. [58]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Nature Reviews Physics3, 231–232 (2021)

    2021

  57. [59]

    Barenboim, S

    G. Barenboim, S. Gariazzo, and A. Sánchez-Vargas, JCAP08, 005 (2025), arXiv:2503.21998 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [61]

    D. S. Leonard, H. J. Karwowski, C. R. Brune, B. M. Fisher, and E. J. Ludwig, Physical Review C73, 045801 (2006)

    2006

  59. [62]

    Seto and Y

    O. Seto and Y. Toda, Physical Review D107(2023), 10.1103/physrevd.107.083512

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.083512 2023

  60. [63]

    S. J. Landau, M. E. Mosquera, C. G. Scóccola, and H. Vucetich, Physical Review D78(2008), 10.1103/phys- revd.78.083527

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2008