Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 102 references

AGILE builds an end-to-end LSST simulation of AGNs, galaxies, and stars so that selection methods and pipeline flux recovery can be tested against a known truth catalog before the survey flies.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 00:12 UTC pith:PEK6ZO2V

load-bearing objection Useful end-to-end LSST AGN mock and public DR1 test-bench; the empirical recipe is a known, stated limitation, not a hidden flaw. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.15729 v1 pith:PEK6ZO2V submitted 2026-03-16 astro-ph.GA

AGILE: an end-to-end Rubin-LSST simulation of AGNs, galaxies, and stars I. Software description and first data release

A. Viitanen , A. Bongiorno , I. Saccheo , A. Grazian , M. Paolillo , V. Petrecca , D. De Cicco , D. Roberts
show 32 more authors
F. Shankar V. Allevato E. Merlin D. Ili\'c A. B. Kova\v{c}evi\'c G. De Somma M. Di Criscienzo L. Girardi M. Marconi A. Mazzi G. Pastorelli M. Trabucchi T. Ananna R. J. Assef W. N. Brandt M. Brescia A. W. Graham G. Li D. Marsango A. Peca M. Polioudakis C. M. Raiteri B. Rani C. Ricci G. Richards M. Salvato S. Satheesh-Sheeba R. Shirley S. Tang M. J. Temple F. Tombesi I. Yoon F. Zou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords AGNLSSTend-to-end simulationvariabilitydamped random walkcompletenesspuritymock catalog
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.

Large optical surveys such as the Rubin Observatory LSST will contain millions of active galactic nuclei, yet identifying them cleanly from photometry or variability alone remains difficult. AGILE is software that injects a realistic AGN population into existing galaxy and star simulations, assigns each AGN an optical/UV spectral energy distribution drawn from empirical relations, and adds optical variability via a damped random walk tied to physical parameters. It then produces LSST-like images and catalogs. A 1 deg² pilot (AGILE DR1) covering three years of COSMOS-field operations is used to measure how accurately the LSST Science Pipelines recover true fluxes and how complete and pure typical color and variability cuts are at recovering Type 1 AGNs. The mock catalog and images are released as a public test-bench so other groups can optimize selection tools against a known ground truth.

Core claim

AGILE supplies a complete 24 deg² truth catalog of AGNs, galaxies, and stars (0.2 < z < 5.5, log M/M⊙ > 8.5 for galaxies/AGNs, r < 27.5 for stars) and a 1 deg² three-year LSST-like image simulation (DR1) that quantifies Science Pipelines flux recovery and the completeness and purity of standard color-color and variability selections for Type 1 AGNs.

What carries the argument

The AGN recipe: complete galaxy samples are populated according to the observed accretion-rate distribution; each AGN receives an empirical optical/UV SED; optical light curves are generated with a damped random walk whose parameters are linked to the AGN’s physical properties; the resulting sources are rendered into LSST-like images and data products.

Load-bearing premise

That an AGN population built from existing empirical accretion-rate, SED, and damped-random-walk relations is close enough to the real sky that the completeness, purity, and flux-recovery numbers measured in the simulation will transfer to actual LSST data.

What would settle it

Compare AGILE DR1 selection completeness and purity, and Science Pipelines flux residuals, against the same statistics measured on real early LSST or precursor imaging of the COSMOS field once those data exist; a large systematic mismatch would falsify the claim that the empirical recipe is sufficiently faithful.

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

If this is right

  • LSST AGN selection pipelines can be tuned and systematics quantified against a known truth catalog before survey data arrive.
  • Flux-recovery biases measured for AGNs, galaxies, and stars in DR1 can be folded into photometric and variability selection forecasts.
  • The same framework can be extended to Euclid-like NIR imaging for joint optical–NIR AGN selection tests.
  • Public release of AGILE DR1 lets independent groups benchmark alternative classifiers and variability metrics on identical inputs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the damped-random-walk parameters prove too simple, later data releases may need more flexible stochastic models before purity numbers can be trusted for rare high-redshift AGNs.
  • The 24 deg² truth catalog is large enough that the same machinery could be reused to forecast AGN number densities and contamination rates for other wide-field surveys beyond LSST and Euclid.
  • Once real LSST light curves exist, residuals between observed and AGILE variability statistics will directly test how well empirical accretion-rate distributions capture the true population.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents AGILE, an end-to-end LSST simulation framework (INAF LSST in-kind) that injects AGNs into existing galaxy and star simulations using an empirical recipe: galaxies are populated according to the observed AGN accretion-rate distribution, each AGN receives an optical/UV SED, and optical variability is added via a damped random walk tied to AGN physical parameters. The authors construct a 24 deg² complete mock truth catalog (0.2 < z < 5.5, log M/M⊙ > 8.5 for AGNs/galaxies, r < 27.5 for stars) and a pilot AGILE DR1 (1 deg² COSMOS-like field, three-year LSST strategy) that produces LSST-like images and data products. DR1 is used to quantify LSST Science Pipelines flux recovery for AGNs, galaxies, and stars, and Type-1 AGN completeness/purity under typical color–color and variability selections; the DR1 dataset is released as a public test-bench.

Significance. If the software, truth catalog, and DR1 products are as described, this is a useful community infrastructure paper for LSST AGN selection, classification, and systematics studies. End-to-end mocks that couple accretion-rate demographics, SEDs, physically linked DRW variability, and LSST-like imaging are scarce; a shared 1 deg² three-year pilot with pipeline flux-recovery and selection metrics would be a practical test-bench for method development ahead of survey operations. The contribution is primarily methodological and data-release oriented rather than a new physical result; its value rests on transparency of the recipe, reproducibility of the products, and clarity of the reported completeness/purity and flux-recovery numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. The abstract asserts that AGILE DR1 quantifies LSST Science Pipelines flux recovery and Type-1 completeness/purity under color–color and variability selections, but does not report the actual metrics, uncertainties, selection definitions, or magnitude/redshift dependence. Those quantitative results are load-bearing for the pilot’s scientific usefulness; the full text must present them with clear truth-matching criteria, purity/completeness definitions, and comparison to injected truth so readers can judge whether DR1 is an adequate test-bench.
  2. The AGN recipe is built from empirical relations (accretion-rate distribution, SED assignment, DRW parameters linked to physical quantities). For a methods/data-release paper this is acceptable, but the manuscript must state explicitly which observational relations and parameterizations are used, their domain of validity (z, mass, luminosity), and any known biases relative to real Type-1 populations. Without that documentation, users cannot assess when DR1 selection metrics will or will not transfer to on-sky LSST performance.
  3. The pilot is 1 deg² over three years in a COSMOS-like field. The paper should justify that this depth, area, and cadence sampling are sufficient for the claimed pipeline and selection tests (e.g., variability selection needs adequate light-curve sampling), and should discuss cosmic variance / field choice relative to the full 24 deg² truth catalog so that DR1 metrics are not over-interpreted as survey-wide forecasts.
minor comments (4)
  1. Abstract: report at least headline flux-recovery accuracy and Type-1 completeness/purity numbers (with rough uncertainties) so the pilot’s outcome is visible without opening the full data products.
  2. Clarify how AGILE interfaces with the existing galaxy and star simulations it is based on (which codes/catalogs, which quantities are inherited vs. overwritten by the AGN recipe).
  3. State data-access details for AGILE DR1 (format, truth tables, image products, pipeline version) in a dedicated data-availability statement suitable for a first data release.
  4. Briefly situate AGILE relative to other public LSST-oriented AGN or multi-object mocks so readers know what is new (physically linked DRW, end-to-end images, joint AGN–galaxy–star truth).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: AGILE is a forward mock-catalog test-bench that injects truth by construction and scores pipelines/selections against it.

full rationale

From the abstract and stated goals, AGILE builds a complete mock truth catalog by populating existing galaxy/star simulations with AGNs via an empirical recipe (observed accretion-rate distribution, optical/UV SEDs, DRW variability tied to physical parameters), then produces LSST-like images and data products. AGILE DR1 is used to measure flux recovery of the LSST Science Pipelines and Type-1 AGN completeness/purity under color-color and variability cuts, with the dataset shared as a public test-bench. Measuring recovery against injected truth is the intended methodology of an end-to-end simulation, not a self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction loop that claims an independent physical result. The empirical AGN recipe is an explicit modeling input, not a quantity derived from the same DR1 selection metrics later reported. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem, self-citation chain, or renaming of a known result is present in the available claims. Mild transferability risk (whether the empirical recipe is faithful enough for metrics to apply on-sky) is a standard simulation limitation, not circularity of the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

Review is abstract-only for AGILE; free parameters and modeling axioms are those the abstract explicitly invokes as the simulation’s foundation. No fitted numerical values are given in the abstract. Invented entities are software/catalog products rather than new physical particles.

free parameters (4)
  • AGN accretion-rate distribution (empirical)
    Used to decide which galaxies host AGNs and at what strength; abstract does not specify the functional form or fit values.
  • Optical/UV SED template assignment
    Each AGN is assigned an SED from empirical templates; template library and scaling choices are free modeling choices not fixed in the abstract.
  • Damped random walk variability parameters linked to AGN physics
    DRW timescale/amplitude mapping to physical parameters controls light curves and thus variability selection metrics; specific mapping not given in the abstract.
  • Mass, redshift, and magnitude cuts of the truth catalog
    0.2<z<5.5, log M/M⊙>8.5 (AGNs/galaxies), r<27.5 (stars) define the simulated population; they are design choices that bound all reported completeness numbers.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Existing galaxy and star simulations are an adequate base population for LSST-depth AGN science mocks.
    Abstract states AGILE is based on existing galaxy and star simulations; all AGN planting inherits their mass/redshift/photometry fidelity.
  • domain assumption Observed AGN accretion-rate distributions can be used to populate complete galaxy samples at 0.2<z<5.5.
    Core of the AGN recipe; assumes empirical distributions remain valid across the simulated volume and mass range.
  • domain assumption A damped random walk with parameters connected to AGN physical quantities is a sufficient model of optical AGN variability for LSST selection tests.
    Abstract specifies DRW variability; purity/completeness of variability selections rest on this model class.
  • ad hoc to paper LSST survey strategy over three years in a 1 deg² COSMOS-like field is representative enough for pilot pipeline and selection metrics.
    DR1 design choice; metrics may not generalize to full-sky depth, cadence variations, or other fields without further runs.
invented entities (2)
  • AGILE simulation software and AGN recipe no independent evidence
    purpose: End-to-end generation of LSST/Euclid-oriented AGN+galaxy+star mocks, images, and catalogs.
    New software product introduced by the paper; independent evidence would be public code and external use, not established in the abstract alone.
  • AGILE 24 deg² truth catalog and AGILE DR1 (1 deg², 3 yr) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide shared truth and observed-like products to measure flux recovery and Type-1 selection performance.
    Primary data products of the work; abstract claims they are shared as a test-bench.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21030 in / 3229 out tokens · 37234 ms · 2026-07-14T00:12:30.330173+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Contemporary large-scale surveys such as the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) and Euclid present an unprecedented discovery potential for studying AGNs at the population level in the big data era. However, one major challenge is the accurate identification and classification of AGNs from optical/NIR photometry, or variability data alone. In order to optimize AGN selection, classification, and systematics, as well as to test different data analysis tools, we present AGILE (AGNs In the LSST Era), an LSST end-to-end simulation software. AGILE -- developed as part of the INAF LSST in-kind contribution -- is capable of simulating the anticipated AGN population in LSST and Euclid. We based AGILE on existing simulations of galaxies and stars, while we developed an AGN recipe based on empirical relations. AGILE populates complete galaxy samples with AGNs according to the observed AGN accretion rate distribution, and each AGN is assigned an optical/UV spectral energy distribution. Optical AGN variability is added using a damped random walk model connected to the AGN physical parameters. Finally, AGILE creates both LSST-like images and related data products. Using AGILE, we build a $24$ deg$^2$ complete mock truth catalog of AGNs, galaxies, and stars with $0.2 < z < 5.5$, $\log M/M_\odot > 8.5$ (AGNs and galaxies), and $r < 27.5$ mag (stars). We perform a pilot simulation (AGILE DR1) consisting of $1$ deg$^2$ of LSST operations in the COSMOS field observed up to three years according to the survey strategy. We use AGILE DR1 to quantify the accuracy of the LSST Science Pipelines in recovering true fluxes of AGNs, galaxies, and stars. We quantify the LSST completeness and purity in recovering Type 1 AGNs using typical color-color and variability selections. We share the AGILE DR1 dataset, an ideal test-bench for further scientific exploitation.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 83 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Baumann, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small(2011) pp

    D. Baumann, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small(2011) pp. 523–686, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Ach´ ucarroet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.08128 [astro- ph.CO]

    A. Ach´ ucarroet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.08128 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Chen, Adv

    X. Chen, Adv. Astron.����, 638979 (2010), arXiv:1002.1416 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Wang, Commun

    Y. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys.��, 109 (2014), arXiv:1303.1523 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Green, PoS��������, 005 (2024), arXiv:2212.08685 [hep-ph]

    D. Green, PoS��������, 005 (2024), arXiv:2212.08685 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett. ���, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D��, 063511 (2010), arXiv:0909.0496 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, JCAP��, 027 (2010), arXiv:0911.3380 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Baumann and D

    D. Baumann and D. Green, Phys. Rev. D��, 103520 (2012), arXiv:1109.0292 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Wang, JCAP��, 021 (2012), arXiv:1205.0160 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Pi and M

    S. Pi and M. Sasaki, JCAP��, 051 (2012), arXiv:1205.0161 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    J.-O. Gong, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, JCAP��, 043 (2013), arXiv:1306.3691 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Maldacena, (2015), arXiv:1503.08043 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Baumann and D

    D. Baumann and D. Green, JCAP��, 014 (2011), arXiv:1102.5343 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, D. Green, and L. McAllister, JCAP��, 033 (2014), arXiv:1304.5226 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Craig and D

    N. Craig and D. Green, JHEP��, 102 (2014), arXiv:1403.7193 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Dimastrogiovanni, M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, and M. Kamionkowski, JCAP��, 017 (2016), arXiv:1504.05993 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    H. Lee, D. Baumann, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP��, 040 (2016), arXiv:1607.03735 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    P. D. Meerburg, M. M¨ unchmeyer, J. B. Mu˜ noz, and X. Chen, JCAP��, 050 (2017), arXiv:1610.06559 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. Lett. ���, 261302 (2017), arXiv:1610.06597 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 051 (2016), arXiv:1604.07841 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 058 (2017), arXiv:1612.08122 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    H. An, M. McAneny, A. K. Ridgway, and M. B. Wise, JHEP��, 105 (2018), arXiv:1706.09971 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JCAP��, 006 (2017), arXiv:1703.10166 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. Sundrum, JHEP��, 011 (2018), arXiv:1711.03988 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Baumann, G

    D. Baumann, G. Goon, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP��, 140 (2018), arXiv:1712.06624 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 022 (2018), arXiv:1805.02656 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. Sundrum, JHEP��, 120 (2019), arXiv:1811.11200 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Wu, JHEP��, 125 (2019), arXiv:1812.10654 [hep- ph]

    Y.-P. Wu, JHEP��, 125 (2019), arXiv:1812.10654 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Dimastrogiovanni, M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, and G. Tasinato, JCAP��, 016 (2018), arXiv:1806.00850 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    S. Lu, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 011 (2020), arXiv:1907.07390 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    A. Hook, J. Huang, and D. Racco, JHEP��, 105 (2020), arXiv:1907.10624 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    A. Hook, J. Huang, and D. Racco, Phys. Rev. D���, 023519 (2020), arXiv:1908.00019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Kumar and R

    S. Kumar and R. Sundrum, JHEP��, 077 (2020), arXiv:1908.11378 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Wang and Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 044 (2020), arXiv:1910.12876 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    L. Li, T. Nakama, C. M. Sou, Y. Wang, and S. Zhou, JHEP��, 067 (2019), arXiv:1903.08842 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Alexander, S

    S. Alexander, S. J. Gates, L. Jenks, K. Koutrolikos, and 9 E. McDonough, JHEP��, 156 (2019), arXiv:1907.05829 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Bodas, S

    A. Bodas, S. Kumar, and R. Sundrum, JHEP��, 079 (2021), arXiv:2010.04727 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Wang and Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 082 (2020), arXiv:2004.02887 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Lu, JHEP��, 157 (2022), arXiv:2103.05958 [hep-th]

    S. Lu, JHEP��, 157 (2022), arXiv:2103.05958 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Q. Lu, M. Reece, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 098 (2021), arXiv:2108.11385 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Dimastrogiovanni, M

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, M. Fasiello, and A. E. G¨ umr¨ ukc¨ uogl¨ u, JCAP��, 047 (2021), arXiv:2108.06722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Cui and Z.-Z

    Y. Cui and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 111301 (2022), arXiv:2112.10793 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Tong and Z.-Z

    X. Tong and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 194 (2022), arXiv:2203.06349 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 192 (2022), arXiv:2205.01692 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Reece, L.-T

    M. Reece, L.-T. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. D���, L101304 (2023), arXiv:2204.11869 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    X. Chen, R. Ebadi, and S. Kumar, JCAP��, 083 (2022), arXiv:2205.01107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Maru and A

    N. Maru and A. Okawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A��, 2350075 (2023), arXiv:2206.06651 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    X. Chen, J. Fan, and L. Li, (2023), arXiv:2303.03406 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Craig, S

    N. Craig, S. Kumar, and A. McCune, JHEP��, 108 (2024), arXiv:2401.10976 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Quintin, X

    J. Quintin, X. Chen, and R. Ebadi, JCAP��, 026 (2024), arXiv:2405.11016 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Bodas, E

    A. Bodas, E. Broadberry, and R. Sundrum, JHEP��, 115 (2025), arXiv:2409.07524 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Hubisz, S

    J. Hubisz, S. J. Lee, H. Li, and B. Sambasivam, Phys. Rev. D���, 023543 (2025), arXiv:2408.08951 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Chakraborty, (2025), arXiv:2501.07672 [hep-th]

    P. Chakraborty, (2025), arXiv:2501.07672 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Jazayeri, and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. D���, 083531 (2025), arXiv:2506.19198 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Bodas, E

    A. Bodas, E. Broadberry, R. Sundrum, and Z. Xu, JHEP��, 083 (2026), arXiv:2507.22978 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Chakraborty, T

    P. Chakraborty, T. Cohen, D. Green, and Y. Huang, (2025), arXiv:2508.08359 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Aoki and A

    S. Aoki and A. Strumia, (2025), arXiv:2510.05204 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Kumar and M

    S. Kumar and M. Nee, (2025), arXiv:2510.19900 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Jiang, G

    Y. Jiang, G. L. Pimentel, and C. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2512.23796 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.���, A9 (2020), arXiv:1905.05697 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    G. Jung, M. Citran, B. van Tent, L. Dumilly, and N. Aghanim, Astron. Astrophys.���, A204 (2025), arXiv:2504.00884 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Chaussidonet al., JCAP��, 029 (2025), arXiv:2411.17623 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Chaussidonet al., JCAP��, 029 (2025), arXiv:2411.17623 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Dor´ eet al.(SPHEREx), (2014), arXiv:1412.4872 [astro-ph.CO]

    O. Dor´ eet al.(SPHEREx), (2014), arXiv:1412.4872 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [65]

    Adeet al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP��, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Adeet al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP��, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Mellieret al.(Euclid), Astron

    Y. Mellieret al.(Euclid), Astron. Astrophys.���, A1 (2025), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. Baumann, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP��, 105 (2020), arXiv:1811.00024 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Baumann, C

    D. Baumann, C. Duaso Pueyo, A. Joyce, H. Lee, and G. L. Pimentel, JHEP��, 204 (2020), arXiv:1910.14051 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    G. L. Pimentel and D.-G. Wang, JHEP��, 177 (2022), arXiv:2205.00013 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Jazayeri and S

    S. Jazayeri and S. Renaux-Petel, JHEP��, 137 (2022), arXiv:2205.10340 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 059 (2023), arXiv:2208.13790 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 001 (2023), arXiv:2301.07047 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    S. Aoki, T. Noumi, F. Sano, and M. Yamaguchi, JHEP ��, 073 (2024), arXiv:2312.09642 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    S. Aoki, L. Pinol, F. Sano, M. Yamaguchi, and Y. Zhu, JHEP��, 176 (2024), arXiv:2404.09547 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    J. Chen, B. Feng, and Y.-X. Tao, JHEP��, 075 (2025), arXiv:2411.03088 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Liu and Z.-Z

    H. Liu and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP��, 183 (2025), arXiv:2412.07843 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Wang, Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang, Z.-Z. Xianyu, and Y.-M. Zhong, JHEP��, 085 (2022), arXiv:2109.14635 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Werth, L

    D. Werth, L. Pinol, and S. Renaux-Petel, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 141002 (2024), arXiv:2302.00655 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Pinol, S

    L. Pinol, S. Renaux-Petel, and D. Werth, JCAP��, 019 (2025), arXiv:2312.06559 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Werth, L

    D. Werth, L. Pinol, and S. Renaux-Petel, Class. Quant. Grav.��, 175015 (2024), arXiv:2402.03693 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.