pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23936 · v1 · pith:U45SJALFnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Cosmological constraints from the DESI DR1 Bispectrum Full-Shape and DR2 BAO

D. Forero-S\'anchez , S. Novell-Masot , H. Gil-Mar\'in , L. Verde , J. Aguilar , S. Ahlen , D. Bianchi , A. Brodzeller
show 43 more authors
D. Brooks F. J. Castander S. Cole A. de la Macorra J. Della Costa Biprateep Dey P. Doel S. Ferraro A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero Satya Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez C. Hahn H. K. Herrera-Alcantar K. Honscheid D. Huterer M. Ishak D. Kirkby A. Kremin O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou M. E. Levi M. Manera A. Meisner R. Miquel J. Moustakas S. Nadathur J. A. Newman G. Niz N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival F. Prada I. P\'erez-R\`afols G. Rossi L. Samushia E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell J. Silber G. Tarl\'e B. A. Weaver (DESI Collaboration)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords DESIbispectrumBAOneutrino massdark energymodified gravityfull-shape analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bispectrum data from DESI shifts the neutrino mass sum posterior to a positive 0.26 eV mean in DESI-only fits.

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

The paper combines DESI DR1 full-shape measurements that include the galaxy bispectrum with DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation data. It accounts for the statistical overlap between these probes by using mock catalogs and compresses the data with ShapeFit to reduce prior-volume artifacts. In flat LambdaCDM the bispectrum raises the inferred amplitude of structure growth and shrinks its uncertainty. Most strikingly, the neutrino mass sum moves from a posterior consistent with zero when only the power spectrum is used to a clearly positive value once the bispectrum is added. The same data combination pulls dark-energy parameters closer to a cosmological constant and leaves modified-gravity parameters consistent with general relativity.

Core claim

In the DESI-only analysis the power-spectrum-only posterior for the sum of neutrino masses is consistent with zero, whereas adding the bispectrum yields a mean of 0.26 plus or minus 0.17 eV and a 95 percent upper limit of 0.57 eV. In LambdaCDM the bispectrum raises sigma_8 by 1.1 sigma and S_8 by 1.2 sigma while cutting their uncertainties by 26 percent and 28 percent. For w0-wa dark energy the bispectrum moves the parameters toward LambdaCDM values; when CMB data are added the combination still deviates from LambdaCDM at 2.8 sigma, but the bispectrum itself weakens that deviation relative to power-spectrum-only fits. Modified-gravity parameter mu_0 is constrained to 0.12 plus or minus 0.49,

What carries the argument

Joint full-shape analysis of the power spectrum plus bispectrum from DESI LRG galaxies, cross-covariance estimated from mocks, and ShapeFit compression applied to the combined data vector.

If this is right

  • In LambdaCDM the bispectrum raises sigma_8 by 1.1 sigma and reduces its uncertainty by 26 percent.
  • The neutrino-mass sum gains a positive mean of 0.26 plus or minus 0.17 eV with a 95 percent upper limit of 0.57 eV.
  • Evidence for time-varying dark energy is weakened relative to power-spectrum-only analyses.
  • The modified-gravity parameter mu_0 remains consistent with general relativity at 0.12 plus or minus 0.49.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the positive neutrino-mass shift survives in future data releases, it would tighten the tension between cosmological upper limits and oscillation lower bounds.
  • The same bispectrum inclusion could be applied to other redshift surveys to test whether the amplitude-parameter shift is universal.
  • Improved covariance modeling from larger mock suites would directly test whether the reported neutrino posterior is robust.

Load-bearing premise

The mocks used to estimate the cross-covariance between power spectrum, bispectrum and BAO must faithfully represent the true covariance of the DESI data, and ShapeFit compression must not bias the posteriors away from LambdaCDM.

What would settle it

Re-running the identical analysis with a covariance matrix measured directly from the data instead of from mocks would falsify the reported neutrino-mass shift if the posterior returns to consistency with zero.

read the original abstract

We present cosmological constraints from the combination of DESI DR1 full-shape measurements, including for the LRG bispectrum, and DESI DR2 BAO data. The joint analysis accounts for cross-covariance using mocks, while ShapeFit compression mitigates prior volume effects that hinder beyond-$\Lambda$CDM analyses. In $\Lambda$CDM, the bispectrum (P+B) shifts $\sigma_8$ up by $1.1\sigma$ and $S_8$ by $1.2\sigma$, reducing their uncertainties by $26\%$ and $28\%$, respectively. For $w_0w_a$CDM, DESI-only analyses with the bispectrum shift dark energy parameters toward $\Lambda$CDM, staying consistent with a cosmological constant within $1\sigma$. Adding CMB creates a preference for evolving dark energy: DESI+CMB (P+B) shows a $2.8\sigma$ deviation from $\Lambda$CDM. Including DES-Dovekie supernovae alone reduces this to $1.6\sigma$, while the full combination DESI+CMB+DES-Dovekie gives $3.1\sigma$, driven primarily by the CMB. The bispectrum consistently weakens evidence for time-varying dark energy relative to power-spectrum-only analyses. The bispectrum also enhances sensitivity to massive neutrinos: in DESI-only analysis, the power-spectrum-only posterior for $\sum m_\nu$ is consistent with zero, whereas adding the bispectrum yields a mean of $0.26\pm0.17$~eV and a $95\%$ upper limit of $0.57$~eV, shifting the peak into the positive region and agreeing with oscillation lower bounds. For modified gravity, the bispectrum further constrains $\mu_0 = 0.12\pm0.49$ from DESI-only data, consistent with general relativity. Our analysis shows that accounting for cross-dataset covariances and avoiding prior volume effects yields robust constraints, with the bispectrum raising amplitude parameters and tightening their uncertainties.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents cosmological constraints from DESI DR1 full-shape measurements (including LRG power spectrum and bispectrum) combined with DR2 BAO data. Cross-covariance between datasets is estimated from mocks, and ShapeFit compression is applied to reduce prior-volume effects in beyond-ΛCDM extensions. In ΛCDM the bispectrum raises σ8 and S8 by ~1.1–1.2σ while tightening uncertainties; in w0waCDM it shifts dark-energy parameters toward ΛCDM; for massive neutrinos the DESI-only P+B analysis yields ∑mν = 0.26 ± 0.17 eV (95 % upper limit 0.57 eV) versus a posterior consistent with zero from power spectrum alone; modified-gravity parameter μ0 is constrained to 0.12 ± 0.49, consistent with GR.

Significance. If the mock-derived joint covariance and ShapeFit compression are shown to be unbiased for the neutrino sector, the work demonstrates that the bispectrum measurably increases sensitivity to ∑mν and amplitude parameters, producing a DESI-only posterior whose peak lies above the oscillation lower bound. The explicit treatment of cross-covariances and prior-volume mitigation also supplies a template for future full-shape analyses of Stage-IV surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [abstract / joint-analysis paragraph] Abstract and the paragraph describing the joint analysis: the reported shift in the ∑mν posterior (from consistent with zero in P-only to 0.26 ± 0.17 eV in P+B) rests on the assumption that the mock-estimated cross-covariance matrix between power spectrum, bispectrum and BAO is an unbiased estimator of the true data covariance; no quantitative validation (e.g., comparison of mock vs. analytic covariance diagonals/off-diagonals or recovery tests on simulated data with known ∑mν) is referenced, leaving the 0.57 eV upper limit vulnerable to possible under-estimation of cross-terms.
  2. [abstract / ShapeFit paragraph] Abstract and ShapeFit description: the claim that ShapeFit compression removes prior-volume effects without biasing beyond-ΛCDM posteriors is stated without a dedicated test (e.g., comparison of compressed vs. uncompressed chains for a fiducial massive-neutrino cosmology or assessment of residual bias in the compressed likelihood for ∑mν); this assumption is load-bearing for the neutrino result.
minor comments (1)
  1. Figure captions and text should explicitly state the number of mocks used for the covariance matrix and the precise definition of the ShapeFit compression parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments, which help improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions as noted.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract / joint-analysis paragraph] Abstract and the paragraph describing the joint analysis: the reported shift in the ∑mν posterior (from consistent with zero in P-only to 0.26 ± 0.17 eV in P+B) rests on the assumption that the mock-estimated cross-covariance matrix between power spectrum, bispectrum and BAO is an unbiased estimator of the true data covariance; no quantitative validation (e.g., comparison of mock vs. analytic covariance diagonals/off-diagonals or recovery tests on simulated data with known ∑mν) is referenced, leaving the 0.57 eV upper limit vulnerable to possible under-estimation of cross-terms.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the mock-derived cross-covariance would strengthen the neutrino-mass result. While the use of mocks for joint covariances follows standard practice in DESI analyses and the mocks were validated for the power spectrum and bispectrum individually, we did not include a dedicated cross-term comparison or recovery test for ∑mν in the current manuscript. In the revised version we will add a short subsection presenting (i) diagonal and off-diagonal comparisons between the mock covariance and an analytic estimate, and (ii) a recovery test on simulated data with known ∑mν, thereby confirming that the reported 0.26 ± 0.17 eV posterior is not driven by under-estimated cross-terms. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [abstract / ShapeFit paragraph] Abstract and ShapeFit description: the claim that ShapeFit compression removes prior-volume effects without biasing beyond-ΛCDM posteriors is stated without a dedicated test (e.g., comparison of compressed vs. uncompressed chains for a fiducial massive-neutrino cosmology or assessment of residual bias in the compressed likelihood for ∑mν); this assumption is load-bearing for the neutrino result.

    Authors: The manuscript relies on the ShapeFit compression as implemented and validated in the original ShapeFit papers and in prior DESI full-shape analyses. However, we acknowledge that a specific test for the massive-neutrino extension was not shown. In revision we will include a direct comparison of compressed versus uncompressed posterior contours for a fiducial ∑mν = 0.3 eV cosmology, together with a quantitative assessment of any residual bias in the compressed likelihood for ∑mν, to demonstrate that the reported shift remains robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central results are posterior constraints obtained by fitting a parametric cosmological model to external DESI DR1 full-shape (P+B) and DR2 BAO data, with cross-covariance estimated from mocks and prior-volume mitigation via ShapeFit. This does not reduce any claimed posterior shift (e.g., in ∑mν or σ8) to the inputs by construction; the likelihood is driven by the observed data vectors rather than being tautological or self-referential. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described analysis. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of the full-shape modeling pipeline, the fidelity of the mock catalogs for covariance estimation, and the assumption that ShapeFit compression does not introduce bias in extended models; these are domain assumptions rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • cosmological parameters (Ωm, σ8, w0, wa, ∑mν, μ0)
    These are fitted to the combined DESI data; their posterior values constitute the reported constraints.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Mocks generated under a fiducial cosmology accurately capture the cross-covariance between power spectrum, bispectrum and BAO measurements.
    Invoked when the abstract states that the joint analysis accounts for cross-covariance using mocks.
  • domain assumption ShapeFit compression removes prior-volume effects without biasing beyond-ΛCDM parameter inference.
    Stated as the method used to mitigate prior volume effects that hinder beyond-ΛCDM analyses.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6210 in / 1706 out tokens · 21685 ms · 2026-06-26T07:08:49.866494+00:00 · methodology

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

81 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, R. Cahn, D. Eisenstein et al.,The desi experiment, a whitepaper for snowmass 2013, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Levi, L.E

    M. Levi, L.E. Allen, A. Raichoor, C. Baltay, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler et al.,The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), inBulletin of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 51, p. 57, Sept., 2019, DOI [1907.10688]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00036 [1611.00036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00037 [1611.00037]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Miller, P

    T.N. Miller, P. Doel, G. Gutierrez, R. Besuner, D. Brooks, G. Gallo et al.,The Optical Corrector for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,AJ168(2024) 95 [2306.06310]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    J. Guy, S. Bailey, A. Kremin, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto et al.,The Spectroscopic Data Processing Pipeline for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,AJ165 (2023) 144 [2209.14482]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Poppett, L

    C. Poppett, L. Tyas, J. Aguilar, C. Bebek, D. Bramall, T. Claybaugh et al.,Overview of the Fiber System for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,AJ168(2024) 245

    2024

  8. [8]

    Abareshi, J

    DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,AJ164(2022) 207 [2205.10939]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Schlafly, D

    E.F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, D.J. Schlegel, A.D. Myers, A. Raichoor, K. Dawson et al.,Survey Operations for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,AJ166(2023) 259 [2306.06309]

    arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Ruiz-Macias, P

    O. Ruiz-Macias, P. Zarrouk, S. Cole, P. Norberg, C. Baugh, D. Brooks et al.,Preliminary Target Selection for the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey (BGS),Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society4(2020) 187 [2010.11283]

    arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Hahn, M.J

    C. Hahn, M.J. Wilson, O. Ruiz-Macias, S. Cole, D.H. Weinberg, J. Moustakas et al.,The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Validation,AJ165(2023) 253 [2208.08512]

    arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    R. Zhou, B. Dey, J.A. Newman, D.J. Eisenstein, K. Dawson, S. Bailey et al.,Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies,AJ165(2023) 58 [2208.08515]

    arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Raichoor, D.J

    A. Raichoor, D.J. Eisenstein, T. Karim, J.A. Newman, J. Moustakas, D.D. Brooks et al., Preliminary Target Selection for the DESI Emission Line Galaxy (ELG) Sample,Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society4(2020) 180 [2010.11281]

    arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Raichoor, J

    A. Raichoor, J. Moustakas, J.A. Newman, T. Karim, S. Ahlen, S. Alam et al.,Target Selection and Validation of DESI Emission Line Galaxies,AJ165(2023) 126 [2208.08513]

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Yèche, N

    C. Yèche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C.-A. Claveau, D.D. Brooks, E. Chaussidon, T.M. Davis et al.,Preliminary Target Selection for the DESI Quasar (QSO) Sample,Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society4(2020) 179 [2010.11280]

    arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Chaussidon, C

    E. Chaussidon, C. Yèche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, D.M. Alexander, J. Yang, S. Ahlen et al., Target Selection and Validation of DESI Quasars,ApJ944(2023) 107 [2208.08511]

    arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Abdul-Karim, A.G

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, A.G. Adame, D. Aguado, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al., Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2503.14745 [2503.14745]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    DESI Collaboration et al.,DESI DR2: Data Release 2 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,in preparation(2026) . – 28 –

    2026

  19. [19]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 021 [2404.03002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Abdul-Karim, J

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen et al.,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints, arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2503.14738 [2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Abdul-Karim, J

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, C. Allende Prieto, O. Alves et al., DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2503.14739 [2503.14739]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Popovic, P

    B. Popovic, P. Shah, W.D. Kenworthy, R. Kessler, T.M. Davis, A. Goobar et al.,The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2511.07517 [2511.07517]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.12021 [2411.12021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements, arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.12022 [2411.12022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Ishak, J

    M. Ishak, J. Pan, R. Calderon, K. Lodha, G. Valogiannis, A. Aviles et al.,Modified Gravity Constraints from the Full Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements from DESI 2024,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.12026 [2411.12026]

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Forero-Sánchez, H

    D. Forero-Sánchez, H. Gil-Marín, L. Verde, Z. Ding, A.J. Ross, A. Carnero Rosell et al., Cosmological constraints from a joint DESI DR1 Full-Shape and DR2 BAO,arXiv e-prints (2026) arXiv:2602.18761 [2602.18761]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marín and L. Verde,ShapeFit: extracting the power spectrum shape information in galaxy surveys beyond BAO and RSD,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021 (2021) 054 [2106.07641]

    arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Novell-Masot, H

    S. Novell-Masot, H. Gil-Marín, L. Verde, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Bailey et al.,Full-Shape analysis of the power spectrum and bispectrum of DESI DR1 LRG and QSO samples, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 005 [2503.09714]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Eisenstein, D.H

    D.J. Eisenstein, D.H. Weinberg, E. Agol, H. Aihara, C. Allende Prieto, S.F. Anderson et al., SDSS-III: Massive Spectroscopic Surveys of the Distant Universe, the Milky Way, and Extra-Solar Planetary Systems,AJ142(2011) 72 [1101.1529]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [30]

    Dawson, J.-P

    K.S. Dawson, J.-P. Kneib, W.J. Percival, S. Alam, F.D. Albareti, S.F. Anderson et al.,The SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Overview and Early Data,AJ 151(2016) 44 [1508.04473]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    A.J. Ross, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, A. Anand, S. Bailey et al.,The construction of large-scale structure catalogs for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 125 [2405.16593]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Silber, P

    J.H. Silber, P. Fagrelius, K. Fanning, M. Schubnell, J.N. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al.,The Robotic Multiobject Focal Plane System of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI),AJ165 (2023) 9 [2205.09014]

    arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Zhao et al.,Mock catalogues with survey realism for the DESI DR1,in preparation(2025)

    C. Zhao et al.,Mock catalogues with survey realism for the DESI DR1,in preparation(2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Chuang, F.-S

    C.-H. Chuang, F.-S. Kitaura, F. Prada, C. Zhao and G. Yepes,EZmocks: extending the Zel’dovich approximation to generate mock galaxy catalogues with accurate clustering statistics, MNRAS446(2015) 2621 [1409.1124]. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Zhao, C.-H

    C. Zhao, C.-H. Chuang, J. Bautista, A. de Mattia, A. Raichoor, A.J. Ross et al.,The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: 1000 multi-tracer mock catalogues with redshift evolution and systematics for galaxies and quasars of the final data release, MNRAS503(2021) 1149 [2007.08997]

    arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Forero-Sánchez, M

    D. Forero-Sánchez, M. Rashkovetskyi, O. Alves, A. de Mattia, S. Nadathur, P. Zarrouk et al., Analytical and EZmock covariance validation for the DESI 2024 results,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.12027 [2411.12027]

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Novell-Masot, H

    S. Novell-Masot, H. Gil-Marín, L. Verde, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi et al.,Cosmological constraints from the DESI DR1 joint power spectrum and bispectrum analysis,arXiv e-prints (2026) arXiv:2603.19356 [2603.19356]

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Schöneberg,The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update,J

    N. Schöneberg,The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024 (2024) 006 [2401.15054]

    arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    2018

  40. [40]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton,A Detailed Description of the CAMSPEC Likelihood Pipeline and a Reanalysis of the Planck High Frequency Maps,The Open Journal of Astrophysics4 (2021) 8 [1910.00483]

    arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton and G. Efstathiou,CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec,MNRAS517(2022) 4620 [2205.10869]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis,CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022(2022) 039 [2206.07773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Madhavacheril, F.J

    M.S. Madhavacheril, F.J. Qu, B.D. Sherwin, N. MacCrann, Y. Li, I. Abril-Cabezas et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters, ApJ962(2024) 113 [2304.05203]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    F.J. Qu, B.D. Sherwin, M.S. Madhavacheril, D. Han, K.T. Crowley, I. Abril-Cabezas et al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth,ApJ962(2024) 112 [2304.05202]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    MacCrann, B.D

    N. MacCrann, B.D. Sherwin, F.J. Qu, T. Namikawa, M.S. Madhavacheril, I. Abril-Cabezas et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Mitigating the Impact of Extragalactic Foregrounds for the DR6 Cosmic Microwave Background Lensing Analysis,ApJ966(2024) 138 [2304.05196]

    arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Vincenzi, D

    M. Vincenzi, D. Brout, P. Armstrong, B. Popovic, G. Taylor, M. Acevedo et al.,The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and Systematic Uncertainties,ApJ 975(2024) 86 [2401.02945]

    arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam et al.,The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,ApJ Letters973(2024) L14 [2401.02929]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    B.M. Boyd, G. Narayan, K.S. Mandel, M. Grayling, A. Saha, T. Axelrod et al.,DAmodel: hierarchical Bayesian modelling of DA white dwarfs for spectrophotometric calibration,MNRAS 540(2025) 385 [2412.08809]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Fitzpatrick,Correcting for the Effects of Interstellar Extinction,PASP111(1999) 63 [astro-ph/9809387]

    E.L. Fitzpatrick,Correcting for the Effects of Interstellar Extinction,PASP111(1999) 63 [astro-ph/9809387]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  50. [50]

    Gil-Marín,How to optimally combine pre-reconstruction full shape and post-reconstruction BAO signals,J

    H. Gil-Marín,How to optimally combine pre-reconstruction full shape and post-reconstruction BAO signals,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022(2022) 040 [2203.05581]

    arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    S.F. Chen, C. Howlett, M. White, P. McDonald, A.J. Ross, H.J. Seo et al.,Baryon acoustic oscillation theory and modelling systematics for the DESI 2024 results,MNRAS534(2024) 544 [2402.14070]. – 30 –

    arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 III: baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025(2025) 012 [2404.03000]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Paillas, Z

    E. Paillas, Z. Ding, X. Chen, H. Seo, N. Padmanabhan, A. de Mattia et al.,Optimal reconstruction of baryon acoustic oscillations for DESI 2024,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025(2025) 142 [2404.03005]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    X. Chen, Z. Ding, E. Paillas, S. Nadathur, H. Seo, S. Chen et al.,Extensive analysis of reconstruction algorithms for DESI 2024 baryon acoustic oscillations,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.19738 [2411.19738]

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Novell-Masot, H

    S. Novell-Masot, H. Gil-Marín and L. Verde,On approximations of the redshift-space bispectrum and power spectrum multipoles covariance matrix,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024(2024) 048 [2306.03137]

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Novell-Masot, D

    S. Novell-Masot, D. Gualdi, H. Gil-Marín and L. Verde,GEO-FPT: a model of the galaxy bispectrum at mildly non-linear scales,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023(2023) 044 [2303.15510]

    arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Cuceu, A

    A. Cuceu, A. Font-Ribera, B. Joachimi and S. Nadathur,Cosmology beyond BAO from the 3D distribution of the Lyman-αforest,MNRAS506(2021) 5439 [2103.14075]

    arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Cuceu, A

    A. Cuceu, A. Font-Ribera, S. Nadathur, B. Joachimi and P. Martini,Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion Rate at Redshift 2.3 from the Lyman-αForest,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 191003 [2209.13942]

    arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Cuceu, H.K

    A. Cuceu, H.K. Herrera-Alcantar, C. Gordon, C. Ramírez-Pérez, E. Armengaud, A. Font-Ribera et al.,DESI DR1 Lyαforest: 3D full-shape analysis and cosmological constraints,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2509.15308 [2509.15308]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 057 [2005.05290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,ApJ538(2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  62. [62]

    Morawetz, H

    J. Morawetz, H. Zhang, M. Bonici, W. Percival, A. Crespi, J.N. Aguilar et al.,Frequentist Cosmological Constraints from Full-Shape Clustering Measurements in DESI DR1,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2508.11811 [2508.11811]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Adamow, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S.S. Allam et al., Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2601.14559 [2601.14559]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cosmic Shear,arXiv e-prints (2026) arXiv:2602.10065 [2602.10065]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Louis, A

    T. Louis, A. La Posta, Z. Atkins, H.T. Jense, I. Abril-Cabezas, G.E. Addison et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 062 [2503.14452]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Camphuis, W

    E. Camphuis, W. Quan, L. Balkenhol, A.R. Khalife, F. Ge, F. Guidi et al.,SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G main field,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 083504 [2506.20707]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  68. [68]

    Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe,Phys

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  69. [69]

    Grandis, D

    S. Grandis, D. Rapetti, A. Saro, J.J. Mohr and J.P. Dietrich,Quantifying tensions between CMB and distance data sets in models with free curvature or lensing amplitude,MNRAS463 (2016) 1416 [1604.06463]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    D.D.Y. Ong, D. Yallup and W. Handley,A Bayesian Perspective on Evidence for Evolving Dark Energy,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2511.10631 [2511.10631]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Kamalinejad and Z

    F. Kamalinejad and Z. Slepian,Neutrino Mass Signatures in the Galaxy Bispectrum,arXiv e-prints(2020) arXiv:2011.00899 [2011.00899]

    arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    S. Pal, D. Sarkar, R. Samanta and S. Pal,Redshift-space galaxy bispectrum in presence of massive neutrinos: a multipole expansion approach for Euclid,MNRAS542(2025) 223 [2505.01270]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Levi and Z

    M. Levi and Z. Vlah,Massive neutrinos in nonlinear large scale structure: A consistent perturbation theory,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1605.09417 [1605.09417]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    C. Hahn, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, E. Castorina and R. Scoccimarro,Constraining Mν with the bispectrum. Part I. Breaking parameter degeneracies,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2020 (2020) 040 [1909.11107]

    arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    Labate, M

    A. Labate, M. Guidi, M. Moresco and A. Veropalumbo,The imprints of massive neutrinos on the three-point correlation function of large-scale structures,A&A708(2026) A210 [2512.16992]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    KATRIN Collaboration†, M. Aker, D. Batzler, A. Beglarian, J. Behrens, J. Beisenkötter et al., Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of katrin data,Science388(2025) 180 [https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adq9592]

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adq9592 2025

  77. [77]

    Esteban, M.C

    I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J.P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz,NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,Journal of High Energy Physics2024(2024) 216 [2410.05380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marín and L. Verde,Model-agnostic interpretation of 10 billion years of cosmic evolution traced by BOSS and eBOSS data,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022(2022) 024 [2204.11868]

    arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marín and L. Verde,A tale of two (or more) h’s,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023(2023) 023 [2212.04522]

    arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Pogosian, A

    L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, K. Koyama and G.-B. Zhao,How to optimally parametrize deviations from general relativity in the evolution of cosmological perturbations,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 104023 [1002.2382]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.