Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

A constant photon-sector deviation parameter ε is preferred by late-time supernova and BAO data over the standard adiabatic photon law.

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 17:09 UTC pith:QA7EVO2E

load-bearing objection Clean constant-ε CLASS packaging of a known T(z) form, with a late-time AIC preference that the paper itself correctly refuses to treat as a CMB result. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09719 v1 pith:QA7EVO2E submitted 2026-06-27 physics.gen-ph astro-ph.CO

Phenomenology of EDE-photon coupling I: constant photon-sector deviation

Y. Bisabr This is my paper
classification physics.gen-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords early dark energyCMB temperature-redshift relationphoton-sector couplingrecombination historylate-time cosmological constraintsconstant epsilonPantheon+SH0ESBAO
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 treats a possible early coupling between a scalar field and radiation as a single constant parameter ε that changes how photon energy density and CMB temperature fall with redshift. When ε is zero the usual adiabatic scaling is recovered; nonzero ε makes photons dilute as a to the power of −4+ε and temperature scale as (1+z) to the power of 1−ε/4. The modified scaling is coded into a Boltzmann solver, checked against analytic background formulas, and shown to shift recombination, the last-scattering surface, and the acoustic peaks of the CMB temperature spectrum. Using only Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae plus BAO distances, the same implementation finds ε = 0.0230 ± 0.0065 and improves the fit enough that the Akaike criterion prefers the extra parameter over the standard ε = 0 baseline. A sympathetic reader cares because a controlled, observationally allowed departure from the textbook photon law would alter both the early thermal history and late-time distance calibrations that enter the Hubble tension.

Core claim

Within a preliminary Pantheon+SH0ES+BAO analysis the constant-ε photon-sector extension is statistically preferred over the fixed ε = 0 baseline: the posterior is ε = 0.0230 ± 0.0065, the best-fit effective chi-square improves by −10.518, and after the extra-parameter penalty the AIC difference is −8.518. The same constant ε also produces visible diagnostic shifts in recombination history, visibility function and CMB temperature peaks when implemented in a Boltzmann code.

What carries the argument

The constant deviation parameter ε, defined as the logarithmic departure of photon energy density from a⁻⁴ scaling; it directly supplies the modified laws ρ_γ ∝ a⁻⁴⁺ε and T(z) ∝ (1+z)¹⁻ε⁄⁴ that are inserted into the background and recombination modules.

Load-bearing premise

That a single constant ε adequately captures an early scalar-photon interaction for late-time distance constraints, while CMB spectra remain only diagnostics and the helium fraction is held fixed.

What would settle it

A full CMB temperature-plus-polarization likelihood analysis that includes the modified recombination history and returns a posterior for ε consistent with zero at high significance would overturn the claim that the constant-ε extension is preferred.

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

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a constant photon-sector deviation parameter ε motivated by an early EDE-photon coupling, yielding ρ_γ ∝ a^{-4+ε} and T(z) ∝ (1+z)^{1-ε/4}. After implementing the modified photon scaling in CLASS and validating the background against the analytic prediction (Table 2, Fig. 1), it presents recombination, visibility, and C_ℓ diagnostics (Figs. 2–5) as qualitative response tests only. A preliminary MontePython analysis with Pantheon+SH0ES+BAO then reports ε = 0.0230 ± 0.0065, Δχ^{2}_eff = -10.518 and ΔAIC = -8.518 relative to fixed ε = 0, claiming that the late-time data combination favours the extension by the AIC criterion.

Significance. If the constant-ε description is a controlled first step toward a dynamical EDE-photon coupling, the clean CLASS background validation and the transparent separation of diagnostic CMB outputs from late-time constraints are useful. The work supplies a concrete, falsifiable phenomenological handle (ε) that can be promoted to ε(z) and tested with full CMB+BBN pipelines. The present statistical claim, however, is only a late-time preference under fixed Y_He and without CMB likelihood, so its significance for the Hubble tension or for early-universe physics remains provisional until those consistency tests are performed.

major comments (2)
  1. The central statistical claim (ε = 0.0230 ± 0.0065, Δχ^{2}_eff = -10.518, ΔAIC = -8.518; abstract and §6) is obtained from Pantheon+SH0ES+BAO alone while Y_He is held fixed and CMB spectra are used only as diagnostics (§4–§6). Because positive ε lowers ρ_γ and T at high z (eqs. 24–27) and shifts recombination and the last-scattering surface (Figs. 2–3), the same modification must alter the sound horizon and damping scale. Without a CMB likelihood or BBN-consistent Y_He, the AIC preference may simply absorb residual late-time tension via an early-sector lever that is not yet shown to be viable. A load-bearing revision is either (i) a full CMB+BBN analysis or (ii) a clear, quantitative statement that the present ΔAIC cannot be interpreted as evidence for a coherent photon-sector extension until those tests are done.
  2. Section 3 and eqs. (24)–(29) treat constant ε as an adequate effective description of an early EDE-photon coupling for late-time distances. The scalar-field motivation (eqs. 13–21) produces a generally time-dependent ε(a); the constant limit is an extra assumption whose domain of validity is not quantified. The paper should either demonstrate that a constant ε remains a good approximation over the redshifts that affect both recombination and the BAO/SN distances used in §6, or reframe the result strictly as a phenomenological late-time rescaling without claiming it as a controlled proxy for early EDE-photon coupling.
minor comments (4)
  1. Table 1 lists a 'Standard EDE' model that is never analysed; either drop the unused row or clarify that it is only conceptual.
  2. Figures 2–5 are labelled 'diagnostic' in the captions, which is good, but the main text occasionally uses language that could be read as quantitative constraints; a single clarifying sentence at the start of §5 would help.
  3. The helium fraction is fixed without stating the numerical value used; please report Y_He explicitly for reproducibility.
  4. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., spacing around Δχ^{2}_eff and AIC in the abstract versus §6); a light copy-edit would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ε is a free phenomenological parameter whose posterior and AIC preference are empirical outputs of an external late-time likelihood, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper derives the modified photon scaling from a scalar-field action with non-minimal coupling (eqs. 1–10), defines the instantaneous deviation ε(a) ≡ d ln ρ_γ / d ln a + 4 (eq. 14), and specializes to the constant-ε limit ρ_γ ∝ a^{-4+ε}, T(z) = T_0 (1+z)^{1-ε/4} (eqs. 21, 24–27). This form is implemented in CLASS, validated against the analytic background prediction, and then sampled as a free parameter together with {Ω_m, H_0, M} against Pantheon+SH0ES+BAO. The reported constraint ε = 0.0230 ± 0.0065 and ΔAIC = -8.518 are therefore ordinary MontePython posterior and model-comparison outputs, not tautological restatements of the input definition. Self-citations to the author’s prior EDE papers appear only as motivation; they do not supply a uniqueness theorem, an ansatz that forces the numerical result, or the likelihood values themselves. CMB spectra are used solely as diagnostics. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central late-time claim rests on treating ε as a free constant that fully captures EDE-photon energy exchange for distance data, on identifying the matter Lagrangian with radiation pressure in the coupling, on blackbody ρ_γ∝ T^4 with vanishing chemical potential under homogeneous energy exchange, and on a late-time-only likelihood with fixed helium. No new particle is introduced beyond a phenomenological constant deviation of the photon sector.

free parameters (5)
  • ε (constant photon-sector deviation) = 0.0230 ± 0.0065
    Primary free parameter controlling modified photon dilution and T(z); sampled in the extended model and reported as 0.0230±0.0065.
  • Ω_m = 0.3137 ± 0.0125 (ε free)
    Sampled cosmological density parameter in both baseline and extended MontePython runs.
  • H_0 = 73.61 ± 0.94 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} (ε free)
    Sampled Hubble constant; shifts upward when ε is free.
  • M (SN absolute magnitude) = -19.252 ± 0.028 (ε free)
    Supernova nuisance parameter sampled with Pantheon+SH0ES.
  • Y_He = fixed (value not varied)
    Primordial helium fraction held fixed by hand rather than computed from BBN with the modified photon sector.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Matter Lagrangian in the non-minimal coupling is identified with radiation pressure (L=p_γ=ρ_γ/3), yielding the energy-exchange term in eqs. 8–10.
    Stated as model specification in §2; different on-shell choices for L would change the interaction.
  • domain assumption Photon bath remains in local thermal equilibrium with vanishing chemical potential so ρ_γ∝ T^4 still holds under homogeneous energy exchange.
    Footnote in §2; required to convert density deviation into the T(z) law used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper ε(a) may be replaced by a single constant over the epochs relevant to recombination and late-time distances.
    Core phenomenological reduction in §2–§3; dynamical ε(z) is deferred.
  • ad hoc to paper Late-time SN+BAO distances alone, without CMB likelihood or BBN consistency, are sufficient for a preliminary preference claim on ε.
    Explicit analysis choice in §6; CMB used only as diagnostics.
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW background with standard uncoupled neutrinos, matter, and Λ plus modified photons only.
    Eqs. 28–29 and Table 1; standard cosmology scaffolding.
invented entities (1)
  • constant photon-sector deviation parameter ε no independent evidence
    purpose: Compress early EDE-photon energy exchange into a single effective modification of ρ_γ(a) and T(z).
    Not a new particle; a phenomenological constant. Independent evidence would require multi-redshift T_CMB measurements or full CMB+BBN consistency tests beyond the late-time fit.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17830 in / 3926 out tokens · 30820 ms · 2026-07-14T17:09:20.952512+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a phenomenological extension of the photon sector motivated by an early-time interaction between a scalar field component and radiation. The model is described by a constant parameter $\epsilon$ which measures the departure of the photon energy density and CMB temperature-redshift relation from their standard adiabatic evolution. The standard photon sector is recovered when $\epsilon=0$. We implement the modified photon scaling in CLASS and verify that the numerical background evolution agrees with the analytic constant-$\epsilon$ prediction. We then study the diagnostic response of the recombination history, visibility function and CMB temperature spectrum. These diagnostics show that small values of $\epsilon$ can shift the recombination history and modify the acoustic peak structure of the CMB temperature anisotropy spectrum. These CMB outputs are used only as consistency and response diagnostics not as full CMB likelihood constraints. As a preliminary statistical application, we combine the modified CLASS implementation with MontePython and constrain the model using Pantheon+SH0ES supernova data together with BAO distance measurements. The late-time analysis gives $\epsilon=0.0230\pm0.0065$ and improves the best-fit likelihood relative to the fixed $\epsilon=0$ baseline with $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm eff}=-10.518$ and $\Delta{\rm AIC}=-8.518$. These results indicate that the constant-$\epsilon$ extension is favoured by this preliminary late-time data combination according to the AIC criterion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09719 by Y. Bisabr.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Background-level diagnostics for the constant-ϵ photon-sector modification. The upper panel shows T(z)/[T0(1 + z)], the middle panel shows ργ(z)/ρΛCDM γ (z) from the modified CLASS background output and the lower panel shows ∆H/HΛCDM. The ΛCDM limit corresponds to ϵ = 0. The upper panel displays the ratio (27) which follows directly from the modified temperature￾redshift relation. The middle panel shows th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Diagnostic free-electron fraction xe(z) for representative values of the constant photon￾sector deviation parameter ϵ. The plot shows the qualitative response of the recombination history to the modified temperature-redshift relation. This is a CLASS diagnostic output and should not be interpreted as a full CMB likelihood constraint. 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 z 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 g(z) [M p c 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diagnostic visibility function g(z) for representative values of ϵ. The visibility function is sensitive to the recombination history and therefore provides a direct diagnostic of how the modified photon temperature affects the last-scattering surface. The corresponding visibility function is shown in figure 3. The visibility function g(z) gives the probability distribution for the last scattering of CMB p… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the diagnostic temperature power spectrum DT T ℓ for ϵ = 0 and representative non-zero values of ϵ. The curves indicate that a small photon-sector deviation can change the relative heights and positions of the acoustic peaks. These changes are a combined consequence of the modified background photon density, the altered temperature-redshift relation and the resulting shift in the recombination histor… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fractional response of the CMB temperature power spectrum relative to the ϵ = 0 case. The plotted quantity is DT T ℓ (ϵ)/DT T ℓ (0) − 1 for representative non-zero values of ϵ. This figure quantifies the scale-dependent diagnostic response of the temperature spectrum to the photon-sector modification. These diagnostic results show that the constant-ϵ photon sector modification has visible effects on recomb… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginalized posterior distribution of ϵ from the preliminary Pantheon+SH0ES+BAO analysis. The central dashed vertical line marks the posterior mean while the two dotted vertical lines indicate the ±1σ interval. The constraint is ϵ = 0.0230 ± 0.0065. The same run gives H0 = 73.61 ± 0.94 km s−1 Mpc−1 , (39) and Ωm = 0.3137 ± 0.0125. (40) For comparison, the baseline model with ϵ = 0 gives H0 = 72.77 ± 0.97 … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior distributions and parameter degeneracies for the extended constant-ϵ model using the preliminary Pantheon+SH0ES+BAO likelihood. The sampled parameters are the matter density parameter Ωm, the Hubble constant H0, the supernova absolute-magnitude nuisance parameter M and the photon-sector deviation parameter ϵ. 6.2 Comparison with the standard photon sector baseline A direct comparison between the … view at source ↗

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

42 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P. J. E. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    Hu and S

    W. Hu and S. Dodelson,Cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.40(2002) 171 [astro-ph/0110414]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration],Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological param- eters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [arXiv:1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Sch¨ oneberg et al.,TheH 0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Phys

    N. Sch¨ oneberg et al.,TheH 0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Phys. Rept. 984(2022) 1 [arXiv:2107.10291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess,The Hubble tension and early dark energy, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73(2023) 153 [arXiv:2211.04492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Bisabr,Interacting early dark energy, Phys

    Y. Bisabr,Interacting early dark energy, Phys. Scripta100(2025) 085021

    2025

  7. [7]

    Amendola,Coupled quintessence, Phys

    L. Amendola,Coupled quintessence, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 043511

    2000

  8. [8]

    Valiviita, E

    J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto and R. Maartens,Instability in interacting dark energy and dark matter fluids, JCAP07(2008) 020 [arXiv:0804.0232]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Clemson, K

    T. Clemson, K. Koyama, G.-B. Zhao, R. Maartens and J. Valiviita,Interacting dark energy: constraints and degeneracies, Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 043007 [arXiv:1109.6234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Salvatelli, A

    V. Salvatelli, A. Marchini, L. Lopez-Honorez and O. Mena,New constraints on coupled dark energy from Planck, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 023531

    2013

  11. [11]

    A. A. Costa, X.-D. Xu, B. Wang and E. Abdalla,Constraints on interacting dark energy models from Planck 2015 and redshift-space distortion data, JCAP01(2017) 028

    2015

  12. [12]

    Bisabr,Hubble tension in power-lawf(R)gravity and generalized Brans-Dicke theory, Int

    Y. Bisabr,Hubble tension in power-lawf(R)gravity and generalized Brans-Dicke theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D33(2024) 2450056 [arXiv:2403.13303]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Bisabr,Can Brans-Dicke scalar field mimic early dark energy?, Annals Phys.476 (2025) 169962 [arXiv:2409.08548]

    Y. Bisabr,Can Brans-Dicke scalar field mimic early dark energy?, Annals Phys.476 (2025) 169962 [arXiv:2409.08548]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Avgoustidis, L

    A. Avgoustidis, L. Verde and R. Jimenez,Consistency among distance measure- ments: transparency, BAO scale and accelerated expansion, JCAP06(2009) 012 [arXiv:0902.2006]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Mirizzi, G

    A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt and P. D. Serpico,Photon-axion conversion in intergalactic magnetic fields and cosmological consequences, Lect. Notes Phys.741(2008) 115 [astro- ph/0607415]. 17

    arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    J. A. S. Lima,Thermodynamics of decaying vacuum cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 2571 [gr-qc/9605055]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  17. [17]

    Jetzer, D

    P. Jetzer, D. Puy, M. Signore and C. Tortora,Limits on decaying dark energy density models from the CMB temperature-redshift relation, Gen. Rel. Grav.43(2011) 1083 [arXiv:1007.2325]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    Jetzer and C

    P. Jetzer and C. Tortora,Constraining decaying dark energy density models with the CMB temperature-redshift relation, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 043517 [arXiv:1202.2248]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Avgoustidis, C

    A. Avgoustidis, C. Burrage, J. Redondo, L. Verde and R. Jimenez,Cosmological effects of scalar-photon couplings: dark energy and varying-alpha models, JCAP06(2014) 062 [arXiv:1305.7031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    S. M. Carroll,Quintessence and the rest of the world, Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 3067 [astro-ph/9806099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  21. [21]

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli and J. Larena,Breaking of the equivalence principle in the elec- tromagnetic sector and its cosmological signatures, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 124064 [arXiv:1406.6187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Avgoustidis, C

    A. Avgoustidis, C. Burrage, J. Redondo, L. Verde and R. Jimenez,Constraints on cosmic opacity and beyond the standard model physics from cosmological distance measurements, JCAP10(2010) 024 [arXiv:1004.2053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    B. A. Bassett and M. Kunz,Cosmic distance-duality as a probe of exotic physics and acceleration, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 101305 [astro-ph/0312443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  24. [24]

    Harko,The matter Lagrangian and the energy-momentum tensor in modified gravity with non-minimal coupling between matter and geometry, Phys

    T. Harko,The matter Lagrangian and the energy-momentum tensor in modified gravity with non-minimal coupling between matter and geometry, Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 044021

    2010

  25. [25]

    J. A. S. Lima, A. I. Silva and S. M. Viegas,Is the radiation temperature-redshift relation of the standard cosmology in accordance with the data?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 312(2000) 747

    2000

  26. [26]

    Luzzi et al.,Redshift dependence of the CMB temperature from Sunyaev-Zel’dovich measurements, Astrophys

    G. Luzzi et al.,Redshift dependence of the CMB temperature from Sunyaev-Zel’dovich measurements, Astrophys. J.705(2009) 1122 [arXiv:0909.2815]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    Hurier, N

    G. Hurier, N. Aghanim, M. Douspis and E. Pointecouteau,Measurement of the evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature from Sunyaev-Zel’dovich observations, Astron. Astrophys.561(2014) A143

    2014

  28. [28]

    B. F. Schutz,Perfect fluids in general relativity: velocity potentials and a variational principle, Phys. Rev. D2(1970) 2762

    1970

  29. [29]

    J. D. Brown,Action functionals for relativistic perfect fluids, Class. Quant. Grav.10 (1993) 1579

    1993

  30. [30]

    Faraoni,The Lagrangian description of perfect fluids and modified gravity with an extra force, Phys

    V. Faraoni,The Lagrangian description of perfect fluids and modified gravity with an extra force, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 124040

    2009

  31. [31]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (CLASS). II. Approximation schemes, JCAP07(2011) 034 [arXiv:1104.2933]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed and S. Prunet,Conservative constraints on early cosmology with MontePython, JCAP02(2013) 001 [arXiv:1210.7183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues,MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features, Phys. Dark Univ.24(2019) 100260 [arXiv:1804.07261]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle,Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte Carlo approach, Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 103511 [astro-ph/0205436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans

    H. Akaike,A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control19(1974) 716

    1974

  36. [36]

    K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson,Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed., Springer, New York (2002)

    2002

  37. [37]

    A. R. Liddle,Information criteria for astrophysical model selection, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett.377(2007) L74 [astro-ph/0701113]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Szydlowski, A

    M. Szydlowski, A. Kurek and A. Krawiec,AIC, BIC, Bayesian evidence against the interacting dark energy model, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 5 [arXiv:0801.0638]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. [CMB-S4 Collaboration],CMB-S4 science book, first edition, arXiv:1610.02743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Ade et al

    P. Ade et al. [Simons Observatory Collaboration],The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts, JCAP02(2019) 056 [arXiv:1808.07445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    A. G. Adame et al. [DESI Collaboration],DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, arXiv:2404.03002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Mellier et al

    Y. Mellier et al. [Euclid Collaboration],Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission, Astron. Astrophys.697(2024) A1 [arXiv:2405.13491]. 19

    arXiv 2024