Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

A spin-1 ultralight field can be all of the dark matter only if its mass exceeds ~10^-24 eV, and in mixed models its anisotropic CMB signature becomes observable.

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

2026-08-04 00:45 UTC pith:DJRPTTSF

load-bearing objection Useful first MCMC constraints on spin-1 ULDM, but the early-time scaling has an internal inconsistency that needs fixing before the headline bound can be trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00331 v1 pith:DJRPTTSF submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.CO

Spin-1 Ultralight Dark Matter under Cosmological Scrutiny: Mass Constraints from CMB and Distance Probes

Guadalupe Ahumada Acu\~na , Tomas Ferreira Chase , Diana L\'opez Nacir , Rafael C. Nunes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords ultralight dark matterspin-1 vector fieldProca fieldCMB covariancestatistical isotropyBipoSH coefficientsBianchi I spacetimedark matter mass bounds
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 where spin-1 ultralight dark matter — a vector field described by the Proca action — can live in the mass–abundance plane, given current cosmological data. Its central result is that a vector field making up all of the dark matter must be heavier than about 10^-24 eV (log10(mA/eV) > −24.07 at 95% confidence), because lighter fields behave as extra radiation before recombination and distort the CMB peak structure. In a mixed scenario where the vector field coexists with ordinary cold dark matter, lighter masses become allowed only when the vector fraction is small, producing a steep correlation between fraction and mass. The paper further derives the full CMB temperature covariance matrix for this anisotropic background, including off-diagonal terms that couple multipoles Δℓ = 2 and 4, and shows that the associated statistical-isotropy-violating (BipoSH) signal is within reach of current data for mixed models. If right, the results turn a background-level nucleosynthesis estimate into a data-driven bound about thirty times stronger and identify a concrete, testable departure from statistical isotropy.

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a massive spin-1 vector field cannot hide in the early universe: before it starts oscillating at H ≈ m_A a, its homogeneous component redshifts as radiation (ρ_A ∝ a^-4) rather than staying constant like a scalar field, so the amount of radiation-like energy present before recombination grows as m_A^{-1/2}. The observed CMB then imposes a 95% lower bound log10(mA/eV) > −24.07 for the pure VFDM case, with all standard cosmological parameters remaining consistent with ΛCDM; in the mixed VFDM+CDM case the constraint relaxes along a correlation that lets smaller fractions f sustain lighter masses. On the anisotropic side, the preferred direction of

What carries the argument

The central object is the homogeneous vector field configuration and the shear it sources in a Bianchi I spacetime. The field amplitude grows as A ∝ a while H ≫ m_A a, giving a radiation-like equation of state (w = 1/3) and energy density ρ_A ∝ a^-4; after H ≈ m_A a it oscillates and averages to cold dark matter (w = 0). Two scaling relations carry the argument: the constant early shear abundance Ω_σ ≃ 4Ω_A,0² Ω_r,0^{-3/2}(H0/m_A), tied to the BBN bound on anisotropy, and the radiation-fraction ratio R_A = ρ_A/ρ_r ≃ f Ω_dm,0 Ω_r,0^{1/4}(H0/m_A)^{1/2}, which converts mass into extra pre-recombination radiation. To connect the anisotropic background to the CMB, the paper parameterizes the phot

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the claim that before the vector field begins oscillating its homogeneous component behaves as a radiation-like fluid whose energy fraction grows as m_A^{-1/2}, with the anisotropic shear already at its constant early value; change that early-time behavior or the epoch of shear production and both the mass bound and the predicted anisotropic signal shift.

What would settle it

Search the observed CMB temperature field for the BipoSH coefficients A^{2,0}_{ℓ,ℓ±2}: the paper predicts amplitudes for mixed models with f ≈ 0.2 that reach or exceed current map sensitivity, so a null detection at those amplitudes and multipoles would falsify the anisotropic-signature claim, while a detection with the predicted Δℓ = 2 pattern would confirm it.

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

If this is right

  • A pure VFDM universe behaves like ΛCDM for m_A ≳ 10^-24 eV; the field oscillates early and its radiation-like precursor is negligible, which is why the best-fit cosmological parameters are nearly identical to those of ΛCDM.
  • In the mixed scenario, any detection or exclusion of light vector fields must respect the f–m_A correlation: a mass near 10^-25 eV is permitted only if the vector fraction is a few percent or less.
  • The anisotropic off-diagonal covariance is a model-specific fingerprint; a dedicated analysis using the full covariance matrix at Δℓ = 2,4 could tighten the allowed region or reveal the signature, since f ≈ 0.2 models predict BipoSH amplitudes comparable to current sensitivity.
  • Existing CMB lensing reconstructions need no correction from this model, because its spurious lensing-like contribution is confined to L = 2 and 4, below the L ≥ 8 range of current lensing likelihoods.
  • The model does not ease the Hubble tension: masses small enough to shorten the sound horizon are already excluded by their simultaneous effect on the damping scale and matter-radiation equality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference beyond the paper: the same transfer-function anisotropy should appear in CMB polarization (E and B) covariance, so polarization-based BipoSH estimators could be more sensitive than the temperature-only coefficients the paper computes.
  • Inference beyond the paper: because the mass bound is driven by the m_A^{-1/2} radiation scaling, combining the CMB bound with an independent measurement of the early-universe expansion rate — for instance from the damping tail or CMB spectral distortions — would directly test whether the assumed precursor fluid is real.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the predicted BipoSH pattern with only Δℓ ∈ {2,4} and M = 0 is distinctive enough that a null search at those multipoles would constrain VFDM fractions even where the diagonal analysis is insensitive; the authors note the search but do not run it.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the validity of the cos²γ parametrization, checked for ℓ = 0, is an open point; a full Boltzmann calculation at ℓ > 0 could shift the BipoSH amplitudes and slightly alter the quoted mass bound.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first systematic MCMC constraints on spin-1 ultralight dark matter (VFDM) using Planck 2018 CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, and PantheonPlus SNe data. The authors derive the full temperature covariance matrix including anisotropic (BipoSH) contributions induced by a preferred vector-field direction, use the diagonal part to constrain the pure and mixed VFDM scenarios, and obtain a 95% lower bound log10(mA/eV)>−24.07 in the pure case. They also forecast BipoSH coefficients and show that the intrinsic anisotropy produces spurious lensing contributions only at L={2,4}, outside the Planck lensing range.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable first cosmological constraint on vector ultralight dark matter, going beyond simple BBN estimates and identifying a potentially observable statistical-isotropy signature. The paper makes good use of public data and code, and the inclusion of a Fisher forecast for the neglected anisotropic terms is useful. However, the central mass bound relies on an early-time scaling that appears internally inconsistent, and the BipoSH forecast rests on an ansatz validated only at ℓ=0. These issues need to be resolved before the results can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (15)] R_A is stated as f Ω_dm,0 Ω_r,0^{1/4}(H0/m_A)^{1/2}. Consistency with Eq. (11) and the background equations requires R_A = Ω_A,0 Ω_r,0^{-3/4}(H0/m_A)^{1/2}: from H(a_osc)=m_A, a_osc=(H0/m_A)^{1/2}Ω_r,0^{1/4}, and R_A=(Ω_A,0/Ω_r,0)a_osc. The printed exponent gives a ratio smaller by Ω_r,0^{-1}≈10^4 and violates Ω_σ∝R_A² implied by Eqs. (9)–(11). Since Sec. IV identifies R_A as the mechanism behind the CMB mass bound, and the code/chains are not public, the headline bound cannot be checked. Please correct Eq. (15), state the normalization actually implemented in class.VFDM, and show a profile likelihood over m_A.
  2. [§II.A, Eqs. (24)–(26)] Eq. (24) defines T(γ)=T(π/2)+[T(0)−T(π/2)]cos²γ, but Eq. (25) uses T_ℓ,0+(T_ℓ,π/2−T_ℓ,0)cos²γ with T_ℓ,0≡T_ℓ(k,0) per the sentence after Eq. (25). This swaps the evaluation angles. The swap propagates to Eq. (26) (isotropic term |T_ℓ,0|²) and to G_ℓ, J_ℓℓ′ in Eqs. (36)–(37). The impact on the diagonal C_l is small because |T_0−T_{π/2}|/|T_0|≃10^-4, but the BipoSH coefficients change sign under the swap. Please fix the ordering or clarify the notation.
  3. [§V and Fig. 1] Eq. (24) is validated only for ℓ=0. The BipoSH forecast uses this cos²γ ansatz for all ℓ through G_ℓ and J_ℓℓ′. Please test Eq. (24) against class.VFDM for representative ℓ values in the range relevant to A^{2,0}_{ℓℓ′} (e.g., ℓ=2,10,100,1000). Without this, the claim that mixed VFDM+CDM produces BipoSH signals at/above Planck sensitivity is not supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption states 'we quote instead the 95% upper limit', but the values and text describe lower limits; please correct the wording.
  2. [§V] The line 'ℓ′ ∈ {ℓ, ℓ±2, , ℓ±4}' contains a stray comma before ℓ±4.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The expression 'mA ≳3f 2 10−26eV' should be typeset as '3f²×10^{-26} eV'.
  4. [§IV.A] The text says adding BAO slightly strengthens the bound, but the quoted numbers move from −24.33 (Planck) to −24.11 (Planck+BAO) and −24.07 (Planck+BAO+PP), i.e., the lower bound weakens; please clarify this apparent contradiction.
  5. [Fig. 1] The legend shows one 'Parametrization' curve; please identify explicitly which γ values the gray dashed lines correspond to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the mass bounds are driven by external likelihoods and the BipoSH forecast is a genuine out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The central VFDM mass constraint (log10(mA/eV) > -24.07) is obtained from MCMC fits to external data sets (Planck 2018, DESI DR2 BAO, PantheonPlus), not from quantities derived from the bound itself. The early-time radiation-like scaling of the vector field is imported from the authors' prior work, but it is an independently implemented and falsifiable ingredient of the Boltzmann solver, and the CMB likelihoods used in the fit are external; self-citation alone is not circularity. The BipoSH predictions in Section V are forecasts: no off-diagonal covariance or BipoSH measurements enter the MCMC, and the comparison with Planck 2013 maps is made after the fit, so the predicted anisotropic signal is not statistically forced by the data used to constrain the model. The cos^2-gamma transfer-function parametrization of Eq. (24) is a modeling ansatz validated for ell=0 in Fig. 1 and applied more broadly; although this is a robustness assumption, it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The possible internal inconsistency between Eq. (15) and Eq. (11), and the lack of public chains, are correctness and reproducibility concerns rather than circularity; they do not reduce the claimed result to its inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The analysis imports a published model (Proca field on a Bianchi-I background, Ref. [39] and class.VFDM) and adds a new covariance/BipoSH layer on top of an unverified cos²γ ansatz. The mass bound is driven by the early-time radiation-like scaling (Eq. 15) and the BBN shear bound (Eq. 14), both inherited from prior same-group work. Standard ΛCDM parameters and Planck nuisance parameters are fitted but are not ad hoc; the vector orientation  is fixed to the z-axis in the BipoSH predictions without marginalization, which is an effectively-free choice. The Fisher 'g' parameter in Appendix A is a diagnostic, not a model parameter.

free parameters (5)
  • mA (vector field mass) = log10(mA/eV) > −24.07 (pure, 95% C.L.); > −24.70 (mixed, 95% C.L.)
    The key parameter; flat priors log10 ∈ [−26,−19] (pure) and [−27,−22] (mixed); only lower bounds are set by the data.
  • ΩA (VFDM energy density) = 0.2511 ± 0.0024 (pure, CMB+BAO+PP); 0.116 +0.125/−0.112 (mixed)
    Free density parameter; in the mixed case it is poorly constrained individually.
  • Ωcdm (CDM density, mixed scenario only) = 0.135 +0.112/−0.123
    Sampled flat in [0,0.5]; the total dark-matter density stays near the ΛCDM value.
  • Standard ΛCDM params (ωb, θ*, As, ns, τreio) + Planck nuisances = Table I values, consistent with ΛCDM (e.g., H0 = 68.66 ± 0.21)
    Standard fitted parameters of the pipeline; not ad hoc, included for completeness.
  • Vector orientation  = fixed to ẑ (M=0 frame)
    The BipoSH predictions assume the preferred direction is the quantization axis; a general orientation would spread the signal over M and is not marginalized over.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Massive Proca field on a perturbed Bianchi-I GR spacetime (Eqs. 1–3)
    The model itself, inherited from Ref. [39]; the anisotropic background is required by the vector field's stress tensor.
  • domain assumption Background growing-mode solution A ∝ a before oscillation and WKB after (Eq. 5), with A0 = 0
    Determines the radiation-like early scaling that generates the mass bound; imported from Ref. [39].
  • domain assumption Shear sourced perturbatively: kept to first order in Einstein equations, neglected in fluid variables (Sec. II)
    Required for the analytic shear solution (Eq. 10); consistency relies on Ωσ below the BBN bound for allowed masses.
  • ad hoc to paper T_ℓ(k,γ) = T_ℓ(k,π/2) + [T_ℓ(k,0) − T_ℓ(k,π/2)] cos²γ (Eq. 24)
    Load-bearing for the covariance and BipoSH derivations; stated as 'found to be' and shown only for ℓ=0, mA=10⁻²⁴ eV in Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption Linear perturbation theory suffices for Planck scales (Sec. III)
    Nonlinear corrections are declared negligible; acknowledged as needing EFT/halo-model treatment for ACT-like analyses.
  • domain assumption BBN shear bound Ωσ|BBN ≤ 10⁻² (Eq. 13, Ref. [48])
    Used for the BBN envelope in Fig. 3 and the background-level mass estimate.
  • standard math Primordial curvature perturbation R is statistically isotropic (Eq. 20)
    All anisotropy is attributed to the vector background, not to the primordial spectrum.
  • domain assumption BipoSH predictions computed for  aligned with the z-axis (M=0 only)
    Eqs. (34)–(35) give A^{2,0} and A^{4,0}; orientation is not sampled or marginalized.
invented entities (1)
  • Homogeneous spin-1 vector field with a fixed preferred direction (VFDM background) independent evidence
    purpose: Dark-matter candidate; sources Bianchi-I shear, radiation-like early component, and off-diagonal CMB covariance
    Not invented in this paper — inherited from Refs. [39–41] (same group) — but the paper gives it falsifiable handles (BipoSH amplitudes, lensing bias at L=2,4, mass-dependent early expansion) that constitute independent evidence in principle.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19983 in / 34087 out tokens · 310311 ms · 2026-08-04T00:45:12.978048+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present cosmological constraints on spin-1 ultralight dark matter, described by a vector field (VFDM) with mass $m_{\rm A}$, using Planck CMB data and geometrical probes from BAO and SNIa. A key theoretical result is the derivation of the full CMB temperature covariance matrix, including both diagonal and off-diagonal anisotropic contributions induced by the preferred direction of the background vector field. We first constrain the model using the diagonal part of the covariance, together with CMB lensing; the off-diagonal terms, which couple multipoles with $\Delta\ell\in\{2,4\}$, could bias lensing reconstruction, but only at very low multipoles ($L=\{2,4\}$) not included in the Planck likelihood. We consider both a pure VFDM scenario and a mixed VFDM+CDM scenario, characterized by the fraction $f=\Omega_{\rm A}/(\Omega_{\rm A}+\Omega_{\rm cdm})$, obtaining $\log_{10}(m_{\rm A}/\mathrm{eV})>-24.07$ (95\% C.L.) in the pure case, and a clear correlation between $f$ and $m_{\rm A}$ in the mixed case, with smaller fractions allowing lighter masses; standard cosmological parameters remain fully consistent with $\Lambda$CDM. For the off-diagonal contributions, we derive the corresponding Bipolar Spherical Harmonic (BipoSH) coefficients and predict their amplitude using our best-fit and bounds. While the anisotropic signal is difficult to detect in the pure VFDM scenario with current Planck data, mixed VFDM+CDM models can produce signals at, or above, Planck sensitivity over a range of multipoles, motivating dedicated searches for this characteristic signature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00331 by Diana L\'opez Nacir, Guadalupe Ahumada Acu\~na, Rafael C. Nunes, Tomas Ferreira Chase.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panel: photon transfer function for ℓ = 0 and four values of γ, computed for mA = 10−24 eV with the Planck 2018 best-fit parameters [44]. Gray dashed lines show the parametrization of Eq. (24); black lines show the standard ΛCDM result. Bottom panel: relative difference between Tπ/2 and T0. Red lines delimit the relevant scales probed by the CMB. I2 = 2 (−1)m′p (2ℓ + 1)(2ℓ ′ + 1)  ℓ 2 ℓ ′ 0 0 0  ℓ 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Marginalized posterior distributions for the base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Marginalized 95% contour of the fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BipoSH coefficients A 20 ℓ,ℓ and A 20 ℓ,ℓ±2 for the VFDM+CDM model, using our best-fit for the cosmologi￾cal parameters (Table I), and different masses and fractions of the vector field near the contour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BipoSH coefficients A 40 ℓ,ℓ and A 40 ℓ,ℓ±2 for VFDM+CDM scenario with the same parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] 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

70 extracted references · 56 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    and D.L.N

    G.A.A., T.F.C. and D.L.N. were supported by CON- ICET and UBA. R.C.N. acknowledges financial sup- port from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient ´ ıfico e Tecnol´ ogico (CNPq, National Council for Sci- 12 entific and Technological Development) through Grant No. 304306/2022-3, and partial financial support from the Funda¸ c˜ ao de Amparo ` a Pesq...

    2022

  2. [2]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt, Modern Cosmology (Aca- demic Press, 2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    D. H. Weinberg, M. J. Mortonson, D. J. Eisenstein, C. Hi- rata, A. G. Riess, and E. Rozo, Phys. Rept.530, 87 (2013), arXiv:1201.2434 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Tegmark et al

    M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS), Phys. Rev. D69, 103501 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310723

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  9. [9]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    S.-H. Oh, C. Brook, F. Governato, E. Brinks, L. Mayer, W. J. G. de Blok, A. Brooks, and F. Walter, The Astro- nomical Journal142, 24 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    Del Popolo and M

    A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou, Galaxies5, 17 (2017), arXiv:1606.07790 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kapling- hat, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.415, L40 (2011), arXiv:1103.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  14. [14]

    A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, Astrophys. J.522, 82 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9901240

    arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kapling- hat, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.422, 1203 (2012), arXiv:1111.2048 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Casertano et al

    S. Casertano et al. (H0DN), Astron. Astrophys.708, A166 (2026), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    D. H. Weinberg, J. S. Bullock, F. Governato, R. Kuzio de Naray, and A. H. G. Peter, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.112, 12249 (2015), arXiv:1306.0913 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Di Valentino et al

    E. Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Pantos and L

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102286 (2026), arXiv:2602.12238 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    R. C. Nunes and S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 5427 (2021), arXiv:2106.01208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  23. [23]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    F. S. Guzman and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Phys. Rev. D69, 124033 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0404014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  29. [29]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  30. [30]

    Goodsell, J

    M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, JHEP11, 027 (2009), arXiv:0909.0515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  32. [32]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP06, 013 (2012), arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  33. [33]

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Phys. Rev. D84, 103501 (2011), arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    Armengaud, N

    E. Armengaud, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Baur, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 4606 (2017), arXiv:1703.09126 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Irˇ siˇ c, M

    V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 031302 (2017), arXiv:1703.04683 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Hlozek, D

    R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. E. Marsh, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D91, 103512 (2015), arXiv:1410.2896 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 14 071302 (2021), arXiv:2007.12705 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Kitajima and K

    N. Kitajima and K. Nakayama, JCAP07, 014 (2023), arXiv:2303.04287 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Nakayama, JCAP10, 019 (2019), arXiv:1907.06243 [hep-ph]

    K. Nakayama, JCAP10, 019 (2019), arXiv:1907.06243 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    T. F. Chase, M. Leizerovich, D. L´ opez Nacir, and S. Lan- dau, Phys. Rev. D111, 103520 (2025), arXiv:2408.12052 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    T. F. Chase and D. L´ opez Nacir, Phys. Rev. D109, 083521 (2024), arXiv:2311.09373 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100260 (2019), arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    T. F. Chase and D. L´ opez Nacir, (2026), arXiv:2604.21080 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, JCAP02, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Brout et al., Astrophys

    D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Akarsu, S

    ¨O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, S. Sharma, and L. Tedesco, Phys. Rev. D100, 023532 (2019), arXiv:1905.06949 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    T. S. Pereira, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, JCAP09, 006 (2007), arXiv:0707.0736 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  50. [50]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, Am- sterdam, 2003)

    S. Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, Am- sterdam, 2003)

    2003

  52. [52]

    Gaughan, A

    L. Gaughan, A. M. Green, and A. Moss, (2026), arXiv:2605.12054 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Verdiani, E

    F. Verdiani, E. Castorina, E. Salvioni, E. Sefusatti, and M. Viel, (2026), arXiv:2607.11876 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Phys. Rept.429, 1 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [55]

    Hlozek, D

    R. Hlozek, D. J. E. Marsh, and D. Grin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 3063 (2018), arXiv:1708.05681 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci.7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  57. [57]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP07, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  58. [58]

    Uzan and C

    J.-P. Uzan and C. Pitrou, Phys. Rev. D109, 103505 (2024), arXiv:2312.12408 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  60. [60]

    Pedrotti, (2026), arXiv:2604.25813 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Pedrotti, (2026), arXiv:2604.25813 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Pitrou and J.-P

    C. Pitrou and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2312.12493 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Hajian and T

    A. Hajian and T. Souradeep, (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0501001

    arXiv 2005

  63. [63]

    Hajian and T

    A. Hajian and T. Souradeep, Astrophys. J. Lett.597, L5 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0308001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  64. [64]

    Calabrese et al

    E. Calabrese et al. (Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP11, 063 (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Beyond this, the off-diagonal structure of the CMB co- variance predicted by VFDM provides a distinctive sig- nature of the model

    or by using prescriptions like the halo model [52]. Beyond this, the off-diagonal structure of the CMB co- variance predicted by VFDM provides a distinctive sig- nature of the model. As discussed in the previous sec- tion, the associated BipoSH coefficients that character- ize this structure are challenging to detect with Planck CMB data in the case of pu...

    arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.571, A23 (2014), arXiv:1303.5083 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [67]

    Verdiani, E

    F. Verdiani, E. Castorina, E. Salvioni, and E. Sefusatti, JCAP01, 047 (2026), arXiv:2507.08792 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Tegmark, A

    M. Tegmark, A. Taylor, and A. Heavens, Astrophys. J. 480, 22 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9603021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  69. [69]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.571, A17 (2014), arXiv:1303.5077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Okamoto and W

    T. Okamoto and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D67, 083002 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003