Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

This paper argues that the α-attractor quintessential-inflation model — one scalar field driving both inflation and today's accelerated expansion — breaks the usual degeneracy between neutrino mass and dark energy's equation of state, yield

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

2026-08-02 21:21 UTC pith:C4JWKBYK

load-bearing objection Competent first MCMC of neutrino masses in the α-attractor quintessential-inflation model; the headline bound is plausible, but the 'naturally breaks degeneracy' claim needs a same-data baseline and a reheating sensitivity test. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.20349 v2 pith:C4JWKBYK submitted 2026-02-23 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Cosmological Constraints on Neutrino Masses in Quintessential Inflation

Jamerson Rodrigues , Gabriel Rodrigues , Felipe B. M. dos Santos , Simony Santos da Costa , Jailson Alcaniz This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph MSC 83F0585A40 PACS 98.80.-k14.60.Pq
keywords quintessential inflationalpha-attractor modelneutrino mass sumdark energy equation of statecosmic microwave backgroundbaryon acoustic oscillationstype Ia supernovaecosmological parameter estimation
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.

The paper tries to establish that a single scalar field can consistently describe both the early-universe inflation and the present late-time acceleration (quintessential inflation), and that this unification has a measurable payoff: it removes a known degeneracy between the total neutrino mass and the dark-energy equation of state. Working with current cosmological data (CMB, baryon acoustic oscillations, and supernovae), the authors find the sum of neutrino masses must be below 0.067 eV if the spatial geometry is flat, and below 0.116 eV when curvature is allowed. They also forecast that future CMB and galaxy-survey configurations could shrink the 1σ uncertainty on this sum to about 0.019 eV, bringing cosmological neutrino-mass measurements close to the lower limits from oscillation experiments.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is structural: in the α-attractor quintessential-inflation model the dark-energy equation of state is not a free function but is determined by the same scalar field that drove inflation, so it always satisfies w ≥ -1 and is tied to the parameter α_QI. Because of this tie, massive neutrinos and dark energy no longer mask each other, and a joint analysis of CMB, BAO, and supernovae data yields an upper limit Σmν < 0.067 eV at 95% confidence for flat geometry, one of the most restrictive cosmological bounds obtained so far, while constraining α_QI to about 1.7. When spatial curvature is allowed the bound relaxes to Σmν < 0.116 eV.

What carries the argument

The central object is the α-attractor quintessential-inflation model: a scalar field with a non-canonical kinetic term whose pole structure flattens the potential at positive field values (inflation) and produces a runaway exponential tail at negative values (late-time dark energy). The parameter α_QI controls the tensor-to-scalar ratio and, through the shooting condition that sets the potential's steepness γ to match today's dark-energy density, links early- and late-time dynamics. This linkage fixes the shape of w(z), and that fixed shape is what breaks the Σmν–w degeneracy.

Load-bearing premise

The strongest load-bearing assumption is that reheating after inflation is instantaneous, fixing the scalar field's late-time freezing value at φ_F = -10; if reheating takes a different form, the predicted dark-energy evolution and the neutrino-mass bound could change.

What would settle it

A future measurement combining CMB lensing and galaxy clustering that finds the sum of neutrino masses above 0.067 eV while independently confirming spatial flatness would directly contradict the flat-model bound; equally, a low-redshift measurement of the dark-energy equation of state that crosses the phantom divide (w < -1) would falsify the model, which forbids such a crossing. The most direct check is a survey with roughly 0.02 eV sensitivity on the neutrino-mass sum, which could find a value ruling out the flat model.

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

If this is right

  • In a flat universe, the bound Σmν < 0.067 eV rules out the inverted neutrino mass ordering (which requires Σmν ≥ 0.10 eV) but remains compatible with the normal ordering.
  • Allowing spatial curvature loosens the bound to Σmν < 0.116 eV, so the neutrino ordering question becomes sensitive to the geometry assumption.
  • The same data constrain the α-attractor parameter to α_QI ≈ 1.7 (68% CL), whereas CMB data alone only give an upper limit, linking future tensor-mode searches to dark-energy physics.
  • Forecasted configurations of next-generation CMB and galaxy surveys project a 1σ uncertainty of about 0.019 eV on Σmν, near the level needed to determine the neutrino mass scale.
  • Unlike phenomenological dark-energy parametrizations, where w is free and the neutrino-mass bound degrades, the model's fixed w(z) keeps the bound tight even when late-time data are added.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat-universe bound is confirmed, any future detection of Σmν above 0.067 eV would disfavor this class of unification unless reheating or curvature assumptions are revised.
  • The reported limit depends on fixing the scalar field's freezing value to instant reheating; varying the reheating history could shift the predicted w(z) and the neutrino-mass limit.
  • The same degeneracy-breaking mechanism may help sharpen other parameter pairs, such as H_0 and the matter density, potentially easing some late-time tensions.
  • A concrete test of the model: measure the dark-energy equation of state at low redshift; the α-attractor prediction is specific and any phantom crossing (w < -1) would falsify 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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents cosmological constraints on the sum of neutrino masses in an α-attractor quintessential-inflation model. The authors implement the model in a modified version of CLASS, run MCMC analyses with Planck PR4, DESI DR2 BAO, and Pantheon+ data, and report Σmν < 0.067 eV for the flat model and Σmν < 0.116 eV when curvature is included. They also present forecasts for Simons Observatory, LiteBIRD, and Euclid, reporting a projected 1σ sensitivity of 0.0192 eV. The central interpretive claim is that the model 'naturally breaks' the degeneracy between the dark energy equation of state and the neutrino mass, producing bounds competitive with the most restrictive scenarios in the literature.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper makes a useful contribution: it connects a theoretically motivated early/late-time unified dark-energy model to one of the most pressing cosmological observables, the absolute neutrino mass scale. The reported upper limits are competitive with current cosmological bounds, and the forecast analysis quantifies the discovery potential of upcoming surveys. Strengths include the explicit model equations (Eqs. (1)-(8)), the use of standard public likelihoods and samplers, and a clear separation between real-data and forecast analyses. The work is also honest about the prior-volume effect on the Σmν posterior. However, the central claims rest on model choices that are not robustly tested: the freezing value φ_F is fixed rather than marginalized or varied, and the claimed 'natural' degeneracy breaking is not demonstrated by a same-data comparison with ΛCDM or with a phenomenological dark-energy parametrization.

major comments (3)
  1. The analysis fixes φ_F = -10, corresponding to instant reheating, following [12,17], but never varies this value or tests the sensitivity of the reported bounds to it. In this model, the late-time equation of state w(z) depends on φ_F: for less negative values the field is closer to the step of the potential and w deviates more from -1. Since the posterior for α_QI is broad (1.70^{+1.0}_{-0.41}), the allowed parameter space includes configurations where the field is less frozen. Without a scan over φ_F or at least a check of several reheating scenarios, the headline upper limits Σmν < 0.067 eV and < 0.116 eV are conditional on one particular reheating assumption. Please add a robustness test (e.g., vary φ_F over the plausible range and recompute the Σmν bound) or explicitly argue why the bound is insensitive to φ_F using the model equations.
  2. The abstract and Section IV claim that the quintessential-inflation model 'naturally breaks the degeneracy between the dark energy equation of state and the total neutrino mass.' The evidence presented is a comparison with limits from other works (Refs. [19-22]) and the observation that α_QI gets constrained by late-time data. This does not directly demonstrate that the Σmν–w degeneracy is broken in the same data set. The manuscript would be much stronger if it included a same-data comparison with ΛCDM (with and without curvature) and with a w0-wa parametrization, and if it reported the correlation coefficient or 2D posterior shape between Σmν and α_QI (or an effective w). As written, the 'natural breaking' claim is not established by the presented analysis.
  3. The central numerical results are produced by a modified version of CLASS, but the code is not released and the shooting procedure for γ is described only verbally. Since the constraints rely on the detailed late-time background and perturbation evolution of the quintessential field, this is a reproducibility concern. I would ask the authors to release the modified CLASS code, or at minimum to validate the implementation against known analytic limits (e.g., the α_QI -> 0 limit and the φ_F -> -∞ limit where the model should reduce to a cosmological constant) and to show that the shooting parameter converges to the expected value of the vacuum energy.
minor comments (4)
  1. The abstract reports a forecast improvement of '≈ 9%' while Section IV reports '≈ 8.6%' and a footnote gives an integrated 1σ uncertainty of 0.021. These numbers should be made consistent.
  2. The statement that the joint bound is 'approximately 73% more stringent' than the CMB-only bound is ambiguous. It would be clearer to say the limit is reduced by 73%, i.e., 0.252 eV → 0.067 eV.
  3. The footnote says the posterior peaking at zero 'indicates a preference of the models for negative values' of Σmν. This is a statement about prior truncation and should be phrased as such; without a prior allowing negative masses, the posterior peak at the boundary is not evidence of a preference for negative values.
  4. For the less specialized reader, the derivation of Eq. (8) from Eqs. (6) and (7) is not shown. A one-line derivation or a reference to the existing literature would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular step: Σmν is an MCMC-sampled parameter constrained by Planck/DESI/Pantheon+; γ-shooting is calibration to ρΛ, and φ_F = -10 is a model assumption, not a fitted prediction relabeled as a result.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no equation in which a reported result reduces to its own input. The headline bound on Σmν comes from an MCMC over the base parameter vector in Eq. (9), using Planck PR4, DESI DR2 BAO, and Pantheon+ (Sec. III.B); Σmν is an independently constrained cosmological parameter, not a quantity obtained by transforming the data or by renaming a fitted constant. The only parameter adapted in the background, γ, is set by shooting to the observed vacuum energy density (Sec. III.A: 'CLASS code was modified to perform shooting with the parameter γ of (7)'); this is calibration to ρΛ and does not encode the neutrino-mass upper limit. The fixed freezing value φ_F = -10 follows [12,17] and is an assumption about instant reheating; it shapes the late-time w(z), but it is an input scenario, not a fitted quantity being relabeled as a prediction. The claimed degeneracy breaking is a property of the physical α-attractor equation of state (w ≥ -1 with α_QI constrained by data), not a self-consistent identity. The statement in Sec. IV that the Σmν posterior 'peaks near the lower boundary of the prior' is a prior-volume caveat, not evidence that the bound is defined from itself. There are self-citations ([17,22,33,58]), but they are used for model conventions and comparisons; the central constraint is derived from external data and is comparable to independent analyses (e.g., Ref. [57]), so no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The absence of a φ_F sensitivity test is a robustness limitation, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The result rests on the assumed potential (Eq. 7), the fixed initial field value φ_F=-10, and an un-released modified CLASS solver; γ is effectively fitted to the present dark-energy density, and N⋆ is not specified.

free parameters (3)
  • γ (potential steepness) = not quoted; tuned via shooting to reproduce ρ_Λ ≈ 2.5×10^-11 eV^4
    Section III.A and Eq. (7): the CLASS code adjusts γ so the scalar field yields today's dark-energy density; this is a model constant fitted to an observed quantity, and the late-time expansion history depends on it.
  • φ_F (initial/freezing field value) = -10 (fixed)
    Section III.A: φ_F = -10 is fixed following [12,17], corresponding to instant reheating; it controls the onset and shape of late-time dark energy and is not marginalized or varied.
  • N⋆ (number of e-folds at pivot scale) = not stated in the text
    Appears in Eq. (8) to set M^2 from As; the paper never gives the adopted N⋆, so the normalization of the potential and the relation between α_QI and inflationary observables is not fully specified.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Slow-roll approximation gives ns = 1 - 6ε + 2η and r = 16ε (Eq. 4), and the attractor predictions (Eq. 5) rely on it.
    Used to connect α_QI to the spectral index/tensor ratio and to the scalar amplitude normalization.
  • domain assumption The exponential potential V=M^2 exp(γ(tanh(φ/√(6α))-1)) (Eq. 7) is adopted as the model.
    The paper does not derive this potential from a specific supergravity theory; it is the chosen model under test, taken from prior literature [11,34,35].
  • domain assumption The initial value φ_F = -10 is assumed, representing instant reheating.
    Section III.A; controls late-time quintessence dynamics; no reheating model or robustness scan is given.
  • domain assumption The modified CLASS code correctly solves the background and perturbations for the non-canonical field and the shooting procedure.
    All results depend on the correctness and stability of the un-released modified Boltzmann solver; this is assumed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12743 in / 14643 out tokens · 139358 ms · 2026-08-02T21:21:46.419032+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quintessential inflation provides a unified description of the early and late accelerated phases of the Universe, linking the inflationary epoch to the present-day dark energy-dominated era through a single scalar degree of freedom. In this work, we explore the implications of this unification for cosmological constraints on the sum of neutrino masses. Focusing on the $\alpha$-attractor scenario, we implement the model in a modified version of the Boltzmann solver CLASS to compute the relevant cosmological observables and perform a Bayesian parameter estimation analysis using data from the cosmic microwave background (CMB), baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs), and Type Ia supernovae. The model naturally breaks the degeneracy between the dark energy equation of state and the total neutrino mass, yielding tight upper bounds of $\sum m_\nu< 0.067$ eV for flat spatial geometry and $\sum m_\nu< 0.116$ eV when curvature is included. We also provide forecasts for future probes, showing that the Simons Observatory, LiteBIRD, and Euclid configurations may reduce the uncertainty on $\sum m_\nu$ by $\approx 9\%$, while the precision on the quintessential parameter $\alpha_{QI}$ is improved by $\approx 72\%$. These results highlight the importance of consistently accounting for neutrino mass when assessing the viability of extensions to the standard cosmological model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20349 by Felipe B. M. dos Santos, Gabriel Rodrigues, Jailson Alcaniz, Jamerson Rodrigues, Simony Santos da Costa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 68% and 95% contours and normalized posteriors on the quintessential inflation model given by Eq. (9). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 68% and 95% contours and normalized posteriors on the quintessential inflation model given by Eq. (10). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: On the left panel, we show 68% and 95% contours and normalized posteriors on the forecasted sensitivity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.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

63 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In this context, we have combined observations from both early and late periods

    Real data As previously discussed, we can integrate early and late-time observations to explore how QI models can help address parameter degeneracies. In this context, we have combined observations from both early and late periods. For the early times, we utilized the latest Planck data re- lease (PR4), processed using the NPIPE pipeline, which includes m...

  2. [2]

    Simulated data For the forecast analysis, we consider a combined anal- ysis of future CMB and galaxy clustering data. For the CMB part, we include the temperature (T) and polar- ization (EandB) modes, which are jointly described by the covariance matrix of angular power spectra, Cℓ =   C T T ℓ +N T T ℓ C T E ℓ 0 C T E ℓ C EE ℓ +N EE ℓ 0 0 0C BB ℓ +N BB ...

  3. [3]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201. 6 The analysis of the Cosmo I model with CMB + DESI + Pan- theon+ data has returned an integrated 1σposterior uncertainty of 0.021 for the total mass of neutrinos

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D59, 063505 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810509

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. Lett. 10 908, L6 (2021), arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Tashiro, T

    H. Tashiro, T. Chiba, and M. Sasaki, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1761 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0307068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    Peloso and F

    M. Peloso and F. Rosati, JHEP (12), 026, arXiv:hep- ph/9908271

    arXiv

  11. [11]

    Dimopoulos and J

    K. Dimopoulos and J. W. F. Valle, Astropart. Phys.18, 287 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    Akrami, S

    Y. Akrami, S. Casas, S. Deng, and V. Vardanyan, JCAP (04), 006, arXiv:2010.15822 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    C.-Q. Geng, M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D92, 023522 (2015), arXiv:1502.03597 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Akrami, R

    Y. Akrami, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and V. Vardanyan, JCAP (06), 041, arXiv:1712.09693 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Alestas, M

    G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Nesseris, Phys. Rev. D111, 083506 (2025), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 111, 089904 (2025)], arXiv:2410.00827 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Dimopoulos and C

    K. Dimopoulos and C. Owen, JCAP (06), 027, arXiv:1703.00305 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Geng, C.-C

    C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee, M. Sami, E. N. Saridakis, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP (06), 011, arXiv:1705.01329 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Phys. Rept.429, 307 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603494

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    Giar` e, E

    W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, E. V. Linder, and E. Specogna, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101713 (2024), arXiv:2402.01560 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Rodrigues, F

    G. Rodrigues, F. B. M. d. Santos, S. S. da Costa, J. G. Rodrigues, R. von Marttens, R. Silva, D. F. Mota, and J. S. Alcaniz, JCAP (11), 022, arXiv:2506.22384 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    C. S. Lorenz, E. Calabrese, and D. Alonso, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043510 (2017), arXiv:1706.00730 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Hannestad, Phys

    S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 221301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505551

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    Roy Choudhury and S

    S. Roy Choudhury and S. Hannestad, JCAP (07), 037, arXiv:1907.12598 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  24. [24]

    Palanque-Delabrouille, C

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier, and E. Ar- mengaud, JCAP (04), 038, arXiv:1911.09073 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  25. [25]

    Rodrigues, R

    G. Rodrigues, R. de Souza, J. Rodrigues, and J. Alcaniz, JCAP (08), 016, arXiv:2503.00126 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  27. [27]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP (07), 028, arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D104, 083504 (2021), arXiv:2106.15267 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D106, 043540 (2022), arXiv:2207.05167 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP (11), 198, arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Elberset al., Phys

    W. Elberset al., Phys. Rev. D112, 083513 (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP (1307), 002, arXiv:1306.5220 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    J. G. Rodrigues, S. Santos da Costa, and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B815, 136156 (2021), arXiv:2007.10763 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP (08), 052, arXiv:1405.3646 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Linde, JCAP (02), 028, arXiv:1612.04505 [hep-th]

    A. Linde, JCAP (02), 028, arXiv:1612.04505 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP (05), 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  37. [37]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, D

    L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, and J. de Haro, Phys. Rev. D103, 123535 (2021), arXiv:2103.07892 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Dimopoulos, L

    K. Dimopoulos, L. Donaldson Wood, and C. Owen, Phys. Rev. D97, 063525 (2018), arXiv:1712.01760 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Lewis, JCAP (08), 025, arXiv:1910.13970 [astro- ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, JCAP (08), 025, arXiv:1910.13970 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  40. [40]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2011(07), 034–034

  41. [41]

    Brinckmann and J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP (09), 039, arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, mnras517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Quantum Fields in Gravity, Cosmology and Black Holes

    is a ground-based survey located in Chile, whose focus is on smaller scales in the CMB spec- tra, expected to cover 40≤ℓ≤5000 in the multi- pole range, thus being complementary to the cur- rent Planck data in the determination of cosmo- logical parameters. We consider the above men- tioned multipole range in our analysis, while taking fsky = 0.4 as the sk...

    2023

  47. [47]

    Broutet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

    D. Broutet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    Scolnicet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 113 (2022)

    D. Scolnicet al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 113 (2022)

    2022

  49. [49]

    Adeet al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP (02), 056, arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Adeet al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP (02), 056, arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Matsumuraet al., J

    T. Matsumuraet al., J. Low Temp. Phys.176, 733 (2014), arXiv:1311.2847 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  51. [51]

    Hazumiet al., J

    M. Hazumiet al., J. Low Temp. Phys.194, 443 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    E. Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Paoletti and F

    D. Paoletti and F. Finelli, JCAP (11), 028, arXiv:1910.07456 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  54. [54]

    Casaset al.(Euclid), Astron

    S. Casaset al.(Euclid), Astron. Astrophys.682, A90 (2024), arXiv:2303.09451 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Collaboration, Euclid

    E. Collaboration, Euclid. i. overview of the euclid mission (2024), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Collaboration, Euclid quick data release (q1) – data release overview (2025), arXiv:2503.15302 [astro-ph.GA]

    E. Collaboration, Euclid quick data release (q1) – data release overview (2025), arXiv:2503.15302 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Archidiacono and et all., Astronomy & Astrophysics 693, A58 (2025)

    M. Archidiacono and et all., Astronomy & Astrophysics 693, A58 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner, JCAP (12), 048, arXiv:2410.00090 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(04), 027–027

  60. [60]

    Chen and M

    S.-F. Chen and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP (08), 014, arXiv:2505.00659 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Rodrigueset al., JCAP (12), 047, arXiv:2507.03740 [astro-ph.CO]

    G. Rodrigueset al., JCAP (12), 047, arXiv:2507.03740 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  62. [62]

    Qinet al., Astrophys

    F. Qinet al., Astrophys. J.997, 251 (2026), arXiv:2505.04275 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. M. Ivanov, JCAP (11), 034, arXiv:1907.06666 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907