Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

A temporary speed-up of cosmic expansion during deuterium burning could resolve the BBN–CMB baryon-density clash.

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

2026-08-01 09:46 UTC pith:NJWXDB7B

load-bearing objection A transparent and useful study of whether a transient expansion boost can reconcile BBN deuterium with EDE's high baryon density — but the reconciled signal is only as solid as PRIMAT's D-burning rates, which the authors themselves flag as contested. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20635 v1 pith:NJWXDB7B submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

What could an emerging Big Bang Nucleosynthesis discrepancy be hinting at?

Vivian Poulin , Julien Froustey , Cyril Pitrou , Tristan L. Smith This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph PACS 98.80.Ft
keywords big bang nucleosynthesisdeuterium abundanceearly dark energyexpansion historyhelium-4baryon densityHubble tensionvery early dark energy
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 asks whether a growing mismatch between the measured primordial deuterium abundance and the baryon density inferred from the CMB—especially in models that try to solve the Hubble tension—could be a sign that the early universe expanded slightly faster for a short while during Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It finds that a transient very early dark energy component that boosts the expansion rate specifically around the deuterium-burning epoch (about 0.03 MeV) can bring deuterium in line at the higher CMB baryon density while barely affecting helium-4. In a Bayesian analysis, this boost is measured at about 9 percent, reducing the tension from about 3.1 sigma to 0.7 sigma. A constant extra radiation component, by contrast, raises helium-4 too much and cannot reconcile the two baryon-density determinations. The result points to yet another light scalar field in the early universe, alongside inflation, dark energy, and early dark energy.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a vEDE component, which boosts the expansion rate only while deuterium is finishing its burning around T_D ≈ 0.03 MeV, can reconcile the measured primordial deuterium abundance with the higher baryon density inferred from CMB data in early dark energy cosmologies. Quantified as ΔH/H(T_D) = 0.087 +0.036/−0.037, this boost preserves D/H at the high baryon density while barely changing helium-4, reducing the tension from 3.1σ to 0.7σ. The timing of the extra expansion is the key: a constant radiation excess raises helium-4 too efficiently and fails to reconcile the two baryon-density determinations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pivot parameter δ_D ≡ ΔH/H(T_D), the fractional increase in the Hubble rate at T_D = 0.0293 MeV, chosen to lie in the late deuterium-burning tail after weak freeze-out and the bulk of helium-4 production. The vEDE density is parameterized through δ_D rather than the conventional transition-redshift fraction, because BBN responds to the expansion rate near T_D; a flat prior on the transition fraction would be dominated by prior-volume effects. The vEDE energy density follows an axion-like scaling that dilutes faster than radiation after the field becomes dynamical.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the BBN–CMB baryon-density discrepancy is real rather than an artifact of the deuterium-burning nuclear rate choices in the BBN calculation; the paper itself notes that alternative defensible rate sets predict D/H in closer agreement with the CMB value, which would weaken the case for vEDE.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the deuterium-deuterium fusion cross-sections (D(D,n)^3He and D(D,p)^3H) at astrophysical energies, or an independent re-analysis of the low-energy data, would settle whether the deuterium-prediction offset supporting vEDE is genuine. Alternatively, a full joint CMB+BBN analysis including the vEDE component's effects on small-scale matter power would test the model's consistency, since a mismatch there would falsify the specific realization.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the BBN–CMB baryon-density tension in early-time Hubble-tension solutions disappears, removing a key cross-check against EDE models.
  • Constant radiation (ΔN_eff) is disfavored by the light-element data (ΔAIC approximately +1.2 relative to ΛCDM), while vEDE is preferred (ΔAIC approximately −5.3).
  • The inferred boost implies the vEDE field must become dynamical before deuterium freeze-out, log10(z_c) < 8.3 at 95% C.L., bounding its effective mass.
  • The reconciliation is robust to using the updated deuterium measurement 10^5 D/H = 2.508: the vEDE fit still gives Q_DMAP ≈ 0.7σ, and ΔAIC ≈ −3.0.
  • The vEDE component is expected to leave a small-scale matter power spectrum signature, providing an observational handle beyond the light-element abundances.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the deuterium-burning nuclear rate ambiguity is resolved in favor of lower D/H predictions, the discrepancy would largely disappear, and the fitted vEDE amplitude could be absorbing an artifact of the rate selection; the paper's own caveat implies the 0.087 boost should shrink if rates shift.
  • The vEDE window may offer a new probe of an axiverse-like spectrum of light scalar fields: different cosmological epochs open windows on different fields, and future joint fits spanning BBN, CMB, and structure could map several fields at once.
  • The bimodality of the derived f_vEDE(z_c) posterior shows that BBN alone cannot localize the transition redshift; combining the deuterium constraint with matter-power or CMB spectral-distortion limits could break the degeneracy.
  • The timing argument generalizes to any proposed early-universe modification: it should specify not only how much extra energy, but when it acts, with light-element yields providing a differential probe of the expansion history.

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 asks whether the emerging ~2–3σ discrepancy between the PRIMAT-based BBN prediction for D/H and the CMB-inferred baryon density could be explained by a nonstandard expansion history during BBN. Using a Python implementation of PRIMAT, the authors compare ΛCDM, a constant ΔN_eff extension, and a phenomenological 'very early dark energy' (vEDE) component parameterized by δ_D ≡ ΔH/H(T_D) at T_D ≃ 0.0293 MeV. With the baseline deuterium measurement 10^5 D/H = 2.527 ± 0.030 and a Gaussian EDE-inspired baryon-density prior ω_b = 0.02272 ± 0.00014, they find δ_D = 0.087^{+0.036}_{-0.037}, Q_DMAP = 0.7σ, and ΔAIC ≃ −5.3, while ΔN_eff remains in ~3.1σ tension. The paper interprets this as a possible hint of a light scalar field or axiverse-like component, with several robustness checks in the appendices.

Significance. If the central result holds, it is a useful proof of concept: a transient expansion-rate enhancement localized near deuterium freeze-out can reconcile D/H with a high CMB baryon density while leaving Y_p nearly unchanged, in contrast to a constant radiation excess. The analysis is carefully done in several respects: the δ_D parameterization is physically motivated and avoids prior-volume effects in f_vEDE(z_c); the response functions R_X are computed with full nonlinear PRIMAT runs; the pivot choice is tested; and appendices explore the D/H central value, ΛCDM priors, and the f_vEDE parameterization. The main weakness is that the headline result is entirely conditioned on PRIMAT's deuterium-burning nuclear-rate set, which the paper itself identifies as contested; this contingency is acknowledged but not propagated into the analysis. The conclusion is therefore best read as a conditional proof of principle rather than a robust detection of new physics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I; Eq. (1); Sec. IV.A; App. A] The vEDE amplitude δ_D is fitted to the residual D/H deficit predicted by PRIMAT at the EDE ω_b value. The paper concedes that PArthENoPE and Ref. [3] predict D/H in closer agreement with the observed value at the CMB baryon density, and that the difference traces to the deuterium-burning D+D and D(p,γ) rate conversions. Appendix A only changes the D/H central value; it does not test an alternative rate set. Since δ_D is precisely absorbing the difference between PRIMAT and the data at high ω_b, an equally defensible rate choice could remove the need for vEDE entirely. Please add a quantitative robustness test with at least one alternative rate set (e.g., PArthENoPE, PRyMordial, or a modified PRIMAT rate treatment), reporting δ_D, Q_DMAP, and ΔAIC. Without this, the claimed 'hint of non-standard expansion at BBN' is not supported beyond the PRIMAT convention.
  2. [Sec. IV.A; Eq. (17); Table I] The statements that vEDE 'removes the tension' and that ΔAIC ≃ −5.3 'confirms that its resolution is not simply an artefact of the additional parameters' are overstated. δ_D is a free parameter whose only role is to raise D/H at fixed ω_b, so the drop from Q_DMAP = 3.1σ to 0.7σ is the expected outcome of fitting the discrepancy; Q_DMAP carries no parameter penalty, and the 2-parameter AIC penalty is not a strong guard against a parameter designed to absorb the specific observable at hand. The Y_p cross-check is useful, but the pivot T_D was chosen precisely where the Y_p response is negligible (Fig. 1), so Y_p does not independently validate δ_D. Please temper the statistical language and, if possible, provide a more predictive check—for example the predicted joint D/H–Y_p dependence or the required δ_D as a function of ω_b—so that the model is falsifiable beyond the current fit.
  3. [Sec. III.B; Sec. V; App. B] The statistical preference for vEDE is conditional on the EDE-derived ω_b prior of Eq. (16). Appendix B shows that with the ΛCDM-SPA prior the same model has ΔAIC ≈ 0 and δ_D = 0.050^{+0.020}_{-0.039}, i.e., no AIC preference. Furthermore, the EDE ω_b prior comes from a cosmology that does not include the vEDE component; the paper acknowledges that a full joint EDE+vEDE CMB+BBN analysis is beyond scope. As a conditional proof of concept this is acceptable, but the abstract and conclusions phrase the result as 'vEDE reconciles BBN with the CMB baryon density in the EDE cosmology,' which goes beyond the calculation actually performed. Please either soften the claim or perform the joint analysis; at minimum, the ΛCDM-prior caveat in Appendix B should be emphasized in the main text rather than relegated to an appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The lower panel labels R_X as 'normalized,' but the text defines R_X without an explicit normalization. Please clarify whether the plotted quantity is normalized to unit peak and, if so, define the normalization in the caption or text.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The compressed CMB likelihood in Eq. (15) is described as a proxy for a full EDE+vEDE analysis. This is fine, but the phrase 'CMB baryon-density constraint in the EDE cosmology' in the abstract should be qualified to avoid implying that the vEDE model itself has been fit to CMB data.
  3. [Sec. V; Code availability] The paper states that code and data will be made public upon acceptance. For a result this sensitive to the nuclear-rate choice, earlier release of the notebooks and likelihood would strengthen reproducibility; please consider providing a public repository at submission.
  4. [General] There are minor typographical and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., 'PArthENoPE' spacing, the use of 'H0 World Cup' without defining 'H0', and the occasional missing space before equations). These can be fixed in a final pass.
  5. [App. B] The profile-based results in Table III are useful, but the reader has to infer how Q_DMAP and ΔAIC are computed with the ΛCDM priors from the main text. A one-sentence reminder of the profile-likelihood procedure in the appendix would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The vEDE 'reconciliation' is largely a fitted absorption of the D/H discrepancy by construction; only the mild Y_p shift and the ΔN_eff contrast remain independent content.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. IV.C, Eq. (27) and following text; Sec. II.B.2, Eqs. (10)-(12)]
    "For vEDE, we sample ΔH/H, the fractional increase of the expansion rate while deuterium burning is freezing out and helium-4 fusion is mostly over. The Bayesian analysis using BBN plus the CMB baryon-density constraint in the EDE cosmology gives ΔH/H = 0.087^{+0.036}_{-0.037} during the deuterium burning epoch, i.e. at a temperature T_D≃0.03 MeV, and no residual tension. ... The corresponding predicted abundances are ... 10^5 D/H = 2.529^{+0.037}_{-0.039}. This latter value is now in perfect agreement with (1)."

    δ_D is a free parameter sampled against the D/H likelihood (Eq. 14), and through Eqs. (10)-(12) it directly sets the residual deuterium abundance at the pivot temperature. Fitting δ_D to the D/H measurement guarantees that the model's D/H 'prediction' returns to the observed D/H value. The headline claim that vEDE 'preserves the observed deuterium abundance' is thus the fit objective restated as an outcome, and Q_DMAP = 0.7σ is the residual χ² after absorbing the ~3.1σ discrepancy with a D/H-specific knob. The independent content is limited to the prediction that Y_p moves only mildly, which is a genuine cross-check but not the headline reconciliation.

  2. self definitional [Sec. II.B.2, Eqs. (10)-(13) and text after Eq. (13)]
    "BBN is sensitive to the expansion rate over a finite temperature range, rather than to the vEDE fraction at the critical redshift. We therefore trade f_vEDE for δ_D ≡ ΔH/H(T_D) = H_tot(T_D)/H_std(T_D) − 1. ... δ_D directly fixes the vEDE density at the pivot: ρ_vEDE(T_D) = [(1+δ_D)^2 − 1] ρ_std(T_D)."

    The sampled amplitude is defined as the fractional expansion-rate increase at the late-deuterium-burning epoch, i.e. at the temperature where the paper states 'the residual burning is precisely what the pivot is designed to capture.' A parameter defined as 'the expansion-rate change at the epoch that sets the final D/H' is the same quantity as the input D/H discrepancy expressed in different units. Using that parameter to claim that the model 'explains' or 'preserves' the observed deuterium abundance is therefore a restatement of the fit, not an independent derivation. The paper is transparent that δ_D is chosen for this purpose, which is why the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: PRIMAT abundances + observed D/H and Y_p + an EDE-derived Gaussian constraint on ω_b. In ΛCDM this chain produces a ~3.1σ D/H-based baryon-density tension. The vEDE model adds two parameters, δ_D ≡ ΔH/H(T_D) and z_c, and fits them to the same combined likelihood. Because δ_D is specifically the expansion-rate boost during late deuterium burning, the posterior accordingly returns a D/H prediction in perfect agreement with the input measurement (10^5 D/H = 2.529^{+0.037}_{-0.039} vs. 2.527±0.030), and Q_DMAP drops to 0.7σ. That reduction of the tension metric is forced by the fitting procedure: the knob is placed exactly where D/H responds and is marginalized over the D/H datum that created the tension. The paper's own Eq. (11) shows the mapping is one-to-one between δ_D and the vEDE contribution at the pivot, and Appendix C shows z_c is almost unconstrained, so effectively one D/H-tuned parameter absorbs the discrepancy. This is the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern. However, two elements are not circular: the predicted Y_p shift remains small despite a large δ_D (and this is what distinguishes vEDE from ΔN_eff), and the ΔN_eff model is shown to fail even when fitted, because it raises Y_p too efficiently. These give the analysis independent, falsifiable content. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the rate-set dependence (PRIMAT vs. PArthENoPE), and Appendix B shows the AIC preference largely disappears with a ΛCDM-SPA prior, so the significance is conditional on the EDE ω_b target and the PRIMAT rate choice. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: the overlapping-author CMB references supply an external data constraint, not the BBN derivation itself. Overall: partial circularity in the headline reconciliation claim, with genuine but narrower independent content, warranting a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central result rests on PRIMAT's rate set (which the paper itself identifies as the source of the tension), on a compressed Gaussian CMB likelihood, and on a prescribed vEDE density evolution with a hand-chosen pivot and equation-of-state index. These are disclosed modeling choices, but they load the conclusion toward finding a vEDE-like fix.

free parameters (6)
  • δ_D = ΔH/H(T_D) = 0.087^{+0.036}_{-0.037} (BBN+CMB, EDE prior); 0.073±0.036 with updated D/H; 0.050 with ΛCDM-SPA prior
    Sampled vEDE amplitude at the pivot; absorbs the D/H–baryon-density mismatch and is the paper's headline result.
  • log10 z_c = <8.3 (95% C.L.)
    Critical redshift of the vEDE transition; poorly constrained, with only an upper bound from the joint analysis.
  • ω_b = 0.02271 (vEDE BBN+CMB posterior mean)
    Baryon density, sampled with a prior and constrained by the EDE-derived CMB Gaussian and BBN abundances.
  • ΔN_eff (comparison model) = 0.076±0.076 (BBN+CMB)
    Constant radiation extension used as the benchmark; fitted and shown not to reconcile the tension.
  • T_D pivot temperature = 0.0293 MeV (fixed by hand, not fitted)
    Parameterization pivot chosen so D/H responds while Y_p does not; robustness across nearby pivots is tested.
  • n (vEDE equation-of-state exponent) = n=3 (w=1/2, α=9/2; chosen, not fitted)
    Chosen by analogy with standard EDE analyses; the authors checked larger n and found the result stable.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption PRIMAT's deuterium-burning nuclear rates are accurate enough that the ~2σ BBN–CMB tension is real.
    The paper itself notes PArthENoPE and other rate sets give closer agreement; if PRIMAT's rates are wrong, the tension and the vEDE preference weaken. See Sec. I.
  • domain assumption The small PRIMAT network (8 nuclides, 12 reactions) suffices for D/H and Y_p.
    Used for computational efficiency; the authors state the larger network only matters for lithium. Sec. III.A.
  • domain assumption CMB information can be compressed into a Gaussian on ω_b from an EDE fit, applied to all three BBN models.
    Authors call this a proxy, not a full joint EDE+vEDE analysis. Sec. III.B.
  • ad hoc to paper The vEDE density evolution ρ(T)=2ρ(T_c)/[1+(T_c/T)^{9/2}] is a valid phenomenological proxy for a scalar field that dilutes faster than radiation.
    No Lagrangian dynamics is modeled; the density is prescribed to produce the wanted expansion-rate history. Sec. II.B.
  • domain assumption T_D=0.0293 MeV lies in the window where D/H is response-sensitive and Y_p is insensitive.
    Motivated by Fig. 1 sensitivity curves; the authors tested neighboring pivot temperatures. Sec. II.B.
  • domain assumption The LBT helium-4 measurement is representative; the lower EMPRESS value would require extra physics.
    The paper notes a nonzero neutrino chemical potential could accommodate lower Y_p but does not include it. Sec. I.
  • domain assumption Standard Model N_eff=3.044 and neutron lifetime τ_n=878.4s.
    Standard inputs adopted from the literature and PRIMAT. Sec. III.A.
  • standard math Dataset-compatibility metric Q_DMAP and AIC are appropriate for comparing models with different parameter counts.
    The authors define these statistics and interpret them as tension and model-selection metrics. Sec. III.B.
invented entities (2)
  • vEDE component (very early dark energy) no independent evidence
    purpose: Increase the expansion rate during deuterium burning while leaving weak freeze-out and helium-4 production unaffected.
    A prescribed energy-density component with no independent measurement in this paper; the small-scale matter-power signatures from Ref. [41] are cited but not computed.
  • 'Another light scalar field' (axiverse-like) no independent evidence
    purpose: Interpretation of the vEDE component as part of a multi-field dark sector.
    Speculative inference: the analysis fits a phenomenological density, not a dynamical scalar field, so the existence of a new light scalar is not established.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19839 in / 17401 out tokens · 153695 ms · 2026-08-01T09:46:57.975832+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The latest measurement of the primordial deuterium abundance is in $\sim 2\sigma$ tension with several state-of-the-art predictions of standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), when using the baryon density inferred from the $\Lambda$CDM model fit to cosmic microwave background (CMB) data. This tension increases to $\sim 3\sigma$ for models attempting to solve the Hubble tension, such as early dark energy (EDE), which generally predict a larger baryon density than in $\Lambda$CDM. We test whether this discrepancy could be pointing to a non-standard expansion history during BBN. We compute light-element abundances with PRIMAT and compare $\Lambda$CDM, a $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ extension, and a very early dark energy (vEDE) component. For vEDE, we sample $\Delta H/H$, the fractional increase of the expansion rate while deuterium burning is freezing out and helium-4 fusion is mostly over. The Bayesian analysis using BBN plus the CMB baryon-density constraint in the EDE cosmology gives $\Delta H/H = 0.087^{+0.036}_{-0.037}$ during the deuterium burning epoch, i.e. at a temperature $T_{\rm D}\simeq0.03\,{\rm MeV}$, and no residual tension. The vEDE component preserves the observed deuterium abundance at the larger CMB baryon density while only mildly affecting helium-4. By contrast, extra radiation raises the helium-4 abundance too efficiently and does not reconcile the baryon density determinations. Together with inflation, dark energy, and EDE, our results hint at the presence of another light scalar field in cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20635 by Cyril Pitrou, Julien Froustey, Tristan L. Smith, Vivian Poulin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. BBN-only PL of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior distribution of the fractional expansion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Joint BBN+CMB posterior distributions of D/H against the parameters that control the two extensions, comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Joint BBN+CMB posterior distributions of D/H against the parameters that control the two extensions, using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Marginalized posteriors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.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

59 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Energy density evolution We adopt a phenomenological vEDE density evolu- tion motivated by axion-like models with a potential V(ϕ)∝[1−cos(ϕ/f)] n [30, 46–48]. In these models, the field is initially frozen and becomes dynamical at the critical redshiftz c, after which its time-averaged equation of state is wn = n−1 n+ 1 .(6) In the post-e ±-annihilation r...

  2. [2]

    lithium problem,

    vEDE amplitude during BBN The conventional parameters (f vEDE, zc) are well suited to CMB analyses, but not to the BBN problem considered here. BBN is sensitive to the expansion rate over a finite temperature range, rather than to the vEDE fraction at the critical redshift. We therefore tradef vEDE for δD ≡∆H/H(T D) = Htot(TD) Hstd(TD) −1,(10) 4 whereT D ...

    arXiv 1925

  3. [3]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rept.754, 1 (2018), arXiv:1801.08023 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Gariazzo, P

    S. Gariazzo, P. F. de Salas, O. Pisanti, and R. Con- siglio, Comput. Phys. Commun.271, 108205 (2022), arXiv:2103.05027 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive, and B. D. Fields, JCAP03, 046, arXiv:2011.13874 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Pisanti, G

    O. Pisanti, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and P. Mazzella, JCAP04, 020, arXiv:2011.11537 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2474 (2021), arXiv:2011.11320 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Burns, T

    A.-K. Burns, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Valli, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 86 (2024), arXiv:2307.07061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Launders, C

    T. Launders, C. Giovanetti, and H. Liu, arXiv:2604.16600 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Na- ture Rev. Phys.3, 231 (2021), arXiv:2104.11148 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Steigman, JCAP10, 016, arXiv:astro-ph/0606206

    G. Steigman, JCAP10, 016, arXiv:astro-ph/0606206. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, Astrophys. J. 855, 102 (2018), arXiv:1710.11129 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    P. A. Kislitsyn, S. A. Balashev, M. T. Murphy, C. Ledoux, P. Noterdaeme, and A. V. Ivanchik, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 4068 (2024), arXiv:2401.12797 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Sch¨ oneberg, JCAP06, 006, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro- ph.CO]

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, JCAP06, 006, arXiv:2401.15054 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  15. [15]

    Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Int

    F. Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2630011 (2026)

    2026

  16. [16]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D113, 083504 (2026), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Froustey and C

    J. Froustey and C. Pitrou, Phys. Rev. D101, 043524 (2020), arXiv:1912.09378 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    J. Yang, D. N. Schramm, G. Steigman, and R. T. Rood, Astrophys. J.227, 697 (1979)

    1979

  21. [21]

    J. Yang, M. S. Turner, G. Steigman, D. N. Schramm, and K. A. Olive, Astrophys. J.281, 493 (1984)

    1984

  22. [22]

    E. Aver, E. D. Skillman, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, M. K. Weller, K. A. Olive, D. A. Berg, J. J. Salzer, J. H. Miller, and J. E. M´ endez-Delgado, arXiv:2601.22238 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive, B. D. Fields, E. Aver, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, E. D. Skillman, and M. K. Weller, arXiv:2601.22239 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Matsumotoet al., Astrophys

    A. Matsumotoet al., Astrophys. J.941, 167 (2022), arXiv:2203.09617 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Yanagisawaet al., Astrophys

    H. Yanagisawaet al., Astrophys. J.1004, 55 (2026), arXiv:2506.24050 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Burns, T

    A.-K. Burns, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Valli, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 131001 (2023), arXiv:2206.00693 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Escudero, A

    M. Escudero, A. Ibarra, and V. Maura, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035024 (2023), arXiv:2208.03201 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Froustey and C

    J. Froustey and C. Pitrou, Phys. Rev. D110, 103551 (2024), arXiv:2405.06509 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Steigman, Ann

    G. Steigman, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 463 (2007), arXiv:0712.1100 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [30]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015004 (2016), arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T.-H. Yeh, and C. Young, JCAP03, 010, [Erratum: JCAP 11, E02 (2020)], arXiv:1912.01132 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept. 984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, Phys. Rev. D113, 063519 (2026), arXiv:2505.08051 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Sch¨ oneberg, V

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, V. Poulin, A. G. Ferrari, F. Finelli, J. Les- gourgues, L. Morelli, M. R. Mosbech, R. K. Sharma, and T. Simon, arXiv:2607.13282 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Sch¨ oneberg, V

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, V. Poulin, A. G. Ferrari, F. Finelli, J. Les- gourgues, L. Morelli, M. R. Mosbech, R. K. Sharma, and T. Simon, arXiv:2607.13283 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Giovanetti, arXiv:2604.05095 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    C. Giovanetti, arXiv:2604.05095 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Mossaet al., Nature587, 210 (2020)

    V. Mossaet al., Nature587, 210 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Giovanetti, M

    C. Giovanetti, M. Lisanti, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. D112, 063531 (2025), arXiv:2408.14538 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    McKeen and A

    D. McKeen and A. Omar, Phys. Rev. D110, 103514 (2024), arXiv:2407.03508 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Cook and J

    C. Cook and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D113, 043519 (2026), arXiv:2512.11163 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    A. C. Sobotka, A. L. Erickcek, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D111, 123522 (2025), arXiv:2409.06778 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Akita and M

    K. Akita and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP08, 012, arXiv:2005.07047 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    Froustey, C

    J. Froustey, C. Pitrou, and M. C. Volpe, JCAP12, 015, arXiv:2008.01074 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    J. J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, P. F. De Salas, M. Drewes, S. Gariazzo, S. Pastor, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP04, 073, arXiv:2012.02726 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  47. [47]

    Drewes, Y

    M. Drewes, Y. Georis, M. Klasen, L. P. Wiggering, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP06, 032, arXiv:2402.18481 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Kamionkowski, J

    M. Kamionkowski, J. Pradler, and D. G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 251302 (2014), arXiv:1409.0549 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Karwal and M

    T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [50]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, D. Grin, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D98, 083525 (2018), arXiv:1806.10608 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    D. J. Fixsen, Astrophys. J.707, 916 (2009), arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, and T. Karwal, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101348 (2023), arXiv:2302.09032 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  54. [54]

    R. J. Cooke, J. W. Johnson, P. Noterdaeme, M. Pettini, L. Welsh, A. Wong, and C. Peroux, Astrophys. J.1003, 225 (2026), arXiv:2605.00122 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Raveri and W

    M. Raveri and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D99, 043506 (2019), arXiv:1806.04649 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  57. [57]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun.10, 343 (1975)

    1975

  58. [58]

    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

  59. [59]

    D. J. E. Marsh, D. Grin, R. Hlozek, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D87, 121701 (2013), arXiv:1303.3008 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013