Paper detail

Pseudoscalar sterile neutrino self-interactions in light of Planck, SPT and ACT data

We reassess the viability of a cosmological model including a fourth additional sterile neutrino species that self-interacts through a new pseudoscalar degree of freedom. We perform a series of extensive analyses fitting various combinations of cosmic microwave background (CMB) data from Planck, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) and the South Pole Telescope (SPT), both alone and in combination with Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) and Supernova Ia (SnIa) observations. We show that the scenario under study, although capable to resolve the Hubble tension without worsening the so-called $S_8$ tension about the growth of cosmic structures, is severely constrained by high-multipole polarization data from both Planck and SPT. Intriguingly, when trading Planck TE-EE data for those from ACT, we find a $\gtrsim 3 σ$ preference for a non-zero sterile neutrino mass, $m_s=3.6^{+1.1}_{-0.6}$ eV (68 % C.L.), compatible with the range suggested by longstanding short-baseline (SBL) anomalies in neutrino oscillation experiments. The pseudoscalar model provides indeed a better fit to ACT data compared to $Λ$CDM ($Δχ^2 \simeq -5$, $Δ\rm{AIC}=-1.3$), although in a combined analysis with Planck the $Λ$CDM model is still favoured, as the preference for a non-zero sterile neutrino mass is mostly driven by ACT favouring a higher value for the primordial spectral index $n_s$ with respect to Planck. We show that the mild tension between Planck and ACT is due to the different pattern in the TE and EE power spectra on multipoles between $350 \lesssim \ell \lesssim 1000$. We also check the impact of marginalizing over the gravitational lensing information in Planck data, showing that the model does not solve the CMB lensing anomaly. Future work including higher precision data from current and upcoming CMB ground-based experiments will be crucial to test these results.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.