Searching for signatures of inflationary massive fields in DESI Imaging data and Stage-V galaxy surveys

We investigate the cosmological imprints of massive fields during inflation through primordial non-Gaussianity. When these fields are sufficiently light, they produce a signal in galaxy clustering, $\propto f_{\rm NL, Δ}k^{Δ-2}$ with. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

That matters because cosmology operates at the edge of what current instruments can measure, where systematic errors and model assumptions are never trivial. Small discrepancies between independent measurements have historically pointed toward missing physics rather than simple calibration errors, and the ongoing tension in the Hubble constant is a live example of how a persistent disagreement between methods can reshape the theoretical landscape. Each new dataset that approaches this territory with independent systematics adds real information to a problem that has resisted easy resolution for more than a decade. We investigate the cosmological imprints of massive fields during inflation through primordial non-Gaussianity (PNG). When these fields are sufficiently light, they produce a signal in galaxy clustering, $\propto f_{\rm NL, Δ}k^{Δ-2}$ with $Δ\in(0, 3/2]$, corresponding to a beyond-local PNG.

We use the angular correlation function to constrain $f_{\rm NL, Δ}$ and $Δ$ using imaging data used for the targeting of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). However, when considering a less aggressive treatment, a hint is found with $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}=27^{+10}_{-9}$, consistent with previous analyses.

For beyond-local PNG, that signal gives a preference for $f_{\rm NL, Δ}=5.12^{+6.13}_{-3.62}\times10^{3}$ and $Δ=0.91^{+0.25}_{-0.19}$. This preference is not robust under decontamination choices, likely driven by residual systematics, and we present it as a showcase for future constraints.

Additionally, we forecast the sensitivity of upcoming Stage-V surveys, the Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST), the MUltiplexed Survey Telescope (MUST), and the Spectroscopic. Around the local limit, $Δ^{\rm fid}=0$, we find that they can reach uncertainties of $σ(Δ)\simeq0.17-0.50$, depending on the survey, for a fiducial $f_{\rm NL, Δ}^{\rm fid}=4$.

The relevance goes beyond one dataset because even small shifts in measured parameters can matter when the field is testing the limits of the standard cosmological model. The Lambda-CDM framework describes the observable universe with remarkable economy, but its success rests on two components, dark matter and dark energy, whose physical nature remains entirely unknown. Any credible measurement that tightens or loosens the constraints on those components moves the entire theoretical enterprise forward, regardless of whether the immediate result looks dramatic on its own terms.

The constraining power on $Δ$ increases as we increase $f_{\rm NL, Δ}^{\rm fid}$ and decreases for larger fiducial $Δ$. Finally, we derive a relation between the detectability of $Δ$ and the local PNG constraints, $σ(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc})$.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether the effect survives when independent surveys, different calibration strategies and tighter control of systematic uncertainties enter the picture. Programmes such as Euclid, DESI and the Rubin Observatory will deliver datasets over the next several years that cover the same parameter space with largely independent methods. If the current signal persists through those tests, its theoretical implications will become impossible to set aside. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source