comparable to the result of Fu [et al. ]{}(2008) for the same data. Our result is slightly lower, but within $1\sigma$. There are several differences between the two analyses that account for this difference. In particular, since we are interested in combining our results with CMB constraints, we explored a narrower grid in $(\omega_{\mathrm{b}},\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}},\omega_\nu)$, corresponding to a grid interval of ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}\in[0.2,0.6]$. The boundary effects slightly increase the curvature of the contour, which is most accurately described with a larger exponent power-law. The comparison of both results is particularly sensitive to this choice because here the confidence intervals are computed as volumes of the posterior distribution containing a certain fraction of the total probability, whereas in Fu [et al. ]{}(2008) the results are obtained from the values of $\Delta\chi^2$. The theoretical modelling also differs. Here we use Eq. (\[eq:Pnl\]), while in Fu [et al. ]{}(2008) the power spectrum was computed from the Eisenstein & Hu transfer function [@ehutransfer].

In the presence of massive neutrinos, the contours are shifted towards the right. This follows from the ${\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}-{\Omega_\nu}$ degeneracy, and shows that an increase in ${\Omega_\nu}$ is compensated by an increase in ${\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}$, confirming that the data are in the sub-free-streaming-length regime, where 