Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational waves, CMB polarization, and the Hubble tension

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The recombination peak in the CMB B-mode polarization spectrum is set by the light horizon at last scattering, giving an independent early-universe standard ruler measurable to ~2% with stage-IV experiments.

desk verdict A competent, honest forecast paper that repurposes the known B-mode recombination peak as a Hubble-tension cross-check; worth peer review, but the 2% precision claim assumes the background cosmology is known, and a small notation slip needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06100 v1 pith:VFWSJ4IW submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Donghui Jeong , Marc Kamionkowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundB-modepolarizationgravitationalwavesHubbletensionstandardrulerlighthorizoninflationdelensing
topics The Hubble Tension
open problems The Hubble Tension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes that the location of the recombination peak in the CMB B-mode polarization power spectrum—the multipole moment where the gravitational-wave-induced signal peaks, around $\ell \approx 86$—is set by the light horizon at the surface of last scatter. It argues that this peak therefore acts as an independent early-universe standard ruler, analogous to the acoustic-peak ruler in the temperature spectrum but governed by the speed of light rather than the sound speed. The authors forecast that stage-IV B-mode experiments, such as CMB-S4, PICO, or LiteBIRD, could measure this peak location to $\lesssim 2\%$ precision if the tensor-to-scalar ratio is near the current upper bound ($r \gtrsim 0.001$). Such a measurement would provide a cross-check of the temperature-based ruler, discriminating between early- and late-time resolutions of the Hubble tension, and would test whether gravitational waves traveled at light speed in the early Universe.

What carries the argument

The central object is the comoving light horizon at the surface of last scatter, $r_{\rm gw} = c\int_0^{t_{\rm ls}} dt/a(t)$, whose angular projection sets the location of the recombination peak in the B-mode power spectrum. The paper exploits the contrast between this horizon and the sound horizon $r_s$ that fixes the temperature acoustic peaks: since gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light while density perturbations propagate at $c_s \approx c/\sqrt{3}$, the two rulers respond differently to modifications of the early-universe expansion history. The Fisher-matrix calculation uses the logarithmic derivative of the B-mode spectrum with respect to multipole, $\partial C_\ell^{BB}/\partial \ln \ell$, to quantify how a shift $\delta r_{\rm gw}/r_{\rm gw} = \alpha$ translates into a measurable change in the peak position, and it marginalizes over the nuisance parameters $r$, $n_t$, $\tau$, and lensing residual $\lambda$.

What would settle it

A measurement of the B-mode recombination peak at $r \approx 0.06$ with precision better than 2% that finds the peak multipole inconsistent with the light-horizon prediction from Planck 2018 parameters would falsify the claim; equally, a detection limit $r < 0.001$ would render the proposed ruler unmeasurable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the first peak in the CMB B-mode power spectrum, produced by primordial gravitational waves, is located at a multipole determined by the comoving light horizon at decoupling, $r_{\rm gw} = c\int_0^{t_{\rm ls}} dt/a(t)$, divided by the angular-diameter distance to last scatter. Because the temperature acoustic peaks instead depend on the sound horizon $r_s = \int c_s(t) dt/a(t)$, the ratio of the two peak locations is sensitive to any early-time physics that changes the sound speed or expansion history but leaves the geometry to last scatter unchanged. The authors show with a Fisher forecast that, for $r = 0.06$ and a stage-IV experiment achieving $\sigma_r \approx 0.001$, the recombination-peak location can be determined to $\lesssim 2\%$ (1$\sigma$) after marginalizing over the tensor amplitude, spectral index, optical depth, and lensing contamination. This precision is sufficient to distinguish between the leading early-universe solutions to the Hubble tension (which shift the sound horizon) and late-time solutions (which do not shift the light horizon), and to test the general-relativistic speed of gravitational-wave propagation at the few-percent level.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement is only possible if primordial gravitational waves exist with an amplitude large enough (tensor-to-scalar ratio $r \gtrsim 0.001$) that the B-mode recombination peak rises above detector noise and the lensing-induced B-mode background in stage-IV experiments; the paper itself notes that below this amplitude the projection sharply deteriorates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Hubble tension is resolved by late-time physics, the B-mode recombination peak will sit at the multipole predicted by the standard cosmological model, so a measured shift in that peak would rule out such late-time solutions.
  • If new early-time physics shrinks the sound horizon, the B-mode peak, governed by the light horizon, will not shrink correspondingly, so comparing the two peak locations can detect or constrain such physics.
  • A $\lesssim 2\%$ measurement of the B-mode peak location would test the general-relativistic prediction that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light in the early Universe at the two-percent level.
  • The measurement requires only about one-degree angular resolution, so it is within reach of the same stage-IV experiments already designed to detect B modes, on a roughly decade timescale.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the predicted precision is realized, the ratio of the B-mode peak multipole to the temperature peak multipole directly measures the ratio of the light horizon to the sound horizon; this ratio is independent of the angular-diameter distance and may be more robust to late-time geometry than either ruler alone.
  • The same measurement would give a ~2% constraint on the gravitational-wave speed at redshifts near the last-scattering surface, complementing the late-time constraints from gravitational-wave events and potentially distinguishing modified-gravity models that predict different speeds at different epochs.
  • Should a stage-IV experiment fail to detect B modes at $r \sim 0.001$, the non-detection would itself tighten upper limits that could rule out the simplest single-field inflation models, but it would leave the standard-ruler concept untested rather than disproved.
  • The forecast relies on the assumption that the B-mode spectrum shifts as a pure logarithmic derivative in multipole when the light horizon changes; a more realistic treatment could include changes in the damping tail and peak heights, which might either improve or weaken the projected precision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the recombination peak in the CMB B-mode polarization power spectrum, produced by primordial gravitational waves, provides an alternative early-Universe standard ruler: its angular scale is set by the light horizon at last scattering. Using idealized scaling estimates and Fisher forecasts for the CLASS, LiteBIRD, stage-IV, and PICO experiments, the authors find that with a tensor-to-scalar ratio r=0.06 and a foreground/lensing noise equivalent to sigma_r=0.001, the light-horizon angular scale can be measured to about 2% (1 sigma) after marginalizing over the tensor amplitude, spectral index, reionization optical depth, and delensing residual. They argue this can cross-check the standard sound-horizon ruler from temperature anisotropies, discriminate between early- and late-time solutions to the Hubble tension, and constrain the propagation speed of gravitational waves in the early Universe.

Significance. The paper identifies a genuinely new, physically well-motivated observable: the B-mode recombination peak as a probe of the light horizon. The Fisher methodology is standard, the experimental specifications are clearly stated, and the analysis uses realistic transfer functions from CAMB with a Planck 2018 fiducial cosmology. The authors also honestly flag the key requirement r >~ 0.001 and the dependence on delensing, which is a strength. If the forecast holds up, the proposed measurement would provide a valuable independent cross-check of the CMB temperature-based standard ruler and a new window on early-Universe physics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Eq. (3) and Fig. 3] The Fisher matrix marginalizes only over theta = {alpha, r, n_t, tau, lambda}, fixing the background cosmological parameters (H0, Omega_m, Omega_Lambda, etc.) to the Planck 2018 best fit. The recombination-peak angular scale in C_l^BB is sensitive to the ratio r_gw/D_A, so the derivative dC/dalpha = -dC/d ln l is exactly the response to any parameter that rescales D_A, such as H0. The reported sigma_alpha <~ 2% is therefore the error on the light-horizon angle assuming perfect knowledge of the background cosmology. Because the paper's stated purpose is to cross-check the sound-horizon standard ruler and to discriminate Hubble-tension solutions, please quantify how much the alpha constraint degrades when the background parameters are marginalized over, either with no external priors or with Planck-temperature priors; this is necessary to support the central precision claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, first paragraph] The definition of alpha is inconsistent with the derivative used in Eq. (1): the text says C_l^BB -> C_l^BB(1-alpha), which would give dC/dalpha = -C, but then uses dC/dalpha = -dC/d ln l. Please revise the definition to describe a shift in angular scale rather than an amplitude rescaling.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The word 'Marginzlized' should be 'Marginalized'.
  3. [Text near Eq. (2)] The word 'sentivity' should be 'sensitivity'.
  4. [Section 2, paragraph after Fig. 1 discussion] The sentence 'the measurement requires the B modes to be mapped with an angular resolution no better than 1 degree' is ambiguous; presumably the beam must be at least as good as (i.e., smaller than) 1 degree, so please rephrase for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the B-mode standard-ruler forecast derives from external CAMB transfer functions and standard Fisher-matrix forecasting.

full rationale

The paper is a Fisher-matrix forecast, not an empirical derivation, so its central claims do not reduce to their inputs. The B-mode recombination-peak location is obtained from CAMB transfer functions with Planck 2018 best-fit parameters, i.e., from the standard tensor-mode propagation equations; the peak is not defined in terms of the target Hubble-tension result. Equation (1) starts from the identity ∂C/∂α = -dC/dln l, which is a Taylor expansion for a rescaling of the angular scale, and Eq. (3) marginalizes over r, n_t, τ, and λ; the projected σ_α is a statistical error forecast, conditioned on an assumed r and experimental noise, not a fitted value presented as a measurement. The σ_r inputs are taken from external experimental forecasts, and the delensing efficiencies from external studies. Self-citations to Kamionkowski et al. appear for foundational B-mode physics and Fisher matrices, but the calculations are also supported by CAMB and by independent references (Zaldarriaga & Seljak; Flauger & Weinberg; Hiramatsu et al.); no uniqueness theorem or unverified ansatz is imported from the authors. The acknowledged r ≳ 0.001 requirement is a detection-threshold limitation, not a circularity. A robustness caveat—that a full H0 determination would require external knowledge of D_A and the late-time expansion—is a conditioning limitation of any standard-ruler program, not a circular reduction, because the paper's 2% forecast is explicitly a sensitivity estimate for the peak shift under a fiducial model.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper makes no measurements and fits no data; it is a forecasting study. The free parameters are fiducial values chosen for the forecasts (r, n_t, τ, λ, experimental noise/beam/f_sky). The central claim rests on standard cosmology: CAMB's transfer functions, Planck 2018 best-fit parameters as the fiducial model, and the established result that the B-mode recombination peak is tied to the light horizon at last scattering. No new entities are introduced. The main assumptions are the existence and detectability of primordial gravitational waves (r ≳ 0.001), the speed of gravitational waves equal to c, and the Fisher-matrix approximation.

free parameters (5)
  • r (tensor-to-scalar ratio) = 0.001, 0.01, 0.06 (fiducial values)
    The 2% precision claim uses r = 0.06; the measurement becomes impossible for r below about 0.001. Chosen by hand as representative hypotheses, not fitted.
  • n_t (tensor spectral index) = 0 (scale-invariant) in simple estimates; marginalized in Fisher forecast
    Assumed scale-invariant for the rough estimates; in the Fisher analysis it is a free parameter with fiducial value 0.
  • τ (reionization optical depth) = Planck 2018 fiducial value (not stated explicitly)
    Affects the low-l B-mode amplitude and is marginalized in the Fisher forecast.
  • λ (delensing residual fraction) = varied 0 to 1
    Quantifies the residual lensing B-mode contamination; not fitted, but a forecast parameter.
  • Experimental noise, beam, and sky coverage = CLASS: (10 µK arcmin, 60 arcmin, 0.4); LiteBIRD: (3, 30, 1); CMB-S4: (1, 3, 0.4); PICO: (1, 3, 1)
    Chosen from the experiment papers to define the projected sensitivity; these are inputs to the Fisher forecasts.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fisher information formalism gives unbiased minimum-variance parameter errors in the Gaussian limit.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(3) for all forecasts.
  • domain assumption The CMB B-mode power spectrum from primordial gravitational waves is accurately computed by CAMB with Planck 2018 best-fit parameters as the fiducial cosmology.
    Invocated throughout; the fiducial spectra and derivatives come from CAMB.
  • domain assumption The recombination peak of the B-mode spectrum is set by the comoving gravitational-wave horizon at last scattering, r_gw = c ∫ dt/a(t).
    The central physical input, cited to Pritchard & Kamionkowski 2005 and Flauger & Weinberg 2007.
  • domain assumption Primordial gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light in the early universe.
    Assumed in the standard forecast; the paper also proposes testing this assumption.
  • domain assumption A change in the light horizon at decoupling does not shift the reionization bump, so ∂C/∂ln l = 0 for l < 15.
    Modeling choice in the Fisher analysis to isolate the recombination peak.
  • domain assumption The tensor power spectrum is approximately scale-invariant (n_t ≈ 0) for the simple estimates.
    Expected from slow-roll inflation; the Fisher analysis does marginalize over n_t.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational waves, CMB polarization, and the Hubble tension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFWSJ4IW

@misc{pith2026190806100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational waves, CMB polarization, and the Hubble tension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFWSJ4IW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06100}
}
abstract

The discrepancy between the Hubble parameter inferred from local measurements and that from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has motivated careful scrutiny of the assumptions that enter both analyses. Here we point out that the location of the recombination peak in the CMB B-mode power spectrum is determined by the light horizon at the surface of last scatter and thus provides an alternative early-Universe standard ruler. It can thus be used as a cross-check for the standard ruler inferred from the acoustic peaks in the CMB temperature power spectrum and to test various explanations for the Hubble tension. The measurement can potentially be carried out with a precision of $\lesssim2\%$ with stage-IV B-mode experiments. The measurement can also be used to measure the propagation speed of gravitational waves in the early Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Projected 1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. B-mode Power Spectrum of CMB via Polarized Compton Scattering

    astro-ph.CO 2019-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Compton scattering off partially polarized electrons can generate B-mode polarization from scalar density perturbations, with an amplitude proportional to the square of the electron polarization asymmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cosmology at a Crossroads,

    W. L. Freedman, “Cosmology at a Crossroads,” Nat. As- tron. 1, 0121 (2017) [arXiv:1706.02739 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Clarify- ing the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierar- chical model of the local distance ladder,

    S. M. Feeney, D. J. Mortlock and N. Dalmasso, “Clarify- ing the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierar- chical model of the local distance ladder,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, no. 3, 3861 (2018) [arXiv:1707.00007 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,

    L. Verde, T. Treu and A. G. Riess, “Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,” arXiv:1907.10625 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 1907

  4. [4]

    A. G. Riess et al. , “A 2.4Astrophys. J. 826, no. 1, 56 (2016) [arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant,

    A. G. Riess et al. , “Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant,” Astro- 5 phys. J. 861, no. 2, 126 (2018) [arXiv:1804.10655 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    H0LiCOW – V. New COSMOGRAIL time delays of HE 0435-1223: H0 to 3.8 per cent pre- cision from strong lensing in a flat ΛCDM model,

    V. Bonvin et al. , “H0LiCOW – V. New COSMOGRAIL time delays of HE 0435-1223: H0 to 3.8 per cent pre- cision from strong lensing in a flat ΛCDM model,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, no. 4, 4914 (2017) [arXiv:1607.01790 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    H0LiCOW - IX. Cosmographic analysis of the doubly imaged quasar SDSS 1206+4332 and a new measurement of the Hubble constant,

    S. Birrer et al. , “H0LiCOW - IX. Cosmographic analysis of the doubly imaged quasar SDSS 1206+4332 and a new measurement of the Hubble constant,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 484, 4726 (2019) [arXiv:1809.01274 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astro- phys. 594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    H0 Revisited,

    G. Efstathiou, “H0 Revisited,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 440, no. 2, 1138 (2014) [arXiv:1311.3461 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Quanti- fying discordance in the 2015 Planck CMB spectrum,

    G. E. Addison, Y. Huang, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw and J. L. Weiland, “Quanti- fying discordance in the 2015 Planck CMB spectrum,” Astrophys. J. 818, no. 2, 132 (2016) [arXiv:1511.00055 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Planck in- termediate results. LI. Features in the cosmic microwave background temperature power spectrum and shifts in cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck in- termediate results. LI. Features in the cosmic microwave background temperature power spectrum and shifts in cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 607, A95 (2017) [arXiv:1608.02487 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Sounds Discordant: Classical Dis- tance Ladder & ΛCDM -based Determinations of the Cosmological Sound Horizon,

    K. Aylor, M. Joy, L. Knox, M. Millea, S. Raghunathan and W. L. K. Wu, “Sounds Discordant: Classical Dis- tance Ladder & ΛCDM -based Determinations of the Cosmological Sound Horizon,” Astrophys. J. 874, no. 1, 4 (2019) [arXiv:1811.00537 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Be- yond LambdaCDM,

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri and D. Scolnic, “Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Be- yond LambdaCDM,” Astrophys. J. 876, no. 1, 85 (2019) [arXiv:1903...

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud that is precise to one per cent,

    G. Pietrzy´ nskiet al., “A distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud that is precise to one per cent,” Nature 567, 200 (2019) [arXiv:1903.08096]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    The Hubble Constant de- termined through an inverse distance ladder includ- ing quasar time delays and Type Ia supernovae,

    S. Taubenberger et al. , “The Hubble Constant de- termined through an inverse distance ladder includ- ing quasar time delays and Type Ia supernovae,” arXiv:1905.12496 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Model- independent determination of H0 and Ω K0 from strong lensing and type Ia supernovae,

    T. Collett, F. Montanari and S. Rasanen, “Model- independent determination of H0 and Ω K0 from strong lensing and type Ia supernovae,” arXiv:1905.09781 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905 arXiv

  10. [18]

    W. L. Freedman et al. , arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]

    1907 arXiv

  11. [19]

    W. Yuan, A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. Casertano and D. Scolnic, arXiv:1908.00993 [astro-ph.GA]

    1908 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Small scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies as a probe of the geometry of the universe,

    M. Kamionkowski, D. N. Spergel and N. Sugiyama, “Small scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies as a probe of the geometry of the universe,” Astrophys. J. 426, L57 (1994) [astro-ph/9401003]

    1994 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Weighing the universe with the cos- mic microwave background,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and D. N. Spergel, “Weighing the universe with the cos- mic microwave background,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1007 (1996) [astro-ph/9507080]

    1996 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse,

    T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, “Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 10, 103523 (2016) [arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The trouble with H0,

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde and A. G. Riess, “The trouble with H0,” JCAP 1610, no. 10, 019 (2016) [arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, “Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,” arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Phenomenology of Modified Gravity at Recombination,

    M. X. Lin, M. Raveri and W. Hu, “Phenomenology of Modified Gravity at Recombination,” Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 4, 043514 (2019) [arXiv:1810.02333 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The Neu- trino Puzzle: Anomalies, Interactions, and Cosmological Tensions,

    C. D. Kreisch, F. Y. Cyr-Racine and O. Dor´ e, “The Neu- trino Puzzle: Anomalies, Interactions, and Cosmological Tensions,” arXiv:1902.00534 [astro-ph.CO]

    1902 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino In- terpretation of the Hubble Tension,

    N. Blinov, K. J. Kelly, G. Z. Krnjaic and S. D. Mc- Dermott, “Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino In- terpretation of the Hubble Tension,” arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ΛCDM or self-interacting neutri- nos? - how CMB data can tell the two models apart,

    M. Park, C. D. Kreisch, J. Dunkley, B. Hadzhiyska and F. Y. Cyr-Racine, “ΛCDM or self-interacting neutri- nos? - how CMB data can tell the two models apart,” arXiv:1904.02625 [astro-ph.CO]

    1904 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rock ’n’ Roll Solutions to the Hubble Tension,

    P. Agrawal, F. Y. Cyr-Racine, D. Pinner and L. Ran- dall, “Rock ’n’ Roll Solutions to the Hubble Tension,” arXiv:1904.01016 [astro-ph.CO]

    1904 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Acous- tic Dark Energy: Potential Conversion of the Hubble Tension,

    M. X. Lin, G. Benevento, W. Hu and M. Raveri, “Acous- tic Dark Energy: Potential Conversion of the Hubble Tension,” arXiv:1905.12618 [astro-ph.CO]

    1905 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Reconciling Planck with the local value of H0 in extended parameter space,

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri and J. Silk, “Reconciling Planck with the local value of H0 in extended parameter space,” Phys. Lett. B 761, 242 (2016) [arXiv:1606.00634 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Constraining Dark Energy Dynamics in Extended Pa- rameter Space,

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, E. V. Linder and J. Silk, “Constraining Dark Energy Dynamics in Extended Pa- rameter Space,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 2, 023523 (2017) [arXiv:1704.00762 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Vac- uum phase transition solves the H0 tension,

    E. Di Valentino, E. V. Linder and A. Melchiorri, “Vac- uum phase transition solves the H0 tension,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 4, 043528 (2018) [arXiv:1710.02153 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Can inter- acting dark energy solve the H0 tension?,

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri and O. Mena, “Can inter- acting dark energy solve the H0 tension?,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 4, 043503 (2017) [arXiv:1704.08342 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Alleviating theH0 and σ8 anomalies with a decaying dark matter model,

    K. L. Pandey, T. Karwal and S. Das, “Alleviating theH0 and σ8 anomalies with a decaying dark matter model,” arXiv:1902.10636 [astro-ph.CO]

    1902 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Late uni- verse decaying dark matter can relieve the H0 tension,

    K. Vattis, S. M. Koushiappas and A. Loeb, “Late uni- verse decaying dark matter can relieve the H0 tension,” arXiv:1903.06220 [astro-ph.CO]

    1903 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Elucidating ΛCDM: Im- pact of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements on the Hubble Constant Discrepancy,

    G. E. Addison, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw and J. L. Weiland, “Elucidating ΛCDM: Im- pact of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements on the Hubble Constant Discrepancy,” Astrophys. J. 853, no. 2, 119 (2018) [arXiv:1707.06547 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Con- stant,

    F. Beutler et al. , “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Con- stant,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011) [arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample – I. A 4 per cent distance mea- 6 sure at z = 0.15,

    A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden and M. Manera, “The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample – I. A 4 per cent distance mea- 6 sure at z = 0.15,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, no. 1, 835 (2015) [arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,

    S. Alam et al. [BOSS Collaboration], “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, no. 3, 2617 (2017) [arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations,

    G. B. Zhao et al., “Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations,” Nat. Astron. 1, no. 9, 627 (2017) [arXiv:1701.08165 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Implications of an extended dark energy cosmology with massive neutrinos for cosmological tensions,

    V. Poulin, K. K. Boddy, S. Bird and M. Kamionkowski, “Implications of an extended dark energy cosmology with massive neutrinos for cosmological tensions,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 12, 123504 (2018) [arXiv:1803.02474 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Statistics of cosmic microwave background polariza- tion,

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins, “Statistics of cosmic microwave background polariza- tion,” Phys. Rev. D 55, 7368 (1997) [astro-ph/9611125]

    1997 arXiv

  36. [44]

    An all sky analysis of polarization in the microwave background,

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak, “An all sky analysis of polarization in the microwave background,” Phys. Rev. D 55, 1830 (1997) [astro-ph/9609170]

    1997 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A Probe of primordial gravity waves and vorticity,

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins, “A Probe of primordial gravity waves and vorticity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2058 (1997) [astro-ph/9609132]

    1997 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Signature of gravity waves in polarization of the microwave background,

    U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, “Signature of gravity waves in polarization of the microwave background,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2054 (1997) [astro-ph/9609169]

    1997 arXiv

  39. [47]

    The Quest for B Modes from Inflationary Gravitational Waves,

    M. Kamionkowski and E. D. Kovetz, “The Quest for B Modes from Inflationary Gravitational Waves,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 227 (2016) [arXiv:1510.06042 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Essinger-Hileman et al

    T. Essinger-Hileman et al. , Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9153, 91531I (2014) doi:10.1117/12.2056701 [arXiv:1408.4788 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mission design of LiteBIRD,

    T. Matsumura et al. , “Mission design of LiteBIRD,” J. Low. Temp. Phys. 176, 733 (2014) [arXiv:1311.2847 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    The Simons Observatory: Science goals and fore- casts,

    J. Aguirre et al. [Simons Observatory Collaboration], “The Simons Observatory: Science goals and fore- casts,” JCAP 1902, 056 (2019) [arXiv:1808.07445 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    CMB- S4 Science Book, First Edition,

    K. N. Abazajian et al. [CMB-S4 Collaboration], “CMB- S4 Science Book, First Edition,” arXiv:1610.02743 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    PICO: Probe of Inflation and Cosmic Origins,

    S. Hanany et al. [NASA PICO Collaboration], “PICO: Probe of Inflation and Cosmic Origins,” arXiv:1902.10541 [astro-ph.IM]

    1902 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gravitational lensing effect on cosmic microwave background polarization,

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak, “Gravitational lensing effect on cosmic microwave background polarization,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 023003 (1998) [astro-ph/9803150]

    1998 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cosmic mi- crowave background fluctuations from gravitational waves: An Analytic approach,

    J. R. Pritchard and M. Kamionkowski, “Cosmic mi- crowave background fluctuations from gravitational waves: An Analytic approach,” Annals Phys. 318, 2 (2005) [astro-ph/0412581]

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Tensor Microwave Back- ground Fluctuations for Large Multipole Order,

    R. Flauger and S. Weinberg, “Tensor Microwave Back- ground Fluctuations for Large Multipole Order,” Phys. Rev. D 75, 123505 (2007) [astro-ph/0703179]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Small scale fluc- tuations of relic radiation,

    R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, “Small scale fluc- tuations of relic radiation,” Astrophys. Space Sci. 7, 3 (1970)

    1970

  49. [57]

    Primeval adiabatic per- turbation in an expanding universe,

    P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, “Primeval adiabatic per- turbation in an expanding universe,” Astrophys. J. 162, 815 (1970)

    1970

  50. [58]

    Detectability of inflationary gravitational waves with microwave back- ground polarization,

    M. Kamionkowski and A. Kosowsky, “Detectability of inflationary gravitational waves with microwave back- ground polarization,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 685 (1998) [astro- ph/9705219]

    1998

  51. [59]

    Polar- ization pursuers’ guide,

    A. H. Jaffe, M. Kamionkowski and L. M. Wang, “Polar- ization pursuers’ guide,” Phys. Rev. D 61, 083501 (2000) [astro-ph/9909281]

    2000 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Cosmological parameter determination with microwave background maps,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and D. N. Spergel, “Cosmological parameter determination with microwave background maps,” Phys. Rev. D 54, 1332 (1996) [astro-ph/9512139]

    1996 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Reconstruction of primordial tensor power spectra from B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave back- ground,

    T. Hiramatsu, E. Komatsu, M. Hazumi and M. Sasaki, “Reconstruction of primordial tensor power spectra from B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave back- ground,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 12, 123511 (2018) [arXiv:1803.00176 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sepa- ration of gravitational wave and cosmic shear contri- butions to cosmic microwave background polarization,

    M. Kesden, A. Cooray and M. Kamionkowski, “Sepa- ration of gravitational wave and cosmic shear contri- butions to cosmic microwave background polarization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011304 (2002) [astro-ph/0202434]

    2002 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A Limit on the detectability of the energy scale of inflation,

    L. Knox and Y. S. Song, “A Limit on the detectability of the energy scale of inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011303 (2002) [astro-ph/0202286]

    2002 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Efficient com- putation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, “Efficient com- putation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,” Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000) [astro-ph/9911177]

    2000 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Future cosmic microwave background de- lensing with galaxy surveys,

    A. Manzotti, “Future cosmic microwave background de- lensing with galaxy surveys,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 4, 043527 (2018) [arXiv:1710.11038 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.