Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Reconstructing simulated CMB polarization power spectra with the Analytical Blind Separation method

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 Analytical Blind Separation method recovers simulated CMB B-mode power spectra with relative errors below 20 percent over the full multipole range in every tested case, and below 5 percent for multipoles above 150, while recovering…

desk verdict Solid, honest simulation study: first polarization test of ABS, with real caveats; headline accuracy is conditional on foreground low-rankness, which the paper discloses but could foreground more. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07862 v3 pith:S4HDSU2I submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.CO

Larissa Santos , Jian Yao , Le Zhang , Shamik Ghosh , Pengjie Zhang , Wen Zhao , Thyrso Villela , Jiming Chen
show 1 more author
Jacques Delabrouille
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundCMBpolarizationB-modepowerspectrumcomponentseparationblindsourceforegroundcontaminationestimation
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 claims that the Analytical Blind Separation (ABS) method—a component-separation technique that estimates the CMB power spectrum directly from the eigendecomposition of multi-frequency cross-spectra, without modeling foreground emission laws—can reconstruct CMB polarization power spectra from simulated maps of a future space mission. In full-sky simulations with ten frequency channels, synchrotron and dust contamination, and three values of the tensor-to-scalar ratio, the recovered B-mode spectrum differs from the input by less than 20 percent over the full multipole range and less than 5 percent for multipoles above 150, while the E-mode is recovered within 20 percent above multipole 30. With a Galactic mask and an E/B separation correction, the relative error stays below 21 percent for multipoles 30 to 1050. The result matters because the B-mode spectrum is the main target for detecting primordial gravitational waves, and ABS is a fast, nearly assumption-free estimator that could serve future CMB polarization surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the empirical multivariate power spectrum matrix $D_{ij}(\ell)$ of the ten frequency channels. ABS diagonalizes this matrix after subtracting the known noise covariance, discards eigenvectors whose eigenvalues fall below a threshold ($\lambda_{\mathrm{cut}} = 0.5$), and estimates the CMB spectrum from the remaining modes using $\hat{D}_{\mathrm{cmb}} = (\sum_{\lambda_\mu \ge \lambda_{\mathrm{cut}}} G_\mu^2 \lambda_\mu^{-1})^{-1}$, where $G$ is the projection of the CMB mixing vector onto the eigenbasis. A shift parameter $S$ is added to the CMB covariance before diagonalization so that the faint B-mode signal stays in the subspace that survives thresholding, and is subtracted at the end. For partial sky, the pipeline first computes pure pseudo-multipoles with the E/B separation method to suppress E-to-B leakage.

What would settle it

Compute the eigenvalues of the foreground-only covariance matrix $D_{\mathrm{fore}}(\ell)$ for a foreground model with strongly varying spectral indices, such as a two-component dust model or a spatially varying index beyond the d1s1 scaling; if more than $N_f - 1$ eigenvalues lie above the noise threshold at any multipole, the ABS estimator cannot separate CMB from foregrounds without positive bias, and the claimed sub-20-percent accuracies would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that ABS, previously demonstrated on temperature maps, also works for polarization: the estimator built from the noise-debiased covariance of ten frequency channels yields E- and B-mode power spectra whose band powers agree with the true simulated spectra within the claimed tolerances across most scales. The agreement holds for full-sky maps despite foregrounds that exceed the CMB by orders of magnitude, and holds in partial sky when the pure pseudo-multipole E/B separation method is used to suppress E-to-B leakage. The main caveat the paper demonstrates is at the largest angular scales: null tests with only foregrounds and noise show a systematic underestimation below multipole 150, and the low-multipole B-mode errors are too large to detect a primordial tensor signal with these settings.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy claims rest on the assumption that, after noise de-biasing, the foreground emission occupies a low-rank subspace of the multi-frequency covariance matrix, so the CMB direction can be isolated by eigenvalue thresholding; if foreground spectral indices vary enough to make the foreground covariance effectively full rank, the paper states it is impossible to get a CMB spectrum without positive foreground bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a full-sky analysis, ABS recovers the lensing B-mode signal with relative error below 5 percent for multipoles above 150, for $r = 0$, $0.01$, and $0.05$, meaning the method is accurate enough for lensing B-mode science at intermediate and small scales.
  • The E-mode spectrum, which carries standard cosmological information, is recovered within 20 percent above multipole 30 in the full-sky case, so parameter estimation from E-modes is feasible with this pipeline.
  • Masking the Galactic plane and applying an E/B separation correction keeps partial-sky relative errors below 21 percent for multipoles 30 to 1050, showing that foreground masking can be combined with ABS without destroying its accuracy.
  • At the largest scales, the recovered B-mode has large error bars and a systematic low-multipole bias, confirmed by null tests with foregrounds and noise only, so primordial gravitational-wave detection with $r$ below about 0.05 is not yet within reach for this configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because ABS bypasses map reconstruction, its accuracy is set by the eigenvalue gap between foregrounds and noise; a testable extension is to run the same pipeline with binning in $\ell$ before eigendecomposition, which the paper leaves to future work and which should reduce the finite-sample bias at low multipoles.
  • The positive foreground bias that appears when the foreground subspace becomes full rank suggests that the quoted accuracies may degrade for real skies with strongly varying dust spectral indices; the paper's appendix with an extra polarized AME component already shows low-multipole errors growing to 50 percent, so a full-rank foreground model would be a sharper stress test.
  • The systematic underestimate in the null tests matches the analytic toy model in the appendix, where empirical CMB-noise correlation produces a negative bias; this suggests that a larger shift parameter $S$ at low multipoles could trade that negative bias for a controllable positive one, a direct and testable prediction of the paper's own formalism.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents an end-to-end simulation test of the Analytical Blind Separation (ABS) method of Zhang et al. (2016) for estimating CMB E- and B-mode polarization power spectra. The authors generate ten-band (30-321 GHz) full-sky polarization maps with CMB from CAMB/LensPix, foregrounds from the PySM d1s1 model (synchrotron plus thermal dust with spatially varying spectral indices), and white noise at a PICO-like sensitivity. ABS is applied either on the full sky or after a partial-sky mask with Smith-Zaldarriaga pure E/B estimators, using 50 noise realizations. The paper reports full-sky E-mode recovery within 20% for ell>30 and B-mode recovery within 20% over the full multipole range (and below 5% for ell>150) for r=0, 0.01, and 0.05; partial-sky recovery within 21% for 30<=ell<=1050. Low-multipole biases are documented through null tests, Appendix B isolates the E/B separation contribution, and Appendix A examines a foreground model with polarized AME.

Significance. If the reported accuracies hold, ABS offers a computationally light, blind route to E/B power spectra at intermediate and small angular scales for future space missions, with only a small number of tunable parameters (the shift parameter S, the eigenvalue threshold lambda_cut, and mask apodization). The paper's strengths are its use of standardized public simulation tools, the comparison against the realized CMB spectrum rather than the ensemble mean, the explicit null tests, and the analytic toy model in Appendix C that clarifies the finite-sample and thresholding biases. The main limitation is that the headline percentages are tied to the particular foreground model tested; the paper's own AME test shows that a third foreground component degrades low-multipole B-mode recovery markedly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figure 5] The text says the simulation contains two foreground components and one CMB, but Figure 5 shows more than M+1=3 significant eigenvalues above the threshold at low multipoles, meaning the effective foreground rank already exceeds the rank assumed in Eqs. (6)-(7). Since the method's separation relies on the CMB direction lying outside the foreground subspace spanned by the retained eigenvalues, this rank violation is a load-bearing condition for the quoted 20%/5% accuracies. The paper should quantify the positive foreground bias caused by this rank violation or explicitly scope the claims to the empirical foreground model.
  2. [Appendix A, Figure A.1] When polarized AME is added as a third foreground component, the full-sky B-mode relative error reaches about 50% for ell<170, with the <5% accuracy holding only for ell>170. The abstract and conclusions do not mention this degradation; they state only that the method "performs quite well" and recovers spectra within the quoted percentages. The central claim is therefore conditional on foreground complexity and should be tempered or supplemented by a systematic foreground-model scan.
  3. [Section 3.1] The paper states that for real observations D_fore has rank N_f and that "it is impossible to get a CMB spectrum which would not contain at least a bit of positive bias." This admission, combined with the PySM d1s1 results, means the demonstrated accuracy is not a generic property of ABS. The paper should state in the abstract and conclusions that the quoted errors are upper limits for a two-component foreground model, not universal guarantees.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title] The arXiv title "Reconstructing simulated CMB polarization power spectra with the Analytical Blind Separation method" differs from the manuscript title "Testing the Analytical Blind Separation method in simulated CMB polarization maps"; the journal should standardize one title.
  2. [Section 2.2] The phrase "it's connection" should be "its connection".
  3. [Conclusions] The word "perfomance" should be "performance".
  4. [Section 4.1] In the text before Table 1, "T able 1" should read "Table 1".
  5. [Equation (13)] The definition of the apodization coordinate used in the window function W(delta) should be stated explicitly, and the sign of the step should be checked against the description of the mask.
  6. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says eigenvalues are shown in absolute value, and the text says negative eigenvalues are red dots; please make the red-dot convention explicit in the caption itself.
  7. [Section 5.1] The sentence "At the very lowest ells, however, the errors and biases become too large for a successful estimate of the B-mode power spectrum" is in tension with the preceding claim of "below 20% for the full multipole range"; please clarify whether the 20% claim applies to the binned range shown and what "full range" means.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ABS recovery claims are empirical simulation tests against external ground truth, not a reduction of outputs to inputs.

full rationale

The core claims are that ABS recovers simulated CMB E/B power spectra to the stated accuracy. The estimator (Eqs. 6-7) is an algebraic function of the observed multi-frequency covariance after noise de-biasing, with inputs being the known CMB mixing vector f, a threshold lambda_cut, and a shift parameter S. The recovered spectra are compared with CAMB/LensPix input CMB power spectra, which are not used in the estimator, so the comparison is external to the method. The low-rank foreground assumption is an explicitly stated ansatz rather than an output of the derivation, and Section 3.1 plus Appendix A quantify its failure modes; this is a robustness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations (Zhang et al. 2016 for the estimator; Yao et al. 2018 for threshold insensitivity) introduce the method and hyperparameter guidance, but the simulated ground truth is independent of those citations, and the paper openly reports low-multipole biases and degraded AME recovery. No equation or fitted parameter is identified that is equivalent by construction to the claimed prediction, so the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The key external inputs are the ABS estimator from the authors' prior work and standard simulation codes; the paper's own tunable parameters are the shift parameter S, the eigenvalue threshold, and the mask apodization.

free parameters (3)
  • Shift parameter S = S = 1000 sigma_noise (full-sky baseline); S = 100 sigma_noise in AME case
    Added to the covariance before eigendecomposition to keep CMB above the eigenvalue threshold; chosen by hand based on tests in Figure 8, and it changes the recovered low-multipole B-mode spectrum.
  • Eigenvalue threshold lambda_cut = 0.5
    Adopted from Yao et al. (2018), which found insensitivity in the range 0.5 to 1; determines which eigenmodes are kept in Eq. 7 and affects thresholding bias.
  • Mask apodization parameters = delta_c = 1 degree, sigma set by beta = 1e-4
    Shape the UPB77 mask used in partial-sky analysis and affect the E/B leakage correction performance.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CMB signal is uncorrelated with foreground emission and instrumental noise in the ensemble average, and empirical correlations are negligible at high multipoles.
    Invoked in Eqs. 2-3 and Section 3; the ABS method relies on this decorrelation, and the paper notes finite-sample correlations cause low-multipole biases.
  • domain assumption Foreground emission lies in a low-dimensional subspace of rank M < N_f, with the CMB mixing vector not in that subspace.
    Used in Eq. 6; if false, as for real skies with varying spectral indices, foreground residuals bias the estimate high, as the paper discusses in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The noise covariance is known well enough to be subtracted without error.
    Used in Eq. 3 and Appendix C; realistic noise estimation errors would propagate into the eigendecomposition.
  • domain assumption The data model d_obs = f d_cmb + d_fore + d_noise holds for each polarization field independently, with rigid CMB scaling across frequencies.
    Foundational model in Eqs. 1-2; ignores beam mismatches and systematics, which the paper explicitly excludes.
  • standard math The ABS estimator in Eqs. 6-7 from Zhang et al. (2016) is correct.
    The paper relies on the prior derivation without re-proving it; it is not machine-checked here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing simulated CMB polarization power spectra with the Analytical Blind Separation method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4HDSU2I

@misc{pith2026190807862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing simulated CMB polarization power spectra with the Analytical Blind Separation method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4HDSU2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07862}
}
abstract

Multi-frequency observations are needed to separate the CMB from foregrounds and accurately extract cosmological information from the data. The Analytical Blind Separation (ABS) method is dedicated to extracting the CMB power spectrum from multi-frequency observations in the presence of contamination from astrophysical foreground emission and instrumental noise. In this study, we apply the ABS method to simulated sky maps as could be observed with a future space-borne survey, in order to test the method's capability for determining the CMB polarization $E$- and $B$-mode power spectra. We present the ABS method performance on simulations for both a full-sky analysis and for an analysis concentrating on sky regions less impacted by Galactic foreground emission. We discuss the origin and minimization of biases in the estimated CMB polarization angular power spectra. We find that the ABS method performs quite well for the analysis of full-sky observations at intermediate and small angular scales, in spite of strong foreground contamination. On the largest scales, extra work is still required to reduce biases of various origins and the impact of confusion between CMB $E$ and $B$ polarization for partial-sky analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07862 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Frequency dependence and relative levels of the po￾larized foregrounds and CMB signal (dominated by polar￾ization E-modes). The Planck experiment frequency chan￾nels are explicitly shown in the grey shaded region (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/picture-gallery). Theoretical CMB power spectra (E- and B-modes) are obtained with the publicly available CAMB software (Lewis et al. 2000), with parameters from the c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The total Q (upper panel) and U (lower panel) simulated full-sky maps (without any beam convolution): CMB + synchrotron + thermal dust + noise. The dust and synchrotron are from the PySM model d1s1 (see text). From left to right: 30, 129, and 321 GHz. The scale is in µKCMB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The E- and B-mode angular power spectra of the simulated full-sky maps (without any beam convolution), with a comparison of all the simulated components for three frequency channels: CMB, noise, synchrotron and thermal dust. From left to right: 30GHz, 129GHz, and 321GHz. avoids the E-B confusion problem, at the price of strong foreground contamination in regions close to the Galactic plane. The second case considers… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The apodized UPB77 mask used for partial-sky analysis in this work. (D) We then extract the final CMB B-mode spectrum us￾ing the ABS method; (E) We repeat the procedure for 50 independent realiza￾tions of the instrumental noise, keeping the CMB sig￾nal and the foregrou…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eigenvalues (labelled as EGV above) of D obs ij (`) for each of the 10 frequency bands (represented in different symbol col￾ors), considering CMB, foregrounds (synchrotron and thermal dust) and one noise realization. Eigenvalues from the E-mode (upper panel) and B-mode…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Full-sky binned CMB E-mode power spectrum es￾timated with ABS, for r = 0, and a Gaussian beam of FWHM=28.3 0 . The red curve corresponds to the simulated CMB E-mode spectrum, while the green curve is the ABS estimate. The associated 1-σ statistical errors are also show…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Full-sky reconstructed B-mode power spectrum for r = 0 with different values for the shift parameter S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The null result (foreground + noise only) for the E-mode (upper panel) and B-mode (lower panel). the CMB polarization signal. Resolving the spectrum for low ` 0 s, especially for ` < 40, is challenging if we consider the ABS foreground separation method in a full-sky a…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Part-sky CMB E-mode power spectrum (binned with ∆l = 50 bands) estimated with ABS (green curve). The red curve is the CMB E-mode input power spectrum. The blue curve, which shows the pseudo-power spectrum computed di￾rectly from the CMB sky realization without noise/f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The null result (foreground + noise only) for the E￾mode (upper panel) and B-mode (lower panel). Article number, page 12 of 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

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. Fast End-to-End Framework for Cosmological Parameter Inference from CMB Data Using Machine Learning

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An ABS+neural-network pipeline recovers τ and r from simulated CMB maps for LiteBIRD/PICO with reported 1-σ errors of 0.0030–0.0035 (τ) and 0.0014–0.0056 (r), using held-out cosmologies sampled inside the training range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N., Adshead, P., Ahmed, Z., et al.\ 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.02743

    Abazajian, K. N., Adshead, P., Ahmed, Z., et al.\ 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.02743

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Ade, P., Aguirre, J., Ahmed, Z., et al.\ 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 2019, 56

    2019

  3. [3]

    M., & Dickinson, C.\ 2009, , 395, 1055

    Ali-Ha \"i moud, Y., Hirata, C. M., & Dickinson, C.\ 2009, , 395, 1055

    2009

  4. [4]

    Andr \'e , P., Baccigalupi, C., Banday, A., et al.\ 2014, JCAP, 2, 006

    2014

  5. [5]

    F.\ 2007, , 376, 739

    Aumont, J., & Mac \' as-P \'e rez, J. F.\ 2007, , 376, 739

    2007

  6. [6]

    Baccigalupi, C., Perrotta, F., de Zotti, G., et al.\ 2004, , 354, 55

    2004

  7. [7]

    Banerji R., Patanchon G., Delabrouille J., Hazumi M., Thuong Hoang D., Ishino H., Matsumura T., 2019, JCAP, 2019, 043

    2019

  8. [8]

    Basak S., Delabrouille J., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1163

    2012

Show all 144 references
  1. [9]

    Basak S., Delabrouille J., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 18

    2013

  2. [10]

    Basu, K., et al.\ 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1909.01592

    2019

  3. [11]

    2011, Astroparticle Physics, 34, 705

    Battistelli , E., et al. 2011, Astroparticle Physics, 34, 705

    2011

  4. [12]

    L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., et al.\ 2003, , 148, 1

    Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., et al.\ 2003, , 148, 1

    2003

  5. [13]

    L., Hill, R

    Bennett, C. L., Hill, R. S., Hinshaw, G., et al.\ 2003, , 148, 97

    2003

  6. [14]

    Beno \^ t A., et al., 2003, A&A, 399, L19

    2003

  7. [15]

    Betoule M., Pierpaoli E., Delabrouille J., Le Jeune M., Cardoso J.-F., 2009, A&A, 503, 691

    2009

  8. [16]

    Bicep2 Collaboration, et al., 2015, ApJ, 814, 110

    2015

  9. [17]

    Bobin J., Starck J.-L., Fadili J., Moudden Y., 2007, ITIP, 16, 2662

    2007

  10. [18]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al.\ 2013, , 208, 20

    2013

  11. [19]

    BICEP2 Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aikin, R. W., et al.\ 2014, Physical Review Letters, 112, 241101

    2014

  12. [20]

    Bock, J., Aljabri, A., Amblard, A., et al.\ 2009, arXiv:0906.1188

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bonaldi, A., Bedini, L., Salerno, E., Baccigalupi, C., & de Zotti, G.\ 2006, , 373, 271

    2006

  14. [22]

    R., Prunet, S., & Sethi, S

    Bouchet, F. R., Prunet, S., & Sethi, S. K.\ 1999, , 302, 663

    1999

  15. [23]

    F., Fisher, K

    Bunn, E. F., Fisher, K. B., Hoffman, Y., et al.\ 1994, , 432, L75

    1994

  16. [24]

    F., Zaldarriaga, M., Tegmark, M., & de Oliveira-Costa, A.,\ 2003, , 67, 023501

    Bunn, E. F., Zaldarriaga, M., Tegmark, M., & de Oliveira-Costa, A.,\ 2003, , 67, 023501

    2003

  17. [25]

    F.,\ 2011, , 83, 083003

    Bunn, E. F.,\ 2011, , 83, 083003

    2011

  18. [26]

    & Fang, L

    Cao, L. & Fang, L. Z. ,\ 2009, , 706, 1545

    2009

  19. [27]

    Cardoso, J.-F., Martin, M., Delabrouille, J., Betoule, M., & Patanchon, G.\ 2008, arXiv:0803.1814

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    & Chon, G.\ 2005, , 360, 509

    Challinor, A. & Chon, G.\ 2005, , 360, 509

    2005

  21. [29]

    Chluba, J., et al.\ 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1909.01593

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Di Valentino, E.; Melchiorri, A.; Silk, J.\ 2019, Nature Astronomy

    2019

  23. [31]

    R., et al.\ 2014, JCAP, 4, 014

    Das, S., Louis, T., Nolta, M. R., et al.\ 2014, JCAP, 4, 014

    2014

  24. [32]

    de Bernardis, P., Ade, P. A. R., Bock, J. J., et al.\ 2000, , 404, 955

    2000

  25. [33]

    M., et al.\ 2008, , 388, 247

    de Oliveira-Costa, A., Tegmark, M., Gaensler, B. M., et al.\ 2008, , 388, 247

    2008

  26. [34]

    Delabrouille, J., Cardoso, J.-F., & Patanchon, G.\ 2003, , 346, 1089

    2003

  27. [35]

    Delabrouille J., Cardoso J.-F., 2009, LNP, 665, 159, LNP...665

    2009

  28. [36]

    Delabrouille, J., Cardoso, J.-F., Le Jeune, M., et al.\ 2009, , 493, 835

    2009

  29. [37]

    Delabrouille, J., Betoule, M., Melin, J.-B., et al.\ 2013, , 553, A96

    2013

  30. [38]

    Delabrouille J., et al., 2018, JCAP, 2018, 014

    2018

  31. [39]

    Delabrouille J., et al., 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1909.01591

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    T.\ 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium by Bruce T

    Draine, B. T.\ 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium by Bruce T. Draine. Princeton University Press, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-691-12214-4

    2011

  33. [41]

    Dunkley, J., 2009, , 1141, 222

    2009

  34. [42]

    , 2004, , 349, 603

    Efstathiou, G. , 2004, , 349, 603

    2004

  35. [43]

    K., O'Dwyer, I

    Eriksen, H. K., O'Dwyer, I. J., Jewell, J. B., et al.\ 2004, , 155, 227

    2004

  36. [44]

    K., Banday A

    Eriksen H. K., Banday A. J., G \'o rski K. M., Lilje P. B., 2004, ApJ, 612, 633

    2004

  37. [45]

    K., Jewell J

    Eriksen H. K., Jewell J. B., Dickinson C., Banday A. J., G \'o rski K. M., Lawrence C. R., 2008, ApJ, 676, 10

    2008

  38. [46]

    et al., Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, 2014, 9153, 91531I

    Essinger-Hileman , T. et al., Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, 2014, 9153, 91531I

    2014

  39. [47]

    B., & Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez, E.\ 2012, , 420, 2162

    Fern \'a ndez-Cobos, R., Vielva, P., Barreiro, R. B., & Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez, E.\ 2012, , 420, 2162

    2012

  40. [48]

    , Grain J., Tristram, M

    Ferte, A. , Grain J., Tristram, M. , Stompor, R.\ 2013, , 88, 023524

    2013

  41. [49]

    Ghosh, S., Delabrouille, J., Zhao, W, & Santos, L., JCAP (in press), arXiv:2007.09928

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    G \'o rski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al.\ 2005, , 622, 759

    2005

  43. [51]

    L., Hill, R

    Gold, B., Bennett, C. L., Hill, R. S., et al.\ 2009, , 180, 265

    2009

  44. [52]

    & Stompor, R., , \ 2009, 79, 123515

    Grain, J., Tristram, M. & Stompor, R., , \ 2009, 79, 123515

    2009

  45. [53]

    P.\ 1975 , Sov

    Grishchuk, L. P.\ 1975 , Sov. Phys. JETP, 40, 409; Grishchuk, L. P.\ 1976, JETP Lett.,23, 293 ; Grishchuk, L. P.\ 1977 Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 302, 439

    1975

  46. [54]

    W., Leitch, E

    Halverson, N. W., Leitch, E. M., Pryke, C., et al.\ 2002, , 568, 38

    2002

  47. [55]

    Hanany, S., Alvarez, M., Artis, E., et al \ 2019, arXiv:1902.10541

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hanany, S., Ade, P., Balbi, A., et al.\ 2000, , 545, L5

    2000

  49. [57]

    Haslam, C. G. T., Klein, U., Salter, C. J., et al.\ 1981, , 100, 209

    1981

  50. [58]

    Haslam, C. G. T., Salter, C. J., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. E.\ 1982, , 47, 1

    1982

  51. [59]

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al.\ 2013, , 208, 19

    2013

  52. [60]

    P., Jones, A

    Hobson, M. P., Jones, A. W., Lasenby, A. N., & Bouchet, F. R.\ 1998, , 300, 1

    1998

  53. [61]

    & Dodelson, S.\ 2002, , 40, 171

    Hu, W. & Dodelson, S.\ 2002, , 40, 171

    2002

  54. [62]

    Hu, W.\ 2002 , , 65, 023003

    2002

  55. [63]

    M., Zaldarriaga M., 2003, PhRvD, 67, 043004

    Hu W., Hedman M. M., Zaldarriaga M., 2003, PhRvD, 67, 043004

    2003

  56. [64]

    H.\ 2004, , 609, 1

    Jewell, J., Levin, S., & Anderson, C. H.\ 2004, , 609, 1

    2004

  57. [65]

    Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, S., & Stebbins , A.\ 1997, , 78, 2058

    1997

  58. [66]

    Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, S., & Stebbins , A.\ 1997, , 55, 7368

    1997

  59. [67]

    Kang , J. H. et al. 2018 , Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, 10708, 107082N

    2018

  60. [68]

    Kaplan J., Delabrouille J., 2002, AIPC, 609, 209, AIPC..609

    2002

  61. [69]

    G., Shimon M., Yadav A

    Keating B. G., Shimon M., Yadav A. P. S., 2013, ApJL, 762, L23

    2013

  62. [70]

    Keisler, R., Hoover, S., Harrington, N., et al.\ 2015, , 807, 151

    2015

  63. [71]

    Kim, J.\ 2011 , 531, A32

    2011

  64. [72]

    & Naselsky, P.,\ 2010, , 519, A104

    Kim, J. & Naselsky, P.,\ 2010, , 519, A104

    2010

  65. [73]

    J., Chuss, D

    Kogut, A., Fixsen, D. J., Chuss, D. T., et al.\ 2011, JCAP, 7, 025

    2011

  66. [74]

    L., Ade, P

    Kuo, C. L., Ade, P. A. R., Bock, J. J., et al.\ 2004, , 600, 32

    2004

  67. [75]

    L., Eriksen, H

    Larson, D. L., Eriksen, H. K., Wandelt, B. D., et al.\ 2007, , 656, 653

    2007

  68. [76]

    M., Cardoso, J.-F., Baccigalupi, C., et al.\ 2008, , 491, 597

    Leach, S. M., Cardoso, J.-F., Baccigalupi, C., et al.\ 2008, , 491, 597

    2008

  69. [77]

    R.; Leonardi, R.; Ansmann, M., et al.\ 2008, APJS, 177, 419-430

    Levy, A. R.; Leonardi, R.; Ansmann, M., et al.\ 2008, APJS, 177, 419-430

    2008

  70. [78]

    Lewis, A., \ 2003, , 68, 083509

    2003

  71. [79]

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A.\ 2000, , 538, 473

    2000

  72. [80]

    and Challinor, A.\ 2006, Phys

    Lewis, A. and Challinor, A.\ 2006, Phys. Rept. 429, 1

    2006

  73. [81]

    Lewis, A.,\ 2005, , 71, 083008

    2005

  74. [82]

    & Hanson, D.\ 2011 , JCAP, 03, 018

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A. & Hanson, D.\ 2011 , JCAP, 03, 018

    2011

  75. [83]

    \ 2017, arXiv:1710.03047

    Li, H., Li, S.-Y., Liu, Y., et al. \ 2017, arXiv:1710.03047

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Liu, H., Creswell , J., Naselsky, P., \ 2018, JCAP, 5, 059

    2018

  77. [85]

    Liu, H., \ 2018, , 617, A90

    2018

  78. [86]

    \ 2019, , 100, 023538

    Liu, H., Creswell , J., von Hausegger, S., Naselsky, P. \ 2019, , 100, 023538

    2019

  79. [87]

    Liu, H., Creswell , J., Dachlythra, K., \ 2019, JCAP, 4, 046

    2019

  80. [88]

    Liu, H., \ 2019, arXiv:1906.10381

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    , Das, S., Dunkley, J

    Louis, T., N ss, S. , Das, S., Dunkley, J. & Sherwin, B. , ,\ 2013, 435, 2040

    2013

  82. [90]

    Lyth, D. H. & Riotto, A.\ 1999 , Phys. Rept. 314, 1

    1999

  83. [91]

    J., et al., 2008, ApJ, 689, 655

    MacTavish C. J., et al., 2008, ApJ, 689, 655

    2008

  84. [92]

    M., Vielva, P., & Silk, J.\ 2003, , 345, 1101

    Mart \' nez-Gonz \'a lez, E., Diego, J. M., Vielva, P., & Silk, J.\ 2003, , 345, 1101

    2003

  85. [93]

    S., Pearson, T

    Mason, B. S., Pearson, T. J., Readhead, A. C. S., et al.\ 2003, , 591

    2003

  86. [94]

    Mather, J. C. et al. 1994, , 420, 439

    1994

  87. [95]

    Matsumura, T., Akiba, Y., Borrill, J., et al.\ 2014, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 176, 733

    2014

  88. [96]

    R., Bersanelli, M., Childers,J., et al.\ 2005, APJS, 158, 101-108

    Meinhold, P. R., Bersanelli, M., Childers,J., et al.\ 2005, APJS, 158, 101-108

    2005

  89. [97]

    Moudden Y., Cardoso J.-F., Starck J.-L., Delabrouille J., 2005, EJASP, 2005, 484606

    2005

  90. [98]

    Natoli P., et al., 2018, JCAP, 2018, 022

    2018

  91. [99]

    J., Bersanelli, M., Childers,J., et al.\ 2005, APJS, 158, 93-100

    O'Dwyer, I. J., Bersanelli, M., Childers,J., et al.\ 2005, APJS, 158, 93-100

    2005

  92. [100]

    L., & Safdi, B

    Mishra-Sharma, S., Rodd, N. L., & Safdi, B. R.\ 2017, , 153, 253

    2017

  93. [101]

    Miville-Desch \^e nes, M.-A., Ysard, N., Lavabre, A., et al.\ 2008, , 490, 1093

    2008

  94. [102]

    Mukhanov, V. F. , Feldman, H. A., and Brandenberger, R. H. , Phys. Rept.\ 1992, 215, 203

    1992

  95. [103]

    Patanchon G., Cardoso J.-F., Delabrouille J., Vielva P., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1185

    2005

  96. [104]

    Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al.\ 2014, , 571, A16

    2014

  97. [105]

    Planck Collaboration, Adam, R., Ade, P. A. R., et al.\ 2016, , 594, A10

    2016

  98. [106]

    Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al.\ 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  99. [107]

    et al.\ 2016, , 594, A1

    Planck Collaboration, Adam, R. et al.\ 2016, , 594, A1

    2016

  100. [108]

    et al.\ 2016, , 594, A11

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N. et al.\ 2016, , 594, A11

    2016

  101. [109]

    et al.\ 2016, , 586, A133

    Planck Collaboration, Adam, R. et al.\ 2016, , 586, A133

    2016

  102. [110]

    Planck Collaboration, Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al.\ 2018, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1801.04945

    2018 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Planck Collaboration, et al., 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1907.12875

    2019 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Planck Collaboration, et al., 2018, arXiv, arXiv:1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Polarbear Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, Akiba, Y., et al.\ 2014, , 794, 171

    2014

  106. [114]

    Remazeilles M., Delabrouille J., Cardoso J.-F., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2481

    2011

  107. [115]

    Remazeilles, M., Delabrouille, J., & Cardoso, J.-F., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 467

    2011

  108. [116]

    J., Bigot-Sazy, M.-A., & Ghosh, T.\ 2015, , 451, 4311

    Remazeilles, M., Dickinson, C., Banday, A. J., Bigot-Sazy, M.-A., & Ghosh, T.\ 2015, , 451, 4311

    2015

  109. [117]

    Remazeilles, M., Dickinson, C., Eriksen, H. K. K. & Wehus, I. K.\ 2016 , 458, 2032-2050

    2016

  110. [118]

    B., Delabrouille J., Kaplan J., Giraud-H \'e raud Y., Lamarre J.-M., Murphy J

    Rosset C., Yurchenko V. B., Delabrouille J., Kaplan J., Giraud-H \'e raud Y., Lamarre J.-M., Murphy J. A., 2007, A&A, 464, 405

    2007

  111. [119]

    Saha, R., Jain, P., & Souradeep, T.\ 2006, , 645, L89

    2006

  112. [120]

    & Zhao, W.,\ 2017, JCAP, 1, 043

    Santos, L., Wang, K., Hu, Y., Fang, W. & Zhao, W.,\ 2017, JCAP, 1, 043

    2017

  113. [121]

    Shimon M., Keating B., Ponthieu N., Hivon E., 2008, PhRvD, 77, 083003

    2008

  114. [122]

    M.\ 2006 ,74, 083002

    Smith, K. M.\ 2006 ,74, 083002

    2006

  115. [123]

    Smith, K. M. & Zaldarriaga, M.,\ 2007, , 76, 043001

    2007

  116. [124]

    F., Bennett, C

    Smoot, G. F., Bennett, C. L., Kogut, A. et al., \ 1992, , 396, L1-L5

    1992

  117. [125]

    and Zaldarriaga, M.\ 1996, 469, 437

    Seljak, U. and Zaldarriaga, M.\ 1996, 469, 437

    1996

  118. [126]

    and Zaldarriaga, M.\ 1997, 78, 2054

    Seljak, U. and Zaldarriaga, M.\ 1997, 78, 2054

    1997

  119. [127]

    L., Hlozek, R

    Sievers, J. L., Hlozek, R. A., Nolta, M. R., et al.\ 2013, JCAP, 10, 060

    2013

  120. [128]

    M.\ 2011, , 411, 2750

    Silsbee, K., Ali-Ha \"i moud, Y., & Hirata, C. M.\ 2011, , 411, 2750

    2011

  121. [129]

    A.\ 1979, JETP Lett

    Starobinsky, A. A.\ 1979, JETP Lett. 30, 682; Starobinsky, A. A.\ 1980, Phys. Lett. B, 91, 99S

    1979

  122. [130]

    A., Brukhanov A

    Strukov, I. A., Brukhanov A. A., Skulachev, D. P., Sazhin, M. V., \ 1992, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 18, 153

    1992

  123. [131]

    Tegmark, M., & Efstathiou, G.\ 1996, , 281, 1297

    1996

  124. [132]

    Tegmark, M., & de Oliveira-Costa, A.\ 2001, , 64, 63001

    2001

  125. [133]

    J.\ 2003, , 68, 123523

    Tegmark, M., de Oliveira-Costa, A., & Hamilton, A. J.\ 2003, , 68, 123523

    2003

  126. [134]

    Thorne, B., Dunkley, J., Alonso, D., & N ss, S.\ 2017, , 469, 2821

    2017

  127. [135]

    Thuong Hoang D., et al., 2017, JCAP, 2017, 015

    2017

  128. [136]

    D., Larson, D

    Wandelt, B. D., Larson, D. L., & Lakshminarayanan, A.\ 2004, , 70, 083511

    2004

  129. [137]

    Wang, Y. F. , Wang, K. and Zhao, W.\ 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics,16, 059

    2016

  130. [138]

    A., Carreira, P., Cleary, K., et al.\ 2003, , 341, 1057

    Watson, R. A., Carreira, P., Cleary, K., et al.\ 2003, , 341, 1057

    2003

  131. [139]

    & Zhang, J

    Yao, J., Zhang, L., Zhao, Y., Zhang, P., Santos, L. & Zhang, J. \ 2018, , 239,36

    2018

  132. [140]

    & Seljak , U.\ 1997, , 55, 1830

    Zaldarriaga , M. & Seljak , U.\ 1997, , 55, 1830

    1997

  133. [141]

    & Seljak, U.\ 1998 58, 023003

    Zaldarriaga, M. & Seljak, U.\ 1998 58, 023003

    1998

  134. [142]

    Zhang, P., Zhang, J., & Zhang, L.\ 2019, , 484, 1616

    2019

  135. [143]

    & Baskaran, D.\ 2010 , , 82, 023001

    Zhao, W. & Baskaran, D.\ 2010 , , 82, 023001

    2010

  136. [144]

    Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al.\ 2014, , 571, A13

    2014

Pith tools

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