Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Microwave Spectro-Polarimetry of Matter and Radiation across Space and Time

T0 review · 5 major / 3 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 A single 8 K telescope could survey the Universe's matter and motion

desk verdict A competent, honest Voyage 2050 white paper that synthesizes prior mission concepts into a single L-class observatory; its headline science goals rest on foreground subtraction that the paper itself admits is assumed. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01591 v1 pith:6H67MLMO submitted 2019-09-04 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMgr-qc

Jacques Delabrouille , Maximilian H. Abitbol , Nabila Aghanim , Yacine Ali-Haimoud , David Alonso , Marcelo Alvarez , Anthony J. Banday , James G. Bartlett
show 72 more authors
Jochem Baselmans Kaustuv Basu Nicholas Battaglia Jose Ramon Bermejo Climent Jose L. Bernal Matthieu Béthermin Boris Bolliet Matteo Bonato François R. Bouchet Patrick C. Breysse Carlo Burigana Zhen-Yi Cai Jens Chluba Eugene Churazov Helmut Dannerbauer Paolo De Bernardis Gianfranco De Zotti Eleonora Di Valentino Emanuela Dimastrogiovanni Akira Endo Jens Erler Simone Ferraro Fabio Finelli Dale Fixsen Shaul Hanany Luke Hart Carlos Hernandez-Monteagudo J. Colin Hill Selim C. Hotinli Kenichi Karatsu Kirit Karkare Garrett K. Keating Ildar Khabibullin Alan Kogut Kazunori Kohri Ely D. Kovetz Guilaine Lagache Julien Lesgourgues Mathew Madhavacheril Bruno Maffei Nazzareno Mandolesi Carlos Martins Silvia Masi John Mather Jean-Baptiste Melin Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah Tony Mroczkowski Suvodip Mukherjee Daisuke Nagai Mattia Negrello Nathalie Palanque-Delabrouille Daniela Paoletti Subodh P. Patil Francesco Piacentini Srinivasan Raghunathan Andrea Ravenni Mathieu Remazeilles Vincent Revéret Louis Rodriguez Aditya Rotti Jose-Alberto Rubino Martin Jack Sayers Douglas Scott Joseph Silk Marta Silva Tarun Souradeep Naonori Sugiyama Rashid Sunyaev Eric R. Switzer Andrea Tartari Tiziana Trombetti Inigo Zubeldia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMgr-qc PACS 95.85.Bh98.80.Es
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundSunyaev-ZeldovicheffectCMBlensingspectraldistortionsinfraredline-intensitymappinggalaxyclustersspacemissionconcept
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 argues that a single large space mission—a 3.5 m telescope cooled to about 8 K, carrying a polarized imager, a filter-bank spectrometer, and absolutely calibrated Fourier-transform spectrometers—could survey the microwave sky from 10 to 2000 GHz and turn the CMB into a backlight for the whole Universe. The payoff would be simultaneous censuses: hot gas and velocity flows through Sunyaev-Zeldovich effects, mass through CMB lensing, early stars and metals through dust and line emission, plus primary CMB anisotropies near the cosmic-variance limit and CMB spectral distortions down to about 0.1 Jy/sr. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as a demonstration that these goals are jointly achievable with one mission, not as a completed measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the CMB itself, used as a backlight that illuminates everything between last scattering and us: scattering by free electrons produces the thermal, kinetic, and relativistic Sunyaev-Zeldovich signals; gravitational lensing deflects the CMB; and dust and line emission from galaxies add foregrounds that are also the science targets. The proposed hardware is a 3.5 m, roughly 8 K telescope feeding three instruments: a broad-band polarized imager with about 20 channels from 20 to 800 GHz, an R≈300 filter-bank spectrometer for 100–1000 GHz line and continuum mapping, and Fourier-transform spectrometer modules covering 10–2000 GHz that compare the sky to a blackbody calibrator. The argument is that combining these three instruments in one survey simultaneously measures the target signals and the foregrounds that would otherwise bury them.

What would settle it

Run an end-to-end sky simulation with the proposed 20-band imager plus FTS and a realistic foreground model: if the best achievable component separation leaves CIB fluctuations above about 20 percent of their original amplitude on arcminute scales, or if the FTS channel-to-channel calibration cannot reach part-per-million stability, the paper's headline spectral-distortion and low-mass-cluster goals cannot be met.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the five main observables of the microwave sky—thermal and kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich signals, CMB lensing, high-redshift dust and line emission, primary CMB anisotropies, and CMB spectral distortions—cannot be exploited in isolation, but can all be exploited together by one L-class space mission. Using the CMB as a known backlight, the combination of a roughly arcminute-resolution polarized imager, a moderate-resolution (R≈300) filter-bank spectrometer, and absolutely calibrated FTS modules would map hot gas pressure and temperature, line-of-sight velocities, the gravitational potential, dusty star-forming galaxies and line-emitting gas at high redshift, and the near-blackbody spectrum of the CMB. The authors state that this would provide a tomographic and dynamic census of the three-dimensional distribution of hot gas, velocity flows, early metals, dust, and mass in the Hubble volume, with sensitivities such as σ(r) around 10⁻⁴, σ(N_eff) near 0.02, and a few-sigma detection of the expected ΛCDM μ-distortion.

Load-bearing premise

The science case assumes that astrophysical foregrounds can be measured and subtracted at the same accuracy as the target signals—in particular, cosmic infrared background fluctuations must be reduced to roughly 20 percent of their initial amplitude on arcminute scales—so that faint spectral distortions and low-mass cluster signals are not buried.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A complete catalog of galaxy clusters above roughly 5×10¹³ solar masses, about 1.5 million objects, would be produced, with individual kSZ velocities detectable at the 1 µK.arcmin level.
  • Full-sky CMB lensing maps would calibrate cluster masses to about 1 percent and extend mass measurements beyond the reach of galaxy shear surveys.
  • Filter-bank spectroscopy would discover protoclusters through sub-millimeter lines out to the reionization epoch, with hundreds of thousands expected at z=2–3 and tens of thousands of strongly lensed dusty starbursts.
  • Primary CMB science would reach σ(r)≈10⁻⁴, σ(n_s)≲0.0015, and σ(N_eff)≈0.022, giving new leverage on inflation, neutrinos, and extra light relics.
  • Absolute spectroscopy at 0.1–10 Jy/sr could detect or rule out the standard-model μ-distortion, measure the average y-distortion from structure formation, and open a new window on particle decays and the cosmological recombination radiation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the foreground-cleaning assumption fails—say the cosmic infrared background cannot be reduced to about 20 percent of its original amplitude—the headline spectral-distortion and low-mass-cluster science would degrade, while the primary-CMB and high-mass-cluster science would be more resilient because those signals are less foreground-limited.
  • The mission's three-instrument design is modular enough that a smaller version with a roughly 1.4 m telescope would still deliver most primary-CMB science, so the program could be staged and de-risked before the full high-resolution survey is flown.
  • A concrete pre-flight test of the central assumption is possible now: run the proposed component-separation pipeline on existing multifrequency submillimeter maps and measure whether residual CIB fluctuations on arcminute scales fall below the 20 percent threshold the paper requires.
  • Because the mission includes an observatory mode open to community targets, the same 10–2000 GHz maps would become a lasting archive for time-domain and target-of-opportunity microwave astronomy, extending the science beyond the cosmology goals stated in the paper.
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

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. This white paper proposes a single L-class space mission, 'Microwave Spectro-Polarimetry of Matter and Radiation across Space and Time,' built around a 3.5-m, 8-K telescope with a broad-band polarized imager (20–800 GHz), a moderate-resolution filter-bank spectro-imager (R ~ 300, 100–1000 GHz), and absolutely calibrated Fourier-transform spectrometer modules (10–2000 GHz). The stated goal is a tomographic and dynamic census of hot gas, velocity flows, early metals, dust, and mass in the Hubble volume, using five observables: SZ effects, CMB lensing, high-redshift dust and line emission, primary CMB anisotropies, and CMB spectral distortions. The paper derives sensitivity and resolution requirements, lists instrument performance tables, and argues that the mission would reach spectral-distortion sensitivities near 0.1 Jy/sr, detect the expected μ-distortion and rSZ signal, map clusters down to ~10^13 M_sun, and improve cosmological parameter constraints toward the cosmic-variance limit.

Significance. If the stated performance could be realized, the proposed mission would indeed be transformative: no single planned experiment combines full-sky, arcminute-resolution polarization with absolute spectroscopy over six octaves in frequency. The quantitative forecasts are generally traceable to prior studies (PICO, CORE, PIXIE, and the CMB spectral-distortion literature), and the paper is commendably explicit in stating some of its key assumptions, including foreground-subtraction requirements and line-model uncertainties. The technology-readiness discussion is concrete and useful for mission planning. However, several load-bearing capabilities—foreground cleaning to the required accuracy, scaling of the PICO optical design to 3.5 m, and control of FTS calibration systematics—are asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper itself, in the Fig. 8 caption and Section 2.3, concedes that the headline spectral-distortion and low-mass-cluster science is conditional on foreground subtraction at a level never shown end-to-end.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.3; Fig. 8 caption] The low-mass cluster and spectral-distortion science goals rest on a foreground-cleaning assumption that the paper states explicitly but does not substantiate. Section 2.3 asserts that reducing CIB fluctuations to about 20% of their initial amplitude 'should be feasible' with 300–800 GHz observations, and the Fig. 8 caption states that the quoted y, mu, rSZ, and line sensitivities hold only 'assuming that the total foreground emission can be measured and subtracted at the same level of accuracy.' No end-to-end component-separation simulation or analysis of existing data is presented to support this feasibility. Because the mission's headline deliverables depend on these marginal detections, this is a load-bearing feasibility condition rather than a cosmetic caveat; the paper should either provide a demonstration or explicitly reframe the affected forecasts as goals conditioned on a yet-to-be-validated assumption.
  2. [§6.2, Table II] The absolute-spectrometer sensitivities in Table II appear to be photon-noise limits only. The text states that spectral-distortion science requires 'part-per-million channel-to-channel calibration stability' and precise knowledge of the spectral response, but no error budget, calibration strategy, or systematic-error analysis is given for the multi-module FTS. As written, the column 'Mission sens. (Jy sr−1)' presents numbers such as 0.12 Jy/sr as achieved sensitivities, which is misleading if calibration systematics are not included. The table should be relabeled as photon-noise-limited sensitivity, and a quantitative systematic-error budget (or a concrete path to one) should be provided before the 0.1 Jy/sr goal can be considered established.
  3. [§6.1–6.2, Fig. 9, Table I] The imager performance is scaled from the PICO 1.4-m design to a 3.5-m aperture, but the scaling is not validated. Section 6.2 states that a factor-two increase to 2.8 m requires 'no other changes (except for the need of deployable shields)' and that 'changes to the optical design' would allow 3.5–4 m, while Table I quotes sensitivities for a 3.5-m aperture. No optical design, stray-light analysis, or thermal-mechanical assessment for the 8-K 3.5-m telescope is presented, and it is not shown that the PICO focal-plane layout or noise equivalences carry over unchanged. The table should state explicitly which entries are taken from the PICO study and which are extrapolated, with the extrapolation assumptions (beam scaling, detector count, optical efficiency) made auditable.
  4. [Executive summary; Abstract] The final sentence of the Executive summary—'the survey proposed is guaranteed to transform our knowledge of the Universe'—is not supported by the analysis presented, particularly given the explicit foreground-subtraction caveat in Fig. 8 and the absence of end-to-end validation discussed above. The abstract and executive summary should be reworded to claim that the survey is designed to, or has the potential to, transform the field, conditional on the stated assumptions.
  5. [§3.3, Fig. 5] The line-intensity mapping forecasts are explicitly model-dependent: the Fig. 5 caption acknowledges that the line modeling is 'uncertain by a factor of a few (low redshift) to an order of magnitude towards high redshift (z > 6).' Since the high-redshift census (protoclusters, first metals, LIM cosmology) is one of the five core observables, the quantitative detection claims (e.g., [C II] out to z ~ 5, CO ladder to z ~ 4) should be presented as a central range rather than a single curve, or the sensitivity requirements should be recomputed for the pessimistic end of the model uncertainty.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains repeated bold sub-headings (e.g., 'Sensitivity and angular resolution:' repeated multiple times in Sections 2.3 and 2.5) and garbled symbols such as 'dY500≈9×10&'' in Fig. 2. These formatting artifacts should be corrected before publication.
  2. [Fig. 5] Use standard chemical notation ([C II], [O III], [N II]) consistently; the text and figure use 'Cii', 'Oiii', 'Nii'.
  3. [References] Reference [88] is cited as 'J. Chluba et al., Voyage 2050 Survey (2019)' without a journal or arXiv identifier; please provide a citable version or replace with the published companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mission science case is assembled from external physical models and prior instrument-concept studies, with no fitted quantity repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

This is a science white paper for a proposed ESA Voyage 2050 mission. The central claims are forecasts of what a 3.5 m, 8 K telescope with a polarimetric imager, filter-bank spectrometer, and Fourier transform spectrometers could measure. Those forecasts are derived from external physical modeling (e.g., the Arnaud et al. self-similar cluster scaling relation, Negrello et al. IR luminosity functions, EAGLE simulation-based line-intensity estimates) and from prior instrument-concept studies (PICO, CORE, PIXIE, PRISM, Super-PIXIE). None of these is defined in terms of the paper's target results. The paper derives survey requirements from target signal amplitudes (e.g., the δY500 needed to detect 5×10^13 Msun clusters) and then adopts instrument designs that meet those requirements; this is forward requirements flow-down, not circularity. The instrument sensitivities in Table I explicitly come from the PICO study, and the FTS configuration is inspired by prior work such as Super-PIXIE, but these are inputs to the proposal rather than predictions being passed off as new derivations. The one clearly load-bearing caveat is foreground subtraction: the Fig. 8 caption states that quoted y, mu, rSZ, and line sensitivities hold only 'assuming that the total foreground emission can be measured and subtracted at the same level of accuracy,' and Section 2.3 asserts that CIB fluctuations can be reduced to ~20% without showing a full pipeline. This is an acknowledged feasibility assumption, not a circular derivation: the paper does not claim to have derived foreground subtraction from the target signals, nor does it rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Self-citations to CORE and PICO are references to published, simulation-based studies by overlapping authors, and they are used as engineering heritage and component-separation evidence rather than as a uniqueness theorem forbidding alternatives. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a discovery. The paper is therefore not significantly circular, though its headline sensitivity numbers inherit the unvalidated foreground-control assumption that the paper itself discloses.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no free parameters to data. The assumptions listed are domain assumptions about foreground cleaning, cluster scaling, high-redshift line modeling, and instrument scaling. These assumptions are necessary for the proposed mission to deliver its stated science goals.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Foregrounds can be cleaned to the required levels, in particular CIB fluctuations can be reduced to about 20% of their initial amplitude and total foreground emission can be measured and subtracted at the accuracy of the spectral distortion targets.
    Stated in Section 2.3 and in the Fig. 8 caption; the cluster and distortion science forecasts depend on this cleanliness.
  • domain assumption Cluster masses and SZ signals follow self-similar scaling relations calibrated on low-redshift clusters.
    Section 2.3 and Fig. 2 use the self-similar model of Arnaud et al. [22] to forecast cluster detection; deviations would change the mass completeness limit.
  • domain assumption Line emission scaling relations and line ratios used for line intensity mapping remain valid at high redshift, with ratios assumed constant with redshift.
    Section 3.3 and the Fig. 5 caption state the ratios are assumed constant with redshift and the modeling is uncertain by a factor of a few to an order of magnitude at high redshift.
  • ad hoc to paper The PICO focal plane and optical design can be scaled from a 1.4 m to a 3.5 m telescope with no change other than deployable shields.
    Section 6.2 states this scaling directly; if it is false, the angular resolution and sensitivity requirements would not be met.
  • domain assumption A 3.5 m telescope cooled to about 8 K and focal plane instruments at sub-kelvin temperatures can be operated in an L-class space mission.
    This is the mission feasibility premise used throughout Section 6 and Section 7.2, where the technology is described as mature or near-mature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microwave Spectro-Polarimetry of Matter and Radiation across Space and Time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6H67MLMO

@misc{pith2026190901591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microwave Spectro-Polarimetry of Matter and Radiation across Space and Time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6H67MLMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01591}
}
read the original abstract

This paper discusses the science case for a sensitive spectro-polarimetric survey of the microwave sky. Such a survey would provide a tomographic and dynamic census of the three-dimensional distribution of hot gas, velocity flows, early metals, dust, and mass distribution in the entire Hubble volume, exploit CMB temperature and polarisation anisotropies down to fundamental limits, and track energy injection and absorption into the radiation background across cosmic times by measuring spectral distortions of the CMB blackbody emission. In addition to its exceptional capability for cosmology and fundamental physics, such a survey would provide an unprecedented view of microwave emissions at sub-arcminute to few-arcminute angular resolution in hundreds of frequency channels, a data set that would be of immense legacy value for many branches of astrophysics. We propose that this survey be carried-out with a large space mission featuring a broad-band polarised imager and a moderate resolution spectro-imager at the focus of a 3.5m aperture telescope actively cooled to about 8K, complemented with absolutely-calibrated Fourier Transform Spectrometer modules observing at degree-scale angular resolution in the 10-2000 GHz frequency range. We propose two observing modes: a survey mode to map the entire sky as well as a few selected wide fields, and an observatory mode for deeper observations of regions of specific interest.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01591 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Impact of the Cosmic Infared Background (CIB) for detecting low-mass galaxy clusters at 150 GHz. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Distribution of clusters for various mass ranges as a function of redshift and cluster-integrated Compton parameter Y500 (white and gray areas of various shades), modeled following the self-similar model of [22]. A survey with tSZ flux error δY500 ' 9 × 10−7 would detect all clusters of mass M > 5 × 1013M (about 1.5 million objects), while δY500 ' 5 × 10−8 would be sufficient to even detect groups of ' 1013M .… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: CMB T T, EE, and lensing BB spectra. The light brown bands correspond to noise at the level of 3, 1, and 0.3 µK.arcmin, and angular resolution ranging from 1 to 3 arcmin. The dark green horizontal line shows the approximate level of the kSZ effect on small scales (` > 2000, [25]). Right: Accuracy of cluster mass calibration achieved by averaging 25,000 clusters at redshift 0.7, both from temperature and from p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative IR (8–1000 µm) luminosity functions within δz = 0.5 at three redshifts. The predictions are based on the model by Negrello et al. [32]. The line luminosities corresponding to LIR were computed as described in the text. The vertical lines show the detection l…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Line emission from various extragalactic atoms and molecules. The sensitivity per deg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Various epochs in cosmic history, from CMB emission at the time of recombination, to present times. Right: CMB anisotropies map a shell of the Hubble volume located at z ' 1100. Line-intensity mapping (and CIB tomography) map the large-scale distribution of matte…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FoM improvement since COBE for ΛCDM and several extended cosmological models. For PRISM in 2035, we consider an instrument with PICO-like channels and sensitivity, and 2.5 times smaller beams. The constraints on ΛCDM and extensions reach the cosmic variance limit (CVL)…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The signals of interest that con￾tribute to the total difference of microwave emission with a perfect blackbody span about 8 orders of magnitude in amplitude. The sur￾vey proposed here (indicated by black horizon￾tal lines with vertical bars at the central fre￾quencies…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: PICO overall configuration in side view and cross section (left), front view with V-Groove assembly shown semi-transparent (middle), and the focal plane (right) (reproduced with permission from Hanany and et al. [24]). A 2.8-m entrance aperture is achievable by scaling…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a): Sketch of the spectrometer chip. (b): Measured spectrum from VV114 with 2017 prototype. (c): Lab calibration of the spectral response of the individual filters. Reproduced with permission. [177] Other instrumental options: Other options can be considered for achi…

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

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On simulated future-space-mission data, the ABS component separation method recovers CMB E- and B-mode power spectra to better than 20 percent accuracy for multipoles from 30 to 1050, with larger biases at the largest...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

201 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    full-sky maps with sensitivity and angular resolution matching the CMB-S4 3% sky patch

  2. [2]

    isotropic maps (with no filtering along the scans)

  3. [3]

    High-redshift structures on the largest scales While the first stars reionize the Universe at redshift z≃ 8, they also convert a fraction of the primor- dial hydrogen and helium into heavier atoms (metals), which then form molecules and dust particles that emit radiation at (sub)mm wavelength through thermal and line emission. Their detection out to high r...

  4. [4]

    Significantly more information can be extracted by a more sensitive survey that has better angular resolution

    Cosmology and fundamental physics With its measurements of the CMB Planck gave percent level constraints on seven ΛCDM parameters. Significantly more information can be extracted by a more sensitive survey that has better angular resolution. Figure 7 shows the increase in the figure of merit (FOM) since COBE for the ΛCDM model (dark purple) and several exte...

  5. [5]

    capability to de-lens with different methods (from CMB and from CIB maps)

  6. [6]

    capability of full-sky delensing

  7. [7]

    capability to measure B-mode polarization with a sensitivity to r of the levelO(10−4)

  8. [8]

    Laureijs, arXiv e-prints arXiv:0912.0914 (2009), 0912.0914

    R. Laureijs, arXiv e-prints arXiv:0912.0914 (2009), 0912.0914

    arXiv 2009

Show all 201 references
  1. [9]

    extended frequency coverage, in the sub-mm domain and between atmospheric windows. Sensitivity and angular resolution:Sensitivity and angular resolution:Sensitivity and angular resolution:Sensitivity and angular resolution:Sensitivity and angular resolution:Sensitivity and ang...

  2. [10]

    missing baryon problem

    Information from the CMB’s near-blackbody spectrum The precise shape of the CMB energy spectrum encodes new information that can be extracted using absolute CMB spectroscopy. At redshifts z & 2× 106, thermalization processes are efficient and promptly restore a near perfect blac...

    2000

  3. [11]

    Possible mission profiles Summarizing the requirements detailed above, this science program requires detecting the following signals with high signal-to-noise ratio and high precision, over the entire sky

  4. [12]

    Thermal SZ emission from most galaxy clusters in the Hubble volume, to map hot ionized gas in the cosmic web: angular resolution 1.5 to 1 ′; CMB sensitivity ∆ y≃ 10−6 at 1σ per arcmin pixel around 150 and 350 GHz;≃ 20 frequency channels in the 50–800 GHz frequency range

  5. [13]

    CMB anisotropies generated by lensing effects and the kSZ effect; angular resolution 1.5 to 1 ′; CMB sensitivity ∆T ≃ 1 to 0.6µK.arcmin;∼ 20 frequency channels covering the 50–800 GHz frequency range

  6. [14]

    CMB anisotropies from z≃ 1100; angular resolution 5 ′ to 1′; sensitivity ∆ T ≃ 1µK.arcmin; ∼ 20 frequency band in the 20–800 GHz frequency range

  7. [15]

    Absolute emission and fluctuations from dust continuum and [ Cii]/CO lines across a wide range of redshifts (up to z≃ 10) with spectral resolution R = 300 extending from ∼ 100 to ∼ 1000 GHz; angular resolution 1–5′; capability to map deep patches

  8. [16]

    Absolute spectrum of the microwave sky emission from 10 to 2000 GHz; angular resolution∼ 1◦; sensitivity integrated over the full observing time in the 0.1–10 Jy sr−1 range. Overall, the goal would be to achieve, with a combination of instruments, a spectro-polarimetric survey...

    2000

  9. [17]

    The last line gives the aggregated focal plane array sensitivity to signals with the color of CMB or tSZ (actual sensitivity will be reduced after separation of the astrophysical components). ν Beam CMB σI tSZ σy σI PS 5σ CMB σI tSZ σy σI Flux×10−20 PS 5σ (GHz) (arcmin) (µK) (...

  10. [18]

    Scientific heritage and complementarity of probes The roadmap to the proposed mission benefits from intermediate projects that address a fraction of the science case

    Scientific and technological roadmap 7.1. Scientific heritage and complementarity of probes The roadmap to the proposed mission benefits from intermediate projects that address a fraction of the science case. 19 • LiteBIRD plans to observe CMB polarization on large angular scales...

  11. [19]

    Planck Collaboration 2018 I, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1807.06205 (2018), 1807.06205

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, and D. Scolnic, ApJ 876, 85 (2019), 1903.07603

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, ARA&A 55, 343 (2017), 1707.04256

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Planck Collaboration 2018 VI, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1807.06209 (2018), 1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Planck Collaboration 2013 XVII, A&A 571, A17 (2014), 1303.5077

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B. D. Sherwin, A. van Engelen, N. Sehgal, M. Madhavacheril, G. E. Addison, S. Aiola, R. Allison, N. Battaglia, D. T. Becker, J. A. Beall, et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 123529 (2017), 1611.09753

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Simard, Y

    G. Simard, Y. Omori, K. Aylor, E. J. Baxter, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, H. M. Cho, R. Chown, et al., ApJ 860, 137 (2018), 1712.07541

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hu and T

    W. Hu and T. Okamoto, ApJ 574, 566 (2002), astro-ph/0111606

    2002 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Yasini, N

    S. Yasini, N. Mirzatuny, and E. Pierpaoli, ApJL 873, L23 (2019), 1812.04241

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. C. Hotinli, J. Meyers, N. Dalal, A. H. Jaffe, M. C. Johnson, J. B. Mertens, M. M¨ unchmeyer, K. M. Smith, and A. van Engelen, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1812.03167 (2018), 1812.03167

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Staniszewski, P

    Z. Staniszewski, P. A. R. Ade, K. A. Aird, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, H. M. Cho, T. M. Crawford, A. T. Crites, et al., ApJ 701, 32 (2009), 0810.1578

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hasselfield, M

    M. Hasselfield, M. Hilton, T. A. Marriage, G. E. Addison, L. F. Barrientos, N. Battaglia, E. S. Battistelli, J. R. Bond, D. Crichton, S. Das, et al., JCAP 2013, 008 (2013), 1301.0816

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    L. E. Bleem, B. Stalder, T. de Haan, K. A. Aird, S. W. Allen, D. E. Applegate, M. L. N. Ashby, M. Bautz, M. Bayliss, B. A. Benson, et al., ApJS 216, 27 (2015), 1409.0850

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Planck Collaboration 2015 XXVII, A&A 594, A27 (2016), 1502.01598

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Naab and J

    T. Naab and J. P. Ostriker, ARA&A 55, 59 (2017), 1612.06891

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K. Basu, J. Erler, J. Chluba, and et al., BAAS 51, 302 (2019), 1903.04944

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Remazeilles, B

    M. Remazeilles, B. Bolliet, A. Rotti, and J. Chluba, MNRAS 483, 3459 (2019), 1809.09666

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Remazeilles and J

    M. Remazeilles and J. Chluba, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1907.00916 (2019), 1907.00916

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rephaeli and O

    Y. Rephaeli and O. Lahav, ApJ 372, 21 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    N. Hand, G. E. Addison, E. Aubourg, N. Battaglia, E. S. Battistelli, D. Bizyaev, J. R. Bond, H. Brew- ington, J. Brinkmann, B. R. Brown, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 041101 (2012), 1203.4219

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Planck Collaboration Int XIII, A&A 561, A97 (2014), 1303.5090

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Arnaud, G

    M. Arnaud, G. W. Pratt, R. Piffaretti, H. B¨ ohringer, J. H. Croston, and E. Pointecouteau, A&A 517, A92 (2010), 0910.1234

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Challinor, R

    A. Challinor, R. Allison, J. Carron, and et al., JCAP 2018, 018 (2018), 1707.02259

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hanany and et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1902.10541 (2019), 1902.10541

    S. Hanany and et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1902.10541 (2019), 1902.10541

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dunkley, E

    J. Dunkley, E. Calabrese, J. Sievers, and et al., JCAP 2013, 025 (2013), 1301.0776

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lagache, J.-L

    G. Lagache, J.-L. Puget, and H. Dole, ARA&A 43, 727 (2005), astro-ph/0507298

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. V. Kravtsov and S. Borgani, ARA&A 50, 353 (2012), 1205.5556

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. A. Overzier, AAPR 24, 14 (2016), 1610.05201

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dannerbauer and et al., A&A 570, A55 (2014), 1410.3730

    H. Dannerbauer and et al., A&A 570, A55 (2014), 1410.3730

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    D. L. Clements and et al., MNRAS 461, 1719 (2016), 1605.06433

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. M. Casey, D. Narayanan, and A. Cooray, Phys. Rep. 541, 45 (2014), 1402.1456

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Negrello, J

    M. Negrello, J. Gonzalez-Nuevo, G. De Zotti, M. Bonato, Z.-Y. Cai, D. Clements, L. Danese, H. Dole, J. Greenslade, A. Lapi, et al., MNRAS 470, 2253 (2017), 1706.00116

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R. J. Ivison and et al., ApJ 772, 137 (2013), 1302.4436

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Wang and et al., ApJ 828, 56 (2016), 1604.07404

    T. Wang and et al., ApJ 828, 56 (2016), 1604.07404

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    T. B. Miller and et al., Nature 556, 469 (2018), 1804.09231

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Oteo and et al., ApJ 856, 72 (2018), 1709.02809

    I. Oteo and et al., ApJ 856, 72 (2018), 1709.02809

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Dannerbauer, E

    H. Dannerbauer, E. van Kampen, and et al., BAAS 51, 293 (2019), 1903.06238

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Klaassen, T

    P. Klaassen, T. Mroczkowski, S. Bryan, C. Groppi, K. Basu, C. Cicone, H. Dannerbauer, C. De Breuck, W. J. Fischer, J. Geach, et al., arXiv e-prints (2019), 1907.04756

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    De Zotti, M

    G. De Zotti, M. Bonato, M. Negrello, T. Trombetti, C. Burigana, D. Herranz, M. L´ opez-Caniego, Z. Y. Cai, L. Bonavera, and J. Gonz´ alez-Nuevo, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1907.05323 (2019), 1907.05323

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ca˜ nameras and et al., A&A 581, A105 (2015), 1506.01962

    R. Ca˜ nameras and et al., A&A 581, A105 (2015), 1506.01962

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    from which it is inspired, could almost reach the cosmic-variance limit. It would outperform what is expected from the combination of upcoming instruments, such as LiteBIRD for large angular scales [60], and Simons Observatory [61] or CMB-S4 [62] at higher angular resolution. ...

    1992

  52. [60]

    K. C. Harrington and et al., MNRAS 458, 4383 (2016), 1603.05622

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Dannerbauer, K

    H. Dannerbauer, K. Harrington, A. D´ ıaz-S´ anchez, S. Iglesias-Groth, R. Rebolo, R. T. Genova-Santos, and M. Krips, AJ 158, 34 (2019), 1812.03845

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    B. L. Frye and et al., ApJ 871, 51 (2019), 1805.04790

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    R. Hill, K. W. Masui, and D. Scott, Applied Spectroscopy 72, 663 (2018), 1802.03694

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Odegard, J

    N. Odegard, J. L. Weiland, D. J. Fixsen, D. T. Chuss, E. Dwek, A. Kogut, and E. R. Switzer, Astrophys. J. 877, 40 (2019), 1904.11556

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Creque-Sarbinowski and M

    C. Creque-Sarbinowski and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D98, 063524 (2018), 1806.11119

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Maniyar, M

    A. Maniyar, M. B´ ethermin, and G. Lagache, Astron. Astrophys. 614, A39 (2018), 1801.10146

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    B´ ethermin, L

    M. B´ ethermin, L. Wang, O. Dor´ e, G. Lagache, M. Sargent, E. Daddi, M. Cousin, and H. Aussel, Astron. 21 Astrophys. 557, A66 (2013), 1304.3936

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Tucci, V

    M. Tucci, V. Desjacques, and M. Kunz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463, 2046 (2016), 1606.02323

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    E. D. Kovetz et al. (2017), 1709.09066

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. T. Sargent, M. B´ ethermin, E. Daddi, and D. Elbaz, ApJL 747, L31 (2012), 1202.0290

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bonato, G

    M. Bonato, G. De Zotti, D. Leisawitz, M. Negrello, M. Massardi, I. Baronchelli, Z.-Y. Cai, C. M. Bradford, A. Pope, E. J. Murphy, et al., PASA 36, e017 (2019), 1903.00946

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Schaye, R

    J. Schaye, R. A. Crain, R. G. Bower, M. Furlong, M. Schaller, T. Theuns, C. Dalla Vecchia, C. S. Frenk, I. G. McCarthy, J. C. Helly, et al., MNRAS 446, 521 (2015), 1407.7040

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Mashian, A

    N. Mashian, A. Sternberg, and A. Loeb, JCAP 2015, 028 (2015), 1507.02686

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    J. L. Bernal, P. C. Breysse, and E. D. Kovetz (2019), 1907.10065

    2019

  67. [75]

    Moradinezhad Dizgah and G

    A. Moradinezhad Dizgah and G. K. Keating, Astrophys. J. 872, 126 (2019), 1810.02850

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. L. Bernal, P. C. Breysse, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, and E. D. Kovetz (2019), 1907.10067

    2019

  69. [77]

    Andre, C

    PRISM Collaboration, P. Andre, C. Baccigalupi, D. Barbosa, J. Bartlett, and et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1306.2259 (2013), 1306.2259

    2013 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Hazumi et al., J

    M. Hazumi et al., J. Low. Temp. Phys. 194, 443 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Aguirre et al

    J. Aguirre et al. (Simons Observatory), JCAP 1902, 056 (2019), 1808.07445

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Abazajian et al

    K. Abazajian et al. (2019), 1907.04473

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP2, Keck Array), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221301 (2018), 1810.05216

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Planck Collaboration 2018 X (Planck) (2018), 1807.06211

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Ferrara and R

    S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh, Phys. Rev. D 94, 126015 (2016), 1610.04163

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, T. Wrase, and Y. Yamada, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 144 (2017), 1704.04829

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Planck Collaboration 2018 IX (Planck) (2019), 1905.05697

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    P. F. de Salas and S. Pastor, JCAP 2016, 051 (2016), 1606.06986

    2016 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Remazeilles, A

    M. Remazeilles, A. J. Banday, C. Baccigalupi, and et al., JCAP 2018, 023 (2018), 1704.04501

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Delabrouille, P

    J. Delabrouille, P. de Bernardis, F. R. Bouchet, A. Ach´ ucarro, P. A. R. Ade, R. Allison, F. Arroja, E. Artal, M. Ashdown, C. Baccigalupi, et al., JCAP 2018, 014 (2018), 1706.04516

    2018 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Planck Collaboration 2018 VII, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1906.02552 (2019), 1906.02552

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Burigana, C

    C. Burigana, C. S. Carvalho, T. Trombetti, A. Notari, M. Quartin, G. de Gasperis, A. Buzzelli, N. Vittorio, G. De Zotti, P. de Bernardis, et al., JCAP 2018, 021 (2018), 1704.05764

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Y. B. Zeldovich and R. A. Sunyaev, ApSS 4, 301 (1969)

    1969

  84. [92]

    R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, ApSS 7, 20 (1970)

    1970

  85. [93]

    Burigana, L

    C. Burigana, L. Danese, and G. de Zotti, A&A 246, 49 (1991)

    1991

  86. [94]

    Hu and J

    W. Hu and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 48, 485 (1993)

    1993

  87. [95]

    Chluba and R

    J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, MNRAS 419, 1294 (2012), 1109.6552

    2012 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Khatri and R

    R. Khatri and R. A. Sunyaev, JCAP 9, 016 (2012), 1207.6654

    2012 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Chluba, MNRAS 436, 2232 (2013), 1304.6121

    J. Chluba, MNRAS 436, 2232 (2013), 1304.6121

    2013 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Chluba and D

    J. Chluba and D. Jeong, MNRAS 438, 2065 (2014), 1306.5751

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Kogut, D

    A. Kogut, D. J. Fixsen, D. T. Chuss, J. Dotson, E. Dwek, M. Halpern, G. F. Hinshaw, S. M. Meyer, S. H. Moseley, M. D. Seiffert, et al., JCAP 7, 25 (2011), 1105.2044

    2011 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Andr´ e, C

    PRISM Collaboration, P. Andr´ e, C. Baccigalupi, A. Banday, D. Barbosa, and et al., JCAP 2014, 006 (2014), 1310.1554

    2014 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Kogut, M

    A. Kogut, M. H. Abitbol, J. Chluba, J. Delabrouille, D. Fixsen, J. C. Hill, S. P. Patil, and A. Rotti, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1907.13195 (2019), 1907.13195

    2019 arXiv

  94. [102]

    R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, ApSS 9, 368 (1970)

    1970

  95. [103]

    R. A. Daly, ApJ 371, 14 (1991)

    1991

  96. [104]

    Chluba, R

    J. Chluba, R. Khatri, and R. A. Sunyaev, MNRAS 425, 1129 (2012), 1202.0057

    2012 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Chluba, A

    J. Chluba, A. L. Erickcek, and I. Ben-Dayan, ApJ 758, 76 (2012), 1203.2681

    2012 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Chluba et al., Voyage 2050 Survey (2019)

    J. Chluba et al., Voyage 2050 Survey (2019)

    2019

  99. [107]

    Pajer and M

    E. Pajer and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 021302 (2012), 1201.5375

    2012 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Ganc and E

    J. Ganc and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D 86, 023518 (2012), 1204.4241

    2012 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Remazeilles and J

    M. Remazeilles and J. Chluba, MNRAS 478, 807 (2018), 1802.10101

    2018 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Cen and J

    R. Cen and J. P. Ostriker, ApJ 514, 1 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9806281

    1999 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Refregier, E

    A. Refregier, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, and U.-L. Pen, Phys. Rev. D 61, 123001 (2000)

    2000

  104. [112]

    Miniati, D

    F. Miniati, D. Ryu, H. Kang, T. W. Jones, R. Cen, and J. P. Ostriker, ApJ 542, 608 (2000)

    2000

  105. [113]

    S. P. Oh, A. Cooray, and M. Kamionkowski, MNRAS 342, L20 (2003)

    2003

  106. [114]

    J. C. Hill et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 115, 261301 (2015), 1507.01583

    2015 arXiv

  107. [115]

    E. L. Wright, ApJ 232, 348 (1979)

    1979

  108. [116]

    S. Y. Sazonov and R. A. Sunyaev, ApJ 508, 1 (1998)

    1998

  109. [117]

    N. Itoh, Y. Kohyama, and S. Nozawa, ApJ 502, 7 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9712289

    1998 arXiv

  110. [118]

    S. P. Oh, ApJ 527, 16 (1999), astro-ph/9904255

    1999 arXiv

  111. [119]

    P. P. Ponente, J. M. Diego, R. K. Sheth, C. Burigana, S. R. Knollmann, and Y. Ascasibar, MNRAS 410, 2353 (2011), 1006.2243

    2011 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Trombetti and C

    T. Trombetti and C. Burigana, MNRAS 437, 2507 (2014), 1310.6177

    2014 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Seiffert, D

    M. Seiffert, D. J. Fixsen, A. Kogut, S. M. Levin, M. Limon, P. M. Lubin, P. Mirel, J. Singal, T. Villela, 22 E. Wollack, et al., ApJ 734, 6 (2011)

    2011

  114. [122]

    J. D. Bowman, A. E. E. Rogers, R. A. Monsalve, T. J. Mozdzen, and N. Mahesh, Nature 555, 67 (2018)

    2018

  115. [123]

    Ahmed et al

    Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS-II), Science 327, 1619 (2010), 0912.3592

    2010 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON100), Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 181301 (2012), 1207.5988

    2012 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 25 (2016), 1509.01515

    2016 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett 116, 071301 (2016), 1509.02448

    2016 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Tan et al

    A. Tan et al. (PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett 117, 121303 (2016), 1607.07400

    2016 arXiv

  120. [128]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett 118, 021303 (2017), 1608.07648

    2017 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rep. 267, 195 (1996), hep-ph/9506380

    1996 arXiv

  122. [130]

    J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman, and F. Takayama, Phys. Rev. Lett 91, 011302 (2003)

    2003

  123. [131]

    J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman, and F. Takayama, Phys. Rev. D68, 063504 (2003)

    2003

  124. [132]

    Kusenko, Phys

    A. Kusenko, Phys. Rep. 481, 1 (2009), 0906.2968

    2009 arXiv

  125. [133]

    J. L. Feng, ARA&A 48, 495 (2010), 1003.0904

    2010 arXiv

  126. [134]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010)

    2010

  127. [135]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rep. 643, 1 (2016), 1510.07633

    2016 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Ellis, G

    J. Ellis, G. B. Gelmini, J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos, and S. Sarkar, Nu. Phys. B 373, 399 (1992)

    1992

  129. [137]

    J. A. Adams, S. Sarkar, and D. W. Sciama, MNRAS 301, 210 (1998), astro-ph/9805108

    1998 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Chen and M

    X. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D70, 043502 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310473

    2004 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Padmanabhan and D

    N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D72, 023508 (2005)

    2005

  132. [140]

    Galli, F

    S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 80, 023505 (2009), 0905.0003

    2009 arXiv

  133. [141]

    T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan, and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D80, 043526 (2009)

    2009

  134. [142]

    T. R. Slatyer and C.-L. Wu, Phys. Rev. D95, 023010 (2017), 1610.06933

    2017 arXiv

  135. [143]

    Poulin, J

    V. Poulin, J. Lesgourgues, and P. D. Serpico, JCAP 3, 043 (2017), 1610.10051

    2017 arXiv

  136. [144]

    R. J. Wilkinson, C. Bœhm, and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP 2014, 011 (2014), 1401.7597

    2014 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Dvorkin, K

    C. Dvorkin, K. Blum, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D89, 023519 (2014), 1311.2937

    2014 arXiv

  138. [146]

    R. J. Wilkinson, J. Lesgourgues, and C. ´ e. Bœhm, JCAP 2014, 026 (2014), 1309.7588

    2014 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Gluscevic and K

    V. Gluscevic and K. K. Boddy, Phys. Rev. Lett 121, 081301 (2018), 1712.07133

    2018 arXiv

  140. [148]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D71, 083502 (2005)

    2005

  141. [149]

    Jedamzik, JCAP 3, 008 (2008), 0710.5153

    K. Jedamzik, JCAP 3, 008 (2008), 0710.5153

    2008 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, and Y. Takaesu, Phys. Rev. D97, 023502 (2018)

    2018

  143. [151]

    Poulin and P

    V. Poulin and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. Lett 114, 091101 (2015), 1502.01250

    2015 arXiv

  144. [152]

    Sarkar and A

    S. Sarkar and A. M. Cooper, Physics Letters B 148, 347 (1984)

    1984

  145. [153]

    Ellis, D

    J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, and S. Sarkar, Nuclear Physics B 259, 175 (1985)

    1985

  146. [154]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Sato, Physics Letters B 169, 280 (1986)

    1986

  147. [155]

    Hu and J

    W. Hu and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett 70, 2661 (1993)

    1993

  148. [156]

    J. L. Aalberts, S. Ando, W. M. Borg, E. Broeils, J. Broeils, S. Broeils, B. J. Kavanagh, G. Leguijt, M. Reemst, D. R. van Arneman, et al., Phys. Rev. D98, 023001 (2018)

    2018

  149. [157]

    McDonald, R

    P. McDonald, R. J. Scherrer, and T. P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D63, 023001 (2001)

    2001

  150. [158]

    Y. E. Lyubarsky and R. A. Sunyaev, A&A 123, 171 (1983)

    1983

  151. [159]

    Chluba and R

    J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, A&A 501, 29 (2009), 0803.3584

    2009 arXiv

  152. [160]

    Chluba, MNRAS 402, 1195 (2010), 0910.3663

    J. Chluba, MNRAS 402, 1195 (2010), 0910.3663

    2010 arXiv

  153. [161]

    Chluba, MNRAS 454, 4182 (2015), 1506.06582

    J. Chluba, MNRAS 454, 4182 (2015), 1506.06582

    2015 arXiv

  154. [162]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D93, 023521 (2016), 1506.03812

    2016 arXiv

  155. [163]

    S. K. Acharya and R. Khatri, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043520 (2019), 1808.02897

    2019 arXiv

  156. [164]

    Tashiro, J

    H. Tashiro, J. Silk, and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D88, 125024 (2013), 1308.0314

    2013 arXiv

  157. [165]

    Ejlli and A

    D. Ejlli and A. D. Dolgov, Phys. Rev. D90, 063514 (2014), 1312.3558

    2014 arXiv

  158. [166]

    Mukherjee, R

    S. Mukherjee, R. Khatri, and B. D. Wandelt, JCAP 4, 045 (2018), 1801.09701

    2018 arXiv

  159. [167]

    Dimastrogiovanni, L

    E. Dimastrogiovanni, L. M. Krauss, and J. Chluba, Phys. Rev. D94, 023518 (2016)

    2016

  160. [168]

    J. P. Ostriker and C. Thompson, ApJL 323, L97 (1987)

    1987

  161. [169]

    Tashiro, E

    H. Tashiro, E. Sabancilar, and T. Vachaspati, JCAP 8, 035 (2013), 1212.3283

    2013 arXiv

  162. [170]

    Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, J

    Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, J. Chluba, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D115, 071304 (2015)

    2015

  163. [171]

    J. A. D. Diacoumis and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 9, 011 (2017), 1707.07050

    2017 arXiv

  164. [172]

    Kumar, E

    S. Kumar, E. Dimastrogiovanni, G. D. Starkman, C. Copi, and B. Lynn, Phys. Rev. D 99, 023521 (2019), 1804.08601

    2019 arXiv

  165. [173]

    Jedamzik, V

    K. Jedamzik, V. Katalini´ c, and A. V. Olinto, PRL 85, 700 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911100

    2000 arXiv

  166. [174]

    S. K. Sethi and K. Subramanian, MNRAS 356, 778 (2005), astro-ph/0405413

    2005 arXiv

  167. [175]

    K. E. Kunze and E. Komatsu, JCAP 1, 009 (2014), 1309.7994

    2014 arXiv

  168. [176]

    J. M. Wagstaff and R. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D92, 123004 (2015), 1508.01683

    2015 arXiv

  169. [177]

    V. K. Dubrovich, Soviet Astronomy Letters 1, 196 (1975)

    1975

  170. [178]

    G. B. Rybicki and I. P. dell’Antonio, ApJ 427, 603 (1994), astro-ph/9312006

    1994 arXiv

  171. [179]

    V. K. Dubrovich and V. A. Stolyarov, A&A 302, 635 (1995)

    1995

  172. [180]

    E. E. Kholupenko, A. V. Ivanchik, and D. A. Varshalovich, Gravitation and Cosmology 11, 161 (2005), astro-ph/0509807

    2005 arXiv

  173. [181]

    W. Y. Wong, S. Seager, and D. Scott, MNRAS 367, 1666 (2006), astro-ph/0510634

    2006 arXiv

  174. [182]

    J. A. Rubi˜ no-Mart´ ın, J. Chluba, and R. A. Sunyaev, MNRAS371, 1939 (2006). 23

    2006

  175. [183]

    Chluba and R

    J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, A&A 446, 39 (2006), astro-ph/0508144

    2006 arXiv

  176. [184]

    J. A. Rubi˜ no-Mart´ ın, J. Chluba, and R. A. Sunyaev, A&A485, 377 (2008)

    2008

  177. [185]

    Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, Phys

    Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, Phys. Rev. D87, 023526 (2013), 1211.4031

    2013 arXiv

  178. [186]

    Chluba and R

    J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, A&A 478, L27 (2008), 0707.0188

    2008 arXiv

  179. [187]

    R. A. Sunyaev and J. Chluba, Astronomische Nachrichten 330, 657 (2009), 0908.0435

    2009 arXiv

  180. [188]

    Chluba and Y

    J. Chluba and Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, MNRAS 456, 3494 (2016), 1510.03877

    2016 arXiv

  181. [189]

    P. J. Shirron, M. O. Kimball, D. J. Fixsen, A. J. Kogut, X. Li, and M. J. DiPirro, Cryogenics 52, 140 (2012), URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2012Cryo...52..140S

    2012

  182. [190]

    P. J. Shirron, M. O. Kimball, B. L. James, T. Muench, M. J. DiPirro, T. G. Bialas, G. A. Sneiderman, F. S. Porter, and R. L. Kelley, Cryogenics 74, 24 (2016)

    2016

  183. [191]

    T. L. R. Brien, E. Castillo-Dominguez, S. Chase, and S. M. Doyle, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 193, 805 (2018), ISSN 1573-7357, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-018-2024-y

    2018 doi

  184. [192]

    Suzuki, K

    A. Suzuki, K. Arnold, J. Edwards, G. Engargiola, W. Holzapfel, B. Keating, A. T. Lee, X. F. Meng, M. J. Myers, R. O’Brient, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics 176, 650 (2014)

    2014

  185. [193]

    Datta, J

    R. Datta, J. Hubmayr, C. Munson, J. Austermann, J. Beall, D. Becker, H. M. Cho, N. Halverson, G. Hilton, K. Irwin, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics 176, 670 (2014), 1401.8029

    2014 arXiv

  186. [194]

    M. H. Abitbol, J. Chluba, J. C. Hill, and B. R. Johnson, MNRAS 471, 1126 (2017)

    2017

  187. [195]

    A. Endo, K. Karatsu, Y. Tamura, and et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1906.10216 (2019), 1906.10216

    2019 arXiv

  188. [196]

    J. J. A. Baselmans, J. Bueno, S. J. C. Yates, O. Yurduseven, N. Llombart, K. Karatsu, A. M. Baryshev, L. Ferrari, A. Endo, D. J. Thoen, et al., A&A 601, A89 (2017), 1609.01952

    2017 arXiv

  189. [197]

    Bueno, O

    J. Bueno, O. Yurduseven, S. J. C. Yates, N. Llombart, V. Murugesan, D. J. Thoen, A. M. Baryshev, A. Neto, and J. J. A. Baselmans, Applied Physics Letters 110, 233503 (2017)

    2017

  190. [198]

    Origins STDT, Origins space telescope, https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/firs/ (2019)

    2019

  191. [199]

    Aieta, M

    F. Aieta, M. A. Kats, P. Genevet, and F. Capasso, Science 347, 1342 (2015), ISSN 0036-8075, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1342.full.pdf, URL https://science.sciencemag. org/content/347/6228/1342

    2015

  192. [200]

    Pisano, M

    G. Pisano, M. W. Ng, F. Ozturk, B. Maffei, and V. Haynes, Appl. Opt. 52, 2218 (2013)

    2013

  193. [201]

    Abitbol, A

    EBEX Collaboration, M. Abitbol, A. M. Aboobaker, P. Ade, D. Araujo, F. Aubin, C. Baccigalupi, C. Bao, D. Chapman, J. Didier, et al., ApJS 239, 8 (2018), 1803.01018. 24

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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