pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2304.05203 · v2 · submitted 2023-04-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters

Mathew S. Madhavacheril , Frank J. Qu , Blake D. Sherwin , Niall MacCrann , Yaqiong Li , Irene Abril-Cabezas , Peter A. R. Ade , Simone Aiola
show 151 more authors
Tommy Alford Mandana Amiri Stefania Amodeo Rui An Zachary Atkins Jason E. Austermann Nicholas Battaglia Elia Stefano Battistelli James A. Beall Rachel Bean Benjamin Beringue Tanay Bhandarkar Emily Biermann Boris Bolliet J Richard Bond Hongbo Cai Erminia Calabrese Victoria Calafut Valentina Capalbo Felipe Carrero Anthony Challinor Grace E. Chesmore Hsiao-mei Cho Steve K. Choi Susan E. Clark Rodrigo C\'ordova Rosado Nicholas F. Cothard Kevin Coughlin William Coulton Kevin T. Crowley Roohi Dalal Omar Darwish Mark J. Devlin Simon Dicker Peter Doze Cody J. Duell Shannon M. Duff Adriaan J. Duivenvoorden Jo Dunkley Rolando D\"unner Valentina Fanfani Max Fankhanel Gerrit Farren Simone Ferraro Rodrigo Freundt Brittany Fuzia Patricio A. Gallardo Xavier Garrido Jahmour Givans Vera Gluscevic Joseph E. Golec Yilun Guan Kirsten R. Hall Mark Halpern Dongwon Han Ian Harrison Matthew Hasselfield Erin Healy Shawn Henderson Brandon Hensley Carlos Herv\'ias-Caimapo J. Colin Hill Gene C. Hilton Matt Hilton Adam D. Hincks Ren\'ee Hlo\v{z}ek Shuay-Pwu Patty Ho Zachary B. Huber Johannes Hubmayr Kevin M. Huffenberger John P. Hughes Kent Irwin Giovanni Isopi Hidde T. Jense Ben Keller Joshua Kim Kenda Knowles Brian J. Koopman Arthur Kosowsky Darby Kramer Aleksandra Kusiak Adrien La Posta Alex Lague Victoria Lakey Eunseong Lee Zack Li Michele Limon Martine Lokken Thibaut Louis Marius Lungu Amanda MacInnis Diego Maldonado Felipe Maldonado Maya Mallaby-Kay Gabriela A. Marques Jeff McMahon Yogesh Mehta Felipe Menanteau Kavilan Moodley Thomas W. Morris Tony Mroczkowski Sigurd Naess Toshiya Namikawa Federico Nati Laura Newburgh Andrina Nicola Michael D. Niemack Michael R. Nolta John Orlowski-Scherer Lyman A. Page Shivam Pandey Bruce Partridge Heather Prince Roberto Puddu Federico Radiconi Naomi Robertson Felipe Rojas Tai Sakuma Maria Salatino Emmanuel Schaan Benjamin L. Schmitt Neelima Sehgal Shabbir Shaikh Carlos Sierra Jon Sievers Crist\'obal Sif\'on Sara Simon Rita Sonka David N. Spergel Suzanne T. Staggs Emilie Storer Eric R. Switzer Niklas Tampier Robert Thornton Hy Trac Jesse Treu Carole Tucker Joel Ullom Leila R. Vale Alexander Van Engelen Jeff Van Lanen Joshiwa van Marrewijk Cristian Vargas Eve M. Vavagiakis Kasey Wagoner Yuhan Wang Lukas Wenzl Edward J. Wollack Zhilei Xu Fernando Zago Kaiwen Zheng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 20:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords CMB lensingcosmological parameterssigma8S8Hubble constantneutrino massesACT DR6LambdaCDM
0
0 comments X

The pith

ACT DR6 lensing map gives σ8 = 0.819 ± 0.015 consistent with Planck ΛCDM extrapolations.

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

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope has produced a gravitational lensing mass map covering 9400 square degrees from its 2017-2021 CMB observations. Combined with baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, the map constrains the amplitude of matter fluctuations to σ8 = 0.819 ± 0.015 at 1.8 percent precision and the Hubble constant to 68.3 ± 1.1 km/s/Mpc at 1.6 percent precision. These values align with predictions from the standard ΛCDM model fitted to Planck cosmic microwave background data. A joint analysis with Planck lensing tightens the numbers further to σ8 = 0.812 ± 0.013 and H0 = 68.1 ± 1.0 km/s/Mpc. The results also limit the sum of neutrino masses and note differences at the 1.7-2.1 sigma level with S8 values from the KiDS, DES and HSC galaxy surveys.

Core claim

The paper reports that the reconstructed lensing convergence power spectrum from ACT DR6 data, in combination with BAO measurements, gives σ8 = 0.819 ± 0.015, S8 = 0.840 ± 0.028 and H0 = 68.3 ± 1.1 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, in good agreement with ΛCDM predictions from Planck. A joint fit with Planck lensing yields even tighter constraints: σ8 = 0.812 ± 0.013, S8 = 0.831 ± 0.023 and H0 = 68.1 ± 1.0 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}. These results confirm that the universe is spatially flat, obeys general relativity, and is well described by the ΛCDM model, while limiting the sum of neutrino masses to less than 0.13 eV at 95 percent confidence.

What carries the argument

The gravitational lensing convergence map reconstructed from ACT CMB temperature and polarization measurements, whose power spectrum constrains cosmological parameters when combined with BAO data.

If this is right

  • The standard ΛCDM model receives independent confirmation from ACT lensing data on linear scales.
  • The sum of neutrino masses is limited to less than 0.13 eV at 95 percent confidence.
  • Mild differences with galaxy lensing surveys motivate direct comparisons between CMB lensing at z ~ 0.5-5 and galaxy lensing at z ~ 0.5.
  • Upcoming ground-based CMB surveys can use similar lensing measurements to tighten constraints on neutrino physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • CMB lensing measurements on mostly linear scales can be contrasted with galaxy lensing on smaller scales to test whether the S8 difference arises from scale-dependent physics.
  • The ACT map supplies a high-redshift anchor that future cross-correlation studies with other large-scale structure probes could use to isolate potential systematics.
  • Tighter neutrino mass bounds will become accessible once next-generation CMB experiments increase the sky coverage and depth of lensing maps.

Load-bearing premise

The lensing reconstruction from ACT data, foreground cleaning, and modeling of the convergence power spectrum introduce no significant biases that would shift the reported σ8 and S8 values outside the quoted uncertainties.

What would settle it

An independent cross-check or simulation test that reveals a bias in the ACT lensing map large enough to shift the derived σ8 by more than the reported uncertainty would falsify the quoted agreement with Planck.

read the original abstract

We present cosmological constraints from a gravitational lensing mass map covering 9400 sq. deg. reconstructed from CMB measurements made by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) from 2017 to 2021. In combination with BAO measurements (from SDSS and 6dF), we obtain the amplitude of matter fluctuations $\sigma_8 = 0.819 \pm 0.015$ at 1.8% precision, $S_8\equiv\sigma_8({\Omega_{\rm m}}/0.3)^{0.5}=0.840\pm0.028$ and the Hubble constant $H_0= (68.3 \pm 1.1)\, \text{km}\,\text{s}^{-1}\,\text{Mpc}^{-1}$ at 1.6% precision. A joint constraint with CMB lensing measured by the Planck satellite yields even more precise values: $\sigma_8 = 0.812 \pm 0.013$, $S_8\equiv\sigma_8({\Omega_{\rm m}}/0.3)^{0.5}=0.831\pm0.023$ and $H_0= (68.1 \pm 1.0)\, \text{km}\,\text{s}^{-1}\,\text{Mpc}^{-1}$. These measurements agree well with $\Lambda$CDM-model extrapolations from the CMB anisotropies measured by Planck. To compare these constraints to those from the KiDS, DES, and HSC galaxy surveys, we revisit those data sets with a uniform set of assumptions, and find $S_8$ from all three surveys are lower than that from ACT+Planck lensing by varying levels ranging from 1.7-2.1$\sigma$. These results motivate further measurements and comparison, not just between the CMB anisotropies and galaxy lensing, but also between CMB lensing probing $z\sim 0.5-5$ on mostly-linear scales and galaxy lensing at $z\sim 0.5$ on smaller scales. We combine our CMB lensing measurements with CMB anisotropies to constrain extensions of $\Lambda$CDM, limiting the sum of the neutrino masses to $\sum m_{\nu} < 0.13$ eV (95% c.l.), for example. Our results provide independent confirmation that the universe is spatially flat, conforms with general relativity, and is described remarkably well by the $\Lambda$CDM model, while paving a promising path for neutrino physics with gravitational lensing from upcoming ground-based CMB surveys.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new gravitational lensing convergence map reconstructed from ACT DR6 CMB observations over 9400 sq. deg. Combined with BAO data, it reports σ₈ = 0.819 ± 0.015, S₈ = 0.840 ± 0.028 and H₀ = 68.3 ± 1.1 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹. A joint analysis with Planck CMB lensing tightens these to σ₈ = 0.812 ± 0.013, S₈ = 0.831 ± 0.023 and H₀ = 68.1 ± 1.0 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹. The results are shown to be consistent with Planck ΛCDM extrapolations; a uniform re-analysis of KiDS, DES and HSC galaxy-lensing data finds their S₈ values lower by 1.7–2.1σ. Extensions to ΛCDM are also constrained, e.g. ∑m_ν < 0.13 eV (95 % c.l.).

Significance. If the pipeline validation and covariance modeling hold, the work supplies an independent, high-precision CMB-lensing measurement of structure growth on mostly linear scales at z ∼ 0.5–5. The 1.8 % precision on σ₈ and the direct comparison to Planck anisotropies constitute a strong consistency test of ΛCDM. The uniform re-analysis of three galaxy-lensing surveys and the neutrino-mass limit are additional strengths that will be widely referenced.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (Lensing power-spectrum modeling): the reported σ₈ constraint assumes a fixed nonlinear matter power spectrum prescription; the shift in σ₈ when the halo-model parameters are varied within current priors should be shown explicitly to confirm it remains sub-dominant to the 0.015 statistical uncertainty.
  2. [§6.2] §6.2 (ACT+Planck joint constraints): the covariance matrix between the ACT and Planck lensing maps must account for the overlapping sky region; if the cross-covariance is approximated rather than measured from simulations, the quoted 0.013 uncertainty on σ₈ may be underestimated.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 8] Figure 8: the error bars on the ACT-only and joint S₈ points are difficult to distinguish visually; a small horizontal offset or different marker style would improve readability.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1: the column headers for the KiDS/DES/HSC re-analysis should explicitly state the cosmological priors adopted so readers can reproduce the 1.7–2.1σ tension values.
  3. [§4.3] §4.3: the description of the simulation-based debiasing procedure is terse; a one-sentence summary of the residual bias level after correction would help.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Lensing power-spectrum modeling): the reported σ₈ constraint assumes a fixed nonlinear matter power spectrum prescription; the shift in σ₈ when the halo-model parameters are varied within current priors should be shown explicitly to confirm it remains sub-dominant to the 0.015 statistical uncertainty.

    Authors: We agree that explicitly quantifying the impact of the nonlinear modeling choice strengthens the result. In the revised manuscript we will add a short test in §5 in which the halo-model parameters (within the HMCode prescription) are varied over their current priors; the induced shift in σ₈ will be shown to be ≲ 0.005 and therefore sub-dominant to the reported statistical uncertainty. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§6.2] §6.2 (ACT+Planck joint constraints): the covariance matrix between the ACT and Planck lensing maps must account for the overlapping sky region; if the cross-covariance is approximated rather than measured from simulations, the quoted 0.013 uncertainty on σ₈ may be underestimated.

    Authors: The joint covariance was constructed from a suite of end-to-end simulations that include the actual overlapping sky coverage between ACT and Planck. We will revise the text in §6.2 to state this explicitly and to reference the simulation pipeline, thereby confirming that the cross-covariance is properly measured rather than approximated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

New observational constraints from ACT DR6 lensing data; derivation self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper presents direct constraints on σ8, S8 and H0 extracted from a new gravitational lensing mass map reconstructed from 2017–2021 ACT CMB observations. The central pipeline applies standard quadratic estimators to the temperature and polarization maps, measures the lensing convergence power spectrum, and fits cosmological parameters jointly with BAO data. These steps rely on simulation-based debiasing and null tests rather than any self-referential fit that renames an input as a prediction. Shared modeling assumptions with Planck analyses constitute external benchmarks, not an internal circular reduction. No load-bearing step reduces by the paper’s own equations or self-citations to a previously fitted quantity; the result is therefore independent of the target parameters and receives only a minimal score for routine use of community priors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement relies on standard assumptions of ΛCDM cosmology, linear perturbation theory for lensing, and accurate foreground removal in CMB maps. No new particles or forces are introduced. The fitted parameters themselves are the output, not inputs.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The universe is described by the flat ΛCDM model with standard general relativity on the relevant scales.
    Invoked when comparing measured parameters to Planck extrapolations and when limiting neutrino mass sum.
  • domain assumption CMB lensing reconstruction accurately recovers the convergence power spectrum without significant bias from instrumental or foreground effects.
    Central to deriving σ8 and S8 from the ACT map.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6555 in / 1571 out tokens · 28192 ms · 2026-05-16T20:26:38.486291+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

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

  1. Cosmological analysis of the DESI DR1 Lyman alpha 1D power spectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DESI DR1 Lyman-alpha data yields Δ²★=0.379±0.032 and n★=-2.309±0.019 at k★=0.009 km⁻¹s and z=3, sharpening N_eff, α_s, and β_s constraints by factors of 1.18-1.90 when combined with other probes.

  2. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

    DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.

  3. DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    astro-ph.CO 2024-04 accept novelty 7.0

    First-year DESI BAO data are consistent with flat LambdaCDM and, when combined with CMB, show a 2.5-3.9 sigma preference for evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) that strengthens with certain supernova datasets.

  4. Into the Gompverse: A robust Gompertzian reionization model for CMB analyses

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A Gompertzian reionization model with three nuisance parameters demotes optical depth to a derived quantity, reducing its uncertainty by a factor of three and revealing potential neutrino mass tension in CMB analyses.

  5. Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.

  6. DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0

    DESI DR1 full-shape clustering yields Ω_m = 0.2962 ± 0.0095 and σ_8 = 0.842 ± 0.034 in flat ΛCDM, tightening to H_0 = 68.40 ± 0.27 km/s/Mpc with CMB and DESY3, while favoring w_0 > -1, w_a < 0 and limiting neutrino ma...

  7. Ultra-light axion constraints from Planck and ACT: the role of nonlinear modelling

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Naive nonlinear modelling of non-cold matter produces an artificial preference for a subdominant ultralight axion dark matter component at m ≈ 10^{-24} eV via a lensing-like enhancement in the CMB power spectrum.

  8. The End of the First Act: Spectral Running, Interacting Dark Radiation, and the Hubble Tension in Light of ACT DR6 Data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Including spectral running α_s, β_s and self-interacting dark radiation relaxes the ACT DR6 bound on ΔN_eff to <0.58 and lowers the Hubble tension to 2.2σ with three extra parameters.

  9. Generalizing the CPL Parametrization through Dark Sector Interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dynamical couplings in interacting dark energy models reduce deviations from LambdaCDM to 1.3-1.5 sigma and yield no Bayesian preference over the standard model.

  10. Cosmological Impact of Redshift-Dependent Type Ia Supernovae Calibration

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A phenomenological redshift-dependent SNIa magnitude correction shows no evidence in ΛCDM but is preferred at 4.3σ with dynamical dark energy, reducing Hubble tension to 1.5σ.

  11. Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Planck PR4 CMB data mildly favors dynamical dark energy, but this preference weakens when accounting for possible excess smoothing, indicating the signal may partly arise from data processing issues.

  12. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

  13. Reanalyzing DESI DR1: 2. Constraints on Dark Energy, Spatial Curvature, and Neutrino Masses

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Reanalysis of DESI full-shape clustering data tightens constraints on neutrino mass, spatial curvature, and dark energy equation-of-state parameters relative to BAO-only results.

  14. Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 5.0

    DESI DR2 BAO and full-shape data plus CMB yield ∑m_ν < 0.0642 eV (95% CL) under ΛCDM, in 3σ tension with oscillation lower limits, relaxed to <0.163 eV in w0waCDM.

  15. QCD-driven dark matter: AQNs formation and observational tests

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Dark matter is composed of composite quark-antiquark objects stabilized by axion domain walls, offering a unified account of dark matter and baryon asymmetry.

  16. Revisiting $\mu$-$e$ conversion in $R$-parity violating SUSY

    hep-ph 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    RG running changes limits on certain RPV SUSY λ and λ' couplings by up to 80 percent, with upcoming μ-e conversion experiments expected to set stronger bounds than μ→eγ or μ→eee decays.

  17. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 4.0

    Extended analysis of DESI DR2 data confirms robust evidence for dynamical dark energy with phantom crossing preference, stable under parametric and non-parametric modeling.

  18. No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Local goodness-of-fit gains for w0wa and phantom crossing vanish under global Bayesian evidence, showing no statistically robust evidence for dynamical dark energy across datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

169 extracted references · 169 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Abbott , T. M. C., Aguena , M., Alarcon , A., et al. 2022, , 105, 023520, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  3. [3]

    2023, , 130, 051801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.051801

    Abe , S., Asami , S., Eizuka , M., et al. 2023, , 130, 051801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.051801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.051801 2023

  4. [4]

    Ade , P. A. R., Akiba , Y., Anthony , A. E., et al. 2014, , 113, 021301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.021301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.021301 2014

  5. [5]

    2020, , 2020, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/047

    Aiola , S., Calabrese , E., Maurin , L., et al. 2020, , 2020, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/047

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/047 2020

  6. [6]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.08533, 10.48550/arXiv.2105.08533

    Aker , M., Beglarian , A., Behrens , J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.08533, 10.48550/arXiv.2105.08533

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.08533 2021

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    Alam , S., Ata , M., Bailey , S., et al. 2017, , 470, 2617, 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  8. [8]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 083533, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    Alam , S., Aubert , M., Avila , S., et al. 2021, , 103, 083533, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083533 2021

  9. [9]

    2015, , 92, 123535, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123535

    Allison , R., Caucal , P., Calabrese , E., Dunkley , J., & Louis , T. 2015, , 92, 123535, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.123535 2015

  10. [10]

    2019, , 484, 4127, 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    Alonso , D., Sanchez , J., Slosar , A., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration . 2019, , 484, 4127, 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz093 2019

  11. [11]

    2022, , 516, 5355, 10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    Amon , A., & Efstathiou , G. 2022, , 516, 5355, 10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2429 2022

  12. [12]

    A., et al

    Amon , A., Gruen , D., Troxel , M. A., et al. 2022, , 105, 023514, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023514

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 2022

  13. [13]

    E., Zennaro , M., et al

    Aric \`o , G., Angulo , R. E., Zennaro , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.05537, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.05537

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.05537 2023

  14. [14]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039070 black , 645, A104 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A.104A

    Asgari , M., Lin , C.-A., Joachimi , B., et al. 2021, , 645, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039070

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039070 2021

  15. [15]

    M., B \"o ser , S., et al

    Ashtari Esfahani , A., Asner , D. M., B \"o ser , S., et al. 2017, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 44, 054004, 10.1088/1361-6471/aa5b4f

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa5b4f 2017

  16. [16]

    2021, , 103, 065501, 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.065501

    Ashtari Esfahani , A., Betancourt , M., Bogorad , Z., et al. 2021, , 103, 065501, 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.065501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.065501 2021

  17. [17]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  18. [18]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  19. [19]

    J., Coulton , W

    Atkins , Z., Duivenvoorden , A. J., Coulton , W. R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.04180, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.04180

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.04180 2023

  20. [20]

    2019, , 874, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0898

    Aylor , K., Joy , M., Knox , L., et al. 2019, , 874, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0898

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0898 2019

  21. [21]

    Battaglia , N., Ferraro , S., Schaan , E., & Spergel , D. N. 2017, , 2017, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/040

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/040 2017

  22. [22]

    J., & Sherwin , B

    Baxter , E. J., & Sherwin , B. D. 2021, , 501, 1823, 10.1093/mnras/staa3706

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3706 2021

  23. [23]

    J., Keisler , R., Dodelson , S., et al

    Baxter , E. J., Keisler , R., Dodelson , S., et al. 2015, , 806, 247, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/247

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/247 2015

  24. [24]

    J., Raghunathan , S., Crawford , T

    Baxter , E. J., Raghunathan , S., Crawford , T. M., et al. 2018, , 476, 2674, 10.1093/mnras/sty305

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty305 2018

  25. [25]

    2013, , 555, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321048

    Benoit-L \'e vy , A., D \'e chelette , T., Benabed , K., et al. 2013, , 555, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321048

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321048 2013

  26. [26]

    2011, , 414, 264, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18402.x

    Beutler , F., Blake , C., Colless , M., et al. 2011, , 416, 3017, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x 2011

  27. [27]

    Bianchini , F., Wu , W. L. K., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2020, , 888, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6082

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6082 2020

  28. [28]

    BICEP2 Collaboration , Keck Array Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2016, , 833, 228, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/228

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/228 2016

  29. [29]

    J., Galan , A., et al

    Birrer , S., Shajib , A. J., Galan , A., et al. 2020, , 643, A165, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038861

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038861 2020

  30. [30]

    2023, , 2023, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/039

    Bolliet , B., Colin Hill , J., Ferraro , S., Kusiak , A., & Krolewski , A. 2023, , 2023, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/039

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/039 2023

  31. [31]

    2023, , 2023, 023, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/023

    Brieden , S., Gil-Mar \' n , H., & Verde , L. 2023, , 2023, 023, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/023

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/023 2023

  32. [32]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 black , 938, 110 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..110B

    Brout , D., Scolnic , D., Popovic , B., et al. 2022, , 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  33. [33]

    F., & Zahn , O

    Calabrese , E., Slosar , A., Melchiorri , A., Smoot , G. F., & Zahn , O. 2008, , 77, 123531, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123531

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.123531 2008

  34. [34]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 black , 2022, 039 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JCAP...09..039C

    Carron , J., Mirmelstein , M., & Lewis , A. 2022, , 2022, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 2022

  35. [35]

    A., Tessarotto , E., & Corasaniti , P

    Casarini , L., Bonometto , S. A., Tessarotto , E., & Corasaniti , P. S. 2016, , 2016, 008, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/008

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/008 2016

  36. [36]

    V., & Bonometto , S

    Casarini , L., Macci \`o , A. V., & Bonometto , S. A. 2009, , 2009, 014, 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/03/014

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/03/014 2009

  37. [37]

    2018, , 475, 3165, 10.1093/mnras/stx3363

    Chang , C., Pujol , A., Mawdsley , B., et al. 2018, , 475, 3165, 10.1093/mnras/stx3363

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3363 2018

  38. [38]

    J., et al

    Chang , C., Omori , Y., Baxter , E. J., et al. 2023, , 107, 023530, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023530

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.023530 2023

  39. [39]

    K., Hasselfield , M., Ho , S.-P

    Choi , S. K., Hasselfield , M., Ho , S.-P. P., et al. 2020, , 2020, 045, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/045

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/045 2020

  40. [40]

    2020, , 101, 063534, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063534

    Chung , E., Foreman , S., & van Engelen , A. 2020, , 101, 063534, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063534

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063534 2020

  41. [41]

    2016, , 592, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527377

    Comparat , J., Delubac , T., Jouvel , S., et al. 2016, , 592, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527377

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527377 2016

  42. [42]

    J., Pettini , M., & Steidel , C

    Cooke , R. J., Pettini , M., & Steidel , C. C. 2018, , 855, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53 2018

  43. [43]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.00701, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.00701

    Dalal , R., Li , X., Nicola , A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.00701, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.00701

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.00701 2023

  44. [44]

    D’Amico, Y

    D'Amico , G., Donath , Y., Lewandowski , M., Senatore , L., & Zhang , P. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.08327, 10.48550/arXiv.2206.08327

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.08327 2022

  45. [45]

    D., Sailer , N., Schaan , E., & Ferraro , S

    Darwish , O., Sherwin , B. D., Sailer , N., Schaan , E., & Ferraro , S. 2021 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.00462, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.00462

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.00462 2021

  46. [46]

    S., Sherwin , B

    Darwish , O., Madhavacheril , M. S., Sherwin , B. D., et al. 2021 b , , 500, 2250, 10.1093/mnras/staa3438

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3438 2021

  47. [47]

    D., Aguirre , P., et al

    Das , S., Sherwin , B. D., Aguirre , P., et al. 2011, , 107, 021301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.021301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.021301 2011

  48. [48]

    The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey of SDSS-III

    Dawson , K. S., Schlegel , D. J., Ahn , C. P., et al. 2013, , 145, 10, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 2013

  49. [49]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    DESI Collaboration , Aghamousa , A., Aguilar , J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2016

  50. [50]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  51. [51]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 196, 10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9

    Di Valentino , E., Melchiorri , A., & Silk , J. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 196, 10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9 2020

  52. [52]

    2018, , 2018, 017, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/017

    Di Valentino , E., Brinckmann , T., Gerbino , M., et al. 2018, , 2018, 017, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/017

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/017 2018

  53. [53]

    2022, , 515, 1942, 10.1093/mnras/stac1826

    Doux , C., Jain , B., Zeurcher , D., et al. 2022, , 515, 1942, 10.1093/mnras/stac1826

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1826 2022

  54. [54]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb085 black , 901, 153 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901..153D

    du Mas des Bourboux , H., Rich , J., Font-Ribera , A., et al. 2020, , 901, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb085

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb085 2020

  55. [55]

    Dutcher , D., Balkenhol , L., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2021, , 104, 022003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.022003 2021

  56. [56]

    2013, The Messenger, 154, 32

    Edge , A., Sutherland , W., Kuijken , K., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 32

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    Efstathiou , G., & Bond , J. R. 1999, , 304, 75, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02274.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02274.x 1999

  58. [58]

    2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, 8, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Efstathiou , G., & Gratton , S. 2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, 8, 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.1910.00483 2021

  59. [59]

    J., & Hu , W

    Eisenstein , D. J., & Hu , W. 1998, , 496, 605, 10.1086/305424

    work page doi:10.1086/305424 1998

  60. [60]

    J., Weinberg , D

    Eisenstein , D. J., Weinberg , D. H., Agol , E., et al. 2011, , 142, 72, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 2011

  61. [61]

    S., Philcox , O

    Farren , G. S., Philcox , O. H. E., & Sherwin , B. D. 2022, , 105, 063503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.063503 2022

  62. [62]

    A., Arnold , K., Baccigalupi , C., et al

    Fa \'u ndez , M. A., Arnold , K., Baccigalupi , C., et al. 2020, , 893, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7e29 2020

  63. [63]

    2007, Applied optics, 46, 3444

    Fowler, J., Niemack, M., Dicker, S., et al. 2007, Applied optics, 46, 3444

    work page 2007

  64. [64]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., Hatt , D., et al. 2019, , 882, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73 2019

  65. [65]

    2021, , 2021, 030, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/030

    Garc \' a-Garc \' a , C., Ruiz-Zapatero , J., Alonso , D., et al. 2021, , 2021, 030, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/030

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/030 2021

  66. [66]

    2022, , 106, 083509, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.083509

    Gatti , M., Jain , B., Chang , C., et al. 2022, , 106, 083509, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.083509

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.083509 2022

  67. [67]

    E., & Peacock , J

    Geach , J. E., & Peacock , J. A. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 795, 10.1038/s41550-017-0259-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0259-1 2017

  68. [68]

    Gelman , A., & Rubin , D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457, 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    work page doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136 1992

  69. [69]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/427976 2005

  70. [70]

    2020, , 72, 16, 10.1093/pasj/psz138

    Hamana , T., Shirasaki , M., Miyazaki , S., et al. 2020, , 72, 16, 10.1093/pasj/psz138

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz138 2020

  71. [71]

    A., & Cai , Y.-C

    Hang , Q., Alam , S., Peacock , J. A., & Cai , Y.-C. 2021, , 501, 1481, 10.1093/mnras/staa3738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3738 2021

  72. [72]

    2011, , 83, 043005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.043005

    Hanson , D., Challinor , A., Efstathiou , G., & Bielewicz , P. 2011, , 83, 043005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.043005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.043005 2011

  73. [73]

    M., An , R., & Gluscevic , V

    He , A., Ivanov , M. M., An , R., & Gluscevic , V. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.08260, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.08260

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.08260 2023

  74. [74]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 401, 10.1038/s41550-018-0426-z

    He , S., Alam , S., Ferraro , S., Chen , Y.-C., & Ho , S. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 401, 10.1038/s41550-018-0426-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0426-z 2018

  75. [75]

    2021, , 646, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    Heymans , C., Tr \"o ster , T., Asgari , M., et al. 2021, , 646, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 2021

  76. [76]

    2019, , 71, 43, 10.1093/pasj/psz010

    Hikage , C., Oguri , M., Hamana , T., et al. 2019, , 71, 43, 10.1093/pasj/psz010

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz010 2019

  77. [77]

    C., Calabrese , E., Aiola , S., et al

    Hill , J. C., Calabrese , E., Aiola , S., et al. 2022, , 105, 123536, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123536

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123536 2022

  78. [78]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw , G., Larson , D., Komatsu , E., et al. 2013, , 208, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 2013

  79. [79]

    M., Netterfield , C

    Hivon , E., G \'o rski , K. M., Netterfield , C. B., et al. 2002, , 567, 2, 10.1086/338126

    work page doi:10.1086/338126 2002

  80. [80]

    G., Ross , A

    Hou , J., S \'a nchez , A. G., Ross , A. J., et al. 2021, , 500, 1201, 10.1093/mnras/staa3234

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3234 2021

Showing first 80 references.