Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Modeling beam chromaticity for high-resolution CMB analyses

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that high-resolution CMB analyses must assign each sky component its own frequency-dependent beam, because neglecting this effect biases foreground parameters by more than 2 sigma.

desk verdict A clean formalism and a validated implementation for per-component beam chromaticity in CMB likelihoods, with a forecast whose headline numbers rest on idealized Gaussian beams and deserve a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10124 v1 pith:BQY63APT submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

S. Giardiello , A. J. Duivenvoorden , E. Calabrese , G. Galloni , M. Hasselfield , J. C. Hill , A. La Posta , T. Louis
show 2 more authors
M. Madhavacheril L. Pagano
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundbeamchromaticitywindowfunctionforegroundspectralenergydistributionspowerspectrumlikelihoodsystematicbiasGaussianmodeldampingtail
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 beam chromaticity—the variation of a telescope's beam profile across its frequency passband—cannot be ignored in high-resolution cosmic microwave background analyses. It develops a formalism that folds a frequency-dependent beam into each sky component's spectral energy distribution separately, and tests what happens when data simulated with such chromatic beams are analyzed with the usual achromatic-beam likelihood. For passbands about 20% wide, neglecting the effect biases astrophysical foreground parameters by more than 2 standard deviations and shifts cosmological parameters such as the effective number of relativistic species and the Hubble constant by up to 0.3 sigma. The paper concludes that next-generation surveys must use a color-corrected beam for every sky component with a distinct spectrum, not a single beam per channel.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the geometric factor $r^c_{\ell,\nu} = \tau^c_\nu F_\nu b^c_{\ell,\nu} / \int d\nu\, \tau^c_\nu F_\nu b^c_{\ell,\nu}$, the normalized product of the channel passband, the temperature-to-surface-brightness conversion, and the frequency-dependent beam window function. It converts the ordinary bandpass integral of a foreground SED into a scale-dependent effective SED, $\hat{f}^{\rm FG,c}_\ell = \int d\nu\, r^c_{\ell,\nu} f^{\rm FG}_\nu$, so that a beam that changes across the passband distorts each foreground component's angular power spectrum differently. The paper implements this in a public likelihood framework and adopts Gaussian beams with a diffraction-limited scaling of the full width at half maximum, $\mathrm{FWHM}(\nu) = \mathrm{FWHM}(\nu_0)(\nu/\nu_0)^{-\alpha/2}$, with $\alpha$ ranging from 0 to 2, to quantify the effect.

What would settle it

Measure the effective beam window function as a function of frequency inside a real 30 GHz-wide channel—for instance, from planet observations across the passband—and compare the predicted ~20% foreground distortion at ℓ = 9000 with the actual distortion; alternatively, run the same likelihood analysis on real data from a high-resolution survey with known passbands and see whether foreground parameters shift by the forecast >2σ when chromaticity is added.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for high-resolution CMB power-spectrum analyses, the beam window function must be treated as frequency-dependent and applied separately to each sky component with its own spectral energy distribution. The paper shows that the observed cross-spectrum between frequency channels factorizes into a CMB beam term and a foreground term whose effective SED is a frequency integral of the physical SED weighted by a normalized beam-passband product. When this chromatic correction is present in simulated data but omitted from the likelihood, the recovered foreground amplitudes shift by more than 2σ for the modeled experiment, and parameters measured from the small-scale damping tail, notably the effective number of relativistic species and the Hubble constant, shift by up to 0.3σ; in a cosmic-variance-limited survey the cosmological biases grow to several standard deviations. The paper also validates its implementation by matching the spectral shapes computed by an independent likelihood code.

Load-bearing premise

The bias magnitudes rest on assuming Gaussian beams whose width scales as a power law across the passband and top-hat passbands about 30 GHz wide; if the true in-band beam variation is weaker or the effective passbands narrower, the reported shifts shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future high-resolution CMB experiments will need to measure and model the beam's in-band frequency dependence, not just its azimuthally averaged profile, for each sky component.
  • Foreground parameter estimates from analyses of the damping-tail region will be biased beyond statistical errors if chromaticity is ignored, complicating component separation and astrophysical interpretation.
  • Cosmological parameters sensitive to small angular scales, such as $N_{\rm eff}$ and $H_0$, will inherit a systematic shift at the level of a few tenths of a sigma even when the CMB beam itself is perfectly calibrated.
  • In cosmic-variance-limited surveys, the same omission produces cosmological biases of several standard deviations, making the correction mandatory rather than optional.
  • The formalism generalizes to temperature and polarization and to any number of foreground components, so existing pipelines can adopt it without rebuilding their spectral models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real beams have non-Gaussian wings or sidelobes that vary with frequency more than the Gaussian scaling assumed here, the foreground distortion could be even larger at high multipoles than the ~20% level quoted, since sidelobe power tends to grow with angular scale mismatch.
  • The same chromatic formalism implies that passband uncertainties and beam uncertainties will not be separable in future likelihoods; marginalizing over the frequency scaling of the beam may absorb part of the foreground signal, so joint constraints on passbands and beams from planet observations will be needed.
  • A testable extension is to apply the formalism to existing high-resolution survey data with measured passbands and beam models; if the predicted >2σ foreground shifts appear in real data, it would corroborate the paper's forecast, whereas null results would point to narrower effective passbands or weaker in-band beam variation.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a formalism for including beam chromaticity in CMB power-spectrum likelihood analyses. The key idea is that the effective beam window function becomes component-dependent once foregrounds with different spectral energy distributions are observed through broad passbands: the foreground SED must be integrated against a frequency-dependent beam (Eqs. 9-11), rather than against a simple passband average (Eqs. 13-14). The authors implement this in the public SO likelihood stack (LAT MFLike and fgspectra), validate the implementation against the ACT bplike code (Appendix A), and forecast the bias incurred when chromatic beams are present in simulated spectra but omitted in the analysis. For an SO LAT-like setup with Gaussian beams whose FWHM scales as (nu/nu0)^(-alpha/2) with alpha = 1, 1.5, 2 and ~30 GHz top-hat passbands, they find >2 sigma biases on extragalactic foreground parameters and up to 0.3 sigma biases on Neff and H0, with larger cosmological biases in a cosmic-variance-limited case.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper makes a timely and useful point: next-generation high-resolution CMB experiments cannot treat the beam as a single achromatic window function when modeling foregrounds. The formal derivation in Section II is clean and appears correct: Eq. 9 follows from beam-weighted passband integrals, and the achromatic limit of Eq. 13 is recovered consistently. The implementation in public software, the numerical cross-check against bplike, and the forward-simulation setup (no circular fitting of the beam model) are concrete strengths. The main caveat is that the headline bias numbers are tied to an idealized beam model; the paper itself acknowledges this simplification. The formal framework is likely to be of lasting use regardless of the specific forecast values.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The quantitative claims in the abstract and conclusions---foreground biases larger than 2 sigma and cosmological biases up to 0.3 sigma (plus 'several standard deviations' in the CVL limit)---rest entirely on the assumed beam model: Gaussian profiles with FWHM(nu) = FWHM(nu0)(nu/nu0)^(-alpha/2) for alpha in {1, 1.5, 2}, combined with ~30 GHz top-hat passbands. The authors state 'for simplicity, we can assume diffraction-limited Gaussian beams,' and this is a legitimate first demonstration. However, the abstract's 'it is necessary' conclusion is stronger than what the simulation actually establishes, because no robustness test is given for weaker chromaticity (alpha < 1), non-power-law frequency dependence, realistic non-Gaussian beam shapes with sidelobes, or non-top-hat passband shapes. Since these assumptions are load-bearing for the headline bias magnitudes, I ask the authors either to add a sensitivity/robustness test (e.g., varying the chromaticity scaling and passband shape) or to temper the abstract and conclusions to present the numbers as an illustrative worst-case demonstration under an explicitly idealized beam model.
  2. [Section III, paragraph on the cosmic-variance-limited survey] The statement that in a cosmic-variance-limited survey 'the distortion of the foreground spectra can induce biases on cosmological parameters up to several standard deviations' is not accompanied by any experimental setup, noise level, multipole range, or quantitative figure. Given that this is one of the strongest motivations in the paper, the claim needs either a reference to a specific calculation or a direct forecast; otherwise it should be removed or explicitly labeled as a qualitative expectation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Figures 5 and 6] There are typos in the captions and text: '1-dimentional' and '2-dimentional' should be 'one-dimensional' and 'two-dimensional', and 'baises' should be 'biases'.
  2. [Section III, text after Fig. 3] The phrase 'mesurement errors' should read 'measurement errors'.
  3. [Section I, introduction] The sentence describing the ACT DR4 treatment of color correction is informative but slightly awkward: 'Color-corrections for the other sky components were neglected' is followed by a long parenthetical. Consider splitting this into two sentences for readability.
  4. [Eq. (10)] It may help the reader to explicitly note that r^c_{\ell,\nu} is normalized to unit integral over the passband when multiplied by the beam, since this normalization is central to the interpretation of Eq. (11) as a beam-weighted SED average.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bias forecast is a forward simulation with stated assumptions; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper is a forward forecasting exercise, not a circular derivation. It assumes Gaussian chromatic beams with a stated frequency scaling (FWHM(ν) = FWHM(ν0)(ν/ν0)^(-α/2), Eqs. 16-18) and ~30 GHz top-hat passbands, injects them into simulated foreground spectra using Eq. 9, and then analyzes the simulated data with an achromatic likelihood built from Eq. 13. The resulting parameter shifts are computed consequences of this assumed input model, not quantities fitted from data and then relabeled as predictions. The formalism itself is derived algebraically from the map-level expression in Eq. 2, and the achromatic limit in Eq. 13 is explicitly identified as the standard bandpass integration, so no known result is being renamed. The statement 'By construction, in our formalism the CMB power spectrum should remain unaffected by beam chromaticity' is an explicit consequence of defining the CMB beam as the passband-weighted average in Eq. 5; the paper does not present this as an empirical prediction. The implementation is cross-checked against the external bplike code in Appendix A with agreement at numerical precision, which provides independent support for the code. The in-preparation citation [48] for the α scaling is an openly stated modeling choice ('we can add an extra frequency scaling [48]'), not a load-bearing external theorem, and Ref. [40] supplies benchmark simulation settings and foreground SEDs as standard inputs, not the target conclusion. The quantitative forecast is model-dependent — Gaussian beams, α >= 1, and 30 GHz top-hat passbands — but that is a robustness limitation, not circularity.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. All parameters are drawn from existing experiment designs or standard foreground models. The axioms are the standard separability assumptions of CMB foreground analysis plus the simplified beam model used in the forecast.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (beam chromaticity scaling exponent) = 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 (scanned)
    Controls the strength of the simulated beam chromaticity via FWHM proportional to nu^(-alpha/2) (Eq. 18). Bias magnitudes scale with alpha; alpha=2 is the diffraction-limited case.
  • Passband width Delta-nu = ~30 GHz (top-hat)
    Sets the fractional width Delta-nu/nu ~ 0.2 quoted in the abstract. Wider passbands increase the color correction and the biases.
  • Telescope diameter D = 6 m
    Sets the diffraction-limited resolution FWHM(nu0)=c/(nu0 D). Chosen as characteristic of high-resolution CMB experiments; determines the multipole range where beam effects matter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Beams are azimuthally symmetric and described by radial profile b(theta, nu).
    Used throughout Section II before Eq. 1. Holds for the main beam component under redundant scanning, as the authors note.
  • domain assumption Foregrounds factor into a spectral energy distribution and an angular template at pivot frequency nu0 (a_FG(nu) = f_FG^nu,nu0 a_FG(nu0)).
    Invoked in Eq. 6 following Ref [25, 47]. Standard in CMB foreground modeling; needed to write cross-spectra as C_l times SED integrals.
  • domain assumption CMB emission is frequency-independent in differential temperature units.
    Used in Eq. 2 to factor the CMB signal out of the frequency integral. True by construction of CMB temperature units.
  • ad hoc to paper Chromatic beams are Gaussian with FWHM scaling per Eq. 18, and passbands are top-hat.
    Model for the forecast in Section III. Not part of the general formalism; real beams are more complex. Stated by the authors as a simplification.
  • domain assumption No other systematic effects are present (planets, pointing, bandpass shifts).
    Stated in Section III: 'assuming that no other systematics effect is present.' Deliberately isolates the chromaticity effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling beam chromaticity for high-resolution CMB analyses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQY63APT

@misc{pith2026241110124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling beam chromaticity for high-resolution CMB analyses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQY63APT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10124}
}
abstract

We investigate the impact of beam chromaticity, i.e., the frequency dependence of the beam window function, on cosmological and astrophysical parameter constraints from CMB power spectrum observations. We show that for future high-resolution CMB measurements it is necessary to include a color-corrected beam for each sky component with a distinct spectral energy distribution. We introduce a formalism able to easily implement the beam chromaticity in CMB power spectrum likelihood analyses and run a case study using a Simons Observatory (SO) Large Aperture Telescope-like experimental setup and within the public SO software stack. To quantify the impact, we assume that beam chromaticity is present in simulated spectra but omitted in the likelihood analysis. We find that, for passbands of fractional width $\Delta \nu/\nu \sim 0.2$, neglecting this effect leads to significant biases, with astrophysical foreground parameters shifting by more than $2\sigma$ and cosmological parameters by significant fractions of the error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the variation of a Gaussian bℓ,ν within three example channels at c = 93, 145 and 225 GHz. De￾pending on the value of α considered and with a band￾pass width of ∼ 30 GHz, the chromaticity of the beam (see Eq. 18) becomes more and more evident as we go to smaller scales [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fractional variation of the foreground SED inte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Shifts in the Neff and as (the amplitude of unre￾solved radio sources in temperature) posteriors due to the presence of Gaussian chromatic beams (with different fre￾quency scaling α) in the simulated spectra, not taken into account in the likelihood analysis. The case α = 2 represents the diffraction-limited beam for each spectral element, while α = 0 case represents the achromatic beam. The vertical dot￾ted lines s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative difference between some extragalactic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: One- and two-dimentional distributions for the cosmological parameters recovered from simulations including Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: One- and two-dimentional distributions for the foreground parameters recovered from Gaussian chromatic beams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    A. J. Duivenvoorden et al. , In preparation

    work page

  2. [1]

    C. L. Bennett et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 20 (2013), arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [2]

    Hinshaw et al

    G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    S. K. Choi et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 045 (2020), arXiv:2007.07289 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Dutcher et al

    D. Dutcher et al. (SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D 104, 022003 (2021), arXiv:2101.01684 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Balkenhol et al

    L. Balkenhol et al. (SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D 108, 023510 (2023), arXiv:2212.05642 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (POLARBEAR), Astrophys. J. 794, 171 (2014), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 848, 73 (2017)], arXiv:1403.2369 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  4. [11]

    Zacchei et al

    A. Zacchei et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 536, A5 (2011), arXiv:1101.2040 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck HFI Core Team), Astron. As- trophys. 536, A6 (2011), arXiv:1101.2048 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [13]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A2 (2016), arXiv:1502.01583 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A6 (2014), arXiv:1303.5067 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Adam et al

    R. Adam et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A7 (2016), arXiv:1502.01586 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Adam et al

    R. Adam et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A8 (2016), arXiv:1502.01587 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A2 (2020), arXiv:1807.06206 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A3 (2020), arXiv:1807.06207 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A15 (2014), arXiv:1303.5075 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A11 (2016), arXiv:1507.02704 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, (2019), 10.21105/as- tro.1910.00483, arXiv:1910.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    J. M. Delouis, L. Pagano, S. Mottet, J. L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astron. Astrophys. 629, A38 (2019), arXiv:1901.11386 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Dunkley et al., JCAP 07, 025 (2013), arXiv:1301.0776 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Dunkley et al., JCAP 07, 025 (2013), arXiv:1301.0776 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [26]

    E. M. George et al. , Astrophys. J. 799, 177 (2015), arXiv:1408.3161 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    C. L. Reichardt et al. (SPT), Astrophys. J. 908, 199 (2021), arXiv:2002.06197 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Komatsu and U

    E. Komatsu and U. Seljak, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 336, 1256 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205468

    2002 arXiv

  22. [29]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, N. Battaglia, and H. Miyatake, Phys. Rev. D 96, 103525 (2017), arXiv:1708.07502 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Douspis, L

    M. Douspis, L. Salvati, A. Gorce, and N. Aghanim, Astron. Astrophys. 659, A99 (2022), arXiv:2109.03272 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A30 (2014), arXiv:1309.0382 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [32]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A23 (2016), arXiv:1509.06555 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    A. S. Maniyar, M. B´ ethermin, and G. Lagache, Astron. Astrophys. 645, A40 (2021), arXiv:2006.16329 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Zagatti, E

    G. Zagatti, E. Calabrese, C. Chiocchetta, M. Gerbino, M. Negrello, and L. Pagano, (2024), arXiv:2406.19069 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Ade et al

    P. Ade et al. (Simons Observatory), JCAP 02, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. (Topical Conveners: K.N. Abaza- jian, J.E. Carlstrom, A.T. Lee), Astropart. Phys. 63, 66 (2015), arXiv:1309.5383 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [37]

    M. H. Abitbol et al. , JCAP 05, 032 (2021), arXiv:2011.02449 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Coulton et al

    W. Coulton et al. (ACT), Phys. Rev. D 109, 063530 (2024), arXiv:2307.01258 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A3 (2016), arXiv:1507.08853 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Giardiello et al

    S. Giardiello et al. , JCAP 09, 008 (2024), arXiv:2403.05242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Dachlythra et al

    N. Dachlythra et al. , In preparation

  35. [42]

    Challinor, P

    A. Challinor, P. Fosalba, D. Mortlock, M. Ashdown, B. Wandelt, and K. G´ orski, Physical Review D 62 (2000), 10.1103/physrevd.62.123002

    2000 doi

  36. [43]

    K. M. Huffenberger, B. P. Crill, A. E. Lange, K. M. Gorski, and C. R. Lawrence, Astron. Astrophys. 510, A58 (2010), arXiv:1007.3468 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Lungu et al., JCAP 05, 044 (2022), arXiv:2112.12226 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Lungu et al., JCAP 05, 044 (2022), arXiv:2112.12226 [astro-ph.IM]. 8

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    J. W. Henning et al. (SPT), Astrophys. J. 852, 97 (2018), arXiv:1707.09353 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    M. S. Madhavacheril et al. , Phys. Rev. D 102, 023534 (2020), arXiv:1911.05717 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Tegmark, D

    M. Tegmark, D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, and A. de Oliveira-Costa, Astrophys. J. 530, 133 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9905257

    2000 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A4 (2020), arXiv:1807.06208 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A11 (2020), arXiv:1801.04945 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    C. R. Harris et al. , Nature 585, 357 (2020), arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering 9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]. Appendix A: Comparison betweenLAT mflike and bplike implementations of beam chromaticity The implementation of beam chromaticity inbplike is similar to the one outlined in Section II. The foreground power spectra are computed a...

    2019 arXiv

  46. [2018]

    This is not an official Simons Observatory Collaboration paper

    The Flatiron Institute is supported by the Simons Foundation. This is not an official Simons Observatory Collaboration paper

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.