Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Impact of reionization history on constraining primordial gravitational waves in future all-sky cosmic microwave background experiments

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An incorrect reionization history can bias constraints on primordial gravitational waves inferred from CMB polarization, but the large-scale E-mode power spectrum can identify and exclude such scenarios, keeping the constraints robust for…

desk verdict A solid forecast on reionization-model bias for LiteBIRD-era tensor constraints, but the advertised E-mode veto is asserted, not quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15849 v2 pith:PBNNA6B5 submitted 2024-12-20 astro-ph.CO

Hanchun Jiang , Toshiya Namikawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords reionizationhistoryprimordialgravitationalwavesCMBpolarizationB-modetensor-to-scalarratioLiteBIRDE-modepowerspectrumbump
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 asks whether uncertainty in the reionization history—the epoch when neutral hydrogen became ionized—could corrupt a future LiteBIRD-like experiment's measurement of primordial gravitational waves from the cosmic microwave background's polarization. The authors fit mock CMB data generated with two alternative reionization histories using the standard tanh reionization template. They find that an exponential reionization history leaves the recovered tensor-to-scalar ratio and binned tensor power spectrum unbiased, while a purposely generated 'exotic' history biases several parameters by more than 1σ. Crucially, the same exotic history produces a large discrepancy between the observed and best-fit E-mode power spectrum at the reionization bump, so measuring E-modes on large scales would flag and exclude it. If correct, this makes future PGW constraints robust against reionization uncertainty provided the E-mode measurement is clean.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three objects: (1) a binned primordial tensor power spectrum $P_h(k) = P^{\mathrm{fid}}_h(k) + \delta P_i$ over eight logarithmic bins in $k$, defined following Hiramatsu et al. (2018); (2) the tanh reionization template used to fit the data, parameterized by $z_{\mathrm{reio}}$ and hence the optical depth $\tau$; and (3) the E-mode reionization bump, which responds to the ionization history at $z \simeq 5$–$22$ and provides the diagnostic that separates a wrong model from an acceptable one. The forecast uses a Wishart log-likelihood for E and B modes with LiteBIRD-like white noise, $f_{\mathrm{sky}}=0.7$, and a Gaussian 30 arcmin beam.

What would settle it

Run the same forecast with a realistic E-mode noise model that includes Galactic foreground residuals and 1/f noise at l<30; if the discrepancy between the best-fit and fiducial E-mode spectra shrinks below the error bars while the bias in r, δP6, and δP7 persists, the paper's robustness conclusion would fail. Alternatively, generating an ensemble of exotic reionization histories and checking whether some biased cases evade the E-mode veto would directly test the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the shape of the primordial tensor power spectrum can be recovered robustly despite uncertainty in the reionization history, as long as the large-scale E-mode polarization is measured. In the forecast, mock data are created with either an exponential reionization model or a randomly generated exotic model and then fitted with a tanh template. With the exponential model, all parameters—the tensor-to-scalar ratio r, the optical depth τ, and the eight k-space bins δP1–δP8—land within the 68% confidence region. With the selected exotic model (τ=0.08), r, δP6, and δP7 are biased by more than 1σ, and τ is biased severely. The same exotic history changes the E-mode spectrum at multipoles l=10–30, producing a best-fit E-mode spectrum that disagrees with the fiducial one by more than the observational errors; the authors conclude that this discrepancy would 'easily exclude' the exotic scenario and make the PGW constraints robust.

Load-bearing premise

The E-mode veto works only if the large-scale E-mode power spectrum is measured as cleanly as assumed—white noise, no Galactic foregrounds, no 1/f noise, no cut-sky effects—so that the discrepancy identifying the wrong reionization model remains visible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a LiteBIRD-like experiment, constraints on $r$ and on the small-scale tensor bins $\delta P_6$ and $\delta P_7$ are robust to reionization uncertainty of the exponential type, with all parameters staying within the 68% confidence region.
  • A reionization history with high ionization fraction at high redshift, like the exotic example, biases $r$ and the small-scale bins by more than 1σ when the data are fit with a tanh template.
  • The same data's large-scale E-mode power spectrum provides a consistency check that excludes such biased scenarios, preventing the bias from surviving in the final PGW constraints.
  • Accurate measurement of the E-mode reionization bump is therefore crucial for robustly constraining the shape of the primordial tensor power spectrum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Galactic foregrounds, $1/f$ noise, or cut-sky effects degrade the large-scale E-mode measurement, the veto could fail and the >1σ bias could survive; testing the claim with a more complete noise model would be a natural extension of this forecast.
  • The 'exotic' model is a single sampled history from a random ensemble; scanning the full ensemble would reveal how often biases exceed 1σ and how often the E-mode veto catches them.
  • The same veto logic could be applied to other parameters that affect the reionization bump, such as a running tensor spectral index, and to other all-sky experiments with different noise levels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses a forward-simulation MCMC forecast to study how an incorrect assumption about the reionization history affects constraints on a binned primordial tensor power spectrum (PTPS) for a LiteBIRD-like all-sky CMB experiment. The authors generate mock E- and B-mode polarization data with two alternative 'true' reionization histories (an exponential model and a hand-picked 'exotic' model biased toward double-reionization behavior) and fit them with a tanh reionization template, simultaneously varying r, eight PTPS bin amplitudes δP_i, and τ. They find that the exponential model produces no significant bias, while the exotic model shifts r, δP6, and δP7 by more than 1σ. The abstract concludes that large-scale E-mode measurements would 'easily exclude' the exotic scenario, making the PGW constraints robust.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the paper would provide a useful cautionary result for LiteBIRD-era analyses: the tanh template is adequate for smooth reionization histories, but some non-standard histories can bias nontrivial PTPS parameters even when current external constraints are satisfied. The study extends Mortonson & Hu (2007) and Hiramatsu et al. (2018) to a more realistic LiteBIRD noise level and to a generic PTPS, and the exponential-model result is a clean, well-posed demonstration. The main weakness is that the central robustness claim—that an E-mode veto protects the analysis—is asserted from a visual discrepancy rather than demonstrated with a quantitative model-selection or goodness-of-fit statistic. The paper also relies on a single adversarially selected exotic model and an idealized noise model, so the practical relevance of the veto, and the frequency of dangerous reionization histories, remain unknown. The manuscript is transparent about these simplifications, which is a strength, but the abstract's 'robust' conclusion is not yet supported by the presented evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV, Fig. 6] The claim that large-scale E-mode power would 'easily exclude' the exotic scenario is not demonstrated. The likelihood in Eq. (10) already includes E-mode data with lmin=2 and lmax=1300, yet the MCMC run for the exotic model in Fig. 4 still converges to a heavily biased posterior (τ = 0.0954 ± 0.0006 versus the fiducial 0.08, a >20σ shift). The exclusion is based on a visual mismatch between the best-fit and fiducial E-mode spectra in Fig. 6, with no χ² difference, p-value, or Bayesian evidence reported. To make the abstract's robustness claim load-bearing, the authors should specify and apply an explicit analysis step: for example, compute the Δχ² of the best-fit tanh model against the mock E-mode data, show that it would be rejected at high significance for the exotic model while accepted for the exponential model, and discuss the threshold at which a fit would be discarded before reporting r.
  2. [Sec. II B 2 and Sec. IV] The 'exotic' model is a single realization selected after generating many random models to find one that maximizes the bias, but the paper does not report how many models were generated, how the selection was performed, or whether other models with similar bias exist. This makes it impossible to assess whether the demonstrated bias represents a realistic, non-negligible risk or an extreme adversarial corner. The paper should quantify the frequency of dangerous reionization histories: for instance, report the fraction of generated models that pass the Planck E-mode χ² selection (for τ0=0.054) or the τ0=0.08 prior and that produce >1σ bias in any PTPS parameter. Without this, the statement in the abstract that the constraints are 'robust against the reionization uncertainties' goes beyond what the single-example analysis can support.
  3. [Sec. V and Eq. (10)] The E-mode veto is evaluated under an idealized measurement assumption: white noise, a Gaussian beam, full-sky likelihood with fsky scaling, and no foregrounds or 1/f noise. As the paper itself notes, the likelihood approximation in Eq. (10) is not valid for a real cut-sky analysis, and large-scale polarization is dominated by Galactic foregrounds. The discrepancy that is supposed to identify the wrong reionization model appears mainly at l < 10 in Fig. 6, exactly the multipole range where foreground residuals and 1/f noise are most dangerous. The authors should either add a simple foreground-residual noise term and show that the veto survives, or soften the abstract's 'robust' claim to something conditional, such as 'would exclude in an idealized full-sky, white-noise measurement.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II B 2] There is a typo: 'TThe other model' should read 'The other model'.
  2. [Sec. IV heading] The section title 'RESUL TS' contains an unintended space; it should be 'RESULTS'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption labels the exotic models with τ=0.054 (green) and τ=0.08 (red), but the text in Sec. IV refers only to 'the red line'. Please state explicitly that Fig. 4 uses the τ=0.08 exotic model, since this choice is important for interpreting the bias.
  4. [Reference [69]] The arXiv identifier appears as 'arXiv:1009.3204S' with a trailing 'S'; this should be 'arXiv:1009.3204'.
  5. [Sec. IV, discussion of degeneracies] The sentence 'an increase (decrease) of r is compensated by decreasing (increasing) δPi with i ≥ 2' would be clearer if it also noted whether this anti-correlation is a result of the reionization bump or of the recombination bump, since the later discussion attributes the small-scale bias to high-redshift ionization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecast is a self-contained forward simulation, and the unquantified E-mode veto is a robustness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The analysis is a forward simulation: mock C^{XX,fid}_l are computed from a chosen true reionization history (exponential or exotic) and fit with a tanh template via the Wishart log-likelihood in Eq. (10). The PTPS bin amplitudes δP_i in Eq. (1) are free parameters, and the claimed biases are properties of the fitted posterior, not of the model definition. The selected 'exotic' model is generated randomly and chosen for maximal bias (Sec. II B 2), which is adversarial modeling rather than circular reasoning. The robustness statement in Sec. V ('such a scenario would be easily excluded by measuring the large-scale E-mode power spectrum') is presented qualitatively and is not demonstrated with a Δχ² or evidence statistic; this is an unsupported extrapolation and a correctness/robustness gap, and Sec. V itself lists foreground, 1/f noise, and cut-sky caveats. However, no equation reduces the conclusion to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., [28], [31]) are used only for LiteBIRD experimental assumptions and likelihood conventions that are also cited to external papers; they are not load-bearing for the bias calculation. No circularity found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a forecast study, so the ledger lists modeling choices and idealizations rather than fitted physical constants. The central claims depend on the template reionization model, the binned tensor spectrum parametrization, the white-noise likelihood, and the cleanliness of large-scale E-mode data. The paper is transparent about most of these assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • Exotic reionization model shape (z2, z3 and xe values) = not stated; selected to maximize bias
    The paper generates random exotic histories and keeps the single one that produces the largest bias in PTPS constraints (Sec. II.B.2). The conclusions about bias and E-mode exclusion depend on this hand-picked shape.
  • tanh reionization template duration Δz = 0.5
    Fixed throughout the forecast; with a more flexible template the E-mode exclusion or the bias could differ.
  • PTPS binning parameters (k0, α, N) = 1e-4 Mpc^-1, 2.04, 8
    Taken from Hiramatsu et al. (2018); the binning sets which spectral shapes the forecast can detect.
  • Tensor-to-scalar ratio fiducials r = 0.01 and 0.001
    Chosen to represent current upper limits and the LiteBIRD sensitivity target; results are shown for both values.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The tanh model with Δz=0.5 is the analysis template for reionization.
    The forecast varies only z_reio when fitting; the E-mode exclusion conclusion is specific to this restricted template (Sec. II.B, Sec. IV).
  • domain assumption The Wishart/chi-square likelihood with fsky scaling is accurate for the full-sky LiteBIRD-like data model.
    Used in Eq. (10); the authors note it is not valid for real cut-sky data (Sec. V).
  • domain assumption The tensor spectral index and running satisfy the slow-roll consistency relations.
    Eq. (3) restricts the primordial tensor spectrum tested in the forecast to slow-roll inflation.
  • ad hoc to paper The one selected exotic model is representative of plausible reionization histories consistent with current data.
    The paper shows only the single worst-case model; no ensemble test across exotic histories is presented (Sec. II.B.2, Fig. 4).
  • domain assumption Large-scale E-mode measurements are free of significant foreground and 1/f noise contamination.
    The E-mode diagnostic relies on this assumption; the authors list it as a simplification in Sec. V.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of reionization history on constraining primordial gravitational waves in future all-sky cosmic microwave background experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBNNA6B5

@misc{pith2026241215849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of reionization history on constraining primordial gravitational waves in future all-sky cosmic microwave background experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBNNA6B5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15849}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the impact of the reionization history on examining the shape of the power spectrum of the primordial gravitational waves (PGWs) with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) polarization. The large-scale CMB generated from the reionization epoch is important in probing the PGWs from all-sky experiments, such as LiteBIRD. The reionization model has been constrained by several astrophysical observations. However, its uncertainty could impact constraining models of the PGWs if we use large-scale CMB polarization. Here, by expanding the analysis of Mortonson & Hu (2007), we estimate how reionization uncertainty impacts constraints on a generic primordial tensor power spectrum. We assume that CMB polarization is measured by a LiteBIRD-like experiment and the tanh model is adopted for a theoretical template when we fit data. We show that constraints are almost unchanged even if the true reionization history is described by an exponential model, where all parameters are within 68% Confidence Level (CL). We also show an example of the reionization history that the constraints on the PGWs are biased more than 68% CL. Even in that case, using E-mode power spectrum on large scales would exclude such a scenario and make the PGW constraints robust against the reionization uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Free electron fraction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The process to generate random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The posterior distribution of parameters for the exponential model case, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Field Theory Of Cosmological Perturbations Induced By Ultralight Dark Matter

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Classical ULDM condensate decouples from GW propagation; squeezing-induced parametric resonance of primordial tensor modes is ≲10^{-12} for non-relativistic ULDM at equality.

  2. A Measurement of the Largest-Scale CMB E-mode Polarization with CLASS

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CLASS 90 GHz data cross-correlated with Planck give tau = 0.053 (+0.018, -0.019), the first ground-based reionization optical depth measurement, with reionization detected at 99.4% confidence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (4) is replaced to 1 xreio(z) = exp −λ (z − zc)3/2 1 + [∆z/(z − zc)2]

    Exponential model The first model we consider is the exponential model described in the CAMB package [65] where xreio(z) in Eq. (4) is replaced to 1 xreio(z) = exp −λ (z − zc)3/2 1 + [∆z/(z − zc)2] . (7) Here, the evolution rate in the exponential, λ, is defined as λ = − ln 0.5 (z∗ − zc)2/3 . (8) For simplicity, we assume that the redshift when the reioni...

    work page

  2. [2]

    ,'#!,!$,'#

    Exotic reionization model TThe other model we consider for the true reioniza- tion history is an exotic model. It demonstrates how the PTPS constraint depends on the assumed reionization history. We generate the parametrized reionization his- tory as a function of z using random points. The process is shown in Fig. 2. Note that we generate many exotic mod...

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    A. A. Starobinsky Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980), no. 1 99–102

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    A. H. Guth Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981), no. 2 347

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    Brout, F

    R. Brout, F. Englert, and E. Gunzig Annals of Physics 115 (1978), no. 1 78–106

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    Kazanas Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Editor 241 (1980) L59–L63

    D. Kazanas Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Editor 241 (1980) L59–L63

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    A. D. Linde Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982), no. 6 389–393

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. Chibisov ZhETF Pisma Redaktsiiu 33 (1981) 549–553

    work page 1981

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Sato Mon

    K. Sato Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 195 (1981), no. 3 467–479

    1981

  2. [10]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982), no. 17 1220

    1982

  3. [11]

    A. D. Linde Phys. Lett. B 116 (1982), no. 5 335–339

    1982

  4. [12]

    A. A. Starobinsky Phys. Lett. B 117 (1982), no. 3-4 175–178

    1982

  5. [13]

    A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982), no. 15 1110

    1982

  6. [14]

    S. W. Hawking Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982), no. 4 295–297

    1982

  7. [15]

    Rubakov, M

    V. Rubakov, M. V. Sazhin, and A. Veryaskin Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982), no. 3 189–192

    1982

  8. [16]

    Fabbri and M

    R. Fabbri and M. Pollock Phys. Lett. B 125 (1983), no. 6 445–448. 9

    1983

  9. [17]

    J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983), no. 4 679

    1983

  10. [18]

    Starobinskii JETP Letters 30 (1979), no

    A. Starobinskii JETP Letters 30 (1979), no. 11 682–685

    1979

  11. [19]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and A. Stebbins Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997), no. 12 7368

    1997

  12. [20]

    Seljak Astrophys

    U. Seljak Astrophys. J. 482 (1997), no. 1 6

    1997

  13. [21]

    L. F. Abbott and M. B. Wise Nuclear physics B 244 (1984), no. 2 541–548

    1984

  14. [22]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and A. Stebbins Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997), no. 11 2058

    1997

  15. [23]

    R. L. Davis, H. M. Hodges, G. F. Smoot, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992), no. 13 1856

    1992

  16. [24]

    Kamionkowski and E

    M. Kamionkowski and E. D. Kovetz Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 54 (2016) 227–269

    2016

  17. [25]

    Seljak and M

    U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997), no. 11 2054

    1997

  18. [26]

    Zaldarriaga and U

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997), no. 4 1830

    1997

  19. [27]

    Tristram et al

    M. Tristram et al. Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 8 083524, arXiv:2112.07961

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Namikawa et al

    T. Namikawa et al. Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 2 023511, arXiv:2110.09730

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ach´ ucarroet al

    A. Ach´ ucarroet al. arXiv:2203.08128

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. A. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, R. B. Thakur, C. Bischoff, D. Beck, J. Bock, H. Boenish, E. Bullock, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021), no. 15 151301

    2021

  23. [31]

    Namikawa et al

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, T. Namikawa et al. JCAP 06 (2024) 010, arXiv:2312.05194

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Natarajan and N

    A. Natarajan and N. Yoshida Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2014 (2014), no. 6 06B112, arXiv:1404.7146

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hertig et al

    Simons Observatory Collaboration, E. Hertig et al. Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 4 043532, arXiv:2405.01621

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Allys, K

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, E. Allys, K. Arnold, J. Aumont, R. Aurlien, S. Azzoni, C. Baccigalupi, A. Banday, R. Banerji, R. Barreiro, et al. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2023 (2023), no. 4 042F01, arXiv:2202.02773

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Adam et al

    Planck Collaboration, R. Adam et al. Astron. Astrophys. 596 (2016) A108, arXiv:1605.03507

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. H. Heinrich, V. Miranda, and W. Hu Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 2 023513, arXiv:1609.04788

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lewis, J

    A. Lewis, J. Weller, and R. Battye Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 373 (2006) 561–570, astro-ph/0606552

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Komatsu, K

    E. Komatsu, K. M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright Astrophys. J. sup...

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ahn and P

    K. Ahn and P. R. Shapiro Astrophys. J. 914 (2021), no. 1 44, arXiv:2011.03582

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Y. Qin, V. Poulin, A. Mesinger, B. Greig, S. Murray, and J. Park Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499 (2020), no. 1 550–558, arXiv:2006.16828

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. K. Hazra, D. Paoletti, F. Finelli, and G. F. Smoot J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2018) 016, arXiv:1807.05435

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Millea and F

    M. Millea and F. Bouchet Astron. Astrophys. 617 (2018) A96, arXiv:1804.08476

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Giar` e, E

    W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, and A. MelchiorriPhys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 10 103519, arXiv:2312.06482

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    suggest reionization completed by z ∼ 6 [45], while arXiv:2412.15849v2 [astro-ph.CO] 25 Dec 2024 2 Lyman-α optical depth fluctuations in quasar spectra [46] and the inferred low mean free path of ionizing photons

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aghanim et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Measurements of the reionization history are even less precise, particularly regarding the time and spatial vari- ations at higher redshifts [48]

    indicate a later completion around z ∼ 5.2. Measurements of the reionization history are even less precise, particularly regarding the time and spatial vari- ations at higher redshifts [48]. The Ly α emission line, sensitive to neutral hydrogen, is a crucial probe [49], but Ly...

    2007

  39. [48]

    J. E. Gunn and B. A. Peterson Astrophysical Journal, vol. 142, p. 1633-1636 142 (1965) 1633–1636

    1965

  40. [49]

    X. Fan, M. A. Strauss, G. T. Richards, J. F. Hennawi, R. H. Becker, R. L. White, A. M. Diamond-Stanic, J. L. Donley, L. Jiang, J. S. Kim, et al. The Astronomical Journal 131 (2006), no. 3 1203

    2006

  41. [50]

    S. E. Bosman, F. B. Davies, G. D. Becker, L. C. Keating, R. L. Davies, Y. Zhu, A.-C. Eilers, V. D’Odorico, F. Bian, M. Bischetti, et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514 (2022), no. 1 55–76

    2022

  42. [51]

    Gaikwad, M

    P. Gaikwad, M. G. Haehnelt, F. B. Davies, S. E. Bosman, M. Molaro, G. Kulkarni, V. D’Odorico, G. D. Becker, R. L. Davies, F. Nasir, et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 525 (2023), no. 3 4093–4120

    2023

  43. [52]

    Dai, Y.-Z

    W.-M. Dai, Y.-Z. Ma, Z.-K. Guo, and R.-G. Cai Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 4 043524, arXiv:1805.02236

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Ouchi, Y

    M. Ouchi, Y. Ono, and T. Shibuya Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 58 (2020), no. 1 617–659

    2020

  45. [54]

    Nakane, M

    M. Nakane, M. Ouchi, K. Nakajima, Y. Harikane, Y. Ono, H. Umeda, Y. Isobe, Y. Zhang, and Y. Xu The Astrophysical Journal 967 (2024), no. 1 28

    2024

  46. [55]

    Hu and G

    W. Hu and G. P. Holder Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 023001, astro-ph/0303400

    2003 arXiv

  47. [56]

    D. J. Watts, G. E. Addison, C. L. Bennett, and J. L. Weiland Astrophys. J. 889 (2020), no. 2 130, arXiv:1910.00590

    2020 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Sakamoto, K

    H. Sakamoto, K. Ahn, K. Ichiki, H. Moon, and K. Hasegawa Astrophys. J. 930 (2022), no. 2 140, arXiv:2202.04263

    2022 arXiv

  49. [58]

    M. J. Mortonson and W. Hu Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 043506, arXiv:0710.4162

    2008 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Lau, J.-Y

    K. Lau, J.-Y. Tang, and M.-C. Chu Res. Astron. Astrophys. 14 (2014) 635–647, arXiv:1305.3921

    2014 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Paoletti, D

    D. Paoletti, D. K. Hazra, F. Finelli, and G. F. Smoot J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2020) 005, arXiv:2005.12222

    2020 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Gorce, M

    A. Gorce, M. Douspis, and L. Salvati Astron. Astrophys. 662 (2022) A122, arXiv:2202.08698

    2022 arXiv

  53. [62]

    D. Jain, T. R. Choudhury, S. Mukherjee, and S. Paul Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 522 (2023), no. 2 2901–2918

    2023

  54. [63]

    Mukherjee, S

    S. Mukherjee, S. Paul, and T. R. Choudhury Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 486 (2019), no. 2 2042–2049

    2019

  55. [64]

    D. Jain, S. Mukherjee, and T. R. Choudhury Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527 (2024), no. 2 2560–2572

    2024

  56. [65]

    Campeti, E

    P. Campeti, E. Komatsu, et al. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2024) 008, arXiv:2312.00717

    2024 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Hiramatsu, E

    T. Hiramatsu, E. Komatsu, M. Hazumi, and M. Sasaki Physical Review D 97 (2018), no. 12 123511

    2018

  58. [67]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2011 (2011), no. 07 034–034, arXiv:1104.2933

    2011 arXiv

  59. [68]

    J. E. Lidsey, A. R. Liddle, E. W. Kolb, E. J. Copeland, T. Barreiro, and M. Abney Reviews of Modern Physics 69 (1997), no. 2 373

    1997

  60. [69]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby Astrophys. J. 538 (2000) 473–476, astro-ph/9911177. 10

    2000 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Tristram, A

    M. Tristram, A. Banday, M. Douspis, X. Garrido, K. G´ orski, S. Henrot-Versill´ e, S. Ili´ c, R. Keskitalo, G. Lagache, C. Lawrence, et al. Astron. Astrophys. 682 (2024) A37, arXiv:2309.10034

    2024 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Cen Astrophys

    R. Cen Astrophys. J. 591 (2003) 12–37, astro-ph/0210473

    2003 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. Milosavljevic, and R. Jimenez Physical Review D 66 (2002), no. 6 063007

    2002

  64. [73]

    Namikawa, S

    T. Namikawa, S. Saito, and A. Taruya J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2010 (2010), no. 12 027, arXiv:1009.3204S

    2010 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Hamimeche and A

    S. Hamimeche and A. Lewis Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 103013, arXiv:0801.0554

    2008 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Katayama and E

    N. Katayama and E. Komatsu Astrophys. J. 737 (2011), no. 2 78, arXiv:1101.5210

    2011 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 125 (2013), no. 925 306

    2013

  68. [77]

    Stompor, S

    R. Stompor, S. M. Leach, F. Stivoli, and C. Baccigalupi Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 392 (2009) 216, arXiv:0804.2645

    2009 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Ichiki, H

    K. Ichiki, H. Kanai, N. Katayama, and E. Komatsu Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019 (2019) 033E01, arXiv:1811.03886

    2019 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Remazeilles, A

    M. Remazeilles, A. Rotti, and J. Chluba Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 503 (2021) 2478–2498, arXiv:2006.08628

    2021 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Carones, M

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, A. Carones, M. Migliaccio, G. Puglisi, C. Baccigalupi, D. Marinucci, N. Vittorio, and D. Poletti Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 525 (2023), no. 2 3117–3135, arXiv:2212.04456

    2023 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Aghanim et al

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al. Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A11, arXiv:1507.02704

    2016 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Gerbino, M

    M. Gerbino, M. Lattanzi, M. Migliaccio, L. Pagano, L. Salvati, L. Colombo, A. Gruppuso, P. Natoli, and G. Polenta Front. in Phys. 8 (2020) 15, arXiv:1909.09375

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.