Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Planck PR4 (NPIPE) map-space cosmic birefringence

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

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

Pith's one-line read Map-space stacking of Planck PR4 maps finds a total CMB polarization rotation between 0.46 and 0.48 degrees.

desk verdict Solid, well-caveated map-space cross-check of Planck PR4 birefringence; new PR4 numbers, honest about the calibration wall, but the foreground-bias term is missing from the error budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07654 v1 pith:NLQ6M6MS submitted 2025-02-11 astro-ph.CO

Raelyn Marguerite Sullivan , Arefe Abghari , Patricia Diego-Palazuelos , Lukas Tobias Hergt , Douglas Scott This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicbirefringenceCMBpolarizationPlanckPR4NPIPEmap-spacepeakstackingparityviolationE/Bmixingpolarimetercalibration
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 measures cosmic birefringence, a rotation of the CMB polarization plane caused by a hypothetical parity-violating field, directly in map space using Planck's reprocessed PR4 (NPIPE) data. Stacking polarization around temperature and E-mode extrema, the authors find a total rotation angle of 0.46° ± 0.04°(stat.) ± 0.28°(syst.) for SEVEM maps and 0.48° ± 0.04°(stat.) ± 0.28°(syst.) for Commander maps. These values agree with earlier harmonic-space estimates and, because the dominant systematic is the calibration uncertainty of Planck's polarimeters, they are also compatible with no parity violation. The authors additionally find no evidence of a birefringence dipole. The wider point is that a map-space method offers a cross-check that can expose spatially varying foreground or calibration systematics that power-spectrum analyses might hide.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the radial/tangential Stokes decomposition around local extrema: transforming Stokes Q and U into Qr = -Q cos(2φ) - U sin(2φ) and Ur = Q sin(2φ) - U cos(2φ) turns the local E and B patterns into separate profiles. Around a temperature or E-mode peak, the expected Ur profile is proportional to sin(2β) times C_TE or sin(4β) times C_EE, so it vanishes in the absence of rotation. Per-peak bias parameters from peak theory weight each extremum according to its height, and linear least-squares fits yield a β per peak that can be averaged over the sky or split by mask.

What would settle it

A calibration measurement that pins the absolute polarization angle of the Planck detectors to better than about 0.1° would decide the matter: if the residual rotation after subtracting that calibration is still near 0.4°, the excess is not polarimeter miscalibration. Alternatively, a frequency-resolved stacking over the 100, 143, 217, and 353 GHz channels showing β varying with frequency beyond the miscalibration uncertainty would demonstrate foreground EB contamination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the peak-stacked Ur profiles around temperature and E-mode extrema in the Planck PR4 maps are consistent with an isotropic polarization rotation of about 0.46 to 0.48 degrees, slightly higher than previously published estimates, with the excess plausibly arising from the fact that no correction was attempted for the polarimeter miscalibration angle. The same profiles show no significant large-scale directional dependence: the fitted birefringence dipole is consistent with zero. The variations that do appear, notably between temperature and E peaks and between northern and southern hemispheres, are interpreted as hints of foreground systematic effects or an uncontrolled miscalibration, not as evidence for a cosmological signal.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that, inside the chosen mask, the stacked Q and U maps contain no significant parity-violating foreground such as dust or synchrotron EB/TB, so any measured Ur profile is entirely rotated CMB signal with zero intrinsic B modes; if that assumption fails, the fitted β is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The map-space and harmonic-space analyses of Planck PR4 data are mutually consistent, strengthening confidence that the roughly half-degree total rotation is not an artifact of a single estimator.
  • Because the 0.28° polarimeter miscalibration uncertainty dominates the error budget, the measurement cannot by itself distinguish cosmological birefringence from instrument rotation; a cosmological claim would require calibration at better than about 0.1°.
  • The systematic pattern across data cuts, with higher values in the synchrotron-rich north and differences between T and E peaks, indicates that residual foreground EB/TB or an uncontrolled miscalibration is the likeliest source of the spread.
  • No birefringence dipole is detected, so on the scales probed by the peak-weighted stacking there is no need for large-scale anisotropic birefringence to explain the PR4 maps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: a direct test of the foreground interpretation would be to measure β separately from each Planck polarization channel with the same stacking; if β drifts across 100 to 353 GHz beyond the miscalibration error, Galactic dust or synchrotron EB is contaminating the CMB-only maps.
  • Inference: the per-peak weighting scheme could be transported to other parity-violating probes, such as stacking on E-mode saddle points or on polarized sources, where the bias parameters behave differently and would provide an independent handle on systematics.
  • Inference: if the north-south asymmetry in the temperature-peak results is real and tied to the North Galactic Spur, it predicts a measurable TB spectrum in synchrotron-dominated regions at low frequencies that future experiments could directly detect.
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. This paper applies a map-space peak-stacking estimator to the Planck PR4 (NPIPE) SEVEM and Commander CMB maps to measure the isotropic cosmic birefringence angle β and an anisotropic (dipolar) component. Around local extrema of the temperature and E-mode maps, the authors construct radial Q_r and U_r profiles and fit the β that best matches the U_r signal produced by rotation of the CMB E and TE correlations. They report β = 0.46° ± 0.04°(stat.) ± 0.28°(syst.) for SEVEM and β = 0.48° ± 0.04° ± 0.28° for Commander. The systematic is dominated by Planck polarimeter miscalibration, so the results are consistent with zero cosmological birefringence. They also search for a dipole in β and find no significant signal. The pipeline is tested on 300 end-to-end NPIPE simulations, 100 injected-rotation simulations, white-noise and cosmic-variance-limited simulations, recovering the input 0.3° rotation in the idealised cases.

Significance. If the central values are taken as robust map-space estimates of the total polarization rotation in PR4 maps, they confirm earlier harmonic-space results and provide an independent cross-check in a different systematic regime. The simulation validation is a genuine strength: the injected-rotation recovery in the cosmic-variance-limited case (0.300°±0.003°) and in the white-noise case (0.302°±0.022°) demonstrates the estimator's internal consistency, and the use of realistic NPIPE end-to-end simulations is appropriate for statistical calibration. The dipole-null result is a useful addition to the anisotropic-birefringence literature. The principal limitation is that the quoted systematic budget does not include a foreground-induced parity-violating component, despite the paper's own mask and extrema-split tests suggesting such an effect, and the data error bar relies on approximations whose impact on the real data is not fully demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §4.2; Table 1; Figs. 8–10] The quoted systematic error, ±0.28°, is attributed entirely to polarimeter miscalibration (§4.1). However, Table 1 shows an offset of about 0.20° between the SEVEM All-T and All-E values (0.63°±0.10° vs 0.43°±0.04°), and Figs. 8–10 show T-peak β varying by roughly 0.2°–0.4° between hemispheres and between dust/synchrotron masks. These variations cannot be produced by an isotropic miscalibration, and the 300 NPIPE simulations contain no parity-violating foreground component, so they cannot calibrate the bias. The paper itself interprets the variations as hints of foreground TB/EB or uncontrolled miscalibration (§§4.2, 5). Since a foreground bias of this order would shift the central β values, the claim that the results are 'fairly robust against different spatial data cuts' is not supported unless either an explicit foreground-bias systematic term is added to the error budget or the robustness claim is restricted to E peaks.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (3.12)–(3.15)] The estimator assumes that the pixel noise is diagonal and equal for all pixels in a profile and ignores pixel-to-pixel and peak-to-peak correlations. The data uncertainty is then computed from Eq. (3.15), an inverse-variance weighted scatter that would underestimate the error if the peaks are correlated. The authors state that Eq. (3.15) agrees with the width of the 300 simulation histograms, but those simulations do not include parity-violating foregrounds; agreement there does not validate the data error if foregrounds add correlated variance. Because the reported statistical error is only ±0.04° and the method is used to assess 1–2σ consistency among data cuts, a direct check (e.g., jackknife over independent patches, or half-ring noise estimates) is needed to verify the error bar on the real data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2] The phrase 'the T Band EB correlations' should read 'the TB and EB correlations'.
  2. [§4.3] The word 'anisotopic' in the first sentence should be 'anisotropic'.
  3. [§3, after Eq. (3.15)] The sentence justifying the diagonal covariance says the pixels are 'all relatively close' and therefore have similar noise levels; this wording is confusing because close pixels are more strongly correlated, not less, and the intended statement about similar noise levels should be separated from the neglect of correlations.
  4. [§4.1, Fig. 7] The caption states that the data are inconsistent with zero birefringence at more than 2σ, but the 0.28° miscalibration systematic is not shown in the figure; the caption should state explicitly that this significance is statistical only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the map-space estimator fits a free template amplitude and is validated on injected-rotation simulations; the miscalibration systematic is external.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The estimator (eqs. 3.10-3.12) fits a free amplitude β to stacked U_r profiles using template shapes computed from unrotated theory spectra C^EE_ℓ and C^TE_ℓ via eq. (3.9); β is not an input to the template, so the measurement is not defined in terms of itself. The method is validated on 300 end-to-end NPIPE simulations with no injected rotation and on 100 simulations with an injected 0.3° rotation, recovering 0.30°-0.32°, which independently checks the pipeline. The quoted systematic uncertainty of ±0.28° is taken from external Planck polarimeter calibration references [25,26], not from the data under analysis. The paper does not fit the miscalibration and then call it a prediction; it explicitly labels the result as including miscalibration. Self-citations (Refs. [23,24,39,42]) provide prior method and comparison context, but the core equations are re-derived from peak theory with external references and the results are cross-checked against simulations, so no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The foreground/mask and T-E split variations are reported as limitations, not used to manufacture a claim. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or fields are introduced; the analysis choice parameters are hand-set with robustness tests rather than fitted to force the result. The main external inputs are the theoretical rotation relations, Gaussian peak theory, and the Planck calibration uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • Peak threshold νt = 0 (sign-matched local extrema)
    Chosen by hand in section 3; lower thresholds add noise peaks and higher thresholds reduce peak number, with robustness tests reported in appendix B.
  • Extra smoothing on T/E maps = 10 arcmin FWHM
    Applied before peak finding to suppress noise peaks, giving a final effective beam around 11.2 arcmin; stated in section 3.
  • Multipole cutoff ℓmax = 1500
    Chosen in section 3 because smaller scales are noise-dominated; appendix C reports negligible changes when using ℓmax=2000 and removing ℓ<50.
  • Radial profile cutoff θmax = 2.5 degrees
    Profiles converge to zero beyond this radius, so the fit is restricted to it; justified by figure 6.
  • Foreground mask thresholds = 6.5 and 3.5 μK_RJ, 5 degree smoothing, 0.55 threshold
    Used to define dust, synchrotron, and inverse masks in section 2.2; these choices affect T-peak results and are part of the robustness exploration rather than a single fitted quantity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CBB_ℓ = 0 in the rotated-profile templates
    Assumed in eqs. (3.10) and (3.11); lensing B modes are small but nonzero and could introduce a small bias at the quoted precision.
  • standard math Gaussian random field peak theory
    Equations (3.3)-(3.8) follow Bardeen et al. (1986), Bond and Efstathiou (1987), and Komatsu et al. (2011); needed to predict stacked Ur profiles.
  • domain assumption Diagonal pixel noise covariance around each peak
    Stated in section 3; pixel correlations and overlapping peak apertures are ignored, which could affect σβ and the inverse-variance weighting.
  • domain assumption External polarimeter miscalibration uncertainty of ±0.28 degrees
    Taken from ground calibration [25] and Crab Nebula calibration [26]; if the true calibration offset differs or varies across the sky, the systematic error and the null conclusion change.
  • domain assumption No significant residual foregrounds in component-separated maps
    The interpretation of Ur as CMB rotation assumes foreground EB/TB is negligible in the analysis mask; the mask comparisons in section 4.2 provide hints this assumption fails for T peaks.
  • standard math CMB power spectrum rotation relations
    Eqs. (1.1a)-(1.1f) describe E/B mixing under a uniform rotation and are used to construct the templates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planck PR4 (NPIPE) map-space cosmic birefringence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLQ6M6MS

@misc{pith2026250207654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planck PR4 (NPIPE) map-space cosmic birefringence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLQ6M6MS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07654}
}
abstract

Cosmic birefringence is an effect where the plane of polarisation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is rotated by an angle $\beta$ through coupling to a hypothetical parity-violating field. We analyse the Planck Public Release 4 (PR4 or NPIPE) data using a map-space analysis method and find $\beta=0.46^\circ\pm 0.04^\circ(\mathrm{stat.})\pm0.28^\circ(\mathrm{syst.})$ for SEVEM CMB maps and $\beta=0.48^\circ\pm 0.04^\circ(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.28^\circ(\mathrm{syst.})$ for Commander CMB maps. These values are slightly higher than previously published results, which may be explained by the fact that we have not attempted to remove any potential bias from miscalibration of the Planck polarimeters. The uncertainty in this miscalibration dominates the systematic uncertainty, which also means that our results are consistent with no parity violation. An advantage of the map-space analysis is that it is easy to investigate any variations on the sky, for example caused by foreground contamination. Our results for isotropic birefringence are fairly robust against different spatial data cuts, but there may be hints of a foreground systematic (north versus south hemispheres) or uncontrolled miscalibration effect (T peaks versus E peaks) that should be followed up in future studies. We additionally find no evidence of a cosmic birefringence dipole (anisotropic birefringence).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of cosmic birefringence. In many [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Coordinate system used to transform from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Transforming the Stokes Q and U parame￾ters to Qr and Ur mixes the modes in such a way as to obtain a local E- and B-mode measurement around a peak (represented here with the red dot). This mix￾ing pattern is due to the cos(2ϕ) and sin(2ϕ) terms in eq. (3.2). Qr shows a clear E pattern (curl-free) whereas Ur shows a clear B pattern. This allows us to search for E- and B-specific signals in map space, similar to how … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Planck constraints on the scale dependence of isotropic cosmic birefringence

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Planck polarization data favor a constant cosmic birefringence angle (β≈0.3°) across multipoles, with scale dependence consistent with zero at up to 1.8σ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Carroll, G.B

    S.M. Carroll, G.B. Field and R. Jackiw, Limits on a Lorentz- and parity-violating modification of electrodynamics, Phys.Rev.D 41 (1990) 1231

    1990

  2. [2]

    Komatsu, New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background , Nature Reviews Physics 4 (2022) 452 [ 2202.13919]

    E. Komatsu, New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background , Nature Reviews Physics 4 (2022) 452 [ 2202.13919]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Liu and K.-W

    G.-C. Liu and K.-W. Ng, Axion dark matter induced cosmic microwave background B modes , Physics of the Dark Universe 16 (2017) 22 [ 1612.02104]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    R.-P. Zhou, D. Huang and C.-Q. Geng, Cosmic birefringence from neutrino and dark matter asymmetries, JCAP 2023 (2023) 053 [ 2302.11140]. – 21 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Implications of the Cosmic Birefringence Measurement for the Axion Dark Matter Search

    I. Obata, Implications of the cosmic birefringence measurement for the axion dark matter search, JCAP 2022 (2022) 062 [ 2108.02150]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Cosmic Birefringence Triggered by Dark Matter Domination

    S. Nakagawa, F. Takahashi and M. Yamada, Cosmic Birefringence Triggered by Dark Matter Domination, Phys.Rev.Lett. 127 (2021) 181103 [ 2103.08153]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    G. Choi, W. Lin, L. Visinelli and T.T. Yanagida, Cosmic birefringence and electroweak axion dark energy, Phys.Rev.D 104 (2021) L101302 [ 2106.12602]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Poulin, T.L

    V. Poulin, T.L. Smith, D. Grin, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Cosmological implications of ultralight axionlike fields , Phys.Rev.D 98 (2018) 083525 [ 1806.10608]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Murai, H. Nakatsuka and S. Tsujikawa, Detection of isotropic cosmic birefringence and its implications for axionlike particles including dark energy , Phys.Rev.D 103 (2021) 043509 [ 2011.11894]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kamionkowski and A.G

    M. Kamionkowski and A.G. Riess, The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy , Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 73 (2023) 153 [ 2211.04492]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Eskilt, L

    J.R. Eskilt, L. Herold, E. Komatsu, K. Murai, T. Namikawa and F. Naokawa, Constraints on Early Dark Energy from Isotropic Cosmic Birefringence , Phys.Rev.Lett. 131 (2023) 121001 [2303.15369]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    L. Yin, J. Kochappan, T. Ghosh and B.-H. Lee, Is cosmic birefringence model-dependent?, JCAP 2023 (2023) 007 [ 2305.07937]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kochappan, L

    J. Kochappan, L. Yin, B.-H. Lee and T. Ghosh, Observational evidence for Early Dark Energy as a unified explanation for Cosmic Birefringence and the Hubble tension , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2408.09521 [ 2408.09521]

    2024

  6. [14]

    Galaverni, F

    M. Galaverni, F. Finelli and D. Paoletti, Redshift evolution of cosmic birefringence in CMB anisotropies, Phys.Rev.D 107 (2023) 083529 [ 2301.07971]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Naokawa, T

    F. Naokawa, T. Namikawa, K. Murai, I. Obata and K. Kamada, nπ phase ambiguity of cosmic birefringence, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2405.15538 [ 2405.15538]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Whittaker, R.A

    L. Whittaker, R.A. Battye and M.L. Brown, Measuring cosmic shear and birefringence using resolved radio sources, MNRAS 474 (2018) 460 [ 1702.01700]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    W.W. Yin, L. Dai, J. Huang, L. Ji and S. Ferraro, A New Probe of Cosmic Birefringence Using Galaxy Polarization and Shapes , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2402.18568 [ 2402.18568]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bianchini, W.L.K

    F. Bianchini, W.L.K. Wu, P.A.R. Ade, A.J. Anderson, J.E. Austermann, J.S. Avva et al., Searching for anisotropic cosmic birefringence with polarization data from SPTpol , Phys.Rev.D 102 (2020) 083504 [ 2006.08061]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ferguson, A.J

    K.R. Ferguson, A.J. Anderson, N. Whitehorn, P.A.R. Ade, M. Archipley, J.S. Avva et al., Searching for axionlike time-dependent cosmic birefringence with data from SPT-3G , Phys.Rev.D 106 (2022) 042011 [ 2203.16567]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P.A.R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, R.B. Thakur, C.A. Bischoff et al., BICEP/Keck. XVII. Line-of-sight Distortion Analysis: Estimates of Gravitational Lensing, Anisotropic Cosmic Birefringence, Patchy Reionization, and Systematic Errors , ApJ 949 (2023) 43 [2210.08038]

    2023

  13. [21]

    P.A.R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, R. Basu Thakur, C.A. Bischoff et al., BICEP/Keck XIV: Improved constraints on axionlike polarization oscillations in the cosmic microwave background, Phys.Rev.D 105 (2022) 022006 [ 2108.03316]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    P.A.R. Ade, K. Arnold, M. Atlas, C. Baccigalupi, D. Barron, D. Boettger et al., POLARBEAR constraints on cosmic birefringence and primordial magnetic fields , Phys.Rev.D 92 (2015) 123509 [1509.02461]. – 22 –

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Contreras, P

    D. Contreras, P. Boubel and D. Scott, Constraints on direction-dependent cosmic birefringence from Planck polarization data , JCAP 2017 (2017) 046 [ 1705.06387]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    XLIX, Planck intermediate results

    Planck Collaboration Int. XLIX, Planck intermediate results. XLIX. Parity-violation constraints from polarization data , A&A 596 (2016) A110 [ 1605.08633]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Rosset, M

    C. Rosset, M. Tristram, N. Ponthieu, P. Ade, J. Aumont, A. Catalano et al., Planck pre-launch status: High Frequency Instrument polarization calibration , A&A 520 (2010) A13 [ 1004.2595]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Planck Collaboration VIII, Planck 2015 results. VIII. High Frequency Instrument data processing: Calibration and maps , A&A 594 (2016) A8 [ 1502.01587]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sherwin and T

    B.D. Sherwin and T. Namikawa, Cosmic birefringence tomography and calibration independence with reionization signals in the CMB , MNRAS 520 (2023) 3298 [ 2108.09287]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nakatsuka, T

    H. Nakatsuka, T. Namikawa and E. Komatsu, Is cosmic birefringence due to dark energy or dark matter? A tomographic approach , Phys.Rev.D 105 (2022) 123509 [ 2203.08560]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Greco, N

    A. Greco, N. Bartolo and A. Gruppuso, A New Solution for the Observed Isotropic Cosmic Birefringence Angle and its Implications for the Anisotropic Counterpart through a Boltzmann Approach, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2401.07079 [ 2401.07079]

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ritacco, J.F

    A. Ritacco, J.F. Mac ´ ıas-P´ erez, N. Ponthieu, R. Adam, P. Ade, P. Andr´ e et al.,NIKA 150 GHz polarization observations of the Crab nebula and its spectral energy distribution , A&A 616 (2018) A35 [ 1804.09581]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Aumont, J.F

    J. Aumont, J.F. Mac ´ ıas-P´ erez, A. Ritacco, N. Ponthieu and A. Mangilli,Absolute calibration of the polarisation angle for future CMB B-mode experiments from current and future measurements of the Crab nebula , A&A 634 (2020) A100

    2020

  24. [32]

    Cornelison, C

    J. Cornelison, C. Verg` es, P.A.R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats et al., Improved polarization calibration of the BICEP3 CMB polarimeter at the South Pole , in Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy XI , J. Zmuidzinas and ...

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D¨ unner, F

    R. D¨ unner, F. Astori, G. Coppi, J. Eimer, J. Errard, J. Flux´ a et al.,HoverCal + PoloCalC: precise on-flight metrology performance results over CLASS telescope , in Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy XII , J. Zmuidzinas a...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Murata, H

    M. Murata, H. Nakata, K. Iijima, S. Adachi, Y. Seino, K. Kiuchi et al., The Simons Observatory: A fully remote controlled calibration system with a sparse wire grid for cosmic microwave background telescopes, Review of Scientific Instruments 94 (2023) 124502 [2309.02035]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Nati, M.J

    F. Nati, M.J. Devlin, M. Gerbino, B.R. Johnson, B. Keating, L. Pagano et al., POLOCALC: A Novel Method to Measure the Absolute Polarization Orientation of the Cosmic Microwave Background, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation 6 (2017) 1740008 [ 1704.02704]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Casas, E

    F.J. Casas, E. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, J. Bermejo-Ballesteros, S. Garc ´ ıa, J. Cubas, P. Vielva et al., L2-CalSat: A Calibration Satellite for Ultra-Sensitive CMB Polarization Space Missions , Sensors 21 (2021) 3361

    2021

  29. [37]

    Ritacco, L

    A. Ritacco, L. Bizzarri, S. Savorgnano, F. Boulanger, M. P´ erault, J. Treuttel et al., Absolute Reference for Microwave Polarization Experiments. The COSMOCal Project and its Proof of Concept, PASP 136 (2024) 115001 [ 2405.12135]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polarization Data , Phys.Rev.Lett. 125 (2020) 221301 [ 2011.11254]. – 23 –

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Diego-Palazuelos, J.R

    P. Diego-Palazuelos, J.R. Eskilt, Y. Minami, M. Tristram, R.M. Sullivan, A.J. Banday et al., Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck Data Release 4 , Phys.Rev.Lett. 128 (2022) 091302 [2201.07682]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Eskilt and E

    J.R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu, Improved constraints on cosmic birefringence from the WMAP and Planck cosmic microwave background polarization data , Phys.Rev.D 106 (2022) 063503 [2205.13962]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Eskilt, Frequency-dependent constraints on cosmic birefringence from the LFI and HFI Planck Data Release 4 , A&A 662 (2022) A10 [ 2201.13347]

    J.R. Eskilt, Frequency-dependent constraints on cosmic birefringence from the LFI and HFI Planck Data Release 4 , A&A 662 (2022) A10 [ 2201.13347]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Abghari, R.M

    A. Abghari, R.M. Sullivan, L.T. Hergt and D. Scott, Constraints on cosmic birefringence using E-mode polarisation, JCAP 2022 (2022) 033 [ 2203.10733]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Diego-Palazuelos, E

    P. Diego-Palazuelos, E. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, P. Vielva, R.B. Barreiro, M. Tristram, E. de la Hoz et al., Robustness of cosmic birefringence measurement against Galactic foreground emission and instrumental systematics , JCAP 2023 (2023) 044 [ 2210.07655]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Eskilt, D.J

    J.R. Eskilt, D.J. Watts, R. Aurlien, A. Basyrov, M. Bersanelli, M. Brilenkov et al., COSMOGLOBE DR1 results. II. Constraints on isotropic cosmic birefringence from reprocessed WMAP and Planck LFI data , A&A 679 (2023) A144 [ 2305.02268]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Vacher, J

    L. Vacher, J. Aumont, F. Boulanger, L. Montier, V. Guillet, A. Ritacco et al., Frequency dependence of the thermal dust E/B ratio and EB correlation: Insights from the spin-moment expansion, A&A 672 (2023) A146 [ 2210.14768]

    2023

  38. [46]

    Fujita, Y

    T. Fujita, Y. Minami, M. Shiraishi and S. Yokoyama, Can primordial parity violation explain the observed cosmic birefringence? , Phys.Rev.D 106 (2022) 103529 [ 2208.08101]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Herv ´ ıas-Caimapo, A.J

    C. Herv ´ ıas-Caimapo, A.J. Cukierman, P. Diego-Palazuelos, K.M. Huffenberger and S.E. Clark, Modeling parity-violating spectra in Galactic dust polarization with filaments and its applications to cosmic birefringence searches , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2408.06214 [2408.06214]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kamionkowski, How to Derotate the Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization , Phys.Rev.Lett

    M. Kamionkowski, How to Derotate the Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization , Phys.Rev.Lett. 102 (2009) 111302 [ 0810.1286]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gruppuso, D

    A. Gruppuso, D. Molinari, P. Natoli and L. Pagano, Planck 2018 constraints on anisotropic birefringence and its cross-correlation with CMB anisotropy , JCAP 2020 (2020) 066 [2008.10334]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bortolami, M

    M. Bortolami, M. Billi, A. Gruppuso, P. Natoli and L. Pagano, Planck constraints on cross-correlations between anisotropic cosmic birefringence and CMB polarization , JCAP 2022 (2022) 075 [ 2206.01635]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zagatti, M

    G. Zagatti, M. Bortolami, A. Gruppuso, P. Natoli, L. Pagano and G. Fabbian, Planck constraints on cosmic birefringence and its cross-correlation with the CMB , JCAP 2024 (2024) 034 [2401.11973]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Namikawa, Tomographic constraint on anisotropic cosmic birefringence, Phys.Rev.D 111 (2025) 023501 [ 2410.05149]

    T. Namikawa, Tomographic constraint on anisotropic cosmic birefringence, Phys.Rev.D 111 (2025) 023501 [ 2410.05149]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Namikawa, Y

    T. Namikawa, Y. Guan, O. Darwish, B.D. Sherwin, S. Aiola, N. Battaglia et al., Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Constraints on cosmic birefringence , Phys.Rev.D 101 (2020) 083527 [2001.10465]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lue, L.-M

    A. Lue, L.-M. Wang and M. Kamionkowski, Cosmological signature of new parity violating interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1506 [ astro-ph/9812088]

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    B. Feng, H. Li, M.-z. Li and X.-m. Zhang, Gravitational leptogenesis and its signatures in CMB, Phys. Lett. B 620 (2005) 27 [ hep-ph/0406269]. – 24 –

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    G.-C. Liu, S. Lee and K.-W. Ng, Effect on cosmic microwave background polarization of coupling of quintessence to pseudoscalar formed from the electromagnetic field and its dual , Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 161303 [ astro-ph/0606248]

    2006 arXiv

  49. [57]

    G´ orski, E

    K.M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere , ApJ 622 (2005) 759 [ astro-ph/0409513]

    2005 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Planck Collaboration I, Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results , A&A 571 (2014) A1 [ 1303.5062]

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Planck Collaboration I, Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and results , A&A 594 (2016) A1 [ 1502.01582]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Planck Collaboration I, Planck 2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy of Planck, A&A 641 (2020) A1 [ 1807.06205]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    L VII, Planck intermediate results

    Planck Collaboration Int. L VII, Planck intermediate results. L VII. NPIPE: Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing , A&A 643 (2020) 42 [ 2007.04997]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Leach, J

    S.M. Leach, J. Cardoso, C. Baccigalupi, R.B. Barreiro, M. Betoule, J. Bobin et al., Component separation methods for the PLANCK mission , A&A 491 (2008) 597 [ 0805.0269]

    2008 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Fern´ andez-Cobos, P

    R. Fern´ andez-Cobos, P. Vielva, R.B. Barreiro and E. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez,Multiresolution internal template cleaning: an application to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe 7-yr polarization data, MNRAS 420 (2012) 2162 [ 1106.2016]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Jewell, S

    J. Jewell, S. Levin and C.H. Anderson, Application of Monte Carlo Algorithms to the Bayesian Analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background , ApJ 609 (2004) 1 [ astro-ph/0209560]

    2004 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Wandelt, D.L

    B.D. Wandelt, D.L. Larson and A. Lakshminarayanan, Global, exact cosmic microwave background data analysis using Gibbs sampling , Phys.Rev.D 70 (2004) 083511 [astro-ph/0310080]

    2004 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Eriksen, I.J

    H.K. Eriksen, I.J. O’Dwyer, J.B. Jewell, B.D. Wandelt, D.L. Larson, K.M. G´ orski et al., Power Spectrum Estimation from High-Resolution Maps by Gibbs Sampling , ApJS 155 (2004) 227 [astro-ph/0407028]

    2004 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Eriksen, J.B

    H.K. Eriksen, J.B. Jewell, C. Dickinson, A.J. Banday, K.M. G´ orski and C.R. Lawrence, Joint Bayesian Component Separation and CMB Power Spectrum Estimation , ApJ 676 (2008) 10 [0709.1058]

    2008 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Planck Collaboration III, Planck 2018 results. III. High Frequency Instrument data processing , A&A 641 (2020) A3 [ 1807.06207]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Komatsu, K.M

    E. Komatsu, K.M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C.L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw et al., Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation , ApJS 192 (2011) 18 [ 1001.4538]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins, Statistics of cosmic microwave background polarization, Phys.Rev.D 55 (1997) 7368 [ astro-ph/9611125]

    1997 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bardeen, J.R

    J.M. Bardeen, J.R. Bond, N. Kaiser and A.S. Szalay, The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields, ApJ 304 (1986) 15

    1986

  64. [72]

    Bond and G

    J.R. Bond and G. Efstathiou, The statistics of cosmic background radiation fluctuations , MNRAS 226 (1987) 655

    1987

  65. [73]

    Desjacques, Baryon acoustic signature in the clustering of density maxima , Phys.Rev.D 78 (2008) 103503 [ 0806.0007]

    V. Desjacques, Baryon acoustic signature in the clustering of density maxima , Phys.Rev.D 78 (2008) 103503 [ 0806.0007]

    2008 arXiv

  66. [74]

    D.L. Jow, D. Contreras, D. Scott and E.F. Bunn, Taller in the saddle: constraining CMB physics using saddle points , JCAP 2019 (2019) 031 [ 1811.05629]. – 25 –

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Planck Collaboration VII, Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and statistics , A&A 641 (2020) A7 [1906.02552]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    XXX, Planck intermediate results

    Planck Collaboration Int. XXX, Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power spectrum of polarized dust emission at intermediate and high Galactic latitudes , A&A 586 (2016) A133 [ 1409.5738]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Clark, C.-G

    S.E. Clark, C.-G. Kim, J.C. Hill and B.S. Hensley, The Origin of Parity Violation in Polarized Dust Emission and Implications for Cosmic Birefringence , ApJ 919 (2021) 53 [ 2105.00120]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Cukierman, S.E

    A.J. Cukierman, S.E. Clark and G. Halal, Magnetic Misalignment of Interstellar Dust Filaments, ApJ 946 (2023) 106 [ 2208.07382]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Abazajian, G.E

    K. Abazajian, G.E. Addison, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, D. Akerib, A. Ali et al., CMB-S4: Forecasting Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves , ApJ 926 (2022) 54 [ 2008.12619]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background polarization survey, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2023 (2023) 042F01 [2202.02773]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    de la Hoz, P

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, E. de la Hoz, P. Diego-Palazuelos, J. Errard, A. Gruppuso, B. Jost et al., LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence , In prep. (2025) . – 26 –

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.