Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Planck constraints on the scale dependence of isotropic cosmic birefringence

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the isotropic cosmic birefringence angle is consistent with being independent of angular scale, with a constant model preferred by the Bayesian evidence.

desk verdict A careful PR3 constraints paper: the scale-independence claim holds up at ≲2σ, with caveats on simulation-based debiasing and the α–β degeneracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16714 v1 pith:SQ5D5LDI submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.CO

M. Ballardini , A. Gruppuso , S. Paradiso , S.S. Sirletti , P. Natoli This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicbirefringenceCMBpolarizationEBpowerspectrumaxion-likeparticlesChern-SimonstheoryPlanckPR3power-lawfitBayesianevidence
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

The paper tests whether the rotation of the CMB polarization plane, the cosmic birefringence angle $\beta \approx 0.30^\circ$, depends on the angular scale at which it is measured. It estimates $\beta$ in four multipole bins over $\ell \approx 42$ to $1500$ for each of the four Planck PR3 component-separation maps, then fits those bin estimates with a power law and with a non-parametric Bayesian reconstruction. Both routes agree: the slope of the power law is compatible with zero at 1.8$\sigma$ or better for every map, and the Bayesian evidence prefers a constant $\beta$ over flexible spline models. If the signal is real, scale-independence points toward an ultra-light axion-like field rather than the heavier Chern--Simons-type fields that would produce a scale-dependent rotation. The same pipeline applied to simulated future CMB surveys suggests their data could cut the current uncertainties by up to a factor of about 7.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the EB-based D-estimator, $D_{EB}^{\mathrm{obs}}(\beta) = C_{EB}^{\mathrm{obs}} \cos(4\beta) - \frac{1}{2}(C_{EE}^{\mathrm{obs}} - C_{BB}^{\mathrm{obs}}) \sin(4\beta)$, whose zero gives the rotation angle. The paper evaluates this estimator per multipole bin, builds a simulation-based covariance for the binned angles, and then runs two fits: a two-parameter power-law model $\beta(B) = \beta_0 (\ell_B/\ell_{B0})^n$ whose slope $n$ quantifies scale dependence, and a moving-knot linear spline (FlexKnot) reconstruction whose evidence is compared across knot numbers. The debiasing of the binned angles by the simulation mean $\beta_{\mathrm{res}}$ is a necessary step of the machinery, because the simulations show partial excess around $\ell \approx 300$, $500$, and $700$ for some maps.

What would settle it

A re-analysis on an independent CMB dataset, or on Planck's newer PR4 maps, that finds the slope $n$ deviating from zero by more than 3$\sigma$, or a reconstruction showing >3$\sigma$ structure at low multipoles, would overturn the paper's central claim of scale independence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the isotropic cosmic birefringence angle is independent of harmonic scale, at the $\lesssim 2\sigma$ level, across all four published Planck CMB solutions. The full-range estimate is $\beta \approx 0.30 \pm 0.05$ degrees (68% CL, not including the instrumental polarization-angle systematic), consistent with earlier estimates. Fitting the binned angles $\beta_B$ with $\beta(B) = \beta_0 (\ell_B/\ell_{B0})^n$ yields best-fit slopes $n$ between roughly 0.3 and 0.6, all compatible with zero at 1.0--1.8$\sigma$; the residual simulation bias contributes only a small systematic that shifts $n$ by less than a fraction of a $\sigma$. A non-parametric FlexKnot reconstruction prefers a single-node constant model over more complex splines, and this conclusion is stable across the four component-separation maps.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the Planck PR3 simulations faithfully reproduce the instrument's residual systematics, because those simulations set the error bars and feed the debiasing and template-subtraction steps that remove excess power around $\ell \approx 300$--$700$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the constant-angle result holds, the observed EB spectrum is consistent with a simple rescaling of $(EE-BB)/2$, which means the cosmic rotation remains degenerate with an instrumental polarization miscalibration and cannot be separated from it by the harmonic shape alone.
  • The $\lesssim 2\sigma$ bound on the slope $n$ sharpens the conclusion that, if the signal is new physics, the responsible field is ultra-light, because heavier Chern--Simons-type fields generically produce a scale-dependent rotation.
  • The Bayesian preference for one knot over more flexible reconstructions indicates that adding angular resolution does not demand extra structure in $\beta$.
  • Forecasted surveys with roughly seven times smaller uncertainties on $\beta_0$ and $n$ would turn the current consistency into a decisive test: a slope of order the present best-fit values would be detected at high significance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own forecast implies that if the true slope is as large as the current best-fit central values ($n \approx 0.3$--$0.6$), next-generation data should detect it, so the scale-independence claim is directly testable in the near term.
  • Because the debiasing step rests on simulation fidelity, a re-analysis with the newer Planck PR4 maps, or an independent dataset, would check whether the constant-angle conclusion survives outside the PR3 pipeline.
  • A scale-independent $\beta$ cannot by itself distinguish an axion-like field from a miscalibrated polarization angle; the paper's test only shows that the rotation does not vary with scale, leaving the physical origin dependent on external calibration information.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constrains the harmonic-scale dependence of isotropic cosmic birefringence using Planck PR3 data. For each of the four component-separation maps (Commander, NILC, SEVEM, SMICA), the authors estimate the birefringence angle in 18 harmonic bins using the EB D-estimator, build the covariance from 300 simulations with the Hartlap correction, fit a power law β(ℓ)=β0(ℓ/ℓB0)^n, and complement this with a FlexKnot Bayesian reconstruction. They find β≈0.30±0.05 deg and a power-law index n consistent with zero at ≲1.8σ for all maps, interpret the Bayesian evidence as favouring a constant angle, and forecast that upcoming experiments will reduce the uncertainty on n by up to a factor of about 7.

Significance. If the result holds, it strengthens the existing evidence for a nonzero isotropic cosmic birefringence angle and supports the ultra-light axion interpretation over scale-dependent Chern-Simons-type models. The analysis is anchored to public Planck data and simulations, applies the Hartlap correction to the simulation-based covariance, and transparently reports the partial incompatibility of the simulations at ℓ≈300, 500 and 700. The power-law analysis is honest about the modest constraining power, and the forecast is clearly labelled as exploratory. The main caveats are the prior sensitivity of the Bayesian evidence comparison and the ad hoc nature of the template-subtraction step, but these do not by themselves invalidate the central power-law result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4, Figure 10] The FlexKnot evidence comparison is dominated by the prior volume of the node amplitudes. The amplitudes are assigned a uniform prior over [−20°,20°], while the measured signal is β≈0.3° and the posterior width for the amplitude is roughly 0.05–0.1°. Each additional independent amplitude therefore carries a prior-volume penalty of order 20/0.1≈200, i.e., Δln B≈5, before the data are considered. The 'strong evidence' against N>1 reported in Figure 10 may thus be a consequence of the prior range rather than of the constancy of βℓ. Please report the evidence as a function of the prior width (e.g., ±2°, ±5°) and give the numerical Bayes factors; as written, the abstract's statement that the non-parametric method 'demonstrates that a constant model is favored by Bayesian evidence' is not supported.
  2. [Section 3.3, template-subtraction paragraph] The procedure used for NILC and SMICA builds templates from the mean of the 300 simulations at bins where the mean exceeds 3.5σ, then subtracts those templates from the data before re-fitting n. If the simulation residuals are sample fluctuations rather than a deterministic model of the real systematics, this subtraction injects a scale-dependent pattern into the data. The paper is transparent that the induced shifts are only 0.36σ (NILC) and 0.51σ (SMICA), so the central conclusion does not rest on this step; nevertheless, the template-corrected values are presented as the preferred ones. Please support the procedure with a split-half or bootstrap test of the template, include the template uncertainty in the fit, or move the template-corrected values to a robustness appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The notation is confusing: βB is described as covering 'four aggregated consecutive bins', yet B ranges from 1 to 18 in Eq. (3.8). Please state explicitly that each βB is estimated from four Δℓ=20 bandpowers and that the fit uses 18 values.
  2. [Table 4] The sky fraction for CMB-S4 is listed as 2%, which is likely a typo (CMB-S4 surveys roughly 40% of the sky); please correct or clarify.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The bottom-left panel is labeled 'NILC' twice; it should be labeled 'SEVEM'.
  4. [Figure 10] Please define the plotted Bayes factor explicitly (e.g., ln B = ln[Z(N)/Z(N=1)]) and report the numerical values or a table of log-evidences.
  5. [Introduction] In the sentence introducing the Chern-Simons coupling, 'It can be show' should read 'It can be shown'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: scale-independence is a standard fit of independently estimated beta_l, and the simulation-template subtraction is a debiasing assumption, not an assumed conclusion.

full rationale

The central claim is obtained by estimating beta_l from the Planck EB spectra through the D-estimator zeros (Eq. 3.2) and then testing whether those estimates are described by a power law (Eq. 3.7) or by a constant FlexKnot model; the null hypothesis (n = 0, N = 1) is not imposed by construction but is compared against more flexible models using chi-square and Bayesian evidence (Sections 3.3 and 3.4). The forecasts in Section 4 inject a scale-invariant beta = 0.3 deg and recover it, which is a stated self-consistency check rather than a prediction. The only potentially concerning step is the simulation-template subtraction for NILC and SMICA at ell approximately 300, 500, and 700 (Sections 3.2 and 3.3): the templates are built from PR3 simulation means above 3.5 sigma and subtracted before re-fitting n. This relies on the fidelity of the simulations, and the paper itself reports the residual excess as a limitation, but it is not circular because the template is not fitted to the data and the conclusion does not reduce by definition to the simulation means. Self-citations (for example, Ref. [58] for the D-estimator and Ref. [46] for band-power settings) are standard methodological references and are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. No circular step is therefore present.

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

The central result is an observational analysis, not a derivation. The free parameters are the fitted power-law amplitude and tilt (β0, n), the chosen pivot scale, and the FlexKnot node parameters. The key assumptions are the standard CMB physics relating observed to unrotated spectra and the fidelity of the ΛCDM-based simulations for covariance and debiasing. The analysis explicitly does not include the instrumental polarization angle α, which is degenerate with β.

free parameters (4)
  • β0 (power-law amplitude) = 0.25-0.31 deg depending on CS method and debiasing
    Amplitude of the model β(ℓ)=β0(ℓ/ℓ_B0)^n, fitted to the data-derived βB in Section 3.3.
  • n (power-law index) = 0.29-0.62 (1σ ranges up to ±0.36)
    Slope parameter quantifying scale dependence; fitted to βB. The null hypothesis is n=0.
  • Pivot scale ℓ_B0 = sixth bin, ℓ∈[442,521]
    Chosen to minimize the correlation between β0 and n and the systematic uncertainty from βres (Appendix A); not a physical constant, but affects the fit.
  • FlexKnot node amplitudes and positions = posterior distributions, not single values
    Amplitudes sampled uniformly in [-20°,20°] and positions in [ℓ_min,ℓ_max] with an identifiability prior; the number of nodes N is varied for model comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The observed CMB polarization spectra are related to the unrotated spectra by a single constant rotation angle β per harmonic bin (Eqs. 1.2-1.6).
    This assumption underlies the D-estimator and the interpretation of the measured EB spectrum; it assumes no parity violation at last scattering and a constant β within each bin.
  • domain assumption The Planck PR3 simulations, based on the ΛCDM best-fit model, accurately represent the noise and systematic residuals of the data.
    Used to estimate the covariance matrix Cβ and the residual bias βres in Section 3.2; the paper finds partial incompatibility for some CS methods.
  • domain assumption The instrumental polarization angle α is not included; the analysis implicitly assumes α is scale-independent or negligible for the scale-dependence test.
    The paper states it does not address the β-α degeneracy. If α varies with scale, it could mimic a scale-dependent β.
  • domain assumption The fiducial ΛCDM model provides the no-birefringence spectra used in the simulations.
    The simulations are generated from the Planck ΛCDM best-fit model (Section 2), and the EB spectrum is expected to be zero in the standard model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planck constraints on the scale dependence of isotropic cosmic birefringence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQ5D5LDI

@misc{pith2026250716714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planck constraints on the scale dependence of isotropic cosmic birefringence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQ5D5LDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16714}
}
abstract

The rotation of the linear polarisation plane of photons during propagation, also known as cosmic birefringence, is a powerful probe of parity-violating extensions of standard electromagnetism. Using Planck legacy data, we confirm previous estimates of the isotropic birefringence angle, finding $\beta \simeq 0.30 \pm 0.05$ [deg] at 68% CL, not including the systematic error from the instrumental polarisation angle. If this is a genuine signal, it could be explained by theories of Chern--Simons-type coupled to electromagnetism, which could lead to a harmonic scale-dependent birefringence signal, if the hypothesis of an ultra-light (pseudo) scalar field does not hold. To investigate these models, we pursue two complementary approaches: first, we fit the birefringence angle estimated at different multipoles, $\beta_{\ell}$, with a power-law model and second, we perform a non-parametric Bayesian reconstruction of it. Both methods yield results consistent with a non-vanishing constant birefringence angle. The first method shows no significant dependence on the harmonic scale (up to $1.8\sigma$ CL), while the second method demonstrates that a constant model is favored by Bayesian evidence. This conclusion is robust across all four published Planck CMB solutions. Finally, we forecast that upcoming CMB observations by Simons Observatory, LiteBIRD and a wishful CMB-Stage 4 experiment could reduce current uncertainties by a factor of approximately 7.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On the potential of pseudo-scalar dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Extended analysis constrains pseudo-scalar dark energy potentials using expansion history and cosmic birefringence, finding quadratic, linear, and Ratra-Peebles forms viable near GUT scale while axion-like requires la...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 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. – 17 – 3rd bin 6th bin 10th bin 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 β0 [deg] 0.0 0.8 1.6 n 0.0 0.8 1.6 n 3rd bin 6th bin 10th bin 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 β0 [deg] 0.0 0.8 1.6 n 0.0 0.8 1.6 n 3rd bin 6th bin 10th bin 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 β0 [deg] 0...

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Carroll and G.B

    S.M. Carroll and G.B. Field, The Einstein equivalence principle and the polarization of radio galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 3789

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    Harari and P

    D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Effects of a Nambu-Goldstone boson on the polarization of radio galaxies and the cosmic microwave background , Phys. Lett. B 289 (1992) 67

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Carroll, Quintessence and the rest of the world , Phys

    S.M. Carroll, Quintessence and the rest of the world , Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 3067 [astro-ph/9806099]

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Ni, Equivalence Principles and Electromagnetism , Phys

    W.-T. Ni, Equivalence Principles and Electromagnetism , Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 301. – 18 –

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Ni, A nonmetric theory of gravity , Int

    W.-T. Ni, A nonmetric theory of gravity , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 (2016) 1640017

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Komatsu, New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background , Nature Rev

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

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    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]

    arXiv 1999

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    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]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    Finelli and M

    F. Finelli and M. Galaverni, Rotation of Linear Polarization Plane and Circular Polarization from Cosmological Pseudo-Scalar Fields , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 063002 [ 0802.4210]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fedderke, P.W

    M.A. Fedderke, P.W. Graham and S. Rajendran, Axion Dark Matter Detection with CMB Polarization, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 015040 [ 1903.02666]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Planck collaboration, Planck intermediate results. XLIX. Parity-violation constraints from polarization data, Astron. Astrophys. 596 (2016) A110 [ 1605.08633]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Keating, M

    B.G. Keating, M. Shimon and A.P.S. Yadav, Self-Calibration of CMB Polarization Experiments, Astrophys. J. Lett. 762 (2012) L23 [ 1211.5734]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Minami, H

    Y. Minami, H. Ochi, K. Ichiki, N. Katayama, E. Komatsu and T. Matsumura, Simultaneous determination of the cosmic birefringence and miscalibrated polarization angles from CMB experiments, PTEP 2019 (2019) 083E02 [ 1904.12440]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Simultaneous determination of the cosmic birefringence and miscalibrated polarization angles II: Including cross frequency spectra , PTEP 2020 (2020) 103E02 [2006.15982]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Diego-Palazuelos et al., Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck Data Release 4 , Phys

    P. Diego-Palazuelos et al., Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck Data Release 4 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 091302 [ 2201.07682]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Diego-Palazuelos, E

    P. Diego-Palazuelos, E. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, P. Vielva, R. Barreiro, M. Tristram, E. de la Hoz et al., Robustness of cosmic birefringence measurement against galactic foreground emission and instrumental systematics , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (2023) 044

    2023

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Gruppuso and S

    A. Gruppuso and S. di Serego Alighieri, Cosmic Polarisation Rotation from CMB Data: a Review for GR110 , 2502.07743

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    ACT collaboration, The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters, 2503.14452

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sullivan, A

    R.M. Sullivan, A. Abghari, P. Diego-Palazuelos, L.T. Hergt and D. Scott, Planck PR4 (NPIPE) map-space cosmic birefringence, 2502.07654

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Part IIIa

    COMPACT collaboration, Cosmic topology. Part IIIa. Microwave background parity violation without parity-violating microphysics , JCAP 11 (2024) 020 [ 2407.09400]. – 19 –

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    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, JCAP 10 (2024) 028 [ 2401.07079]

    2024

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    L. Yin, J. Kochappan, T. Ghosh and B.-H. Lee, Is cosmic birefringence model-dependent?, JCAP 10 (2023) 007 [ 2305.07937]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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 , 2408.09521

  23. [31]

    Greco, N

    A. Greco, N. Bartolo and A. Gruppuso, Probing Axions through Tomography of Anisotropic Cosmic Birefringence, JCAP 05 (2023) 026 [ 2211.06380]

    2023

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    Namikawa, K

    T. Namikawa, K. Murai and F. Naokawa, Planck Constraints on Axion-Like Particles through Isotropic Cosmic Birefringence, 2506.20824

  26. [34]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A1 [ 1807.06205]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Handley, M.P

    W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby, PolyChord: nested sampling for cosmology , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450 (2015) L61 [ 1502.01856]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Handley, M.P

    W.J. Handley, M.P. Hobson and A.N. Lasenby, polychord: next-generation nested sampling , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453 (2015) 4385 [ 1506.00171]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Raffaelli and M

    A. Raffaelli and M. Ballardini, Knot reconstruction of the scalar primordial power spectrum with Planck, ACT, and SPT CMB data , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2503.10609 [ 2503.10609]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Eriksen et al., CMB component separation by parameter estimation , Astrophys

    H.K. Eriksen et al., CMB component separation by parameter estimation , Astrophys. J. 641 (2006) 665 [ astro-ph/0508268]

    2006 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Eriksen, J.B

    H.K. Eriksen, J.B. Jewell, C. Dickinson, A.J. Banday, K.M. Gorski and C.R. Lawrence, Joint Bayesian component separation and CMB power spectrum estimation , Astrophys. J. 676 (2008) 10 [0709.1058]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Delabrouille, J.F

    J. Delabrouille, J.F. Cardoso, M.L. Jeune, M. Betoule, G. Fay and F. Guilloux, A full sky, low foreground, high resolution CMB map from WMAP , Astron. Astrophys. 493 (2009) 835 [0807.0773]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Martinez-Gonzalez, J.M

    E. Martinez-Gonzalez, J.M. Diego, P. Vielva and J. Silk, CMB power spectrum estimation and map reconstruction with the expectation - Maximization algorithm , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 345 (2003) 1101 [ astro-ph/0302094]

    2003 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Delabrouille, J.F

    J. Delabrouille, J.F. Cardoso and G. Patanchon, Multi-detector multi-component spectral matching and applications for CMB data analysis , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 346 (2003) 1089 [astro-ph/0211504]

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cardoso, M

    J.-F. Cardoso, M. Martin, J. Delabrouille, M. Betoule and G. Patanchon, Component separation with flexible models. Application to the separation of astrophysical emissions , 0803.1814

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Leach et al., Component separation methods for the Planck mission , Astron

    S.M. Leach et al., Component separation methods for the Planck mission , Astron. Astrophys. 491 (2008) 597 [ 0805.0269]. – 20 –

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. IV. Diffuse component separation , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A4 [ 1807.06208]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    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 09 (2022) 075 [ 2206.01635]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Tauber, N

    J.A. Tauber, N. Mandolesi, J.L. Puget, T. Banos, M. Bersanelli, F.R. Bouchet et al., Planck pre-launch status: The Planck mission , AA 520 (2010) A1

    2010

  40. [48]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2015 results. XII. Full Focal Plane simulations , Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A12 [ 1509.06348]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. III. High Frequency Instrument data processing and frequency maps , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A3 [ 1807.06207]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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 , Astrophys. J. 622 (2005) 759 [ astro-ph/0409513]

    2005 arXiv

  43. [51]

    LSST Dark Energy Sciencecollaboration, A unified pseudo- Cℓ framework, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 484 (2019) 4127 [ 1809.09603]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hivon, K.M

    E. Hivon, K.M. Gorski, C.B. Netterfield, B.P. Crill, S. Prunet and F. Hansen, Master of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy power spectrum: a fast method for statistical analysis of large and complex cosmic microwave background data sets , Astrophys. J. 567 (2002) 2 [as...

    2002 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Polenta, D

    G. Polenta, D. Marinucci, A. Balbi, P. de Bernardis, E. Hivon, S. Masi et al., Unbiased estimation of angular power spectrum , JCAP 11 (2005) 001 [ astro-ph/0402428]

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and N. Turok, Analysis of CMB polarization on an incomplete sky , Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 023505 [ astro-ph/0106536]

    2002 arXiv

  47. [55]

    E.F. Bunn, M. Zaldarriaga, M. Tegmark and A. de Oliveira-Costa, E/B decomposition of finite pixelized CMB maps , Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 023501 [ astro-ph/0207338]

    2003 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Grain, M

    J. Grain, M. Tristram and R. Stompor, Polarized CMB spectrum estimation using the pure pseudo cross-spectrum approach, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 123515 [ 0903.2350]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    QUaD collaboration, Parity Violation Constraints Using Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Spectra from 2006 and 2007 Observations by the QUaD Polarimeter , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 161302 [ 0811.0618]

    2009 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gruppuso, G

    A. Gruppuso, G. Maggio, D. Molinari and P. Natoli, A note on the birefringence angle estimation in CMB data analysis , JCAP 05 (2016) 020 [ 1604.05202]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Hartlap, P

    J. Hartlap, P. Simon and P. Schneider, Why your model parameter confidences might be too optimistic: Unbiased estimation of the inverse covariance matrix , Astron. Astrophys. 464 (2007) 399 [ astro-ph/0608064]

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Millea and F

    M. Millea and F. Bouchet, Cosmic Microwave Background Constraints in Light of Priors Over Reionization Histories, Astron. Astrophys. 617 (2018) A96 [ 1804.08476]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Handley, A.N

    W.J. Handley, A.N. Lasenby, H.V. Peiris and M.P. Hobson, Bayesian inflationary reconstructions from Planck 2018 data , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 103511 [ 1908.00906]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Handley, fgivenx: Functional posterior plotter , The Journal of Open Source Software 3 (2018)

    W. Handley, fgivenx: Functional posterior plotter , The Journal of Open Source Software 3 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Allys, K

    LiteBIRD Collaboration, E. Allys, K. Arnold, J. Aumont, R. Aurlien, S. Azzoni et al., Probing cosmic inflation with the litebird cosmic microwave background polarization survey , Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2023 (2022) 042F01 [https://academic.oup.com/ptep...

    2022

  56. [64]

    de la Hoz et al., LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence, 2503.22322

    E. de la Hoz et al., LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence, 2503.22322

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso et al., The simons observatory: science goals and forecasts, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (2019) 056

    2019

  58. [66]

    Simons Observatorycollaboration, The Simons Observatory: Science Goals and Forecasts for the Enhanced Large Aperture Telescope, 2503.00636

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    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, The Astrophysical Journal 926 (2022) 54

    2022

  60. [68]

    Schiappucci, S

    E. Schiappucci, S. Raghunathan, C. To, F. Bianchini, C.L. Reichardt, N. Battaglia et al., Constraining cosmological parameters using the pairwise kinematic sunyaev-zel’dovich effect with cmb-s4 and future galaxy cluster surveys , 2024. – 22 – 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 𝓁 −...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.