Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

An early 'flash' of reionization by supermassive first stars at z~20-25 can push the CMB optical depth to 0.08-0.09 while keeping the low-multipole polarization signal low, easing a key cosmological tension.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:36 UTC pith:C27PJRDC

load-bearing objection The l-shift mechanism is real and clearly presented, but the fiducial Pop III.1 parameters are internally inconsistent (f_i,vol=0.5 vs the model's near-unity requirement), so the claimed τ≈0.08–0.09 consistency with Planck is not robust. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.19647 v2 pith:C27PJRDC submitted 2025-10-22 astro-ph.CO

The Impact of Population III.1 Flash Reionization for CMB Polarization and Thomson Scattering Optical Depth

Jonathan C. Tan , Eiichiro Komatsu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords reionizationPopulation III starsCMB polarizationE-mode power spectrumThomson optical depthsupermassive black hole seedscosmological tensionsdark energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper contends that the universe may have undergone a brief, very early phase of reionization at redshift 20-25, driven by the supermassive first stars that later become the seeds of supermassive black holes. This 'Pop III.1 flash' adds about 0.03 to the electron-scattering optical depth, bringing the total to roughly 0.08-0.09, a range favored by analyses that do not use the low-multipole CMB polarization spectrum. The central claim is that because the flash is so early, its polarization contribution shifts to higher multipoles, leaving the low-multipole (l~2-8) E-mode signal far smaller than it would be for an equally large optical depth produced at lower redshifts. If correct, the scenario reconciles a high optical depth with the observed low-l CMB polarization, easing tensions such as the preference for negative neutrino masses and evolving dark energy.

Core claim

Using a simple two-component reionization history — a standard late-phase tanh(z) transition supplemented by a flash component peaked at z_flash=20 or 25 with peak hydrogen ionization fraction 1.0 and volume filling factor 0.5 — and a standard linear Boltzmann solver, the authors compute CMB EE power spectra. They find that for the same total Thomson optical depth tau, the flash models suppress the lowest multipoles (l <~ 8) relative to a standard low-redshift reionization model, but boost power at l >~ 8. For example, a model with z_flash=20 and total tau=0.079 has significantly less low-l EE power than a tanh-only model with the same tau; the same holds for tau=0.091 with z_flash=25. The p

What carries the argument

The multipole-shift mechanism: the mapping between the redshift of Thomson scattering and the angular scale (multipole l) at which the CMB polarization signal appears. At higher redshift the comoving distance to the scattering electron is larger, so the same physical quadrupole wavenumber is seen at a larger multipole (l ~ kr(z) with r(20) ~ 11 cGpc giving l ~ 11 versus l ~ 6 at z ~ 8). This shift moves the 'reionization bump' in EE out of the low-l region that current measurements constrain most tightly, while adding power at intermediate multipoles.

Load-bearing premise

The astrophysical premise that the Pop III.1 flash actually ionized a large fraction of the intergalactic medium at z~20-25 — with near-unity volume filling factor and peak hydrogen ionization fraction — contributing roughly 0.03 to the optical depth; if the flash was less widespread, the boosted intermediate-l polarization signal disappears even though the multipole-shift mechanism itself is correct.

What would settle it

Measure the CMB EE power spectrum at multipoles 2<l<30 with cosmic-variance-limited precision (a goal stated in the paper) and compare the shape with the flash-model prediction of suppressed l<8 power and boosted l~10-30 power at tau~0.09. If the intermediate-l power is not elevated relative to the standard low-redshift reionization model with tau~0.06, the flash contribution of about 0.03 is excluded. A second check: recompute the patchy kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich signal for a non-monotonic ionization history; if its amplitude exceeds the observed upper limit for a tau~0.09 model, the scenari

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the Pop III.1 flash occurred as modeled, current low-multipole CMB polarization data no longer exclude optical depths around 0.08-0.09.
  • The high-optical-depth scenarios proposed to relieve the negative-neutrino-mass and evolving-dark-energy tensions become compatible with the low-l polarization spectrum.
  • A future cosmic-variance-limited CMB polarization measurement can distinguish flash redshifts of 20 and 25 by the amplitude of EE at multipoles 10-30, provided the accuracy reaches about 20 percent.
  • The model predicts a reduced patchy kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich signal for the same optical depth, because the flash's high redshift suppresses peculiar velocities; current constraints assuming monotonic reionization need to be recomputed for this history.
  • CMB polarization becomes a direct probe of supermassive first-star formation and, ultimately, of WIMP dark matter annihilating in primordial protostars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The multipole-shift effect is generic: any ionizing episode at z~20-25 contributing tau~0.03 would produce the same qualitative change in the EE spectrum, so the conclusion does not hinge on the specific supermassive-star model.
  • The paper implies a new observable degeneracy: the ratio of low-l bump amplitude to intermediate-l plateau encodes the redshift distribution of reionization separately from the total tau. Future high-sensitivity EE measurements could therefore constrain the ionization history's shape without relying on astrophysical priors.
  • If the claimed EDGES 21-cm absorption is real, the flash's free-free radio background provides a consistent multi-wavelength signature; a joint test combining global 21-cm and CMB polarization would be more discriminating than either observation alone.
  • A direct, model-agnostic test is to fit the observed EE spectrum with a two-component ionization history (a low-z tanh transition plus a flash at z~20) and check whether the required flash amplitude matches the theoretical volume-filling and ionization-fraction parameters; this can be done with data already in hand.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents CMB EE power spectra for reionization histories that include a very early, transient 'Pop III.1 Flash' phase at z≈20–25, followed by rapid recombination and standard low-z reionization. Using the CLASS Boltzmann solver, the authors compute EE spectra for example models with total Thomson optical depth τ≈0.079–0.091 and compare them to standard tanh(z) reionization models with the same τ. The central claim is that the high-redshift flash contribution shifts the EE power toward higher multipoles, so that low-l (l≲8) EE power is reduced relative to an equivalent-τ low-z reionization history, while power at l≳8 is boosted. The authors argue that this provides a way to accommodate high-τ values favored by recent analyses of neutrino masses and dark energy without violating low-l CMB polarization constraints.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a physically motivated reionization history that could resolve the apparent tension between high-τ inferences and Planck low-l EE data. The forward modeling with CLASS is standard, and the geometric l-shift argument is physically sound and transparent. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions for LiteBIRD and for the patchy kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, which is a valuable strength. However, the quantitative result depends heavily on freely chosen flash parameters, and the manuscript contains an internal inconsistency in the fiducial parameter choice that undermines the robustness of the headline τ≈0.08–0.09 claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II] The fiducial choice f_i,vol=0.5 conflicts with the stated requirement in the same section that 'in the context of the Pop III.1 model, we require f_i,vol to be near unity.' Since the flash contribution to τ is linear in f_i,vol, taking f_i,vol≈1 would roughly double τ_flash, raising total τ to ≈0.11–0.13 for the z_flash=20–25 cases. Low-l EE power scales approximately as τ², so the model with the physically motivated f_i,vol≈1 would have significantly higher low-l amplitude than shown. The paper does not present this case, so the claimed ability to reach τ≈0.08–0.09 while remaining close to Planck low-l EE is not robust and appears to rely on choosing f_i,vol=0.5 despite the model requiring near unity.
  2. [§II] The value x_i,H,peak=1.0 is a factor of two higher than adopted in Ref. [16], justified only by 'our more accurate calculation of τ'. No such calculation is shown or referenced in the manuscript. Combined with the reduction of f_i,vol from the stated requirement of near unity to 0.5, these adjustments appear tuned to achieve a target τ rather than derived from the Pop III.1 model. The authors should either provide the promised calculation or treat these parameters as free and explore the full allowed range, including f_i,vol≈1 and x_i,H,peak as in Ref. [16], to show whether the qualitative conclusion survives.
  3. [§III/IV] The claim that the Pop III.1 models 'remain closer' to Planck NPIPE low-l EE data is supported only by visual inspection of Figure 2. No quantitative comparison (e.g., Δχ² or a simple likelihood for l≤30) is provided. Given that the central motivation is easing tensions with Planck low-l EE, the paper should quantify the improvement of the flash models over the equivalent-τ tanh models. This is especially important because the fiducial f_i,vol=0.5 may already be disfavored by the data once the f_i,vol≈1 case is considered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract/§III] The abstract states the reduction is at l≲6 and boost at l≳6, while §III and the introduction state l≲8 and l≳8. These thresholds should be made consistent.
  2. [§I] The value '0.0063±0.005' for τ from Ref. [25] appears to be a typo; presumably it should be '0.063±0.005'.
  3. [§IV] In the discussion of pkSZ, 'Sunyeav-Zel'dovich' is a misspelling of 'Sunyaev-Zel'dovich'.
  4. [Figure 2] The shaded region indicating the cosmic-variance-limited error with 70% sky coverage is mentioned in the caption but not described in the text; a brief explanation in §III would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the EE-spectrum shape result is a forward calculation from assumed reionization histories, not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that a high-z Pop III.1 flash shifts EE power from l≲8 to l≳8 at fixed total τ — is a genuine forward calculation. Reionization histories are parameterized in §II (tanh low-z component plus a flash component), and the EE spectra and τ values are computed with CLASS in §III. The l-dependence is then explained physically via the relation k≃3/[r_L−r(z)], giving l≲11 for z=20. This is not definitional: the same total τ is achieved with different histories and the spectra are compared, so the shape difference is a real consequence of the geometric relation between source redshift and observed multipole. The flash contribution τ_PopIII.1≈0.03 is inherited from Ref. [16] by the first author, and the fiducial flash parameters are choices rather than fitted to CMB data. However, this is a normal use of prior astrophysical modeling, not a circular reduction: Ref. [16] is an externally falsifiable model based on SMBH abundances and ionization physics, and the present paper's novel EE-spectrum result does not reduce to re-deriving that τ value. The paper even adjusts x_i,H,peak upward relative to Ref. [16] and computes τ directly, showing the τ values are outputs of an integral, not inputs by construction. The paper does contain an internal parameter-consistency concern: §II states that the Pop III.1 model requires f_i,vol near unity, while the fiducial calculations use f_i,vol=0.5, and τ scales linearly with that parameter. This is a robustness/plausibility issue for the quantitative tension-relief claim, not a circularity: the spectral-shape mechanism does not depend on the chosen normalization, and the paper is explicit that these are example models. No equation is shown to equal its own input, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation is used to forbid alternatives. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the speculative Pop III.1 formation theory plus freely chosen flash parameters. The free parameters determine the amplitude and timing of τ_PopIII.1; the astrophysical axioms supply the source population; no new particle or force is introduced by this paper itself.

free parameters (6)
  • z_flash = 20 and 25 (two example cases)
    Peak epoch of flash ionization; chosen from Pop III.1 SMBH seeding models, not from CMB data. Controls the timing of the early τ contribution and the location of the EE bump.
  • x_i,H,peak = 1.0 (fiducial)
    Peak ionization fraction inside flash HII regions. Raised by a factor of two relative to Ref. [16] 'motivated by our more accurate calculation of τ', directly increasing τ_PopIII.1.
  • f_i,vol = 0.5 (fiducial)
    Volume filling factor of flash HII regions; linearly scales τ_PopIII.1. The text says the model requires f_i,vol near unity, yet the fiducial models use 0.5, leaving an unresolved factor-of-two ambiguity.
  • t_rise = 30 Myr
    Assumed rise timescale of the ionization fraction to its peak; absorbs the supermassive-star lifetime and a spread of formation redshifts.
  • overdensity factor = 3× mean IGM density
    Used to set the recombination timescale after the flash, taken from simulations of Ref. [38]; not fitted in this paper.
  • z_re and Δz (late reionization) = z_re=7 or 8, Δz=2
    Parameters of the tanh late-phase reionization model. They set the baseline τ_gal≈0.05–0.06 and are example choices, not fits.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Pop III.1 SMBH formation theory: supermassive stars form in isolated minihalos and grow to ~10^5 M⊙
    Taken as given from Refs. [2–4]; the entire flash scenario depends on this unproven pathway for SMBH formation.
  • domain assumption WIMP dark matter annihilation in protostars enables supermassive growth
    Invoked in §I via Refs. [6–10] as the mechanism that lets Pop III.1 stars avoid photoevaporative feedback. Existence of WIMPs with the needed properties is not established.
  • domain assumption Supermassive Pop III.1 stars produce H-ionizing photons and R-type HII regions of ~1 cMpc
    Adopted from the Pop III.1 model and Ref. [16]; basis for the assumed ionization history.
  • domain assumption The IGM quickly recombines to mostly neutral after the flash
    Required for the two-phase reionization history; computed from recombination timescales but the flash parameters are illustrative.
  • domain assumption Late-phase reionization by galaxies/AGN gives τ_gal≈0.06 with a tanh(z) shape
    Input from observations and Refs. [17–25]; the comparison models assume this standard low-z history.
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Planck Plik best-fit parameters and minimal neutrino mass
    Used in CLASS calculations as stated in §II; standard cosmological framework.
  • standard math CLASS accurately maps an assumed xe(z) history to the EE power spectrum via Thomson scattering
    Standard, publicly validated Boltzmann solver; the paper relies on it without independent verification.
invented entities (1)
  • Pop III.1 flash reionization phase independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the extra early optical depth τ_PopIII.1≈0.03 at z≈20–25 and produces the shifted EE bump shape.
    The entity is inherited from the authors' earlier Pop III.1 model and Ref. [16], not invented in this paper. It has external falsifiable handles: predicted pkSZ bubble imprints, 21-cm signatures, and high-z SMBH abundances, so it is not a purely ad hoc in-paper entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9638 in / 12653 out tokens · 120117 ms · 2026-08-04T08:36:02.802203+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Population III.1 theory for supermassive black hole (SMBH) formation predicts a very early ($z\sim20-25$) transient phase, the ``Pop III.1 Flash'', of cosmic reionization powered by supermassive stars that are SMBH progenitors. The universe then quickly recombined to become mostly neutral, with this state persisting until galaxies begin to reionize intergalactic gas again at $z\sim 10$. The overall Thomson scattering optical depth, $\tau$, from the Pop III.1 Flash has been shown to be $\tau_{\rm PopIII.1}\sim0.03$, leading to a total $\tau\sim0.08-0.09$. Such a value, while significantly larger than that previously inferred from {\it Planck} observations of the low-$l$ $EE$ polarization power spectrum of the CMB, can help relieve several ``tensions'' faced by the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, especially the preference for negative neutrino masses and dynamic dark energy. Here we compute $EE$ power spectra of example models of the Pop III.1 Flash. We find that, because of its very high redshift, the contribution to $l\lesssim\:$6 modes is dramatically reduced compared to usual low-$z$ reionization models for the same value of $\tau$, while the power at $l\gtrsim\:$6 is boosted. Thus the Pop III.1 reionization scenario provides a natural way to increase $\tau$, while remaining closer to the latest CMB low-$l$ polarization observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19647 by Eiichiro Komatsu, Jonathan C. Tan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows some example reionization histo￾ries and associated cumulative distributions of τ (z) = cσT nH0 R z 0 dz xe(z)(1 + z) 2H−1 (z), where c is the speed of light, σT the Thomson scattering cross section, nH0 the present-day number density of protons, and H(z) the Hubble expansion rate. For the cases of late-phase reion￾ization by “standard galaxies and AGN”, these “tanh(z)” models are parameterized by zr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Future studies of the CMB with the Simons Observa￾tory [47] are expected to be able to further test the Pop III.1 prediction of an early phase of flash ionization, espe￾cially via observations of the patchy kinematic Sunyeav￾Zel’dovich (pkSZ) effect from the peculiar motion of the HII regions. We note that current pkSZ constraints on reionization history, which have been found to be in 2σ tension with valu… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Fireworks at Cosmic Dawn: relieving BAO-CMB tensions with the Pop III.1 Flash

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A Pop III.1-driven early ionization phase at z=20 yields τ=0.087 consistent with pkSZ and Lyα constraints, potentially resolving BAO-CMB tensions on neutrino mass.

  2. A New Constraint on the Optical Depth from the Reionization History Independent of CMB Large-Scale E-Mode Polarization

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    Combining reionization history with CMB data that exclude large-scale E-mode polarization yields τ=0.0552 and supports a 2.4σ CMB–BAO tension.

  3. Constraints on unimodular diffusion models with latest observables

    physics.gen-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Unimodular diffusion models with latest DESI/DESY5/Planck data show intermediate-time transitions and only mild, non-decisive preference over ΛCDM without resolving H0.

  4. Raising the reionization optical depth with inflationary CMB features

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Marginalizing over generalized slow-roll inflationary templates for the CMB low-power feature raises the 95% upper limit on τ to 0.075 (Planck) or 0.082 (all CMB+BAO), resolving incompatibility with lower bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb, Phys. Rept.349, 125 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010468

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Banik, J

    N. Banik, J. C. Tan, and P. Monaco, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483, 3592 (2019), arXiv:1608.04421 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Singh, P

    J. Singh, P. Monaco, and J. C. Tan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525, 969 (2023), arXiv:2301.11464 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Cammelli, P

    V. Cammelli, P. Monaco, J. C. Tan, J. Singh, F. Fontanot, G. De Lucia, M. Hirschmann, and L. Xie, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 851 (2024), arXiv:2407.09949 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    J. C. Tan, J. Singh, V. Cammelli, M. Sanati, M. Petkova, D. Nandal, and P. Monaco,17th Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theo- retical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation, and Relativistic Field Theories, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2412.01828 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Spolyar, K

    D. Spolyar, K. Freese, and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 051101 (2008), arXiv:0705.0521 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Natarajan, J

    A. Natarajan, J. C. Tan, and B. W. O’Shea, Astrophys. J.692, 574 (2009), arXiv:0807.3769 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Rindler-Daller, M

    T. Rindler-Daller, M. H. Montgomery, K. Freese, D. E. Winget, and B. Paxton, Astrophys. J.799, 210 (2015), arXiv:1408.2082 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Nandal, K

    D. Nandal, K. Topalakis, J. C. Tan, V. Sergienko, A. Pauchett, and M. Petkova, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2507.00870 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Topalakis, D

    K. Topalakis, D. Nandal, and J. C. Tan, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2510.00216 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    C. F. McKee and J. C. Tan, Astrophys. J.681, 771 (2008), arXiv:0711.1377 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    J. C. Tan, B. D. Smith, and B. W. O’Shea, AIP Conf. Proc.1294, 34 (2010), arXiv:1008.3047 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    Hosokawa, K

    T. Hosokawa, K. Omukai, N. Yoshida, and H. W. Yorke, Science334, 1250 (2011), arXiv:1111.3649 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [14]

    H. Susa, K. Hasegawa, and N. Tominaga, Astrophys. J. 792, 32 (2014), arXiv:1407.1374 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Hirano, T

    S. Hirano, T. Hosokawa, N. Yoshida, H. Umeda, K. Omukai, G. Chiaki, and H. W. Yorke, Astrophys. J. 781, 60 (2014), arXiv:1308.4456 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    J. C. Tan, Astrophys. J. Lett.989, L47 (2025), arXiv:2506.18490 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    B. E. Robertson, R. S. Ellis, S. R. Furlanetto, and J. S. Dunlop, Astrophys. J. Lett.802, L19 (2015), arXiv:1502.02024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Greig and A

    B. Greig and A. Mesinger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 4838 (2017), arXiv:1605.05374 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    M. Tang, D. P. Stark, A. Plat, A. Feltre, H. Katz, P. Senchyna, C. A. Mason, L. Whitler, Z. Chen, and M. W. Topping, Astrophys. J.991, 217 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Kageura, M

    Y. Kageura, M. Ouchi, M. Nakane, H. Umeda, Y. Harikane, S. Yoshiura, K. Nakajima, H. Yajima, and T. T. Thai, Astrophys. J. Suppl.278, 33 (2025), arXiv:2501.05834 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    A. J. Pahl, M. W. Topping, A. Shapley, R. Sanders, N. A. Reddy, L. Clarke, E. Kehoe, T. Bento, and G. Brammer, Astrophys. J.981, 134 (2025), arXiv:2407.03399 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    R. A. Meyer, G. Roberts-Borsani, P. Oesch, and R. S. Ellis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.1952, 1968 (2025), arXiv:2504.02683 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1952

  23. [23]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration VI (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Tristramet al., Astron

    M. Tristramet al., Astron. Astrophys.682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    de Belsunce, S

    R. de Belsunce, S. Gratton, W. Coulton, and G. Efs- tathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 1072 (2021), arXiv:2103.14378 [astro-ph.CO]. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    I. J. Allali, P. Singh, J. Fan, and L. Li, JCAP08(08), 082, arXiv:2503.05691 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D112, 043541 (2025), arXiv:2504.21813 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    I. J. Allali, L. Li, P. Singh, and J. Fan, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2509.09678 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration X (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A10 (2014), arXiv:1303.5071 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Astrophys

    Planck Collaboration VII (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A7 (2016), arXiv:1502.01586 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    XL VI (Planck), Astron

    Planck Collaboration Int. XL VI (Planck), Astron. Astro- phys.596, A107 (2016), arXiv:1605.02985 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Hinshawet al.(WMAP), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D78, 023002 (2008), arXiv:0804.3865 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  36. [36]

    M. J. Hayeset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L16 (2024), arXiv:2403.16138 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Cammelli, J

    V. Cammelli, J. C. Tan, A. R. Young, M. J. Hayes, J. Singh, R. S. Ellis, A. Saxena, N. Laporte, P. Monaco, and B. W. Keller, Astrophys. J.991, 141 (2025), arXiv:2501.17675 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Sanati, J

    M. Sanati, J. C. Tan, J. Devriendt, A. Slyz, S. Martin- Alvarez, M. la Torre, B. Keller, M. A. Petkova, P. Monaco, V. Cammelli, J. Singh, and M. Hayes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, 1532 (2025), arXiv:2507.23004 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP07(07), 034, arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    L VII (Planck), Astron

    Planck Collaboration Int. L VII (Planck), Astron. Astro- phys.643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Tristramet al., Astron

    M. Tristramet al., Astron. Astrophys.647, A128 (2021), arXiv:2010.01139 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Zaldarriaga, Phys

    M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D55, 1822 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9608050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  43. [43]

    Zaldarriaga, L

    M. Zaldarriaga, L. Colombo, E. Komatsu, A. Lidz, M. Mortonson, S. P. Oh, E. Pierpaoli, L. Verde, and O. Zahn, arXiv e-prints (2008), arXiv:0811.3918 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [44]

    C. H. Heinrich, V. Miranda, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023513 (2017), arXiv:1609.04788 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Millea and F

    M. Millea and F. Bouchet, Astron. Astrophys.617, A96 (2018), arXiv:1804.08476 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    E. Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Adeet al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP02(02), 056, arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Adeet al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP02(02), 056, arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    C. Cain, A. Van Engelen, K. S. Croker, D. Kramer, A. D’Aloisio, and G. Lopez, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2505.15899 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    H. Park, P. R. Shapiro, E. Komatsu, I. T. Iliev, K. Ahn, and G. Mellema, Astrophys. J.769, 93 (2013), arXiv:1301.3607 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [50]

    J. D. Bowman, A. E. E. Rogers, R. A. Monsalve, T. J. Mozdzen, and N. Mahesh, Nature555, 67 (2018), arXiv:1810.05912 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Singh, J

    S. Singh, J. Nambissan T., R. Subrahmanyan, N. Udaya Shankar, B. S. Girish, A. Raghunathan, R. So- mashekar, K. S. Srivani, and M. Sathyanarayana Rao, Nature Astron.6, 607 (2022), arXiv:2112.06778 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Feng and G

    C. Feng and G. Holder, Astrophys. J. Lett.858, L17 (2018), arXiv:1802.07432 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Fialkov and R

    A. Fialkov and R. Barkana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 1763 (2019), arXiv:1902.02438 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  55. [55]

    Totani, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2507.07209 [astro-ph.HE]

    T. Totani, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2507.07209 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    E. L. Wright, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.118, 1711 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0609593

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006