Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Towards constraining cosmological parameters with SPT-3G observations of 25% of the sky

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SPT-3G's 13 separate CMB fields can be analyzed independently with less than 3 percent loss, and the combined survey with Planck should tighten two Hubble-tension resolutions by factors of hundreds to thousands.

desk verdict Solid forecasting paper: separate-field validation convincing, extended-model FoM numbers hinge on modeled Wide noise, and the abstract's FoM factors don't match the text. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.24669 v3 pith:GKC2YXQ3 submitted 2025-10-28 astro-ph.CO

A. Vitrier , K. Fichman , L. Balkenhol , E. Camphuis , F. Guidi , A. R. Khalife , A. J. Anderson , B. Ansarinejad
show 98 more authors
M. Archipley D. R. Barron K. Benabed A. N. Bender B. A. Benson F. Bianchini L. E. Bleem S. Bocquet F. R. Bouchet L. Bryant M. G. Campitiello J. E. Carlstrom J. Carron C. L. Chang P. Chaubal P. M. Chichura A. Chokshi T.-L. Chou A. Coerver T. M. Crawford C. Daley T. de Haan K. R. Dibert M. A. Dobbs M. Doohan A. Doussot D. Dutcher W. Everett C. Feng K. R. Ferguson N. C. Ferree A. Foster S. Galli A. E. Gambrel A. K. Gao R. W. Gardner F. Ge N. Goeckner-Wald R. Gualtieri S. Guns N. W. Halverson E. Hivon A. Y. Q. Ho G. P. Holder W. L. Holzapfel J. C. Hood A. Hryciuk N. Huang T. Jhaveri F. Kéruzoré L. Knox M. Korman K. Kornoelje C.-L. Kuo K. Levy Y. Li A. E. Lowitz C. Lu G. P. Lynch T. J. Maccarone A. S. Maniyar E. S. Martsen F. Menanteau M. Millea J. Montgomery Y. Nakato T. Natoli G. I. Noble Y. Omori A. Ouellette Z. Pan P. Paschos K. A. Phadke A. W. Pollak K. Prabhu W. Quan M. Rahimi A. Rahlin C. L. Reichardt M. Rouble J. E. Ruhl E. Schiappucci A. C. Silva Oliveira A. Simpson J. A. Sobrin A. A. Stark J. Stephen C. Tandoi B. Thorne C. Trendafilova C. Umilta J. D. Vieira A. G. Vieregg Y. Wan N. Whitehorn W. L. K. Wu M. R. Young J. A. Zebrowski (SPT-3G Collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundSPT-3GcosmologicalparametersHubbletensionearlydarkenergyvaryingelectronmassCMBlensingforecasts
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
open problems Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the SPT-3G survey, a 10,000-square-degree map of the cosmic microwave background split into 13 patches with different noise levels, can be analyzed patch by patch without giving up cosmological information. The paper's answer is yes: compared with treating the whole footprint as one contiguous field, the separate-field analysis inflates standard cosmological parameter error bars by less than 3 percent, with the difference almost entirely explained by the 4.8 percent loss of sky area from individually apodizing each patch. On that basis, the paper builds realistic mock temperature, polarization, and lensing likelihoods and forecasts constraints on two proposed resolutions of the Hubble tension: early dark energy and a varying electron mass. The forecast says that SPT-3G data combined with Planck would raise the figure of merit, a measure of how tightly a model's parameters are pinned down, by a factor of about 321 for early dark energy and by factors of about 3,150 to 6,360 for the varying-electron-mass model relative to Planck alone. These numbers matter because they indicate whether the coming dataset can discriminate between competing Hubble-tension resolutions.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a Gaussian, differentiable CMB band-power likelihood that treats the survey as 13 independent patches, each with its own apodized mask, noise spectrum, and covariance matrix computed with the Narrow Kernel Approximation, a fast analytic method for the mode-coupling induced by the mask. The separate-field analysis sums the 13 Fisher matrices, and the covariance includes the transfer-function rescaling $H(\ell)=F(\ell)$ that mimics the effect of time-ordered-data filtering on power-spectrum errors. The argument's pivot is the comparison of this summed separate-field likelihood against a single-patch joint likelihood at identical noise levels; the smallness of that difference licenses the forecasts. The forecasts then use full Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampling over cosmological and foreground parameters, with CMB lensing added as separate per-patch mock likelihoods.

What would settle it

When the first real Wide-field noise power spectra become available, rerun the Ext-10k forecasts with those measured curves; if the figure-of-merit improvement over Planck falls clearly below 321 for early dark energy or below $3.15\times10^3$ for the varying electron mass, the modeled-noise assumption is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SPT-3G's Ext-10k dataset can be analyzed as 13 independent fields with no meaningful loss of constraining power, and that the resulting likelihood, combined with Planck, will sharply improve constraints on models proposed to fix the Hubble tension. In a comparison that holds noise fixed across the footprint, the joint and separate analyses differ by about 5 percent in band-power covariance diagonals, matching the 4.8 percent difference in surveyed sky area, and the standard $\Lambda$CDM parameter error bars grow by under 3 percent in the separate analysis. The paper therefore adopts the separate-field strategy as viable. Using full-depth mock likelihoods with each field's own noise, plus lensing, it forecasts that the survey combined with Planck will constrain standard parameters roughly twice as tightly as Planck alone for some quantities and will raise the figure of merit of early dark energy by a factor of 321 and of a varying electron mass by factors of $3.15\times10^3$ and $6.36\times10^3$ for flat and curved universes, respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The forecasted gains rest on the assumption that the Summer-field noise parametrization used for the nine Wide fields matches the real Wide-field noise, which had not been measured when the forecasts were made.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The real SPT-3G Ext-10k analysis can safely proceed patch by patch, a strategy that simplifies foreground and noise modeling without paying more than a 3 percent price in standard cosmological parameter precision.
  • Ext-10k temperature and polarization data alone should match or beat Planck on several standard parameters, with $\Omega_b h^2$ improved by a factor of 1.7 and $H_0$ by 1.1.
  • Adding CMB lensing to the SPT-3G likelihood tightens $H_0$, $\Omega_c h^2$, and $n_s$ by more than 30 percent relative to temperature and polarization alone.
  • Combined with Planck, the survey is forecast to raise the figure of merit by 321 for early dark energy and by $3.15\times10^3$ to $6.36\times10^3$ for a varying electron mass, turning the two Hubble-tension resolutions into sharply distinguishable hypotheses.
  • The forecast $H_0$ constraint in the varying-electron-mass models is three times tighter than Planck's alone, placing the discriminating power in the small-scale polarization damping tail rather than in large-scale modes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the first real Wide-field noise spectra confirm the Summer-style parametrization, the forecasted gains are close to achievable; if the true noise is worse or shaped differently, the figure-of-merit gains shrink roughly in proportion to the added noise variance.
  • The under-3-percent validation was performed for $\Lambda$CDM only; a natural next test is whether the same conclusion holds for the strongly non-Gaussian early-dark-energy and electron-mass posteriors, whose parameter shifts are coherent rather than noise-like.
  • The patch-by-patch likelihood architecture transfers directly to other multi-field CMB surveys: the dominant cost of separating fields is the sky area lost to individual apodization, so surveys that tolerate small area losses can adopt independent-field analyses freely.
  • Because the Planck baseline in this forecast uses a Gaussian prior on the optical depth instead of the Planck low-multipole polarization likelihood, the quoted figure-of-merit improvement factors would shift under a different reionization assumption even if the SPT-3G data are unchanged.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a forecasting and analysis-strategy study for the SPT-3G Ext-10k survey, a 10,000 deg^2 CMB survey divided into 13 fields. The authors build realistic TT/TE/EE mock likelihoods with analytic covariance matrices and compare two analysis choices: treating the survey as a single joint patch and treating the 13 fields separately. They report that the separate-field approach increases LambdaCDM parameter error bars by less than 3% relative to the joint approach, and they adopt the separate-field strategy for forecasts. Using MCMC and an additional mock CMB lensing likelihood, they forecast constraints on LambdaCDM, early dark energy (EDE), and varying-electron-mass models in flat and curved universes, with and without a mock Planck likelihood. The headline results are improvements by factors around 321 (EDE) and 3.15e3 to 6.36e3 (varying electron mass) in the parameter Figure of Merit relative to the mock Planck baseline. The likelihood code is publicly released.

Significance. The paper's controlled comparison between joint and separate-field analyses is a genuinely useful methodological result for the SPT-3G program: the comparison uses identical noise levels and only changes the footprint decomposition, so the reported 5% covariance difference and <3% parameter-error degradation cleanly isolate the effect of splitting the survey. The authors also provide a public, differentiable likelihood pipeline, which is a concrete reproducibility asset. The extended-model forecasts are conditional on the assumed instrument model; their value is as order-of-magnitude forecasts rather than empirical constraints. The lensing-aware forecasts extend earlier work by Prabhu et al. and connect to the Hubble-tension discussion, making the paper interesting for the CMB community if the modeling caveats are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III C and Appendix C] The forecasted FoM gains in Table III depend on two unvalidated modeling choices for the Wide fields. As stated in Section III C, the Wide-field noise curves use the Summer-field parameterization because real Wide noise spectra did not exist when the work began, and the only cited check is preliminary agreement for temperature noise; the EE noise that drives damping-tail sensitivity for EDE and varying-electron-mass models is not verified. In addition, Appendix C states that the covariance rescaling H(l)=F(l) is accurate at the 10% level for the Main and Summer fields, and the same approximation is applied to all nine Wide fields. Since the Wide fields cover about 12% of the sky and enter the separate-field likelihoods with their own covariance matrices, an inaccurate Wide noise model or a misestimated H(l) would directly shift the FoM ratios in Table III. The Section IV A strategy-validation conclusion is not affected, because both cases there use the same noise model, but the quantitative forecasts are. I ask the authors to repeat the extended-model forecasts with the now-available real or preliminary Wide noise spectra, and to include a sensitivity test that perturbs the Wide noise normalization and shape and reports the resulting changes to Table III.
  2. [Section IV B 2 and Table III] The headline FoM improvements are computed relative to a mock Planck likelihood, not the actual Planck 2018 likelihood, and the FoM is evaluated for highly non-Gaussian posteriors using the inverse-determinant formula of Eq. (6). The Planck mock in Section III H omits the low-ell EE likelihood, uses a Gaussian tau prior, and applies the same multipole cuts as Prabhu et al.; the table caption is honest in saying 'our Planck mock likelihood', but the abstract and conclusions present the factors as improvements over Planck. The denominator choice matters because real Planck low-ell data constrain tau and affect EDE posteriors. In addition, for the EDE model the posterior of fede(ac) is an upper limit and the convergence criterion was relaxed to R-1 about 0.05, so the determinant-based FoM is not a robust summary of constraining power. I request that the ratios be quoted explicitly against the mock baseline in the abstract and conclusions, and that the authors either justify the use of det(Cov) for one-sided posteriors or report a non-Gaussian-robust FoM or a restricted-parameter FoM.
  3. [Section IV A and Section IV B 1] The <3% degradation claim in Section IV A is established for the six LambdaCDM parameters with Fisher matrices, while the extended-model forecasts are run with the separate-field strategy without a dedicated joint-vs-separate check for those models. The paper states that the difference is not explored for extended models because the LambdaCDM effect is small. This is a reasonable inference for moderately nonlinear parameters, but the EDE and varying-electron-mass parameters have priors and upper-limit behaviors that can respond differently to small covariance changes. A targeted Fisher test for one of the extended models, or an explicit statement that this extrapolation is an assumption, would make the chain from strategy validation to the Table III forecasts more complete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract in the front matter states improvements by factors of 90 and 190, while the full-text abstract and Table III report factors of 321 and 3.15e3 to 6.36e3. Please unify these numbers across all versions.
  2. [Section III C] The sentence reporting preliminary agreement of the Wide temperature noise spectra with the modeled curves does not give a quantitative comparison or a figure; please add the measured or preliminary noise spectra, or at least a reference and a quantified deviation, especially for EE.
  3. [Section III G] The lensing likelihood uses diagonal analytic covariance matrices without masking or foreground terms; this is appropriate for a forecast, but the expected impact on the quoted error bars should be stated or referenced.
  4. [Table I] The sum of the nine Wide-field fsky values is 11.94%, while the text refers to 12% of the sky; consider rounding consistently.
  5. [Appendix A 2] The choice of apodizesigma = 30 degrees for all Wide fields is supported by the reduced chi-squared values in Table IV, but the table shows a few values above 1.3 (e.g., Wide c EE and Wide e TE); a brief comment on why this is acceptable would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forecasted FoM gains and the separate-field validation are computed from explicit forward models with acknowledged input assumptions, not from fitted outputs or self-imported conclusions.

full rationale

The paper makes two central load-bearing claims: (1) analyzing the 13 SPT-3G fields separately rather than jointly costs under 3% in LambdaCDM parameter error bars, and (2) SPT-3G Ext-10k combined with Planck will improve the EDE FoM by a factor of about 321 and the varying-electron-mass FoM by 3.15e3-6.36e3 over Planck alone. Both are produced by an explicit forecasting pipeline: fiducial Planck 2018 power spectra, noise curves from [11], NKA analytic covariances, a transfer function, and Polspice kernels. No parameter is fitted to a data subset and then renamed as a prediction, and the target FoM numbers are not imported from the cited prior papers [11, 13, 43]; they are computed here from the paper's own differentiable likelihoods and MCMC chains. The under-3% separate-vs-joint conclusion follows from the 4.8% sky-fraction difference between the joint and separated masks and from independent Fisher matrices; it is not an input assumption. The acknowledged Wide-field noise modeling ('The Wide fields noise curves have the same parametrization as the Summer noise curves, since real noise power spectra for the Wide fields did not exist when this work started') and the H(l)=F(l) covariance rescaling are genuine approximations and the main threats to forecast accuracy, but they are inputs with stated provenance, not deductions that equal their conclusions. The H=F approximation is benchmarked at the 10% level on Main and Summer fields before being extended to Wide fields, so the self-citation to Hivon et al. in prep is not the sole support. Citations to same-collaboration work [11, 13, 43] supply noise parameterizations, model choices, and comparison baselines, which is normal usage and does not make the central claims circular. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited; the derivation is self-contained as a forecast, so a low score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All central numbers are forecasts built on the Planck 2018 LambdaCDM fiducial model, noise curves from prior SPT analyses, and covariance approximations that the text explicitly flags. No new physical entity is introduced. The most fragile inputs are the Wide-field noise model (borrowed from Summer fields) and the H(ell)=F(ell) rescaling for Wide patches; both are plausible but not yet demonstrated with real Wide data. The tau prior and foreground parameters are taken from published analyses rather than fitted here.

free parameters (2)
  • Wide-field noise spectrum shape = same as Summer curves
    Section III C: Wide noise curves were not measured when forecasting began; Summer parameterization was used. Preliminary measurements show agreement, but this remains an input assumption.
  • Polspice apodizesigma and thetamax = 30 degrees for all 13 fields; 80 degrees for the joint patch
    Appendix A2: hand-chosen analysis settings validated via 1000-map chi-squared tests. Affects window function and effective sky fraction, and hence the exact FoM numbers.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The high-ell CMB band-power likelihood is Gaussian (Eq. 1).
    Section III A; standard central-limit approximation for the number of modes in each ell=50 bin.
  • domain assumption Wide-field noise power spectra are well described by the Summer-field parameterization.
    Section III C; real Wide noise spectra did not exist when forecasts began. Preliminary data agree, but this is an input assumption, not yet fully validated.
  • domain assumption Diagonal covariance rescaling H(ell)=F(ell) holds for all 13 fields.
    Section III C and Appendix C, Eq. C3; stated to be accurate at the 10% level for Main and Summer fields, with no Wide-field validation.
  • domain assumption Non-linear corrections to the lensing signal can be neglected for EDE and varying-me models.
    Section IV B 2; authors acknowledge this could widen error bars and cite [44].
  • domain assumption Point sources will be inpainted in the real analysis, so their masking can be omitted from the covariance.
    Section III C; assumption carried over from [2].
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 LambdaCDM best-fit is the fiducial model for the mock data and theory spectra.
    Section III C/E; standard for forecast, but means forecasts are conditional on that cosmology.
  • domain assumption The tau prior N(0.054, 0.0074) from Planck 2018 is adopted.
    Section III B; without it sigma(tau) widens by a factor of roughly 2 to 3, so final constraints depend on this external prior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards constraining cosmological parameters with SPT-3G observations of 25% of the sky." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKC2YXQ3

@misc{pith2026251024669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards constraining cosmological parameters with SPT-3G observations of 25% of the sky},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKC2YXQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.24669}
}
abstract

The South Pole Telescope (SPT), using its third-generation camera, SPT-3G, is conducting observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in temperature and polarization across approximately 10 000 deg$^2$ of the sky at 95, 150, and 220 GHz. This comprehensive dataset should yield stringent constraints on cosmological parameters. In this work, we explore its potential to address the Hubble tension by forecasting constraints from temperature, polarization, and CMB lensing on early dark energy (EDE) and the variation in electron mass in spatially flat and curved universes. For this purpose, we investigate first whether analyzing the distinct SPT-3G observation fields independently, as opposed to as a single, unified region, results in a loss of information relevant to cosmological parameter estimation. We develop a realistic temperature and polarization likelihood pipeline capable of analyzing these fields in these two ways, and subsequently forecast constraints on cosmological parameters. Our findings indicate that any loss of constraining power from analyzing the fields separately is primarily concentrated at low multipoles ($\ell$ < 50) and the overall impact on the relative uncertainty on standard $\Lambda$ cold dark matter parameters is minimal (< 3%). Our forecasts suggest that SPT-3G data should improve by more than a factor of 90 and 190 the figure of merit of the EDE and the varying electron mass models, respectively, when combined with Planck data. The likelihood pipeline developed and used in this work is made publicly available online.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.24669 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Observed sky area with joint (left) and separated (right) masks used to perform either a global or a separate analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Expected temperature noise power spectra for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Transfer function used in our TT/TE/EE analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Relative difference in the diagonal of the band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. SPT-3G Ext-10k forecasts of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. SPT-3G Ext-10k forecasts of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. SPT-3G Ext-10k TT/TE/EE/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. SPT-3G Ext-10k TT/TE/EE/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Quantitative Framework for Testing the Hubble Tension in a Bianchi Type I Cosmological Background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An analytic weak-shear Bianchi I calculation bounds the low-redshift luminosity-distance quadrupole to |Aμ(0.15)|≲2.4×10^-11 mag under BBN shear limits, ruling out shear-only resolution of the Hubble tension.

  2. Inflation at the End of 2025: Constraints on $r$ and $n_s$ Using the Latest CMB and BAO Data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    New Planck+SPT+ACT+BICEP/Keck constraints give n_s=0.9682±0.0032, r<0.034; adding DESI shifts n_s to 0.9728±0.0029, favoring monomial over Starobinsky inflation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    Since Summer a and Summer b have comparable white noise levels asSummer c, we only show Summer c noise curves for comparison purposes with the Wide and Main fields

    for details). Since Summer a and Summer b have comparable white noise levels asSummer c, we only show Summer c noise curves for comparison purposes with the Wide and Main fields. We account for the impact of deconvolving the beams, the pixel window function, and the transfer function (see Figure 3), the computation of which is detailed in Appendix C. In p...

    work page

  2. [1]

    The Polspice procedure 16

    work page

  3. [2]

    Coadded covariance 17 C

    The apodizesigma parameter and theWide fields case 16 B. Coadded covariance 17 C. Transfer functions 17 References 19 I. INTRODUCTION Over the last 30 years, observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have steadily driven advances in our understanding of the Universe. The statistical properties of the CMB, as revealed by the European Space Agen...

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    The comparison of the first two cases allows us to determine the impact of dividing the observed sky in 13 different regions, assuming the same noise levels in the two cases

    the Ext10kFD sep case at full depth, where we treat the entire survey as 13 separate fields with theMain, Summer and Wide fields having their own distinct noiselevels(seeTable1of[11]forthedetailedwhite noise levels of the different fields). The comparison of the first two cases allows us to determine the impact of dividing the observed sky in 13 different...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  6. [5]

    M., Romaniello, M., Murakami, Y

    Breuval, L., Riess, A.G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., Romaniello, M., Murakami, Y. S., Scolnic, D., Anand, G. S., & Soszyński, I. Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 30, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad630e

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    and in Hivon et al., in prep. This rescaling is denoted H(ℓ) and is set to be equal to the transfer function based on Hivon et al., in prep, where this approximation is shown to be accurate at the 10% level for theMain and Summer fields. D. Model Our model vector ⃗D(θ) is described by a set of cosmological and nuisance (foreground) parameters. The six ΛCD...

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    the Ext10kjoint case, where we treat the entire survey as one contiguous field with homogeneous noise levels equivalent to those of theWide fields

    work page

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    theExt10ksep case, wherewetreattheentiresurvey as 13 separate fields with homogeneous noise levels equivalent to those of theWide fields

  2. [9]

    A., Ade, P

    Benson, B. A., Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., et al. SPT- 3G: A Next-Generation Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Experiment on the South Pole Telescope. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9153, Millimeter, Submillime- ter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy...

    2014 doi

  3. [10]

    We sample over 33 parameters in total, including the six cosmological parameters and the 27 nuisance parameters defined in Section IIID

    ΛCDM We first explore constraints with Ext-10k on the six cosmological parameters of the ΛCDM model. We sample over 33 parameters in total, including the six cosmological parameters and the 27 nuisance parameters defined in Section IIID. Results are shown in Figure 6 andTableI...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Extended models In this section, we use our realistic SPT-3G Ext-10k TT/TE/EE andϕϕ mock likelihoods to explore different 13 extended models: two models with a varying electron mass and a model of EDE. SPT-3G has the potential to provide crucial insights into these models due ...

  5. [13]

    The Polspice procedure The temperature anisotropies map Θ(ˆn) is defined from the temperature map T(ˆn) and the CMB mean temperature T as follows: Θ(ˆn) = T(ˆn)−T T . (A1) On the full sky, the temperature anisotropies decompo- sition into spherical harmonics is Θ(ˆn) = +∞X ℓ=0...

  6. [14]

    The apodizesigma parameter and theWide fields case We want to find the apodization function f apo(θ) such that the kernel K is close to identity. In this work we choose f apo(θ) to be a cosine function with apodizetype = 1 in Polspice: f apo(θ) = 1 2 1 + cos πθ σPSapo (A11) wh...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Cosmology from CMB lensing and delensed EE power spectra using 2019–2020 SPT-3G polarization data

    Ge, F., Millea, M., Camphuis, E., et al. Cosmology from CMB lensing and delensed EE power spectra using 2019–2020 SPT-3G polarization data. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083534, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083534

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    SPT- 3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observa- tions of the SPT-3G Main field

    Camphuis, E., Quan, W., Balkenhol, L., et al. SPT- 3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observa- tions of the SPT-3G Main field. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20707

    2019 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoodsand ΛCDMParameters.2025, arXive-prints, arXiv:2503.14452, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14452

    Louis, T., La Posta, A., Atkins, Z., et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoodsand ΛCDMParameters.2025, arXive-prints, arXiv:2503.14452, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14452

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    J., Barreiro, R

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., Ash- down, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartlett, J. G., Bartolo, N., & et al. Planck 2015 results. XI. CMB power spectra, likelihoods, and robustness of parameters. 2016, A&A, 594, A11, doi: 10...

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Aguilar, J., et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14738, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503. 14738

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ferreira, E. G. M., McDonough, E., Balkenhol, L., Kallosh, R., Knox, L., & Linde, A. The BAO-CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2507.12459, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507. 12459

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    Spurio Mancini, A., Piras, D., Alsing, J., Joachimi, B., & Hobson, M. P. COSMOPOWER: emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1771, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac064

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    A., Anderson, A

    Sobrin, J. A., Anderson, A. J., Bender, A. N., et al. The DesignandIntegratedPerformanceofSPT-3G.2022, Ap. J. Suppl. , 258, 42, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac374f

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    Testing the ΛCDM Cosmological Model with Forthcoming Mea- surements of the Cosmic Microwave Background with SPT-3G

    Prabhu, K., Raghunathan, S., Millea, M., et al. Testing the ΛCDM Cosmological Model with Forthcoming Mea- surements of the Cosmic Microwave Background with SPT-3G. 2024, Astrophys. J., 973, 4, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad5ff1

    2024

  16. [25]

    For our forecasts, we adopt the same nuisance parameters as assumed in [24] (see Table VIII from that work)

    or CAMB [26] or the emulator CosmoPower. For our forecasts, we adopt the same nuisance parameters as assumed in [24] (see Table VIII from that work). Finally, we use a Gaussian prior on τ with 0.054 as the central value and 0.0074 as the standard deviation N ∼(0.054, 0.0074), ...

    2018

  17. [26]

    BICEP/Keck Collaboration, :, Ade, P. A. R., et al. The Latest Constraints on Inflationary B-modes from the BICEP/Keck Telescopes. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.16556, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.16556

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    The computation correctly accounts for the mode coupling introduced by the apodized footprint masks

    and using a Narrow Kernel Approximation (NKA) [28, 29] to speed up the computations. The computation correctly accounts for the mode coupling introduced by the apodized footprint masks. In particular, it includes the effect of debiasing the pseudo-Cℓs from the effect of the ma...

    2018

  19. [28]

    R., Zanjani, M

    Khalife, A. R., Zanjani, M. B., Galli, S., Günther, S., Lesgourgues, J., & Benabed, K. Review of Hubble tension solutions with new SH0ES and SPT-3G data. 2024, J. of Cosm. & Astropart. Phys., 2024, 059, doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2024/04/059

    2024

  20. [29]

    E., Ade, P

    Carlstrom, J. E., Ade, P. A. R., Aird, K. A., et al. The 10 Meter South Pole Telescope. 2011, PASP, 123, 568, doi: 10.1086/659879

    2011 doi

  21. [31]

    A., Reichardt, C

    Zebrowski, J. A., Reichardt, C. L., Anderson, A. J., et al. Constraints on Inflationary Gravitational Waves with Two Years of SPT-3G Data. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02827, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02827

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [32]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., Wandelt, B. D., Hansen, F. K., Reinecke, M., & Bartelmann, M. HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere. 2005, Astrophys. J., 622, 759, doi:10.1086/ 427976

    2005

  23. [34]

    J., Leary, C., Maclaurin, D., Necula, G., Paszke, A., VanderPlas, J., Wanderman-Milne, S., &Zhang, Q.2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., Johnson, M. J., Leary, C., Maclaurin, D., Necula, G., Paszke, A., VanderPlas, J., Wanderman-Milne, S., &Zhang, Q.2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13. http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  24. [35]

    candl: cosmic microwave background analysis with a differentiable likelihood

    Balkenhol, L., Trendafilova, C., Benabed, K., & Galli, S. candl: cosmic microwave background analysis with a differentiable likelihood. 2024, A&A, 686, A10, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202449432

    2024

  25. [36]

    CosmoPower-JAX: high-dimensional Bayesian inference with differentiable cosmological emulators

    Piras, D., & Spurio Mancini, A. CosmoPower-JAX: high-dimensional Bayesian inference with differentiable cosmological emulators. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 20, doi:10.21105/astro.2305.06347

    2023 arXiv

  26. [37]

    Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 T T , T E , and E E dataset

    Balkenhol, L., Dutcher, D., Spurio Mancini, A., et al. Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the SPT-3G 2018 T T , T E , and E E dataset. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 023510, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.023510

    2018 doi

  27. [38]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

    Lesgourgues, J. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1104.2932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932

    2011 doi arXiv

  28. [39]

    2011, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background, Astrophysics SourceCodeLibrary, recordascl:1102.026

    Lewis, A., & Challinor, A. 2011, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background, Astrophysics SourceCodeLibrary, recordascl:1102.026. http://ascl. net/1102.026

    2011

  29. [40]

    Accurate cosmic microwave background covariance 20 matrices: Exact calculation and approximations

    Camphuis, E., Benabed, K., Galli, S., Hivon, E., &Lilley, M. Accurate cosmic microwave background covariance 20 matrices: Exact calculation and approximations. 2022, A&A, 668, A62, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243948

    2022 doi

  30. [42]

    Disconnected pseudo-Cl covariances for projected large-scale structure data

    García-García, C., Alonso, D., &Bellini, E. Disconnected pseudo-Cl covariances for projected large-scale structure data. 2019, J. of Cosm. & Astropart. Phys., 2019, 043, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/043

    2019 doi

  31. [43]

    M., Netterfield, C

    Hivon, E., Górski, K. M., Netterfield, C. B., Crill, B. P., Prunet, S., & Hansen, F. MASTER of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Power Spectrum: A Fast Method for Statistical Analysis of Large and Complex Cosmic Microwave Background Data Sets. 2002, Astrophys. J., 567...

    2002 doi

  32. [44]

    Fast estimation of polarization power spectra using correlation functions

    Chon, G., Challinor, A., Prunet, S., Hivon, E., & Szapudi, I. Fast estimation of polarization power spectra using correlation functions. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 914, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07737.x

    2004

  33. [45]

    Agora: Multi-Component Simula- tion for Cross-Survey Science

    Omori, Y. Agora: Multi-Component Simula- tion for Cross-Survey Science. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.07420, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.07420

    2022 doi arXiv

  34. [46]

    Dutcher, D., Balkenhol, L., Ade, P. A. R., et al. Mea- surements of the E -mode polarization and temperature- E -mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 022003, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.104.022003

    2018

  35. [47]

    Super-sample CMB lensing

    Manzotti, A., Hu, W., & Benoit-Lévy, A. Super-sample CMB lensing. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 023003, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.90.023003

    2014

  36. [48]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likeli- hoods. 2020, A&A, 641, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201936386

    2018 doi

  37. [49]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

    Lewis, A. GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1910.13970

    2019 arXiv

  38. [51]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences. 1992, Statisti- cal Science, 7, 457. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2246093

    1992

  39. [52]

    Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cosmol- ogy

    Uzan, J.-P. Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cosmol- ogy. 2011, Living Reviews in Relativity, 14, 2, doi:10. 12942/lrr-2011-2

    2011

  40. [53]

    Early recombination as a solution to the H0 tension

    Sekiguchi, T., & Takahashi, T. Early recombination as a solution to the H0 tension. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083507, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083507

    2021 doi

  41. [54]

    Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse

    Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M. Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 103523, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 94.103523

    2016 doi

  42. [55]

    Marginal unbiased score expan- sion and application to CMB lensing

    Millea, M., & Seljak, U. Marginal unbiased score expan- sion and application to CMB lensing. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103531, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103531

    2022 doi

  43. [56]

    R., Balkenhol, L., Camphuis, E., et al

    Khalife, A. R., Balkenhol, L., Camphuis, E., et al. SPT- 3G D1: Axion Early Dark Energy with CMB experi- ments and DESI. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.23355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.23355

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [57]

    R., & Galli, S

    Trendafilova, C., Khalife, A. R., & Galli, S. The end of easy phenomenology for CMB experiments: A case study in the dark sector. 2025, J. of Cosm. & Astropart. Phys., 2025, 094, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/094

    2025 doi

  45. [58]

    Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum

    Takahashi, R., Sato, M., Nishimichi, T., Taruya, A., & Oguri, M. Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum. 2012, Astrophys. J., 761, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152

    2012 doi

  46. [59]

    J., Peacock, J

    Mead, A. J., Peacock, J. A., Heymans, C., Joudaki, S., & Heavens, A. F. An accurate halo model for fitting non- linear cosmological power spectra and baryonic feedback models. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1958, doi:10.1093/mnras/ stv2036

    2015 doi

  47. [60]

    L., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M

    Poulin, V., Smith, T. L., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M. Early Dark Energy can Resolve the Hubble Tension. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 122, doi: 10.1103/ physrevlett.122.221301

    2019

  48. [61]

    L., Lucca, M., Poulin, V., Abellan, G

    Smith, T. L., Lucca, M., Poulin, V., Abellan, G. F., Balkenhol, L., Benabed, K., Galli, S., & Murgia, R. Hints of early dark energy in Planck, SPT, and ACT data: New physics or systematics? 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043526, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043526

    2022 doi

  49. [62]

    Towards Early Dark Energy in string theory

    McDonough, E., & Scalisi, M. Towards Early Dark Energy in string theory. 2023, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2023, 118, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)118

    2023 doi

  50. [63]

    G., & Scalisi, M

    Cicoli, M., Licheri, M., Mahanta, R., McDonough, E., Pedro, F. G., & Scalisi, M. Early Dark Energy in Type IIB String Theory. 2023, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2023, 52, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2023)052

    2023 doi

  51. [64]

    L., Poulin, V., & Amin, M

    Smith, T. L., Poulin, V., & Amin, M. A. Oscillating scalar fields and the Hubble tension: a resolution with novel signatures. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 063523, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063523

    2020 doi

  52. [65]

    L., Grin, D., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M

    Poulin, V., Smith, T. L., Grin, D., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M. Cosmological implications of ultralightaxionlikefields.2018, Phys.Rev.D,98, 083525, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083525

    2018 doi

  53. [66]

    L., Patil, S., Ade, P

    Reichardt, C. L., Patil, S., Ade, P. A. R., et al. An Improved Measurement of the Secondary Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies from the SPT-SZ + SPTpol Surveys. 2021, Astrophys. J., 908, 199, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/abd407

    2021

  54. [67]

    Raghunathan, S., Ade, P. A. R., Anderson, A. J., et al. First Constraints on the Epoch of Reionization Using the Non-Gaussianity of the Kinematic Sunyaev- Zel’dovich Effect from the South Pole Telescope and Herschel-SPIRE Observations. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 133, 121004, doi:...

    2024 doi

  55. [68]

    Multiprobe cosmology from the abundance of SPT clusters and DES galaxy clustering and weak lensing

    Bocquet, S., Grandis, S., Krause, E., et al. Multiprobe cosmology from the abundance of SPT clusters and DES galaxy clustering and weak lensing. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 063533, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063533

    2025 doi

  56. [69]

    H., Staveley-Smith, L., Campbell, L., Parker, Q., Saunders, W., & Watson, F

    Beutler, F., Blake, C., Colless, M., Jones, D. H., Staveley-Smith, L., Campbell, L., Parker, Q., Saunders, W., & Watson, F. The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble constant. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3017, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011. 19250.x

    2011

  57. [70]

    J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., Percival, W

    Ross, A. J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., Percival, W. J., Burden, A., & Manera, M. The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample - I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z = 0.15. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 835, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stv154 21

    2015

  58. [71]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample

    Alam, S., Ata, M., Bailey, S., et al. The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stx721

    2017

  59. [72]

    Completed SDSS- IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectro- scopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory

    Alam, S., Aubert, M., Avila, S., et al. Completed SDSS- IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectro- scopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083533, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103. 083533

    2021 doi

  60. [73]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations. 2025, J. of Cosm. & Astropart. Phys., 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2025/02/021

    2024 doi

  61. [74]

    M., Jones, D

    Scolnic, D. M., Jones, D. O., Rest, A., et al. The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Con- firmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample. 2018, Astrophys. J., 859, 101, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    2018 doi

  62. [75]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 110, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 doi

  63. [76]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Com- putation. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  64. [77]

    Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  65. [78]

    healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphereinPython.2019, JournalofOpenSourceSoftware, 4, 1298, doi:10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., Reinecke, M., Rosset, C., Hivon, E., & Gorski, K. healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphereinPython.2019, JournalofOpenSourceSoftware, 4, 1298, doi:10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.