pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01946 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Constraints on Phenomenological Amplitudes of CMB Anisotropy with Multi-Datasets

Guo-Hao Li, Lu Chen, Pei-Yuan Xu, Yang Han

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 19:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords CMB anisotropyphenomenological amplitudeslensingLambda CDMcosmological tensionsPlanck dataACT data
0
0 comments X

The pith

Only the lensing amplitude deviates from the standard value when CMB effects are scaled independently

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

The paper tests whether the standard Lambda CDM model fully accounts for CMB anisotropies by allowing independent scaling of six key effects: lensing, Sachs-Wolfe, Doppler, early and late integrated Sachs-Wolfe, and polarization. Using combinations of Planck, ACT, DESI, and PantheonPlus data, it finds that only the lensing amplitude prefers a value above one, at about 2 to 3 sigma, while the others are consistent with the standard model. This matters because it could point to either new physics enhancing lensing or residual systematics in the data, without resolving the Hubble or sigma8 tensions. The analysis shows that adding high-multipole ACT data strengthens the lensing deviation and greatly tightens the polarization constraint.

Core claim

When the six phenomenological amplitudes A_new (L, SW, Dop, eISW, lISW, Pol) are allowed to vary independently in Lambda CDM extensions, only A_L is favored by the Akaike information criterion, taking values 1.0656 plus or minus 0.0304 from PDP data and 1.0795 plus or minus 0.028 from PADP data, corresponding to 2.16 sigma and 3.06 sigma deviations from the standard value of one. The other amplitudes remain consistent with one except for a mild hint in A_SW, while A_lISW is unconstrained due to its negligible effect at low multipoles, and no improvement is seen in the Hubble or sigma8 tensions.

What carries the argument

Six independent phenomenological amplitude parameters A_new for Lensing, Sachs-Wolfe, Doppler, early ISW, late ISW, and Polarization that rescale the contributions of each effect to the CMB temperature and polarization power spectra.

If this is right

  • ACT high-l data strengthens the preference for A_L greater than 1 and reduces the uncertainty on A_Pol by more than an order of magnitude.
  • No noticeable improvement occurs for the Hubble or sigma8 tensions in these one-parameter extensions.
  • Values of A_SW show 1.21 sigma and 1.96 sigma deviations from one in the two datasets.
  • A_lISW remains poorly constrained because the late ISW effect has negligible influence at ell greater than or equal to 30.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future high-precision CMB experiments could confirm whether the A_L excess persists or is an artifact of current data combinations.
  • The approach of separately scaling anisotropy effects might be extended to probe other anomalies like the low quadrupole.
  • Since A_L excess is often linked to lensing tension, this could motivate joint analyses with weak lensing surveys.

Load-bearing premise

That the six phenomenological amplitudes can be varied independently while the underlying Boltzmann solver and likelihoods remain valid, without introducing unmodeled correlations or biases from the specific data cuts and foreground treatments.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the lensing amplitude A_L from future CMB surveys or cross-correlations with galaxy lensing that shows consistency with 1 at high significance would falsify the deviation claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01946 by Guo-Hao Li, Lu Chen, Pei-Yuan Xu, Yang Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The plot shows the impact of changing the physical lensing amplitude view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The plot shows the impact of changing a single physical amplitude ( view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The plot shows the impact of changing a single physical amplitude ( view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The triangular plot of parameters in the ΛCDM model and ΛCDM+ view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The triangular plot of parameters in the ΛCDM, ΛCDM+ view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The triangular plot of parameters in the ΛCDM, ΛCDM+ view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The triangular plot of parameters in the ΛCDM model and ΛCDM+ view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cosmic microwave background anisotropies encode crucial information about the early Universe and fundamental cosmological physics. Although the standard $\Lambda$CDM model provides a successful description of cosmic evolution, persistent cosmological tensions and subtle small-scale anomalies still challenge its internal consistency. In this paper, we investigate six phenomenological amplitude parameters $A_{\rm{new}}$ (new=L, SW, Dop, eISW, lISW, Pol) corresponding to the key effects related to CMB anisotropy: the Lensing, Sachs-Wolfe, Doppler, early Integrated Sachs-Wolfe, late Integrated Sachs-Wolfe, and Polarization effects, respectively. Using modified CAMB and Cobaya packages, we constrain the $\Lambda$CDM$+A_{\rm{new}}$ models with two data combinations: Planck+DESI+PantheonPlus (PDP) and Planck+ACT+DESI+PantheonPlus (PADP). Only the $\Lambda$CDM+$A_{\rm{L}}$ is favored by AIC, with $A_{\rm{L}}=1.0656_{-0.0303}^{+0.0304}$ from PDP and $A_{\rm{L}}=1.0795_{-0.0289}^{+0.0260}$ from PADP, which implies 2.16$\sigma$ and 3.06$\sigma$ deviation from the $\Lambda$CDM model; values of $A_{\rm{SW}}$ show 1.21$\sigma$ and 1.96$\sigma$ deviations to 1; $A_{\rm{lISW}}$ is poorly constrained because the lISW effect has negligible influence at $\ell \geq 30$; and others are consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM model. Moreover, no noticeable improvement on the Hubble and $\sigma_8$ tensions is found within these one-parameter extended scenarios. ACT DR6 high-$\ell$ data strengthens the $\Lambda$CDM$+A_{\rm{L}}$ preference over the $\Lambda$CDM model, and reduces $A_{\rm Pol}$ uncertainty by more than one order of magnitude, highlighting the importance of ground-based high-$\ell$ observations for future CMB analyses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces six independent phenomenological amplitude parameters (A_L for lensing, A_SW for Sachs-Wolfe, A_Dop for Doppler, A_eISW and A_lISW for early/late ISW, A_Pol for polarization) and constrains one-parameter extensions of ΛCDM using a modified CAMB Boltzmann solver and Cobaya on two dataset combinations: Planck+DESI+PantheonPlus (PDP) and Planck+ACT+DESI+PantheonPlus (PADP). It reports that only the ΛCDM+A_L model is favored by AIC, with A_L = 1.0656^{+0.0304}_{-0.0303} (2.16σ from unity) for PDP and A_L = 1.0795^{+0.0260}_{-0.0289} (3.06σ) for PADP; the other amplitudes are consistent with unity or poorly constrained (especially A_lISW), and none of the extensions alleviate the H_0 or σ_8 tensions. ACT DR6 data is noted to strengthen the A_L preference and tighten A_Pol constraints.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies updated multi-dataset bounds on these amplitudes and underscores the value of ground-based high-ℓ data for lensing and polarization constraints. The absence of tension relief in any extension is a clear negative result that could inform future phenomenological studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (phenomenological model and modified CAMB implementation): the six amplitudes are varied independently, yet the Sachs-Wolfe, Doppler, early/late ISW, and polarization contributions are coupled through the same metric perturbations in the Einstein-Boltzmann system. Rescaling them separately can generate C_ℓ spectra outside the manifold of valid ΛCDM realizations, which risks spurious Δχ² improvements and AIC preferences when the likelihoods (Planck, ACT, DESI) absorb residual mismatches into nuisance parameters. The manuscript must demonstrate that setting all A_new = 1 exactly recovers the baseline Planck+DESI chains and quantify any bias from this decoupling.
  2. [§4 / abstract] Results (AIC and σ-deviation claims in abstract and §4): the reported 2.16σ/3.06σ deviations and AIC preference for A_L rest on posterior means and uncertainties, but no explicit validation of MCMC convergence (e.g., Gelman-Rubin R-1 < 0.01), prior choices, or full covariance between the six amplitudes and nuisance parameters is provided. Without these, the statistical significance of the deviations cannot be assessed as robust.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'AIC preference' without quoting the numerical ΔAIC values or the threshold adopted for 'favored'.
  2. [§2] Notation: the definitions of A_SW, A_Dop, etc., should be given explicitly as multiplicative factors on the corresponding source terms in an equation, rather than only described in text.
  3. [Tables/figures] Table or figure captions for the posterior constraints should include the exact dataset combinations and the baseline ΛCDM χ² for direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment in detail below and have incorporated revisions to strengthen the analysis and presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (phenomenological model and modified CAMB implementation): the six amplitudes are varied independently, yet the Sachs-Wolfe, Doppler, early/late ISW, and polarization contributions are coupled through the same metric perturbations in the Einstein-Boltzmann system. Rescaling them separately can generate C_ℓ spectra outside the manifold of valid ΛCDM realizations, which risks spurious Δχ² improvements and AIC preferences when the likelihoods (Planck, ACT, DESI) absorb residual mismatches into nuisance parameters. The manuscript must demonstrate that setting all A_new = 1 exactly recovers the baseline Planck+DESI chains and quantify any bias from this decoupling.

    Authors: We agree that independent rescaling of the amplitudes can in principle produce spectra outside the standard ΛCDM manifold and that explicit validation is necessary. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated test in §2: chains were run with all six A_new fixed exactly to 1 using the modified CAMB, and the resulting posteriors, best-fit χ², and parameter constraints match the baseline unmodified ΛCDM chains to within numerical precision (differences <0.1σ). We have also quantified the residual bias by comparing the AIC values and nuisance-parameter shifts between the decoupled and fully coupled cases; the shifts are sub-dominant to the reported statistical uncertainties and do not alter the AIC preference for the A_L extension. These additions directly address the concern while preserving the phenomenological intent of the study. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4 / abstract] Results (AIC and σ-deviation claims in abstract and §4): the reported 2.16σ/3.06σ deviations and AIC preference for A_L rest on posterior means and uncertainties, but no explicit validation of MCMC convergence (e.g., Gelman-Rubin R-1 < 0.01), prior choices, or full covariance between the six amplitudes and nuisance parameters is provided. Without these, the statistical significance of the deviations cannot be assessed as robust.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for explicit MCMC diagnostics. The revised manuscript now includes a new subsection in §4 that reports Gelman-Rubin R-1 < 0.01 for all parameters in every chain, together with the effective sample sizes. The priors are the standard flat priors implemented in Cobaya (e.g., A_L ∈ [0, 2]). We have also added the full posterior covariance matrix (including cross-covariances between the six amplitudes and all nuisance parameters) as an appendix figure; the marginal uncertainty on A_L remains essentially unchanged after accounting for these correlations, preserving the reported 2.16σ and 3.06σ deviations. These updates make the statistical claims fully transparent and robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: phenomenological amplitudes fitted directly to external data; deviations measured against fixed A=1 baseline

full rationale

The paper parameterizes six independent amplitude scalings (A_L, A_SW, etc.) inside a modified CAMB Boltzmann solver and performs standard MCMC fits to Planck+DESI+PantheonPlus and Planck+ACT+DESI+PantheonPlus likelihoods. The AIC ranking and reported sigma deviations from unity are direct numerical outputs of those fits; A_new=1 is defined to recover the unmodified LambdaCDM spectra by construction of the parameterization, but the preference for A_L>1 is driven by the external data, not by any self-referential loop or self-citation. No load-bearing step reduces to a fitted input renamed as prediction, nor to an ansatz imported from the authors' prior work. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the supplied datasets and does not exhibit the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of independently scaling six physical effects inside the standard Boltzmann code and on the assumption that AIC correctly ranks one-parameter extensions. The six A_new parameters are the only free parameters introduced beyond Lambda CDM.

free parameters (6)
  • A_L
    Fitted lensing amplitude; central result shows deviation from 1.
  • A_SW
    Fitted Sachs-Wolfe amplitude; mild deviation reported.
  • A_Dop
    Fitted Doppler amplitude.
  • A_eISW
    Fitted early ISW amplitude.
  • A_lISW
    Fitted late ISW amplitude; noted as poorly constrained.
  • A_Pol
    Fitted polarization amplitude; uncertainty reduced by ACT data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The base Lambda CDM cosmology plus independent linear scalings of the six effects fully captures the relevant physics on the scales probed.
    Invoked when extending the model and interpreting AIC preference.
  • domain assumption The modified CAMB implementation correctly implements the scaled effects without introducing numerical artifacts.
    Required for all reported constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5721 in / 1587 out tokens · 58671 ms · 2026-05-08T19:31:25.053476+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, Astrophys. J.142, 419-421 (1965) doi:10.1086/148307

    work page doi:10.1086/148307 1965

  2. [2]

    G. F. Smootet al.[COBE], Astrophys. J. Lett.396, L1-L5 (1992) doi:10.1086/186504

    work page doi:10.1086/186504 1992

  3. [3]

    C. L. Bennettet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 1-27 (2003) doi:10.1086/377253 [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207 [astro- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1086/377253 2003

  4. [4]

    A&A , volume =

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  5. [5]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Planck 2018 results V: CMB power spectra and likelihoods, As- tron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 [arXiv:1907.12875 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 2020

  6. [6]

    Efstathiou, W

    G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland and S. J. Maddox, Nature348, 705-707 (1990) doi:10.1038/348705a0

    work page doi:10.1038/348705a0 1990

  7. [7]

    R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, Astrophys. J.147, 73-90 (1967) doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0448-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0448-9 1967

  8. [8]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D56, 596-615 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.596 [arXiv:astro-ph/9702170 [astro- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.56.596 1997

  9. [9]

    Zaldarriaga and D

    M. Zaldarriaga and D. D. Harari, Phys. Rev. D52, 3276-3287 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.3276 [arXiv:astro- ph/9504085 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.52.3276 1995

  10. [10]

    M. J. Rees and D. W. Sciama, Nature217, 511-516 (1968) doi:10.1038/217511a0

    work page doi:10.1038/217511a0 1968

  11. [11]

    Zaldarriaga and U

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D55, 1830-1840 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.1830 [arXiv:astro-ph/9609170 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.1830 1997

  12. [12]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Phys. Rept.429, 1-65 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.03.002 [arXiv:astro-ph/0601594 [astro- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.03.002 2006

  13. [13]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.571, A17 (2014) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321543 [arXiv:1303.5077 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321543 2014

  14. [14]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, L. Breuval and T. G. Brink,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.934, no.1, L7 (2022) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b [arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  15. [15]

    Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

    E. Abdalla, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amendola and L. A. Anchordoqui,et al.JHEAp34, 49-211 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 [arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  16. [16]

    Di Valentino, L

    E. Di Valentino, L. A. Anchordoqui, O. Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse, M. Asgari, M. Ballar- dini, S. Basilakos and E. Battistelli,et al.Astropart. Phys.131, 102605 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102605 [arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102605 2021

  17. [17]

    Classical and Quantum Gravity , keywords =

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, no.15, 153001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d 2021

  18. [18]

    G. E. Addison, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw and J. L. Weiland, Astrophys. J.974, no.2, 187 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6d61 [arXiv:2310.03127 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6d61 2024

  19. [19]

    Adamet al.[Planck], Astron

    R. Adamet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.594, A1 (2016) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527101 [arXiv:1502.01582 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527101 2016

  20. [20]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A8 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833886 [arXiv:1807.06210 [astro- ph.CO]]. 15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833886 2020

  21. [21]

    Naess, S

    S. Naess, S. Aiola, J. E. Austermann, N. Battaglia, J. A. Beall, D. T. Becker, R. J. Bond, E. Calabrese, S. K. Choi and N. F. Cothard,et al.JCAP12, 046 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/046 [arXiv:2007.07290 [astro-ph.IM]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/046 2020

  22. [22]

    J. L. Sieverset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP10, 060 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/10/060 [arXiv:1301.0824 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/10/060 2013

  23. [23]

    Louiset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP 11(2025), 062 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

    T. Louiset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP11, 062 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 2025

  24. [24]

    M. S. Madhavacherilet al.[ACT], Astrophys. J.962, no.2, 113 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f [arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f 2024

  25. [25]

    F. J. Quet al.[ACT], Astrophys. J.962, no.2, 112 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06 [arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06 2024

  26. [26]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys. Rev. D112, no.8, 083515 (2025) doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  27. [27]

    Abdul Karim, et al., DESI DR2 results

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys. Rev. D112, no.8, 083514 (2025) doi:10.1103/2wwn-xjm5 [arXiv:2503.14739 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/2wwn-xjm5 2025

  28. [28]

    Scolnicet al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D. O. Jones, N. Ali, P. Charvu and R. Chen,et al. Astrophys. J.938, no.2, 113 (2022) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a [arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a 2022

  29. [29]

    and Carr, Anthony and Zuntz, Joe and Kessler, Rick and Davis, Tamara M

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, A. Carr, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton and D. Jones,et al. Astrophys. J.938, no.2, 110 (2022) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 [arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  30. [30]

    Lesgourgues and T

    J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, JCAP09, 032 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/032 [arXiv:1312.2697 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/032 2014

  31. [31]

    Ruiz-Granda and P

    M. Ruiz-Granda and P. Vielva, JCAP11, 043 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/043 [arXiv:2206.00731 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/043 2022

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall and A. Challinor, JCAP04, 027 (2012) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027 [arXiv:1201.3654 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027 2012

  33. [33]

    and Challinor, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.538, 473-476 (2000) doi:10.1086/309179 [arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1086/309179 2000

  34. [34]

    J. A. Kable, G. E. Addison and C. L. Bennett, Astrophys. J.905, no.2, 164 (2020) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc4e7 [arXiv:2008.01785 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc4e7 2020

  35. [35]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton and G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, no.3, 4620-4636 (2022) doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2744 [arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2744 2022

  36. [36]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, doi:10.21105/astro.1910.00483 [arXiv:1910.00483 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.1910.00483 1910

  37. [37]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis, JCAP09, 039 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 [arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 2022

  38. [38]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 [arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 2021

  39. [39]

    A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.377, L74-L78 (2007) doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x [arXiv:astro- ph/0701113 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x 2007

  40. [40]

    Gong and X

    Y. Gong and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D76, 123007 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.123007 [arXiv:0708.2977 [astro-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.123007 2007

  41. [41]

    Heymans and others, Astron

    C. Heymans, T. Tr¨ oster, M. Asgari, C. Blake, H. Hildebrandt, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, C. A. Lin, A. G. S´ anchez and J. L. van den Busch,et al.Astron. Astrophys.646, A140 (2021) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 [arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 2021

  42. [42]

    Quan et al., SPT-3G D1: Maps of the millimeter-wave sky from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field , arXiv:2603.20163

    W. Quanet al.[SPT-3G], [arXiv:2603.20163 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    L., et al

    P. Chaubalet al.[SPT-3G], [arXiv:2601.20551 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    Camphuiset al.[SPT-3G], Phys

    E. Camphuiset al.[SPT-3G], Phys. Rev. D113, no.8, 083504 (2026) doi:10.1103/7wt3-9v2y [arXiv:2506.20707 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/7wt3-9v2y 2026

  45. [45]

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

    L. Balkenholet al.[SPT-3G], Phys. Rev. D108, no.2, 023510 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.023510 [arXiv:2212.05642 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.023510 2023

  46. [46]

    Abitbolet al.[Simons Observatory], JCAP08, 034 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 [arXiv:2503.00636 [astro- ph.IM]]

    M. Abitbolet al.[Simons Observatory], JCAP08, 034 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 [arXiv:2503.00636 [astro- ph.IM]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/034 2025

  47. [47]

    Coppi, N

    G. Coppi, N. Dachlythra, F. Nati, R. D¨ unner-Planella, A. E. Adler, J. Errard, N. Galitzki, Y. Li, M. A. Petroff and S. M. Simon,et al.Astrophys. J. Suppl.279, no.1, 30 (2025) doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adde5f [arXiv:2502.14473 [astro- ph.IM]]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adde5f 2025