Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Constraining the Potential Index $n$ of the Early Dark Energy Model Using Cosmic Birefringence from Planck and ACT

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read n=3 early dark energy potential fits cosmic birefringence data best among tested indices

desk verdict n=3 gives the best EB fit among the three cases, with reasonable couplings, but the ranking rests on assuming the entire observed signal comes from the EDE Chern-Simons term. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.24341 v1 pith:JMYYDSUE submitted 2026-05-23 astro-ph.CO

Kedi Zhang , Lu Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords earlydarkenergycosmicbirefringencepotentialindexnHubbletensionChern-SimonscouplingPlanckpolarizationACT
topics 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

The paper tests axion-like early dark energy models with different potential indices n to see which shape best accounts for the observed EB polarization signal while also helping with the Hubble tension. It fits n=2, n=3, and the n to infinity limit to Planck-EB and ACT-EB data through the Chern-Simons coupling term. The n=3 case produces the lowest chi-squared values and coupling strengths that stay consistent between the two datasets and match the angular dependence of the observations. n=2 yields extreme and inconsistent couplings with much worse fits, while the infinite-n limit performs worse than n=3. A reader would care because the result singles out one functional form as viable for a unified explanation of two cosmological puzzles.

What carries the argument

The potential V(phi) proportional to [1 minus cos(phi/f)] to the power n, together with the parity-violating Chern-Simons term g phi F tilde F that converts the rolling axion-like field into a birefringence rotation of photon polarization.

What would settle it

New EB power-spectrum measurements at intermediate angular scales that cannot be fit by the n=3 model with g M_pl near -0.2 while keeping the Hubble-tension resolution intact would falsify the preference for this index.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The axion-like EDE model with potential index n=3 achieves chi-squared minima of 65.70 for Planck-EB and 48.08 for ACT-EB, with coupling values g M_pl = -0.210 plus or minus 0.024 and -0.158 plus or minus 0.025 that reproduce the observed EB spectra across angular scales, outperforming both n=2 and n to infinity while remaining theoretically consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The observed EB cross-polarization signal is generated by the Chern-Simons coupling of the early dark energy field to photons and is not dominated by unaccounted systematics or other physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • n=3 supplies a single parameter choice that simultaneously reduces the Hubble tension and matches birefringence data from two independent experiments.
  • The coupling strength stays moderate and stable for n=3, unlike the unphysically large values required by n=2.
  • The angular-scale dependence of the birefringence signal is reproduced accurately only when n=3 is adopted.
  • n approaching infinity produces systematically poorer fits than n=3 on the same datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Future polarization surveys with finer angular resolution could tighten the constraint on n beyond the current three discrete cases.
  • If the EB signal origin assumption holds, the result limits the functional forms of early dark energy potentials that remain viable.
  • Combining the birefringence constraint with other EDE observables such as the sound-horizon shift might further discriminate among nearby integer values of n.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that among axion-like early dark energy models with potential indices n=2, 3, and ∞, the n=3 case yields the best fits to Planck-EB and ACT-EB data (χ²_min = 65.70 and 48.08), with consistent couplings (gM_pl = -0.210 ± 0.024 and -0.158 ± 0.025) that reproduce the observations across angular scales, and is therefore optimal for simultaneously addressing the Hubble tension and cosmic birefringence.

Significance. If the central claim holds after addressing the load-bearing assumptions, the result would be significant for cosmology: it would provide a concrete constraint on the EDE potential index n and support a unified axion-like mechanism for two anomalies, with the reported χ² values and coupling consistency offering a falsifiable benchmark for future data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model description paragraph] Model description paragraph: The analysis assumes the entire observed EB signal is generated by the Chern-Simons coupling of the axion-like EDE field, with no dominant contribution from unmodeled systematics or other sources. No test is reported that residual EB power after model subtraction is consistent with noise; if a non-negligible fraction originates elsewhere, the Δχ² ranking between n=2,3,∞ and the quoted gM_pl values lose their physical interpretation.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Specific χ²_min values and coupling constants are reported, yet no information is supplied on the likelihood function, priors, data covariance matrix, angular-scale cuts, or degeneracy handling. This absence prevents verification that the n=3 preference is robust rather than an artifact of the fitting procedure.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the coupling is inconsistent (gM_pl vs. g M_pl); standardize throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model description paragraph] The analysis assumes the entire observed EB signal is generated by the Chern-Simons coupling of the axion-like EDE field, with no dominant contribution from unmodeled systematics or other sources. No test is reported that residual EB power after model subtraction is consistent with noise; if a non-negligible fraction originates elsewhere, the Δχ² ranking between n=2,3,∞ and the quoted gM_pl values lose their physical interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit validation of residuals strengthens the physical interpretation. Our χ² minimization for n=3 yields values (65.70 for Planck-EB, 48.08 for ACT-EB) that indicate the model accounts for the dominant signal across angular scales, with consistent gM_pl values. However, to directly address the concern, we will add a new subsection reporting the residual EB power spectrum after subtracting the best-fit n=3 model and comparing its amplitude and distribution to the noise covariance from the data. This will confirm consistency with noise expectations and support the Δχ² rankings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Specific χ²_min values and coupling constants are reported, yet no information is supplied on the likelihood function, priors, data covariance matrix, angular-scale cuts, or degeneracy handling. This absence prevents verification that the n=3 preference is robust rather than an artifact of the fitting procedure.

    Authors: The abstract is space-constrained, but the full manuscript (Sections 3 and 4) specifies the likelihood as a Gaussian form using the provided Planck and ACT EB covariance matrices, with flat priors on gM_pl and EDE parameters, MCMC sampling via emcee to explore degeneracies, and angular scales matching the dataset multipole ranges (typically ℓ=100–2000). The n=3 preference emerges from global minima after extensive sampling, while n=2 exhibits multiple local minima and extreme g values. We will revise the abstract to include a concise statement on the likelihood and priors, and expand the methods section with a table summarizing covariance handling and scale cuts for improved verifiability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fitted couplings to EB data then declared to 'accurately reproduce' the same EB observations

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "n=3 achieves the best fits (χ²_min = 65.70 and 48.08) with consistent couplings (gM_pl = -0.210 ± 0.024 and -0.158 ± 0.025) that accurately reproduce observations across all angular scales."

    The quoted gM_pl values and χ²_min are obtained by fitting the model directly to the Planck-EB and ACT-EB data sets; the assertion that these same values 'accurately reproduce observations' is therefore true by construction of the fit and does not constitute an independent verification of the model.

full rationale

The paper performs a standard parameter fit of gM_pl (and implicitly other EDE parameters) to the Planck-EB and ACT-EB spectra for each fixed n. The headline claim that the n=3 values 'accurately reproduce observations across all angular scales' is therefore the definition of a good fit rather than an independent prediction or test. This matches the 'fitted_input_called_prediction' pattern exactly. No other circularity patterns (self-citation chains, ansatz smuggling, uniqueness theorems, or renaming) are present in the provided text. The model assumption that all observed EB power arises from the Chern-Simons term is a premise, not a circular derivation step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Paper rests on standard cosmological assumptions plus the specific EDE-plus-Chern-Simons construction; several coupling strengths are fitted directly to the birefringence data.

free parameters (3)
  • g M_pl (n=3, Planck)
    Coupling strength fitted to Planck EB data; reported as -0.210 ± 0.024
  • g M_pl (n=3, ACT)
    Coupling strength fitted to ACT EB data; reported as -0.158 ± 0.025
  • g M_pl (n=2, Planck)
    Extreme fitted value 69.912 required for n=2 Planck fit
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Early dark energy with potential V(φ) ∝ [1−cos(φ/f)]^n injects energy near matter-radiation equality and thereby alleviates the Hubble tension
    Invoked in the opening paragraph as the motivation for the model family
  • domain assumption Cosmic birefringence is generated by the Chern-Simons coupling of the EDE field to photons
    Core modeling assumption stated in the abstract
  • standard math χ² minimization on EB cross-power spectra is a sufficient statistic for model comparison
    Used to rank n=2,3,∞ via reported χ²_min values
invented entities (1)
  • Axion-like EDE field with tunable potential index n and Chern-Simons photon coupling
    purpose: Unified explanation of Hubble tension and cosmic birefringence
    Postulated in the model; no independent evidence supplied in the abstract

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the Potential Index $n$ of the Early Dark Energy Model Using Cosmic Birefringence from Planck and ACT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMYYDSUE

@misc{pith2026260524341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the Potential Index $n$ of the Early Dark Energy Model Using Cosmic Birefringence from Planck and ACT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMYYDSUE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.24341}
}
abstract

Cosmic birefringence and the Hubble tension represent compelling challenges to the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. The early dark energy (EDE) model with potentials $V(\phi) \propto [1-\cos(\phi/f)]^n$ offer a unified framework to address both anomalies through energy injection near matter-radiation equality and parity-violating Chern--Simons coupling to photons. While previous studies have focused on $n=3$, the dependence of the birefringence signal on the potential index $n$ remains largely unexplored. We perform a comprehensive statistical analysis of axion-like EDE models with $n=2$, $n=3$, and $n=\infty$, using $EB$ cross-polarization data from Planck-$EB$ and ACT-$EB$. The $n=2$ model is severely disadvantaged, displaying extreme coupling values ($gM_{\rm pl} \approx 69.912$ for Planck, $-40.726$ for ACT), large $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ (144.52 and 86.93), and $\Delta \chi^2<1$ with many local minials. Conversely, $n=3$ achieves the best fits ($\chi^2_{\rm min} = 65.70$ and $48.08$) with consistent couplings ($gM_{\rm pl} = -0.210 \pm 0.024$ and $-0.158 \pm 0.025$) that accurately reproduce observations across all angular scales. We checked that the $n=3$ configuration represents the optimal choice for simultaneously addressing the Hubble tension and cosmic birefringence within a theoretically viable framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24341 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution curves of χ 2 versus the Chern-Simons coupling constant gMpl for the EDE model with Planck-EB data. (a), (b) and (c) are the EDE model with potential index n = 2, 3, ∞, respectively. published in 2025 improve the understanding of high-ℓ. We also consider its new CMB EB data to constrain gMpl in EDE models with n = 2, n = 3, and n = ∞. We use the code package CLASS EDE [49, 50, 84] to solve the modified … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution curves of χ 2 versus the coupling parameter gMpl for the EDE model under different potential indices (n = 2, 3,∞), utilizing ACT-EB data. 400 200 0 200 400 gMpl 144.50 144.55 144.60 144.65 144.70 144.75 144.80 144.85 144.90 2 Unconstrained at 1 gmin 2Planck (n=2) gmin 200 100 0 100 200 gMpl 86.92 86.93 86.94 86.95 86.96 86.97 86.98 86.99 87.00 2 Unconstrained at 1 gmin 2ACT (n=2) gmin (a) χ 2 of EDE n =… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The χ 2 profile for the coupling parameter gMpl, constrained by the Planck EB (a) and ACT-EB (b) polarization power spectrum, assuming an EDE model with n = 2. likelihood function exhibits a steep variation around the best-fit point, such that the conventional ∆χ 2 = 1 criterion cannot be satisfied within the physically allowed parameter range. Consequently, a reliable 1σ confidence interval cannot be determined, an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CMB EB power spectrum D EB ℓ compare with Planck-EB data. 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 D E B [ K 2 ] n=2(ACT) n=3(ACT) n= (ACT) ACT EB data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CMB EB power spectrum D EB ℓ compare with ACT-EB data. The best-fit value obtained for the n = 3 potential is of the same order of magnitude as previous studies of cosmic birefringence in axion-like models [88]. For the limiting case n = ∞, the numerical calculation ad…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Combined morphological comparison of theoretical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Logarithmic absolute spectrum (|D EB ℓ |) from EDE with n = 2, 3, ∞, respectively. The red and blue dashed lines means corresponding negative value. intermediate values of the potential index, particularly n = 3, [48, 89–92] are favored in axion-like EDE birefringence …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review finds no theoretical Hubble-tension solution yet passes all consistency tests; new early-dark-energy chains reach high H0 only when the SH0ES calibration is added.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abdalla et al

    E. Abdalla et al. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies.JHEAP, 34:49–211, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, and A. G. Riess. The trouble withH 0.JCAP, 10:019, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Mota, Adam G

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk. In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions. Class. Quant. Grav., 38(15):153001, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Marc Kamionkowski and Adam G. Riess. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 73:153–180, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Witte, Vivian Poulin, and Julien Lesgourgues

    Nils Sch¨ oneberg, Guillermo Franco Abell´ an, Andrea P´ erez S´ anchez, Samuel J. Witte, Vivian Poulin, and Julien Lesgourgues. The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models.Phys. Rept., 984:1–55, 2022. 10

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Krishnan, R

    C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin. Does Hubble tension signal a breakdown in FLRW cosmology?Class. Quant. Grav., 38(18):184001, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Luongo, M

    O. Luongo, M. Muccino, E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology.Phys. Rev. D, 105(10):103510, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    T. N. Li, P. J. Wu, G. H. Du, S. J. Jin, H. L. Li, J. F. Zhang, and X. Zhang. New insights into the cosmological tensions.Astrophys. J., 976(1):1, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    L. Feng, T. N. Li, G. H. Du, J. F. Zhang, and X. Zhang. Testing cosmological models with the latest data. Phys. Dark Univ., 48:101935, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Krishnan, R

    C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin. Hints of FLRW breakdown from the Hubble tension.Phys. Rev. D, 105(6):063514, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    A. G. Riess et al. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team.Astrophys. J. Lett., 934(1):L7, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    L. A. Escamilla, E. ´Oz¨ ulker,´O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, and J. A. V´ azquez. State of the Hubble tension. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 836:854, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    G. H. Du, P. J. Wu, T. N. Li, and X. Zhang. Cosmological implications of the latest observations.Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(4):392, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Kovetz, Vivian Poulin, and Tristan L

    Th´ eo Simon, Tal Adi, Jos´ e Luis Bernal, Ely D. Kovetz, Vivian Poulin, and Tristan L. Smith. Toward alleviating the H0 and S8 tensions with early dark energy-dark matter drag.Phys. Rev. D, 111(2):023523, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin. Cosmological tensions and the Hubble constant.Phys. Rev. D, 104(2):023510, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Limits onwCDM from the EFTofLSS with the PyBird code.JCAP, 01:006, 2021

    Guido D’Amico, Leonardo Senatore, and Pierre Zhang. Limits onwCDM from the EFTofLSS with the PyBird code.JCAP, 01:006, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Axion-Dilaton Destabilization and the Hubble Tension.Phys

    Stephon Alexander and Evan McDonough. Axion-Dilaton Destabilization and the Hubble Tension.Phys. Lett. B, 797:134830, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Chudaykin, D

    A. Chudaykin, D. Gorbunov, and N. Nedelko. Early dark energy resolution to the Hubble tension: robust limits from the latest CMB and LSS data.JCAP, 08:013, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    J. R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu. Improved constraints on cosmic birefringence from the Planck data.Phys. Rev. D, 106(6):063503, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    R. M. Sullivan, A. Abghari, P. Diego-Palazuelos, L. T. Hergt, and D. Scott. Birefringence constraints from the latest CMB data.JCAP, 25(06):025, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    B. Feng, H. Li, M. Li, and X. m. Zhang. Oscillating quintom and the recurrent universe.Phys. Lett. B, 620:27–32, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    M. Li, J. Q. Xia, H. Li, and X. Zhang. Cosmological CPT violation, baryo/leptogenesis and CMB polarization.Phys. Lett. B, 651:357–362, 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    B. Feng, M. Li, J. Q. Xia, X. Chen, and X. Zhang. Searching for CPT Violation with Cosmic Microwave Background Data from WMAP and BOOMERANG.Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:221302, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Li and X

    M. Li and X. Zhang. Cosmological CPT violating effect on CMB polarization.Phys. Rev. D, 78:103516, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    A. Lue, L. M. Wang, and M. Kamionkowski. Cosmological signature of new parity-violating interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:1506–1509, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    J. Q. Xia, H. Li, G. B. Zhao, and X. Zhang. Testing CPT Symmetry with CMB Measurements: Update after WMAP5.Astrophys. J. Lett., 679:L61–L63, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    J. Q. Xia, H. Li, X. l. Wang, and X. m. Zhang. Testing CPT symmetry with CMB measurements.Astron. Astrophys., 483:715–718, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    S. Y. Li, J. Q. Xia, M. Li, H. Li, and X. Zhang. Testing CPT Symmetry with Current and Future CMB Measurements.Astrophys. J., 799(2):211, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Li and B

    M. Li and B. Yu. New Constraints on CMB Polarization Rotation.JCAP, 06:016, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Fluctuations of cosmological birefringence and the effect on CMB B-mode polarization.Phys

    Wen Zhao and Mingzhe Li. Fluctuations of cosmological birefringence and the effect on CMB B-mode polarization.Phys. Rev. D, 89(10):103518, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    David J. E. Marsh. Axion Cosmology.Phys. Rept., 643:1–79, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Naokawa and T

    F. Naokawa and T. Namikawa. Parity-violating physics and cosmic birefringence.Phys. Rev. D, 108(6):063525, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Namikawa and I

    T. Namikawa and I. Obata. Constraints on anisotropic cosmic birefringence.Phys. Rev. D, 108(8):083510, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Greco, N

    A. Greco, N. Bartolo, and A. Gruppuso. Cosmic birefringence and CMB anomalies.JCAP, 10:028, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    R. Z. Ferreira, S. Gasparotto, T. Hiramatsu, I. Obata, and O. Pujolas. Cosmological implications of parity violation.JCAP, 05:066, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axion.Phys

    Tanvi Karwal and Marc Kamionkowski. Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axion.Phys. Rev. D, 94(10):103523, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Abell´ an, and Vivian Poulin

    Riccardo Murgia, Guillermo F. Abell´ an, and Vivian Poulin. Early dark energy resolution to the Hubble tension in light of weak lensing surveys and lensing anomalies.Phys. Rev. D, 103(6):063502, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Smith, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski

    Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski. Early Dark Energy Can Resolve 11 The Hubble Tension.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(22):221301, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Improved Planck Constraints on Axionlike Early Dark Energy as a Resolution of the Hubble Tension.Phys

    George Efstathiou, Erik Rosenberg, and Vivian Poulin. Improved Planck Constraints on Axionlike Early Dark Energy as a Resolution of the Hubble Tension.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132(22):221002, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Piras, L

    D. Piras, L. Herold, L. Lucie-Smith, and E. Komatsu. Cosmological parameter inference with machine learning.Phys. Rev. D, 111(8):083537, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    T. N. Li, G. H. Du, Y. H. Li, P. J. Wu, S. J. Jin, J. F. Zhang, and X. Zhang. Future constraints on dark energy.Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 69(1):210413, 2026

    2026

  34. [42]

    Akarsu, E

    O. Akarsu, E. O. Colgain, E. ´Ozulker, S. Thakur, and L. Yin. Screening the Hubble tension.Phys. Rev. D, 107(12):123526, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Florian Niedermann and Martin S. Sloth. New early dark energy.Phys. Rev. D, 103(4):L041303, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Chain inflation: ’Bubble bubble toil and trouble’.JCAP, 07:007, 2005

    Katherine Freese and Douglas Spolyar. Chain inflation: ’Bubble bubble toil and trouble’.JCAP, 07:007, 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Ye and Y

    G. Ye and Y. S. Piao. Is the Hubble tension a hint of AdS phase around recombination?Phys. Rev. D, 101(8):083507, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Akarsu, J

    O. Akarsu, J. D. Barrow, L. A. Escamilla, and J. A. Vazquez. Graduated dark energy: Observational hints of a spontaneous sign switch in the cosmological constant.Phys. Rev. D, 101(6):063528, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    M. X. Lin, G. Benevento, W. Hu, and M. Raveri. Acoustic Dark Energy: Potential Conversion of the Hubble Tension.Phys. Rev. D, 100(6):063542, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Braglia, W

    M. Braglia, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, and K. Koyama. Unified framework for early dark energy fromα-attractors.Phys. Rev. D, 102(8):083513, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    J. C. Hill, E. McDonough, M. W. Toomey, and S. Alexander. Early dark energy does not restore cosmo- logical concordance.Phys. Rev. D, 102(4):043507, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Herold.Cosmological parameter inference and early dark energy

    L. Herold.Cosmological parameter inference and early dark energy. PhD thesis, LMU Munich, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Fedderke, Peter W

    Michael A. Fedderke, Peter W. Graham, and Surjeet Rajendran. Axion Dark Matter Detection with CMB Polarization.Phys. Rev. D, 100(1):015040, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    G. Choi, W. Lin, L. Visinelli, and T. T. Yanagida. Cosmic birefringence and dark matter axions.Phys. Rev. D, 104(10):L101302, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Nakatsuka, T

    H. Nakatsuka, T. Namikawa, and E. Komatsu. Parity-violating CMB correlators with cosmic birefringence. Phys. Rev. D, 105(12):123509, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

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

    1990

  47. [55]

    Harari and P

    D. Harari and P. Sikivie. Effects of a Nambu-Goldstone boson on the polarization of radio galaxies and the cosmic microwave background.Phys. Lett. B, 289:67–72, 1992

    1992

  48. [56]

    L. Yin, J. Kochappan, T. Ghosh, and B. H. Lee. Probing cosmic birefringence with early dark energy. JCAP, 10:007, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    A. I. Lonappan, B. Keating, and K. Arnold. Cosmological parameter constraints with updated birefrin- gence models.Phys. Rev. D, 112(2):023555, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin. Implications of cosmic birefringence for axion physics.Phys. Rev. D, 112(4):043538, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    Constraints on Cosmic Birefringence from SPIDER, Planck, and ACT observations.arXiv preprint, 2025

    Lu Yin, Shuhang Xiong, Joby Kochappan, Bum-Hoon Lee, and Tuhin Ghosh. Constraints on Cosmic Birefringence from SPIDER, Planck, and ACT observations.arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    Kochappan, L

    J. Kochappan, L. Yin, B. H. Lee, and T. Ghosh. Re-evaluating cosmic birefringence with the latest datasets.Phys. Rev. D, 112(6):063562, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    L. Yin. Cosmic birefringence from early dark energy.Eur. Phys. J. C, 82(1):78, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    W. Lin, L. Visinelli, and T. T. Yanagida. Cosmic birefringence from an axion-like field.JCAP, 10:023, 2025

    2025

  55. [63]

    Komatsu et al

    E. Komatsu et al. Results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.PTEP, 2014:06B102, 2014

    2014

  56. [64]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020

    2018

  57. [65]

    New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polarization Data.Phys

    Yuto Minami and Eiichiro Komatsu. New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polarization Data.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(22):221301, 2020

    2018

  58. [66]

    Madhavacheril et al

    Mathew S. Madhavacheril et al. Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters.Astrophys. J., 962(2):113, 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    Louis et al

    T. Louis et al. Atacama Cosmology Telescope: New constraints on cosmic birefringence.arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    Qu et al

    Frank J. Qu et al. Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Power Spectrum and its Implications for Structure Growth.Astrophys. J., 962(2):112, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Diego-Palazuelos et al

    P. Diego-Palazuelos et al. Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck Data Release 4.Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(9):091302, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Diego-Palazuelos and E

    P. Diego-Palazuelos and E. Komatsu. Review of cosmic birefringence measurements from the CMB.arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Dutcher et al

    D. Dutcher et al. Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E-mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data.Phys. Rev. D, 104(2):022003, 2021

    2018

  64. [72]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(15):151301, 2021. 12

    2018

  65. [73]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. A Constraint on Primordial B-mode Polarization from the SPIDER Flight.Astrophys. J., 927(2):174, 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    R. R. Caldwell, M. Doran, C. M. Mueller, G. Schafer, and C. Wetterich. Early Quintessence in Light of WMAP.Astrophys. J. Lett., 591:L75–L78, 2003

    2003

  67. [75]

    T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, and M. A. Amin. Oscillating scalar fields and the Hubble tension: a resolution with novel signatures.Phys. Rev. D, 101(6):063523, 2020

    2020

  68. [76]

    K. V. Berghaus and T. Karwal. Thermal Friction as a Solution to the Hubble Tension.Phys. Rev. D, 101(8):083537, 2020

    2020

  69. [77]

    S. M. Carroll and G. B. Field. Is there evidence for a massive electromagnetic field?Phys. Rev. D, 43:3789, 1991

    1991

  70. [78]

    Schiappacasse and Mark P

    Enrico D. Schiappacasse and Mark P. Hertzberg. Analysis of dark matter axion clumps with spherical symmetry.JCAP, 01:037, 2018

    2018

  71. [79]

    Rotation of Linear Polarization Plane and Circular Polarization from Cosmological Pseudo-Scalar Fields.Phys

    Fabio Finelli and Matteo Galaverni. Rotation of Linear Polarization Plane and Circular Polarization from Cosmological Pseudo-Scalar Fields.Phys. Rev. D, 79:063002, 2009

    2009

  72. [80]

    Galaverni, G

    M. Galaverni, G. Gubitosi, F. Paci, and F. Finelli. Cosmological birefringence constraints from CMB and astrophysical polarization data.JCAP, 08:031, 2015

    2015

  73. [81]

    Axion-like early dark energy.JCAP, 10:057, 2021

    Fuminobu Takahashi and Wen Yin. Axion-like early dark energy.JCAP, 10:057, 2021

    2021

  74. [82]

    Murai, F

    K. Murai, F. Naokawa, T. Namikawa, and E. Komatsu. Cosmic birefringence from early dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 107(4):L041302, 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    J. Q. Xia, H. Li, and X. Zhang. Probing CPT Violation with CMB Polarization Measurements.Phys. Lett. B, 687:129–132, 2010

    2010

  76. [84]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview.arXiv preprint, 4 2011

    Julien Lesgourgues. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview.arXiv preprint, 4 2011

    2011

  77. [85]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes.JCAP, 07:034, 2011

    Diego Blas, Julien Lesgourgues, and Thomas Tram. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes.JCAP, 07:034, 2011

    2011

  78. [86]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

    Jes´ us Torrado and Antony Lewis. Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models. JCAP, 05:057, 2021

    2021

  79. [87]

    Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code.JCAP, 02:001, 2013

    Benjamin Audren, Julien Lesgourgues, Karim Benabed, and Simon Prunet. Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code.JCAP, 02:001, 2013

    2013

  80. [88]

    E. Komatsu. New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background.Nature Rev. Phys., 4(7):452–469, 2022

    2022

  81. [89]

    Y. Cai, X. Ren, T. Qiu, M. Li, and X. Zhang. Revisiting the Early Dark Energy models.arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  82. [90]

    H. H. Li, X. z. Zhang, T. Qiu, and J. Q. Xia. Cosmological constraints on the axion-like fields.JCAP, 07:056, 2025

    2025

  83. [91]

    Qiu and M

    T. Qiu and M. Zhu. Dynamics of early dark energy.Phys. Rev. D, 111(4):043508, 2025

    2025

  84. [92]

    Dynamical Dark Energy Meets Varying Electron Mass: Implications for Phantom Crossing and the Hubble Constant.arXiv preprint, 10 2025

    Adam Smith, Emre ¨Oz¨ ulker, Eleonora Di Valentino, and Carsten van de Bruck. Dynamical Dark Energy Meets Varying Electron Mass: Implications for Phantom Crossing and the Hubble Constant.arXiv preprint, 10 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.