Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Bayesian inflationary reconstructions from Planck 2018 data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Planck 2018 spectra need no primordial features, three methods agree

desk verdict A solid, careful null-result paper that deserves refereeing, but the abstract and conclusions tell different stories about the low-ell oscillation, and the lack of a quantitative Bayes factor means the headline should be read as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00906 v2 pith:JS7T6V46 submitted 2019-08-02 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMgr-qc

Will J. Handley , Anthony N. Lasenby , Hiranya V. Peiris , Michael P. Hobson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords primordialpowerspectrumreconstructionBayesianevidencePlanck2018cosmicmicrowavebackgroundinflationnon-parametricinferencenestedsamplingCMBfeatures
open problems Dark Energy
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 tries to establish that Planck 2018 temperature and polarization data, analyzed without assuming a specific inflationary model, point to a featureless tilted power law for primordial fluctuations over most of the observable window ($50\lesssim\ell\lesssim2000$). Three independent free-form reconstructions---a linear spline for the primordial spectrum, a cubic spline for the inflationary potential, and a top-hat feature search---agree on this conclusion. They also agree that the Bayesian evidence rules out a scale-invariant spectrum by enormous odds and that the late-time cosmological parameters are barely affected by the added primordial freedom. The only recurring hint of new physics is a weak oscillatory feature around $\ell\sim20$--$50$, which appears conditionally in all three methods but does not survive marginalization over model complexity. A sympathetic reader should care because the result sets the bar for inflation models: Planck 2018 does not require primordial deviations from a power law, while leaving a specific low-multipole target for future data.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is Bayesian free-form reconstruction with evidence-based model selection. The primordial spectrum is represented as a linear spline in the $(\log k,\log P)$ plane; the inflationary potential is represented by integrating twice a linear spline for the second derivative of $\log V(\phi)$, which guarantees a smooth potential; and sharp features are modeled as top-hat additions to the standard $(A_s,n_s)$ spectrum. Knot positions are sorted via an identifiability prior, the number of knots $N$ is treated as a discrete model parameter, and the Bayesian evidence weights each $N$ when producing marginalized functional posteriors. Conditional Kullback-Leibler divergences quantify where the data actually constrain the reconstructed function, and a nested-sampling engine provides the posterior samples and evidences needed to navigate the high-dimensional, multimodal parameter space.

What would settle it

Re-run the same three reconstructions on the same Planck 2018 likelihood while freeing late-time physics beyond flat $\Lambda$CDM---for example, allowing curvature, a varying dark-energy equation of state, or a more flexible reionization history---and check whether the recovered spectrum remains a pure power law for $50\lesssim\ell\lesssim2000$ and whether the $\ell\sim20$--$50$ oscillation persists. If the features move or vanish, the primordial attribution is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

All three reconstructions describe the same data with the same outcome. Conditioned on a fixed number of knots, the linear-spline primordial power spectrum, the cubic-spline inflationary potential, and the sharp-feature parameterization each show a preference for extra flexibility at the edges of the observed window---where cosmic variance and instrument noise degrade the signal---and each conditionally produces a dip at $20<\ell<30$ followed by a rise near $\ell\sim50$. When the number of parameters is treated as a model choice and marginalized over, that oscillation is too weakly supported to count as a detection, and the recovered primordial spectrum in the window $50\lesssim\ell\lesssim2000$ is consistent with a simple tilted power law. The paper also establishes two auxiliary results: the scale-invariant spectrum is excluded with odds around a quintillion to one, and the late-time cosmological parameters remain stable when the primordial sector is given additional degrees of freedom.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a flat $\Lambda$CDM late-time model with the Planck 2018 likelihood and its 21 nuisance parameters is correct, so that any residual CMB features must come from the primordial spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, Planck 2018 data do not require any primordial deviation from a tilted power law, so inflation models predicting only smooth spectra remain viable.
  • The Bayesian evidence against scale invariance means a Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum is effectively excluded by the data used here.
  • Because the late-time cosmological parameters remain stable when the primordial sector is made more flexible, cosmological parameter constraints from Planck are unlikely to depend strongly on the choice of primordial spectrum parameterization.
  • The recurring conditional hint of an oscillation at $20<\ell<30$ and a peak near $\ell\sim50$ gives a specific target for future CMB data and for inflationary models that predict such features.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The preference for an intermediate number of knots may partly reflect a prior-volume effect, where extra knots absorb cosmic-variance and noise-limited edges, so the preferred model need not correspond to a physical feature.
  • Inference: If the low-multipole oscillation is real, future large-scale polarization measurements with independent foreground handling should recover the same dip and peak; the paper's historical reconstructions show this feature persisting across earlier data releases.
  • Inference: The parameter-stability result suggests that joint analyses with non-CMB probes that fix late-time cosmology are unlikely to be biased by primordial spectrum flexibility, but this should be checked out of sample.
  • Inference: Applying the same evidence-marginalized spline machinery to next-generation CMB surveys would sharpen the test: if the broad-window power law and the low-$\ell$ oscillation persist, the case for a simple primordial spectrum grows; if they shift, the attribution to primordial physics would need revision.
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 performs three Bayesian non-parametric reconstructions of the primordial scalar power spectrum from Planck 2018 TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing data: a linear spline in (log k, log P), a cubic-spline reconstruction of the inflationary potential, and a top-hat 'sharp features' parameterization. For each reconstruction, models with different numbers of knots/features N are compared via nested-sampling evidences with PolyChord, and the posteriors are marginalized over N. The main claims are: (i) all three methods find no evidence for deviations from a tilted power law over 50<ell<2000; (ii) the data prefer parameterizations that can reproduce the lack of constraining power at low and high ell; (iii) there are conditional hints of an oscillation at 20<ell<50 that the abstract says are 'to some extent preserved upon marginalization' but the conclusions say do not survive marginalization; and (iv) late-time cosmological parameters are stable across all reconstructions.

Significance. If the quantitative issues identified below are addressed, the paper would provide a useful methodological reference and a consistent Bayesian update of free-form reconstructions to Planck 2018, confirming with an independent pipeline the Planck Collaboration's conclusion that the power spectrum is consistent with a power law over the well-measured multipole range. The paper's strengths include the use of the full Planck likelihood with 21 nuisance parameters, nested sampling with PolyChord, marginalization over the number of knots, conditional KL divergences, functional posterior plots (with the fgivenx code made publicly available), and a historical comparison across CMB datasets. The parameter-stability result in Fig. 15 is a valuable cross-check. However, the absence of numerical evidence values and the internal inconsistency about the low-ell oscillation prevent the current version from being fully assessable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III; Sec. V; Sec. VII] The manuscript is internally inconsistent about the status of the low-multipole oscillation after marginalization over the knot number N. The abstract says the feature is 'to some extent preserved upon marginalization'; Sec. III (Results) says 'hints of the low-k features survive this marginalization'; Sec. V (Results) says the 'low-k oscillation still comes through clearly in the fully marginalized plot'; but Sec. VII (Conclusions) says 'the oscillations do not survive marginalization over N, indicating that the Bayesian evidence is not strong enough.' These statements are not compatible without a quantitative definition of 'survive' and a reported Bayes factor or posterior probability for a feature at 20<ell<50; as written, the reader cannot tell whether the abstract is advertising a detection or the conclusion is retracting it.
  2. [Figs. 4, 7, 12; Secs. III, IV, V] No numerical evidence values are reported. The evidence panels show only relative evidence normalized to the best N, with no log Z values or sampling uncertainties, so statements such as 'N=3 is greater than N=2' (Sec. III), 'N=1 is preferred over N=0' (Sec. IV), and 'little Bayesian evidence to support the introduction of more than two features' (Sec. V) cannot be checked. Please provide a table of log Z (or delta log Z with nested-sampling errors) for all models, and ideally a quantitative Bayes factor for any model containing a low-ell feature versus the featureless tilted power law, so that the central no-deviation claim is supported by numbers rather than by visual inspection of the marginalized plots.
  3. [Sec. II E; Sec. VI] The central no-deviation conclusion is conditional on the assumption of a flat Lambda-CDM late-time cosmology and on the Planck 2018 foreground/nuisance model, as stated in Sec. II E. Because all residual features in the CMB spectra are attributed to the primordial power spectrum, a mis-specified late-time or foreground model could be absorbed into the reconstructed PPS and bias the conclusion. A simple robustness test (e.g., varying the late-time equation of state, or using an alternative foreground parametrization) would make the claim considerably more secure; without it, the conclusion should be explicitly labeled as conditional on the assumed late-time model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Results] The sentence 'In the same manner as Sec. III, Fig. 8 and is consequently a form of exponential potential.' appears to be corrupted; it should be rephrased to describe the N=0 potential as an exponential potential and to refer to the appropriate figure.
  2. [Sec. II D and Abstract] The paper uses 'non-parametric' in the title and abstract while Sec. II D itself notes the terminology is misleading; consider qualifying 'non-parametric' as 'free-form' or 'flexible' in the abstract for consistency.
  3. [Tab. III] The prior on dlnV*/dphi is tabulated as log-uniform over [10^-3,10^-0.3] but the text says it is 'negatively log-uniform'; please clarify the sign convention so the table and text agree.
  4. [Sec. III, Results] The statement that 'for large N, in a fraction of the samples there is a visibly clear oscillation' would be more informative if the fraction were quantified or the sentence reworded to describe the conditional posterior contours.
  5. [Sec. II E] The use of 'Planck 2018 polarization data baseline, referred to as TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing' is potentially confusing because this baseline includes temperature; please rephrase or explain that 'polarization data baseline' is the standard Planck naming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction claims are outputs of Bayesian fits to the external Planck 2018 likelihood, not restatements of the priors or of self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — a featureless tilted power law over 50 <~ ell <~ 2000, stable late-time parameters, and only weak low-ell oscillation hints — are produced by fitting spline and top-hat primordial power spectrum models (Eqs. 14, 18, 21) to the TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing Planck likelihood with 21 nuisance parameters, then comparing models by nested-sampling evidences. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the N=2 case is explicitly equivalent to the standard (As,ns) parameterization up to a prior difference, and the evidence ratios in Figs. 4, 7, and 12 are outputs of the likelihood, not inputs. The self-citations ([10], [35], [39], [40], [44], [50]) are to numerical tools and methodology (PolyChord, Cosmochord, fgivenx, KL-divergence plotting), none of which supplies a scientific premise; the method validation cited in [7] is a simulation-based external check, not a circular justification. The priors on knot heights and positions are wide and are not tuned to the feature being claimed, and the paper explicitly states that widening them further has no effect because unphysical spectra are discarded. The only caveat worth noting is non-circular: the abstract says the ell~20-50 oscillation is 'to some extent preserved upon marginalization,' while Sec. VII says 'the oscillations do not survive marginalization over N,' and no Bayes factor for the feature is quoted; this is an internal consistency/quantification issue about the strength of a hint, not a case of the derivation reducing to its inputs. The analysis is self-contained against the external Planck data and standard late-time Lambda-CDM assumptions, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Bayesian inference applied to public Planck 2018 likelihoods. The free parameters are the reconstruction degrees of freedom (spline amplitudes, locations, tophat parameters) and the standard cosmological amplitude and tilt. The main domain assumptions are the Lambda-CDM late-time model, single-field slow-roll inflation with Bunch-Davies initial conditions, and the Gaussian likelihood. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • PPS spline amplitudes P_i = not quoted; posterior plotted in Figs. 2-4
    Vertical values of the linear spline in ln(10^10 P); fitted to Planck 2018 data.
  • PPS knot positions log10 k_i = not quoted; sorted log-uniform prior
    Horizontal locations of the spline knots, free parameters for N=2..9.
  • Potential offset ln V* = not quoted; uniform prior [-25,-15]
    Normalizes the reconstructed log potential and thus the spectrum amplitude.
  • Potential gradient d ln V*/d phi = not quoted; log-uniform [1e-3, 1e-0.3]
    Sets the tilt of the potential; free parameter from double integration of the second-derivative spline.
  • Second derivatives d2 ln V_i/d phi^2 = not quoted; uniform [-0.5,0.5]
    Spline values that determine the shape of the potential; fitted.
  • Potential knot positions phi_i = not quoted; sorted uniform in estimated window
    Locations of knots in field space, fitted.
  • Sharp feature heights h_i = not quoted; uniform [-1,1]
    Amplitude of each top-hat feature in ln P.
  • Sharp feature widths Delta_i and locations k_i = not quoted; widths uniform [0,1], locations sorted log-uniform
    Shape and position parameters of top-hat features.
  • Amplitude As and tilt ns in sharp feature model = not quoted; As uniform e2-e4, ns uniform [0.8,1.2]
    Underlying power-law parameters on which top-hat features are superimposed.
  • Number of knots/features N = marginalized over uniform prior: 1..9 for PPS, 0..8 for V and SF
    Model complexity parameter; evidence weights each N in the marginalized reconstructions.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM late-time cosmology with parameters Omega_b h^2, Omega_c h^2, 100 theta_MC, tau
    Sec II E; deviations are attributed to the primordial sector, so a wrong late-time model could bias reconstructions.
  • domain assumption Canonical single-field slow-roll inflation equations with Bunch-Davies vacuum
    Sec II A; used to derive P_R,T(k) from V(phi); alternative vacua or multi-field models are excluded.
  • domain assumption Limber approximation ell approximately k/D_A for mapping wavenumber to multipole
    Sec II C; used to convert k to ell in all plots.
  • domain assumption Gaussian likelihood for Planck 2018 data with 21 nuisance parameters
    Sec II E and Table I; the likelihood form is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Vertical prior ln(10^10 P) in [2,4] is wide enough
    Secs III, IV, V; the prior excludes spectra outside this range, though the authors argue widening has little effect.
  • ad hoc to paper Inflaton rolls downhill from negative to positive phi
    Sec IV priors; breaks the phi to -phi degeneracy and restricts the potential class.
  • domain assumption Uniform prior over number of knots N in the model-averaged results
    Sec II D and III; the marginalized reconstructions weight each N equally, assuming no prior preference for complexity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian inflationary reconstructions from Planck 2018 data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JS7T6V46

@misc{pith2026190800906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian inflationary reconstructions from Planck 2018 data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JS7T6V46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00906}
}
abstract

We present three non-parametric Bayesian primordial reconstructions using Planck 2018 polarization data: linear spline primordial power spectrum reconstructions, cubic spline inflationary potential reconstructions and sharp-featured primordial power spectrum reconstructions. All three methods conditionally show hints of an oscillatory feature in the primordial power spectrum in the multipole range $\ell\sim20$ to $\ell\sim50$, which is to some extent preserved upon marginalization. We find no evidence for deviations from a pure power law across a broad observable window ($50\lesssim\ell\lesssim2000$), but find that parameterizations are preferred which are able to account for lack of resolution at large angular scales due to cosmic variance, and at small angular scales due to Planck instrument noise. Furthermore, the late-time cosmological parameters are unperturbed by these extensions to the primordial power spectrum. This work is intended to provide a background and give more details of the Bayesian primordial reconstruction work found in the Planck 2018 papers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00906 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. We parameterize the primordial power spectrum re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. shows reconstructions using the same method￾ology 1 but now on data from a historical sequence of CMB experiments 1. COBE [56], 2. “pre-WMAP” (COBE [56], BOOMERANG [57], MAXIMA [58], DASI [59], VSA [60] and CBI [61]), 3. WMAP [62, 63], 4. Planck 2013 (TT+lowlike+lensing) [64] , 5. Planck 2015 (TT+lowTEB+lensing) [65] , 6. Planck 2018 (TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing) [1]. The hint of an 20 < ` < 30 feature becomes visible af￾… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equally-weighted sample plots of primordial power spectrum reconstructions, conditioned on the number of knots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 2, but plotted using iso-probability credibility intervals as discussed in Sec. II C. Blue and red contours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Historical primordial power spectrum reconstructions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. For the inflationary potential reconstruction, we pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Equally-weighted sample plots of the functional posterior of the primordial power spectrum from the inflationary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig. 8, but now for the inflationary slow roll parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. For the sharp features reconstruction, we parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Equally-weighted sample plots of sharp features reconstruction, conditioned on the number of knots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Functional posterior distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Stability of the cosmological parameters for the primordial power spectrum reconstruction (PPS), the potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]

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. Primordial power spectrum reconstructions from BOSS + eBOSS

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Non-parametric knot-based reconstruction of the primordial power spectrum P_R(k) from BOSS+eBOSS data up to k=0.3 h/Mpc favors a quasi-scale-invariant power law and constrains n_s = 0.976 ± 0.021 with no evidence for ...

  2. Planck constraints on the scale dependence of isotropic cosmic birefringence

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Planck polarization data favor a constant cosmic birefringence angle (β≈0.3°) across multipoles, with scale dependence consistent with zero at up to 1.8σ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1807.06205, Jul 2018

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1907.12875, Jul 2019

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmo- logical parameters. arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:1807.06209, Jul 2018

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1807.06211, Jul 2018

    arXiv 2018

  5. [7]

    Exploring cosmic origins with CORE: Inflation

    CORE Collaboration. Exploring cosmic origins with CORE: Inflation. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2018 (4):016, Apr 2018. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/016

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/016 2018

  6. [8]

    Planck 2013 results

    Planck Collaboration. Planck 2013 results. XXII. Con- straints on inflation. A&A, 571:A22, 2014. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321569

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321569 2013

  7. [9]

    Planck 2015 results

    Planck Collaboration. Planck 2015 results. XX. Con- straints on inflation. A&A, 594:A20, 2016. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525898

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525898 2015

  8. [10]

    S. Hee, J. A. V´ azquez, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. Constraining the dark energy equa- tion of state using Bayes theorem and the Kullback- Leibler divergence. MNRAS, 466:369–377, April 2017. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3102

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3102 2017

Show all 93 references
  1. [11]

    J. A. V´ azquez, M. Bridges, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. Reconstruction of the dark energy equation of state. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 9:020, September

  2. [13]

    Hobson, Farhan Feroz, Keith J

    Malak Olamaie, Michael P. Hobson, Farhan Feroz, Keith J. B. Grainge, Anthony Lasenby, Yvette C. Perrott, Clare Rumsey, and Richard D. E. Saunders. Free-form modelling of galaxy clusters: a Bayesian and data-driven approach. MNRAS, 481(3):3853–3864, Dec 2018. doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2495

    2018 doi

  3. [14]

    Reconstruct- ing the primordial power spectrum from the CMB

    Christopher Gauthier and Martin Bucher. Reconstruct- ing the primordial power spectrum from the CMB. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012(10):050, Oct 2012. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/050

    2012 doi

  4. [15]

    Generalized slow roll approximation for large power spectrum fea- tures

    Cora Dvorkin and Wayne Hu. Generalized slow roll approximation for large power spectrum fea- tures. Phys. Rev. D, 81(2):023518, Jan 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.023518

    2010 doi

  5. [16]

    CMB constraints on principal components of the inflaton potential

    Cora Dvorkin and Wayne Hu. CMB constraints on principal components of the inflaton potential. Phys. Rev. D, 82(4):043513, Aug 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.043513

    2010 doi

  6. [17]

    Complete WMAP constraints on band-limited inflationary features

    Cora Dvorkin and Wayne Hu. Complete WMAP constraints on band-limited inflationary features. Phys. Rev. D, 84(6):063515, Sep 2011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063515

    2011 doi

  7. [18]

    Polar- ization predictions for inflationary CMB power spectrum features

    Vin´ ıcius Miranda, Wayne Hu, and Cora Dvorkin. Polar- ization predictions for inflationary CMB power spectrum features. Phys. Rev. D, 91(6):063514, Mar 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.063514

    2015 doi

  8. [19]

    Inflationary features and shifts in cosmological parameters from Planck 2015 data

    Georges Obied, Cora Dvorkin, Chen Heinrich, Wayne Hu, and Vinicius Miranda. Inflationary features and shifts in cosmological parameters from Planck 2015 data. Phys. Rev. D, 96(8):083526, Oct 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083526

    2015 doi

  9. [20]

    Georges Obied, Cora Dvorkin, Chen Heinrich, Wayne Hu, and V. Miranda. Inflationary versus reionization features from Planck 2015 data. Phys. Rev. D, 98(4): 043518, Aug 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043518

    2015 doi

  10. [21]

    V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Bran- denberger. Theory of cosmological perturbations. Phys. Rep., 215:203–333, June 1992. doi:10.1016/0370- 1573(92)90044-Z

    1992 doi

  11. [22]

    D. Baumann. TASI Lectures on Inflation. ArXiv e-prints, July 2009

    2009

  12. [23]

    D. Baumann. TASI Lectures on Primordial Cosmology. ArXiv e-prints , July 2018

    2018

  13. [24]

    M. J. Mortonson, H. V. Peiris, and R. Easther. Bayesian analysis of inflation: Parameter estimation for single field models. Phys. Rev. D, 83(4):043505, February 2011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.043505

    2011 doi

  14. [25]

    Easther and H

    R. Easther and H. V. Peiris. Bayesian analysis of in- flation. II. Model selection and constraints on reheat- ing. Phys. Rev. D, 85(10):103533, May 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.103533

    2012 doi

  15. [26]

    Nore˜ na, C

    J. Nore˜ na, C. Wagner, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, and R. Eas- ther. Bayesian analysis of inflation. III. Slow roll recon- struction using model selection. Phys. Rev. D, 86(2): 023505, July 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.023505

    2012 doi

  16. [27]

    Armend´ ariz-Pic´ on and E

    C. Armend´ ariz-Pic´ on and E. A. Lim. Vacuum choices and the predictions of inflation. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 12:006, December 2003. doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2003/12/006

    2003 doi

  17. [28]

    W. J. Handley, A. N. Lasenby, and M. P. Hobson. Novel quantum initial conditions for inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 94 (2):024041, July 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.024041

    2016 doi

  18. [29]

    Primordial power spectra for curved in- flating universes

    Will Handley. Primordial power spectra for curved in- flating universes. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1907.08524, Jul 2019

    1907 arXiv

  19. [30]

    F. A. Agocs, L. T. Hergt, W. H. Handley, A. N. Lasenby, and M. P. Hobson. Investigating the gauge invariance of quantum initial conditions for inflation. Phys. Rev. D , in preparation, 2018

    2018

  20. [31]

    Maple User Manual

    Toronto: Maplesoft, a division of Waterloo Maple Inc. Maple User Manual . Maplesoft, 2018

    2018

  21. [32]

    The NAG Library

    The Numerical Algorithms Group (NAG), Oxford, United Kingdom. The NAG Library. http://www.nag. com

  22. [33]

    Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

    Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, and Anthony Lasenby. Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models. Astrophys. J. , 538:473–476, 2000. doi: 10.1086/309179

    doi

  23. [34]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes

    Diego Blas, Julien Lesgourgues, and Thomas Tram. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes. JCAP, 1107:034, 2011. doi: 24 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    2011 doi

  24. [35]

    W. J. Handley. Cosmochord 1.15, January 2019. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552056

    2019 doi

  25. [36]

    Cosmological pa- rameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach

    Antony Lewis and Sarah Bridle. Cosmological pa- rameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach. Phys. Rev. , D66:103511, 2002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511

    2002 doi

  26. [37]

    Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmo- logical parameters

    Antony Lewis. Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmo- logical parameters. Phys. Rev. , D87:103529, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.103529

    2013 doi

  27. [38]

    Nested sampling for general bayesian com- putation

    John Skilling. Nested sampling for general bayesian com- putation. Bayesian Anal. , 1(4):833–859, 12 2006. doi: 10.1214/06-BA127. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/ 06-BA127

    2006 doi

  28. [39]

    W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. POLY- CHORD: nested sampling for cosmology. MNRAS, 450: L61–L65, June 2015. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv047

    2015 doi

  29. [40]

    W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. POLYCHORD: next-generation nested sampling. MNRAS, 453:4384–4398, November 2015. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1911

    2015 doi

  30. [42]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges. MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cos- mology and particle physics. MNRAS, 398:1601–1614, October 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  31. [43]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, E. Cameron, and A. N. Pettitt. Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algo- rithm. ArXiv e-prints , June 2013

    2013

  32. [44]

    fgivenx: Functional posterior plotter

    Will Handley. fgivenx: Functional posterior plotter. The Journal of Open Source Software , 3(28), Aug 2018. doi:10.21105/joss.00849. URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 21105/joss.00849

    2018 doi

  33. [45]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On information and suf- ficiency. Ann. Math. Statist. , 22(1):79–86, 03 1951. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177729694. URL https://doi.org/10. 1214/aoms/1177729694

    1951

  34. [46]

    Hosoya, T

    A. Hosoya, T. Buchert, and M. Morita. Information En- tropy in Cosmology. Physical Review Letters , 92(14): 141302, April 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.141302

    2004 doi

  35. [47]

    Verde, P

    L. Verde, P. Protopapas, and R. Jimenez. Planck and the local Universe: Quantifying the tension. Physics of the Dark Universe , 2:166–175, September 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2013.09.002

    2013 doi

  36. [48]

    Grandis, S

    S. Grandis, S. Seehars, A. Refregier, A. Amara, and A. Nicola. Information gains from cosmological probes. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 5:034, May 2016. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/034

    2016 doi

  37. [49]

    Raveri, M

    M. Raveri, M. Martinelli, G. Zhao, and Y. Wang. Infor- mation Gain in Cosmology: From the Discovery of Ex- pansion to Future Surveys. ArXiv e-prints , June 2016

    2016

  38. [50]

    S. Hee, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. Bayesian model selection without evidences: application to the dark energy equation-of-state. MNRAS, 455:2461– 2473, January 2016. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2217

    2016 doi

  39. [51]

    Graham, Donald E

    Ronald L. Graham, Donald E. Knuth, and Oren Patash- nik. Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 2nd edition, 1994. ISBN 0201558025

    1994

  40. [52]

    Applications of Bayesian model selection to cosmological parameters

    Roberto Trotta. Applications of Bayesian model selection to cosmological parameters. MNRAS, 378(1):72–82, Jun

  41. [53]

    Quantifying tensions in cosmological parameters: Interpreting the DES evi- dence ratio

    Will Handley and Pablo Lemos. Quantifying tensions in cosmological parameters: Interpreting the DES evi- dence ratio. Phys. Rev. D, 100(4):043504, Aug 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043504

    2019 doi

  42. [54]

    R. D. Hall, S. J. Thompson, W. Handley, and D. Queloz. On the Feasibility of Intense Radial Velocity Surveys for Earth-Twin Discoveries. MNRAS, 479:2968–2987, September 2018. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1464

    2018 doi

  43. [55]

    Gold- stein, and Christopher J

    Riccardo Buscicchio, Elinore Roebber, Janna M. Gold- stein, and Christopher J. Moore. Label Switching Prob- lem in Bayesian Analysis for Gravitational Wave Astron- omy. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:1907.11631, Jul 2019

    1907 arXiv

  44. [56]

    C. L. Bennett, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski, G. Hinshaw, P. Jackson, P. Keegstra, A. Kogut, G. F. Smoot, D. T. Wilkinson, and E. L. Wright. Four-Year COBE DMR Cosmic Microwave Background Observations: Maps and Basic Results. ApJ, 464:L1, June 1996. doi: 10.1086/310075

    1996 doi

  45. [57]

    C. B. Netterfield, P. A. R. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, A. Boscaleri, K. Coble, C. R. Contaldi, B. P. Crill, P. de Bernardis, P. Farese, K. Ganga, M. Gia- cometti, E. Hivon, V. V. Hristov, A. Iacoangeli, A. H. Jaffe, W. C. Jones, A. E. Lange, L. Martinis, S. Masi, P...

    2002

  46. [58]

    Hanany, P

    S. Hanany, P. Ade, A. Balbi, J. Bock, J. Borrill, A. Bosca- leri, P. de Bernardis, P. G. Ferreira, V. V. Hristov, A. H. Jaffe, A. E. Lange, A. T. Lee, P. D. Mauskopf, C. B. Netterfield, S. Oh, E. Pascale, B. Rabii, P. L. Richards, G. F. Smoot, R. Stompor, C. D. Winant, and J. H....

    doi

  47. [59]

    N. W. Halverson, E. M. Leitch, C. Pryke, J. Kovac, J. E. Carlstrom, W. L. Holzapfel, M. Dragovan, J. K. Cartwright, B. S. Mason, S. Padin, T. J. Pearson, A. C. S. Readhead, and M. C. Shepherd. Degree Angular Scale Interferometer First Results: A Measurement of the Cos- mic Mic...

    2002 doi

  48. [60]

    P. F. Scott, P. Carreira, K. Cleary, R. D. Davies, R. J. Davis, C. Dickinson, K. Grainge, C. M. Guti´ errez, M. P. Hobson, M. E. Jones, R. Kneissl, A. Lasenby, K. Maisinger, G. G. Pooley, R. Rebolo, J. A. Rubi˜ no- Martin, P. J. Sosa Molina, B. Rusholme, R. D. E. Saun- ders, R...

    2003

  49. [61]

    T. J. Pearson, B. S. Mason, A. C. S. Readhead, M. C. Shepherd, J. L. Sievers, P. S. Udomprasert, J. K. Cartwright, A. J. Farmer, S. Padin, S. T. Myers, J. R. Bond, C. R. Contaldi, U.-L. Pen, S. Prunet, D. Pogosyan, J. E. Carlstrom, J. Kovac, E. M. Leitch, C. Pryke, N. W. Halve...

    2003

  50. [62]

    C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E. Wollack, J. Dunkley, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, and E. L. Wright. Nine-year Wilkin...

    2013 doi

  51. [63]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, M. R. Nolta, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, N. Odegard, L. Page, K. M. Smith, J. L. Weiland, B. Gold, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. Nine-year Wilkin...

    2013 doi

  52. [65]

    Planck Collaboration, R. Adam, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. I. R. Alves, F. Arg¨ ueso, M. Arnaud, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, and et al. Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and scientific re- sults. A&A, 594:A1, September 2016. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201527101

    2015 doi

  53. [66]

    A. R. Liddle, P. Parsons, and J. D. Barrow. For- malizing the slow-roll approximation in inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 50:7222–7232, December 1994. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7222

    1994 doi

  54. [67]

    Lesgourgues and W

    J. Lesgourgues and W. Valkenburg. New constraints on the observable inflaton potential from WMAP and SDSS. Phys. Rev. D, 75(12):123519, June 2007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.123519

    2007 doi

  55. [68]

    Lesgourgues, A

    J. Lesgourgues, A. A. Starobinsky, and W. Valkenburg. What do WMAP and SDSS really tell us about inflation? J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 1:010, January 2008. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/01/010

    2008 doi

  56. [69]

    Erandy Ramirez and Dominik J. Schwarz. Predictions of just-enough inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 85(10):103516, May

  57. [70]

    W. J. Handley, S. D. Brechet, A. N. Lasenby, and M. P. Hobson. Kinetic initial conditions for infla- tion. Phys. Rev. D, 89(6):063505, March 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.063505

    2014 doi

  58. [71]

    L. T. Hergt, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. Case for kinetically dominated initial condi- tions for inflation. Phys. Rev. D , 100:023502, Jul 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023502. URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023502

    2019 doi

  59. [72]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.103516

    doi

  60. [73]

    A. A. Starobinskij. Spectrum of adiabatic perturbations in the universe when there are singularities in the infla- tionary potential. Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters, 55:489–494, May 1992

    1992

  61. [74]

    Adams, B

    J. Adams, B. Cresswell, and R. Easther. Infla- tionary perturbations from a potential with a step. Phys. Rev. D, 64(12):123514, December 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.123514

    2001 doi

  62. [75]

    L. T. Hergt, W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby. Constraining the kinetically dominated uni- verse. Phys. Rev. D , 100:023501, Jul 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023501. URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023501

    2019 doi

  63. [76]

    Silk and M

    J. Silk and M. S. Turner. Double inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 35:419–428, January 1987. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.35.419

    1987 doi

  64. [77]

    Holman, E

    R. Holman, E. W. Kolb, S. L. Vadas, and Y. Wang. Plau- sible double inflation. Physics Letters B , 269:252–256, October 1991. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90165-M

    1991 doi

  65. [78]

    M. Joy, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky. New univer- sal local feature in the inflationary perturbation spec- trum. Phys. Rev. D, 77(2):023514, January 2008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023514

    2008 doi

  66. [79]

    J. A. Adams, G. G. Ross, and S. Sarkar. Multiple in- flation. Nuclear Physics B , 503:405–425, February 1997. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00431-8

    1997 doi

  67. [80]

    glitches

    P. Hunt and S. Sarkar. Multiple inflation and the WMAP “glitches”. Phys. Rev. D, 70(10):103518, November 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.103518

    2004 doi

  68. [81]

    Polarski and A

    D. Polarski and A. A. Starobinsky. Spectra of perturba- tions produced by double inflation with an intermediate matter-dominated stage. Nuclear Physics B , 385:623– 650, October 1992. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90062-G

    1992 doi

  69. [82]

    C. P. Burgess, R. Easther, A. Mazumdar, D. F. Mota, and T. Multam¨ aki. Multiple inflation, cosmic string networks and the string landscape. Journal of High Energy Physics , 5:067, May 2005. doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2005/05/067

    2005 doi

  70. [83]

    Ashoorioon and A

    A. Ashoorioon and A. Krause. Power Spectrum and Sig- natures for Cascade Inflation. ArXiv High Energy Physics - Theory e-prints , June 2006

    2006

  71. [84]

    Lesgourgues

    J. Lesgourgues. Features in the primordial power spec- trum of double D-term inflation. Nuclear Physics B, 582:593–626, August 2000. doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(00)00301-1

    doi

  72. [85]

    L. Covi, J. Hamann, A. Melchiorri, A. Slosar, and I. Sor- bera. Inflation and WMAP three year data: Features are still present. Phys. Rev. D, 74(8):083509, October 2006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.083509

    2006 doi

  73. [86]

    Hamann, L

    J. Hamann, L. Covi, A. Melchiorri, and A. Slosar. New constraints on oscillations in the primordial spectrum of inflationary perturbations. Phys. Rev. D, 76(2):023503, July 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.023503

    2007 doi

  74. [87]

    H. V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, L. Verde, D. N. Spergel, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, L. Page, G. S. Tucker, E. Wol- lack, and E. L. Wright. First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications For I...

    2003 doi

  75. [88]

    M. Joy, A. Shafieloo, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky. Is a step in the primordial spectral index favoured by CMB data? J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 6:028, June 2009. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/06/028

    2009 doi

  76. [89]

    Martin and C

    J. Martin and C. Ringeval. Superimposed oscillations in the WMAP data? Phys. Rev. D, 69(8):083515, April

  77. [90]

    glitches

    P. Hunt and S. Sarkar. Multiple inflation and the WMAP “glitches”. II. Data analysis and cosmological parameter extraction. Phys. Rev. D, 76(12):123504, December 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.123504

    2007 doi

  78. [91]

    R. K. Jain, P. Chingangbam, J.-O. Gong, L. Sriramku- mar, and T. Souradeep. Punctuated inflation and the low CMB multipoles. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 1: 009, January 2009. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/01/009

    2009 doi

  79. [92]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, R. S. Hill, S. S. Meyer, C. Barnes, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, E. Komatsu, M. Limon, L. Page, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Ob- servat...

    2003 doi

  80. [93]

    D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, L. Page, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observ...

    2003 doi

  81. [94]

    Kawasaki, F

    M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, and T. Takahashi. Mak- ing waves on CMB power spectrum and inflaton dynam- ics. Physics Letters B , 605:223–227, January 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2004.11.033

    2005 doi

  82. [98]

    M. J. Mortonson, C. Dvorkin, H. V. Peiris, and W. Hu. CMB polarization features from inflation versus reion- ization. Phys. Rev. D, 79(10):103519, May 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.103519

    2009 doi

  83. [2004]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083515. 26

    doi

  84. [2007]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11738.x

    2007

  85. [2012]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/09/020

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.