LiteBIRD Mission Overview after Mission Reformation

A. Anand; A. Besnard; A. Carones; A. Coppolecchia; A. Gruppuso; A. I. Lonappan; A. J. Banday; A. Maeda; A. Occhiuzzi; A. Paiella

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

After its 2024 redesign, LiteBIRD still targets δr < 0.002, enough for a 3σ test of inflation at r ≈ 0.01.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:51 UTC pith:ASS3A2EM

load-bearing objection A solid mission-overview paper that honestly describes the reformed single-telescope LiteBIRD architecture; the headline δr<0.002 is a stated allocation, not yet backed by the foreground-separation calculation in this document. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25285 v1 pith:ASS3A2EM submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

LiteBIRD Mission Overview after Mission Reformation

LiteBIRD Collaboration: K. Aizawa , H. Akamatsu , R. Akizawa , E. Allys , A. Anand , D. Audley , J. Aumont , S. Azzoni

show 166 more authors

C. Baccigalupi M. Ballardini A. J. Banday G. Barbieri Ripamonti R. B. Barreiro N. Bartolo S. Basak M. Bersanelli A. Besnard D. Blinov F. Bouchet F. Boulanger N. Brancadori T. Brinckmann E. Calabrese P. Campeti A. Carones F. Carralot F. J. Casas J. Chandran Y. Chinone M. Citran F. Columbro A. Coppolecchia F. Cuttaia P. Dal Bo P. de Bernardis T. de Haan E. de la Hoz M. De Lucia M. De Petris S. Della Torre C. Dickinson P. Diego-Palazuelos J. J. D\'iaz Garc\'ia T. Dotani M. Douspis K. Ebisawa H. K. Eriksen J. Errard E. Ferreira F. Finelli C. Franceschet R. Fujimoto U. Fuskeland G. Galloni M. Galloway M. Gerbino M. Gervasi R. T. G\'enova-Santos T. Ghigna S. Giardiello E. Gjerl{\o}w M. Gomes A. Gruppuso J. E. Gudmundsson P. Hargrave S. E. Harper M. Hasegawa M. Hazumi S. Henrot-Versill\'e L. T. Hergt E. Hivon K. Ichiki K. Ikuma T. L. Irikura H. Ishino B. Jost R. Keskitalo K. Kikuno K. Kohri E. Komatsu L. Lamagna M. Lattanzi C. Leloup M. Lembo F. Levrier J. Liu A. I. Lonappan M. L\'opez-Caniego G. Luzzi J. Macias-Perez A. Maeda B. Maffei D. Maino V. Maranchery E. Mart\'inez-Gonz\'alez S. Masi S. Matarrese F. T. Matsuda T. Matsumura S. Micheli M. Migliaccio M. Monelli L. Montier L. Mousset S. Myozen Y. Nagano R. Nagata K. Nagayoshi M. Najafi T. Namikawa P. Natoli F. Noviello A. Occhiuzzi K. Odagiri S. Oguri H. Ohsaki S. Okumura L. Pagano A. Paiella D. Paoletti S. Paradiso G. Pascual-Cisneros G. Patanchon V. Pavlidou F. Piacentini M. Piat G. Piccirilli M. Pinchera G. Pisano G. Polenta L. Porcelli F. S. Porter M. Reinecke M. Remazeilles A. Rizzieri J. A. Rubi\~no-Mart\'in M. Ruiz-Granda Y. Sakurai L. Salvati J. Sanghavi G. Savini D. Scott Y. Sekimoto M. Shiraishi G. Signorelli S. Stellati R. Stompor R. M. Sullivan R. Takahashi R. Takaku H. Takakura Y. Takase A. Tartari K. Tassis K. Tateoka L. Terenzi M. Tomasi M. Tristram M. Tsujimoto D. Vaccaro L. Vacher B. van Tent P. Vielva S. Vinzl K. Watanuki D. J. Watts I. K. Wehus G. Weymann-Despres B. Winter E. J. Wollack N. Y. Yamasaki K. Yoshihara A. Zacchei M. Zannoni

This is my paper

classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

keywords cosmic microwave backgroundB-mode polarizationtensor-to-scalar ratioinflationspace missionLiteBIRDmap noise requirementsforeground separation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper is a mission overview, written after the 2024 Mission Definition Review, and it argues that a simplified, single-telescope LiteBIRD preserves the original science goal: measuring the cosmic microwave background's B-mode polarization produced by primordial gravitational waves. The central claim is that the full mission can achieve a total uncertainty of δr < 0.002 (68% C.L.) on the tensor-to-scalar ratio, including foreground residuals, statistical noise, instrument systematics, and margin, with a statistical-only target of σr < 0.001. At a fiducial r = 0.01, this would yield independent 3σ detections of both the reionization and recombination B-mode peaks, putting representative single-field inflation models to a direct test. The requirements are expressed as all-sky map noise levels over 12 bands from 40 to 402 GHz, which makes the key performance claim concrete and checkable at the map level.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the reformed payload—a single 500 mm cross-Dragone telescope cooled to roughly 5 K, with about 4000 transition-edge-sensor bolometers at 0.1 K and 12 frequency bands with centers spanning 40–402 GHz—meets the mission requirement of total δr < 0.002. The requirement deliberately includes foreground residuals and lensing, not just statistical noise, and the map-depth values in Table 1 specify how deep each frequency range must be for the reionization (2 ≤ ℓ ≤ 29) and recombination (30 ≤ ℓ ≤ 200) multipole ranges. If those map depths are met, the mission can detect gravitational-wave B-modes at r ≈ 0.01 at 3σ significance and, more broadly, deliver a full-sky m

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combined map-noise requirement, defined by an inverse-variance-weighted sum over the bands in each frequency range, weighted by sky-averaged spectral shapes of synchrotron, CMB, and thermal dust. This map-depth is promoted to the mission requirement because it captures detector sensitivity, stability, systematic-error control, scanning, and data processing in a single observable. The payload and scan strategy—a single cooled cross-Dragone telescope, a rotating half-wave plate modulator, a 0.1 K focal plane, and a Lissajous orbit at L2—are arranged so that the band coverage and cross-linking produce maps meeting those depths.

Load-bearing premise

The design meets δr < 0.002 only if the 12 bands from 40–402 GHz and the Table 1 map depths leave foreground residuals small enough to fit inside the budget; the paper sends the reader to separate feasibility studies for this and says the exact band sensitivities are not yet consolidated.

What would settle it

An end-to-end component-separation simulation using the Table 1 map depths and realistic polarized synchrotron, dust, and CO skies that yields a foreground-residual contribution to δr of 0.002 or more at 68% C.L. would falsify the headline sensitivity. Alternatively, on-orbit map noise exceeding the Table 1 depths in any frequency range would break the requirement.

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

If this is right

If the δr < 0.002 target is met, LiteBIRD can detect or exclude inflationary gravitational-wave B-modes around r = 0.01 at 3σ in both the reionization and recombination peaks.
The full-sky multi-frequency maps will measure the reionization optical depth and help break degeneracies on neutrino mass; they also enable cosmic birefringence, CMB lensing, and searches for primordial magnetic fields and non-Gaussianity.
Combining LiteBIRD maps with higher-resolution ground-based polarization maps improves delensing and foreground modeling, strengthening the r constraint beyond either approach alone.
Because the requirements are map-based, success can be verified directly from delivered map noise, making the mission's central performance parameter observable rather than inferred.
The 2036 launch and 3-year survey from L2 cover the full sky every six months, providing repeated coverage for null tests and stability checks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The exact per-band sensitivities in Figure 2 are described as one example configuration, so the δr < 0.002 budget implicitly rests on the Phase A design iteration; the concrete band assignment should be expected to shift before launch.
A single 500 mm telescope means angular resolution is limited to about 6 arcmin at the highest band; small-scale lensing B-modes will not be separable from the space data alone, making the delensing contribution from ground-based data a de facto part of the r budget.
The half-wave-plate modulator is baseline with a no-modulator backup; if the modulator is dropped, the scan must spin six times faster, which changes the systematics and thermal-load balance in ways the paper does not quantify.
If the foreground feasibility studies referenced in Section 2.3 confirm the 12-band design, the same data set would also provide a broad spectral lever arm for Galactic magnetic-field and dust-polarization studies, since the 40–402 GHz coverage brackets both emission peaks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

A solid mission-overview paper that honestly describes the reformed single-telescope LiteBIRD architecture; the headline δr<0.002 is a stated allocation, not yet backed by the foreground-separation calculation in this document.

read the letter

What you should know: this is a mission-overview paper from the LiteBIRD collaboration, written after the 2024 reformation and the June 2026 MDR2. It reports a real change in instrument architecture — from three telescopes to a single cross-Dragone with a 500 mm aperture and 12 frequency bands spanning 40–402 GHz — and sets a headline total-uncertainty target of δr < 0.002 on the tensor-to-scalar ratio. There is no new physics measurement here; the new content is the updated design and the requirement flow-down.

What it does well: the paper is internally consistent and refreshingly clear about what is settled and what is not. The decision to express mission requirements as combined map depths over three frequency ranges and two multipole ranges is sensible, and Eq. (1) is a clean inverse-variance-weighted definition. The instrument description — cryogenic chain, TES arrays, FDM readout, PMU options, scanning parameters — is concrete and readable. The paper is also honest: it says multiple times that the full feasibility study and the finalized numbers belong to Phase A, and it points to companion forecast papers for the science consequences. I see no circularity: δr is an allocated requirement, not a fitted prediction, and Eq. (1) is only a depth metric.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The load-bearing claim — that this specific set of 12 bands and the Table 1 map depths can deliver δr < 0.002 after foreground separation — is not established in this document. The paper says the requirement comes from “a comprehensive assessment” but does not show that assessment. Section 2.3 explicitly says the flow-down will be the central activity during Phase A and that detailed feasibility descriptions are presented elsewhere. There is also a tension in Section 2.2: it says the depth values “contain” foreground residuals, systematics, and margins, but Eq. (1) is defined in terms of null-map noise, which does not include those terms. That is not a contradiction if the requirement values already have margin baked in, but as written it overstates what Table 1 alone demonstrates. This is a missing derivation, not an error.

Who is this for? Anyone who needs the current LiteBIRD architecture and mission requirements after the reformation. It is not the place to look for proof that δr < 0.002 is achievable — that will have to come from the Phase A studies and companion papers. I would send it to peer review; a referee should push the authors to add a short appendix with preliminary foreground-separation results or explicitly label the requirement as “allocated, pending Phase A studies.” That would make the paper stronger without changing its scope.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a mission-overview/status report for the reformed LiteBIRD concept following the 2024 Mission Definition Review and the June 2026 MDR2. The new baseline is a single cross-Dragone telescope with a 500-mm aperture, 12 frequency bands spanning band centers 40–402 GHz, ~4000 dichroic TES bolometers at 0.1 K, and a 3-year all-sky survey from an L2 Lissajous orbit. The central quantitative claim is that the mission will achieve a total uncertainty δr<0.002 (68% C.L.), assuming r=0, with a corresponding statistical uncertainty σr<0.001. The mission requirements are expressed as map-depth limits in Table 1, combined via Eq. (1). The paper also describes the spacecraft architecture, detectors, scan strategy, calibration, and ground segment. It explicitly states that the exact band configuration and the system-level requirement flow-down are still to be consolidated during Phase A and that detailed feasibility studies are presented elsewhere in the same proceedings.

Significance. If the stated requirements are met, the mission would provide a stringent test of representative inflationary models and a broad legacy data set, so the science case is strong. The paper is a useful and, for the most part, clearly written status report of a major space mission. Its strengths are transparency about the preliminary nature of the design and a compact statement of the reformed payload. It does not contain a new derivation, machine-checked code, or independent validation; the quantitative link between the instrument parameters and the headline δr<0.002 is asserted rather than demonstrated. There is no equation-level circularity in Eq. (1), but the error-budget chain is incomplete.

major comments (3)

[§2.2, Eq. (1), Table 1] The map-depth requirements in Table 1 are the only quantitative support for the headline δr<0.002. However, σν,L is defined as 'band map noise inferred from the angular power spectrum of null maps,' and Eq. (1) is an inverse-variance combination of those noises. Null-map splits cancel real sky signals, so foreground residuals after component separation, and model-margin uncertainties, are not contained in σν,L. The sentence in §2.2 stating that the depth values 'contain statistical noise, including the residuals from foreground removal, systematic effects, and margin' is therefore an overstatement. Table 1 plus Eq. (1) does not close the error budget; the text needs either a corrected definition of what the map-depth requirement includes or an explicit statement that it is only the noise component.
[§2.3, Fig. 2] This section explicitly defers the load-bearing feasibility analysis: the flow-down to system level requirements 'will be the central activity during Phase A,' the exact band numbers are 'yet to be consolidated,' and detailed feasibility is 'presented elsewhere in these proceedings.' Given that the 12-band selection and the Table 1 depths are the purported basis for robust foreground separation and δr<0.002, the manuscript should either summarize the end-to-end component-separation calculation (including the treatment of synchrotron, thermal dust, and CO line emission shown in Fig. 2) or clearly label δr<0.002 as an unverified allocation pending Phase A, with explicit citations to the companion papers rather than an anonymous 'elsewhere.'
[§2.1] The relationship between the two quoted uncertainty targets is not defined. σr<0.001 is called the 'statistical uncertainty, including the foreground residuals and lensing contributions,' while δr<0.002 is the total including systematics and margins. No likelihood, component-separation method, delensing assumption, or error-budget equation is given, so it is unclear how the Table 1 noise levels propagate to σr and δr. Please provide (or cite) the explicit error-budget model, including how foreground residuals and lensing enter the two targets.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2] The units in the figure are not consistent with Table 1: the text uses µK_CMB·arcmin, while Fig. 2 uses µK_RJ (or 'KRJ'); this should be harmonized to avoid confusion.
[§2.2, Eq. (1)] The definition of S_Fν as the sky-averaged spectral shape of 'synchrotron, CMB, and dust components' is unclear. Which SED is used for which frequency range and how it is normalized are not specified. Please make Eq. (1) fully reproducible.
[Table 2] The row 'Angular resolution: 53 to 6 arcmin (FWHM of 40 to 402 GHz)' is awkwardly worded. It should say 'FWHM from 53 arcmin at 40 GHz to 6 arcmin at 402 GHz' to avoid implying the whole range applies at each band.
[§1] The timeline is somewhat confusing: 'reformation activities initiated after the Mission Definition Review in 2024' and then 'MDR2, successfully completed in June 2026.' Clarify the relationship between these two reviews, e.g., by naming them MDR1 and MDR2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: δr<0.002 is an allocated mission requirement, Eq. (1) is a definition, and the map-depth-to-δr flow-down is explicitly deferred rather than derived from the paper's inputs.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is requirement allocation, not a prediction. The primary scientific objective δr<0.002 is stated as a mission requirement (Sec. 2.1), and Table 1 gives required map depths. Equation (1) merely defines a weighted inverse-variance combination of band map noises; it does not propagate these depths to δr. No parameter is fitted to data and then called a prediction: the map depths are inputs, not fitted outputs. The paper explicitly defers the step that would connect Table 1 to δr: Sec. 2.3 says "Detailed descriptions of this feasibility and the choice of mission configurations are presented elsewhere in these proceedings" and "The exact numbers are yet to be consolidated." That is an identified missing verification, not a circular reduction. The self-citations (refs 13–20) are LiteBIRD forecast papers used for secondary science outcomes and science-goal motivation; the δr and σr numbers are not extracted from those citations within this paper, and the forecasts are externally falsifiable simulations rather than inputs to the requirement definition. The sentence in Sec. 2.2 that map-depth values "contain" foreground residuals and systematic effects is a labeling of the requirement, not a derivation, so it does not create equation-level circularity. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input or to an unverified self-citation chain; the skeptical concern about foreground-separation feasibility is a deferred verification issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the design numbers are engineering specifications. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about signal existence, foreground separation, systematics control, and technology readiness, none of which is demonstrated in this paper.

axioms (4)

domain assumption A primordial B-mode signal from inflationary gravitational waves exists and is characterized by tensor-to-scalar ratio r.
Section 2.1 defines the science goal in terms of r. The 3σ detection claim for r=0.01 assumes this signal is present; otherwise the mission becomes a limit-setting experiment.
domain assumption Foregrounds (synchrotron, thermal dust, AME, CO lines) can be modeled and separated with the chosen 12 bands to residuals within the δr allocation.
Section 2.3 asserts broad coverage is essential for robust separation, but the quantitative residual calculation is deferred to 'elsewhere' and Phase A.
domain assumption Instrumental systematics can be controlled to the stated allocations (PMU performance, spin stability, calibration).
Sections 2.1 and 4 describe allocations and calibration plans without demonstrating the error budget.
domain assumption The payload can be built to specifications: 500-mm cross-Dragone at 5 K, TES arrays at 0.1 K, FDM readout, ADR, and HWP modulator.
Section 3 describes the current concept; hardware feasibility is not proven in this overview.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11849 in / 10110 out tokens · 99129 ms · 2026-08-01T02:51:41.166107+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

LiteBIRD is a JAXA-led space mission designed to produce all-sky microwave polarization maps. Its primary science goal is to test representative inflationary models by measuring the cosmic microwave background $B$-mode polarization generated by primordial gravitational waves, while also providing new insights into cosmology, particle physics, and astrophysics. The mission concept has been updated following the reformation activities initiated after the Mission Definition Review in 2024. The current concept preserves the central scientific objectives, while simplifying the payload configuration: a single telescope covers 12 frequency bands with band centers spanning 40 to 402~GHz, corresponding to an optical coverage of 34--448~GHz. The telescope is a cross-Dragone reflector with a 500~mm aperture diameter, cooled to approximately 5~K and coupled to transition-edge-sensor bolometer arrays operated at 0.1~K. LiteBIRD will observe from a Lissajous orbit around the Sun--Earth L2 point during a nominal 3-year survey. More specifically, the primary scientific objective is to achieve total uncertainty in the tensor-to-scalar ratio of $\delta r < 0.002$ (68\% C.L.), including contributions from foreground residuals, statistical uncertainties, instrumental systematics, and margin contingency. The corresponding map-noise requirements are specified separately for the low-, mid-, and high-frequency ranges over the reionization and recombination multipole ranges. This sensitivity makes LiteBIRD unique not only for inflationary science but also for a broad range of scientific investigations probing the history of both the early and late Universe, as well as for astrophysical processes, including Galactic science. This paper summarizes the scientific objectives, updated payload and instrument concepts, observation strategy, and ground segment plans.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25285 by A. Anand, A. Besnard, A. Carones, A. Coppolecchia, A. Gruppuso, A. I. Lonappan, A. J. Banday, A. Maeda, A. Occhiuzzi, A. Paiella, A. Rizzieri, A. Tartari, A. Zacchei, B. Jost, B. Maffei, B. Van Tent, B. Winter, C. Baccigalupi, C. Dickinson, C. Franceschet, C. Leloup, D. Audley, D. Blinov, D. J. Watts, D. Maino, D. Paoletti, D. Scott, D. Vaccaro, E. Allys, E. Calabrese, E. de la Hoz, E. Ferreira, E. Gjerl{\o}w, E. Hivon, E. J. Wollack, E. Komatsu, E. Mart\'inez-Gonz\'alez, F. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, F. Carralot, F. Columbro, F. Cuttaia, F. Finelli, F. J. Casas, F. Levrier, F. Noviello, F. Piacentini, F. S. Porter, F. T. Matsuda, G. Barbieri Ripamonti, G. Galloni, G. Luzzi, G. Pascual-Cisneros, G. Patanchon, G. Piccirilli, G. Pisano, G. Polenta, G. Savini, G. Signorelli, G. Weymann-Despres, H. Akamatsu, H. Ishino, H. K. Eriksen, H. Ohsaki, H. Takakura, I. K. Wehus, J. A. Rubi\~no-Mart\'in, J. Aumont, J. Chandran, J. E. Gudmundsson, J. Errard, J. J. D\'iaz Garc\'ia, J. Liu, J. Macias-Perez, J. Sanghavi, K. Ebisawa, K. Ichiki, K. Ikuma, K. Kikuno, K. Kohri, K. Nagayoshi, K. Odagiri, K. Tassis, K. Tateoka, K. Watanuki, K. Yoshihara, LiteBIRD Collaboration: K. Aizawa, L. Lamagna, L. Montier, L. Mousset, L. Pagano, L. Porcelli, L. Salvati, L. Terenzi, L. T. Hergt, L. Vacher, M. Ballardini, M. Bersanelli, M. Citran, M. De Lucia, M. De Petris, M. Douspis, M. Galloway, M. Gerbino, M. Gervasi, M. Gomes, M. Hasegawa, M. Hazumi, M. Lattanzi, M. Lembo, M. L\'opez-Caniego, M. Migliaccio, M. Monelli, M. Najafi, M. Piat, M. Pinchera, M. Reinecke, M. Remazeilles, M. Ruiz-Granda, M. Shiraishi, M. Tomasi, M. Tristram, M. Tsujimoto, M. Zannoni, N. Bartolo, N. Brancadori, N. Y. Yamasaki, P. Campeti, P. Dal Bo, P. De Bernardis, P. Diego-Palazuelos, P. Hargrave, P. Natoli, P. Vielva, R. Akizawa, R. B. Barreiro, R. Fujimoto, R. Keskitalo, R. M. Sullivan, R. Nagata, R. Stompor, R. Takahashi, R. Takaku, R. T. G\'enova-Santos, S. Azzoni, S. Basak, S. Della Torre, S. E. Harper, S. Giardiello, S. Henrot-Versill\'e, S. Masi, S. Matarrese, S. Micheli, S. Myozen, S. Oguri, S. Okumura, S. Paradiso, S. Stellati, S. Vinzl, T. Brinckmann, T. de Haan, T. Dotani, T. Ghigna, T. L. Irikura, T. Matsumura, T. Namikawa, U. Fuskeland, V. Maranchery, V. Pavlidou, Y. Chinone, Y. Nagano, Y. Sakurai, Y. Sekimoto, Y. Takase.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The LiteBIRD science objectives, probing various processes across the history of the Universe. Such a set of maps will enable precise measurements of the optical depth to reionization, especially by measuring the large-angular-scale E modes, which help to break degeneracies in constraining the sum of the neutrino masses. The CMB temperature anisotropy and polarization maps can also probe ‘cosmic birefring… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Proposed LiteBIRD frequency bands and sensitivities at each band, as one of the example configuration of the reformed concept. The synchrotron, dust, and CMB expectations are shown as green, red, and cyan bands, respectively, while the total foreground is represented by the dashed lines. Vertical lines indicate the Galactic carbon monoxide (CO) emission frequencies. The table lists the preliminary frequenc… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Schematic overview of LiteBIRD. anomalous microwave emission, and important molecular-line contributions, while also providing redundancy for internal consistency checks. Similarly, the noise-equivalent-temperature for polarization measurements at each observational band is also derived by taking into account the feasibility of foreground removal. Detailed descriptions of this feasibility and the choice o… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references

[1]

A Probe of primordial gravity waves and vorticity,

Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A., and Stebbins, A., “A Probe of primordial gravity waves and vorticity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2058–2061 (1997)

2058
[2]

Signature of gravity waves in polarization of the microwave background,

Seljak, U. and Zaldarriaga, M., “Signature of gravity waves in polarization of the microwave background,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2054–2057 (1997)

2054
[3]

The Quest for B Modes from Inflationary Gravitational Waves,

Kamionkowski, M. and Kovetz, E. D., “The Quest for B Modes from Inflationary Gravitational Waves,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 227–269 (2016)

2016
[4]

New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background,

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

2022
[5]

Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background po- larization survey,

LiteBIRD Collaboration, “Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background po- larization survey,”Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2023, 042F01 (Apr. 2023)

2023
[6]

The LiteBIRD mission to explore cosmic inflation,

Ghigna, T. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “The LiteBIRD mission to explore cosmic inflation,” in [Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave], Coyle, L. E., Matsuura, S., and Perrin, M. D., eds.,Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 13092, 1309228 (Aug. 2024)

2024
[7]

Planck2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy ofPlanck,

Planck Collaboration I, “Planck2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy ofPlanck,” A&A641, A1 (2020)

2020
[8]

Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,

Bicep/Keck Collaboration, “Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (Oct. 2021)

2018
[9]

Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E- mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,

Dutcher, L. and SPT-3G Collaboration, “Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E- mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,” Phys. Rev. D104, 022003 (July 2021)

2018
[10]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,

Louis, T. and The Atacama Cosmology Telescope collaboration, “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,” JCAP2025, 062 (Nov. 2025)

2025
[11]

A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,

Starobinsky, A., “A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,”Physics Letters B91, 99–102 (3 1980)

1980
[12]

The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,

Bezrukov, F. and Shaposhnikov, M., “The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,”Physics Letters B659, 703–706 (Jan. 2008)

2008
[13]

LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts. A Case Study of the Origin of Primordial Gravitational Waves using Large-Scale CMB Polarization,

Campeti, P. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts. A Case Study of the Origin of Primordial Gravitational Waves using Large-Scale CMB Polarization,” JCAP2024, 008 (June 2024)

2024
[14]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence,

de la Hoz, E. and The LiteBIRD collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence,” JCAP2025, 083 (July 2025)

2025
[15]

LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: Improving Sensi- tivity to Inflationary Gravitational Waves with Multitracer Delensing,

Namikawa, T. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: Improving Sensi- tivity to Inflationary Gravitational Waves with Multitracer Delensing,” JCAP2024, 010 (June 2024)

2024
[16]

LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: A full-sky measurement of gravitational lensing of the CMB,

Lonappan, A. I. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: A full-sky measurement of gravitational lensing of the CMB,” JCAP2024, 009 (June 2024)

2024
[17]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: improved full- sky reconstruction of the gravitational lensing potential through the combination of Planck and LiteBIRD data,

Ruiz-Granda, M. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: improved full- sky reconstruction of the gravitational lensing potential through the combination of Planck and LiteBIRD data,” JCAP2025, 073 (Nov. 2025)

2025
[18]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. Mapping the hot gas in the Universe,

Remazeilles, M. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. Mapping the hot gas in the Universe,” JCAP2024, 026 (Dec. 2024)

2024
[19]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: primordial magnetic fields,

Paoletti, D. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: primordial magnetic fields,” JCAP2024, 086 (July 2024)

2024
[20]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. E-mode anomalies,

Banday, A. J. and the LiteBIRD collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. E-mode anomalies,” JCAP2026, 036 (Jan. 2026)

2026
[21]

The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts,

Ade, P. and others, “The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts,” JCAP2019, 056 (Feb. 2019)

2019
[22]

Performance and characterization of the SPT-3G digital frequency multiplexed readout system using an improved noise and crosstalk model,

Montgomery, J., Anderson, A. J., Avva, J. S., Bender, A. N., Dobbs, M. A., Dutcher, D., Elleflot, T., Foster, A., Groh, J. C., Holzapfel, W. L., Howe, D., Huang, N., Lowitz, A. E., Noble, G. I., Pan, Z., Rahlin, A., Riebel, D., Smecher, G., Suzuki, A., and Whitehorn, N., “Performance and characterization of the SPT-3G digital frequency multiplexed readout...

2020
[23]

Multi-dimensional optimisation of the scanning strategy for the LiteBIRD space mission,

Takase, Y. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “Multi-dimensional optimisation of the scanning strategy for the LiteBIRD space mission,” JCAP2024, 036 (Dec. 2024)

2024

[1] [1]

A Probe of primordial gravity waves and vorticity,

Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A., and Stebbins, A., “A Probe of primordial gravity waves and vorticity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2058–2061 (1997)

2058

[2] [2]

Signature of gravity waves in polarization of the microwave background,

Seljak, U. and Zaldarriaga, M., “Signature of gravity waves in polarization of the microwave background,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2054–2057 (1997)

2054

[3] [3]

The Quest for B Modes from Inflationary Gravitational Waves,

Kamionkowski, M. and Kovetz, E. D., “The Quest for B Modes from Inflationary Gravitational Waves,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 227–269 (2016)

2016

[4] [4]

New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background,

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

2022

[5] [5]

Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background po- larization survey,

LiteBIRD Collaboration, “Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background po- larization survey,”Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2023, 042F01 (Apr. 2023)

2023

[6] [6]

The LiteBIRD mission to explore cosmic inflation,

Ghigna, T. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “The LiteBIRD mission to explore cosmic inflation,” in [Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave], Coyle, L. E., Matsuura, S., and Perrin, M. D., eds.,Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 13092, 1309228 (Aug. 2024)

2024

[7] [7]

Planck2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy ofPlanck,

Planck Collaboration I, “Planck2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy ofPlanck,” A&A641, A1 (2020)

2020

[8] [8]

Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,

Bicep/Keck Collaboration, “Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (Oct. 2021)

2018

[9] [9]

Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E- mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,

Dutcher, L. and SPT-3G Collaboration, “Measurements of the E-mode polarization and temperature-E- mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data,” Phys. Rev. D104, 022003 (July 2021)

2018

[10] [10]

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,

Louis, T. and The Atacama Cosmology Telescope collaboration, “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,” JCAP2025, 062 (Nov. 2025)

2025

[11] [11]

A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,

Starobinsky, A., “A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,”Physics Letters B91, 99–102 (3 1980)

1980

[12] [12]

The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,

Bezrukov, F. and Shaposhnikov, M., “The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,”Physics Letters B659, 703–706 (Jan. 2008)

2008

[13] [13]

LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts. A Case Study of the Origin of Primordial Gravitational Waves using Large-Scale CMB Polarization,

Campeti, P. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts. A Case Study of the Origin of Primordial Gravitational Waves using Large-Scale CMB Polarization,” JCAP2024, 008 (June 2024)

2024

[14] [14]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence,

de la Hoz, E. and The LiteBIRD collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence,” JCAP2025, 083 (July 2025)

2025

[15] [15]

LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: Improving Sensi- tivity to Inflationary Gravitational Waves with Multitracer Delensing,

Namikawa, T. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: Improving Sensi- tivity to Inflationary Gravitational Waves with Multitracer Delensing,” JCAP2024, 010 (June 2024)

2024

[16] [16]

LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: A full-sky measurement of gravitational lensing of the CMB,

Lonappan, A. I. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts: A full-sky measurement of gravitational lensing of the CMB,” JCAP2024, 009 (June 2024)

2024

[17] [17]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: improved full- sky reconstruction of the gravitational lensing potential through the combination of Planck and LiteBIRD data,

Ruiz-Granda, M. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: improved full- sky reconstruction of the gravitational lensing potential through the combination of Planck and LiteBIRD data,” JCAP2025, 073 (Nov. 2025)

2025

[18] [18]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. Mapping the hot gas in the Universe,

Remazeilles, M. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. Mapping the hot gas in the Universe,” JCAP2024, 026 (Dec. 2024)

2024

[19] [19]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: primordial magnetic fields,

Paoletti, D. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: primordial magnetic fields,” JCAP2024, 086 (July 2024)

2024

[20] [20]

LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. E-mode anomalies,

Banday, A. J. and the LiteBIRD collaboration, “LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts. E-mode anomalies,” JCAP2026, 036 (Jan. 2026)

2026

[21] [21]

The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts,

Ade, P. and others, “The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts,” JCAP2019, 056 (Feb. 2019)

2019

[22] [22]

Performance and characterization of the SPT-3G digital frequency multiplexed readout system using an improved noise and crosstalk model,

Montgomery, J., Anderson, A. J., Avva, J. S., Bender, A. N., Dobbs, M. A., Dutcher, D., Elleflot, T., Foster, A., Groh, J. C., Holzapfel, W. L., Howe, D., Huang, N., Lowitz, A. E., Noble, G. I., Pan, Z., Rahlin, A., Riebel, D., Smecher, G., Suzuki, A., and Whitehorn, N., “Performance and characterization of the SPT-3G digital frequency multiplexed readout...

2020

[23] [23]

Multi-dimensional optimisation of the scanning strategy for the LiteBIRD space mission,

Takase, Y. and the LiteBIRD Collaboration, “Multi-dimensional optimisation of the scanning strategy for the LiteBIRD space mission,” JCAP2024, 036 (Dec. 2024)

2024