Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 47 references

Statistical Isotropy Violations in CMB Temperature Anisotropy: Analysis Using Minimal Bipolar Spherical Harmonics

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that any fixed-multipole statistical-isotropy violation in the CMB reduces to a handful of real-space angular correlation functions, with cosmic hemispherical asymmetry captured by two functions and an elliptical…

desk verdict A genuine but incremental extension of the authors' own mBipoSH formalism; the new L=1/L=2 formulas rest on an unproved symmetry relation that the authors themselves flag, so the capture claim is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11139 v1 pith:SKRS22KX submitted 2024-11-17 astro-ph.CO

Dipanshu , Akashdeep Karan , Tarun Souradeep This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundstatisticalisotropybipolarsphericalharmonicsmBipoSHhemisphericalasymmetrynon-circularbeamangularcorrelationfunctionCMBanomalies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper extends the minimal bipolar spherical harmonics (mBipoSH) formalism to two sources of statistical isotropy violation in the cosmic microwave background: cosmic hemispherical asymmetry and non-circular instrumental beams. Its central claim is that the real-space angular correlation structure of any non-statistically-isotropic CMB sky at a given bipolar multipole $L$ is fully captured by a small set of isotropic, angle-separation-dependent functions, defined as products of BipoSH coefficients and newly introduced $a_\lambda$ coefficients. For hemispherical asymmetry ($L=1$) two such functions suffice, and for an elliptical Gaussian beam ($L=2$) three suffice. The authors derive analytic expressions and plot them, arguing this offers a practical real-space route to studying SI violations, especially for partial-sky observations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the minimal bipolar spherical harmonic basis $Y^{\lambda}_{LM} = Y^{\lambda,L-\lambda}_{LM}$, formed by tensor products with the smallest possible internal ranks. A BipoSH element $Y^{l_1,l_2}_{LM}$ is reduced to these minimal harmonics through Eq. (A.6), with coefficients $a_\lambda(l_1,l_2,L,\cos\theta)$ given by Eq. (A.8) and a transposition symmetry Eq. (A.9) completing the set. These $a_\lambda$ coefficients encode all the $l_1,l_2$ dependence, so that the mBipoSH angular correlation functions $\alpha^{L,M}_\lambda(\cos\theta) = \sum_{l_1,l_2} A^{LM}_{l_1l_2} a_\lambda(l_1,l_2,L,\cos\theta)$ are isotropic functions of angular separation alone.

What would settle it

Compute the mBipoSH correlation functions for a known CHA or elliptical-beam CMB map two independent ways: directly from pixel-space two-point correlations binned in angular separation, and from the analytic expressions (3.5)-(3.6) and (3.18)-(3.19) using BipoSH coefficients. If the two disagree for configurations with $l > l'$ or $s < L/2$, the completeness of the basis fails. A simpler check is to verify the symmetry relation (A.9) by direct algebraic transformation of the minimal harmonics for a few low-$l$ cases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the most general two-point correlation function of a Gaussian CMB temperature field can be reduced from the full BipoSH basis to a minimal basis of $L+1$ functions per multipole $L$, using the multipole reduction formula derived in the appendix. In this minimal basis the angular correlation is written as a sum over $\alpha^{L,M}_\lambda(\cos\theta)$ times rank-limited bipolar harmonics, with $\alpha$ defined by Eq. (2.5) as a sum of BipoSH coefficients times $a_\lambda$. Applying this to cosmic hemispherical asymmetry, modelled as a scale-dependent dipole modulation, yields exactly two real-space correlation functions $C_0(\theta)$ and $C_1(\theta)$; applying it to an elliptical Gaussian beam under a parallel-transport scan yields three functions $C_0$, $C_1$, $C_2$. The paper plots these functions against the SI correlation function and reports that the CHA signal lies within cosmic variance, while the non-circular beam correlation functions respond visibly to beam width and eccentricity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reduction rests on the completeness of the minimal basis, which is guaranteed only if the coefficient formula (A.8) together with the imposed transposition symmetry (A.9) and the restriction $s \ge L/2$ are exactly correct; the authors themselves note the symmetry is absent from (A.8).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any nSI signal at a fixed $L$, the entire two-point information in harmonic space condenses into $L+1$ real-space functions, making partial-sky and pixel-space analyses more direct.
  • CHA's two functions $C_0$ and $C_1$ provide a real-space template that can be compared with observed CMB maps; the paper's own cosmic-variance analysis shows the template currently cannot discriminate CHA from SI noise.
  • The NC beam's three functions depend on beam parameters such as $\theta_{\rm FWHM}$ and eccentricity, so they can be used to diagnose beam systematics in CMB experiments.
  • The formalism extends the familiar SI angular correlation function $C(\theta)$, recovering it at $L=0$ as the single isotropic component.
  • Future high-resolution, partial-sky missions can use these functions as a natural basis for BipoSH analysis without full-sky harmonic coverage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the symmetry relation (A.9) and the $s \ge L/2$ restriction are not exact, the derived $C_0, C_1, C_2$ sets are incomplete, and the real-space reconstruction would miss contributions from transposed $l_1, l_2$ pairs; a direct numerical test against pixel-space correlation functions would settle this.
  • The same mBipoSH reduction should apply to CMB polarization and to other $L=1$ and $L=2$ sources such as Doppler boost, providing a unified real-space language for SI anomalies.
  • The parallel-transport scan assumption fixes $M=0$; relaxing it to a general scan strategy would yield additional $M$-dependent mBipoSH functions, potentially separating beam systematics from cosmological signals.
  • Extending the formalism to cross-correlations between temperature and polarization could give a more sensitive test of CHA than the temperature-only functions considered here.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper extends the minimal Bipolar Spherical Harmonic (mBipoSH) formalism introduced in the authors' earlier work to two sources of statistical-isotropy violation in the CMB: cosmic hemispherical asymmetry (CHA, L = 1) and a non-circular elliptical Gaussian beam (L = 2). The authors reduce the BipoSH expansion of the two-point correlation function to L + 1 angle-separation-dependent correlation functions per multipole L, present analytic forms (Eqs. 3.5–3.6 and 3.18–3.19), plot the resulting functions using CAMB power spectra, and estimate cosmic-variance error bars from 1000 CoNIGS-simulated CHA maps. They conclude that CHA is captured by two mBipoSH functions and the non-circular beam by three, while also noting that the CHA signal is statistically inconclusive against cosmic variance. The reduction relies on an appendix formula (A.8) from Manakov et al. supplemented by a symmetry relation (A.9) that, as the authors state, is absent from (A.8) and is imposed without proof.

Significance. If the reduction is validated, the mBipoSH functions provide a compact, physically interpretable real-space description of SI-violating correlations, which would be useful for low-multipole anomaly studies and partial-sky analyses. The paper is transparent about the gap in its derivation, which is commendable; the CAMB- and CoNIGS-based figures are in principle reproducible; and extending the method beyond the Doppler-boost case to CHA and non-circular beams is a useful step. However, the central completeness step (A.9) is unproved and affects precisely the lowest-λ coefficients used in the headline results; the analytic formulas in Eq. (3.19) contain typographical errors and are stated without derivation for the diagonal cases; and the abstract's claim of confirming the approach against 'observed' correlations is not supported by the actual analysis, which uses model parameters and concludes inconclusively for CHA. This is a promising methods contribution whose central load-bearing step needs verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.8)–(A.9)] The central reduction (A.6) is applied only for l < l′ (coefficients s ≥ L/2), while the remaining coefficients are obtained from the symmetry relation (A.9), which the authors themselves note is absent from the Manakov formula (A.8). No derivation, citation, or numerical check is provided for (A.9). The symmetry-supplied coefficients enter exactly C0(θ) for CHA in Eq. (3.5) and C0(θ) for the beam in Eq. (3.18), so the plotted functions in Figures 1 and 2 and the central 'capture' claim rest on an unproved step. Please provide an analytic proof of (A.9) or, failing that, a direct numerical verification obtained by expanding Y_{LM}^{l1 l2}(n1, n2) for l1 > l2 and diagonal cases in the minimal basis and comparing against the right-hand side of Eqs. (A.6)–(A.9).
  2. [Eq. (3.19)] The diagonal coefficients a1(l, l, 2, cos θ) and a0(l, l, 2, cos θ) = a2(l, l, 2, cos θ) are presented without derivation even though the stated l < l′ restriction in the appendix excludes the diagonal case from direct application of (A.8). As written, the entry for a1(l, l+2, 2, cos θ) contains a typo, with '(1 + 1)' in the denominator, presumably '(l + 1)', and a0(l, l+2, 2, cos θ) contains '(2.l + 3)' for '(2l + 3)'. Because these coefficients feed directly into Figure 2, the figure cannot be checked against the text until the corrected, derived formulas are supplied.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states that the results 'confirm the effectiveness of the proposed approach' and 'successfully captures and explains the observed angular correlations in the CMB sky,' but Section 4 concludes that for CHA the evidence does not decisively confirm or reject the asymmetry, and Figure 1 (right panel) places the signal within the cosmic-variance bars. Moreover, no comparison to actual Planck or WMAP correlation functions is made anywhere in the paper: the CHA curves use parameters A(lp) and α fitted in Shaikh et al. [20], and the beam curves use chosen values of θ_FWHM and eccentricity. The phrase 'observed angular correlations' therefore overstates what the analysis establishes, and the abstract should be revised to match the conclusions.
  4. [Figure 1 and Section 3.1] Figure 1's right panel presents mBipoSH correlation functions estimated from 1000 CoNIGS-simulated CHA maps, but the paper never states whether the analytic C0(θ) and C1(θ) from Eqs. (3.5)–(3.6) were overlaid on these estimates and agree with them. Such a comparison would provide an end-to-end check of the reduction coefficients, including the (A.9)-supplied sector, and should be reported explicitly. Similarly, the beam correlation functions in Figure 2 are not compared with the WMAP-7 beam-BipoSH measurements cited in Section 3.2, so the demonstrated content of the beam plots is limited to a parameter study of the model curves.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'develoved' (Section 1), 'ins spherical harmonic space' (Section 2), 'bema-BipoSH' (Section 3.2), 'simplied' (Section 3.2), and 'playing an, important role' (Section 1). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Section 3.2, after Eq. (3.18)] The sentence 'The coefficients aλ can be easily calculated using equations (3.17) and (A.8)' cites Eq. (3.17), which is the beam correlation function, not the definition of aλ; the intended references are Eqs. (2.5) and (A.6).
  3. [Figure captions] The captions of Figures 1 and 2 do not list the parameter values used to generate the curves (pivot multipole lp, amplitude A(lp), power-law index α, and the beam parameters θ_FWHM and eccentricity e). These values should be given in the captions or the text so that the plots are reproducible.
  4. [Section 3.2] The notation Cl for the angular power spectrum conflicts visually with the mBipoSH functions C0, C1, and C2 in the same section; consider renaming one of the two sets of quantities to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Eq. (3.17)] The functions fλ(n1, n2) are introduced as 'rank-2 tensor functions' but are never explicitly identified as Y_{20}^{λ,2−λ}(n1, n2); this identification should be stated.
  6. [Section 2, Eq. (2.4)] The statement that CHA is 'captured by two' functions and the beam 'by three' is a direct consequence of the L + 1 counting in Eq. (2.4) rather than an empirical discovery; the text should clarify that the new content is the specific analytic forms and their θ dependence, not the number of functions itself.
  7. [Eq. (3.4)] The label CnSI is used for the full correlation function that includes the SI part in Eq. (3.3); using a different symbol or clarifying the decomposition would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The L+1 'capture' count is built into the mBipoSH construction, and the plotted CHA/NC-beam curves re-express fitted input parameters rather than test data; the underlying algebra is otherwise self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.5), and Section 4]
    "Now, it is interesting to note that the equation inside the square exhibits different L + 1 values for a given multipole L in our newly defined reduced mBipoSH basis. These values correspond to the theta-dependent correlation functions expanded in the general nSI sky, referred to as the Minimal Bipolar (mBipoSH) correlation functions."

    The concluding claim that CHA (L=1) is explained by two mBipoSH functions and the NC beam (L=2) by three is not an empirical result: Eq. (2.4) already constructs exactly L+1 such functions by summing lambda = 0..L for each L. Eqs. (3.5)-(3.6) and (3.18) are then direct insertions of input BipoSH coefficients into definition (2.5), so the plotted functions are algebraic re-expressions of those coefficients in angular-separation space. The count 'two for L=1, three for L=2' follows by construction, not by analysis, and the plotted curves cannot confirm the model because they contain no information beyond the assumed BipoSH coefficients and the chosen basis.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.6); Abstract]
    "In this study, the dipole modulation amplitude A(l) is modeled using the power-law model as investigated in Shaikh et al [20]. The power-law model expresses the dipole modulation amplitude A as A(l) = A (lp) (l/lp)^alpha ... Our results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed approach, as it successfully captures and explains the observed angular correlations in the CMB sky."

    The plotted CHA correlation functions C0(theta) and C1(theta) are computed from the Shaikh et al. fitted power-law parameters A(lp), alpha and from the CAMB best-fit C_l^TT, as the figure caption states; no observed CMB map is compared at this stage. Presenting these curves as 'capturing and explaining the observed angular correlations' therefore renames the fitted input into mBipoSH coordinates rather than providing an independent prediction that could fail. The NC-beam curves are similarly re-expressions of the beam-BipoSH model in Eq. (3.10) through definition (2.5).

full rationale

The derivation of the mBipoSH basis from the Manakov et al. reduction formula is a self-contained mathematical construction, and most of the paper is legitimate linear algebra: transforming BipoSH coefficients into angular-separation correlation functions. However, two elements reduce to construction rather than discovery. First, the number of functions assigned to each L is fixed by Eq. (2.4), so the 'two functions for L=1, three for L=2' conclusion is definitional. Second, the plotted CHA and NC-beam curves are exact re-expressions of the same parameters and BipoSH coefficients that were used as inputs, so calling them confirmation of agreement with observed CMB angular correlations is not supported by any independent data comparison in the paper. The appendix's admitted missing l/l' symmetry in Eq. (A.8) and the imposed relation (A.9) are a load-bearing correctness gap rather than a circular step: (A.9) is not derived from the target claim, but if it is wrong, the central capture formulas in Eqs. (3.5) and (3.18) are incomplete. On balance, the algebra is independent, but the paper's strongest interpretive claims are partially circular in the sense of restating fitted inputs and basis construction as confirmation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation leans on the Manakov et al. reduction formulas, an appended symmetry relation, and three physical modeling assumptions (PT scan, power-law CHA, and elliptical Gaussian beam). The free parameters are all imported from prior fits or chosen for illustration, not measured here.

free parameters (4)
  • CHA dipole amplitude m_1N(lp) (or A(lp)) = not stated in this paper; imported from Shaikh et al. 2019
    Scales the CHA mBipoSH functions C0(theta) and C1(theta) in Eqs. (3.5)-(3.6) and is used to generate the CoNIGS cosmic-variance comparison in Figure 1.
  • CHA power-law index alpha = not stated in this paper; imported from Shaikh et al. 2019
    Controls the scale dependence of the CHA modulation through A(l)=A(lp)(l/lp)^alpha, entering the shape factor G^1_{ll+1} and hence all CHA correlation functions.
  • Beam full-width-at-half-maximum theta_FWHM = varied in Figure 2, values not stated in text
    Chosen by hand to illustrate the theta-dependence of the NC beam mBipoSH functions; it shapes the plotted curves but is not fitted.
  • Beam ellipticity or non-circularity e (or epsilon) = varied in Figure 2, values not stated in text
    Controls the elliptical Gaussian beam shape in Eqs. (3.13)-(3.15) and the resulting L=2 mBipoSH functions.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Reduction formula (A.6) and coefficient formula (A.8) from Manakov et al. correctly reduce any BipoSH to the minimal basis.
    Invoked in Section 2 and the Appendix to define the mBipoSH angular correlation functions; the paper cites rather than re-derives this result.
  • ad hoc to paper Symmetry relation a_lambda(l1,l2,L,cos theta) = a_{L-lambda_p-lambda}(l2,l1,L,cos theta) completes the coefficient set for l greater than l' cases.
    The Appendix states that (A.8) lacks transposition symmetry, so the authors impose this relation to obtain the exhaustive basis; no independent proof is given.
  • domain assumption Parallel-transport (PT) scan approximates real CMB scans so that only M=0 beam-BipoSH modes contribute.
    Section 3.2, after Eq. (3.8), restricts to PT scan and says generalized scanning is left for future work; all NC beam results depend on this.
  • domain assumption CHA is a scale-dependent dipole modulation with power law A(l)=A(lp)(l/lp)^alpha and parameters from Shaikh et al.
    Section 3.1 adopts this model; the mBipoSH functions inherit its validity and its fitted parameter values.
  • domain assumption The CMB temperature anisotropy field is Gaussian, so the two-point correlation function fully characterizes the nSI signal.
    The Introduction and Section 2 rely on this to justify analyzing only the covariance in the BipoSH and mBipoSH bases.
  • domain assumption The elliptical Gaussian beam model in Eq. (3.13) adequately approximates a non-circular instrumental beam.
    Section 3.2 uses the EG model; real beams may have more complex shapes that produce different mBipoSH signatures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical Isotropy Violations in CMB Temperature Anisotropy: Analysis Using Minimal Bipolar Spherical Harmonics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SKRS22KX

@misc{pith2026241111139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical Isotropy Violations in CMB Temperature Anisotropy: Analysis Using Minimal Bipolar Spherical Harmonics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SKRS22KX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11139}
}
abstract

In this work, we present a follow-up to our previous work where the concept of minimal Bipolar spherical harmonics (mBipoSH) functions was introduced as a natural basis for studying angular correlations in the non-statistical isotropic (nSI) Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) sky. In this study, we extend the formalism of mBipoSH functions and apply it to analyze two sources of statistical isotropy (SI) violation-cosmic hemispherical asymmetry (CHA) and non-circular (NC) beam shapes. We present the analytical expression for mBipoSH functions and plot the corresponding angular correlation functions for these cases, addressing the $L=1$ and $L=2$ multipole statistical isotropy violations within the BipoSH basis. Our results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed approach, as it successfully captures and explains the observed angular correlations in the CMB sky.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left panel displays the mBipoSH correlation functions for the (nSI effect) CHA, namely C0(θ) and C1(θ) with parameters along with the SI correlation function. These plots are generated assuming the angular power spectrum C T T l computed for the best-fit ΛCDM model parameters using CAMB [21]. The right panel presents the cosmic variance error bar for mBipoSH correlation functions corresponding to the cosmic hemi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the mBipoSH isotropic correlation functions for the non-circular elliptical Gaussian beam. Top panel shows how the correlation functions vary with the change in θFWHM. The bottom panel shows how these isotropic correlation functions change with respect to e. a1(l, l, 2, cos θ) = (−1)l s 10(2l + 1) 3l(2l + 3)(2l − 1)(l + 1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Shaikh, S

    S. Shaikh, S. Mukherjee, S. Das, B. D. Wandelt and T. Souradeep, Joint bayesian analysis of large angular scale cmb temperature anomalies , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (2019) 007

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Hajian and T

    A. Hajian and T. Souradeep, Measuring the statistical isotropy of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy, The Astrophysical Journal 597 (2003) L5

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    Mitra, A

    S. Mitra, A. S. Sengupta and T. Souradeep, Cmb power spectrum estimation using noncircular beams , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 103002

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Joshi, S

    N. Joshi, S. Jhingan, T. Souradeep and A. Hajian, Bipolar harmonic encoding of cmb correlation patterns, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 083012

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    Kamionkowski and T

    M. Kamionkowski and T. Souradeep, Odd-parity cosmic microwave background bispectrum, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 027301

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Kumar, A

    S. Kumar, A. Rotti, M. Aich, N. Pant, S. Mitra and T. Souradeep, Orthogonal bipolar spherical harmonics measures: Scrutinizing sources of isotropy violation , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 043501

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    L. G. Book, M. Kamionkowski and T. Souradeep, Odd-parity bipolar spherical harmonics , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 023010

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. De and T. Souradeep, Statistical isotropy violation of cmb polarization sky due to lorentz boost, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 083005

    work page 2014

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    S. Saha, S. Shaikh, S. Mukherjee, T. Souradeep and B. D. Wandelt, Bayesian estimation of our local motion from the Planck-2018 CMB temperature map , JCAP 10 (2021) 072 [ 2106.07666]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Mukherjee and T

    S. Mukherjee and T. Souradeep, Statistically anisotropic Gaussian simulations of the CMB temperature field, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 063013 [ 1311.5837]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Mukherjee, P

    S. Mukherjee, P. K. Aluri, S. Das, S. Shaikh and T. Souradeep, Direction dependence of cosmological parameters due to cosmic hemispherical asymmetry , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (2016) 042

    2016

  4. [11]

    Hajian and T

    A. Hajian and T. Souradeep, The cosmic microwave background bipolar power spectrum: Basic formalism and applications , 2004. – 11 –

    2004

  5. [12]

    Hajian, T

    A. Hajian, T. Souradeep and N. Cornish, Statistical isotropy of the wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe data: A bipolar power spectrum analysis , The Astrophysical Journal 618 (2004) L63–L66

    2004

  6. [13]

    Mitra, A

    S. Mitra, A. S. Sengupta and T. Souradeep, Cmb power spectrum estimation using noncircular beams , Physical Review D 70 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    Souradeep and A

    T. Souradeep and A. Hajian, Statistical isotropy of the cosmic microwave background , Pramana 62 (2004) 793–796

    2004

  8. [15]

    Aich and T

    M. Aich and T. Souradeep, Statistical isotropy violation of the cmb brightness fluctuations , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 083008

    2010

  9. [16]

    P. Ade, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, P. Aluri, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown et al., Planck 2015 results-xvi. isotropy and statistics of the cmb , Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 (2016) A16

    2016

  10. [17]

    Souradeep and S

    Dipanshu, T. Souradeep and S. Hirve, Capturing statistical isotropy violation with generalized isotropic angular correlation functions of cosmic microwave background anisotropy , The Astrophysical Journal 954 (2023) 181

    2023

  11. [18]

    N. L. Manakov, S. I. Marmo and A. V. Meremianin, A new technique in the theory of angular distributions in atomic processes: the angular distribution of photoelectrons in single and double photoionization, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 29 (1996) 2711

    1996

  12. [19]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev and V. K. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum . World Scientific, Singapore, 1988

    1988

  13. [21]

    CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, “CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026, Feb., 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Weiland, N

    J. Weiland, N. Odegard, R. Hill, E. Wollack, G. Hinshaw, M. Greason et al., Seven-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap*) observations: Planets and celestial calibration sources , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 192 (2011) 19

    2011

  15. [23]

    S. Das, S. Mitra, A. Rotti, N. Pant and T. Souradeep, Statistical isotropy violation in wmap cmb maps resulting from non-circular beams, Astronomy & Astrophysics 591 (2016) A97

    2016

  16. [24]

    N. Pant, S. Das, A. Rotti, S. Mitra and T. Souradeep, Estimating si violation in cmb due to non-circular beam and complex scan in minutes , arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.03672 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Souradeep and B

    T. Souradeep and B. Ratra, Window function for noncircular beam cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiment, The Astrophysical Journal 560 (2001) 28

    2001

  18. [26]

    WMAP collaboration, Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180 (2009) 225 [ 0803.0732]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, D. J. Schwarz and G. D. Starkman, Large angle anomalies in the CMB , Adv. Astron. 2010 (2010) 847541 [ 1004.5602]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Aghanim, C

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela et al., Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove , A&A 571 (2014) A27 [1303.5087]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hanson, G

    D. Hanson, G. Rocha and K. G´ orski, Lensing reconstruction from planck sky maps: inhomogeneous noise, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 400 (2009) 2169

    2009

  22. [30]

    Hu and T

    W. Hu and T. Okamoto, Mass reconstruction with cosmic microwave background polarization , The Astrophysical Journal 574 (2002) 566

    2002

  23. [31]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A1 [ 1807.06205]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    K. M. Gorski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., Healpix: A framework for high-resolution discretization and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere , The Astrophysical Journal 622 (2005) 759. – 12 –

    2005

  25. [33]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau et al., Array programming with NumPy, Nature 585 (2020) 357

    2020

  26. [34]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python , Nature Methods 17 (2020) 261

    2020

  27. [35]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment , Computing in Science & Engineering 9 (2007) 90

    2007

  28. [36]

    Das, Si toolbox-full documentation , arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02328 (2019)

    S. Das, Si toolbox-full documentation , arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02328 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, C. Bennett, J. Dunkley et al., Nine-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: cosmological parameter results , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208 (2013) 19

    2013

  30. [38]

    Mitra, A

    S. Mitra, A. S. Sengupta, S. Ray, R. Saha and T. Souradeep, Cosmic microwave background power spectrum estimation with non-circular beam and incomplete sky coverage , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 394 (2009) 1419 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/...

    2009

  31. [39]

    Rotti, M

    A. Rotti, M. Aich and T. Souradeep, Wmap anomaly : Weak lensing in disguise , 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Joshi, S

    N. Joshi, S. Das, A. Rotti, S. Mitra and T. Souradeep, Revealing non-circular beam effect in wmap-7 cmb maps with biposh measures of statistical isotropy , 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    P. K. Aluri, N. Pant, A. Rotti and T. Souradeep, Novel approach to reconstructing signals of isotropy violation from a masked cmb sky , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 083015

    2015

  34. [42]

    M. Aich, A. Rotti and T. Souradeep, Weak lensing in non-statistically isotropic universes , 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Mukherjee and T

    S. Mukherjee and T. Souradeep, Litmus test for cosmic hemispherical asymmetry in the cosmic microwave background b-mode polarization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 221301

    2016

  36. [44]

    S. Das, B. D. Wandelt and T. Souradeep, Bayesian inference on the sphere beyond statistical isotropy , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (2015) 050

    2015

  37. [45]

    N. Pant, S. Das, A. Rotti, S. Mitra and T. Souradeep, Estimating statistical isotropy violation in cmb due to non-circular beam and complex scan in minutes , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (2016) 035

    2016

  38. [46]

    Basak, A

    S. Basak, A. Hajian and T. Souradeep, Statistical isotropy of cmb polarization maps , Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 021301

    2006

  39. [47]

    Mitra, A

    S. Mitra, A. S. Sengupta and T. Souradeep, Cmb power spectrum estimation using noncircular beams , Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 70 (2004) 103002. – 13 –

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.