Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Nearly Full-Sky Low-Multipole Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Anisotropy: III. CMB Temperature Anomalies

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using nearly full-sky maps built with improved foreground cleaning, this paper shows that the low large-angle correlation and the local-variance asymmetry drop from about 3σ to about 2σ — too weak, individually, to challenge the standard co

desk verdict Careful, useful reassessment: the S1/2 significance drop to ~2σ with a 1% mask holds up, but the ALV drop is not yet robust because the cleaning-validation shift is comparable to the p-value and its direction is unreported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03720 v2 pith:J4O2C3ST submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.CO

Laura Herold , Graeme E. Addison , Charles L. Bennett , Hayley C. Nofi , J. L. Weiland This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.70.Vc98.80.Es
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundCMBanomaliesforegroundcleaninglarge-anglecorrelationshemisphericalasymmetrystatisticalisotropylowmultipolesparity
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 re-tests five well-known large-scale CMB temperature anomalies — low angular correlation, parity asymmetry, quadrupole–octopole alignment, low northern variance, and local-variance asymmetry — using new foreground-cleaned maps that mask only 1% of the sky instead of the usual 26%. The authors show that the choice of sky cut changes the verdict for two of the five: the low-correlation statistic S1/2 falls from p ≈ 0.2% (3.0–3.1σ) with the large Planck common mask to p ≈ 6–7% (1.8–1.9σ) with the 1% mask, and the local-variance asymmetry ALV falls from p ≈ 0.13–0.16% (3.2σ) to p ≈ 2.2–2.8% (2.2–2.3σ). The other three are stable across masks: northern variance near 3σ, parity asymmetry near 2σ, quadrupole–octopole alignment near 3σ. If the cleaned maps are trustworthy, two of the most cited anomalies are weaker evidence against statistically isotropic Gaussian ΛCDM than previously reported, and any alternative model would need to explain several anomalies at once or fit other measurements besides CMB temperature.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is a set of four foreground-cleaned maps at 1° resolution (70, 94, 100, 143 GHz) built by fitting six archival foreground templates with free normalization and masking only 1% of the sky, which keeps the low-ℓ spherical-harmonic coefficients nearly orthogonal. Five a-posteriori statistics are then evaluated on three sky cuts — full sky, 1% mask, and the 26% Planck common mask: S1/2, the integral of the squared angular correlation function above 60°; R27, the ratio of even to odd multipole power; SQO, the alignment of quadrupole and octopole planes via Maxwell multipole vectors and oriented area vectors; σ²16, the northern-ecliptic-hemisphere pixel variance at Nsid

What would settle it

Take the best-fit foreground templates from the cleaning, add them back to the cleaned maps, and re-measure S1/2 and ALV: if the ~3σ significance under the 1% mask returns, the reduced significance is a cleaning artifact; if it stays near ~2σ, the mask drove the result. Alternatively, an independent low-resolution cleaning built from different template sets (e.g., pure high-frequency dust and low-frequency synchrotron channels, without morphology fitting) applied with the same 1% mask would settle whether the result reproduces. The companion paper's 10^4 cleaned simulations bound the chance-co

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the significance of two commonly studied CMB anomalies depends strongly on how much of the sky is masked, and that with nearly full-sky maps the anomalies weaken. Using four foreground-cleaned WMAP/Planck maps at 1° resolution that require only a 1% galactic mask, the paper finds that the low real-space correlation statistic S1/2 goes from a 3.0–3.1σ deviation (p = 0.19–0.24%) under the 26%-masked Planck common mask to 1.8–1.9σ (p = 5.8–7.3%) under the 1% mask, and that the local-variance asymmetry ALV goes from 3.2σ (p = 0.13–0.16%) to 2.2–2.3σ (p = 2.2–2.8%). The other anomalies are mask-stable: low northern variance stays near 3σ, parity asymmetry near 2σ, and th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the foreground-cleaned maps contain only true CMB temperature at degree scales outside the 1% mask — no residual or over-subtracted Milky Way foreground that could shift the large-scale statistics — since the paper's validation of the cleaning uses simulations cleaned by the same method it is checking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The low large-angle correlation and the local-variance asymmetry are only ~2σ phenomena once 99% of the sky is usable, so by themselves they are weak evidence against statistically isotropic Gaussian ΛCDM.
  • The quadrupole–octopole alignment remains the strongest and most stable feature, at 3.2–3.5σ, essentially independent of cleaning method and sky cut.
  • Any alternative model must explain several anomalies at once, or describe a non-CMB measurement better, to be preferred over ΛCDM.
  • The explicit dependence of S1/2 on the integration limit µ and of R27 on ℓmax motivates look-elsewhere corrections, which would further reduce the significance of these statistics.
  • The paper's analysis implies that the standard 26%-mask convention itself contributed to the reported S1/2 and ALV signals: the 1%-mask results are consistently closer to the ΛCDM expectation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ~2σ result holds under independent cleaning, it suggests that the historical 'missing angular correlation' was partly an artifact of the standard analysis convention: a 26% mask reshapes the low-ℓ mode structure and suppresses C(θ) more than the underlying sky does.
  • A sharp testable consequence: applying the same nearly full-sky cleaning to low-ℓ CMB polarization should preserve the quadrupole–octopole alignment if it is cosmological, while the correlation and variance-asymmetry signals should stay near ~2σ if they are mask artifacts.
  • The five anomalies may not share a single origin: the results split them into a mask-sensitive pair (S1/2, ALV) and a mask-stable trio (SQO, σ²16, R27), which argues against any one new-physics mechanism.
  • Once the cleaned maps and 1% mask are public, S1/2 can be recomputed with alternative estimators (e.g., QML or Bayesian Cℓ on the same sky cut); the paper's own comparison with the Planck QML Cℓ already points the same way.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-evaluates five well-known CMB large-angle anomalies using four new foreground-cleaned, low-resolution WMAP+Planck maps from a companion paper that require only a 1% sky mask. For each anomaly statistic, p-values are computed from 10^5 Gaussian statistically-isotropic ΛCDM simulations and compared across the 1% mask, the Planck common mask (26% masked), and the full sky, as well as against the Planck 2018 component-separated maps. The main finding is that the significance of the low real-space correlation (S1/2) and of the local-variance asymmetry (ALV) drops from about 3σ with the common mask to about 2σ with the 1% mask; the northern variance, parity asymmetry, and quadrupole-octopole alignment remain at roughly 3σ, 2σ, and 3σ respectively. The paper concludes that individual anomalies do not by themselves strongly favor new physics over ΛCDM.

Significance. If correct, the paper is a valuable reassessment of the CMB anomaly landscape: it shows that a substantially larger usable sky fraction, enabled by improved foreground cleaning, reduces the significance of two frequently cited anomalies. The analysis has notable strengths: 10^5 Gaussian statistically-isotropic simulations, consistent mask handling across estimators, an explicit validation of the approximate S1/2 expression (Eq. 6), and dedicated cleaned-simulation tests for CMB-foreground chance correlation. The paper also correctly stresses the a-posteriori nature of the statistics and the need for look-elsewhere corrections. The central limitation is that for ALV the cleaning-induced PTE shift is comparable to the quoted p-values and is not directionally reported, so the headline reduction from ~3σ to ~2σ is not yet robust. I do not see a circularity problem: the anomaly statistics are computed directly from maps and compared with external Monte Carlo simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.5] The ALV cleaning-validation result is load-bearing for the abstract's claim that ALV drops from ~3σ to ~2σ. The paper reports Δp ≤ 4.3% (full sky) and Δp ≤ 2.5% (1% mask) when PTE is computed from cleaned-CMB rather than CMB-only simulations, and states that the shift is 'not small'. However, the quoted 1%-mask ALV p-values are only p=2.2–2.8% (Table 1). A 2.5 percentage-point shift is the same order as the p-value itself, and without reporting the direction it is possible that the cleaned-simulation p-value is ≤0.3%, i.e. still ~3σ. This would directly contradict the abstract. The manuscript must report the cleaned-CMB p-values and the direction of the shifts, and explain why the conclusion is unchanged. Note also that Sec. 2.2's blanket statement that the shifts are 'small or do not impact the conclusions' is inconsistent with Sec. 3.5's characterization of the ALV shift as 'not small'
  2. [Sec. 2.1 / 2.2] The central results rest on the four foreground-cleaned maps and the 1% mask from Nofi et al. (2025a), cited as 'in prep'. The manuscript states that the maps and masks are 'provided', but they are not public at the time of writing, and the cleaning validation in Sec. 2.2 applies the same cleaning procedure to simulated maps, so it cannot independently establish the residual-foreground level. If residual or over-subtracted foreground power survives at low multipoles, the reduced S1/2 and ALV significances could be an artifact of added power masking the anomaly. Please clarify the availability/release plan for the maps and masks and, if possible, provide an independent residual-foreground test beyond self-cleaned simulations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] Minor typo: 'Commander, NILC, SEVEM, und SMICA' should be 'Commander, NILC, SEVEM, and SMICA'.
  2. [References] The companion-paper reference lists 'Bennet, C., L.'; the author name in the manuscript is Bennett. Please correct the spelling in the reference list.
  3. [Sec. 3.5] The exclusion of outlier maps for ALV (Commander, SEVEM, and for the full sky also 94 GHz) is motivated by dipole directions pointing toward the Galactic plane, but the selection criteria are qualitative. Table 1 shows a wide spread among component-separated maps (e.g. SEVEM p=0.00% at 1% mask versus p=2.77% for the 143 GHz cleaned map). A formal, pre-defined outlier criterion would strengthen the claim of 'good agreement' among foreground-cleaned maps.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] Equation (9) is typeset in an unusual way (the r=1 evaluation and the gradient notation are cramped). The definitions of the multipole vectors and OAVs are otherwise clear, but a cleaner equation would help.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The bottom panel of Fig. 2 and the discussion of S_μ are informative, but it would be useful to state explicitly that the p-values in the μ-scan are not corrected for the look-elsewhere effect; the paper later makes this point in Sec. 4, but a pointer there would prevent over-interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: anomaly p-values are direct map statistics versus external Lambda-CDM simulations.

full rationale

The paper computes five anomaly statistics directly from foreground-cleaned and component-separated maps using explicit estimators (S1/2, Eq. 5; R27, Eq. 7; SQO, Eq. 11; sigma^2_16, Eq. 12; ALV, Eqs. 13-15) and compares them to 10^5 Gaussian statistically-isotropic simulations drawn from the external Planck 2018 best-fit Lambda-CDM power spectrum (Sec. 2.2). No anomaly statistic contains a fitted parameter that is later renamed a prediction; the cleaning coefficients and mask are taken from the companion paper rather than adjusted within this paper to produce the quoted p-values. The reliance on the companion maps is a data dependency, not a circular reduction, and the paper independently probes CMB-foreground chance correlation with cleaned simulations (Sec. 2.2), reporting the resulting PTE shifts explicitly (e.g., ALV shifts up to 4.3% full sky and 2.5% for the 1% mask in Sec. 3.5). These disclosed shifts are robustness limitations, not evidence that the headline significance changes are forced by construction. The a-posteriori choice of statistics and the look-elsewhere effect are acknowledged by the authors and affect interpretation, not the circularity of the derivation. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by definition.

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

The statistical machinery is standard; the main assumptions are the Planck Lambda-CDM null model and the validity of the companion-paper cleaning. The free parameters are the a posteriori choices of statistic definitions, which the paper itself acknowledges motivate look-elsewhere corrections. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Integration limit mu = 1/2 in S1/2 statistic = 0.5 (cos theta)
    Standard but arbitrary choice; the paper shows p-values depend on mu (Fig. 2), with p<1% only for mu between about -0.5 and 0.7 in the common-mask case. This is a hand-picked statistic definition.
  • Maximum multipole lmax = 27 in parity statistic R = 27
    Chosen because R27 is among the most significant; varying lmax changes p-values (Fig. 3), so the choice is a posteriori and motivates a look-elsewhere correction.
  • Disk radius theta = 8 degrees for local variance ALV = 8 degrees
    The paper states this is 'a common choice in the literature since it gives comparatively significant results' (Sec. 3.5). Hand-picked to yield significant values.
  • Northern ecliptic hemisphere for sigma2_16 = northern ecliptic
    The paper notes the choice of hemisphere is an arbitrary a-posteriori choice (Sec. 3.4); the northern hemisphere shows lower variance. This selection is imposed on the simulations as well, but affects the interpretation.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Spherical harmonic expansion and Legendre decomposition of the CMB temperature field (Eqs. 2-4)
    Standard background used to define power spectra and correlation functions.
  • domain assumption The Planck 2018 best-fit Lambda-CDM model is the correct null hypothesis for the CMB fluctuations
    All 10^5 simulations are drawn from this model (Sec. 2.2); every p-value is relative to it. If the null model is misspecified, the quoted significances change.
  • domain assumption The morphological template cleaning in the companion paper removes foregrounds without altering the CMB signal at the scales used
    The paper adopts the Nofi et al. (2025a) maps and the 1% mask as clean CMB (Sec. 2.1). The central claim about reduced significance assumes no residual or over-subtracted foreground power.
  • domain assumption Multipole vectors and oriented area vectors remain interpretable when computed from cut-sky a_lm with a small mask
    Sec. 3.3 notes the vectors are 'only well defined on the full sky', yet 1% and common-mask results are presented. The interpretation of SQO for masked skies relies on this approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nearly Full-Sky Low-Multipole Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Anisotropy: III. CMB Temperature Anomalies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4O2C3ST

@misc{pith2026250903720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nearly Full-Sky Low-Multipole Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Anisotropy: III. CMB Temperature Anomalies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4O2C3ST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03720}
}
abstract

Unexpected features have been observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature on large scales. We revisit these CMB anomalies using new foreground-cleaned CMB temperature maps derived in a companion paper from WMAP and Planck data, which are tailored to low-resolution analysis and require only minimal masking of $1\%$ of the sky. These maps allow us to assess the impact of foreground-cleaning methods and the choice of sky cut on the significance of five commonly studied CMB anomalies. We find a notable impact of the choice of galactic mask on the significance of two anomalies: the significance of the low real-space correlation function and of the local-variance asymmetry reduces from $\sim 3\sigma$ for the Planck common mask with $26\%$ masked fraction to $\sim 2\sigma$ for the $1\%$ mask. We find good agreement between the two sky cuts for the low northern variance, $\sim 3\sigma$, and the parity asymmetry, $\sim 2\sigma$. For the quadrupole-octopole alignment, we find good agreement between the 1\%-mask result and the full-sky results in the literature, $\sim 3\sigma$. Thus using a larger fraction of the sky enabled by improved foreground cleaning reduces the significance of two commonly studied CMB anomalies. Overall, for an alternative physical model to be convincingly favored over $\Lambda$CDM with statistically isotropic Gaussian fluctuations, it would need to explain multiple CMB anomalies, or better describe some other type of measurement in addition to a CMB anomaly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimators of the five CMB anomalies considered in this work (rows) applied to the four foreground-cleaned maps (Nofi et al. 2025a, 70 GHz - 143 GHz) and the component-separated maps (Planck Collaboration IV 2020, Commander - SMICA) for three sky cuts (columns). The histograms show the distributions obtained from 105 statistically-isotropic Gaussian ΛCDM simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Angular correlation function, C(θ), for the 100 GHz cleaned map and Commander map using the full sky (light blue), 1% mask (dark blue), and Planck common mask (red). For comparison, we show C(θ) computed from the public QML-Cℓ (green dotted). When applying the common mask, C(θ) is closer to zero for θ > 60◦ (vertical dotted line) than expected from the ΛCDM simulations (1 σ and 2 σ shaded band, applying the 1% … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: CMB power spectra, Dℓ, of the 100 GHz map (solid) at large angular scales for three sky cuts as in￾dicated in the legend. For comparison, we show the public Planck QML-Dℓ (dotted green). The “parity asymmetry” manifests itself as larger power for odd compared to even ℓ. Bottom: p-values of R ℓmax as a function of ℓmax for the same sky cuts as above. The baseline choice ℓmax = 27 (vertical dotted line) gives mor… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multipole vectors (MVs, filled markers) and oriented area vectors (OAVs, open markers) of the quadrupole (squares) and octopole (diamonds obtained from the 100 GHz foreground-cleaned map (background) for the full sky (light blue) and 1% mask (dark blue); the com￾mon ma…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Foreground-cleaned 100 GHz map at Nside = 16 with the downgraded 1% mask (corresponding to a 3.6% mask) and a mask covering the southern eclip￾tic hemisphere applied. σ 2 16 is defined as the variance over the unmasked pixels. Bottom: Histogram of pixel values. Th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized local-variance map, ˜σ 2 θ (ˆn) (Eq. (14)) of the 100 GHz measured within 8◦ disks (illustrated as the white circle in the center). The significance of the hemi￾spherical asymmetry is quantified via the amplitude, ALV, of the dipole of this map, which is aro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Angular correlation functions, C(θ), for three different sky cuts (rows) and for all eight maps (as indicated in the legend). When applying the common mask, C(θ) is closer to zero for θ > 60◦ (vertical dotted line) than expected from the ΛCDM simulations (1 σ and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Power spectra, Dℓ, for three sky cuts (rows) and all eight maps (as indicated in the legend). Right: p-values of R ℓmax as a function of ℓmax. The baseline choice ℓmax = 27 (vertical dotted line) gives slightly more significant p-values than higher values of ℓmax…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Multipole vectors (MVs, filled markers) and oriented area vectors (OAVs, open markers) of the quadrupole (squares) and octopole (diamonds) obtained for the three sky cuts (as indicated in the legend) for all eight maps. The temperature maps at Nside = 128 are shown in …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized local-variance map, ˜σ 2 θ (ˆn), Eq. (14), measured within 8◦ disks applying the 1% mask for all eight maps. The local-variance dipole directions are indicated as the markers for the three different sky cuts (indicated in the legend) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    Abdalla, E., et al. 2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  2. [2]

    Adhikari, S., Shandera, S., & Erickcek, A. L. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 023524, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.023524

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.023524 2016

  3. [3]

    2014, Astrophys

    Akrami, Y., Fantaye, Y., Shafieloo, A., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 784, L42, 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L42

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/l42 2014

  4. [4]

    2013, Mon

    Aurich, R., & Lustig, S. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 433, 2517, 10.1093/mnras/stt924

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt924 2013

  5. [5]

    LiteBIRD Science Goals and Forecasts. $E$-mode Anomalies

    Banday, A. J., et al. 2025. 2508.16451

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    L., Smoot , G

    Bennett , C. L., Smoot , G. F., Hinshaw , G., et al. 1992, , 396, L7, 10.1086/186505

    doi:10.1086/186505 1992

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 148, 1, 10.1086/377253

    doi:10.1086/377253 2003

  8. [8]

    2013, Astrophys

    ---. 2013, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 208, 20, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    2011, PolSpice: Spatially Inhomogeneous Correlation Estimator for Temperature and Polarisation , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1109.005

    Challinor , A., Chon , G., Colombi , S., et al. 2011, PolSpice: Spatially Inhomogeneous Correlation Estimator for Temperature and Polarisation , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1109.005

    2011

  2. [10]

    K., Knox, L., et al

    Chu, M., Eriksen, H. K., Knox, L., et al. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 103002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.103002

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Huterer, D., Schwarz, D

    Copi, C. J., Huterer, D., Schwarz, D. J., & Starkman, G. D. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 367, 79, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09980.x

    2006

  4. [12]

    2009, Mon

    ---. 2009, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 399, 295, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15270.x

    2009

  5. [13]

    2015, Mon

    ---. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 449, 3458, 10.1093/mnras/stv501

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Huterer, D., & Starkman, G

    Copi, C. J., Huterer, D., & Starkman, G. D. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 043515, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.043515

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    2004, Phys

    de Oliveira-Costa, A., Tegmark, M., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hamilton, A. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 063516, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063516

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Sanchez, N

    Destri, C., de Vega, H. J., & Sanchez, N. G. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 023013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023013

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    C., M \"u nchmeyer, M., & Terrana, A

    Deutsch, A.-S., Dimastrogiovanni, E., Johnson, M. C., M \"u nchmeyer, M., & Terrana, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 123501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123501

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2025, 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101965

    Di Valentino, E., et al. 2025, 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101965

    2025

  11. [20]

    L., Carroll, S

    Erickcek, A. L., Carroll, S. M., & Kamionkowski, M. 2008 a , Phys. Rev. D, 78, 083012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.083012

    2008 doi

  12. [21]

    L., Kamionkowski, M., & Carroll, S

    Erickcek, A. L., Kamionkowski, M., & Carroll, S. M. 2008 b , Phys. Rev. D, 78, 123520, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123520

    2008 doi

  13. [22]

    K., Hansen, F

    Eriksen, H. K., Hansen, F. K., Banday, A. J., Gorski, K. M., & Lilje, P. B. 2004, Astrophys. J., 605, 14, 10.1086/382267

    2004 doi

  14. [24]

    Gordon, C., Hu, W., Huterer, D., & Crawford, T. M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 103002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.103002

    2005 doi

  15. [26]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  16. [27]

    2014, Mon

    Gruppuso, A. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 437, 2076, 10.1093/mnras/stt1937

    2014 doi

  17. [28]

    2011, Mon

    Gruppuso, A., Finelli, F., Natoli, P., et al. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 411, 1445, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17773.x

    2011

  18. [29]

    K., Cabella, P., Marinucci, D., & Vittorio, N

    Hansen, F. K., Cabella, P., Marinucci, D., & Vittorio, N. 2004, Astrophys. J. Lett., 607, L67, 10.1086/421904

    2004 doi

  19. [30]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  20. [31]

    G., et al

    Hauser, M. G., et al. 1998, Astrophys. J., 508, 25, 10.1086/306379

    1998 doi

  21. [32]

    J., Bennett, C

    Hinshaw, G., Banday, A. J., Bennett, C. L., et al. 1996, Astrophys. J. Lett., 464, L25, 10.1086/310076

    1996 doi

  22. [33]

    S., Selub, N., & Wehlen, F

    Hogan, C., Kwon, O., Meyer, S. S., Selub, N., & Wehlen, F. 2023. 2312.16147

    2023

  23. [34]

    Hogan, C., & Meyer, S. S. 2022, Class. Quant. Grav., 39, 055004, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac4829

    2022 doi

  24. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  25. [36]

    T., & Silk, J

    Inoue, K. T., & Silk, J. 2006, Astrophys. J., 648, 23, 10.1086/505636

    2006 doi

  26. [37]

    J., Starkman, G

    Jones, J., Copi, C. J., Starkman, G. D., & Akrami, Y. 2023. 2310.12859

    2023

  27. [38]

    G., et al

    Jung, G., Aghanim, N., Sorce, J. G., et al. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 692, A180, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451238

    2024 doi

  28. [39]

    2003, Phys

    Kamionkowski, M., & Knox, L. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 063001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.063001

    2003 doi

  29. [40]

    1997, Phys

    Kamionkowski, M., & Loeb, A. 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 4511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4511

    1997 doi

  30. [41]

    2010 a , Astrophys

    Kim, J., & Naselsky, P. 2010 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 714, L265, 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L265

    2010 doi

  31. [42]

    2010 b , Phys

    ---. 2010 b , Phys. Rev. D, 82, 063002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063002

    2010 doi

  32. [43]

    Kobayashi, T., Cort\^es, M., & Liddle, A. R. 2015, JCAP, 05, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/05/029

    2015 doi

  33. [44]

    2009, Astrophys

    Komatsu, E., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 180, 330, 10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/330

    2009 doi

  34. [45]

    2005, Phys

    Land, K., & Magueijo, J. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 101302, 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.101302

    2005 doi

  35. [46]

    M., & Naselsky, P

    Liu, H., Frejsel, A. M., & Naselsky, P. 2013, JCAP, 07, 032, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/07/032

    2013 doi

  36. [47]

    2018, Phys

    Muir, J., Adhikari, S., & Huterer, D. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023521, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023521

    2018 doi

  37. [48]

    Nofi, H., C., Addison, G., E., Bennet, C., L., Herold, L., & Weiland, J. L. 2025 a , in prep

    2025

  38. [49]

    2025 b , in prep

    ---. 2025 b , in prep

    2025

  39. [50]

    2015, JCAP, 06, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/06/047

    Notari, A., & Quartin, M. 2015, JCAP, 06, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/06/047

    2015 doi

  40. [51]

    A., Pereira, T

    Oliveira, R. A., Pereira, T. S., & Quartin, M. 2020, Phys. Dark Univ., 30, 100608, 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100608

    2020

  41. [52]

    K., Aluri, P

    Patel, S. K., Aluri, P. K., & Ralston, J. P. 2024. 2405.03024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [53]

    Pinkwart, M., & Schwarz, D. J. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083536, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083536

    2018 doi

  43. [54]

    2020, Astron

    Planck Collaboration IV . 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833881

    2020 doi

  44. [55]

    2020, Astron

    Planck Collaboration V . 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936386

    2020 doi

  45. [56]

    2020, Astron

    Planck Collaboration VI . 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  46. [57]

    2020, Astron

    Planck Collaboration VII . 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935201

    2020 doi

  47. [58]

    2014, Astron

    Planck Collaboration XIII . 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 571, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321553

    2014 doi

  48. [59]

    2016, Astron

    Planck Collaboration XVI . 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 594, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526681

    2016 doi

  49. [60]

    2014, Astron

    Planck Collaboration XXIII . 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 571, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321534

    2014 doi

  50. [61]

    Pontzen, A., & Peiris, H. V. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 103008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.103008

    2010 doi

  51. [62]

    A., & Kinney, W

    Powell, B. A., & Kinney, W. H. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 063512, 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.063512

    2007 doi

  52. [63]

    Rakic, A., Rasanen, S., & Schwarz, D. J. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 369, L27, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00167.x

    2006

  53. [64]

    2012, Phys

    Ramirez, E. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 103517, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.103517

    2012 doi

  54. [65]

    Rassat, A., & Starck, J. L. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 557, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321537

    2013 doi

  55. [66]

    J., Bigot-Sazy, M

    Remazeilles, M., Dickinson, C., Banday, A. J., Bigot-Sazy, M. A., & Ghosh, T. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 451, 4311, 10.1093/mnras/stv1274

    2015 doi

  56. [67]

    G., Pereira, T

    Rodrigues, R. G., Pereira, T. S., & Quartin, M. 2025, JCAP, 06, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/06/039

    2025 doi

  57. [68]

    E., Eriksen, H

    Rudjord, O., Groeneboom, N. E., Eriksen, H. K., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J., 692, 1669, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1669

    2009 doi

  58. [69]

    K., Aluri, P

    Sanyal, S., Patel, S. K., Aluri, P. K., & Shafieloo, A. 2024. 2411.15786

    2024

  59. [70]

    J., Copi, C

    Schwarz, D. J., Copi, C. J., Huterer, D., & Starkman, G. D. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 184001, 10.1088/0264-9381/33/18/184001

    2016 doi

  60. [71]

    J., Starkman, G

    Schwarz, D. J., Starkman, G. D., Huterer, D., & Copi, C. J. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 221301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.221301

    2004 doi

  61. [72]

    2023, Astrophys

    Shi, R., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 945, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb339

    2023 doi

  62. [73]

    2004, Phys

    Slosar, A., & Seljak, U. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.083002

    2004 doi

  63. [74]

    F., Copi, C

    Smith, A. F., Copi, C. J., & Starkman, G. D. 2025, JCAP, 01, 005, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/005

    2025 doi

  64. [75]

    F., et al

    Smoot, G. F., et al. 1992, Astrophys. J. Lett., 396, L1, 10.1086/186504

    1992 doi

  65. [76]

    N., et al

    Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 148, 175, 10.1086/377226

    2003 doi

  66. [77]

    S., & Bond, J

    Szapudi, I., Prunet, S., Pogosyan, D., Szalay, A. S., & Bond, J. R. 2000. astro-ph/0010256

    2000 arXiv

  67. [78]

    B., Sanz, J

    Vielva, P., Martinez-Gonzalez, E., Barreiro, R. B., Sanz, J. L., & Cayon, L. 2004, Astrophys. J., 609, 22, 10.1086/421007

    2004 doi

  68. [79]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  69. [80]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.