Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Removing the low-ℓ EE polarization data from CMB analyses shifts the inferred dark-energy equation of state toward quintessence (w > −1), and for the JBP parameterization the entire 1σ band lies above w = −1.

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

2026-08-03 02:05 UTC pith:UK4CELJH

load-bearing objection Abstract's JBP 'entirely quintessence at 1σ' claim does not survive the paper's own tables; otherwise a competent, useful likelihood rerun. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.15603 v2 pith:UK4CELJH submitted 2026-06-14 astro-ph.CO

Impact of CMB low-ell EE polarization data on dark energy parameterizations

Shubham Barua , Shantanu Desai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords dark energy equation of statereionization optical depthCMB E-mode polarizationA_s–τ_reio degeneracyCPL parameterizationJBP parameterizationBA parameterizationDESI BAO
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.

The paper asks whether the CMB's large-scale E-mode polarization data—the measurements that set the optical depth to reionization, τ_reio—are silently shaping the recent evidence for dynamical dark energy. Using Planck and ACT DR6 CMB data with DESI BAO and PantheonPlus supernovae, the authors fit three dark-energy parameterizations (CPL, JBP, BA) with and without the low-ℓ EE likelihood. They find that dropping low-ℓ EE leaves the A_s–τ_reio degeneracy unbroken, pushing both parameters upward and moving the equation of state w(z) toward the quintessence region (w > −1) in all three models; for JBP the entire 1σ band lies at w > −1. If this sensitivity is real, the phantom-like dark energy preferred by recent DESI-based analyses could be partially calibrated by how the reionization depth is measured.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that the low-multipole (ℓ < 30) EE polarization data—the same data that pin down τ_reio—leave a measurable imprint on dark-energy constraints. When these data are removed, τ_reio and A_s drift upward through the unbroken A_s e^(−2τ_reio) degeneracy, and the equation-of-state parameters w0, wa respond: in all three parameterizations (CPL, JBP, BA) w(z) moves toward quintessence (w > −1). The effect is largest for JBP, whose 1σ EOS band lies entirely above w = −1. The authors trace the mechanism to strengthened correlations of wa with A_s and τ_reio, and they show that model-comparison evidence for CPL and BA over ΛCDM (positive by AIC, strong by DIC when low-ℓ EE is inc

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the A_s–τ_reio degeneracy: at small scales the CMB spectra are damped by a factor e^(−2τ_reio), so the primordial amplitude A_s and the reionization optical depth τ_reio trade off against each other. Low-ℓ EE data break this degeneracy by measuring the reionization bump directly; removing them leaves the degeneracy unbroken, letting τ_reio (and with it A_s) shift upward. This shift propagates to the dark-energy equation of state through the strengthened w_a–A_s and w_a–τ_reio correlations, which push w(z) toward w > −1.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumed prior for τ_reio (0.03 to 0.1) doing the constraining work when the low-ℓ EE data are removed: several posterior distributions end up truncated against that prior, so the upward τ_reio/A_s shift that pushes the equation of state toward quintessence is partly a product of where the prior is cut.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis with a materially wider τ_reio prior (e.g., 0.01–0.3) and with an independent τ_reio constraint (e.g., from 21-cm or kinetic SZ measurements) to see whether the JBP 1σ quintessence band and the CPL/BA phantom preference persist; if either the wide-prior run or a high-precision external τ measurement moves them back, the low-ℓ EE dependence is prior-driven rather than a genuine EOS shift.

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

If this is right

  • Excluding low-ℓ EE raises τ_reio and A_s by about 1.4–1.8σ for ΛCDM and JBP, and about 1σ for CPL and BA, with substantially wider error bars.
  • For all three parameterizations, the dark-energy equation of state shifts toward the quintessence region (w(z) > −1); JBP's entire 1σ band sits there.
  • σ8 shifts upward by about 1.5σ for ΛCDM when low-ℓ EE is removed, but not for the DE parameterizations, whose extra w0–wa freedom absorbs the pull.
  • AIC evidence for CPL and BA over ΛCDM is positive, and for JBP weak, regardless of whether low-ℓ EE data are included; DIC evidence is stronger when low-ℓ EE is included.
  • The allowed amplitude of the reionization bump grows by roughly an order of magnitude when low-ℓ EE data are excluded, reflecting the loss of the direct polarization constraint.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the direction of the shift is read physically, the current evidence for phantom-like dark energy (w < −1) in CPL/BA fits may be partly a by-product of the low-ℓ EE measurement: a higher true τ_reio would push the inferred EOS toward quintessence and could soften the DESI dynamical-dark-energy claim.
  • A sharp independent τ_reio measurement (e.g., from 21-cm or kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich data) would discriminate: with τ ≈ 0.06 the phantom preference should return, while τ ≈ 0.09 should push the EOS toward ΛCDM.
  • The paper's Appendix C shows the EOS drift is present with the DESY5 SNe sample as well, but the (w0, wa) contours move further from ΛCDM; a single consistent SNe calibration could therefore change the magnitude of the quintessence shift.
  • Because the τ_reio prior upper bound is fixed at 0.1 and some posteriors sit at that edge, the reported quintessence shift may be partly prior-induced; re-running with a wider or differently-motivated prior would test that.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper fits ΛCDM and three dark-energy parameterizations (CPL, JBP, BA) to CMB data from Planck and ACT DR6, combined with DESI DR2 BAO and PantheonPlus SNe, with and without the low-ℓ EE polarization likelihood. The authors report shifts in τ_reio, A_s, σ_8, and the DE equation of state when low-ℓ EE is excluded, and they perform AIC/DIC model comparison relative to ΛCDM. The principal claim is that excluding low-ℓ EE moves the EOS toward the quintessence regime (w(z)>−1), with the JBP parameterization said to lie entirely within the quintessence regime at 1σ when low-ℓ EE is excluded.

Significance. If the headline claim were quantitatively correct, the paper would be a useful systematic check on DESI-based dynamical-dark-energy evidence, because it would show that the current low-ℓ EE constraint on τ_reio may be shaping the inferred w(z). The analysis uses standard public codes, reports per-likelihood χ² contributions, provides correlation heatmaps, and includes an additional DESY5 SNe robustness appendix. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the paper's own tables, and a prior-boundary issue affects the interpretation of the τ_reio/A_s shifts. The underlying pipeline and qualitative direction of the effect may be salvageable, but the conclusions need correction and additional robustness testing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §IV, Fig. 4c] The headline claim that for JBP the EOS lies entirely within the quintessence regime at 1σ when low-ℓ EE is excluded is contradicted by Tables 2 and 3. For ACT DR6 without low-ℓ EE, w0=−0.841±0.077 and wa=−0.80±0.47. The JBP shape function f(z)=z/(1+z)^2 gives f(1)=0.25, so the central value at z=1 is w0+0.25 wa = −1.041, already below −1. Including the reported strong negative w0–wa correlation (Fig. 6, JBP without EE: ρ≈−0.95) moves the 1σ band further below −1. For Planck without low-ℓ EE (Table 3), the central value is −0.881 −0.25×0.59 = −1.028. The claim is therefore unsupported by the reported numbers. Please recompute the w(z) posterior from the chains and either correct the abstract/conclusions or reconcile the tables and figures.
  2. [§III Table 1; Tables 2–3] The prior τ_reio∈[0.03,0.1] becomes an effective constraint when low-ℓ EE is removed. Several no-low-ℓ posteriors pile up at the upper boundary and are reported as lower limits (e.g., ACT ΛCDM τ>0.0821, ACT JBP τ>0.0806, Planck JBP τ>0.0782). The upward shifts in τ_reio and A_s, and hence the EOS movement, are therefore partly driven by the chosen prior cutoff, not purely by the data. The paper should test robustness to the upper bound (e.g., extend to τ_reio≤0.2 or use an alternative reionization prior) and quantify the posterior mass at the boundary. Without this, the quoted (1.4–1.8)σ A_s shifts and the EOS trend cannot be interpreted as purely data-driven.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The CPL no-low-ℓ z_reio entry is printed as '0.71+1.60−0.80'; this is missing a leading digit, presumably 9.71.
  2. [Table 3] The JBP τ_reio with low-ℓ EE is listed as 0.0626±0.61; the error is likely 0.0061, not 0.61.
  3. [Fig. 7] The caption says Planck+BAO+SNe, but panel (a) is labeled ACT DR6. Please correct the caption.
  4. [§III, Eqs. (4)–(6)] The DIC definition should clarify that χ² is used as −2lnL up to an additive constant and that p_D is computed from MCMC χ² values. The current text is easy to misread regarding the sign convention.
  5. [§II, Table 1] The CPL condition w0+wa<0 is stated in the text but not listed in the prior table. Please state explicitly whether this is enforced as a hard prior or a post-processing cut.
  6. [Conclusions; Appendix C] Appendix C shows substantial SNe-sample dependence (e.g., JBP w0 changes from −0.841 with PantheonPlus to −0.691 with DESY5 for ACT without low-ℓ EE). This caveat should appear in the main conclusions, not only as a forward-looking remark.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is an MCMC fitting exercise on independent public data; the only co-author citation is a standard model-selection reference and is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is an observational fitting study, not an analytical derivation: cosmological parameters, EOS curves, and ΔAIC/ΔDIC values are obtained by running CLASS/Cobaya on public Planck, ACT DR6, DESI BAO, and PantheonPlus data. The central comparison — including versus excluding low-ℓ EE polarization — is a dataset split, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The dark-energy parameterizations (CPL, JBP, BA) are standard literature forms, and the model-comparison criteria are standard AIC/DIC definitions restated in Eqs. (3)–(6). The one co-author self-citation ([77], Krishak & Desai) is used only as a reference among several for those standard criteria; it does not inject the result and the paper would be unchanged if it were removed. The concerns raised about the JBP 'entirely within quintessence at 1σ' claim and the τ_reio prior boundary are internal-consistency / prior-robustness issues, not circularity: they concern whether a posterior summary is supported by the reported numbers, not whether the output is equivalent to the input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard cosmological fitting assumptions and on the choice and priors of the public likelihoods. No new entities are introduced. The τ_reio prior is the most consequential ad hoc input because it controls the size of the upward shifts when low-ℓ EE is removed.

free parameters (5)
  • ln(10^10 A_s) = e.g., ACT no-low-ℓ ΛCDM: 2.212e-9
    Primordial amplitude; central to the A_s–τ_reio degeneracy shift claim.
  • τ_reio = e.g., ACT no-low-ℓ ΛCDM: >0.0821
    Optical depth to reionization; when low-ℓ EE is removed the posterior is truncated by the prior U[0.03,0.1].
  • w0 = e.g., JBP ACT no-low-ℓ: -0.841±0.077
    Dark-energy EOS parameter; drives the quintessence-shift claim.
  • wa = e.g., JBP ACT no-low-ℓ: -0.80±0.47
    Dark-energy EOS evolution parameter; its correlations with A_s and τ_reio are the paper's proposed mechanism.
  • Ωb h², Ωc h², 100θs, n_s
    Standard base cosmological parameters varied in the MCMC; not central to the headline claims but part of the fit.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat universe (Ωk=0).
    Sec. II sets Ωk=0 after Eq. (2). The analysis does not test curvature.
  • domain assumption One massive neutrino with Σmν = 0.06 eV.
    Sec. III fixes the neutrino mass to the minimal normal hierarchy value.
  • ad hoc to paper Prior τ_reio ∈ [0.03, 0.1].
    Table 1. With low-ℓ EE removed, this prior becomes the effective upper constraint and may truncate posteriors (e.g., ACT ΛCDM τ>0.0821).
  • domain assumption CPL prior w0 + wa < 0.
    Sec. II imposes this so dark energy is subdominant at early times; it restricts the CPL parameter space.
  • standard math Standard Boltzmann/background cosmology: H²(z) and fDE(z) in Eqs. (1)-(2).
    The Friedmann equations and the dark-energy density expression are taken as given background.
  • domain assumption The sroll2 likelihood is the only low-ℓ EE constraint used.
    Sec. III: for both Planck and ACT, the low-ℓ EE likelihood is provided by the 2019 sroll2 release; removing it is the key dataset cut.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23124 in / 14896 out tokens · 164581 ms · 2026-08-03T02:05:12.955701+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Measurement of the optical depth to reionization ($\tau_\mathrm{reio}$) is largely driven by the large-scale EE polarization data of CMB ($\ell<30$). Removing the low-$\ell$ EE data potentially alleviates various cosmological tensions. In this work, we study the effect of the low-$\ell$ EE polarization measurements on the CPL, JBP and BA dark energy parameterizations using CMB data from Planck and ACT DR6, combined with DESI BAO and PantheonPlus compilation of Type Ia supernovae. We find that excluding low-$\ell$ EE data shifts $\tau_\mathrm{reio}$ and $A_s$ to higher values through the unbroken $A_s-\tau_\mathrm{reio}$ degeneracy with a $\sim(1.4-1.8)\sigma$ shift in $A_s$ for $\Lambda$CDM and JBP, and a milder $\sim 1\sigma$ shift for CPL and BA. The equation of state (EOS) for all three parameterizations moves towards the quintessence regime ($w(z) > -1$) upon exclusion of low-$\ell$ EE data, driven primarily by the strengthening of the $w_a-A_s$ and the $w_a-\tau_\mathrm{reio}$ correlations, with a small effect from the correlations of $w_0$ with $A_s$ and $\tau_\mathrm{reio}$. The most prominent effect occurs in JBP, where the EOS lies entirely within the quintessence regime at $1\sigma$ when excluding low-$\ell$ EE data. Model comparison through AIC shows positive evidence in favor of CPL and BA and weak evidence in favor of JBP, robust to the inclusion of low-$\ell$ EE data and CMB data used. DIC model comparison shows strong evidence in favor of CPL and BA when low-$\ell$ EE data is included, and positive evidence when it is excluded. For JBP, we get positive (weak) evidence when including (excluding) low-$\ell$ EE data over $\Lambda$CDM.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. E. Robertson, R. S. Ellis, J. S. Dunlop, R. J. McLure, and D. P. Stark, Nature468, 49 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Loeb and R

    A. Loeb and R. Barkana, Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics39, 19 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    T. R. Choudhury, General Relativity and Gravitation54, 102 (2022), 2209.08558

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Mesinger and Z

    A. Mesinger and Z. Haiman, Astrophys. J.660, 923 (2007), astro-ph/0610258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    F. B. Davies, J. F. Hennawi, E. Ba˜ nados, Z. Luki´ c, R. De- carli, X. Fan, E. P. Farina, C. Mazzucchelli, H.-W. Rix, B. P. Venemans, et al., The Astrophysical Journal864, 142 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    C. A. Mason, T. Treu, M. Dijkstra, A. Mesinger, M. Trenti, L. Pentericci, S. de Barros, and E. Vanzella, Astrophys. J.856, 2 (2018), 1709.05356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Greig, A

    B. Greig, A. Mesinger, F. B. Davies, F. Wang, J. Yang, and J. F. Hennawi, MNRAS512, 5390 (2022), 2112.04091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Umeda, M

    H. Umeda, M. Ouchi, K. Nakajima, Y. Harikane, Y. Ono, Y. Xu, Y. Isobe, and Y. Zhang, The Astrophysical Jour- nal971, 124 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    X. Jin, J. Yang, X. Fan, F. Wang, E. Ba˜ nados, F. Bian, F. B. Davies, A.-C. Eilers, E. P. Farina, J. F. Hennawi, et al., The Astrophysical Journal942, 59 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    I. D. McGreer, A. Mesinger, and V. D’Odorico, MNRAS 447, 499 (2015), 1411.5375

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Sobacchi and A

    E. Sobacchi and A. Mesinger, MNRAS453, 1843 (2015), 1505.02787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Ouchi, K

    M. Ouchi, K. Shimasaku, H. Furusawa, T. Saito, M. Yoshida, M. Akiyama, Y. Ono, T. Yamada, K. Ota, N. Kashikawa, et al., The Astrophysical Journal723, 869 (2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    O. Zahn, C. L. Reichardt, L. Shaw, A. Lidz, K. A. Aird, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, H. M. Cho, et al., Astrophys. J.756, 65 (2012), 1111.6386

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    K. M. Smith and S. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 021301 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Raghunathan, P

    S. Raghunathan, P. Ade, A. Anderson, B. Ansarinejad, M. Archipley, J. Austermann, L. Balkenhol, J. Beall, K. Benabed, A. Bender, et al., Physical review letters 133, 121004 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    R. Cen, P. McDonald, H. Trac, and A. Loeb, The Astro- physical Journal706, L164 (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    Abdurashidova, J

    Z. Abdurashidova, J. E. Aguirre, P. Alexander, Z. S. Ali, Y. Balfour, A. P. Beardsley, G. Bernardi, T. S. Billings, J. D. Bowman, R. F. Bradley, et al., Astrophys. J.925, 221 (2022), 2108.02263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Ghara, S

    R. Ghara, S. Zaroubi, B. Ciardi, G. Mellema, S. K. Giri, F. Mertens, M. Mevius, L. Koopmans, I. Iliev, A. Acharya, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics699, A109 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Jakobsen, P

    P. Jakobsen, P. Ferruit, C. Alves de Oliveira, S. Ar- ribas, G. Bagnasco, R. Barho, T. L. Beck, S. Birkmann, T. B¨ oker, A. J. Bunker, et al., Astron. & Astrophys.661, A80 (2022), 2202.03305

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    G. S. Wright, G. H. Rieke, A. Glasse, M. Ressler, M. Garc ´ ıa Mar ´ ın, J. Aguilar, S. Alberts, J. ´Alvarez- M´ arquez, I. Argyriou, K. Banks, et al., Pub. Astro. Soc. Pac.135, 048003 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Louis, A

    T. Louis, A. La Posta, Z. Atkins, H. T. Jense, I. Abril- Cabezas, G. E. Addison, P. A. R. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Alford, D. Alonso, et al., JCAP2025, 062 (2025), 2503.14452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    MacCrann, B

    N. MacCrann, B. D. Sherwin, F. J. Qu, T. Namikawa, M. S. Madhavacheril, I. Abril-Cabezas, R. An, J. E. Austermann, N. Battaglia, E. S. Battistelli, et al., The Astrophysical Journal966, 138 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, M. S. Madhavacheril, D. Han, K. T. Crowley, I. Abril-Cabezas, P. A. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Alford, M. Amiri, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 962, 112 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. Mac- Crann, Y. Li, I. Abril-Cabezas, P. A. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Al- ford, M. Amiri, et al., The Astrophysical Journal962, 113 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Camphuis, W

    E. Camphuis, W. Quan, L. Balkenhol, A. R. Khalife, F. Ge, F. Guidi, N. Huang, G. P. Lynch, Y. Omori, C. Trendafilova, et al., Phys. Rev. D113, 083504 (2026), 2506.20707

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Carlstrom, P

    J. Carlstrom, P. A. Ade, K. Aird, B. Benson, L. Bleem, S. Busetti, C. Chang, E. Chauvin, H.-M. Cho, T. Craw- ford, et al., Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific123, 568 (2011)

    2011

  27. [27]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Astron. & Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), 1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    F. J. Qu, F. Ge, W. K. Wu, I. Abril-Cabezas, M. S. Madhavacheril, M. Millea, Z. Ahmed, E. Anderes, A. J. Anderson, B. Ansarinejad, et al., Physical Review Letters 136, 021001 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, J. Mirocha, J. Chisholm, S. R. Furlanetto, and C. Mason, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society: Letters535, L37 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Curtis-Lake, S

    E. Curtis-Lake, S. Carniani, A. Cameron, S. Char- lot, P. Jakobsen, R. Maiolino, A. Bunker, J. Witstok, R. Smit, J. Chevallard, et al., Nature Astronomy7, 622 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Llerena, L

    M. Llerena, L. Pentericci, L. Napolitano, S. Mascia, R. Amor ´ ın, A. Calabr` o, M. Castellano, N. Cleri, M. Gi- avalisco, N. Grogin, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 698, A302 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Umeda, M

    H. Umeda, M. Ouchi, Y. Kageura, Y. Harikane, M. Nakane, T. T. Thai, and K. Nakajima, Astrophys. J.997, 86 (2026), 2504.04683

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Cohon, C

    J. Cohon, C. Cain, R. Windhorst, A. D’Aloisio, T. Car- leton, and Y. Zhu, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.05739 (2025), 2508.05739

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Giar` e, E

    W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D109, 103519 (2024), 2312.06482

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Endsley, D

    R. Endsley, D. P. Stark, L. Whitler, M. W. Topping, B. D. Johnson, B. Robertson, S. Tacchella, S. Alberts, W. M. Baker, R. Bhatawdekar, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society533, 1111 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Simmonds, S

    C. Simmonds, S. Tacchella, K. Hainline, B. Johnson, 15 T able 6: 68% credible intervals for cosmological parameters for ACT DR6 CMB+BAO+DESY5 dataset combination (including low-ℓEE data). Parameters ΛCDM CPL JBP BA low-lEE no low-lEE low-lEE no low-lEE low-lEE no low-lEE low-lEE no low-lEE 100Ωbh2 2.261±0.016 2.259±0.016 2.259±0.016 2.260±0.016 2.261±0.01...

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    McQuinn, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics54, 313 (2016)

    M. McQuinn, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics54, 313 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    B. E. Robertson, R. S. Ellis, S. R. Furlanetto, and J. S. Dunlop, The Astrophysical Journal Letters802, L19 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    Elbers, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.21069 (2025), 2508.21069

    W. Elbers, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.21069 (2025), 2508.21069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Allende Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), 2503.14738. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Garcia-Quintero, H

    C. Garcia-Quintero, H. E. Noriega, A. de Mattia, A. Aviles, K. Lodha, D. Chebat, J. Rohlf, S. Nadathur, W. Elbers, J. Aguilar, et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 083529 (2025), 2504.18464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, and E. N. Saridakis, Universe5, 219 (2019), 1811.06932

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, The Astrophysical Journal976, 1 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    S. R. Choudhury, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15340 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and L. Yin, Physical Review D104, 023510 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    C.-G. Park, J. d. C. Perez, and B. Ratra, Physical Review D110, 123533 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Herold and T

    L. Herold and T. Karwal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12004 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Park and B

    C.-G. Park and B. Ratra, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03480 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    J. d. C. P´ erez, C.-G. Park, and B. Ratra, Physical Review D110, 023506 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D10, 213 (2001), gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  51. [51]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), astro- ph/0208512

    arXiv 2003

  52. [52]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.16932 (2025), 2504.16932

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, and W. Hu, Physical Review D 112, 043541 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    I. J. Allali, P. Singh, J. Fan, and L. Li, JCAP2025, 082 (2025), 2503.05691

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D72, 103503 (2005), astro-ph/0506748

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [56]

    E. M. Barboza and J. S. Alcaniz, Physics Letters B666, 415 (2008), 0805.1713

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    Zheng, D.-C

    J. Zheng, D.-C. Qiang, and Z.-Q. You, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 056 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D. O. Jones, N. Ali, P. Charvu, R. Chen, et al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 113 (2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, et al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Akrami, F

    Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Bac- cigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. Banday, R. Barreiro, N. Bar- tolo, S. Basak, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06205 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Calabrese, J

    E. Calabrese, J. C. Hill, H. T. Jense, A. La Posta, I. Abril-Cabezas, G. E. Addison, P. A. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Alford, D. Alonso, et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 063 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A5 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00483 (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  64. [64]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society517, 4620 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    Delouis, L

    J.-M. Delouis, L. Pagano, S. Mottet, J.-L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astron. & Astrophys.629, A38 (2019), 1901.11386

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Delouis, L

    J.-M. Delouis, L. Pagano, S. Mottet, J.-L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astronomy & Astrophysics629, A38 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2022, 039 (2022)

    2022

  68. [68]

    Lesgourgues, arXiv preprint arXiv:1104.2932 (2011)

    J. Lesgourgues, arXiv preprint arXiv:1104.2932 (2011)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2011, 034 (2011)

    2011

  70. [70]

    Mead, HMcode: Halo-model matter power spectrum computation, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1508.001 (2015), 1508.001

    A. Mead, HMcode: Halo-model matter power spectrum computation, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1508.001 (2015), 1508.001

    2015

  71. [71]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2021, 057 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019 (2019), 1910.019

    1910

  73. [73]

    Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 025 (2025)

    A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 025 (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    M. Kunz, R. Trotta, and D. R. Parkinson, Phys. Rev. D 74, 023503 (2006), astro-ph/0602378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  75. [75]

    Biesiada, JCAP2007, 003 (2007), astro-ph/0701721

    M. Biesiada, JCAP2007, 003 (2007), astro-ph/0701721

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    A. R. Liddle, MNRAS377, L74 (2007), astro- ph/0701113

    arXiv 2007

  77. [77]

    Krishak and S

    A. Krishak and S. Desai, JCAP2020, 006 (2020), 2003.10127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Popovic, P

    B. Popovic, P. Shah, W. Kenworthy, R. Kessler, T. Davis, A. Goobar, D. Scolnic, M. Vincenzi, P. Wiseman, R. Chen, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society548, stag632 (2026)

    2026

  79. [79]

    D. C. T. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alar- con, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, P. Armstrong, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters973, L14 (2024)

    2024

  80. [80]

    Dai and W

    Y. Dai and W. Liao, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2605.10116 (2026), 2605.10116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026