Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 121 references

LiteBIRD will measure the dust temperature to about 0.2 K, dust and synchrotron spectral indices to about 0.006 and 0.04, and the dust–synchrotron correlation to about 0.01, while detecting the spectral distortions that break the simple pow

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 10:49 UTC pith:5EIXWM4T

load-bearing objection Careful, honest LiteBIRD forecast with a load-bearing but fixable caveat: the headline parameter errors depend on subtracting foreground sample variance, and that dependence is never quantified. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20080 v1 pith:5EIXWM4T submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Galactic Science with the LiteBIRD satellite: Spectral characterization of diffuse Galactic polarized emission at the angular power spectrum level

S. Vinzl , J. Aumont , L. Vacher , R. T. G\'enova-Santos , D. Adak , A. Rizzieri , H. Akamatsu , E. Allys
show 103 more authors
A. Anand C. Baccigalupi M. Ballardini A. J. Banday R. B. Barreiro N. Bartolo S. Basak A. Basyrov M. Bersanelli N. Brancadori T. Brinckmann E. Calabrese P. Campeti A. Carones F. Carralot F. J. Casas J. Chandran M. Citran F. Columbro A. Coppolecchia P. de Bernardis E. de la Hoz M. De Lucia S. Della Torre C. Dickinson P. Diego-Palazuelos K. Ebisawa H. K. Eriksen J. Errard F. Finelli C. Franceschet U. Fuskeland G. Galloni M. Galloway M. Gerbino M. Gervasi T. Ghigna S. Giardiello E. Gjerl{\o}w M. Gomes S. E. Harper L. T. Hergt E. Hivon H. Ishino K. Kikuno K. Kohri N. Krachmalnicoff L. Lamagna M. Lattanzi C. Leloup F. Levrier A. I. Lonappan M. L\'opez-Caniego G. Luzzi D. Maino V. Maranchery S. Masi S. Matarrese T. Matsumura S. Micheli M. Migliaccio M. Monelli L. Montier G. Morgante L. Mousset R. Nagata T. Namikawa P. Natoli A. Occhiuzzi L. Pagano A. Paiella D. Paoletti G. Pascual-Cisneros G. Patanchon V. Pavlidou V. Pelgrims F. Piacentini G. Piccirilli M. Pinchera G. Polenta L. Porcelli M. Remazeilles J. A. Rubi\~no-Mart\'in M. Ruiz-Granda Y. Sakurai L. Salvati J. Sanghavi V. Sauvage Y. Sekimoto M. Shiraishi S. Stellati R. M. Sullivan R. Takahashi A. Tartari K. Tassis K. Tateoka L. Terenzi M. Tomasi M. Tristram B. van Tent P. Vielva G. Weymann-Despres E. J. Wollack (for the LiteBIRD Collaboration)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic microwave backgroundB-mode polarizationgalactic foregroundspolarized dustsynchrotronLiteBIRDspectral energy distributionmoment expansion
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 is trying to establish that LiteBIRD, a space mission built to hunt primordial CMB B-modes, will double as a precision Galactic polarimetry instrument. Using simulated observations spanning 40 to 402 GHz, it shows that cross-frequency angular power spectra can pin down the temperature of emitting dust, the spectral indices of dust and synchrotron radiation, and the spatial correlation between the two components at high Galactic latitudes. It further claims that at this sensitivity the standard power-law description of foreground power spectra fails, and that the remaining distortions—known as E/B and T/P discrepancies—can be detected and modeled for the first time. The payoff, if true, is a new window on the three-dimensional structure of the magnetized interstellar medium, not just a cleaner CMB.

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the statistical information in LiteBIRD's frequency cross-spectra is sufficient to separate and characterize the two dominant polarized foregrounds, thermal dust and synchrotron, at quantitative levels that were impossible before. Concretely, the forecasts yield parameter dispersions per multipole bin as low as σ(T_d) ≈ 0.2 K, σ(β_d) ≈ 0.006, σ(β_s) ≈ 0.04, and σ(ρ) ≈ 10⁻² for the B-mode spectra at the largest angular scales considered (ℓ ≲ 30). The same fits show that the simple parametric model—a modified black body for dust and a power law for synchrotron—becomes inadequate at LiteBIRD sensitivity: reduced chi-squares climb to roughly 9–19 for simulat

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matrix of cross-frequency angular power spectra, D_ℓ^{XX}(ν_i × ν_j) for X ∈ {T, E, B}, estimated from half-mission maps with an analytic covariance that includes noise, CMB, and foreground cross-terms. These spectra are fit per multipole bin by a spectral model containing a modified black body for dust, a power law for synchrotron, and a dust–synchrotron correlation coefficient ρ_ℓ. When this zeroth-order model fails, the paper extends it with a moment expansion—Taylor coefficients of SED distortions—which absorbs averaging over varying spectral parameters along lines of sight, across the beam, and in harmonic space, and which predicts the observed E/B and T/P

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated foreground models—constant, spatially varying, and line-of-sight layered—span the real Milky Way's complexity, and that foreground sample variance can be subtracted when constructing the covariance; if the true sky is more complex or this variance cannot be removed, the quoted dispersions are too optimistic.

What would settle it

Run the identical fitting pipeline on synthetic skies whose foreground statistics are drawn from a model outside the simulated family—for example, with correlated random variations in spectral parameters along the line of sight that are not present in the input templates—and compare the recovered σ(T_d), σ(β_d), σ(β_s), and σ(ρ) to the quoted values; if they broaden by more than the reported factors, the forecast's central numbers fail. A complementary check on real data: once LiteBIRD maps exist, fit the same model to the actual 40–402 GHz cross-spectra and test the residuals against χ²/dof =

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

If this is right

  • LiteBIRD will deliver per-bin measurements of dust temperature, dust index, synchrotron index, and dust–synchrotron correlation across 40–402 GHz, not just a single global value.
  • Component-separation pipelines for the CMB B-mode search cannot rely on the power-law-in-ℓ foreground model at LiteBIRD sensitivity; ℓ-by-ℓ amplitudes or moment coefficients will be required.
  • The first detection of E/B and T/P discrepancies at high Galactic latitude will give an observable handle on how magnetic-field geometry and spectral parameter variations jointly structure polarized emission.
  • Moment-expansion fits bring the foreground model to χ²/dof ≈ 1, giving a practical template for subtracting foregrounds and quantifying residual bias.
  • The same analysis at earlier space-mission sensitivity cannot constrain dust temperature; LiteBIRD's higher frequency coverage and sensitivity convert this parameter from unconstrained to measurable at the 0.2 K level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: Because the quoted uncertainties assume the simulation models underlying the covariance are close to the true sky, the real errors could be larger if line-of-sight complexity exceeds the simulated range; the paper acknowledges this by arguing only that the models bracket current knowledge.
  • Editorial: A natural test is to run this pipeline on current high-latitude data with a covariance built without foreground sample-variance subtraction; if the error bars inflate substantially, the forecasts should be rescaled.
  • Editorial: The demonstrated degeneracy between synchrotron spectral index and curvature implies that low-frequency data from complementary surveys will be scientifically valuable beyond their role in CMB cleaning.
  • Editorial: If E/B and T/P discrepancies are confirmed with the predicted magnitudes, they give a criterion for testing physical dust models: models predicting identical I/Q/U spectral behavior would be disfavored relative to those with frequency-dependent polarization.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a simulation-based forecast of LiteBIRD's ability to characterize diffuse Galactic polarized emission at the angular power spectrum level. Using PySM models of increasing complexity (d9s4, d10s5, d12s7), the authors generate mock LiteBIRD observations in 22 frequency channels, compute cross-frequency pseudo-C_L power spectra with NaMaster, and fit them with a parametric dust+synchrotron model (MBB + power law, plus a correlation term). The main claims are that LiteBIRD will measure the dust temperature, dust and synchrotron spectral indices, and the dust-synchrotron correlation with dispersions as low as sigma(T_d) ~ 0.2 K, sigma(beta_d) ~ 0.006, sigma(beta_s) ~ 0.04 and sigma(rho) ~ 1e-2; that it will detect deviations from the simple parametric model (E/B and T/P spectral discrepancies); and that it will rule out the power-law model of foreground angular power spectra. A first-order moment expansion is used to interpret the detected spectral distortions.

Significance. If the forecast holds, this is a significant result: it demonstrates that a CMB-focused mission like LiteBIRD can simultaneously deliver high-precision spectral measurements of polarized Galactic emission, including first detections of E/B and T/P spectral discrepancies in the diffuse ISM. The paper is methodologically careful in several respects: it validates the pseudo-C_L estimator against 1000 simulations, compares its analytical covariance with Monte Carlo estimates, simulates Planck observations for comparison, and uses public software throughout. The moment-expansion interpretation is a valuable framework and is backed by explicit theoretical calculations. The main caveat is that the headline sensitivities are obtained under a specific and debatable covariance prescription, namely subtracting foreground sample variance; the paper acknowledges the debate but does not quantify how the fitted parameter errors change under the alternative covariance. This is the central load-bearing issue for the abstract's quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (3.2); §4.2, Fig. 4; Abstract] The quoted headline dispersions sigma(T_d) ~ 0.2 K, sigma(beta_d) ~ 0.006, sigma(beta_s) ~ 0.04 and sigma(rho) ~ 1e-2 are all obtained from the baseline covariance in which foreground auto-correlations are subtracted. The paper explicitly notes the ongoing debate (refs. [48,93,99]) and Fig. 3 shows that including foreground sample variance substantially enlarges the power-spectrum error bars. However, the impact of this covariance choice on the fitted spectral parameters is never quantified. Because the covariance enters directly in Eq. (3.8), the abstract's central sensitivity claims are conditional on a debatable methodological choice. I request that the authors re-run the full parameter fits (at least for the baseline d12s7 model and one simple model) with the covariance including foreground sample variance, and report the resulting sigma(T_d), sigma(beta_d), sigma(beta_s), sigma(rho)
  2. [§4.1 and Abstract] The claim that LiteBIRD 'is likely to rule out the power-law model of polarized foreground angular power spectra' rests on the same foreground-subtracted covariance: the reported chi^2_dof = 593 is computed with the blue error bars, while the red error bars (with foreground sample variance) are shown only visually. Moreover, the test is performed on PySM template maps (d9s4) that have been smoothed and pixelized, so the failure of a strict power-law amplitude model is a statement about these processed templates, not a direct statement about the physical sky. I ask for the chi^2 under the alternative covariance, and for the wording to distinguish 'the simulated PySM skies are inconsistent with a power law' from a robust forecast about the true sky.
  3. [§3.4, Eq. (3.8)] In the fits, the CMB power spectra are fixed to their input values; only foreground parameters are varied. Since the covariance includes CMB sample variance, the forecast error bars assume the CMB is known perfectly. For the T/P-discrepancy analysis, where the TT spectra are CMB-dominated, this assumption is potentially important. The authors state that joint estimation of CMB and foregrounds is beyond scope, but the magnitude of the effect on the quoted parameter errors should be quantified or at least bounded; otherwise the T/P detection significances (e.g., 8.3 sigma and 15 sigma in §4.3) are conditional on an idealized CMB subtraction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, §3.2, Table 1] The abstract and introduction state that LiteBIRD has 15 frequency bands, but §3.2 says N_freq = 22 frequency bands, leading to N_cross = 253 cross-spectra. Table 1 lists 15 frequency rows but with two beams/sensitivities for several bands. Please clarify whether the analysis uses 15 nominal bands split into 22 detector arrays or 22 independent frequency channels, and make the abstract consistent.
  2. [§3.3] The text says 'Galactic foregrounds are not stochastically modeled' and then describes subtracting foreground auto-correlations from the covariance. The distinction between treating foregrounds as deterministic templates and the need for a fiducial foreground model in a data-driven covariance would be clearer if spelled out in one sentence, as it is central to the methodological choice.
  3. [§4.4] The regularization added to the covariance matrix for TT fits is described as 'kept below 1% of the mean variance,' but the sensitivity of the reported chi^2_dof and parameter errors to this choice is not shown. Please state whether the results are stable for a range of regularization amplitudes.
  4. [Eq. (4.1)] The notation D^{A×ωΠ_1}_l and D^{A×A}_l is introduced only by reference to another paper. Since this equation is used to define the moment-expansion procedure, please define these quantities explicitly or give the defining equation number from the reference.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central sensitivities are in-sample forecasts: the same PySM models generate the mock data and the covariance, while the impact of the debatable foreground-sample-variance subtraction on the headline errors is never quantified.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§3.3 (eq. 3.2) and §4.2 (Fig. 4), with Abstract]
    "The foreground terms are directly obtained by computing the pseudo-Cℓ estimators of the different cross-frequency angular power spectra from the PySM models presented in section 2.1. In our simulations, Galactic foregrounds are not stochastically modeled but are directly extracted from PySM models. Therefore, the covariance should not include any foreground–foreground auto-correlation terms."

    The simulated maps fitted in Section 4 are generated from the same PySM models that are used to build the analytic covariance matrix (eq. 3.2). Consequently, the fitted parameters in Fig. 4 recover the input parameter maps by construction — the paper itself states 'We recover as desired the original values of the low complexity model'. The headline dispersions σ(Td)~0.2 K, σ(βd)~0.006, σ(βs)~0.04 and σ(ρ)~10^-2 are therefore in-sample error bars conditioned on the assumed input sky, not independent predictions of what LiteBIRD would measure on the real sky.

  2. other [§4.1 (Fig. 3) and §3.3]
    "the model clearly fails to reproduce the data at LiteBIRD sensitivity. Indeed, after subtracting the foreground sample variance (blue error bars), the average chi-square per degree of freedom is χ2dof = 593. ... Since there is ongoing debate as to whether foreground auto-correlations should be included when analyzing real data [48, 93, 99], we also show, for comparison, the corresponding uncertainties obtained when this additional contribution is taken into account, as dashed red error bars."

    The abstract's claim that LiteBIRD is 'likely to rule out the power-law model of polarized foreground angular power spectra suggested by Planck data' rests on this χ2dof = 593 rejection. That rejection is forced by two in-sample choices: the input PySM spectra are not power laws by construction, and the baseline covariance subtracts foreground auto-correlations. The paper flags the subtraction as an open debate and shows that including foreground sample variance enlarges the error bars, but it never propagates that alternative to σ(Td), σ(βd), σ(βs), σ(ρ) or to the rejection significance. The 'rule-out' is therefore conditional on the same model that generates both the data and the covariance, rather than an independent falsification.

full rationale

The paper is an openly simulation-based forecast, not a derivation from first principles. Its central quantitative claims — the parameter dispersions and the power-law rejection — are produced by fitting mock data generated from PySM models while computing the covariance using those same PySM models (eq. 3.2). This makes the exercise in-sample: the recovered spectral parameters equal the input values, and the χ2-driven rejection of the power-law model is a property of the input PySM spectra combined with the chosen foreground-sample-variance subtraction. That is a legitimate sensitivity forecast conditional on the assumed sky, but it is not an independent empirical prediction. The paper is transparent about the open covariance debate, yet it does not quantify how the headline errors would change under the conservative covariance, leaving a robustness gap rather than a definitional circularity. External anchoring exists through consistency checks with Planck 2018 results and Planck simulations, and the moment-expansion methodology is supported by published code-based work, so the self-citations do not by themselves carry the argument. Overall, the derivation reduces partly to its own inputs by construction, but the forecasting framework retains independent content, meriting a moderate circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on the choice of PySM foreground models as a stand-in for the real sky, and on a covariance matrix that uses the same models to compute error bars. The paper clearly states its simplifications (delta bandpasses, fixed CMB, no free-free) and leaves realistic treatments for future work, so the central claim is conditional on these assumptions.

free parameters (7)
  • Dust temperature T_d per ℓ-bin = 19.6 K input in d9s4; fitted 19.62 ± 0.23 K at ℓ=26.5
    Target parameter of the forecast; precision σ(T_d)~0.2 K is the central claim. Not an ad hoc constant; it is the physical parameter the analysis fits.
  • Dust spectral index β_d per ℓ-bin = 1.48 input in d9s4; fitted 1.4798 ± 0.0055 at ℓ=26.5
    Target parameter; forecast σ(β_d)~0.006.
  • Synchrotron spectral index β_s per ℓ-bin = -3.1 input in d9s4; fitted -3.094 ± 0.036 at ℓ=26.5
    Target parameter; forecast σ(β_s)~0.04.
  • Dust–synchrotron correlation ρ per ℓ-bin = 0.185 ± 0.010 at ℓ=26.5 in d9s4
    Target parameter; forecast σ(ρ)~0.01.
  • Dust and synchrotron power amplitudes A_d, A_s per ℓ-bin = A_d=713.56 ± 0.47, A_s=0.2486 ± 0.0060 µK² at ℓ=26.5
    Target amplitudes; fitted independently per ℓ-bin to avoid power-law shape assumptions.
  • Noise covariance parameters N_corr(ν), ℓ_knee, α_knee = Fitted by averaging the angular power spectra of the input noise simulations
    Used to construct the covariance matrix; affects all quoted error bars.
  • First-order moment coefficients (β_d, T_d, β_s) in §4.4 = Iteratively fitted; pivot values updated until <1% change
    Additional parameters in the moment-expansion model used to explain E/B and T/P discrepancies.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption PySM d9/d10/d12 and s4/s5/s7 models bracket the real complexity of polarized Galactic emission at 40-402 GHz.
    The forecast of detectability of E/B and T/P discrepancies, and the breakdown of the power-law model, depends on these input models being representative of the true sky (§2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The covariance matrix can be constructed from the true foreground spectra, with foreground sample variance subtracted when estimating parameter errors.
    Baseline analysis subtracts foreground auto-correlations from the covariance (§3.3), assuming the foreground spatial statistics are known; if wrong, the forecasted errors could be underestimated.
  • ad hoc to paper Bandpasses are delta functions that are perfectly known and corrected for.
    Stated in §2: 'we assume that it is perfectly known and corrected for, leaving the more realistic case for future work.' This simplification directly affects the spectral SED precision.
  • domain assumption The likelihood for cross-frequency power spectra is Gaussian at the analyzed multipoles (ℓ≥2).
    The paper notes in §4.3 that the Gaussian likelihood is 'known to be a good approximation at intermediate and small scales' but not at the lowest multipoles.
  • domain assumption CMB is a Gaussian realization with known power spectra and r=0; it contributes only to the variance.
    CMB spectra are fixed to input values in the fits (§3.4); joint foreground-CMB estimation is out of scope.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33575 in / 16098 out tokens · 134532 ms · 2026-08-01T10:49:47.139773+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Detection of primordial $B$-mode polarization in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) from tensor perturbations generated during inflation is a major scientific goal of future CMB missions. Its success will strongly depend on the characterization of polarized foregrounds, a challenge that the LiteBIRD satellite aims to tackle with its 15 frequency bands ranging from 40 to 402 GHz. In this work, we forecast the ability of LiteBIRD to characterize polarized dust and synchrotron emission in the diffuse interstellar medium (ISM), at the angular power spectrum level. From simulated LiteBIRD intensity and polarization maps with different foreground complexities, we compute cross-frequency angular power spectra and fit them to dust and synchrotron spectral energy distributions, which are modeled by a modified black body and a power law, respectively. We find that LiteBIRD will be able to measure the dust temperature, dust and synchrotron spectral indices and spatial correlation with dispersions as low as $\sigma(T_{\rm d})\sim0.2$ K, $\sigma(\beta_{\rm d})\sim0.006$, $\sigma(\beta_{\rm s})\sim0.04$ and $\sigma(\rho)\sim10^{-2}$, as well as to detect and quantify deviations from the proposed parametric model due to variations of the emission properties in the three dimensions of our Galaxy. Additionally, LiteBIRD is likely to rule out the power-law model of polarized foreground angular power spectra suggested by Planck data. It will also be able to detect differences in the values of $\beta_{\rm d}$, $T_{\rm d}$, and $\beta_{\rm s}$ between $E$ modes, $B$ modes, and intensity in the diffuse ISM for the first time, highlighting the joint variations of the physical conditions and the magnetic field structure across the Galaxy. We conclude that in addition to detailed studies of CMB polarization, LiteBIRD will open a new window onto the physical conditions governing the ISM of the Milky Way.

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

121 extracted references · 104 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Smoot, C.L

    G.F. Smoot, C.L. Bennett, A. Kogut, E.L. Wright, J. Aymon, N.W. Boggess et al.,Structure in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometer First-Year Maps,ApJ396(1992) L1

    1992

  2. [2]

    Bennett, D

    C.L. Bennett, D. Larson, J.L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard et al.,Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results, ApJS208(2013) 20 [1212.5225]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. IV. Diffuse component separation,A&A641 (2020) A4 [1807.06208]. – 25 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Naess, Y

    S. Naess, Y. Guan, A.J. Duivenvoorden, M. Hasselfield, Y. Wang, I. Abril-Cabezas et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 maps,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 061 [2503.14451]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Camphuis, W

    E. Camphuis, W. Quan, L. Balkenhol, A.R. Khalife, F. Ge, F. Guidi et al.,SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G main field,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 083504 [2506.20707]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Seljak and M

    U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga,Lensing-induced Cluster Signatures in the Cosmic Microwave Background,ApJ538(2000) 57 [astro-ph/9907254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Zaldarriaga and U

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak,Gravitational lensing effect on cosmic microwave background polarization,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 023003 [astro-ph/9803150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Zaldarriaga and U

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak,All-sky analysis of polarization in the microwave background, Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 1830 [astro-ph/9609170]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins,Statistics of cosmic microwave background polarization,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 7368 [astro-ph/9611125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  10. [10]

    Brout, F

    R. Brout, F. Englert and E. Gunzig,The creation of the Universe as a quantum phenomenon.,Annals of Physics115(1978) 78

    1978

  11. [11]

    Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Physics Letters B91(1980) 99

    A.A. Starobinsky,A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,Physics Letters B91(1980) 99

    1980

  12. [12]

    Guth,Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Phys

    A.H. Guth,Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347

    1981

  13. [13]

    Polnarev,Polarization and Anisotropy Induced in the Microwave Background by Cosmological Gravitational Waves,Soviet Ast.29(1985) 607

    A.G. Polnarev,Polarization and Anisotropy Induced in the Microwave Background by Cosmological Gravitational Waves,Soviet Ast.29(1985) 607

    1985

  14. [14]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins,A Probe of Primordial Gravity Waves and Vorticity,Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 2058 [astro-ph/9609132]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    Seljak and M

    U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga,Signature of Gravity Waves in the Polarization of the Microwave Background,Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 2054 [astro-ph/9609169]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  16. [16]

    Zaldarriaga,The Polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background, inMeasuring and Modeling the Universe, W.L

    M. Zaldarriaga,The Polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background, inMeasuring and Modeling the Universe, W.L. Freedman, ed., p. 309, Jan., 2004, DOI [astro-ph/0305272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    Tristram, A.J

    M. Tristram, A.J. Banday, K.M. G´ orski, R. Keskitalo, C.R. Lawrence, K.J. Andersen et al., Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using BICEP and Planck data,Phys. Rev. D 105(2022) 083524 [2112.07961]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    P. Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso et al.,The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2019(2019) 056 [1808.07445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Kamionkowski and E.D

    M. Kamionkowski and E.D. Kovetz,The Quest for B Modes from Inflationary Gravitational Waves,ARA&A54(2016) 227 [1510.06042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, A&A641(2020) A1 [1807.06205]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. XI. Polarized dust foregrounds,A&A641(2020) A11 [1801.04945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Krachmalnicoff, C

    N. Krachmalnicoff, C. Baccigalupi, J. Aumont, M. Bersanelli and A. Mennella, Characterization of foreground emission on degree angular scales for CMB B-mode observations . Thermal dust and synchrotron signal from Planck and WMAP data,A&A588 (2016) A65 [1511.00532]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XIX. An overview of the polarized thermal emission from Galactic dust,A&A576(2015) A104 [1405.0871]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. XII. Galactic astrophysics using polarized dust emission,A&A641(2020) A12 [1807.06212]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Kogut, J

    A. Kogut, J. Dunkley, C.L. Bennett, O. Dor´ e, B. Gold, M. Halpern et al.,Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Foreground Polarization, ApJ665(2007) 355 [0704.3991]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [26]

    Leitch, A.C.S

    E.M. Leitch, A.C.S. Readhead, T.J. Pearson and S.T. Myers,An Anomalous Component of Galactic Emission,ApJ486(1997) L23 [astro-ph/9705241]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  27. [27]

    Draine and A

    B.T. Draine and A. Lazarian,Diffuse Galactic Emission from Spinning Dust Grains,ApJ 494(1998) L19 [astro-ph/9710152]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  28. [28]

    Draine and A

    B.T. Draine and A. Lazarian,Electric Dipole Radiation from Spinning Dust Grains,ApJ508 (1998) 157 [astro-ph/9802239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [29]

    Macellari, E

    N. Macellari, E. Pierpaoli, C. Dickinson and J.E. Vaillancourt,Galactic foreground contributions to the 5-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe maps,MNRAS418(2011) 888 [1108.0205]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [30]

    Herman, B

    D. Herman, B. Hensley, K.J. Andersen, R. Aurlien, R. Banerji, M. Bersanelli et al., BEYONDPLANCK. XV. Limits on large-scale polarized anomalous microwave emission from Planck LFI and WMAP,A&A675(2023) A15 [2201.03530]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    G´ enova-Santos, J.A

    R. G´ enova-Santos, J.A. Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, R. Rebolo, A. Pel´ aez-Santos, C.H. L´ opez-Caraballo, S. Harper et al.,QUIJOTE scientific results - I. Measurements of the intensity and polarisation of the anomalous microwave emission in the Perseus molecular complex,MNRAS 452(2015) 4169 [1501.04491]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Tramonte, R.T

    D. Tramonte, R.T. G´ enova-Santos, J.A. Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, P. Vielva, F. Poidevin, C.H. L´ opez-Caraballo et al.,QUIJOTE scientific results - V. The microwave intensity and polarization spectra of the Galactic regions W49, W51 and IC443,MNRAS519(2023) 3432 [2301.05114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Gonz´ alez-Gonz´ alez, R.T

    R. Gonz´ alez-Gonz´ alez, R.T. G´ enova-Santos, J.A. Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, M.W. Peel, F. Guidi, C.H. L´ opez-Caraballo et al.,QUIJOTE scientific results: XVIII. New constraints on the polarisation of the anomalous microwave emission in bright Galactic regions:ρOphiuchi, Perseus, and W43,A&A695(2025) A245 [2409.03418]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Feng and G

    C. Feng and G. Holder,Polarization of the Cosmic Infrared Background Fluctuations,ApJ 897(2020) 140 [1907.12085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2013 results. XIII. Galactic CO emission,A&A571(2014) A13 [1303.5073]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2015 results. X. Diffuse component separation: Foreground maps,A&A594(2016) A10 [1502.01588]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2015 results. XXV. Diffuse low-frequency Galactic foregrounds, A&A594(2016) A25 [1506.06660]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XV. A study of anomalous microwave emission in Galactic clouds,A&A565(2014) A103 [1309.1357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [39]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2013 results. XIV. Zodiacal emission,A&A571(2014) A14 [1303.5074]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2015 results. XXVIII. The Planck Catalogue of Galactic cold clumps,A&A594(2016) A28 [1502.01599]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XXII. Frequency dependence of thermal emission from Galactic dust in intensity and polarization,A&A576(2015) A107 [1405.0874]. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XXXII. The relative orientation between the magnetic field and structures traced by interstellar dust,A&A586(2016) A135 [1409.6728]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XXXV. Probing the role of the magnetic field in the formation of structure in molecular clouds,A&A586(2016) A138 [1502.04123]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XLII. Large-scale Galactic magnetic fields, A&A596(2016) A103 [1601.00546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XX. Comparison of polarized thermal emission from Galactic dust with simulations of MHD turbulence,A&A576(2015) A105 [1405.0872]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    LiteBIRD Collaboration,Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background polarization survey,Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2023 (2023) 042F01 [2202.02773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power spectrum of polarized dust emission at intermediate and high Galactic latitudes,A&A586(2016) A133 [1409.5738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Hensley, S.E

    B.S. Hensley, S.E. Clark, V. Fanfani, N. Krachmalnicoff, G. Fabbian, D. Poletti et al.,The Simons Observatory: Galactic Science Goals and Forecasts,ApJ929(2022) 166 [2111.02425]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Vacher, J

    L. Vacher, J. Aumont, F. Boulanger, L. Montier, V. Guillet, A. Ritacco et al.,Frequency dependence of the thermal dust E/B ratio and EB correlation: Insights from the spin-moment expansion,A&A672(2023) A146 [2210.14768]

    arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Ritacco, F

    A. Ritacco, F. Boulanger, V. Guillet, J.-M. Delouis, J.-L. Puget, J. Aumont et al.,Dust polarization spectral dependence from Planck HFI data. Turning point for cosmic microwave background polarization-foreground modeling,A&A670(2023) A163 [2206.07671]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Pelgrims, S.E

    V. Pelgrims, S.E. Clark, B.S. Hensley, G.V. Panopoulou, V. Pavlidou, K. Tassis et al., Evidence for line-of-sight frequency decorrelation of polarized dust emission in Planck data, A&A647(2021) A16 [2101.09291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Planck Collaboration,Planck intermediate results. L. Evidence of spatial variation of the polarized thermal dust spectral energy distribution and implications for CMB B-mode analysis, A&A599(2017) A51 [1606.07335]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    Chluba, J.C

    J. Chluba, J.C. Hill and M.H. Abitbol,Rethinking CMB foregrounds: systematic extension of foreground parametrizations,MNRAS472(2017) 1195 [1701.00274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    G´ orski, E

    K.M. G´ orski, 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,ApJ622(2005) 759 [astro-ph/0409513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  55. [55]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon et al.,healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in Python,The Journal of Open Source Software4(2019) 1298

    2019

  56. [56]

    Thorne, J

    B. Thorne, J. Dunkley, D. Alonso and S. Næss,The Python Sky Model: software for simulating the Galactic microwave sky,MNRAS469(2017) 2821 [1608.02841]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Zonca, B

    A. Zonca, B. Thorne, N. Krachmalnicoff and J. Borrill,The Python Sky Model 3 software, The Journal of Open Source Software6(2021) 3783 [2108.01444]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Pan-Experiment Galactic Science Group,Full-sky Models of Galactic Microwave Emission and Polarization at Subarcminute Scales for the Python Sky Model,ApJ991(2025) 23 [2502.20452]. – 28 –

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Fixsen,The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background,ApJ707(2009) 916 [0911.1955]

    D.J. Fixsen,The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background,ApJ707(2009) 916 [0911.1955]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    Remazeilles, J

    M. Remazeilles, J. Delabrouille and J.-F. Cardoso,Foreground component separation with generalized Internal Linear Combination,MNRAS418(2011) 467 [1103.1166]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    Ferri` ere,The interstellar environment of our galaxy,Reviews of Modern Physics73 (2001) 1031 [astro-ph/0106359]

    K.M. Ferri` ere,The interstellar environment of our galaxy,Reviews of Modern Physics73 (2001) 1031 [astro-ph/0106359]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  62. [62]

    Paradis, J.P

    D. Paradis, J.P. Bernard and C. M´ eny,Dust emissivity variations in the Milky Way,A&A 506(2009) 745 [0909.3236]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  63. [63]

    Ysard, A

    N. Ysard, A. Abergel, I. Ristorcelli, M. Juvela, L. Pagani, V. K¨ onyves et al.,Variation in dust properties in a dense filament of the Taurus molecular complex (L1506),A&A559(2013) A133 [1309.6489]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [64]

    Zelko, D.P

    I.A. Zelko, D.P. Finkbeiner, A. Lee and G. Green,The First 3π3D Map of ISM Dust Temperature,arXiv e-prints(2022) arXiv:2211.07667 [2211.07667]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Liu, J.-R

    H. Liu, J.-R. Li and Y.-F. Cai,Evaluation of the Single-component Thermal Dust Emission Model in Cosmic Microwave Background Experiments,ApJS276(2025) 45 [2411.04543]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Vacher, J

    L. Vacher, J. Chluba, J. Aumont, A. Rotti and L. Montier,High precision modeling of polarized signals: Moment expansion method generalized to spin-2 fields,A&A669(2023) A5 [2205.01049]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Tassis and V

    K. Tassis and V. Pavlidou,Searching for inflationary B modes: can dust emission properties be extrapolated from 350 GHz to 150 GHz?,MNRAS451(2015) L90 [1410.8136]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  68. [68]

    Mart ´ ınez-Solaeche, A

    G. Mart ´ ınez-Solaeche, A. Karakci and J. Delabrouille,A 3D model of polarized dust emission in the Milky Way,MNRAS476(2018) 1310 [1706.04162]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Rybicki and A.P

    G.B. Rybicki and A.P. Lightman,Radiative Processes in Astrophysics, Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY (1979)

    1979

  70. [70]

    Haslam, U

    C.G.T. Haslam, U. Klein, C.J. Salter, H. Stoffel, W.E. Wilson, M.N. Cleary et al.,A 408 MHz all-sky continuum survey. I - Observations at southern declinations and for the North Polar region.,A&A100(1981) 209

    1981

  71. [71]

    Haslam, C.J

    C.G.T. Haslam, C.J. Salter, H. Stoffel and W.E. Wilson,A 408-MHZ All-Sky Continuum Survey. II. The Atlas of Contour Maps,A&AS47(1982) 1

    1982

  72. [72]

    Remazeilles, C

    M. Remazeilles, C. Dickinson, A.J. Banday, M.A. Bigot-Sazy and T. Ghosh,An improved source-subtracted and destriped 408-MHz all-sky map,MNRAS451(2015) 4311 [1411.3628]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  73. [73]

    Miville-Deschˆ enes, N

    M.A. Miville-Deschˆ enes, N. Ysard, A. Lavabre, N. Ponthieu, J.F. Mac ´ ıas-P´ erez, J. Aumont et al.,Separation of anomalous and synchrotron emissions using WMAP polarization data, A&A490(2008) 1093 [0802.3345]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  74. [74]

    Krachmalnicoff, E

    N. Krachmalnicoff, E. Carretti, C. Baccigalupi, G. Bernardi, S. Brown, B.M. Gaensler et al., S-PASS view of polarized Galactic synchrotron at 2.3 GHz as a contaminant to CMB observations,A&A618(2018) A166 [1802.01145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    Kogut,Synchrotron Spectral Curvature from 22 MHz to 23 GHz,ApJ753(2012) 110 [1205.4041]

    A. Kogut,Synchrotron Spectral Curvature from 22 MHz to 23 GHz,ApJ753(2012) 110 [1205.4041]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  76. [76]

    Orlando and A

    E. Orlando and A. Strong,Galactic synchrotron emission with cosmic ray propagation models, MNRAS436(2013) 2127 [1309.2947]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [77]

    Weymann-Despres, L

    G. Weymann-Despres, L. Vacher, M.E. Jones, A.C. Taylor, C. Baccigalupi, A.J. Banday et al.,Interpreting map-basedE/Bspectral properties of CMB foregrounds,arXiv e-prints (2026) arXiv:2603.02177 [2603.02177]. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, F

    J.A. Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, F. Guidi, R.T. G´ enova-Santos, S.E. Harper, D. Herranz, R.J. Hoyland et al.,QUIJOTE scientific results - IV. A northern sky survey in intensity and polarization at 10-20 GHz with the multifrequency instrument,MNRAS519(2023) 3383 [2301.05113]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    de la Hoz, R.B

    E. de la Hoz, R.B. Barreiro, P. Vielva, E. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, J.A. Rubi˜ no-Mart ´ ın, B. Casaponsa et al.,QUIJOTE scientific results - VIII. Diffuse polarized foregrounds from component separation with QUIJOTE-MFI,MNRAS519(2023) 3504 [2301.05117]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models,ApJ538(2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

Showing first 80 references.