Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Cosmic birefringence from a joint analysis of ACT and Planck

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic birefringence seen at 4.8 sigma in CMB maps

desk verdict A credible, well-executed joint ACT+Planck birefringence analysis whose headline 4.8σ rests on ACT miscalibration priors that are degenerate with β—worth refereeing, with the prior question front and center. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06480 v1 pith:I567HVHT submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Johannes R. Eskilt This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords cosmicbirefringenceCMBpolarizationE-Bcross-correlationaxion-likefieldsChern-SimonscouplingACTDR6PlanckDR4parityviolation
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 claims that the polarization of the cosmic microwave background is rotated by a nonzero angle β = 0.277° ± 0.057° as it travels to us, a parity-violating effect known as cosmic birefringence that ΛCDM does not predict. The claim is based on a joint analysis of the Planck DR4 and ACT DR6 polarized maps, combining their auto- and cross-power spectra in a single likelihood. Excluding β = 0 at 4.8σ in the baseline fit, the paper shows the signal survives at 3.5σ when the Galactic-plane-dominated Planck channels are masked and removed. If the result holds, it would be the first statistically robust detection of isotropic cosmic birefringence from CMB data and would point to an ultra-light axion-like field coupling to electromagnetism. The paper itself stresses that unresolved systematics must be ruled out before drawing strong cosmological conclusions.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the rotation of the polarization angle: cosmic birefringence with angle β mixes the intrinsic E and B modes of the CMB, producing a nonzero observed EB power spectrum whose shape follows $C^{EB,o}_\ell = \frac{\tan(4\beta)}{2}\left(C^{EE,o}_\ell - C^{BB,o}_\ell\right)$ when the intrinsic CMB EB correlation is zero. Because instrumental miscalibration angles α enter the same combination α+β for the CMB but only α for foregrounds, the analysis breaks the degeneracy using two independent handles: polarized Galactic foreground emission for Planck and Gaussian priors on α from an optics model for ACT, whose α+β is otherwise almost unconstrained since ACT masks the Galaxy and probes ℓ>600. The likelihood jointly fits β, 17 α's, and three dust-EB amplitudes, with a cross-telescope covariance built from analytic mode-coupling covariance and corrections for ground pickup and temperature-to-polarization leakage.

What would settle it

Measure the ACT polarization-angle miscalibration directly from observations of a bright polarized astrophysical calibrator with known polarization angle and re-run the joint fit; if the independently calibrated α_i shift the best-fit β by more than about 0.2°, the reported 4.8σ detection is a product of the priors rather than cosmology, and if they confirm the priors the detection survives this test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the observed E-B cross-correlation of the CMB, when fit jointly over ACT×ACT, ACT×Planck, and Planck×Planck spectra with 17 miscalibration angles and a filamentary dust EB model, prefers β = 0.277° ± 0.057° over β = 0 at 4.8σ. Each of the three spectrum blocks separately shows a positive EB signal, with the ACT×Planck block contributing β = 0.178° ± 0.078° (2.3σ), the ACT-only block β = 0.207° ± 0.073°, and Planck-only β = 0.387° ± 0.094°, in mild tension with the ACT legs. Masking Planck with a 30% Galactic cut and removing foreground-dominated bands yields β = 0.236° ± 0.067° (3.5σ), which the paper interprets as evidence that β = 0 can only be recovered if both the dust EB model and the instrument calibration priors fail simultaneously. The paper presents the significance of the detection as growing over the past decade of measurements and frames the result as consistent with an axion-like field coupled through a Chern-Simons term, while cautioning that unresolved systematics in both experiments cannot yet be excluded.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the Gaussian priors on the ACT miscalibration angles α_i (σ = 0.09°, 0.09°, 0.11°, correlated at 90% within each array) are as accurate as quoted, because the ACT maps probe only ℓ>600 and mask the Galaxy, leaving the α+β degeneracy on that leg broken almost entirely by those priors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detection is real, this is the strongest evidence to date for isotropic cosmic birefringence, more significant than the previous Planck+WMAP measurement of 3.6σ.
  • The positive EB signal in ACT×Planck cross-spectra (2.3σ) shows the effect is not an internal artifact of either telescope's maps, since the two instruments have uncorrelated noise.
  • β=0 would require both the dust EB foreground model and the instrument calibration priors to be wrong at the same time, as argued from the robustness test.
  • A cosmological source of the rotation implies a parity-violating coupling of light to an ultra-light pseudoscalar field, opening a window onto the dark sector beyond ΛCDM.
  • The paper notes the signal is consistent with being frequency independent, the expected signature of a Chern-Simons coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the detection holds up, comparing β measured at low multipoles (foreground-anchored Planck) with β at high multipoles (ACT leg) offers a direct test of whether the rotation is truly frequency-independent and scale-independent, since the two legs break the α+β degeneracy differently.
  • A decisive check would come from an in-flight measurement of the ACT polarization-angle miscalibration using a polarized calibrator; the paper's ACT leg leans almost entirely on priors derived from optics modeling, so a direct calibration could either remove or confirm the main systematic vulnerability.
  • The mild 1.5σ tension between Planck's higher β and ACT's lower β, if not a statistical fluctuation, could indicate residual polarized dust in Planck or a small instrumental rotation in ACT; future higher-sensitivity CMB maps with more sky overlap could discriminate between these by measuring the EB spectrum in narrow multipole bins.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a joint analysis of Planck DR4 and ACT DR6 polarization maps to measure the isotropic cosmic birefringence angle β. The author constructs ACT×Planck cross-power spectra, internal ACT and Planck spectra, and a joint likelihood that includes Gaussian priors on the 17 instrument miscalibration angles α_i and a filamentary dust EB model with three fitted amplitudes. The baseline result is β = 0.277° ± 0.057° (4.8σ), and a robustness test that masks the Galactic plane for Planck and removes foreground-dominated bands yields β = 0.236° ± 0.067° (3.5σ). The analysis is validated against published ACT DR6 spectra and earlier Planck-only birefringence analyses. The paper explicitly conditions the headline significance on the reported instrumental priors and acknowledges unresolved systematics in both datasets.

Significance. If the result is correct, this would be the first joint, multi-experiment detection of isotropic cosmic birefringence, and it would substantially strengthen the case for a parity-violating extension beyond ΛCDM. The paper's strengths are its reproducible pipeline (public code), its validation against official released spectra, the use of full covariance information including cross-experiment blocks, and the explicit identification of the assumptions on which the detection rests. The significance is real but conditional: the central number and its error are heavily dependent on the accuracy of the ACT miscalibration priors and on the dust EB model, so the detection is not yet at the level of a stand-alone, assumption-free measurement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II (Data and Method), Gaussian priors on ACT α_i] The ACT data probe only the combination ψ_i = α_i + β in the ACT×ACT and ACT×Planck spectra. A common-mode shift δ applied to all ACT α_i is therefore exactly degenerate with β on the ACT leg, and the Planck foreground constraints calibrate the Planck-leg angles, not the ACT angles. The robustness tests in Sec. III change the Galactic mask, b_min, and the foreground-dominated Planck bands, but they keep the ACT prior means fixed at zero; the test that removes all α priors returns β = 0.442° ± 0.098°, which is dominated by the Planck-only foreground-based constraint and does not isolate the ACT leg. Consequently, the abstract's statement that recovering β = 0 would require both the dust EB model and the instrumental priors to fail simultaneously is stronger than the analysis supports: a single common-mode error in the ACT α_i prior means would shift β without any dust-model failure. Please add a sensitivity test that either fits a common offset δ_ACT with a wide prior or shifts all ACT α_i means by ± their stated σ values, and report the resulting β and significance.
  2. [Sec. III (Results), Fig. 3 ACT×ACT panel] The ACT×ACT block has PTE = 0.1%, which the paper attributes to the known poor fit around ℓ ≈ 1800–1900 reported by the ACT team. Because the baseline joint result includes this block, and because the ACT×ACT block is the part of the data most dependent on the α_i priors, this poor fit is not purely cosmetic: it signals unmodeled systematics in the very spectra that carry the prior-based constraint. Please quantify the sensitivity of β to this feature, for example by repeating the fit with the ℓ ≈ 1800–1900 bins removed or with the ACT×ACT block excluded altogether, and report the resulting β and significance. Without such a test, the 4.8σ detection remains vulnerable to the unresolved ACT systematics that the manuscript itself acknowledges.
  3. [Sec. II (Data and Method), dust EB parameters A_l] The three dust EB amplitudes A_l are sampled with flat positive priors from the same data that constrain β, and the Planck low-ℓ foreground-based calibration is obtained in the presence of this freedom. The high-ℓ Galactic-cut robustness test reduces the foreground dependence of the Planck leg, but in that configuration the result is mostly determined by the ACT priors (Sec. III). Thus the two legs of the degeneracy breaking are each validated only in a regime that leans on the other. Please report the posterior correlation between β and the A_l parameters, and show how β changes when the A_l prior amplitudes are scaled (e.g., by 0, 0.5, and 2), so the reader can see that the detection does not trade off against the dust EB amplitude.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The y-axis labels read "DEB [ K2]"; the units are presumably μK^2 and should be typeset consistently with the text.
  2. [Sec. III] The sentence "Ref. [36] reported pre-flight an upper limit" is grammatically awkward and should read "reported a pre-flight upper limit".
  3. [References] Reference [17] lacks a year in the citation string, and reference [40] lists the author as "A. Collaboration" rather than "Astropy Collaboration".
  4. [Sec. II] The notation "E PA6 f150B100A" and similar in Sec. III would benefit from a brief explanation or a notational table, since the reader must infer that this denotes an E-mode of PA6 f150 crossed with a B-mode of the Planck 100 GHz split.
  5. [Sec. IV] The sentence "Refs. [15, 19] analyzed instrumental systematic effects on β in Planck but could not explain the signal" would be clearer if it distinguished between the two references' specific results, since Ref. [19] is a Cosmoglobe analysis and Ref. [15] is a Planck NPIPE analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is a measurement with externally sourced calibrations and explicit robustness tests.

full rationale

This paper is a data-analysis measurement, not a derivation from first principles. The target parameter β is estimated by fitting a joint likelihood to observed EB, EE, and BB spectra; nowhere is β defined in terms of itself or recovered from a quantity that already contains β by construction. The miscalibration priors on the ACT angles α_i are taken from an external optics model (Refs. [25,26]), and the paper explicitly conditions the headline result on 'taking the reported instrumental priors at face value.' The ACT data alone only constrain α_i + β, so the β estimate on the ACT leg depends on the prior means; this is a stated calibration assumption, not a circular reduction. The dust EB parameters A_l are fit to the same data, but the robustness test with a 30% Galactic cut, b_min = 600.5, and removal of foreground-dominated Planck bands still yields β = 0.236° ± 0.067° at 3.5σ, mitigating the concern that the dust model fully absorbs the signal. Self-citations to Ref. [18] for the likelihood and to Refs. [15,16,18] for the dust treatment are methodological references to prior published work, not unverified premises that assume the target result. No equation in the paper is shown to reduce to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Possible biases in the ACT α priors or foreground modeling are correctness risks, but they do not constitute circularity under the stated standards.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on the standard cosmological model for EE/BB templates, the assumption of zero intrinsic EB, an empirical dust foreground model with fitted amplitudes, and externally calibrated instrument priors. No new physical entities are introduced. The two most fragile inputs, the dust model and the instrument priors, are explicitly flagged by the authors as possible sources of systematic bias.

free parameters (3)
  • β (cosmic birefringence angle) = 0.277° ± 0.057° (68% CL)
    The central target parameter, fitted jointly with miscalibration angles and dust amplitudes from the full likelihood Eq. (3).
  • 17 instrument miscalibration angles α_i (ACT and Planck) = Not reported individually; posterior distributions shown in Fig. 2
    ACT α_i priors from optics model (σ = 0.09°-0.11° with 90% intra-array correlation); Planck α_i priors from pre-flight calibration (HFI σ≈0.31°, ρ=0.31; LFI σ=1°). These nuisance parameters are essential to break the α+β degeneracy.
  • 3 dust EB amplitude parameters A_l = Not reported
    Amplitudes in the filamentary dust model, Eq. (4), sampled with flat positive priors in multipole ranges 56-135, 136-215, 216-575; they control the dust EB template amplitude.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ΛCDM model (CAMB with Planck 2018 parameters) provides the correct EE and BB sky spectra; any residual is assigned to β, α, and foregrounds.
    Used to construct the signal model in Eq. (3). If the template spectra were wrong, the inferred β would be biased.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic CMB EB correlation is zero, as expected in ΛCDM, which is parity symmetric.
    Set in Eq. (1) and following text ('we set it to zero in this work [10]'). This is the null hypothesis against which birefringence is measured.
  • domain assumption The dust EB emission follows the filamentary model C_EB,dust = A_l C_EE,dust sin(4ψ_l), with ψ_l estimated from 353 GHz TB/TE spectra and A_l weakly varying.
    Eq. (4) and surrounding text. This empirical foreground model is a key input for the Planck leg; if it is wrong, β could be biased.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron emission has zero EB correlation.
    Statements in Sec. II: 'we assume EB correlation of synchrotron is zero as there is no evidence for it [32,33]'.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian priors on the miscalibration angles α_i are accurate (ACT: σ=0.09°-0.11°, 90% correlation within arrays; Planck: σ≈0.31°, ρ=0.31 for HFI, σ=1° for LFI).
    These priors are essential to break the α+β degeneracy, especially for ACT where the Galactic plane is masked. The abstract explicitly conditions the result on taking these priors at face value.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic birefringence from a joint analysis of ACT and Planck." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I567HVHT

@misc{pith2026260806480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic birefringence from a joint analysis of ACT and Planck},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I567HVHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06480}
}
abstract

Dark matter and dark energy could be ultra-light pseudoscalar fields that couple to electromagnetism through a Chern-Simons term. This would cause a parity-breaking rotation of the plane of linearly polarized light from the cosmic microwave background, known as cosmic birefringence, which is not predicted by $\Lambda$CDM. Recent hints of a non-zero cosmic birefringence angle have been found in both the Planck Data Release 4 and ACT Data Release 6 datasets independently. This work jointly analyzes the polarized maps of both, leveraging the cross-power spectra between the two telescopes. Taking the reported instrumental priors at face value, the joint analysis yields $\beta = 0.277^{\circ} \pm 0.057^{\circ}$, which is non-zero with a statistical significance of $4.8\sigma$. A robustness test mitigating contamination from dust emission excludes $\beta = 0^{\circ}$ at $3.5\sigma$, and retrieving $\beta=0^{\circ}$ would require both the dust $EB$ modeling and instrumental priors to fail simultaneously. However, unresolved systematics in the data must be understood before we can draw strong cosmological conclusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06480 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The observation window of ACT in orange [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Posterior distribution of the miscalibration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Inverse-variance weighted average (stacked) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Timeline of cosmic birefringence measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of the published ACT DR6 and our pipeline spectra and covariance for a subset of the data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Komatsu, Nat

    E. Komatsu, Nat. Rev. Phys.4, 452 (2022), arXiv:2202.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D37, 2743 (1988)

    1988

  3. [3]

    S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990)

    1990

  4. [4]

    Harari and P

    D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B289, 67 (1992)

    1992

  5. [5]

    S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3067 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9806099 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Murai, H. Nakatsuka, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D103, 043509 (2021), arXiv:2011.11894 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Seljak and M

    U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2054 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9609169

    arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and A. Stebbins, Phys. Rev. D55, 7368 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611125

    arXiv 1997

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Lue, L.-M

    A. Lue, L.-M. Wang, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1506 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812088

    1999 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fujita, Y

    T. Fujita, Y. Minami, M. Shiraishi, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D106, 103529 (2022), arXiv:2208.08101 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Minami, H

    Y. Minami, H. Ochi, K. Ichiki, N. Katayama, E. Ko- matsu, and T. Matsumura, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019, 083E02 (2019), arXiv:1904.12440 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Minami, Prog

    Y. Minami, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2020, 063E01 (2020), arXiv:2002.03572 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 103E02 (2020), arXiv:2006.15982 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 221301 (2020), arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Diego-Palazueloset al., Phys

    P. Diego-Palazueloset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 091302 (2022), arXiv:2201.07682 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. R. Eskilt, Astron. Astrophys.662, A10 (2022), arXiv:2201.13347 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Remazeilles, JCAP12, 013, arXiv:2507.22109 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Remazeilles, JCAP12, 013, arXiv:2507.22109 [astro- ph.CO]

  10. [18]

    J. R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D106, 063503 (2022), arXiv:2205.13962 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. R. Eskiltet al.(Cosmoglobe), Astron. Astrophys.679, A144 (2023), arXiv:2305.02268 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. E. Clark, C.-G. Kim, J. C. Hill, and B. S. Hensley, Astrophys. J.919, 53 (2021), arXiv:2105.00120 [astro- ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062, arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Naesset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 061, arXiv:2503.14451 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Naesset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 061, arXiv:2503.14451 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Namikawaet al.(ACT Collaboration), Phys

    T. Namikawaet al.(ACT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 101, 083527 (2020), arXiv:2001.10465 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. K. Choiet al.(ACT Collaboration), J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.12(2020), 045, arXiv:2007.07289 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Diego-Palazuelos and E

    P. Diego-Palazuelos and E. Komatsu, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2509.13654 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C. C. Murphyet al., Appl. Opt.63, 5079 (2024), arXiv:2403.00763 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205

    Planck Collaboration I, Astron. Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Astrophys.641, A3 (2020), arXiv:1807.06207

    Planck Collaboration III, Astron. Astrophys.641, A3 (2020), arXiv:1807.06207

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Astrophys.641, A2 (2020), arXiv:1807.06206

    Planck Collaboration II, Astron. Astrophys.641, A2 (2020), arXiv:1807.06206

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. M. Huffenberger, A. Rotti, and D. C. Collins, Astro- phys. J.899, 31 (2020), arXiv:1906.10052 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Herv´ ıas-Caimapo, A

    C. Herv´ ıas-Caimapo, A. J. Cukierman, P. Diego- Palazuelos, K. M. Huffenberger, and S. E. Clark, Phys. Rev. D111, 083532 (2025), arXiv:2408.06214 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    F. A. Martire, R. B. Barreiro, and E. Mart´ ınez- Gonz´ alez, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.04(2022), 003, arXiv:2110.12803 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. A. Rubino-Martinet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 519, 3383 (2023), arXiv:2301.05113 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), astro-ph/9911177

    2000 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

    Planck Collaboration VI, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rossetet al., Astron

    C. Rossetet al., Astron. Astrophys.520, A13 (2010), arXiv:1004.2595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    XLIX, Astron

    Planck Collaboration Int. XLIX, Astron. Astrophys.596, A110 (2016), arXiv:1605.08633

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. P. Leahyet al., Astron. Astrophys.520, A8 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    K. M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelman, Astro- phys. J.622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Collaboration, Astrophys

    A. Collaboration, Astrophys. J.935, 167 (2022), arXiv:2206.14220 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Alonso, J

    D. Alonso, J. Sanchez, and A. Slosar (LSST Dark Energy Science), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.484, 4127 (2019), arXiv:1809.09603 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hivon, K

    E. Hivon, K. M. Gorski, C. B. Netterfield, B. P. Crill, S. Prunet, and F. Hansen, The Astrophysical Journal 567, 2 (2002)

    2002

  35. [43]

    Atkinset al., JCAP05, 015, arXiv:2412.07068 [astro- ph.CO]

    Z. Atkinset al., JCAP05, 015, arXiv:2412.07068 [astro- ph.CO]. 7 1 0 1 DEB [ K2] PA5 f090 × PA5 f090 1 0 1 PA5 f150 × PA5 f150 2 0 2 PA6 f090 × PA6 f090 = 0.20° Our pipeline Published DR6 1 0 1 PA6 f150 × PA6 f150 80 90 100 / pub [%] 1000 2000 3000 30 0 30 / pub [%] 1000 2000 ...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.