Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Cosmic $\tau$ensions Indirectly Correlate with Reionization Optical Depth

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The reionization optical depth is not intrinsically tied to the parameters driving the main cosmological tensions, although raising it appears to relax each of them.

desk verdict A clean, well-scoped statistical paper showing that tau_reio's apparent correlations with cosmic-tension parameters are mostly mediated through other parameters; the partial-correlation evidence is solid, with one Gaussianity caveat near the neutrino-mass boundary. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09678 v1 pith:2JE7FCKF submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Itamar J. Allali , Lingfeng Li , Praniti Singh , JiJi Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords reionizationopticaldepthcosmictensionsHubbletensionpartialcorrelationPearsonprecisionmatrixneutrinomasssumdynamicaldarkenergy
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
open problems Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
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

The paper argues that the reionization optical depth τ, whose inferred value rises when certain large-scale CMB polarization data are removed, has no direct intrinsic link to the parameters that drive the main cosmic tensions: today's expansion rate, matter density, sound horizon, neutrino mass sum, and dark-energy equation of state. Using partial correlations that hold all other parameters fixed, the authors show that the moderate-to-strong Pearson correlations enabling a larger τ to ease these tensions vanish almost to zero. The apparent leverage of τ is carried by chains of correlations passing through other cosmological parameters, so the relief that a larger τ provides to each tension is not a property of τ itself. The same network means the effects on different tensions are entangled rather than independent.

What carries the argument

The central object is the precision matrix Ω, the inverse of the MCMC parameter covariance matrix. Partial correlations ρ = -(diag Ω)^{-1/2} Ω (diag Ω)^{-1/2} measure the correlation between a pair of parameters with all others held fixed, revealing 'intrinsic' relationships. The paper combines these partial correlations with Pearson correlations from the covariance matrix to build correlation diagrams (networks) that trace how the raw τ-anomaly correlations arise through multi-parameter paths, and it uses a binary dataset-label variable to separate the direct effect of a dataset on each parameter from the indirect effects propagated through the network.

What would settle it

Construct or find a dataset and model where the posterior is well Gaussian and the partial correlation between τ and H0 (or Σmν) is large, say |ρ| > 0.3, with all other parameters fixed. For instance, if a future low-ℓ polarization experiment yields a posterior in which τ and H0 still move together after holding other parameters fixed, the claim of weak intrinsic correlation would be refuted for that dataset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that τ_reio has weak intrinsic correlations with the parameters responsible for the Hubble tension, the BAO–CMB tension, the neutrino-mass tension, and the dynamical dark energy preference, while the large direct Pearson correlations that allow larger τ to alleviate those anomalies arise from complicated networks through multiple parameters. For the baseline dataset, partial correlations between τ and H0, hrd, Ωm, Σmν, w0, and wa are all near zero, even though the Pearson correlations are 0.43, 0.44, -0.44, 0.58, -0.28, and 0.48 respectively. Consequently, a shift in τ is not an independent dial on any single anomaly.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of 'intrinsic' correlations rests on the posterior being sufficiently Gaussian; near the hard prior Σmν > 0 or for heavy-tailed parameters, partial correlations from the precision matrix can be distorted, and the choice of which parameters to condition on also shapes the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A larger inferred τ from removing low-ℓ EE data mildly relaxes each of the four tensions, but the relaxation is not attributable to τ itself; it arises through the multi-parameter network.
  • The relationships between τ and the four anomalies are not independent: the same network mediates all of them, so a shift in τ shifts the parameters behind all tensions in a correlated way.
  • Removing low-ℓ EE data directly shifts τ and the primordial amplitude As, with almost no direct effect on other parameters; the remaining parameter shifts are induced through the network.
  • The near-perfect anti-correlation between w0 and wa appears only in the partial correlations, showing the data are sensitive to a linear combination of the two, effectively a narrow redshift range of the dark-energy equation of state.
  • For the most complete CMB combination used in the paper (all three experiments, without low-ℓ EE), the neutrino mass posterior begins to form a peak away from zero; with a different supernovae catalog this peak becomes more pronounced, with Σmν < 0.16 eV at 95% C.L.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If τ's apparent leverage is entirely mediated by other parameters, future measurements that change the inferred τ (e.g., from new low-ℓ polarization experiments) will not independently resolve any single tension; they will simultaneously shift several parameters, potentially changing the balance among tensions.
  • The binary-label technique could be applied to any future dataset to classify which parameter shifts are direct (dataset-to-parameter) versus induced (through the parameter network), offering a standard way to interpret new CMB and BAO data.
  • The near-degeneracy of w0 and wa in partial correlations implies current dark-energy constraints are essentially one-dimensional; a statistic isolating the orthogonal combination would be a sharp test of whether the data truly prefer dynamical dark energy.
  • A physical model that genuinely links reionization physics to, say, H0 would be expected to produce a non-negligible partial correlation between τ and H0 in these posteriors; the near-zero partial correlations thus constrain such models to act through specific mediating parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses MCMC chains from CLASS/Cobaya/GetDist to compute Pearson and partial correlation coefficients among cosmological parameters for ΛCDM, ΛCDM+Σmν, and w0waCDM, using Planck, ACT, SPT, DESI BAO, and Pantheon+/DES/Union3 supernovae data. For each of four anomalies (H0, BAO-CMB, neutrino mass, dark energy), the authors show that τ_reio has moderate-to-large Pearson correlations with the relevant parameters (e.g. 0.43 with H0, 0.44/−0.44 with h_rd/Ωm, 0.58 with Σmν, −0.28/0.48 with w0/wa), but the partial correlations computed from the precision matrix are all small (−0.15 to −0.06). They conclude that the apparent relationships are indirect, arising through networks of other parameters, and illustrate this with correlation diagrams. They also use a binary-label method to show that removing low-ℓ EE Planck data primarily shifts τ_reio directly, while ACT/SPT additions affect many parameters. Appendices provide correlation tables and posteriors for the combined CMB-P AS dataset, including a new neutrino mass upper bound.

Significance. If correct, the paper makes a useful and fairly non-obvious point: the known ability of larger τ_reio to ease several cosmological tensions does not imply a direct coupling between τ_reio and the tension parameters. This clarifies the physics and warns that the τ_reio 'lever' is not independent across anomalies. The analysis is transparent, the tables are systematic, the consistency across dataset choices is checked in Appendices A, C and D, and the paper provides a new combined Planck+ACT+SPT neutrino mass upper bound (Σmν < 0.061 eV, Table 11). The central limitation is that the headline concept—'intrinsic correlation'—is operationalized through Eq. (2.4), whose validity is only asserted, not demonstrated, in the non-Gaussian regimes present here.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2.4), and footnote 4] The central claim depends on partial correlations equaling conditional correlations, which requires a sufficiently Gaussian posterior. Footnote 4 merely asserts this ('as we will see below in Section 3'), but Section 3 provides no Gaussianity diagnostic. The ΛCDM+Σmν model in §3.3 has the hard prior Σmν>0 and a posterior pushed against the boundary (Fig. 5); for a truncated distribution the sample precision matrix is not the conditional precision of the underlying Gaussian, so the reported Pearson/partial pair (0.58, −0.13) for τ_reio–Σmν could reflect truncation. Please validate Eq. (2.4) against direct conditional correlations (e.g. binning the conditioning parameters) or a multivariate normality test, and qualify the neutrino-mass conclusion if the check fails. Because the same method is used in Tables 1, 2 and 4, the general 'weak intrinsic correlation' claim is not fully secured wit
  2. [§3.2, Table 2 (and Table 6)] The h_rd–Ωm Pearson and partial correlations are reported as exactly −1.00. This indicates that, within the chosen conditioning set {log 10^10 As, ns, h_rd, ωb, Ωm, τ_reio}, the two BAO-relevant parameters are nearly deterministically related, making the submatrix nearly singular. Inverting it to obtain the partial correlations for τ_reio with h_rd and Ωm (−0.10 in both cases) is then numerically unstable and conceptually ill-defined when one of the two is held fixed. Please report condition numbers or use a non-redundant parameterization (e.g., condition on only one of h_rd/Ωm at a time) to confirm that the 'weak intrinsic' conclusion for the BAO-CMB tension is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §4, Appendix D] Typos: 'affects' should be 'effects'; Appendix D has 'datset'; several table captions begin 'T able'. Please clean these up.
  2. [§2.1 and §3.2] The word 'intrinsic' overstates the content of a partial correlation, which is relative to the selected conditioning set; the paper itself acknowledges this in §3.2. Suggest using 'partial correlation given the chosen parameter set' in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [§3.1–3.4] The path explanations (e.g., τ_reio→n_s→H_0) are heuristic. A quantitative decomposition of the Pearson correlations into partial-correlation path contributions would make the 'arises from networks' claim more precise.
  4. [§4 and footnote 7] The binary-dataset labels are descriptive summaries of two equally weighted chains; causal language ('treatment', 'causal inference') is stronger than the analysis supports.
  5. [Tables 1–4] Rounding to two decimals hides the uncertainty in the correlation estimates. Reporting Monte Carlo errors (e.g., from GetDist) would help assess whether small partial correlations are consistent with zero.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the correlation analysis is a self-contained summary of MCMC samples; self-citations are motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: run MCMC with the specified likelihoods, compute the covariance matrix (Eqs. 2.1-2.2), invert it to the precision matrix, and compute partial correlations via Eq. (2.4). Each step is a standard mathematical identity applied to the same MCMC samples; no parameter is fitted to force the conclusion that tau_reio has weak partial correlations with the tension parameters. The central claim is an empirical description of the covariance structure, not a prediction derived from a fitted input. The self-citation to Ref. [34] is used for motivation and for the known effect of removing low-ell EE data, but that effect is reproduced here (Figures 1, 5, 7; Tables 1-4), so the argument does not reduce to the citation. The only flagged caveat is interpretive: footnote 4 asserts without diagnostic support that the MC samples are sufficiently Gaussian for partial correlations to equal fixed-parameter conditional correlations, and the Sigma m_nu > 0 boundary is a concrete non-Gaussian feature that could distort the reported rho(tau_reio, Sigma m_nu) = -0.13. That is a correctness/robustness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing, hence score 1.

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

The central claim rests on standard statistical machinery applied to public datasets. No ad hoc free parameters are introduced, and no new physical entities are postulated. The main assumptions are about the validity of the MCMC samples, the treatment of overlapping CMB data, and the Gaussianity of the posterior, all standard in this kind of analysis.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MCMC chains produced by CLASS and Cobaya are converged and provide an accurate sample of the posterior.
    All correlation coefficients in Sections 3 and 4 are derived from these chains; bad convergence would invalidate the numbers. The paper relies on standard practice without showing convergence diagnostics.
  • domain assumption Overlapping sky fractions between Planck, ACT, and SPT can be treated as uncorrelated for the chosen ell ranges.
    Stated in Section 2 footnotes 2 and 3, following Ref. [49]. If correlations between these experiments are non-negligible, the combined likelihood and hence the correlations would change.
  • domain assumption The posterior distributions are sufficiently Gaussian that the partial correlations from Eq. (2.4) equal the correlation with all other parameters fixed.
    Explicitly stated in footnote 4 of Section 2.1. Near prior boundaries, such as Sigma m_nu > 0, this assumption may fail and affect the interpretation of 'intrinsic' correlations.
  • domain assumption Nuisance parameters (calibration, foregrounds, etc.) can be marginalized over and excluded when computing partial correlations without changing the intrinsic correlations of cosmological parameters.
    The paper states 'we always ignore the nuisance parameters when calculating partial correlations, as they behave as noise to cosmological parameters.' This is a plausible but unproven assumption; excluding them could in principle alter the partial correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic $\tau$ensions Indirectly Correlate with Reionization Optical Depth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JE7FCKF

@misc{pith2026250909678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic $\tau$ensions Indirectly Correlate with Reionization Optical Depth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JE7FCKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09678}
}
abstract

The reionization optical depth $\tau_{\rm reio}$ has interesting connections to existing cosmological anomalies. As first studied in the context of the Hubble tension in our previous paper, a larger $\tau_{\rm reio}$, which could be achieved by removing the Planck low-$\ell$ polarization data, could boost $H_0$ slightly, resulting in a mild reduction of the tension between the early- and late-universe determinations of $H_0$. It has been shown later that a larger $\tau_{\rm reio}$ could also relieve other anomalies including: the tension between BAO and CMB data, the neutrino mass tension, and the latest DESI plus supernovae data's tension with the standard cosmological constant scenario. In this paper, we systematically analyze the correlations between $\tau_{\rm reio}$ and relevant cosmological parameters in the existing cosmic observation anomalies. In addition to Pearson correlation coefficients extracted directly from the covariance matrix, we also study partial correlation coefficients which measure intrinsic relationships between pairs of parameters removing the influence of other parameters. We show that $\tau_{\rm reio}$ has weak intrinsic correlations with the parameters responsible for the tensions and anomalies discussed. The large direct Pearson correlations that allow larger $\tau_{\rm reio}$ inferences to alleviate the cosmological tensions each arise from complicated networks through multiple parameters. As a result, the relationships between $\tau_{\rm reio}$ and each anomaly are not independent of each other. We also employ our method of computing correlations to clarify the impact of large scale polarization data, and comment also on the effects of CMB observations from ACT and SPT.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. No way ou$\tau$: Epoch of Reionization Observations Do not Support Large Values of the Optical Depth to Reionization

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Epoch-of-reionization hydrogen probes, combined with CMB and BAO data but no CMB polarization, yield tau_reio = 0.067 +/- 0.011 and leave the dynamical-dark-energy preference at ~2 sigma.

  2. Measuring Cosmic Neutrino Masses Independently of Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two dark-energy-robust cosmological routes bound ∑mν to <0.152 eV (marginalized) and <0.41 eV (late-Universe-free), with the latter independent of tested w(a) models by construction.

  3. Cosmological Concordance in an Especially Opaque Universe: A Tentative Cosmological Detection of Physical Neutrino Mass in $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Imposing a high prior on τ = 0.11 ± 0.006 produces a 2σ positive neutrino mass sum of 0.10 eV and restores concordance between CMB and DESI data inside ΛCDM.

  4. The Impact of Population III.1 Flash Reionization for CMB Polarization and Thomson Scattering Optical Depth

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An early 'Pop III.1 Flash' reionization phase shifts CMB polarization power from l<8 to l>8, allowing a higher optical depth τ≈0.08–0.09 while staying closer to Planck's low-l EE data than a standard tanh reionization model.

  5. The Status of Single Scalar Field Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    Cosmological data can constrain only a handful of EFT parameters for single-scalar dark energy; extended models show modest preference over Λ but remain underdetermined and challenged by fifth forces and screening.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    Allali, P

    I.J. Allali, P. Singh, J. Fan and L. Li,Reionization and the Hubble Constant: Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background,2503.05691

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Dodelson,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press, Amsterdam (2003)

    S. Dodelson,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press, Amsterdam (2003)

    2003

  3. [2]

    Robertson, R.S

    B.E. Robertson, R.S. Ellis, S.R. Furlanetto and J.S. Dunlop,Cosmic Reionization and Early Star-forming Galaxies: a Joint Analysis of new Constraints From Planck and the Hubble Space Telescope,Astrophys. J. Lett.802(2015) L19 [1502.02024]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    McQuinn,The Evolution of the Intergalactic Medium,Ann

    M. McQuinn,The Evolution of the Intergalactic Medium,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54 (2016) 313 [1512.00086]. [4]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Jakobsen, P

    P. Jakobsen, P. Ferruit, C. Alves de Oliveira, S. Arribas, G. Bagnasco, R. Barho et al.,The near-infrared spectrograph (nirspec) on thejames webbspace telescope: I. overview of the instrument and its capabilities,Astronomy &; Astrophysics661(2022) A80

    2022

  6. [6]

    Wright, G.H

    G.S. Wright, G.H. Rieke, A. Glasse, M. Ressler, M. Garc ´ ıa Mar ´ ın, J. Aguilar et al.,The Mid-infrared Instrument for JWST and Its In-flight Performance,Publications of the ASP135 (2023) 048003

    2023

  7. [7]

    Mu˜ noz, J

    J.B. Mu˜ noz, J. Mirocha, J. Chisholm, S.R. Furlanetto and C. Mason,Reionization after JWST: a photon budget crisis?,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.535(2024) L37 [2404.07250]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Simmonds, S

    C. Simmonds, S. Tacchella, K. Hainline, B.D. Johnson, W. McClymont, B. Robertson et al., Low-mass bursty galaxies in jades efficiently produce ionising photons and could represent the main drivers of reionisation,2310.01112

    arXiv

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Endsley, D.P

    R. Endsley, D.P. Stark, L. Whitler, M.W. Topping, B.D. Johnson, B. Robertson et al.,The star-forming and ionizing properties of dwarf z 6-9 galaxies in JADES: insights on bursty star formation and ionized bubble growth,Monthly Notices of the RAS533(2024) 1111 [2306.05295]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Finkelstein, G.C.K

    S.L. Finkelstein, G.C.K. Leung, M.B. Bagley, M. Dickinson, H.C. Ferguson, C. Papovich et al., The Complete CEERS Early Universe Galaxy Sample: A Surprisingly Slow Evolution of the Space Density of Bright Galaxies at z∼8.5–14.5,Astrophysical Journal, Letters969(2024) L2 [2311.04279]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Finkelstein, M.B

    S.L. Finkelstein, M.B. Bagley, H.C. Ferguson, S.M. Wilkins, J.S. Kartaltepe, C. Papovich et al.,Ceers key paper. i. an early look into the first 500 myr of galaxy formation with jwst,The Astrophysical Journal Letters946(2023) L13

    2023

  4. [12]

    Chisholm, A

    J. Chisholm, A. Saldana-Lopez, S. Flury, D. Schaerer, A. Jaskot, R. Amor ´ ın et al.,The far-ultraviolet continuum slope as a lyman continuum escape estimator at high redshift,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society517(2022) 5104–5120

    2022

  5. [13]

    Mukherjee, A

    P. Mukherjee, A. Dey and S. Pal,What can we learn about Reionization astrophysical parameters using Gaussian Process Regression?,2407.19481

  6. [14]

    Paoletti, D.K

    D. Paoletti, D.K. Hazra, F. Finelli and G.F. Smoot,Evidence for asymmetric reionization histories from a joint analysis of the cosmic microwave background and astrophysical data, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 043532 [2405.09506]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Zhu et al.,SMILES: Potentially Higher Ionizing Photon Production Efficiency in Overdense Regions,Astrophys

    Y. Zhu et al.,SMILES: Potentially Higher Ionizing Photon Production Efficiency in Overdense Regions,Astrophys. J.986(2025) 18 [2410.14804]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C. Cain, G. Lopez, A. D’Aloisio, J.B. Munoz, R.A. Jansen, R.A. Windhorst et al.,Chasing the Beginning of Reionization in the JWST Era,Astrophys. J.980(2025) 83 [2409.02989]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Giar` e, E

    W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino and A. Melchiorri,Measuring the reionization optical depth without large-scale CMB polarization,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 103519 [2312.06482]. – 20 –

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Scolnic, A.G

    D. Scolnic, A.G. Riess, J. Wu, S. Li, G.S. Anand, R. Beaton et al.,CATS: The Hubble Constant from Standardized TRGB and Type Ia Supernova Measurements,Astrophys. J. Lett. 954(2023) L31 [2304.06693]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Riess and et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,Astrophys

    A.G. Riess and et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Breuval, A.G

    L. Breuval, A.G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, M. Romaniel´ o et al.,Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder,Astrophys. J.973(2024) 30 [2404.08038]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Freedman,Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,Astrophys

    W.L. Freedman,Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,Astrophys. J. 919(2021) 16 [2106.15656]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Freedman and B.F

    W.L. Freedman and B.F. Madore,Progress in direct measurements of the Hubble constant, JCAP11(2023) 050 [2309.05618]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Freedman, B.F

    W.L. Freedman, B.F. Madore, I.S. Jang, T.J. Hoyt, A.J. Lee and K.A. Owens,Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three Independent Astrophysical Determinations of the Hubble Constant Using the James Webb Space Telescope,2408.06153

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    A 2.4 per cent measurement ofH 0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σtension between early- and late-Universe probes,Mon

    H0LiCOW Collaboration,H0LiCOW - XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement ofH 0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σtension between early- and late-Universe probes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498(2020) 1420 [1907.04869]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Riess and et al.,JWST Validates HST Distance Measurements: Selection of Supernova Subsample Explains Differences in JWST Estimates of LocalH 0,Astrophys

    A.G. Riess and et al.,JWST Validates HST Distance Measurements: Selection of Supernova Subsample Explains Differences in JWST Estimates of LocalH 0,Astrophys. J.977(2024) 120 [2408.11770]. [26]DESIcollaboration,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations ...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [29]

    Craig, D

    N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers and S. Rajendran,Noνs is Good News,JHEP09(2024) 097 [2405.00836]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers,Cosmological preference for a negative neutrino mass,Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) 083507 [2407.07878]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [31]

    Graham, D

    P.W. Graham, D. Green and J. Meyers,Dark Forces Gathering,2508.20999

  21. [32]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10(2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

    2001 arXiv

  22. [33]

    Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Phys

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    2003 arXiv

  23. [35]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal and W. Hu,Turning a negative neutrino mass into a positive optical depth,2504.21813

    arXiv

  24. [36]

    Sailer, G.S

    N. Sailer, G.S. Farren, S. Ferraro and M. White,Dispuτable: the high cost of a low optical depth,2504.16932

  25. [37]

    Cheng, Z

    H. Cheng, Z. Yin, E. Di Valentino, D.J.E. Marsh and L. Visinelli,Constraining exotic high-z reionization histories with Gaussian processes and the cosmic microwave background, 2506.19096. – 21 –

  26. [38]

    C. Cain, A. Van Engelen, K.S. Croker, D. Kramer, A. D’Aloisio and G. Lopez,The CMB optical depth constrains the duration of reionization,2505.15899

    arXiv

  27. [39]

    Namikawa,Resolving the negative neutrino mass with cosmic birefringence,2506.22999

    T. Namikawa,Resolving the negative neutrino mass with cosmic birefringence,2506.22999

  28. [40]

    Tan,Flash Ionization of the Early Universe by Population III.1 Supermassive Stars, Astrophys

    J.C. Tan,Flash Ionization of the Early Universe by Population III.1 Supermassive Stars, Astrophys. J. Lett.989(2025) L47 [2506.18490]. [41]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5 [1907.12875]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [42]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton,A detailed description of the camspec likelihood pipeline and a reanalysis of the planck high frequency maps,The Open Journal of Astrophysics4(2021)

    2021

  30. [43]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton and G. Efstathiou,Cmb power spectra and cosmological parameters from planck pr4 with camspec,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517(2022) 4620–4636. [44]Planckcollaboration,P lanckintermediate results. L VII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing,Astron. As...

    2022 arXiv

  31. [45]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis,CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,JCAP09 (2022) 039 [2206.07773]. [46]ACTcollaboration,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth,Astrophys. J.962(2024) 11...

    2022 arXiv

  32. [50]

    Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J.938(2022) 113 [2112.03863]. [51]DEScollaboration,The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,Astrophys. J...

    2022 arXiv

  33. [52]

    Rubin et al.,Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,2311.12098

    D. Rubin et al.,Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework,2311.12098

    arXiv

  34. [53]

    Lesgourgues,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview, 1104.2932

    J. Lesgourgues,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview, 1104.2932

    arXiv

  35. [54]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,JCAP07(2011) 034 [1104.2933]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [55]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05(2021) 057 [2005.05290]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [56]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology

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

    1910

  38. [57]

    Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,1910.13970

    A. Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,1910.13970

    1910 arXiv

  39. [58]

    Ferreira, E

    E.G.M. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, L. Knox and A. Linde,The BAO-CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation,2507.12459

    arXiv

  40. [59]

    Allali and A

    I.J. Allali and A. Notari,Neutrino mass bounds from DESI 2024 are relaxed by Planck PR4 and cosmological supernovae,JCAP12(2024) 020 [2406.14554]. – 22 –

    2024 arXiv

  41. [60]

    Loverde and Z.J

    M. Loverde and Z.J. Weiner,Massive neutrinos and cosmic composition,JCAP12(2024) 048 [2410.00090]. [61]DESIcollaboration,Dynamical Dark Energy in light of the DESI DR2 Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations Measurements,2504.06118

    2024 arXiv

  42. [62]

    Pearl, M

    J. Pearl, M. Glymour and N.P. Jewell,Causal inference in statistics: A primer, 2016, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:148322624. [63]CLASScollaboration,A Measurement of the Largest-scale CMB E-mode Polarization with CLASS,Astrophys. J.986(2025) 111 [2501.11904]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [64]

    Li et al.,Probing Primordial Gravitational Waves: Ali CMB Polarization Telescope,Natl

    H. Li et al.,Probing Primordial Gravitational Waves: Ali CMB Polarization Telescope,Natl. Sci. Rev.6(2019) 145 [1710.03047]. [65]LiteBIRDcollaboration,TheLiteBIRDmission,PoSICHEP2022(2022) 085

    2019 arXiv

  44. [66]

    negative neutrino mass

    S. Ilic et al.,Reconstructing the epoch of reionisation with Planck PR4,Astron. Astrophys.700 (2025) A26 [2504.13254]. – 23 – Pearsonlog 1010As ns H0 ωb ωcdm τreio log 1010As 1.00 0.30 0.45 0.20 -0.44 0.97 ns 0.30 1.00 0.44 -0.02 -0.49 0.35 H0 0.45 0.44 1.00 0.49 -0.91 0.46 ωb...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.