Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

CMBAnalysis: A Modern Framework for High-Precision Cosmic Microwave Background Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Python framework recovers the Planck cosmology—including a Hubble constant of 67.32 ± 0.54 km/s/Mpc—and cuts runtime by 75%.

desk verdict The paper's central demonstration is circular: the likelihood uses Planck's own theory spectra, so the claimed validation of the framework's Boltzmann solver never happens. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12207 v1 pith:7ZL2CIRL submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMcs.CE

Srikrishna S Kashyap This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMcs.CE
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundcosmologicalparametersMarkovchainMonteCarloPlanckLegacyArchiveCMBpowerspectratransferfunctionsparallelcomputingopen-sourcesoftware
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 presents CMBAnalysis, a self-contained Python package that takes Planck Legacy Archive power spectra and returns $\Lambda$CDM cosmological parameters through its own spectrum computation and parallel MCMC. The central claim is that this standalone pipeline produces constraints competitive with established Planck results, specifically $H_0 = 67.32 \pm 0.54\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ against Planck's $67.36 \pm 0.54$, while running up to 75% faster than a serial implementation. The framework also reports reduced $\chi^2$ values near 1.03–1.04 for TT, TE, and EE spectra, and extension tests for $w$CDM and $w_0w_a$CDM models. If the claim holds, high-precision CMB parameter estimation can be done with a modern, readable, open-source code rather than a collection of legacy tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the framework's own parameter-to-spectra pipeline: it evaluates temperature and E-mode transfer functions, integrates them with the line-of-sight formula $C_\ell^{XY} = \frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^\infty k^2 P_\Phi(k)\Delta_\ell^X(k)\Delta_\ell^Y(k)\,dk$, and feeds the resulting TT, TE, and EE spectra into a Gaussian likelihood built from a covariance matrix. On the sampling side, an affine-invariant ensemble MCMC with adaptive burn-in, convergence diagnostics such as $\hat{R}$, and autocorrelation-based error estimates converts that likelihood into posterior distributions. The speed claim rests on caching transfer functions, parallel k-space integration, asymptotic Bessel-function approximations, and adaptive step sizing.

What would settle it

Run CMBAnalysis and an independently validated public CMB spectrum code at the same $\Lambda$CDM parameter values, then compare fractional residuals in TT, TE, and EE over $\ell = 2$ to 2500. If maximal residuals exceed roughly 0.5% or grow with $\ell$, the claimed accuracy and derived parameters would not stand; if residuals remain below that and the posterior still centers at $H_0 = 67.32 \pm 0.54$, the central claim is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is that every standard step of CMB parameter estimation—the Friedmann background, metric perturbations, transfer functions, line-of-sight $C_\ell$ integration, covariance estimation, and parallel ensemble MCMC—can be implemented in one Python framework and still match the published Planck values. The headline numbers are the six $\Lambda$CDM parameters, with $H_0 = 67.32 \pm 0.54\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, $\omega_b = 0.02237 \pm 0.00015$, $\omega_c = 0.1200 \pm 0.0012$, $\tau = 0.0544 \pm 0.0073$, $n_s = 0.9649 \pm 0.0042$, and $\ln(10^{10}A_s) = 3.044 \pm 0.014$, each overlapping the Planck values within the quoted errors. The framework also reports reduced $\chi^2$ values of 1.03 for TT, 1.04 for TE, and 1.04 for EE, and a 75% reduction in wall-clock time from parallel MCMC sampling.

Load-bearing premise

If the framework's internal computation of the CMB spectra is wrong at the few-tenths-of-a-percent level, and the paper performs no side-by-side comparison to independently validated spectrum codes, then every cosmological parameter quoted in Table 4 shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher could reproduce Planck-level cosmological constraints from public Planck spectra using one open-source Python package instead of a chain of legacy compiled tools.
  • The reported runtime reduction would make full $\Lambda$CDM and extended-model scans practical on a single workstation, with production runs on eight cores taking about six hours.
  • The near-unity reduced $\chi^2$ values for TT, TE, and EE would support the framework's data handling and theoretical spectra as consistent with Planck's published measurements.
  • The modular design outlined in the paper would let future additions, such as GPU acceleration, neural emulators, and B-mode analysis, build on the same likelihood and sampling core.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the paper does not perform is a spectrum-level comparison against an independent solver; until such a comparison appears, the 0.1% accuracy figure is a stated target rather than a demonstrated calibration.
  • Because the framework reproduces Planck's parameters, it could be used to isolate systematic differences by swapping in external spectra and seeing whether the $H_0$ constraint moves.
  • The reported 75% speedup is a single benchmark rather than a scaling law; an independent timing study on different hardware and data sets would show whether the gain is general.
  • For classroom use, the readable code and test suite are a clear benefit, but production adoption would be more defensible after adding a validation harness that checks $C_\ell$ values across a grid of parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents CMBAnalysis, an open-source Python framework for CMB power-spectrum analysis and MCMC cosmological parameter estimation. It describes the theoretical background, the numerical implementation of transfer functions and spectra, the parallel MCMC machinery, systematic-error handling, and a demonstration on Planck Legacy Archive data. The reported Planck analysis yields ΛCDM constraints very close to Planck 2020 values, including H0 = 67.32 ± 0.54 km/s/Mpc, and claims up to a 75% reduction in wall-clock time from parallelization. The main issue is that the demonstration does not actually test the framework's own Boltzmann solver: the analysis pipeline loads Planck's published theory spectra rather than computing spectra with the framework's solver, so the central claim of high-precision cosmological inference is unsupported.

Significance. If the framework were properly validated, it could be a useful community resource for educational purposes and for prototyping CMB analyses. The manuscript is clearly organized and contains several sensible components: parallel MCMC sampling with emcee, adaptive integration, data-loading utilities, and a stated open-source release. However, no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code artifacts are included in the submission, and the one quantitative demonstration is circular: Table 4 validates the sampler and the Planck data product, not the Boltzmann solver or the line-of-sight integration that are the paper's core numerical contribution. The absence of any comparison against CAMB or CLASS, and the internal inconsistency between the simplified diagonal covariance described in §5.3 and the Planck-identical uncertainties in §6.2, mean that the claimed 'competitive parameter constraints' are not credible as evidence of the framework's capabilities.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, Listing 16] The central validation is circular. Listing 16 obtains theory = {'cltt': theorydata['tt'] * calfactor**2, ...} from planck.loadtheoryspectra(), which reads Planck's published best-fit spectra (the 'minimum R3.01' parameter file) rather than calling compute_all_spectra or compute_transfer_function from Section 3. The likelihood in Eq. (19) therefore compares Planck's observed spectra with Planck's own published theory spectra. As a result, Table 4 and Eq. (31) are consistency checks of the Planck data product and the MCMC sampler; they say nothing about the accuracy of the framework's Boltzmann solver, line-of-sight integration, or transfer functions. The paper's central claim that CMBAnalysis 'yields parameter constraints competitive with established results' is unsupported by its own demonstration.
  2. [§3, §6] No end-to-end validation of the core numerical engine is provided. There is no comparison of C_ell computed by compute_all_spectra against CAMB or CLASS, no test against analytic limits (e.g., the Sachs-Wolfe plateau or the small-angle approximation), and no convergence study for the k-space integration and spherical Bessel approximations. The assertion in §8.1 that the code maintains 'accuracy to within 0.1% of theoretical predictions' is not accompanied by any measurement. Because all cosmological parameters in Table 4 are derived from C_ell, an unvalidated few-tenths-of-a-percent error in the transfer functions would shift every reported parameter; this missing validation is load-bearing for the paper's claims.
  3. [§5.3, Table 4] The likelihood and covariance described in the paper are not consistent with the precision reported in Table 4. Eq. (19) is evaluated with the diagonal covariance built in Listing 13, which ignores off-diagonal ℓ-ℓ' correlations, foreground marginalization, calibration and beam correlations, and lensing. An independent reanalysis with this simplified likelihood would not reproduce Planck's full-likelihood uncertainties to the fourth decimal, yet Table 4 shows τ = 0.0544 ± 0.0073 in both columns (and nearly identical H0, ωb, ωcdm, n_s intervals). This suggests the tabulated constraints are not the output of the pipeline as described. The authors must provide the actual chains and a likelihood evaluation using the framework's own computed spectra, with the true covariance, and show that the resulting posteriors are genuinely independent.
  4. [§6.7, Table 6] The extended-model analysis in Table 6 is reported without any implementation details. The reader is not told how wCDM and w0waCDM are integrated into the Boltzmann solver, what priors are used, whether the theory spectra are recomputed by the framework or read from files, or how ΔBIC is calculated. As written, this table cannot support the claim that the framework supports extended cosmological models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§8.3, Table 9] Table 9 reports memory usage of 0.5 GB, which conflicts with Table 5's 2.4 GB (serial) and 4.8 GB (parallel); please clarify which figure is correct.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (17)] The piecewise conditions for the spherical Bessel approximation are written as 'x ≪ √ℓ' and 'x ≫ ℓ'; these should be dimensionally consistent and should specify the matching region (e.g., x ~ ℓ), or the approximation is ambiguous.
  3. [Figures 1 and 2] Figures 1 and 2 appear to show the same best-fit spectra and data points; if they are meant to be different (e.g., C_ℓ vs D_ℓ, or different datasets), the captions should say so, otherwise one of the figures is redundant.
  4. [§3.3, Eq. (18)] In Eq. (18), I_n and I_{2n} are not defined; specify that they are estimates from an integration rule with n and 2n intervals so the error estimator is unambiguous.
  5. [References] The reference list contains at least one apparent mismatch: 'Smith et al. (2019)' is cited for adaptive k-space integration in §3.1, but the listed Smith et al. (2019) entry is about the halo model; please verify all citations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The Planck validation is circular: the pipeline feeds Planck's own theory spectra into the likelihood, so the reported parameter agreement never tests the framework's Boltzmann solver.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1, Listing 16; likelihood Eq. (19); results Table 4 and Eq. (31)]
    "theorydata = planck.loadtheoryspectra() ... theory = { 'cltt': theorydata['tt'] * calfactor**2, 'clte': theorydata['te'] * calfactor**2, 'clee': theorydata['ee'] * calfactor**2 }; paramsfile = "COM PowerSpect CMB-base-plikHM-TTTEEE-lowl-lowE-lensing-minimum R3.01.txt" ... if 'calPlanck' in line: return float(line.split()[-1])"

    The model spectra that enter the likelihood Eq. (19) are Planck's own published best-fit C_ell, loaded by loadtheoryspectra() and rescaled by calPlanck read from Planck's 'minimum R3.01' parameter file; they are not the output of compute_all_spectra()/compute_transfer_function() from Section 3. The likelihood therefore measures the distance between Planck data and Planck's own theory, so the sampler has no information from the framework's Boltzmann solver. Table 4's agreement (H0 = 67.32 ± 0.54 vs 67.36 ± 0.54, etc.) is an in-sample consistency check of Planck's data products and the MCMC bookkeeping, not a prediction from first principles.

full rationale

The paper's core demonstration is circular in its central step. Listing 16 defines the analysis pipeline with theorydata = planck.loadtheoryspectra() and a fixed theory dictionary scaled by calPlanck from Planck's 'minimum R3.01' best-fit file; the likelihood in Eq. (19) then compares these loaded Planck model spectra to the observed Planck spectra. Consequently, the 'This Work' constraints in Table 4 and Eq. (31) are the result of an in-sample consistency fit, not a test of the framework's transfer-function or line-of-sight integration code presented in Section 3. The abstract's headline claim of 'parameter constraints competitive with established pipelines' is thus not an independent prediction. The paper also provides no side-by-side comparison with CAMB or CLASS and no test in which the framework's own spectra replace the loaded theory spectra. For these reasons, the central validation reduces by construction to its input, though the underlying code could in principle be made non-circular by an end-to-end demonstration using compute_all_spectra() and external benchmarks. Score 7 reflects a central, construction-level circularity rather than mere self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physics is introduced. The only assumptions are standard cosmology plus the accuracy of an unvalidated numerical implementation.

free parameters (6)
  • H0 = 67.32
    Fitted to Planck power spectra; Table 4.
  • omega_b = 0.02237
    Baryon density fitted to Planck data; Table 4.
  • omega_cdm = 0.1200
    CDM density fitted to Planck data; Table 4.
  • tau = 0.0544
    Reionization optical depth fitted to Planck data; Table 4.
  • n_s = 0.9649
    Scalar spectral index fitted to Planck data; Table 4.
  • ln(10^10 A_s) = 3.044
    Primordial amplitude fitted to Planck data; Table 4.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FLRW metric and Friedmann equations describe the background cosmology.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 as the foundation of the model; not derived or tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption The line-of-sight integral (Eq. 13) with the given transfer functions yields the true CMB angular power spectra.
    Standard result from the literature, but the paper does not validate its own numerical implementation against established Boltzmann codes.
  • ad hoc to paper The Planck power spectra can be approximated with a Gaussian likelihood using a diagonal covariance matrix (Eq. 19 and Listing 13).
    The paper uses a simplified likelihood without comparing to the official Planck likelihood, and claims this gives Planck-level constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical integration and Bessel approximations used in Section 3 are accurate to the required tolerance.
    The paper asserts stability and 0.1% accuracy but provides no benchmark data or error plots against external codes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMBAnalysis: A Modern Framework for High-Precision Cosmic Microwave Background Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZL2CIRL

@misc{pith2026241112207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMBAnalysis: A Modern Framework for High-Precision Cosmic Microwave Background Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZL2CIRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12207}
}
read the original abstract

I present CMBAnalysis, a state-of-the-art Python framework designed for high-precision analysis of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation data. This comprehensive package implements parallel Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques for robust cosmological parameter estimation, featuring adaptive integration methods and sophisticated error propagation. The framework incorporates recent advances in computational cosmology, including support for extended cosmological models, detailed systematic error analysis, and optimized numerical algorithms. I demonstrate its capabilities through analysis of Planck Legacy Archive data, achieving parameter constraints competitive with established pipelines while offering significant performance improvements through parallel processing and algorithmic optimizations. Notable features include automated convergence diagnostics, comprehensive uncertainty quantification, and publication-quality visualization tools. The framework's modular architecture facilitates extension to new cosmological models and analysis techniques, while maintaining numerical stability through carefully implemented regularization schemes. My implementation achieves excellent computational efficiency, with parallel MCMC sampling reducing analysis time by up to 75\% compared to serial implementations. The code is open-source, extensively documented, and includes a comprehensive test suite, making it valuable for both research applications and educational purposes in modern cosmology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Best-fit CMB angular power spectra (red lines) compared to obser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CMB power spectra measurements (grey points with error bars) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized residuals (∆Dℓ/σ) between the observed and best-fit theoretical CMB power spectra as a function of multipole moment ℓ for tem￾perature (TT, top), temperature-polarization cross-correlation (TE, middle), and polarization (EE, bottom) spectra. The residuals show no significant sys￾tematic deviations from zero, with χ 2/dof values close to unity (1.03 for TT, 1.04 for both TE and EE) indicating a good fit to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot showing the marginalized posterior distributions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Lavaux, G

    Anderes, E., Wandelt, B.D. and Lavaux, G. (2020), `Fast Bayesian inference for large scale Cosmic Microwave Background data', The Astrophysical Journal , 898, pp. 54-68

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    and Tram, T

    Archidiacono, M., Gariazzo, S., Giunti, C., Hannestad, S., Hansen, R., Laveder, M. and Tram, T. (2020), `Pseudoscalar-sterile neutrino interactions: reconciling the cosmos with neutrino oscillations', Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2020(03), p. 042

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    and Sawicki, I

    Baker, T., Bellini, E., Ferreira, P.G., Lagos, M., Noller, J. and Sawicki, I. (2021), `Strong constraints on cosmological gravity from GW170817 and GRB 170817A', Reviews of Modern Physics , 93(1), p. 015003

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    (2018), `A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo', arXiv:1701.02434 [stat.ME]

    Betancourt, M. (2018), `A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo', arXiv:1701.02434 [stat.ME]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    and Tram, T

    Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J. and Tram, T. (2011), `The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes', Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2011(07), p. 034

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    and Efstathiou, G

    Bond, J.R. and Efstathiou, G. (2000), `Cosmic confusion: degeneracies among cosmological parameters derived from measurements of microwave background anisotropies', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 319(4), pp. 1169-1174

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    and Gelman, A

    Brooks, S.P. and Gelman, A. (1998), `General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations', Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 7(4), pp. 434-455

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    Collective modes at a disordered quantum phase transition

    Challinor, A. (2019), `CMB anisotropy science: a review', arXiv:1911.04452 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    and Lewis, A

    Challinor, A. and Lewis, A. (2000), `Lensed CMB power spectra from all-sky correlation functions', Physical Review D , 62(6), p. 063004

    2000

  2. [10]

    and Thomas, R.M

    Chluba, J. and Thomas, R.M. (2010), `Towards a complete treatment of the cosmological recombination problem', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 404(1), pp. 1617-1630

    2010

  3. [11]

    (2020), `New Horizons in Cosmology with Spectral Distortions of the Cosmic Microwave Background', arXiv:2006.03780 [astro-ph.CO]

    Chluba, J., et al. (2020), `New Horizons in Cosmology with Spectral Distortions of the Cosmic Microwave Background', arXiv:2006.03780 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    and Silk, J

    Di Valentino, E., Melchiorri, A. and Silk, J. (2021), `Cosmological constraints in extended parameter space from the Planck 2018 Legacy release', Nature Astronomy , 4, pp. 196-203

    2021

  5. [13]

    (2003), Modern Cosmology , Academic Press, San Diego

    Dodelson, S. (2003), Modern Cosmology , Academic Press, San Diego

    2003

  6. [14]

    and Gratton, S

    Efstathiou, G. and Gratton, S. (2019), `A detailed description of the CamSpec likelihood pipeline and a reanalysis of the Planck high frequency maps', Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2019(06), p. 011

    2019

  7. [15]

    and Gratton, S

    Efstathiou, G. and Gratton, S. (2020), `The evidence for a spatially flat Universe', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters , 496(1), pp. L91-L95

    2020

  8. [16]

    (2019), `Emcee v3: A Python ensemble sampling toolkit for affine-invariant MCMC', Journal of Open Source Software , 4(43), p

    Foreman-Mackey, D. (2019), `Emcee v3: A Python ensemble sampling toolkit for affine-invariant MCMC', Journal of Open Source Software , 4(43), p. 1864

    2019

  9. [17]

    and Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D.W., Lang, D. and Goodman, J. (2013), `emcee: The MCMC Hammer', Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , 125(925), pp. 306-312

    2013

  10. [18]

    and others (2014), `CMB polarization can constrain cosmology better than CMB temperature', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 571, p

    Galli, S., Benabed, K., Bouchet, F., Cardoso, J.-F., Elsner, F., Hivon, E., Wandelt, B. and others (2014), `CMB polarization can constrain cosmology better than CMB temperature', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 571, p. A10

    2014

  11. [19]

    and Rubin, D.B

    Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., Dunson, D.B., Vehtari, A. and Rubin, D.B. (2013), Bayesian Data Analysis , 3rd edn, CRC Press, Boca Raton

    2013

  12. [20]

    and Rubin, D.B

    Gelman, A. and Rubin, D.B. (1992), `Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences', Statistical Science , 7(4), pp. 457-472

    1992

  13. [21]

    and Weare, J

    Goodman, J. and Weare, J. (2010), `Ensemble samplers with affine invariance', Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science , 5(1), pp. 65-80

    2010

  14. [22]

    and Lewis, A

    Hamimeche, S. and Lewis, A. (2008), `Likelihood analysis of CMB temperature and polarization power spectra', Physical Review D , 77(10), p. 103013

    2008

  15. [23]

    and Hobson, M.P

    Handley, W.J., Lasenby, A.N., Peiris, H.V. and Hobson, M.P. (2019), `Bayesian inflationary reconstructions from Planck 2018 data', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 490(4), pp. 4470-4496

    2019

  16. [24]

    and others (2021), `High-resolution CMB lensing with SPT-3G', The Astrophysical Journal , 921(2), p

    Hetherington-Perrault, B., Goldstein, J.H., Reichardt, C.L., Ade, P.A.R. and others (2021), `High-resolution CMB lensing with SPT-3G', The Astrophysical Journal , 921(2), p. 22

    2021

  17. [25]

    and Alexander, S

    Hill, J.C., McDonough, E., Toomey, M.W. and Alexander, S. (2020), `Early dark energy does not restore cosmological concordance', Physical Review D , 102(4), p. 043507

    2020

  18. [26]

    and Hansen, F

    Hivon, E., Górski, K.M., Netterfield, C.B., Crill, B.P., Prunet, S. and Hansen, F. (2002), `MASTER of the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy power spectrum: A fast method for statistical analysis of large and complex Cosmic Microwave Background data sets', The Astrophysica...

    2002

  19. [27]

    and Ponthieu, N

    Hivon, E., Mottet, S. and Ponthieu, N. (2017), `QuickPol: Fast calculation of effective beam matrices for CMB polarization', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 598, p. A25

    2017

  20. [28]

    and Foreman-Mackey, D

    Hogg, D.W. and Foreman-Mackey, D. (2018), `Data analysis recipes: Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo', The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , 236(1), p. 11

    2018

  21. [29]

    and Sugiyama, N

    Hu, W. and Sugiyama, N. (1995), `Anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background: An analytic approach', The Astrophysical Journal , 444, pp. 489-506

    1995

  22. [30]

    and White, M

    Hu, W. and White, M. (1997), `A CMB polarization primer', New Astronomy , 2, pp. 323-344

    1997

  23. [31]

    and Kovetz, E.D

    Kamionkowski, M. and Kovetz, E.D. (2022), `The quest for B modes from inflationary gravitational waves', Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 60, pp. 283-316

    2022

  24. [32]

    and Stebbins, A

    Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A. and Stebbins, A. (1997), `Statistics of cosmic microwave background polarization', Physical Review D , 55(12), pp. 7368-7388

    1997

  25. [33]

    (2011), `The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview', arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    Lesgourgues, J. (2011), `The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview', arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    and Pastor, S

    Lesgourgues, J. and Pastor, S. (2006), `Massive neutrinos and cosmology', Physics Reports , 429(6), pp. 307-379

    2006

  27. [35]

    (2008), `Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters', Physical Review D , 78(2), p

    Lewis, A. (2008), `Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters', Physical Review D , 78(2), p. 023002

    2008

  28. [36]

    (2011), `Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters', Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2011(10), p

    Lewis, A. (2011), `Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters', Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2011(10), p. 026

    2011

  29. [37]

    (2019), `GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples', arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    Lewis, A. (2019), `GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples', arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    and Bridle, S

    Lewis, A. and Bridle, S. (2002), `Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach', Physical Review D , 66(10), p. 103511

    2002

  31. [39]

    and Lasenby, A

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A. and Lasenby, A. (2000), `Efficient computation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models', The Astrophysical Journal , 538(2), pp. 473-476

    2000

  32. [40]

    and Bertschinger, E

    Ma, C.-P. and Bertschinger, E. (1995), `Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges', The Astrophysical Journal , 455, pp. 7-25

    1995

  33. [41]

    and Mueller, E.M

    Mancini, A.S., Pourtsidou, A., Ferreira, P.G. and Mueller, E.M. (2022), `Testing modified gravity using galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 510(1), pp. 54-69

    2022

  34. [42]

    (2012), `MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics', arXiv:1206.1901 [stat.CO]

    Neal, R.M. (2012), `MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics', arXiv:1206.1901 [stat.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    and others (2007), `Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Polarization analysis', The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , 170(2), pp

    Page, L., Hinshaw, G., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M.R., Spergel, D.N., Bennett, C.L., Barnes, C., Bean, R., Doré, O., Dunkley, J. and others (2007), `Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Polarization analysis', The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Seri...

    2007

  36. [44]

    Planck Collaboration (2020a), `Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 641, p. A1

    2020

  37. [45]

    Planck Collaboration (2020b), `Planck 2018 results. III. High Frequency Instrument data processing and frequency maps', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 641, p. A3

    2020

  38. [46]

    Planck Collaboration (2020c), `Planck 2018 results. IV. Diffuse component separation', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 641, p. A4

    2020

  39. [47]

    Planck Collaboration (2020d), `Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 641, p. A6

    2020

  40. [48]

    Planck Collaboration (2020e), `Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 641, p. A10

    2020

  41. [49]

    and Flannery, B.P

    Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. and Flannery, B.P. (2007), Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing , 3rd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    2007

  42. [50]

    Price, D.C., Greenhill, L.J., Fialkov, A., Bernardi, G., Garsden, H., Barsdell, B.R., Kocz, J. and others (2019), `Design and characterization of the Large-aperture Experiment to Detect the Dark Age (LEDA) radiometer systems', Publications of the Astronomical Society of Austra...

    2019

  43. [51]

    (2013), `Libpsht - algorithms for efficient spherical harmonic transforms', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 556, p

    Reinecke, M. (2013), `Libpsht - algorithms for efficient spherical harmonic transforms', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 556, p. A92

    2013

  44. [52]

    and Seljebotn, D.S

    Reinecke, M. and Seljebotn, D.S. (2013), `Libsharp - spherical harmonic transforms revisited', Astronomy & Astrophysics , 554, p. A112

    2013

  45. [53]

    and Zaldarriaga, M

    Seljak, U. and Zaldarriaga, M. (1996), `A line-of-sight integration approach to cosmic microwave background anisotropies', The Astrophysical Journal , 469, pp. 437-444

    1996

  46. [54]

    and Couchman, H.M.P

    Smith, R.E., Peacock, J.A., Jenkins, A., White, S.D.M., Frenk, C.S., Pearce, F.R., Thomas, P.A., Efstathiou, G. and Couchman, H.M.P. (2019), `Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 487(1...

    2019

  47. [55]

    and Varoquaux, G

    Van der Walt, S., Colbert, S.C. and Varoquaux, G. (2011), `The NumPy array: A structure for efficient numerical computation', Computing in Science & Engineering , 13(2), pp. 22-30

    2011

  48. [56]

    (2008), Cosmology , Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Weinberg, S. (2008), Cosmology , Oxford University Press, Oxford

    2008

  49. [57]

    and Teal, T.K

    Wilson, G., Bryan, J., Cranston, K., Kitzes, J., Nederbragt, L. and Teal, T.K. (2017), `Good enough practices in scientific computing', PLOS Computational Biology , 13(6), p. e1005510

    2017

  50. [58]

    and Seljak, U

    Zaldarriaga, M. and Seljak, U. (1997), `All-sky analysis of polarization in the microwave background', Physical Review D , 55(4), pp. 1830-1840

    1997

  51. [59]

    and Bertschinger, E

    Zaldarriaga, M., Seljak, U. and Bertschinger, E. (1998), `Integral solution for the microwave background anisotropies in nonflat universes', The Astrophysical Journal , 494(2), pp. 491-502

    1998

  52. [60]

    and Gorski, K

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., Reinecke, M., Rosset, C., Hivon, E. and Gorski, K. (2019), `healpy: Equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in Python', Journal of Open Source Software , 4(35), p. 1298

    2019

  53. [61]

    and Kowalkowski, J

    Zuntz, J., Paterno, M., Jennings, E., Rudd, D., Manzotti, A., Dodelson, S., Bridle, S., Sehrish, S. and Kowalkowski, J. (2015), `CosmoSIS: Modular cosmological parameter estimation', Astronomy and Computing , 12, pp. 45-59

    2015

  54. [62]

    and others (2021), `Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: weak lensing shape catalogues', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 504(2), pp

    Zuntz, J., Sheldon, E., Samuroff, S., Troxel, M.A., Jarvis, M., MacCrann, N., Gruen, D. and others (2021), `Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: weak lensing shape catalogues', Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 504(2), pp. 2260-2280

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.