Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

A map-domain tool turns beam distortions into leakage spectra and parameter biases so CMB instruments can set design and calibration limits before full time-stream sims.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 10:45 UTC pith:GLEVE4DU

load-bearing objection Useful open map-domain tool with solid relative rankings of TDM schemes; the absolute N_eff requirement curve is more idealized than the abstract implies. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24605 v1 pith:GLEVE4DU submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.IM

Map Multi-Tool: A Map-Based Approach to Modeling Beam Systematics for Cosmic Microwave Background Experiments

Cesiley L. King , Alec Hryciuk , Jeff McMahon , Johanna M. Nagy , John E. Ruhl This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords CMB systematicsbeam leakageMueller matrixmap-based simulationelectrical crosstalkdetector time constantT-to-B leakageN_eff bias
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

CMB experiments need quantitative control of beam-related systematics that can leak temperature into polarization or suppress the high-multipole damping tail. This paper presents Map Multi-Tool (MMT), a map-based pipeline that encodes those effects as a Mueller mixing matrix of beams, convolves them with simulated skies, and yields observed maps and power spectra that feed directly into cosmological estimators. Two worked examples show the payoff: eight different time-division multiplexed readout wiring schemes produce measurably different T-to-B leakage spectra for both row-switching and inductive crosstalk, and fractional errors of a few percent in detector time constants bias N_eff at levels comparable to the statistical targets of next-generation surveys. The framework is offered as a computationally light way to rank design choices and set calibration requirements before committing to expensive end-to-end simulations.

Core claim

Map Multi-Tool shows that beam-related systematics can be modeled efficiently in the map domain by convolving simulated skies with a 3x3 Mueller matrix of intensity and polarization beams (including leakage terms), producing power spectra and parameter biases that distinguish instrument designs. Applied to eight TDM readout schemes, the method ranks them by T-to-B leakage; applied to residual time-constant errors, it maps fractional tau uncertainty onto N_eff bias.

What carries the argument

The Mueller mixing matrix M in the observed-map equation S_obs = M ⊛ S_sky + N: each element is a beam map that can encode crosstalk couplings or residual time-constant smear, so a single convolution yields the leaked Stokes maps and their spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings and bias curves drawn from a simplified 4x4 array, fixed crosstalk amplitudes, flat-sky Fourier transforms, and perfect cross-linking are taken to remain representative for real large-aperture, multi-thousand-detector instruments.

What would settle it

Rebuild the same eight readout schemes and the residual-tau suite inside a full time-ordered-data simulation of a realistic multi-thousand-detector focal plane; if the relative T-to-B leakage ordering or the N_eff-versus-p curve changes materially, the map-based claims do not transfer.

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

If this is right

  • Instrument teams can rank candidate TDM wiring schemes by predicted T-to-B leakage before hardware is frozen.
  • Calibration requirements on detector time-constant precision can be set directly from the N_eff bias curve rather than from ad-hoc margins.
  • Multiple beam systematics (crosstalk, tau error, ellipticity, pointing) can be stacked inside one Mueller matrix to study their combined leakage.
  • The same pipeline supplies contaminated spectra as inputs to cosmological parameter estimators, closing the loop from design choice to science bias.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Once the Mueller-matrix construction is automated for arbitrary wiring graphs, the same ranking exercise could be run overnight for every proposed readout architecture of a Stage-4 experiment.
  • The residual-tau bias curve suggests that time-constant metrology may need to reach the percent level or better if N_eff is a primary science target; that requirement can be budgeted against other calibration terms.
  • Because the method is map-based, it can be inserted as a fast pre-filter before expensive TOD campaigns, concentrating full simulations only on the schemes that already look dangerous in MMT.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Map Multi-Tool (MMT), a map-domain simulation framework in which beam systematics are encoded as a 3×3 Mueller matrix of maps M convolved with simulated Stokes sky maps (Eqs. 1–2), then propagated to flat-sky power spectra and cosmological parameter estimation. Two demonstration studies are given. First, crosstalk in a time-division multiplexed readout is modeled via per-detector coupling coefficients γ_ij inserted into a mapmaking-derived response matrix (Eqs. 3–10), and T-to-B leakage spectra are computed for eight TDM readout schemes on a simplified 4×4 dichroic dual-polarization array behind a 5 m f/2.8 telescope, with fixed 0.1% (row-switching) and 0.3% (inductive) couplings; the schemes rank differently, with two-pass schemes (3, 4) suppressing low-ℓ leakage. Second, a fractional error p in the measured detector time constant is modeled as a residual low-pass filter (Eqs. 11–13) under perfect cross-linking, and the resulting suppression of the high-ℓ TT damping tail is propagated through COBAYA fits to show N_eff biases comparable to SO/CMB-S4 statistical targets for few-percent p (Figs. 10–11). Code and outputs are public [30].

Significance. If the framework performs as described, MMT fills a real gap between analytic beam-leakage calculations (e.g., Hu et al. 2003; Shimon et al. 2008) and full TOD simulations: it is cheap enough for design iteration yet propagates systematics through mapmaking, power spectra, and parameter inference in one chain. Particular strengths: the mixing-matrix algebra (Eqs. 3–10) is transparent and verifiable; all results are forward simulations from stated instrumental inputs with no fitted-then-represented circularity; the crosstalk study yields an immediately usable comparative ranking of eight TDM readout schemes; and the codebase plus simulation products are publicly released [30], making the work reproducible and extensible. The N_eff example, while idealized, demonstrates the full systematics-to-parameters pipeline that design studies need.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 11] The N_eff bias curve in Fig. 11 is the manuscript's only absolute, requirement-setting result (it is compared directly to σ_Neff = 0.045 for SO and 0.03 for CMB-S4 in §3.2), yet the COBAYA fits behind it are unspecified. Please state: the multipole range and weighting (noise levels or noiseless?), which ΛCDM parameters are varied versus fixed, whether lensing is included, and the exponential fit parameters shown as the dashed curve. The numerical value of the bias at the damping tail depends sensitively on ℓ_max and the effective noise weighting, so without this information Fig. 11 cannot be evaluated or reproduced.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. 11–13] Three compounding idealizations determine the magnitude of the Fig. 11 result, and all act at the damping tail (ℓ~2000–4000) where the N_eff lever arm lives: (i) all detectors share a single τ, with the error a pure rescaling τ→τ(1−p) (Eq. 11); real arrays have τ distributions of 10–20% width, and a superposition of exponentials deconvolved by one effective τ leaves a residual transfer function outside the family of Eq. 13, with nonzero tail suppression even at zero mean error. (ii) Perfect cross-linking converts the one-sided smear into a uniform radial filter. (iii) Eq. 12 keeps only the magnitude of the exponential's Fourier transform, discarding the scan-directional phase (a pointing lag), which does not cancel for imperfectly cross-linked or single-direction scans. These are defensible for an illustrative example, but since the text sets the bias against SO/CMB-S4 statistical target
  3. [§3.1, Figs. 5–8 and §2] The leakage spectra in Figs. 5–8 are computed under the flat-sky approximation (§2), yet the ranking claim that schemes 3 and 4 are 'better suited for instruments targeting inflationary B-modes' rests on their steeply decreasing leakage at low ℓ, precisely where flat-sky E/B decomposition is least reliable (the primordial signal at r=0.001 peaks at ℓ≲100, and the paper itself notes leakage spectra peaking at ℓ=1 for monopole-like beams). Please either add a curved-sky check (e.g., against the analytic beam-leakage formalism of [13]/[14] at low ℓ) or explicitly restrict the scheme-ranking conclusions to the multipole range where the flat-sky E/B separation is valid.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The fractional T-to-B leakage is defined as the ratio B̃_obs/Ĩ_sky of Fourier amplitudes, but Figs. 5–8 plot spectra against theoretical BB power curves, implying a power ratio C_ℓ^BB/C_ℓ^TT. Please state the definition precisely, including any normalization (e.g., per-ℓ binning, ensemble averaging over sky realizations).
  2. [§3.2, Eq. 12] State the angular-units convention behind ℓ_cutoff = 180/vτ (e.g., ℓ = 180°/θ with vτ in degrees). For τ=10 ms and v=1°/s this gives ℓ_cutoff ≈ 1.8×10^4; making this explicit would help readers check Fig. 9.
  3. [§3.1] The leakage power scales as γ², so the readout-scheme rankings are robust to the assumed 0.1%/0.3% amplitudes while the absolute levels are not; a one-line note to this effect (with the scaling) would clarify how to rescale the results for other instruments.
  4. [Various] Typos: 'with and a perfect cross-linking scan speed' (Fig. 10 caption); 'speed of of 1°/sec' (§3.2); 'opposite frequencies frequency' (§3.1); 'measured verses true τ' (§3.2); Fig. 8 caption repeats 'indicated by the gray dotted line' for the lensing curve; abstract begins a sentence with lowercase 'this framework enables'. Also 'LCDM' should be 'ΛCDM' in §3.2.
  5. [§3.1, Fig. 2] The checkerboard pattern of 0°/90° and 45°/−45° pixels (Fig. 2) interacts with the readout ordering in producing the leakage beams; a brief note on how the results change if the polarization-angle pattern or pixel pitch is varied would help readers judge the generality of the 4×4 toy array.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: MMT outputs are forward simulations from stated crosstalk amplitudes and fractional τ errors, not fits re-labeled as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results are (i) relative T-to-B leakage rankings across eight TDM wiring schemes (Figs. 5–8) and (ii) N_eff bias versus fractional time-constant error p (Fig. 11). Both are obtained by constructing a Mueller mixing matrix M from explicitly stated inputs—detector geometry, fixed γ_ij ≈ 0.1%/0.3%, readout order, and a residual response R_res = R_real/R_meas with τ o τ(1−p)—then convolving simulated skies and measuring power spectra (Eqs. 1–2, 5–13). Nothing is fitted to external data and re-presented as a prediction; COBAYA is used only as an external minimizer on the distorted spectra. Citations are to standard mapmaking, E/B decomposition, and instrument literature, not to author-unique theorems that force the conclusions. Assumption simplifications (flat sky, perfect cross-linking, uniform τ) affect correctness/robustness, not circularity. The derivation chain does not reduce any claimed output to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard CMB map-making and flat-sky power-spectrum conventions plus a handful of domain idealizations (perfect cross-linking, fixed crosstalk percentages, simplified array geometry) that are stated but not derived from first principles. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the numerical crosstalk levels and the fractional time-constant error p that are scanned rather than fitted to sky data.

free parameters (4)
  • inductive crosstalk amplitude = ~0.3%
    Set to ~0.3% by hand as ‘roughly consistent with typical levels for modern TDM systems’ (Sec. 3.1); directly scales the leakage spectra in Figs. 7–8.
  • row-switching crosstalk amplitude = ~0.1%
    Set to ~0.1% by hand (Sec. 3.1); directly scales the leakage spectra in Figs. 5–6.
  • fractional time-constant error p = scanned (order few percent)
    Scanned over a range of values to produce the residual filter and N_eff bias curve (Eq. 13, Figs. 10–11); not fitted to data but chosen to illustrate sensitivity.
  • detector time constant τ and scan speed = 10 ms, 1°/s
    Fixed at 10 ms and 1°/s for the worked example (Sec. 3.2); set the cutoff multipole of the residual filter.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Flat-sky Fourier transform maps |k| to multipole ℓ and is adequate for the leakage and damping-tail calculations shown.
    Invoked in Sec. 2 for all power-spectrum results; no curved-sky validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Perfect cross-linking produces purely radial beam smear from a non-zero time constant.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2; removes scan-direction anisotropy that real strategies retain.
  • domain assumption Stokes V is negligible and can be dropped from the Mueller matrix.
    Standard CMB assumption cited in Sec. 2 from prior measurements.
  • domain assumption Map-making with the simple 3×3 gain matrix of Eq. 6 recovers I, Q, U in the presence of the modeled crosstalk.
    Taken from De Gasperis et al. (2005) and used without additional noise or filtering terms.
  • ad hoc to paper A 4×4 dichroic dual-polarization array with 5.3 mm pitch on a 5 m f/2.8 telescope is representative for ranking readout schemes.
    Geometry fixed in Sec. 3.1; results are not re-run on larger or differently wired arrays.
invented entities (1)
  • Map Multi-Tool (MMT) pipeline independent evidence
    purpose: Software framework that assembles Mueller mixing maps, convolves skies, and exports spectra for parameter estimation.
    The named tool is the paper’s deliverable; it is an engineered implementation rather than a new physical object, and the public repository supplies an independent handle.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 18424 in / 3181 out tokens · 50814 ms · 2026-07-31T10:45:25.002640+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments use simulations of instrumental systematic effects to ensure high-fidelity measurements of cosmological parameters. Quantifying the expected magnitude of these effects enables experiments to improve designs, set performance requirements, and understand potential measurement biases from residual systematics. Here we present a new simulation framework, called Map Multi-Tool (MMT), which models beam-related systematics for CMB instruments using a map-based approach. The pipeline convolves simulated sky realizations with distorted intensity and polarization beams, including leakage effects, to produce sky maps and power spectra. These outputs can then be used as inputs for cosmological parameter estimators. this framework enables efficient evaluation of such systematic effects. We demonstrate the capabilities of MMT with examples of non-ideal beams induced by electrical readout crosstalk and detector time constant response. The electrical crosstalk example considers eight different schemes for a time-division multiplexed readout architecture, and shows how they lead to different levels of angular power spectrum leakage for row-switching and inductive crosstalk. The detector time constant example demonstrates how associated uncertainties can alter CMB spectra at high multipoles and bias cosmological parameters. These examples illustrate some of MMT's broad capabilities to inform critical design and calibration decisions to mitigate systematic effects in CMB instruments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24605 by Alec Hryciuk, Cesiley L. King, Jeff McMahon, Johanna M. Nagy, John E. Ruhl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The beam mixing matrix M for I → (Q, U) coupling due to quadrupole beam mismatch for a pair of orthogonal Q-sensitive detectors. The diagonal elements illustrate the instrument beams for a given Stokes parameter while the off-diagonals show the coupling between them. In this example, the quadrupole orientation couples I only to Q, but other orientation angles would also couple to U [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the simplified detector array model used for electrical crosstalk simulations. Each spatial pixel in the 4 × 4 grid contains four individual detectors, which measure two different linear polarization orientations in two frequency bands. The relative polarization orientations of neighboring pixels are rotated by 45◦ with respect to each other, which provides better instantaneous coverag… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Diagrams for each of the four single-frequency readout schemes considered for the detector array shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagrams for each of the four dual-frequency readout schemes considered for the detector array shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: T-to-B leakage due to row-switching crosstalk for single-frequency readout schemes assuming crosstalk levels of 0.1% are represented by solid lines, labeled according to Figures 3. The theoretical BB spectrum for r=0.001 is indicated by the gray dotted line and the theoretical lensed BB spectrum is indicated by the gray dashed line. Each of the four panels show the leakage spectra between detectors sensiti… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: T-to-B leakage due to row-switching crosstalk for dual-frequency readout schemes, assuming crosstalk levels of 0.1% are represented by solid lines, labeled according to Figures 4. The theoretical BB spectrum for r=0.001 is indicated by the gray dotted line and the theoretical lensed BB spectrum is indicated by the gray dashed line. Each of the four panels show the leakage spectra between detectors sensitiv… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: T-to-B leakage due to inductive crosstalk for single-frequency readout schemes, assuming crosstalk levels of 0.3% are represented by solid lines, labeled according to Figures 3. The theoretical BB spectrum for r=0.001 is indicated by the gray dotted line and the theoretical lensed BB spectrum is indicated by the gray dashed line. Each of the four panels show the leakage spectra between detectors sensitive … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: T-to-B leakage due to inductive crosstalk for dual-frequency readout schemes, assuming crosstalk levels of 0.3% are represented by solid lines, labeled according to Figures 4. The theoretical BB spectrum for r=0.001 is indicated by the gray dotted line and the theoretical dashed BB spectrum is indicated by the gray dotted line. Each of the four panels show the leakage spectra between detectors sensitive to… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Two-dimensional map (left panel) and one-dimensional power spectrum (right panel) of the detector response function (Equa￾tions 11 and 12) for a 10 ms detector time constant and 1◦/sec scan speed assuming a perfectly cross-linked scan strategy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: Residual detector response functions R˜res, as given by Equation 13. Right panel: Observed CMB T T spectra (after an incorrect time-constant correction) for varying levels of detector time constant uncertainty p given an actual detector time constant of 10 ms with and a perfect cross-linking scan speed of 1◦/sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The effect of a range of errors p in measured detector time constant τmeas on the measured value of Neff is given by the difference of the measured (Nmeas eff ) and fiducial (N fid eff )values. The points represent data using values of Nmeas eff computed from the COBAYA minimizer, while the dashed curve shows the exponential fit. This example assumes an actual detector time constant τactual of 10 ms and a… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    K. N. Abazajian, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, S. W. Allen, D. Alonso, K. S. Arnold, C. Baccigalupi, J. G. Bartlett, N. Battaglia, B. A. Benson, C. A. Bischoff, J. Borrill, V. Buza, E. Calabrese, R. Caldwell, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, T. M. Crawford, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, F. De Bernardis, T. de Haan, S. di Serego Alighieri, J. Dunkley, C. Dvorkin, J. Errard, G. F...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    P. Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso, M. A. Alvarez, K. Arnold, P. Ashton, J. Austermann,et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 056 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Zaldarriaga, Physical Review D64, 103001 (2001)

    M. Zaldarriaga, Physical Review D64, 103001 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    D. R. Barron, Z. Ahmed, J. Aguilar, A. J. Anderson, C. F. Baker, P. S. Barry, J. A. Beall, A. N. Bender, B. A. Benson, R. W. Besuner, T. W. Cecil, C. L. Chang, S. C. Chapman, G. E. Chesmore, G. Derylo, W. B. Doriese, S. M. Duff, T. Elleflot, J. P. Filippini, B. Flaugher, J. G. Gomez, P. K. Grimes, R. Gualtieri, I. Gullett, G. Haller, S. W. Henderson, D. H...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Datta, J

    R. Datta, J. Hubmayr, C. Munson, J. Austermann, J. Beall, D. Becker, H.-M. Cho, N. Halverson, G. Hilton, K. Irwin,et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics176, 670 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    P. A. Ade, R. Aikin, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, S. Benton, C. A. Bischoff, J. Bock, J. Bonetti, J. Brevik, I. Buder,et al., The Astrophysical Journal812, 176 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    BICEP/Keck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, R. B. Thakur, C. A. Bischoff, D. Beck, J. J. Bock, H. Boenish, E. Bullock, V. Buza, J. R. Cheshire, J. Connors, J. Cornelison, M. Crumrine, A. Cukierman, E. V. Denison, M. Dierickx, L. Duband, M. Eiben, S. Fatigoni, J. P. Filippini, S. Fliescher, N. Goeckner-Wald, D. C. Goldfinger, J....

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Thornton, P

    R. Thornton, P. Ade, S. Aiola, F. Angile, M. Amiri, J. Beall, D. Becker, H. Cho, S. Choi, P. Corlies,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series227, 21 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Sobrin, A

    J. Sobrin, A. Anderson, A. Bender, B. Benson, D. Dutcher, A. Foster, N. Goeckner-Wald, J. Montgomery, A. Nadolski, A. Rahlin,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 258, 42 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Galitzki, A

    N. Galitzki, A. Ali, K. S. Arnold, P. C. Ashton, J. E. Austermann, C. Baccigalupi, T. Baildon, D. Barron, J. A. Beall, S. Beckman,et al., inMillimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, Vol. 10708 (SPIE, 2018) pp. 40–52

    2018

  11. [11]

    Abazajian, G

    K. Abazajian, G. Addison, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, S. W. Allen, D. Alonso, M. Alvarez, A. Anderson, K. S. Arnold, C. Baccigalupi, K. Bailey, D. Barkats, D. Barron, P. S. Barry, J. G. Bartlett, R. Basu Thakur, N. Battaglia, E. Baxter, R. Bean, C. Bebek, A. N. Bender, B. A. Benson, E. Berger, S. Bhimani, C. A. Bischoff, L. Bleem, S. Bocquet, K. Boddy, M. Bonat...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  12. [12]

    Abitbol, I

    M. Abitbol, I. Abril-Cabezas, S. Adachi, P. Ade, A. Adler, P. Agrawal, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, T. Alford,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00636 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    W. Hu, M. M. Hedman, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D67, 043004 (2003)

    2003

  14. [14]

    Shimon, B

    M. Shimon, B. Keating, N. Ponthieu, and E. Hivon, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology77, 083003 (2008)

    2008

  15. [15]

    Reinecke, K

    M. Reinecke, K. Dolag, R. Hell, M. Bartelmann, and T. Enßlin, Astronomy & Astrophysics445, 373 (2006)

    2006

  16. [16]

    Puglisi, R

    G. Puglisi, R. Keskitalo, T. Kisner, and J. D. Borrill, Research Notes of the AAS5, 137 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    I. L. Padilla, J. R. Eimer, Y. Li, G. E. Addison, A. Ali, J. W. Appel, C. L. Bennett, R. Bustos, M. K. Brewer, M. Chan, et al., The Astrophysical Journal889, 105 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    J. Nagy, P. Ade, M. Amiri, S. Benton, A. Bergman, R. Bihary, J. Bock, J. Bond, S. Bryan, H. Chiang,et al., The Astrophysical Journal844, 151 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    P. A. Ade, R. Aikin, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, S. Benton, C. Bischoff, J. Bock, J. Brevik, I. Buder, E. Bullock,et al., The Astrophysical Journal792, 62 (2014)

    2014

  20. [20]

    Poletti, G

    D. Poletti, G. Fabbian, M. Le Jeune, J. Peloton, K. Arnold, C. Baccigalupi, D. Barron, S. Beckman, J. Borrill, S. Chapman, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics600, A60 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    P. Ade, R. Aikin, D. Barkats, S. Benton, C. Bischoff, J. Bock, J. Brevik, I. Buder, E. Bullock, C. Dowell,et al., The Astrophysical Journal814, 110 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 057 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Padin, Applied Optics57, 2314 (2018)

    S. Padin, Applied Optics57, 2314 (2018). 13

    2018

  24. [24]

    P. A. Gallardo, R. Puddu, K. Harrington, B. Benson, J. E. Carlstrom, S. R. Dicker, N. Emerson, J. E. Gudmundsson, M. Limon, J. McMahon, J. M. Nagy, T. Natoli, M. D. Niemack, S. Padin, J. Ruhl, S. M. Simon, and T. C.-S. Collaboration, Appl. Opt.63, 310 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    D. C. Goldfinger, Z. Ahmed, D. R. Barron, W. B. Doriese, M. Durkin, J. P. Filippini, G. Haller, S. W. Henderson, R. Herbst, J. Hubmayr,et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics215, 143 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Durkin, S

    M. Durkin, S. Backhaus, S. R. Bandler, J. A. Chervenak, E. V. Denison, W. B. Doriese, J. D. Gard, G. C. Hilton, R. A. Lew, T. J. Lucas,et al., IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity33, 1 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    De Gasperis, A

    G. De Gasperis, A. Balbi, P. Cabella, P. Natoli, and N. Vittorio, Astronomy & Astrophysics436, 1159 (2005)

    2005

  28. [28]

    Hanany, A

    S. Hanany, A. H. Jaffe, and E. Scannapieco, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society299, 653 (1998)

    1998

  29. [29]

    Abitbol, I

    M. Abitbol, I. Abril-Cabezas, S. Adachi, P. Ade, A. Adler, P. Agrawal, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, T. Alford,et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 034 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Public Data Repository,

    A. Hryciuk, “Public Data Repository,” https://github.com/CMB-S4/map multi tool(2025), online; accessed May 2026 This paper was built using the Open Journal of Astrophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in theastro-phsection of the arXiv, making the reviewing process simpler for authors and ref...

    2025