Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

By fitting 100 bright point sources, direct measurements find SPT-3G's beam sidelobes preserve polarization nearly as well as the main beam — contradicting earlier CMB power-spectrum evidence for strong depolarization.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:55 UTC pith:SF4LB6V6

load-bearing objection Direct β_pol measurement is solid; the 'minimal depolarization' conclusion is more model-dependent than the abstract admits, and the two abstracts don't even match. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06334 v3 pith:SF4LB6V6 submitted 2026-02-06 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Characterization of the Polarization Beam Response of SPT-3G Using Point Sources

T. de Haan , M. Archipley , N. Huang , A. J. Anderson , B. Ansarinejad , L. Balkenhol , D. R. Barron , K. Benabed
show 96 more authors
A. N. Bender B. A. Benson F. Bianchini L. E. Bleem S. Bocquet F. R. Bouchet L. Bryant E. Camphuis M. G. Campitiello J. E. Carlstrom J. Carron C. L. Chang P. Chaubal P. M. Chichura A. Chokshi T.-L. Chou A. Coerver T. M. Crawford C. Daley K. R. Dibert M. A. Dobbs M. Doohan A. Doussot D. Dutcher W. Everett C. Feng K. R. Ferguson N. C. Ferree K. Fichman A. Foster S. Galli A. E. Gambrel R. W. Gardner F. Ge N. Goeckner-Wald R. Gualtieri F. Guidi S. Guns N. W. Halverson E. Hivon A. Y. Q. Ho G. P. Holder W. L. Holzapfel J. C. Hood A. Hryciuk F. Keruzore A. R. Khalife L. Knox M. Korman K. Kornoelje C.-L. Kuo K. Levy Y. Li A. E. Lowitz C. Lu G. P. Lynch T. J. Maccarone A. S. Maniyar E. S. Martsen F. Menanteau M. Millea J. Montgomery Y. Nakato T. Natoli G. I. Noble Y. Omori A. Ouellette Z. Pan P. Paschos K. A. Phadke A. W. Pollak K. Prabhu W. Quan M. Rahimi A. Rahlin C. L. Reichardt M. Rouble J. E. Ruhl E. Schiappucci A. C. Silva Oliveira A. Simpson J. A. Sobrin A. A. Stark J. Stephen C. Tandoi B. Thorne C. Trendafilova C. Umilta J. D. Vieira A. G. Vieregg A. Vitrier Y. Wan N. Whitehorn W. L. K. Wu M. R. Young J. A. Zebrowski
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM
keywords cosmic microwave backgroundCMB polarizationinstrumentation: polarimetersbeam characterizationsidelobe depolarizationpoint sourcesSPT-3Ginstrumental systematics
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.

This paper aims to settle a question that bears directly on the reliability of CMB polarization cosmology: do the outer fringes of the South Pole Telescope's third-generation camera (SPT-3G) — the beam's sidelobes — preserve the polarization of incoming light, or do they scramble it? An earlier power-spectrum analysis (C25) inferred substantial depolarization (β_pol ≈ 0.4–0.6), but only indirectly, through the requirement that multi-frequency spectra agree. The authors measure the polarized beam directly by jointly fitting 100 bright point sources, obtaining β_pol = 0.90, 1.01, and 0.81 at 95, 150, and 220 GHz — β_pol = 1 meaning fully polarized sidelobes — all consistent with no depolarization. The two determinations disagree by 1.9σ, a difference the paper ties to the distinct angular scales each method probes, leaving open three explanations: a statistical fluctuation, an over-simple beam model, or unrelated systematics. If the direct measurement is right, beam sidelobes do not scramble polarization, and the new tight constraints can sharpen future cosmological fits.

Core claim

Direct observations show SPT-3G's polarized beam matches the temperature beam even in the sidelobes. Fitting the one-parameter model B_pol(r) = (1−β_pol)B_main(r) + β_pol B_full(r) to 100 polarized point sources gives β_pol = 0.90±0.10, 1.01±0.12, 0.81±0.29 at 95, 150, 220 GHz, all consistent with β_pol = 1; a model-independent B-spline check agrees. These values are in mild tension (1.9σ, p = 0.06) with C25's power-spectrum inference (β_pol ≈ 0.37–0.55). The point-source analysis draws most of its power from 3000 ≲ ℓ ≲ 10,000 while C25 is driven by ℓ ≲ 3000; the paper leaves three explanations: a statistical fluctuation, an over-simple beam model, or non-beam systematics absorbed into β_pol

What carries the argument

The key object is β_pol, one number per frequency band interpolating between two limiting radial beam profiles: B_pol(r) = (1−β_pol)B_main(r) + β_pol B_full(r), where B_main is the main diffraction-limited beam from a physical-optics model and B_full is the full temperature beam including sidelobes, from point-source plus Saturn data. β_pol = 0 means sidelobes respond to temperature only; β_pol = 1 means temperature and polarization responses are identical everywhere. The measurement rests on a joint maximum-likelihood fit of beam and ~1500 source parameters over 100 sources, iterative subtraction of empirical temperature-to-polarization leakage templates, bootstrap resampling cross-checked

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true polarized beam is azimuthally symmetric and differs from the temperature beam only through the single parameter β_pol, which rescales the sidelobes uniformly; if the real beam departs from that one-parameter family at large angular scales (ℓ ≲ 3000), the measured β_pol values are not directly comparable to the power-spectrum values and the conclusion of minimal depolarization does not follow.

What would settle it

A low-multipole measurement of the polarized beam profile would settle the matter: re-analyze the C25 power spectra with a polarized beam model that has several free radial degrees of freedom at ℓ ≲ 3000 (not one β_pol per band). If the inter-frequency inconsistency persists without depolarization, the point-source claim of minimal depolarization is wrong; if it disappears, the earlier depolarization signal was an artifact of the one-parameter model family. In real space, the equivalent check is mapping a bright source's polarized response at radii beyond about 3 arcminutes, where the main and

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

If this is right

  • Beam sidelobes that preserve polarization rule out diffuse scattering as the dominant production mechanism; coherent processes such as diffraction and specular reflection are favored instead.
  • If β_pol ≈ 1 is right, the earlier >5σ evidence for depolarization must be one of three things: a statistical fluctuation, an over-simple polarized beam model, or a non-beam systematic absorbed into β_pol in the power-spectrum analysis.
  • The new δβ_pol ≈ 0.1 measurements at 95 and 150 GHz can replace the [0,1] prior used in cosmological analyses, sharpening constraints on parameters such as the Hubble constant, scalar spectral index, and baryon density by breaking beam-cosmology degeneracies — provided the tension is resolved first.
  • The point-source fitting method reaches roughly 10% precision on beam systematics, comparable to the cosmological analyses themselves, and transfers directly to future instruments needing beam characterization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive re-analysis follows from the paper's second explanation: refit the C25 power spectra with a polarized beam that has several free radial degrees of freedom at ℓ ≲ 3000 instead of one β_pol per band. If the inter-frequency inconsistency survives without depolarization, the point-source conclusion is wrong; if it vanishes, the 5σ depolarization signal was a model artifact.
  • A complementary observation would target the regime where the two analyses disagree most: stacking the point-source maps at their lowest usable multipoles, or enlarging the cutouts, to measure the polarized beam profile at ℓ ≲ 3000 directly.
  • The quoted β_pol values are defined relative to the companion paper's B_main and B_full temperature-beam templates; if those templates are revised, the numbers shift even though the within-paper comparison stays self-consistent. The durable claim is that the polarization beam tracks the temperature beam inside this framework.
  • Careful readers comparing abstract and main text will notice the abstract quotes β_pol = 0.89, 1.08, 0.90 with an effective 1.3σ tension, while the main text's baseline is 0.90, 1.01, 0.81 with a 1.9σ discrepancy; the two versions of the numbers should be reconciled.

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 direct measurements of the polarized beam response of SPT-3G by fitting the Stokes Q/U radial profiles of 100 extragalactic point sources observed during 2019–2023. The polarization beam is parameterized with the β_pol model of Ge et al. (2025), B_pol(r) = (1−β_pol)B_main(r) + β_pol B_full(r). A joint maximum-likelihood fit over source positions and T/Q/U amplitudes yields β_pol = 0.90±0.10, 1.01±0.12, and 0.81±0.29 at 95, 150, and 220 GHz, consistent with fully polarized sidelobes. The authors validate this with extensive systematic tests: real-space versus Fourier-space likelihoods, four precision-matrix models, four leakage-template weightings, main-field-only selection, no-time-constant-deconvolution processing, and Bayesian versus bootstrap inference. A flexible B-spline reconstruction of the polarization profile agrees with β_pol=1. The paper compares the result with the C25 power-spectrum constraints, reporting a 1.9σ tension, and discusses three explanations: statistical fluctuation, beam-model limitation, or non-beam systematics. It concludes that point-source measurements indicate minimal sidelobe depolarization and provide informative priors for future cosmological analyses.

Significance. If the β_pol parameterization is adequate, the measurement is a valuable independent constraint on a key SPT-3G systematic: it achieves ~10% precision, is tested against many methodological choices, and has the potential to sharpen cosmological parameter constraints by replacing the wide [0,1] prior on β_pol. Table 1's robustness across real/Fourier space, covariance models, leakage weightings, and inference frameworks is a genuine strength, as is the less-parametric B-spline cross-check. However, the physical conclusion 'minimal sidelobe depolarization' is conditional on the assumed one-parameter beam family and on the equivalence of β_pol across different multipole ranges. Because the point-source constraints are dominated by 3000≲ℓ≲10000 while C25 is most sensitive at ℓ<4000, the 1.9σ tension does not by itself rule out low-multipole depolarization. The paper explicitly acknowledges this limitation in Sections 4.3 and 5.2, but the abstract and conclusions present the stronger claim. With appropriate reframing, the result remains significant.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (3)] The conclusion 'the actual optical depolarization is minimal' (Sections 4.4 and 5.1) is stronger than the data support without additional assumptions. Equation (3) forces the polarized beam into a one-parameter family with a fixed scale dependence tied to B_main and B_full. The curvature decomposition in Section 4.2 shows that only 30–45% of the β_pol precision comes from ℓ<3000, the range where C25's constraints are concentrated. The harmonic-domain B-spline profiles (Figure 5) have substantially larger uncertainties at low ℓ, and Section 4.3 itself states that 'the true polarized beam could follow a different profile.' The data therefore do not exclude a beam that is depolarized at low multipoles and consistent with β_pol≈1 at high multipoles. Please qualify the central claim as conditional on the model family, or add a test that allows an independent low-multipole depolarization compo
  2. [§4.4] The reported 1.9σ comparison with C25 is only interpretable if both analyses constrain the same physical β_pol. The point-source fit and the power-spectrum fit have different multipole weightings; a model with scale-dependent depolarization can reconcile the two, as the paper itself notes in Section 5.2. To make the comparison meaningful, the paper should either fit a scale-dependent extension of Eq. (3) and report the low-multipole constraint from point sources, or explicitly label the 1.9σ as the tension under the single-parameter model rather than as a statement about the true beam. As written, the abstract's 'indicating minimal sidelobe depolarization' is not warranted without this caveat.
  3. [§2.2.2] The leakage templates are constructed by subtracting the best-fit model from the same data and using the residuals to define the spurious polarization pattern. If the true polarized beam deviates from the fitted model (for example, at large radii or low multipoles), those residuals are beam-model error, not atmospheric or instrumental leakage, and the template subtraction can partially absorb the model error. The four weighting schemes tested in Section 3.4.6 vary the template averaging but not the beam model used for subtraction, so they do not break this degeneracy. I recommend an end-to-end simulation with an injected beam deliberately outside the β_pol family to verify that the leakage-subtraction loop does not bias β_pol toward unity. This is a concrete, testable robustness concern.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Table 1] The abstract in the arXiv listing gives β_pol = 0.89±0.10, 1.08±0.10, 0.90±0.22, while the abstract in the manuscript body and Table 1 give 0.90±0.10, 1.01±0.12, 0.81±0.29. Please harmonize to one consistent set of numbers.
  2. [Abstract / §4.4] The abstract says the results 'differ by an effective 1.3σ', but Section 4.4 reports 1.9σ (p=0.06). Clarify which comparison this refers to and define 'effective' if it is a different statistic.
  3. [§1 vs §4.4] Section 1 quotes C25 best-fit values (0.48±0.13, 0.62±0.16, 0.62±0.15), while Section 4.4 quotes values from the trivariate Gaussian fit (0.37±0.19, 0.49±0.27, 0.55±0.21). If these are intentionally different quantities (mode vs mean, or original vs extrapolated posterior), state this explicitly.
  4. [Table 1] The table heading contains a typo: 'T able 1'. Also, the inline text uses inconsistent spacing for β_pol (e.g., 'βpol' in a few places); a uniform notation would improve readability.
  5. [Figures 4 and 5] The harmonic-domain normalization convention should be spelled out. The caption states R ℓ B(ℓ)dℓ = 2π, but the reader may mistake B(ℓ) for a beam transfer function; define the transform convention and normalization explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central β_pol ≈ 1 result is a direct fit and not circular, but the validation loop includes a self-admitted circular β_T check and a leakage-subtraction feedback loop; the C25 mismatch is honestly attributed to model-family limitations.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.4.1, Eq. (14)]
    "Since B_full(r) is constructed from the same temperature observations (supplemented by Saturn data), this analysis is circular by design. We therefore expect β_T ≈ 1.0 with residuals driven only by the addition of Saturn data and numerical limitations, rather than statistical scatter."

    Equation (14) fits β_T in B_T(r) = (1−β_T)B_main(r) + β_T B_full(r), where B_full(r) is built from the same temperature observations used to fit β_T. The best-fit β_T is therefore forced toward 1 by construction; the quoted β_T ≈ 1.000±0.032 etc. verifies that the fitting code recovers the input template, not that the method independently validates the beam model.

  2. other [Section 2.2.2 (and Algorithm 1 lines 12–22)]
    "To remove this contamination, we iterate: we fit the source and beam parameters using the framework described in Section 3.2, subtract the best-fit polarized signal model from each source's Q and U maps, and then reconstruct the templates from these residual maps."

    The empirical leakage templates subtracted before beam analysis are constructed from residuals after subtracting the same B_pol model that the subsequent fit is trying to measure. A beam-model error can therefore be partially subtracted out of the maps and absorbed into the leakage template, creating a feedback loop that makes the β_pol fit less independent of the model it tests. The paper's alternative-weighting checks show stability, but they do not break the loop.

full rationale

The central measurement is not circular: β_pol is obtained by simultaneously fitting B_pol(r) = (1−β_pol)B_main(r) + β_pol B_full(r) to Stokes Q/U maps of 100 point sources (Eqs. 3–4), with source amplitudes and positions free; the values β_pol ≈ 0.9–1.0 are not derived from the C25 power-spectrum constraints they are compared with. The B-spline reconstruction (Section 4.3) is a second, independent parameterization of the same maps and also tracks the temperature beam, so the 'minimal depolarization' conclusion is not solely an artifact of the one-parameter family. Two genuinely circular elements exist in the validation loop, and the paper itself names one of them: the β_T check (Eq. 14) uses B_full constructed from the same temperature data being fitted, so β_T ≈ 1 is forced (Section 3.4.1: 'circular by design'). Also, the empirical leakage templates are built from residuals after subtracting the same B_pol model that the fit is trying to measure (Section 2.2.2), forming a feedback loop in which a beam-model error can be partially absorbed. These loops do not force the central β_pol values—the leakage variations change results by <0.2σ—but they mean the systematic validations are less independent than they appear. The low-ℓ model-family caveat (Sections 4.3, 5.2) is a limitation, not circularity: the paper explicitly states that a profile deviating from the β_pol model at ℓ ≲ 3000 could reconcile the 1.9σ tension, so the comparison to C25 is honestly scoped.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the β_pol beam-family assumption and on beam templates from H26, as well as standard point-source and noise assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The 1500 source parameters and B-spline coefficients are nuisance parameters, not free physical constants.

free parameters (5)
  • β_pol per band = 95 GHz: 0.90±0.10; 150 GHz: 1.01±0.12; 220 GHz: 0.81±0.29
    The central beam-polarization parameter, fit to point-source Q/U maps (Eq. 3; Table 1).
  • Source parameters (positions and T/Q/U amplitudes) = 1500 parameters (100 sources × 3 bands × 5)
    Nuisance parameters fit jointly with beam parameters (Section 3.2.2); they add freedom but are not of direct interest.
  • B-spline coefficients = 22 per beam per band in the cross-check model
    Free coefficients in the regularized B-spline model used to cross-check β_pol results (Section 3.1.1).
  • Gaussian core width σ = bounded [0.1, 2.0] arcmin
    Width of the central Gaussian component in the hybrid beam model (Eq. 1).
  • B_main physical-optics parameters = 3 parameters, from companion paper H26
    Parameters of the physical-optics model for the main beam, fit to the inner 0.75' of B_full in H26; used here as an input (Section 3.1.2).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Point sources are unresolved at SPT-3G resolution and their intrinsic polarization is constant across the observed band.
    Section 2.3 selects sources visually confirmed point-like; a slightly resolved source would bias the beam profile. Bootstrap partially mitigates this.
  • domain assumption Noise is Gaussian with covariance that is either pixel-independent (real space) or stationary (Fourier space).
    Section 3.3.1; both approximations are tested but neither is exact.
  • ad hoc to paper The polarized beam is azimuthally symmetric and described by B_pol(r) = (1−β_pol)B_main(r)+β_pol B_full(r).
    Section 3.1.2, Eq. (3). The paper acknowledges the true T beam is asymmetric and that low-ℓ deviations of the polarized beam from this family would invalidate the comparison with C25.
  • domain assumption Temperature-to-polarization leakage templates can be estimated from the same source sample and subtracted.
    Section 2.2.2; leakage construction uses the very beam model being measured, risking absorption of polarized beam signal into the template.
  • domain assumption The CAMB Planck 2018 CMB covariance plus empirical noise floor accurately describes the map statistics.
    Section 3.3.2; used to construct the Fourier-space precision matrix. The data-driven covariance cross-checks test this.
  • domain assumption B_main and B_full from companion paper H26 are correct.
    Section 3.1.2; these beam templates are inputs to the β_pol model and are not yet publicly released (H26 in preparation).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22510 in / 11726 out tokens · 105053 ms · 2026-08-03T03:55:13.616578+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Precise measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) polarization require rigorous control of instrumental systematics. For the South Pole Telescope's third-generation camera (SPT-3G), which observes in three bands centered near 95, 150, and 220 GHz, accurate beam characterization is critical for interpreting the polarized mm-wave sky. We present direct measurements of SPT-3G's polarized beam response from observations of 100 bright extragalactic point sources. Previous SPT-3G power spectrum analyses introduced a phenomenological parameter, $\beta_{\rm pol}$, to describe the polarization preserved in beam sidelobes, and found evidence for significant depolarization from the requirement of inter-frequency polarization power spectrum consistency. Our direct measurements yield $\beta_{\rm pol}=0.89\pm0.10$ at 95 GHz, $1.08\pm0.10$ at 150 GHz, and $0.90\pm0.22$ at 220 GHz, indicating minimal sidelobe depolarization. We validate these results with systematic tests of posterior sampling versus bootstrap resampling, real-space versus Fourier-space analysis, temperature-to-polarization leakage handling, covariance determination, and source selection. Compared to values inferred from previous cosmological analyses, our results differ by an effective $1.3\sigma$. This apparent discrepancy is model dependent, because the point source analysis derives much of its $\beta_{\rm pol}$ constraining power from higher multipoles than the power spectrum analysis. These measurements therefore admit three explanations for the frequency-dependent residuals observed in the power spectrum analysis: a statistical fluctuation, the need for more sophisticated polarized beam models, or systematics other than beam depolarization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06334 by A. A. Stark, A. Chokshi, A. Coerver, A. C. Silva Oliveira, A. Doussot, A. E. Gambrel, A. E. Lowitz, A. Foster, A. G. Vieregg, A. Hryciuk, A. J. Anderson, A. N. Bender, A. Ouellette, A. Rahlin, A. R. Khalife, A. Simpson, A. S. Maniyar, A. Vitrier, A. W. Pollak, A. Y. Q. Ho, B. A. Benson, B. Ansarinejad, B. Thorne, C. Daley, C. Feng, C. L. Chang, C.-L. Kuo, C. L. Reichardt, C. Lu, C. Tandoi, C. Trendafilova, C. Umilta, D. Dutcher, D. R. Barron, E. Camphuis, E. Hivon, E. Schiappucci, E. S. Martsen, F. Bianchini, F. Ge, F. Guidi, F. Keruzore, F. Menanteau, F. R. Bouchet, G. I. Noble, G. P. Holder, G. P. Lynch, J. A. Sobrin, J. A. Zebrowski, J. Carron, J. C. Hood, J. D. Vieira, J. E. Carlstrom, J. E. Ruhl, J. Montgomery, J. Stephen, K. A. Phadke, K. Benabed, K. Fichman, K. Kornoelje, K. Levy, K. Prabhu, K. R. Dibert, K. R. Ferguson, L. Balkenhol, L. Bryant, L. E. Bleem, L. Knox, M. A. Dobbs, M. Archipley, M. Doohan, M. G. Campitiello, M. Korman, M. Millea, M. Rahimi, M. Rouble, M. R. Young, N. C. Ferree, N. Goeckner-Wald, N. Huang, N. W. Halverson, N. Whitehorn, P. Chaubal, P. M. Chichura, P. Paschos, R. Gualtieri, R. W. Gardner, S. Bocquet, S. Galli, S. Guns, T. de Haan, T. J. Maccarone, T.-L. Chou, T. M. Crawford, T. Natoli, W. Everett, W. L. Holzapfel, W. L. K. Wu, W. Quan, Y. Li, Y. Nakato, Y. Omori, Y. Wan, Z. Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the resulting leakage templates for the main survey field. In addition to linear temperature flux weighting, we implement three alternative weight￾ing schemes for template construction (median, flat, and quadratic) and explore these as systematic tests in Sec￾tion 3.4. 2.3. Point Source Selection We identify the sample of point sources used for beam determination using a multi-step selection process.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of a typical bright polarized point source in SPT-3G observations at 95 GHz. Rows show Stokes T, Q, and U parameters. Columns display the observed data, best-fit βpol model, and residuals. The color scales are in units of mKCMB, where one unit corresponds to the flux density needed to make the CMB appear 1 mK brighter at 95 GHz. The azimuthally symmetric model leaves residuals in Stokes T due to th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature (top) and polarization (bottom) radial beam profiles reconstructed using the B-spline basis. These profiles are peak-normalized such that B(r = 0) = 1. Thick colored curves show the best-fit profiles for 95 GHz (red), 150 GHz (gold), and 220 GHz (blue). Thin colored lines show a subset of the 200 bootstrap realizations, illustrating the measurement uncertainty. The polarization beam uncertainti… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Harmonic domain representation of the beam profiles shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of βpol measurements from this work (orange; Bayesian results from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Simultaneous inference of isotropic and anisotropic polarization rotation angles for next-generation cosmic microwave background experiments

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A Bayesian power-spectrum framework simultaneously infers isotropic and anisotropic cosmic birefringence angles, instrumental miscalibration angles, and foreground parameters from simulated multi-frequency next-genera...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., Amiri, M., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 151301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.151301 2021

  2. [2]

    E., et al

    Archipley, M., Hryciuk, A., Bleem, L. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.00298, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00298

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00298 2025

  3. [3]

    A., Ade, P

    Benson, B. A., Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9153, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, 91531P, doi: 10.1117/12.2057305

    doi:10.1117/12.2057305 2014

  4. [4]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20707 CMB-S4/SPT-3G Collaboration

    Camphuis, E., Quan, W., Balkenhol, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20707 CMB-S4/SPT-3G Collaboration. 2024, spt3g software: Analysis software for the South Pole Telescope, 0.4 GitHub. https://github.com/CMB-S4/spt3g software

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20707 2025

  5. [5]

    2025, Phys

    Ge, F., Millea, M., Camphuis, E., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083534

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083534 2025

  6. [6]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1111.4246 2011

  7. [7]

    P., & Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. 2017, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 2017

  8. [8]

    2000, Astrophys

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, Astrophys. J., 538, 473 20SPT Collaboration OSG. 2006, OSPool, OSG, doi: 10.21231/906P-4D78 OSG. 2015, Open Science Data Federation, OSG, doi: 10.21231/0KVZ-VE57 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020a, A&A, 641, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833886 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami...

    doi:10.21231/906p-4d78 2000

  9. [9]

    Pordes, R., et al. 2007, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 78, 012057, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/78/1/012057

    doi:10.1088/1742-6596/78/1/012057 2007

  10. [10]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ff1

    Prabhu, K., Raghunathan, S., Millea, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ff1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ff1 2024

  11. [11]

    J., Sherwin, B

    Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06 2024

  12. [12]

    J., Kale, S., & Kumar, S

    Reddi, S. J., Kale, S., & Kumar, S. 2019, On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1904.09237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09237 2019

  13. [13]

    Robnik, J., Luca, G. B. D., Silverstein, E., & Seljak, U. 2023, Microcanonical Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.08549

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.08549 2023

  14. [14]

    C., Holzman, B., et al

    Sfiligoi, I., Bradley, D. C., Holzman, B., et al. 2009, in 2, Vol. 2, 2009 WRI World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, 428–432, doi: 10.1109/CSIE.2009.950

    doi:10.1109/csie.2009.950 2009

  15. [15]

    A., Anderson, A

    Sobrin, J. A., Anderson, A. J., Bender, A. N., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac374f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac374f 2022

  16. [16]

    J., G´ orski, K

    Tristram, M., Banday, A. J., G´ orski, K. M., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 083524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083524

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.083524 2022

  17. [17]

    A., Reichardt, C

    Zebrowski, J. A., Reichardt, C. L., Anderson, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02827, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02827

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02827 2025