Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

A Bayesian analysis of foreground-mitigated multi-frequency CMB polarization spectra can simultaneously recover the isotropic cosmic birefringence angle, per-frequency miscalibration angles, and the anisotropic rotation spectrum.

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

2026-08-01 17:46 UTC pith:STMZODGD

load-bearing objection A useful forecasting method paper that extends MK to anisotropic rotation with foreground marginalization, but the claimed precision is only as good as the single-epsilon residual model; worth refereeing with revisions. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17500 v1 pith:STMZODGD submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.CO

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

Yue Zhang , Chang Feng , Sen Li , Filipe B. Abdalla This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic birefringenceCMB polarizationanisotropic rotationmiscalibration anglesBayesian inferenceforeground mitigationpower spectrumaxion-like particles
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 argues that next-generation CMB polarization experiments can separate three kinds of polarization rotation that all create similar EB-type signals: a frequency-independent cosmological rotation (cosmic birefringence), per-frequency instrument miscalibration angles, and a spatially fluctuating anisotropic rotation tied to axion-like fields. Using a power-spectrum-level forward model and Bayesian MCMC on five frequency bands at 1 muK-arcmin sensitivity, the authors find that a fiducial 0.3-degree isotropic angle is recovered as 0.30 +/- 0.07 degrees at the baseline foreground-residual level, with miscalibration angles constrained to about 0.07 degrees. The anisotropic rotation power spectrum is reconstructable only when foreground residuals are pushed to 0.001 times the reference level and lensing is removed, recovering an input amplitude of 10^-5 rad^2. The practical payoff is a framework for extracting rotation signals from foreground-cleaned data, which is exactly the regime relevant to ground-based experiments where foreground-anchored calibration methods lose leverage.

Core claim

The central claim is that the rotation-induced power spectra can be written so that the EE-BB difference and the EB cross-spectrum carry complementary information: the EB spectrum is dominated by isotropic rotations through a sine factor, while the anisotropic spectrum imprints angle-dependent convolutions through its real-space correlation function. Feeding all 55 auto- and cross-frequency power spectra into a Gaussian likelihood with analytic covariance, the pipeline simultaneously constrains the isotropic angle, the per-band miscalibration angles, the lensing amplitude, and foreground parameters such as amplitudes, spectral indices, and spatial-variation amplitudes. The estimator is valid

What carries the argument

The key identity is the rotated-spectrum decomposition: the combinations C^EE - C^BB and C^EB are proportional to the cosine and sine of 4 beta + 2 alpha_i + 2 alpha_j, multiplied by an exponential damping factor and an integral convolution over the anisotropic-rotation correlation function C_alpha(theta). This single set of equations ties all three rotation angles to the observables; the EB cross-spectrum acts as the anchor that breaks the otherwise strong degeneracy between the isotropic angle and the anisotropic rotation. The foreground model adds per-frequency rotation by miscalibration angles only, with residual foreground power scaled by an efficiency parameter, plus dust and synchrotr

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on the assumption that after component separation the residual foreground is described by a single overall efficiency parameter over a power-law SED model with fixed higher-order fluctuation indices, and that the mock spectra are drawn from the same Gaussian power-spectrum model used in the likelihood; if real foregrounds deviate or the noise covariance is correlated and non-Gaussian, the recovered angles and their uncertainties would degrade or bias.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on mock data generated from a map-level sky simulation that uses a different, spatially varying foreground SED realization (for example drawn from observed dust maps) and includes a realistic sky mask and correlated noise; if the recovered isotropic angle is biased by more than the quoted 0.07 degrees from the input 0.3 degrees, the central claim that the method extracts rotation angles from foreground-mitigated data is not supported.

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

If this is right

  • At 1 muK-arcmin sensitivity and the baseline foreground-residual level, a 0.3-degree isotropic rotation is recovered as 0.30 +/- 0.07 degrees, sufficient to confirm or refute the currently hinted signal.
  • Miscalibration angles for each of the five frequency bands are constrained to roughly 0.07 degrees simultaneously with the cosmological angle, so internal calibration can be verified by the same analysis.
  • An anisotropic rotation spectrum with amplitude around 10^-5 rad^2 is recoverable only with aggressive foreground cleaning and full delensing; at the baseline residual level and 10^-7 rad^2, only upper limits are obtained.
  • The constraints on the isotropic angle are set mainly by the foreground polarization amplitude, not by the spatial-variation parameters, so standard component-separation methods should suffice for the rotation-angle science.
  • The inferred isotropic angle can be translated into limits on the axion-photon coupling over a broad mass range across different axion energy density fractions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If real foreground residuals are not captured by a single overall efficiency parameter over a power-law SED model — for example, with curved or spatially correlated spectral indices and map-level non-Gaussianity — the quoted 0.07-degree uncertainties on the isotropic and miscalibration angles are likely optimistic, and the anisotropic detection threshold would shift upward.
  • The same likelihood machinery could be applied to map-based simulations with realistic sky masks, correlated noise, and bandpass uncertainties; the comparison would give the first honest test of whether the power-spectrum-level forecast survives.
  • A natural extension is to feed the reconstructed isotropic and anisotropic band powers into a joint axion-like-particle model that correlates them, rather than treating them separately; the paper itself notes correlations among anisotropic band-power coefficients that may distinguish massless from massive axion fields.
  • Because this power-spectrum approach captures second-order rotation fluctuations while quadratic estimators capture first-order ones, a combined analysis of the same sky patches could improve total sensitivity and provide consistency checks for anisotropic rotation.

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 extends the MK formalism to jointly infer an isotropic cosmic-birefringence angle β, per-frequency miscalibration angles α_i, an anisotropic rotation power-spectrum amplitude (LOWL and HIGHL band-power models), the lensing amplitude Alens, and foreground parameters from mock power-spectrum data for five CMB frequency bands. The rotated CMB spectra are derived via real-space correlation functions in Appendix A, the foregrounds are modeled with dust and synchrotron components including higher-order SED spatial variations, and the likelihood is a Gaussian in band powers with an analytic diagonal-in-ℓ covariance. The central numerical claims are that β = 0.30 ± 0.07 deg and α_i are constrained to about 0.07 deg at a 1 μK-arcmin noise level with ε = 0.1 foreground residuals, and that anisotropic rotation spectra with A_α ~ 10^-5 rad^2 can be reconstructed only under aggressive foreground cleaning and delensing.

Significance. If the quoted sensitivities were robust, the paper would provide a useful forecasting framework for next-generation CMB birefringence analyses and would extend the MK method beyond isotropic angles. The appendix derivation is standard and internally consistent, the α_i = 0 limit is cross-checked against Li & Yu, and the Fisher-MCMC agreement in Fig. 3 is a genuine sanity check. However, the quantitative forecasts rest on strong idealizations — a single global foreground-residual scaling ε, full-sky Gaussian covariance, and the same power-spectrum model in both the mock generation and the likelihood. These idealizations are load-bearing for the central claim that the rotation angles can be extracted at the quoted precision, and they need to be tested before the numerical statements are accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (10)-(13)] The forecast is built on the assumption that, after component separation, the residual foreground is the input foreground model multiplied by a single global scalar ε. Equations (10)–(11) model the foreground with dust/synchrotron amplitudes, spectral indices, and moment terms, but Eq. (13) feeds the same model back into the data with only an overall factor ε. This preserves the exact frequency SEDs and angular shape of the foregrounds. In real ILC/needlet-ILC or moment-cleaning pipelines, residual foregrounds have different spectral and scale dependence because the cleaning weights vary across frequencies and scales, and SED spatial variations beyond the moment expansion are not captured by a scalar. Since the separation of β from α_i relies on the frequency-dependent foreground rotation (Sec. II.A and Fig. 1), a residual with a modified SED shape can be partly absorbed into β or α_i, b
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (14)-(16)] The likelihood assumes full sky (f_sky = 1), Δℓ = 1, ℓ ∈ [2,1000], and an analytic Gaussian covariance constructed from the fiducial spectra, with no sky mask, no correlated noise, no bandpass uncertainties, and no beam systematics. These choices are stated, but they are load-bearing for the quantitative forecast: for realistic ground-based next-generation experiments with f_sky ≲ 0.4, the quoted errors on β and α_i will increase at least by roughly sqrt(1/f_sky), and mask-induced off-diagonal correlations in ℓ are absent from the covariance. The statement that neglecting EE-EB and BB-EB off-diagonal block matrices is conservative does not address the missing mask and ℓ-correlation effects. The manuscript should either include a partial-sky or non-diagonal covariance test, or temper the claim that the method can extract the rotation angles at the specific quoted uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3 and Table II] The Fisher-MCMC cross-check is a useful internal consistency test, but it does not validate unbiasedness: the Fisher matrix is evaluated at the fiducial model, and both the mock data and the likelihood use the same power-spectrum model, so the posterior peaking at the input values is expected. This is acceptable for a Fisher-style forecast, but the paper's phrasing — e.g., 'validate that the formalism ... can successfully extract the detailed information' — goes beyond what the test demonstrates. A coverage test or an injection with a perturbed foreground model (different SED indices, different residual frequency structure) would be needed to support an unbiased-recovery claim. The current evidence is consistent with 'self-consistent within the assumed model,' not with robustness to realistic systematics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (12)] The symbol σ_i is used for the Gaussian beam FWHM in Eq. (12), while σ_βc is used for the variance of the SED spatial variation in Sec. II.B. Using distinct symbols (e.g., θ_beam) would avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (11)] The parameter Z_auto is introduced in the rotated foreground equations but set to zero and not listed in Table II. Either define it explicitly in the table or remove it from the equations to keep the model specification self-contained.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The shaded regions are labeled 'Planck' and 'ACT' but the caption does not state which published constraints are being used or how the shaded bands are defined. Please add the relevant references and explain the construction of the shaded regions.
  4. [Table II and Sec. IV] For A_alpha^1,2,3, the MCMC values are consistent with zero and much broader than the fiducial amplitude 10^-7 rad^2, which is effectively a non-detection. The paper later acknowledges this in the discussion of Fig. 8, but the abstract and Table II could be clearer that the simultaneous extraction of the anisotropic band powers is demonstrated only for the larger 10^-5 rad^2 amplitude.
  5. [Sec. II.B, inserted paragraph] The paragraph beginning 'Although the residual foreground level is parameterized by a single overall scaling factor ε...' argues that the foreground model is flexible because it includes separate dust/synchrotron parameters. That flexibility is within the same spectral model; it does not address the misspecification concern raised in Major Comment 1. Please clarify in the text that this is a within-model flexibility, not a test of residual-model misspecification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a standard injection-recovery forecast, and the few overlapping-author citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a Bayesian power-spectrum analysis can simultaneously recover isotropic and anisotropic rotation angles plus miscalibration and foreground parameters from next-generation CMB data. This is validated entirely by mock-data injection: the mock spectra are generated with Eq. (13) from the same power-spectrum model that enters the Gaussian likelihood Eq. (14), with the fiducial parameters as inputs. The posterior therefore peaks at the injected values by construction. This is a self-consistency/forecasting exercise, not an empirical prediction against external data, and no fitted subset is relabeled as an independent prediction. The derivation of the rotated CMB spectra in Appendix A is analytic and built on external references [24,25,26] plus standard CAMB lensing; it does not assume the answer it claims to recover. The foreground moment-expansion model is attributed jointly to the overlapping-author preprint [20] and to the independent external work [32], so the self-citation is not the sole or load-bearing support. The foreground 'removal efficiency' epsilon is an acknowledged single-parameter residual model, and the paper explicitly labels the mocks as power-spectrum-level; any concern about realistic foreground misspecification is a robustness/correctness risk, not circularity. The ALP coupling plot (Fig. 9) is also presented as a translation of an assumed 0.3-degree angle ('By assuming a 0.3-degree cosmological rotation angle...'), not as an independent derivation from data. Overall, no step reduces by definition to its own inputs in a way that would make the claimed formalism vacuous.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper's central forecast rests on a set of free parameters that are fitted in the Bayesian analysis (rotation angles, foreground amplitudes/indices, B_c amplitudes, miscalibration angles, plus A_alpha band powers). It also rests on model assumptions: Gaussian anisotropic rotation, zero primordial EB, first-order Taylor expansion, full sky, Gaussian likelihood, and a specific foreground moment model. The result is not a derivation from first principles; it is a forecast/simulation study using a self-consistently generated mock.

free parameters (10)
  • epsilon (overall foreground-removal efficiency) = 0.1 (baseline; also 0.01 and 1)
    Fiducial value chosen following BICEP/Keck, not fit to data in this paper; it controls the overall level of residual foregrounds in the mock and heavily affects the isotropic angle constraint. It is an input choice, not a measured parameter.
  • Z (intrinsic foreground EB ratio) = 0.5
    Set by hand as a 'conservative approach' based on Planck; the actual Z is scale-dependent and uncertain. It affects the foreground rotation signal and thus the alpha_i constraints.
  • Z_auto (intrinsic foreground EB in auto spectra) = 0
    Set to zero for auto-power spectra while retaining intrinsic EB in cross-spectra; an ad hoc modeling simplification.
  • gamma_D, gamma_S (spectral index spatial variation slopes) = -3.5, -2.5
    Fixed to avoid degeneracies, not fit; the paper only fits the amplitude B_c. These are free assumptions that set the scale-dependence of higher-order foreground terms.
  • A_D, A_S (foreground amplitudes) = 28, 1.6 muK^2 (fiducial)
    Fitted in the analysis; they are foreground nuisance parameters and their posteriors are shown.
  • alpha_D, alpha_S (foreground spectral index of EE/BB power spectrum) = -0.16, -0.93
    Fitted foreground nuisance parameters.
  • B_D, B_S (higher-order spectral index spatial variation amplitudes) = 8e-9, 3e-9
    Fitted foreground nuisance parameters; their priors are [-1e-6, 1e-6], but their amplitude is largely set by the chosen beta_c power spectrum.
  • A_alpha_1..3 (anisotropic rotation band powers) = 1e-7 rad^2 or 1e-5 rad^2 (input)
    The target free parameters of the fit; in LOWL they use A_alpha_1..3 for L=1,2,3, and in HIGHL they use Eq. (5) band powers. These ARE the quantities being inferred.
  • Alens = 1 (fiducial)
    An ad hoc amplitude parameter that rescales lensing power spectra. It is fitted, and its prior [0,2] is uniform. It is not a physical lensing amplitude from a standard theory; it is a nuisance/parameter to absorb delensing.
  • miscalibration angles alpha_i = 0 deg
    Instrumental miscalibration angles at 5 frequencies; fitted with uniform priors [-1,1] deg.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The CMB primordial EB correlation is zero (tilde C_EB^ell = 0), stated in Appendix A footnote.
    Standard within Lambda-CDM, but if the primordial EB is nonzero, the inferred beta would be biased. The paper explicitly assumes this.
  • domain assumption The anisotropic rotation field delta_alpha is Gaussian, so that <exp(ix)> = exp(-<x^2>/2), invoked in Eq. (A11).
    The exponential simplification requires Gaussian statistics. Non-Gaussian rotation fields would modify the correlation-function expressions and the relation to C_L^alphaalpha.
  • domain assumption Anisotropic rotation is small enough to Taylor expand to first order in C_alpha(theta) (Appendix A, 'We only keep the first order terms').
    The power spectra are linearized in C_alpha^L; for A_alpha=1e-5 rad^2 this may be fine, but for larger rotations or on small angular scales, higher-order terms are neglected.
  • domain assumption The likelihood is Gaussian in the band powers with covariance computed via Eq. (16) and with off-diagonal block terms (EEEB, EEBB) set to zero (Sec. III).
    The covariance approximation affects the width of posteriors. The paper says ignoring these blocks makes constraints less stringent (conservative), but this is not a rigorous validation.
  • domain assumption Full-sky (f_sky=1) and multipole range 2<=ell<=1000 with Delta ell=1.
    For optical depth and foreground sky coverage this is unrealistic for ground-based experiments; the resulting uncertainties are likely underestimated for f_sky<1.
  • domain assumption The foreground model: dust and synchrotron with power-law angular spectra, modified blackbody / power-law SEDs, and a moment-expansion for spectral index spatial variation (Eqs. 6-11).
    The whole foreground treatment is a model assumption. Real foregrounds may have curvature, decorrelation between frequencies, or non-power-law contributions not captured; the paper's conclusions about foreground-mitigated data depend on this model.
invented entities (2)
  • epsilon scaling factor for foreground residual level no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantifies overall foreground removal efficiency in the mock/pipeline.
    Not a measured physical entity, but a bookkeeping parameter with a fiducial value from BICEP/Keck. It is not independently measured and its effect is studied by varying it.
  • Alens amplitude no independent evidence
    purpose: Single rescaling of lensing power spectra after delensing.
    An artificial parameter used to quantify residual lensing; it has no external fiducial prediction beyond 1 and is varied to mimic delensing.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28086 in / 11569 out tokens · 81178 ms · 2026-08-01T17:46:17.474752+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The ultrahigh-sensitivity polarization imaging of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a treasure trove for new physics. Searching for a predicted polarization angle rotation known as the cosmic birefringence effect is a pursuit of the next-generation CMB experiments, and this new polarization signal would be important for testing fundamental physics theories. However, such a delicate rotation effect can be confused by different mechanisms including polarized Galactic foregrounds and instrumental calibration effects. Also, the cosmological rotation effects may arise from both the background evolution and spatial fluctuations of axion-like particles, leaving complicated imprints on CMB polarization fluctuations. In this work, we establish a comprehensive modeling of cosmological rotation effects, the instrumental miscalibration of polarization angles and complex foreground polarization with higher-order fluctuations, and perform a Bayesian analysis to infer both isotropic and anisotropic rotation angles simultaneously for foreground-mitigated polarization datasets from submillimeter to millimeter wavelengths. We find that such a Bayesian formalism can effectively extract the rotation effects for the next-generation CMB experiments and investigate the impact of the known sources including Galactic foregrounds and lensing on the inferred cosmological signals. The method in this work is well suited for future polarization data analyses, and the inferred rotation effects may shed light on the nature of the axion-like particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17500 by Chang Feng, Filipe B. Abdalla, Sen Li, Yue Zhang.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distributions of foreground parameters and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The impact of lensing signals on the cosmological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior distributions for the miscalibration angles and the foreground parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Inferred isotropic rotation angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Reconstructed power spectra of the anisotropic cosmic birefringence from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The constraints on the ALP-photon coupling constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] 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

43 extracted references · 36 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. M. Carroll, Quintessence and the Rest of the World: Suppressing Long-Range Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3067 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9806099 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    J. P. Kaufman, N. J. Miller, M. Shimon, D. Barkats, C. Bischoff, I. Buder, B. G. Keating, J. M. Kovac, P. A. R. Ade, R. Aikin, J. O. Battle, E. M. Bierman, J. J. Bock, H. C. Chiang, C. D. Dowell, L. Duband, J. Filippini, E. F. Hivon, W. L. Holzapfel, V. V. Hristov, W. C. Jones, S. S. Kernasovskiy, C. L. Kuo, E. M. Leitch, P. V. Mason, T. Matsumura, H. T. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    J.-Q. Xia, H. Li, and X. Zhang, Probing CPT violation with CMB polarization measurements, Physics Letters B 687, 129 (2010), arXiv:0908.1876 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    P. A. R. Ade, K. Arnold, M. Atlas, C. Baccigalupi, D. Barron, D. Boettger, J. Borrill, S. Chapman, Y. Chi- none, A. Cukierman, M. Dobbs, A. Ducout, R. Dunner, T. Elleflot, J. Errard, G. Fabbian, S. Feeney, C. Feng, A. Gilbert, N. Goeckner-Wald, J. Groh, G. Hall, N. W. Halverson, M. Hasegawa, K. Hattori, M. Hazumi, C. Hill, W. L. Holzapfel, Y. Hori, L. How...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    P. A. R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, R. B. Thakur, C. A. Bischoff, D. Beck, J. J. Bock, H. Boen- ish, E. Bullock, V. Buza, J. R. Cheshire, IV, J. Connors, J. Cornelison, M. Crumrine, A. Cukierman, E. V. Deni- son, M. Dierickx, L. Duband, M. Eiben, S. Fatigoni, J. P. Filippini, S. Fliescher, C. Giannakopoulos, N. Goeckner- Wald, D. C. Goldfinger, ...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Namikawa, Y

    T. Namikawa, Y. Guan, O. Darwish, B. D. Sherwin, S. Aiola, N. Battaglia, J. A. Beall, D. T. Becker, J. R. Bond, E. Calabrese, G. E. Chesmore, S. K. Choi, M. J. Devlin, J. Dunkley, R. D¨ unner, A. E. Fox, P. A. Gal- lardo, V. Gluscevic, D. Han, M. Hasselfield, G. C. Hilton, A. D. Hincks, R. Hloˇ zek, J. Hubmayr, K. Huf- fenberger, J. P. Hughes, B. J. Koopm...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Aghanim, M

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, M. Ashdown, J. Au- mont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, K. Benabed, J.- P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, A. Bonaldi, L. Bonavera, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, A. Bracco, C. Burigana, E. Calabrese, J.- F. Cardoso, H. C. Chiang, L. P. L. Col...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Nakatsuka, T

    H. Nakatsuka, T. Namikawa, and E. Komatsu, Is cosmic birefringence due to dark energy or dark matter? A to- mographic approach, Phys. Rev. D105, 123509 (2022), arXiv:2203.08560 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Kosowsky and A

    A. Kosowsky and A. Loeb, Faraday Rotation of Mi- crowave Background Polarization by a Primordial Mag- netic Field, Astrophys. J.469, 1 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9601055 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1996

  10. [10]

    M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Ax- ion dark matter detection with CMB polarization, Phys. Rev. D100, 015040 (2019), arXiv:1903.02666 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    B. G. Keating, M. Shimon, and A. P. S. Yadav, Self- calibration of Cosmic Microwave Background Polariza- tion Experiments, Astrophys. J. Lett.762, L23 (2013), arXiv:1211.5734 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polar- ization Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 221301 (2020), arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Diego-Palazuelos, J

    P. Diego-Palazuelos, J. R. Eskilt, Y. Minami, M. Tris- tram, R. M. Sullivan, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, H. K. Eriksen, K. M. G´ orski, R. Keskitalo, E. Komatsu, E. Mart ´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, D. Scott, P. Vielva, and I. K. We- hus, Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck Data Release 4, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 091302 (2022), arXiv:2201.07682 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    J. R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu, Improved constraints on cosmic birefringence from the WMAP and Planck cosmic microwave background polarization data, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063503 (2022), arXiv:2205.13962 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Diego-Palazuelos and E

    P. Diego-Palazuelos and E. Komatsu, Cosmic Birefrin- gence from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope Data Release 6, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.13654 (2025), arXiv:2509.13654 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Abitbol, I

    M. Abitbol, I. Abril-Cabezas, S. Adachi, P. Ade, A. E. Adler, P. Agrawal, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, T. Alford, A. Ali, D. Alonso, M. A. Alvarez, R. An, K. Arnold, P. Ashton, Z. Atkins, J. Austermann, S. Az- zoni, C. Baccigalupi, A. Baleato Lizancos, D. Barron, P. Barry, J. Bartlett, N. Battaglia, R. Battye, E. Bax- ter, A. Bazarko, J. A. Beall, R. B...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    de Haan, M

    T. de Haan, M. Archipley, N. Huang, A. J. Anderson, B. Ansarinejad, L. Balkenhol, D. R. Barron, K. Ben- abed, A. N. Bender, B. A. Benson, F. Bianchini, L. E. Bleem, S. Bocquet, F. R. Bouchet, L. Bryant, E. Cam- phuis, M. G. Campitiello, J. E. Carlstrom, J. Carron, C. L. Chang, P. Chaubal, P. M. Chichura, A. Chok- shi, T.-L. Chou, A. Coerver, T. M. Crawfor...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Remazeilles, A

    M. Remazeilles, A. Rotti, and J. Chluba, Peeling off fore- grounds with the constrained moment ILC method to unveil primordial CMB B modes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.503, 2478 (2021), arXiv:2006.08628 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Carones and M

    A. Carones and M. Remazeilles, Optimization of fore- ground moment deprojection for semi-blind CMB po- larization reconstruction, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2024, 018 (2024), arXiv:2402.17579 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    S. Li, C. Feng, and F. B. Abdalla, Inference ofB- mode polarization in the presence of non-Gaussian foregrounds, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2512.07235 (2025), arXiv:2512.07235 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Li and X

    M. Li and X. Zhang, Cosmological CPT violating effect on CMB polarization, Phys. Rev. D78, 103516 (2008), arXiv:0810.0403 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [22]

    A. I. Lonappan, B. Keating, and K. Arnold, Con- straints on anisotropic cosmic birefringence from CMB B-mode polarization, Phys. Rev. D112, 023555 (2025), arXiv:2504.13154 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Balkenhol, A

    L. Balkenhol, A. Coerver, C. L. Reichardt, and J. A. Zebrowski, Probing Anisotropic Cosmic Birefringence with Foreground-Marginalised SPT B-mode Likelihoods, The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, 47459 (2025), arXiv:2510.07928 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Li and B

    M. Li and B. Yu, New constraints on anisotropic rotation of cmb polarization, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2013(06), 016

  25. [25]

    G. Chon, A. Challinor, S. Prunet, E. Hivon, and I. Sza- pudi, Fast estimation of polarization power spectra using correlation functions, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.350, 914 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0303414 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

    Challinor and A

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis, Lensed CMB power spec- tra from all-sky correlation functions, Phys. Rev. D71, 103010 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502425 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Efficient com- putation of CMB anisotropies in closed FR W models, Astrophys. J.538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  28. [28]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C. Burigana, R. C. Butler, E. Calabrese, J.-F. Cardoso, J. Ca...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    R. R. Caldwell, V. Gluscevic, and M. Kamionkowski, Cross-correlation of cosmological birefringence with CMB temperature, Phys. Rev. D84, 043504 (2011), arXiv:1104.1634 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [30]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Simultaneous determina- tion of the cosmic birefringence and miscalibrated po- larization angles II: Including cross-frequency spectra, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2020, 103E02 (2020), arXiv:2006.15982 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Akrami, M

    Planck Collaboration, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Au- mont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, K. Benabed, J.- P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, A. Bracco, M. Bucher, C. Burigana, E. Calabrese, J.-F. Cardoso, J. Carron, H. C. Chiang, C. Combet, B. P. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Azzoni, M

    S. Azzoni, M. H. Abitbol, D. Alonso, A. Gough, N. Katayama, and T. Matsumura, A minimal power- spectrum-based moment expansion for CMB B-mode searches, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021, 047 (2021), arXiv:2011.11575 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    J. R. Eskilt, Frequency-dependent constraints on cosmic birefringence from the LFI and HFI Planck Data Release 4, Astron. Astrophys.662, A10 (2022), arXiv:2201.13347 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    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. Cor- nelison, M. Crumrine, A. Cukierman, E. V. Denison, M. Dierickx, L. Duband, M. Eiben, S. Fatigoni, J. P. Fil- ippini, S. Fliescher, N. Goeckner-Wald, D. C. Goldfinger, J. Grayson, P. Grimes, G...

    arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Hu and T

    W. Hu and T. Okamoto, Mass Reconstruction with Cos- mic Microwave Background Polarization, Astrophys. J. 574, 566 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111606 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  36. [36]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Murai, H. Nakatsuka, and S. Tsujikawa, Detection of isotropic cosmic birefringence and its im- plications for axionlike particles including dark energy, Phys. Rev. D103, 043509 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, pasp125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    Bianchini, W

    F. Bianchini, W. L. K. Wu, P. A. R. Ade, A. J. Anderson, J. E. Austermann, J. S. Avva, L. Balkenhol, E. Baxter, J. A. Beall, A. N. Bender, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, P. Chaubal, H. C. Chiang, T. L. Chou, R. Citron, C. Corbett Moran, T. M. Craw- ford, A. T. Crites, T. de Haan, M. A. Dobbs, W. Ev- erett, J. Gallicchio, E. M. Ge...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    P. A. R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, R. Basu Thakur, C. A. Bischoff, D. Beck, J. J. Bock, H. Boen- 15 ish, V. Buza, J. R. Cheshire, J. Connors, J. Cornelison, M. Crumrine, A. J. Cukierman, E. Denison, L. Duband, M. Eiben, B. D. Elwood, S. Fatigoni, J. P. Filippini, A. Fortes, M. Gao, C. Giannakopoulos, N. Goeckner- Wald, D. C. Goldfinger, J. A. G...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    A. I. Lonappan, Improving cosmic birefringence con- straints via delensing, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 009 (2025), arXiv:2503.04708 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Gluscevic, M

    V. Gluscevic, M. Kamionkowski, and A. Cooray, Derota- tion of the cosmic microwave background polarization: Full-sky formalism, Phys. Rev. D80, 023510 (2009), arXiv:0905.1687 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    Komatsu, New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 452 (2022), arXiv:2202.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Komatsu, New physics from the polarized light of the cosmic microwave background, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 452 (2022), arXiv:2202.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Murai, F

    K. Murai, F. Naokawa, T. Namikawa, and E. Komatsu, Isotropic cosmic birefringence from early dark energy, Phys. Rev. D107, L041302 (2023), arXiv:2209.07804 [astro-ph.CO]. 16 Appendix A: CMB power spectra perturbations by anisotropic cosmic rotation effects using correlation functions We can define three correlation functions for the CMB polarization vecto...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023