Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 100 references

Primordial black hole evaporation can raise the Thomson optical depth by at most roughly 0.008, far short of the 0.03 needed to resolve the BAO-CMB tension, and leaves the matter-density deficit and lensing excess essentially unchanged.

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

2026-08-04 18:13 UTC pith:XTWF5F4N

load-bearing objection Solid negative result: monochromatic PBH evaporation can't push tau high enough to relieve BAO-CMB tensions, and the paper explains why—worth a serious referee.

arxiv 2608.01919 v1 pith:XTWF5F4N submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.CO

Boosting the optical depth to Thomson scattering with primordial black hole evaporation at high redshift

Isaac Sierra , Gabriel P. Lynch , Lloyd Knox , Vivian Poulin , Lennart Balkenhol , Ali Rida Khalife This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords primordial black holesHawking radiationThomson optical depthreionizationcosmic microwave backgroundBAO-CMB tensionmatter density deficitCMB lensing excess
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.

The paper asks whether free electrons created at high redshift by Hawking radiation from primordial black holes can push the optical depth to Thomson scattering high enough to resolve a known mismatch between baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements and cosmic microwave background (CMB) data under the standard cosmological model. The answer is no: even under the most favorable assumptions considered, the data allow an increase of at most about 0.008, less than a third of the 0.03 that would fully remove the mismatch. The matter-density deficit and the CMB lensing excess are barely affected, and the small upward shift in the inferred optical depth comes from parameter-space volume opened up by the one-sided model extension, not from any preference in the data. Because the analysis retains the high-multipole CMB temperature and polarization data, it captures imprints that high-redshift electrons leave at multipoles well above the usual reionization bump, which is exactly what makes the extra ionization so tightly constrained. The results are discouraging for high-redshift reionization as a route to resolving the tension, though the authors note that a more flexible ionization history could in principle behave differently.

Core claim

Using CMB temperature and polarization power spectra, including the high-multipole TT/TE/EE data that constrain free electrons at z ≳ 15, with the reionization redshift free to adjust, the authors find that a monochromatic population of evaporating primordial black holes can raise the Thomson optical depth by at most Δτ ≈ 0.008 — far short of the ~0.03 needed to reconcile BAO measurements with CMB data. The maximum-likelihood point stays at τ ≈ 0.054, essentially the standard ΛCDM value, and the fit improves by only Δχ² = −0.59 for two extra parameters. The matter-density deficit drops from 1.68σ to 1.57σ and the lensing excess remains at 3.1σ. A free reionization redshift compensates for ab

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the monochromatic, Schwarzschild primordial black hole Hawking-evaporation model, in which injected electromagnetic energy is deposited on the spot and drives a high-redshift tail in the free-electron fraction. The analysis couples this to CMB temperature and polarization spectra, deliberately keeping the high-multipole TT/TE/EE data that are sensitive to ionization at z > 15, while letting the reionization redshift float. A linear-response calculation traces the parameter shifts: the reionization redshift absorbs part of the added optical depth, and the residual signal at ℓ > 30, which no reionization-step adjustment reproduces, is what the high-ℓ data disfavor.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a monochromatic population of non-rotating black holes with fully electromagnetic Hawking emission and on-the-spot energy deposition; if a realistic PBH population produced a differently shaped ionization history, the maximum allowed optical-depth boost could differ from 0.008.

What would settle it

A single future measurement could settle this: E-mode polarization at multipoles 20 < ℓ < 300 measured near the cosmic-variance limit would directly reveal a high-redshift tail in free-electron history. If such a tail were present at the level Δτ ≈ 0.03, the paper's central claim would be wrong; if it were absent, the claim would be confirmed. Alternatively, a new low-multipole EE measurement that moves the central τ above about 0.06 with reduced systematics would also test the anchor of this analysis.

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

If this is right

  • A monochromatic PBH population cannot raise the CMB optical depth by the ~0.03 needed to fully resolve the BAO-CMB tension; the maximum allowed boost is about 0.008.
  • The matter density deficit and the CMB lensing excess are not significantly eased by PBH-driven high-redshift reionization: the deficit changes from 1.68σ to 1.57σ and the lensing excess remains above 3σ.
  • The upward shift in the marginalized τ posterior is dominated by prior volume, not by data preference: the maximum-likelihood τ stays at ~0.054 and the fit improves by only Δχ² ≈ −0.59 for two additional parameters.
  • Any high-redshift reionization source that adds free electrons at z > 15 will create structure at ℓ > 30 in TT/TE/EE that the data can constrain; this is a general obstacle for such scenarios, not specific to PBHs (the paper notes this applies to Pop III.1 flash models as well).
  • Constraints on the PBH abundance f_PBH are robust to the on-the-spot assumption, though the exact limits depend on modeling choices like the electromagnetic branching fraction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An extended mass function or rotating (Kerr) PBHs could produce a differently shaped ionization history, so the Δτ ≈ 0.008 ceiling is specific to the monochromatic Schwarzschild model; testing those variants is the natural next step.
  • The analysis isolates a prior-volume effect: one-sided model extensions shift marginalized posteriors without data preference, so future exotic-reionization constraints should report maximum-likelihood and marginalised results side by side.
  • The high-multipole polarization filter penalizes exactly the high-redshift electrons that contribute most to τ, so any scenario—PBH or otherwise—that relies on a high-z tail faces a steeper climb than step-like reionization.
  • If future low-multipole EE data move τ upward beyond the range anchored here, the quantitative conclusions would need revisiting, since the low-ℓ polarization is the main anchor holding τ near 0.05.

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper tests whether Hawking radiation from a monochromatic population of primordial black holes can supply the high-redshift Thomson optical depth needed to resolve the BAO-CMB tension. Using Planck PR3 as the baseline (plus ACT/SPT/BAO/lensing combinations), the authors fit f_PBH and M_PBH jointly with z_reio and report that the data do not prefer the extension: the maximum-likelihood point sits at the ΛCDM value τ≃0.054, the marginalized mean shifts by Δτ≃0.008 under uniform priors, Δχ²=-0.59 for two extra parameters, and the 95% upper limit moves from 0.068 to 0.079. The matter density deficit (1.68σ→1.57σ) and the lensing excess (A_lens from 1.081 to 1.068; 3.2σ→3.1σ) are only marginally eased. The small shift is traced to z_reio compensation and to high-ℓ structure from high-redshift deposition; a linear-response appendix and an ExoCLASS comparison support the interpretation. The claim is explicitly scoped to non-rotating, monochromatic PBHs with f_e.m.=1 and on-the-spot deposition.

Significance. If correct, the result is a useful negative: it closes the monochromatic Schwarzschild PBH evaporation channel as a τ-based resolution of the BAO-CMB tension and demonstrates the importance of retaining high-ℓ CMB data when assessing high-redshift reionization scenarios. The paper's strengths are the forward-modeled physical deposition history, the explicit robustness tests (SRoll2, SPA+DESI+lensing, prior sensitivity), and the clean Fisher-matrix explanation of why ω_c does not relax. The authors clearly flag the monochromatic/non-rotating/on-the-spot assumptions and correctly note that extended mass functions or Kerr spin could change the shape of X_e(z); the scope of the claim is accordingly limited. The analysis uses public CLASS/ExoCLASS/Cobaya infrastructure, so it is reproducible in principle.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §IV] The phrase 'the boost is at most Δτ≃0.008' should be qualified: it is the shift in the posterior mean under the adopted uniform priors, not a hard upper limit. The 95% bound on τ rises to 0.079 (Δτ≃0.024), so the abstract can be misread as an exclusion. Please rephrase to specify the posterior-mean statement and state the 95% upper limit explicitly.
  2. [§III B] The claim that closing the lensing excess entirely would require Δτ≃0.04 is stated without derivation. Since this follows from the A_lens excess and the lensing response to A_s, one sentence of scaling logic would make the estimate more transparent.
  3. [Appendix B / Fig. 6] The text 'with just the f_PBH parameter scaled up in the ExoCLASS scenario' is imprecise. Please specify the scaling convention (e.g., matching the same integrated τ or the same peak X_e) so the reader can interpret the comparison between on-the-spot and full-cascade treatments.
  4. [Table II / Table III] The Δχ² values are computed from best-fit chain samples rather than true minima. Table II states this, but Table III relegates it to a footnote; the caveat should be in the main text or table caption for both tables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PBH-boost ceiling is a likelihood result, not an input or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim is that monochromatic Schwarzschild PBH evaporation does not produce a data-preferred Δτ large enough to ease the BAO-CMB tensions. The derivation chain is: Eq. (1) PBH injection rate → Eq. (2) deposition with f_c(z,X_e) → CLASS/ExoCLASS ionization histories → CMB power spectra → MCMC over {f_PBH, M_PBH, z_reio, ΛCDM parameters} → Δχ² and posterior shifts. Every link is either standard Hawking-radiation physics or a public, externally validated code; the author-overlapping inputs (Poulin et al. model, Lynch & Knox tension definitions) are code-reproduced or parameter-free with stated assumptions and are not the target result. The 'boost at most Δτ ≃ 0.008' is a posterior-mean shift under uniform priors, which the paper itself attributes to prior volume (maximum likelihood at τ ≃ 0.054; Δχ² = −0.59), not to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. Appendix A is an explanatory linear-response check; its statement that the tanh template is nulled by z_reio by construction is a consistency property, not a load-bearing assumption. Appendix B checks the on-the-spot approximation against ExoCLASS. The monochromatic/non-rotating/f_e.m.=1 assumptions are explicitly flagged as scope limitations that could change the shape of X_e(z), so they bound the claim rather than smuggle it in. No equation reduces the target quantity to its own input or to a self-citation chain. Therefore no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its load-bearing inputs are the two PBH parameters, the phenomenological lensing amplitude, the standard Hawking and deposition model, and the freedom in z_reio. The most consequential modeling choices are flagged, and one of them, on-the-spot deposition, is checked with ExoCLASS.

free parameters (4)
  • f_PBH = Uniform prior 1e-12 to 5e-7; Planck baseline posterior 10^11 f_PBH < 452 (Table II)
    PBH fraction of dark matter sets the amplitude of energy injection and hence the optical depth boost; fitted to CMB data.
  • M_PBH = Uniform prior 0.45 to 3.0 in units of 1e14 g; Planck baseline posterior lower limit above 2.28e14 g (Table II)
    Single PBH mass controls evaporation redshift and the shape of the ionization history; fitted jointly with f_PBH.
  • A_lens = 1.068 +/- 0.022 for the PBH plus tension dataset; 1.081 +/- 0.025 for LambdaCDM (Table III)
    Phenomenological lensing amplitude used to quantify the lensing excess in Section III B; fitted to SPA + DESI + lensing data.
  • z_reio = Jointly sampled standard tanh reionization redshift; shifts downward to compensate PBH optical depth (Sections III A and
    Although a standard LambdaCDM parameter, its freedom is load-bearing for the explanation that compensation absorbs roughly half of the added optical depth.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Hawking evaporation of Schwarzschild black holes with dM/dt proportional to M^-2 and the standard emission spectrum.
    Adopted from Hawking results and PBH computations in Section II A; the paper does not re-derive this.
  • ad hoc to paper Electromagnetic branching fraction f_e.m. = 1, with all injection into photons and e+/- channels.
    Section II A assumption (i), acknowledged to overestimate injection by 10 to 50 percent; the paper argues it rescales f_PBH and does not change the shape of X_e(z).
  • domain assumption Energy deposition is on-the-spot, with efficiency f_c(z, X_e) taken from prior work.
    Section II A assumption (ii); Appendix B validates the shape against ExoCLASS but does not validate extended mass or Kerr cases.
  • ad hoc to paper The PBH mass distribution is monochromatic.
    Section II A assumption (iv), explicitly left for future work because extended mass functions can change the shape of X_e(z), not only its amplitude.
  • domain assumption The low-ell SimAll EE likelihood and Planck PR3 high-ell likelihoods provide unbiased constraints on the reionization bump.
    Section II D; robustness to SRoll2 is tested, and alternative tau analyses spanning 0.051 to 0.063 are cited.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 21952 in / 15616 out tokens · 169416 ms · 2026-08-04T18:13:53.090704+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

BAO and CMB data are somewhat discrepant when interpreted in the context of $\Lambda$cdm, discrepancies that show up as a `matter density deficit' and as a `CMB lensing excess'. One possible resolution is an increased optical depth to scattering off of free electrons in the post-recombination universe, $\tau$, a possibility raised by Sailer et al. 2025 and Jhaveri et al. 2025. Since Planck measurements of the low-$\ell$ polarization `reionization bump' already constrain $\tau$ from standard stellar-driven reionization at $z<10$, we investigate additional optical depth sourced by transient or partial reionization at higher redshift from exotic processes. For specificity, we explore the impact of Hawking radiation from a monochromatic spectrum of primordial black holes, retaining the high-$\ell$ $TT/TE/EE$ data that constrain such histories and varying the reionization redshift jointly. We find that the CMB data do not significantly prefer these additional signals: the boost is at most $\Delta\tau \simeq 0.008$, well short of the $\Delta\tau \simeq 0.03$ that would completely eliminate the moderate discrepancy. The matter density deficit and the lensing excess are not significantly eased: we explain why, tracing it to compensation from the reionization redshift and the residual PBH signal at $\ell > 30$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01919 by Ali Rida Khalife, Gabriel P. Lynch, Isaac Sierra, Lennart Balkenhol, Lloyd Knox, Vivian Poulin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Ionization histories for a set of PBH masses with peak evaporations at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In ΛCDM, BAO data can be losslessly compressed to Ωm and hrd. Therefore they can also be losslessly compressed to Ωm and Ωm(hrd) 3 , a parameter pair with a significantly reduced correlation. The reduced correla￾tion makes it easier to see the very small shift, though it remains subtle. The difference between Planck and DESI in this 2D plane shifts from 1.70σ to 1.58σ, with this 2D tension quantified using… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 1D posterior for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The best-fit ionization histories for the high and low mass models compared to the ExoCLASS output for the same fit, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 77 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    APS Lensing

    the temperature quadrupole seen by higher-redshift electrons is generated by shorter-wavelength modes, an effect that shows up in the denominator of the above ex- pression, and 2) these modes project into angular scales over a larger distance, given in the numerator. We see the two tanh models producing reionization bumps that fit this prescription, but f...

    2018

  2. [2]

    The first moves the tanh step in the CAMB parameterization, Ttanh = ∂Cℓ ∂τexc fPBH=0 ×∆τ exc,(A5) evaluated by central difference inz reio about the fiducial model

    Signal templates We compare two routes to the same excess optical depth, ∆τexc. The first moves the tanh step in the CAMB parameterization, Ttanh = ∂Cℓ ∂τexc fPBH=0 ×∆τ exc,(A5) evaluated by central difference inz reio about the fiducial model. The second holdsz reio fixed and adds a PBH population with peak evaporation at redshiftz peak, TPBH(λ) = ∂Cℓ ∂τ...

  3. [3]

    We calibrate theEEblock so thatσ(τ) = 0.0065 matches our ΛCDM Planck chain

    The lensing-mediated relaxation We first reproduce the expected behavior from Sailer et al.[25] and Jhaveriet al.[26], where we drop theℓ <30 9 These consist of two log-normal bins inT Tand three inEE. We calibrate theEEblock so thatσ(τ) = 0.0065 matches our ΛCDM Planck chain. 13 zpeak 0 5 10 15δωc [10−4] per ∆ τexc = 0.01 response to lensing expected res...

  4. [4]

    We letθdenote the cosmological parameters varied in the fit, andλthe parameters of the added signal, which are held fixed

    F ramework We consider the response of cosmological parameters when fitting a signal added to some fiducial spectrum. We letθdenote the cosmological parameters varied in the fit, andλthe parameters of the added signal, which are held fixed. We then define an inner product on power- spectrum perturbationsA, B(e.g.δC ℓ) from a likelihood covarianceC, ⟨A, B⟩...

  5. [5]

    Louiset al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters, (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters, (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Geet al.(SPT-3G), Cosmology From CMB Lensing and Delensed EE Power Spectra Using 2019-2020 SPT- 3G Polarization Data, (2024), arXiv:2411.06000 [astro- ph.CO]

    F. Geet al.(SPT-3G), Cosmology From CMB Lensing and Delensed EE Power Spectra Using 2019-2020 SPT- 3G Polarization Data, (2024), arXiv:2411.06000 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    The low-ℓ EEdata pin the amplitude of the reionization bump, andz reio can be adjusted to maintain that part of the fit

    PBH-induced shifts in the matter density We now add the compressed low-ℓblock to the met- ric andz reio to the fitted set, and consider the response toT PBH. The low-ℓ EEdata pin the amplitude of the reionization bump, andz reio can be adjusted to maintain that part of the fit. This configuration most closely ap- proximates our main analysis in Section II...

  8. [8]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints, (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cos- mological Constraints, (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods, Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, CMB lens- ing from Planck PR4 maps, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(09), 039, arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    F. J. Quet al.(ACT), The Atacama Cosmology Tele- scope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth, Astrophys. J.962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers, The Cosmological Preference for Negative Neutrino Mass, (2024), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, L. Knox, and A. Linde, The BAO- CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation, (2025), arXiv:2507.12459 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field, (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner, Massive neutrinos and cos- mic composition, JCAP12, 048, arXiv:2410.00090 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    G. P. Lynch and L. Knox, What’s the matter with Σmν?, Phys. Rev. D112, 083543 (2025), arXiv:2503.14470 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Z. J. Weiner, High-redshift physics from the acoustic scale, (2026), arXiv:2603.18131 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Craig, D

    N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers, and S. Rajendran, Noνs is Good News, (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Montandon, V

    T. Montandon, V. Poulin, T. Rink, and T. Schwetz, Neutrino mass limits and decaying dark matter: back- ground evolution versus perturbations, JCAP06, 022, arXiv:2603.03284 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    G. P. Lynch, L. Knox, and J. Chluba, DESI observations and the Hubble tension in light of modified recombina- tion, Phys. Rev. D110, 083538 (2024), arXiv:2406.10202 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pascoli, Negative neutrino masses as a mirage of dark energy, (2024), arXiv:2407.10965 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Rodrigues, R

    G. Rodrigues, R. de Souza, J. Rodrigues, and J. Alcaniz, Thawing dark energy and massive neutrinos in light of DESI, JCAP2025, 016 (2025), arXiv:2503.00126 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Wang, R.-G

    J.-Q. Wang, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, Re- solving the Planck-DESI tension by nonminimally cou- pled quintessence, Phys. Rev. D113, 083534 (2026), 15 arXiv:2508.01759 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    E. M. Teixeira, G. Poulot, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, and V. Poulin, Alleviating cosmological tensions with a hybrid dark sector, Phys. Rev. D113, 023514 (2026), arXiv:2412.14139 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Apparent w<- 1 and a Lower S8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181001 (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, and W. Hu, Turning a nega- tive neutrino mass into a positive optical depth, (2025), arXiv:2504.21813 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Akramiet al.(Planck),P lanckintermediate results

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck),P lanckintermediate results. L VII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing, Astron. Astrophys.643, A42 (2020), arXiv:2007.04997 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik, and L. Pogosian, Is Dy- namical Dark Energy Necessary? DESI BAO and Mod- ified Recombination, (2025), arXiv:2504.15274 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calder´ on, and T. Simon, Im- pact of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 for Early Dark Energy and the Hubble tension, (2025), arXiv:2505.08051 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    A. R. Khalifeet al.(SPT-3G), SPT-3G D1: Axion Early Dark Energy with CMB experiments and DESI, (2025), arXiv:2507.23355 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Garny, F

    M. Garny, F. Niedermann, H. Rubira, and M. S. Sloth, Hot New Early Dark Energy: Dark Radiation Matter Decoupling, (2025), arXiv:2508.03795 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, Dispuτable: the high cost of a low optical depth, (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    J. R. Eimeret al., CLASS Angular Power Spectra and Map-component Analysis for 40 GHz Observa- tions through 2022, Astrophys. J.963, 92 (2024), arXiv:2309.00675 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Liet al.(CLASS), A Measurement of the Largest-scale CMB E-mode Polarization with CLASS, Astrophys

    Y. Liet al.(CLASS), A Measurement of the Largest-scale CMB E-mode Polarization with CLASS, Astrophys. J. 986, 111 (2025), arXiv:2501.11904 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Pagano, J

    L. Pagano, J. M. Delouis, S. Mottet, J. L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Reionization optical depth determination from Planck HFI data with ten percent accuracy, Astron. Astrophys.635, A99 (2020), arXiv:1908.09856 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    FlexKnot

    found that replacing the Planck low-ℓ EElikelihood with astrophysical tracers of the reionization history re- covers a mean optical depth in agreement with the CMB determination. These constraints, however, bear principally on the low-redshiftcontribution toτ. The optical depth is an 3 Together with BAO and BBN data to fix the mean hydrogen density andH(z...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    de Belsunce, S

    R. de Belsunce, S. Gratton, W. Coulton, and G. Efs- tathiou, Inference of the optical depth to reionization from low multipole temperature and polarization Planck data, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 1072 (2021), arXiv:2103.14378 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Tristramet al., Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron

    M. Tristramet al., Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron. Astrophys. 682, A37 (2024), arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Genesini, G

    V. Genesini, G. Galloni, L. Pagano, P. Campeti, and M. Lattanzi, Cross-spectra likelihood for robustτcon- straints from all satellite polarisation data, (2026), arXiv:2603.22454 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Heinrich and W

    C. Heinrich and W. Hu, DoesP lanck2015 polarization data favor high redshift reionization?, Phys. Rev. D98, 063514 (2018), arXiv:1802.00791 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Elbers, Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications, (2025), arXiv:2508.21069 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Elbers, Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications, (2025), arXiv:2508.21069 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    D. K. Hazra, D. Paoletti, F. Finelli, and G. F. Smoot, Joining Bits and Pieces of Reionization History, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 071301 (2020), arXiv:1904.01547 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Holder, Z

    G. Holder, Z. Haiman, M. Kaplinghat, and L. Knox, The Reionization history at high redshifts. 2. Estimat- ing the optical depth to Thomson scattering from CMB polarization, Astrophys. J.595, 13 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0302404

    arXiv 2003

  45. [45]

    M. J. Mortonson and W. Hu, Model-independent con- straints on reionization from large-scale CMB polariza- tion, Astrophys. J.672, 737 (2008), arXiv:0705.1132 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Zaldarriaga, L

    M. Zaldarriaga, L. Colombo, E. Komatsu, A. Lidz, M. Mortonson, S. P. Oh, E. Pierpaoli, L. Verde, and O. Zahn, CMBPol Mission Concept Study: Reionization Science with the Cosmic Microwave Background, (2008), arXiv:0811.3918 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    C. H. Heinrich, V. Miranda, and W. Hu, Complete Reionization Constraints from Planck 2015 Polarization, Phys. Rev. D95, 023513 (2017), arXiv:1609.04788 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    Poulin, J

    V. Poulin, J. Lesgourgues, and P. D. Serpico, Cosmo- logical constraints on exotic injection of electromagnetic energy, JCAP03, 043, arXiv:1610.10051 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Millea and F

    M. Millea and F. Bouchet, Cosmic Microwave Back- ground Constraints in Light of Priors Over Reioniza- tion Histories, Astron. Astrophys.617, A96 (2018), arXiv:1804.08476 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Paoletti, D

    D. Paoletti, D. K. Hazra, F. Finelli, and G. F. Smoot, Dark twilight joined with the light of dawn to unveil the reionization history, Phys. Rev. D104, 123549 (2021), arXiv:2107.10693 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    J. C. Tan and E. Komatsu, The Impact of Pop- ulation III.1 Flash Reionization for CMB Polariza- tion and Thomson Scattering Optical Depth, (2025), arXiv:2510.19647 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Cheng, Z

    H. Cheng, Z. Yin, E. Di Valentino, D. J. E. Marsh, and L. Visinelli, Constraining exotic high-zreionization his- tories with Gaussian processes and the cosmic microwave background, (2025), arXiv:2506.19096 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Ilicet al., Reconstructing the epoch of reionisation with Planck PR4, Astron

    S. Ilicet al., Reconstructing the epoch of reionisation with Planck PR4, Astron. Astrophys.700, A26 (2025), arXiv:2504.13254 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Z. Yin, H. Cheng, and L. Visinelli, Primordial Black Hole Abundance from Reionization, (2026), arXiv:2602.06794 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Galli, F

    S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, and A. Melchiorri, CMB constraints on Dark Matter models with large annihi- lation cross-section, Phys. Rev. D80, 023505 (2009), arXiv:0905.0003 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    S. K. Acharya and R. Khatri, CMB and BBN constraints on evaporating primordial black holes revisited, JCAP 06, 018, arXiv:2002.00898 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  57. [57]

    Auffinger, Primordial black hole constraints with Hawking radiation—A review, Prog

    J. Auffinger, Primordial black hole constraints with Hawking radiation—A review, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131, 104040 (2023), arXiv:2206.02672 [astro-ph.CO]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Con- straints on primordial black holes, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Poulin, P

    V. Poulin, P. D. Serpico, F. Calore, S. Clesse, and K. Kohri, CMB bounds on disk-accreting massive pri- mordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D96, 083524 (2017), arXiv:1707.04206 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Chen and M

    X.-L. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Particle decays during the cosmic dark ages, Phys. Rev. D70, 043502 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  61. [61]

    Padmanabhan and D

    N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, Detecting dark matter annihilation with CMB polarization: Signatures and experimental prospects, Phys. Rev. D72, 023508 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503486

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  62. [62]

    S. W. Hawking, Black hole explosions, Nature248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  63. [63]

    T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan, and D. P. Finkbeiner, CMB Constraints on WIMP Annihilation: Energy Ab- sorption During the Recombination Epoch, Phys. Rev. D 80, 043526 (2009), arXiv:0906.1197 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  64. [64]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    T. R. Slatyer and C.-L. Wu, General Constraints on Dark Matter Decay from the Cosmic Microwave Background, Phys. Rev. D95, 023010 (2017), arXiv:1610.06933 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    St¨ ocker, M

    P. St¨ ocker, M. Kr¨ amer, J. Lesgourgues, and V. Poulin, Exotic energy injection with ExoCLASS: application to the Higgs portal model and evaporating black holes, JCAP2018, 018 (2018), arXiv:1801.01871 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, The Cos- mic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes, JCAP2011, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    D. J. Fixsen, The Temperature of the Cosmic Mi- crowave Background, Astrophys. J.707, 916 (2009), arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  70. [70]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes, Com- mun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Com- mun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  71. [71]

    D. P. Finkbeiner, S. Galli, T. Lin, and T. R. Slatyer, Searching for Dark Matter in the CMB: A Compact Pa- rameterization of Energy Injection from New Physics, Phys. Rev. D85, 043522 (2012), arXiv:1109.6322 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  72. [72]

    T. R. Slatyer, Energy Injection And Absorption In The Cosmic Dark Ages, Phys. Rev. D87, 123513 (2013), arXiv:1211.0283 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  73. [73]

    Chluba and R

    J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, The evolution of CMB spectral distortions in the early Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.419, 1294 (2012), arXiv:1109.6552 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  74. [74]

    Chluba, Distinguishing different scenarios of early en- ergy release with spectral distortions of the cosmic mi- crowave background, Mon

    J. Chluba, Distinguishing different scenarios of early en- ergy release with spectral distortions of the cosmic mi- crowave background, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.436, 2232 (2013), arXiv:1304.6121 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    D. J. Fixsen, E. S. Cheng, J. M. Gales, J. C. Mather, R. A. Shafer, and E. L. Wright, The Cosmic Mi- crowave Background spectrum from the full COBE FI- RAS data set, Astrophys. J.473, 576 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9605054

    arXiv 1996

  76. [76]

    F. J. Quet al.(SPT-3G, ACT), Unified and consis- tent structure growth measurements from joint ACT, SPT andPlanckCMB lensing, (2025), arXiv:2504.20038 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Knox, CMB signatures of extended reionization, New Astron

    L. Knox, CMB signatures of extended reionization, New Astron. Rev.47, 883 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305588

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  78. [78]

    Christensen, R

    N. Christensen, R. Meyer, L. Knox, and B. Luey, II. Bayesian methods for cosmological parameter es- timation from cosmic microwave background measure- ments, Class. Quant. Grav.18, 2677 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0103134

    arXiv 2001

  79. [79]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05, 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  80. [80]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.