MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125798770 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423743

<i>Planck</i>2013 results. XXXI. Consistency of the<i>Planck</i>data

2014· article· en· W2125798770 on OpenAlexaff
P. A. R. Ade, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, E. Battaner, K. Benabed, A. Benoit-Lévy, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, C. Burigana, J.-F. Cardoso, A. Catalano, A. Challinor, A. Chamballu, H. C. Chiang, P. R. Christensen, D. L. Clements, S. Colombi, L. P. L. Colombo, F. Couchot, A. Coulais, B. P. Crill, A. Curto, F. Cuttaia, L. Danese, R. D. Davies, R. J. Davis, P. de Bernardis, A. de Rosa, G. de Zotti, F.–X. Désert, C. Dickinson, J. M. Diego, H. Dole, S. Donzelli, O. Doré, M. Douspis, X. Dupac, T. A. Enßlin, H. K. Eriksen, F. Finelli⋆, O. Forni, M. Frailis, A. A. Fraisse, E. Franceschi, S. Galeotta, K. Ganga, M. Giard, J. González-Nuevo, K. M. Górski, S. Gratton, A. Gregorio, A. Gruppuso, J. E. Gudmundsson, F. K. Hansen, D. Hanson, D. L. Harrison, S. Henrot–Versillé, D. Herranz, S. R. Hildebrandt, E. Hivon, W. A. Holmes, A. Hornstrup, W. Hovest, K. M. Huffenberger, A. H. Jaffe, T. R. Jaffe, W. C. Jones, E. Keihänen, R. Keskitalo, J. Knoche, M. Kunz, H. Kurki‐Suonio, G. Lagache, A. Lähteenmäki, J.-M. Lamarre, A. Lasenby, R. Leonardi, J. León-Tavares, J. Lesgourgues, M. Liguori, P. B. Lilje, M. Linden-Vørnle, M. López-Caniego, P. M. Lubin, J. F. Macías–Pérez, N. Mandolesi, M. Maris, P. G. Martin, E. Martínez-González, S. Masi, S. Matarrese, P. Mazzotta, P. R. Meinhold, A. Melchiorri, L. Mendes, A. Mennella, M. Migliaccio, S. Mitra, M.-A. Miville-Deschênes, A. Moneti, L. Montier, G. Morgante, D. Mortlock, A. Moss, D. Munshi, J. A. Murphy, P. Naselsky, F. Nati, P. Natoli, H. U. Nørgaard-Nielsen, F. Noviello, D. Novikov, I. Novikov, C. A. Oxborrow, L. Pagano, F. Pajot, D. Paoletti, B. Partridge, F. Pasian, G. Patanchon, D. Pearson, T. J. Pearson, O. Perdereau, F. Perrotta, F. Piacentini, M. Piat, E. Pierpaoli, D. Pietrobon, S. Plaszczynski, É. Pointecouteau, G. Polenta, N. Ponthieu, L. Popa, G. W. Pratt, S. Prunet, J.‐L. Puget, J. P. Rachen, M. Reinecke, M. Remazeilles, C. Renault, S. Ricciardi, I. Ristorcelli, G. Rocha, G. Roudier, J. A. Rubiño-Martín, B. Rusholme, M. Sandri, D. Scott, V. Stolyarov, R. Sudiwala, D. Sutton, A.-S. Suur-Uski, J.-F. Sygnet, J. A. Tauber, L. Terenzi, L. Toffolatti, M. Tomasi, M. Tristram, L. Valenziano, J. Väliviita, B. Van Tent, P. Vielva, F. Villa, L. A. Wade, B. D. Wandelt, I. K. Wehus, S. D. M. White, D. Yvon, A. Zacchei, A. Zonca

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersAstrophysics Science DivisionInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaGoddard Space Flight CenterMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationChina Scholarship CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilTekesCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesMax-Planck-GesellschaftUK Space AgencyScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsPhysicsPlanckPlanck energyAstrophysicsConsistency (knowledge bases)Planck massPlanck lengthAstronomyPlanck scaleQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Planck design and scanning strategy provide many levels of redundancy that can be exploited to provide tests of internal consistency. One of the most important is the comparison of the 70 GHz (amplifier) and 100 GHz (bolometer) channels. Based on different instrument technologies, with feeds located differently in the focal plane, analysed independently by different teams using different software, and near the minimum of diffuse foreground emission, these channels are in effect two different experiments. The 143 GHz channel has the lowest noise level on Planck, and is near the minimum of unresolved foreground emission. In this paper, we analyse the level of consistency achieved in the 2013 Planck data. We concentrate on comparisons between the 70, 100, and 143 GHz channel maps and power spectra, particularly over the angular scales of the first and second acoustic peaks, on maps masked for diffuse Galactic emission and for strong unresolved sources. Difference maps covering angular scales from 8° to 15′ are consistent with noise, and show no evidence of cosmic microwave background structure. Including small but important corrections for unresolved-source residuals, we demonstrate agreement (measured by deviation of the ratio from unity) between 70 and 100 GHz power spectra averaged over 70 ≤ ℓ ≤ 390 at the 0.8% level, and agreement between 143 and 100 GHz power spectra of 0.4% over the same ℓ range. These values are within and consistent with the overall uncertainties in calibration given in the Planck 2013 results. We also present results based on the 2013 likelihood analysis showing consistency at the 0.35% between the 100, 143, and 217 GHz power spectra. We analyse calibration procedures and beams to determine what fraction of these differences can be accounted for by known approximations or systematicerrors that could be controlled even better in the future, reducing uncertainties still further. Several possible small improvements are described. Subsequent analysis of the beams quantifies the importance of asymmetry in the near sidelobes, which was not fully accounted for initially, affecting the 70/100 ratio. Correcting for this, the 70, 100, and 143 GHz power spectra agree to 0.4% over the first two acoustic peaks. The likelihood analysis that produced the 2013 cosmological parameters incorporated uncertainties larger than this. We show explicitly that correction of the missing near sidelobe power in the HFI channels would result in shifts in the posterior distributions of parameters of less than 0.3σ except for As, the amplitude of the primordial curvature perturbations at 0.05 Mpc-1, which changes by about 1σ. We extend these comparisons to include the sky maps from the complete nine-year mission of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and find a roughly 2% difference between the Planck and WMAP power spectra in the region of the first acoustic peak.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.012

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207