<i>Planck</i>2015 results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the current accounting of systematic effect uncertainties for the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) that are relevant to the 2015 release of the Planck cosmological results, showing the robustness and consistency of our data set, especially for polarization analysis. We use two complementary approaches: (i) simulations based on measured data and physical models of the known systematic effects; and (ii) analysis of difference maps containing the same sky signal (“null-maps”). The LFI temperature data are limited by instrumental noise. At large angular scales the systematic effects are below the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature power spectrum by several orders of magnitude. In polarization the systematic uncertainties are dominated by calibration uncertainties and compete with the CMB E-modes in the multipole range 10–20. Based on our model of all known systematic effects, we show that these effects introduce a slight bias of around 0.2σ on the reionization optical depth derived from the 70GHz EE spectrum using the 30 and 353GHz channels as foreground templates. At 30GHz the systematic effects are smaller than the Galactic foreground at all scales in temperature and polarization, which allows us to consider this channel as a reliable template of synchrotron emission. We assess the residual uncertainties due to LFI effects on CMB maps and power spectra after component separation and show that these effects are smaller than the CMB amplitude at all scales. We also assess the impact on non-Gaussianity studies and find it to be negligible. Some residuals still appear in null maps from particular sky survey pairs, particularly at 30 GHz, suggesting possible straylight contamination due to an imperfect knowledge of the beam far sidelobes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.017 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".