MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090699483 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039585

<i>Planck</i> constraints on the tensor-to-scalar ratio

2021· article· en· W3090699483 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationEuropean Space AgencyNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Limit (mathematics)Spectral densityNoise (video)Angular spectrum methodSpectral lineSpectrum (functional analysis)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present constraints on the tensor-to-scalar ratio r using Planck data. We use the latest release of Planck maps, processed with the NPIPE code, which produces calibrated frequency maps in temperature and polarisation for all Planck channels from 30 GHz to 857 GHz using the same pipeline. We computed constraints on r using the BB angular power spectrum, and we also discuss constraints coming from the TT spectrum. Given Planck ’s noise level, the TT spectrum gives constraints on r that are cosmic-variance limited (with σ r = 0.093), but we show that the marginalised posterior peaks towards negative values of r at about the 1.2 σ level. We derived Planck constraints using the BB power spectrum at both large angular scales (the ‘reionisation bump’) and intermediate angular scales (the ‘recombination bump’) from ℓ = 2 to 150 and find a stronger constraint than that from TT , with σ r = 0.069. The Planck BB spectrum shows no systematic bias and is compatible with zero, given both the statistical noise and the systematic uncertainties. The likelihood analysis using B modes yields the constraint r < 0.158 at 95% confidence using more than 50% of the sky. This upper limit tightens to r < 0.069 when Planck EE , BB , and EB power spectra are combined consistently, and it tightens further to r < 0.056 when the Planck TT power spectrum is included in the combination. Finally, combining Planck with BICEP2/Keck 2015 data yields an upper limit of r < 0.044.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations142
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207