MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103282112 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386

<i>Planck</i>2018 results

2020· article· en· W3103282112 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryJet Propulsion LaboratoryInstituto de Astrofísica de CanariasIstituto Nazionale di Fisica NucleareUK Space AgencyMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorAgence Nationale de la RechercheGran Sasso Science InstituteIstituto Nazionale di AstrofisicaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInstituto de Física de CantabriaMax-Planck-GesellschaftCalifornia Institute of TechnologyTekesFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationPartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBLUniversiteit LeidenUniversidad de CantabriaScience Foundation IrelandChina Scholarship CouncilHaverford CollegeInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilUniversité Paris-SaclayEuropean Space AgencyImperial College LondonUniversitetet i OsloHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPlanckPhysicsReionizationPolarization (electrochemistry)AstrophysicsMultipole expansionRobustness (evolution)Cosmic background radiationSpectral lineComputational physicsAstronomyOpticsAnisotropyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the legacy Planck cosmic microwave background (CMB) likelihoods derived from the 2018 data release. The overall approach is similar in spirit to the one retained for the 2013 and 2015 data release, with a hybrid method using different approximations at low ( ℓ &lt; 30) and high ( ℓ ≥ 30) multipoles, implementing several methodological and data-analysis refinements compared to previous releases. With more realistic simulations, and better correction and modelling of systematic effects, we can now make full use of the CMB polarization observed in the High Frequency Instrument (HFI) channels. The low-multipole EE cross-spectra from the 100 GHz and 143 GHz data give a constraint on the ΛCDM reionization optical-depth parameter τ to better than 15% (in combination with the TT low- ℓ data and the high- ℓ temperature and polarization data), tightening constraints on all parameters with posterior distributions correlated with τ . We also update the weaker constraint on τ from the joint TEB likelihood using the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) channels, which was used in 2015 as part of our baseline analysis. At higher multipoles, the CMB temperature spectrum and likelihood are very similar to previous releases. A better model of the temperature-to-polarization leakage and corrections for the effective calibrations of the polarization channels (i.e., the polarization efficiencies) allow us to make full use of polarization spectra, improving the ΛCDM constraints on the parameters θ MC , ω c , ω b , and H 0 by more than 30%, and n s by more than 20% compared to TT-only constraints. Extensive tests on the robustness of the modelling of the polarization data demonstrate good consistency, with some residual modelling uncertainties. At high multipoles, we are now limited mainly by the accuracy of the polarization efficiency modelling. Using our various tests, simulations, and comparison between different high-multipole likelihood implementations, we estimate the consistency of the results to be better than the 0.5 σ level on the ΛCDM parameters, as well as classical single-parameter extensions for the joint likelihood (to be compared to the 0.3 σ levels we achieved in 2015 for the temperature data alone on ΛCDM only). Minor curiosities already present in the previous releases remain, such as the differences between the best-fit ΛCDM parameters for the ℓ &lt; 800 and ℓ &gt; 800 ranges of the power spectrum, or the preference for more smoothing of the power-spectrum peaks than predicted in ΛCDM fits. These are shown to be driven by the temperature power spectrum and are not significantly modified by the inclusion of the polarization data. Overall, the legacy Planck CMB likelihoods provide a robust tool for constraining the cosmological model and represent a reference for future CMB observations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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