Researcher profile

Benjamin Audren

Benjamin Audren contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2014arXiv

A note of clarification: BICEP2 and Planck are not in tension

The apparent discrepancy between the value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio reported by the BICEP2 collaboration, $r = 0.20^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ at 68% CL, and the Planck upper limit, $r < 0.11$ at 95% CL, has attracted a great deal of attention. In this short note, we show that this discrepancy is mainly due to an `apples to oranges&#39; comparison. The result reported by BICEP2 was measured at a pivot scale $k_* = 0.05$ Mpc$^{-1}$, assuming $n_t = 0$, whereas the Planck limit was provided at $k_* = 0.002$ Mpc$^{-1}$, assuming the slow-roll consistency relation $n_t = -r/8$. One should obviously compare the BICEP2 and Planck results under the same circumstances. By imposing $n_t = 0$, the Planck constraint at $k_* = 0.05$ Mpc$^{-1}$ becomes $r < 0.135$ at $95%$ CL, which can be compared directly with the BICEP2 result. Once a plausible dust contribution to the BICEP2 signal is taken into account (DDM2 model), $r$ is reduced to $r = 0.16^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ and the discrepancy becomes of order $1.3σ$ only.

preprint2014arXiv

Strongest model-independent bound on the lifetime of Dark Matter

Dark Matter is essential for structure formation in the late Universe so it must be stable on cosmological time scales. But how stable exactly? Only assuming decays into relativistic particles, we report an otherwise model independent bound on the lifetime of Dark Matter using current cosmological data. Since these decays affect only the low-$\ell$ multipoles of the CMB, the Dark Matter lifetime is expected to correlate with the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ as well as curvature $Ω_k$. We consider two models, including $r$ and $r+Ω_k$ respectively, versus data from Planck, WMAP, WiggleZ and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, with or without the BICEP2 data (if interpreted in terms of primordial gravitational waves). This results in a lower bound on the lifetime of CDM given by 160Gyr (without BICEP2) or 200Gyr (with BICEP2) at 95% confidence level.