Paper detail

A joint analysis of Planck and BICEP2 B modes including dust polarization uncertainty

We analyze BICEP2 and Planck data using a model that includes CMB lensing, gravity waves, and polarized dust. Planck dust polarization maps have highlighted the difficulty of estimating the dust polarization in low intensity regions, suggesting that the polarization fractions have considerable uncertainties and may be significantly higher than previous predictions. In this paper, we start by assuming nothing about the dust polarization except for the power spectrum shape, which we take to be $C_{l}^{BB} \propto l^{-2.42}$. The resulting joint BICEP2+Planck analysis favors solutions without gravity waves, and the upper limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio is $r<0.11$, a slight improvement relative to the Planck analysis alone which gives $r<0.13$ (95% c.l.). The estimated amplitude of the dust polarization power spectrum agrees with expectations for this field based on both HI column density and Planck polarization measurements at 353 GHz in the BICEP2 field. Including the latter constraint in our analysis improves the limit further to $r < 0.09$, placing strong constraints on inflation (e.g., models with $r>0.14$ are excluded with 99.5% confidence). We address the cross-correlation analysis of BICEP2 at 150 GHz with BICEP1 at 100 GHz as a test of foreground contamination. We find that the null hypothesis of dust and lensing with $r=0$ gives $Δχ^2<2$ relative to the hypothesis of no dust, so the frequency analysis does not strongly favor either model over the other. We also discuss how more accurate dust polarization maps may improve our constraints. If the dust polarization is measured perfectly, the limit can reach $r<0.05$, but this degrades quickly to almost no improvement if the dust calibration error is 20% or larger or if the dust maps are not processed through the BICEP2 pipeline, inducing sampling variance noise. (Abridged.)

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.