Paper detail

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' 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.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

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.