Paper detail

Baryonic feedback biases on fundamental physics from lensed CMB power spectra

Upcoming measurements of the small-scale primary cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and polarization power spectra ($TT$/$TE$/$EE$) are anticipated to yield transformative constraints on new physics, including the effective number of relativistic species in the early universe ($N_{\rm eff}$). However, at multipoles $\ell \gtrsim 3000$, the primary CMB power spectra receive significant contributions from gravitational lensing. While these modes still carry primordial information, their theoretical modeling requires knowledge of the CMB lensing convergence power spectrum, $C_L^{κκ}$, including on small scales where it is affected by nonlinear gravitational evolution and baryonic feedback processes. Thus, the high-$\ell$ primary CMB is sensitive to these late-time, nonlinear effects. Here, we show that inaccuracies in the modeling of $C_L^{κκ}$ can yield surprisingly large biases on cosmological parameters inferred from the primary CMB power spectra measured by the upcoming Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 experiments. For CMB-S4, the biases can be as large as $1.6σ$ on the Hubble constant $H_0$ in a fit to $Λ$CDM and $1.2σ$ on $N_{\rm eff}$ in a fit to $Λ$CDM+$N_{\rm eff}$. We show that these biases can be mitigated by explicitly discarding all $TT$ data at $\ell>3000$ or by marginalizing over parameters describing baryonic feedback processes, both at the cost of slightly larger error bars. We also discuss an alternative, data-driven mitigation strategy based on delensing the CMB $T$ and $E$-mode maps. Finally, we show that analyses of upcoming data will require Einstein-Boltzmann codes to be run with much higher numerical precision settings than is currently standard, so as to avoid similar -- or larger -- parameter biases due to inaccurate theoretical predictions.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.