Paper detail

Comparing Planck and WMAP: Maps, Spectra, and Parameters

We examine the consistency of WMAP9 and Planck data. We compare sky maps, power spectra, and inferred LCDM cosmological parameters. Residual dipoles are seen in the WMAP and Planck sky map differences, but are consistent within the uncertainties and are not large enough to explain the widely-noted differences in angular power spectra at higher l. After removing residual dipoles and galactic foregrounds, the residual difference maps exhibit a quadrupole and other large-scale systematic structure. We identify this structure as possibly originating from Planck's beam sidelobe pick-up, but note that it appears to have insignificant cosmological impact. We develop an extension of the internal linear combination technique and find features that plausibly originate in the Planck data. We examine LCDM model fits to the angular power spectra and conclude that the ~2.5% difference in the spectra at multipoles greater than l~100 are significant at the 3-5 sigma level. We revisit the analysis of WMAP's beam data and conclude that previously-derived uncertainties are robust and cannot explain the power spectrum differences. Finally, we examine the consistency of the LCDM parameters inferred from each data set taking into account the fact that both experiments observe the same sky, but cover different multipole ranges, apply different sky masks, and have different noise. While individual parameter values agree within the uncertainties, the 6 parameters taken together are discrepant at the ~6 sigma level, with chi2=56 for 6 dof (PTE = 3e-10). Of the 6 parameters, chi2 is best improved by marginalizing over Omega_c h^2, giving chi2=5.2 for 5 degrees of freedom. We find that perturbing the WMAP window function by its dominant beam error profile has little effect on Omega_c h^2, while perturbing the Planck window function by its corresponding error profile has a much greater effect on Omega_c h^2.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 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.