Paper detail

Consistency tests for Planck and WMAP in the low multipole domain

Recently, full sky maps from Planck have been made publicly available. In this paper, we do consistency tests for the three Planck CMB sky maps. We assume that the difference between two maps represents the contributions from systematics, noise, foregrounds and other sources, and that a precise representation of the Cosmic Microwave Background should be uncorrelated with it. We investigate the cross correlation in pixel space between the difference maps and the various Planck maps and find no significant correlations, in comparison to 10000 random Gaussian simulated maps. Additionally we investigate the difference map between the WMAP ILC 9 year map and the ILC 7 year map. We perform cross correlations between this difference map, and the ILC9 and ILC7, and find significant correlations only for the ILC9, at more than the 99.99% level. Likewise, a comparison between the Planck NILC map and the WMAP ILC9 map, shows a strong correlation for the ILC9 map with the difference map, also at more than the 99.99% level. Thus the ILC9 appears to be more contaminated than the ILC7, which should be taken into consideration when using WMAP maps for cosmological analyses.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.