Paper detail

Planck Data Reconsidered

The tension between the best fit parameters derived by the Planck team and a number of other astronomical measurements suggests either systematics in the astronomical measurements, systematics in the Planck data, the need for new physics, or a combination thereof. We re-analyze the Planck data and find that the $217\,\text{GHz}\times 217\,\text{GHz}$ detector set spectrum used in the Planck analysis is responsible for some of this tension. We use a map-based foreground cleaning procedure, relying on a combination of 353 GHz and 545 GHz maps to reduce residual foregrounds in the intermediate frequency maps used for cosmological inference. For our baseline data analysis, which uses 47% of the sky and makes use of both 353 and 545 GHz data for foreground cleaning, we find the $Λ$CDM cosmological parameters $Ω_c h^2 = 0.1170 \pm 0.0025$, $n_s = 0.9686 \pm 0.0069$, $H_0 = 68.0 \pm 1.1\,\mathrm{km} \mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $Ω_b h^2 = 0.02197 \pm 0.00026$, $\ln 10^{10}A_s = 3.082 \pm 0.025$, and $τ= 0.090 \pm 0.013 $. While in broad agreement with the results reported by the Planck team, these revised parameters imply a universe with a lower matter density of $Ω_m=0.302\pm0.015$, and parameter values generally more consistent with pre-Planck CMB analyses and astronomical observations. We compare our cleaning procedure with the foreground modeling used by the Planck team and find good agreement. The difference in parameters between our analysis and that of the Planck team is mostly due to our use of cross-spectra from the publicly available survey maps instead of their use of the detector set cross-spectra which include pixels only observed in one of the surveys. We show evidence suggesting residual systematics in the detector set spectra used in the Planck likelihood code, which is substantially reduced for our spectra.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.