Paper detail

Principal component analysis of the reionization history from Planck 2015 data

The simple assumption of an instantaneous reionization of the Universe may bias estimates of cosmological parameters. In this paper a model-independent principal component method for the reionization history is applied to give constraints on the cosmological parameters from recent Planck 2015 data. We find that the Universe are not completely reionized at redshifts $z \ge 8.5$ at 95% CL. Both the reionization optical depth and the matter fluctuation amplitude are higher than but consistent with those obtained in the standard instantaneous reionization scheme. The high estimated value of the matter fluctuation amplitude strengthens the tension between Planck CMB observations and some astrophysical data, such as cluster counts and weak lensing. The tension can significantly be relieved if the neutrino masses are allowed to vary. Thanks to a high scalar spectral index, the low-scale spontaneously broken SUSY inflationary model can fit the data well, which is marginally disfavored at 95% CL in the Planck analysis.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.