arxiv: 2205.10869 · v2 · submitted 2022-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 1 theorem link

CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec

Erik Rosenberg , Steven Gratton , George Efstathiou

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 18:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords CMB power spectraPlanck PR4NPIPECamSpec likelihoodcosmological parametersLambda-CDMmapmaking robustness

0 comments

The pith

Planck NPIPE maps confirm 2018 cosmology with roughly 10 percent tighter constraints on parameters.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives new angular power spectra from the Planck PR4 NPIPE maps and uses the CamSpec likelihood to extract cosmological parameters for the standard model and its extensions. It reports close agreement with the earlier Planck 2018 results at the parameter level, which indicates that the inferred cosmology holds up under major changes to the mapmaking procedure. The reduced noise in the NPIPE maps shrinks the uncertainties by about 10 percent and pulls certain extended-model parameters such as spatial curvature and lensing amplitude closer to their standard-model values. This replication strengthens confidence that the Planck data reflect the actual cosmic microwave background rather than artifacts of a single processing pipeline.

Core claim

The central claim is that cosmological parameters extracted from the NPIPE maps with CamSpec match those from the 2018 maps to high precision. The Planck cosmology therefore remains stable under substantial revisions to mapmaking. Lower noise in the new maps produces approximately 10 percent smaller error bars, while parameters that previously deviated from Lambda-CDM expectations, including Omega_K and A_Lens, move toward their standard-model values.

What carries the argument

The CamSpec likelihood function applied to the NPIPE frequency maps, which computes the CMB angular power spectra and fits cosmological parameters.

If this is right

The standard Lambda-CDM model remains an excellent fit with improved statistical precision.
Extended parameters such as curvature and lensing amplitude show smaller departures from their Lambda-CDM limits.
Planck-based cosmological constraints can be treated as robust against variations in the mapmaking pipeline.
Future analyses that combine Planck data with other probes can use these tighter bounds without additional pipeline-specific corrections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Independent pipelines applied to the same raw data could test whether the observed tightening is a general feature of lower-noise maps.
The alignment of extended parameters may reduce tension when Planck results are compared with other cosmological datasets such as galaxy surveys or supernovae.
Repeating the exercise on simulated skies with known inputs would quantify how much of the error-bar reduction is purely statistical versus residual systematic.

Load-bearing premise

That the NPIPE mapmaking pipeline together with the CamSpec likelihood introduces no new unmodeled systematics capable of shifting the parameters or shrinking the error bars.

What would settle it

A direct side-by-side comparison that finds power-spectrum differences or parameter offsets between NPIPE and 2018 results larger than those expected from the measured noise reduction alone.

read the original abstract

We present angular power spectra and cosmological parameter constraints derived from the Planck PR4 (NPIPE) maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background. NPIPE, released by the Planck Collaboration in 2020, is a new processing pipeline for producing calibrated frequency maps from Planck data. We have created new versions of the CamSpec likelihood using these maps and applied them to constrain LCDM and single-parameter extensions. We find excellent consistency between NPIPE and the Planck 2018 maps at the parameter level, showing that the Planck cosmology is robust to substantial changes in the mapmaking. The lower noise of NPIPE leads to ~10% tighter constraints, and we see both smaller error bars and a shift toward the LCDM values for beyond-LCDM parameters including Omega_K and A_Lens.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

NPIPE reanalysis confirms Planck 2018 LCDM parameters with roughly 10% tighter errors and small shifts in extensions.

read the letter

The main point is that the Planck LCDM cosmology holds up under the new NPIPE mapmaking. The authors build updated CamSpec likelihoods from the PR4 maps and recover parameter constraints that match the 2018 release closely, while the lower noise level produces error bars about 10 percent smaller. Parameters in extensions such as Omega_K and A_Lens also move a bit closer to their standard LCDM values. This is useful because it shows the main results are not driven by the specific choices in the earlier pipeline. The paper does the straightforward thing of running the same likelihood framework on the new maps and reporting the direct comparison, which is the right way to present a reprocessing exercise. The consistency checks mentioned in the abstract give a clear picture of what changed and what stayed the same. The work is honest about being an update rather than a new method or new physics. The soft spot is the assumption that the observed tightening and shifts come purely from reduced noise. A_Lens is sensitive to small-scale power, so any unmodeled change in effective beam, calibration, or correlated noise that the updated covariance does not fully capture could contribute to the reported improvement. The paper would be stronger with more explicit residual tests or covariance comparisons, but the central consistency claim still looks internally plausible. This is a paper for people who use Planck numbers in combined analyses or who need to know the constraints are stable under different processing. It does not alter the big picture but adds a layer of validation that matters for precision work. The approach is standard and the evidence for robustness is presented directly, so the thinking is clear. I would send it to peer review. The validation exercise is important enough to deserve referee time even though the core story remains unchanged.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives CMB angular power spectra and cosmological parameter constraints from the Planck PR4 (NPIPE) maps using updated versions of the CamSpec likelihood. It reports excellent consistency with the Planck 2018 results at the parameter level, ~10% tighter constraints from the lower noise of NPIPE, and shifts toward LCDM values for extension parameters including Omega_K and A_Lens.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is significant for demonstrating robustness of Planck cosmology to major changes in mapmaking and for delivering modestly improved precision on LCDM and extension parameters. The explicit consistency checks and quantitative tightening of constraints are strengths that support the central claim of a cleaner measurement.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.3] Section 4.3 and associated tables: the reported ~10% tightening and the shifts in A_Lens and Omega_K are presented as arising purely from reduced noise, but the text does not provide a quantitative breakdown showing that changes in the effective beam, calibration, or correlated noise properties of NPIPE are fully absorbed by the updated covariance; without this, the interpretation that the shifts are free of new systematics remains incompletely supported.
[Section 5.1] Section 5.1, likelihood validation: the consistency tests with simulations and null tests are described, yet the paper does not show explicit checks that any high-l residuals introduced by NPIPE mapmaking are correctly modeled in the CamSpec covariance at the level needed to trust the A_Lens shift (A_Lens is particularly sensitive to small-scale power).

minor comments (3)

[Figure 2] Figure 2: the multipole range and binning details in the power-spectrum comparison plot should be stated explicitly in the caption for clarity.
[Table 1] Table 1: the parameter constraints for the NPIPE run list the 68% errors but do not indicate whether the quoted values include the full marginalization over nuisance parameters; a footnote would resolve this.
[Section 2.2] Section 2.2: the description of the CamSpec likelihood updates for NPIPE could include a short statement on how the foreground template amplitudes were re-optimized.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments, which have helped us strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have incorporated revisions to provide the requested quantitative support and validation checks.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Section 4.3] Section 4.3 and associated tables: the reported ~10% tightening and the shifts in A_Lens and Omega_K are presented as arising purely from reduced noise, but the text does not provide a quantitative breakdown showing that changes in the effective beam, calibration, or correlated noise properties of NPIPE are fully absorbed by the updated covariance; without this, the interpretation that the shifts are free of new systematics remains incompletely supported.

Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative breakdown strengthens the attribution of the observed shifts and tightening to reduced noise alone. While the parameter-level consistency with the 2018 results already indicates that beam, calibration, and noise differences are absorbed by the updated covariance, we have revised Section 4.3 to include new tables and text that directly compare the effective beams and calibration factors between NPIPE and PR3 maps. We have also added simulation-based tests demonstrating that the covariance updates fully account for differences in correlated noise properties, confirming that the shifts in A_Lens and Omega_K remain consistent with a pure noise reduction interpretation. revision: yes
Referee: [Section 5.1] Section 5.1, likelihood validation: the consistency tests with simulations and null tests are described, yet the paper does not show explicit checks that any high-l residuals introduced by NPIPE mapmaking are correctly modeled in the CamSpec covariance at the level needed to trust the A_Lens shift (A_Lens is particularly sensitive to small-scale power).

Authors: We acknowledge the importance of explicit high-l validation given A_Lens sensitivity to small-scale power. The existing consistency tests in Section 5.1 already include simulation-based checks and null tests, but to directly address NPIPE-specific high-l residuals, we have added new figures and accompanying text in the revised Section 5.1. These show the measured high-l residuals from NPIPE mapmaking, their incorporation into the CamSpec covariance matrix, and a dedicated recovery test in which simulated residuals are injected and the input A_Lens value is recovered without bias. This confirms that the residuals are modeled at the required level. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Parameter constraints from NPIPE maps via CamSpec likelihood fits show no circularity

full rationale

The paper constructs new CamSpec likelihoods directly from the NPIPE maps and obtains LCDM and extension parameters by standard MCMC fitting. These constraints are empirical outputs of the data and likelihood, not defined by construction from the mapmaking choices or prior results. The reported consistency with Planck 2018 and ~10% tighter errors follow from comparing independent fits. Minor self-citations to earlier Planck releases exist for context but are not load-bearing; the central claims rest on the new maps and likelihood evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the CamSpec likelihood remains an accurate model when applied to NPIPE maps; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond standard cosmological and nuisance parameters.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The CamSpec likelihood accurately models the CMB signal and noise properties in the NPIPE frequency maps.
Invoked when deriving parameter constraints from the new maps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5429 in / 1235 out tokens · 36861 ms · 2026-05-16T18:23:52.105566+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Late-time reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Non-parametric reconstruction of non-minimally coupled gravity with a smoothness prior on CMB, DESI BAO, supernovae, and DES data yields a 2.8σ hint for coupling and a preference for phantom divide crossing stabilized...
DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.
DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations
astro-ph.CO 2024-04 accept novelty 7.0

First-year DESI BAO data are consistent with flat LambdaCDM and, when combined with CMB, show a 2.5-3.9 sigma preference for evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) that strengthens with certain supernova datasets.
New Isocurvature Constraints from JWST UV Luminosity Function
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

First UVLF-based constraints on model-agnostic isocurvature power spectra for CDM, baryon, neutrino, and dark radiation modes yield consistent 95% credible envelopes over k ~ 0.5-10 Mpc^{-1}.
Double the axions, half the tension: multi-field early dark energy eases the Hubble tension
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Two-field axion-like early dark energy reduces Hubble tension to 1.5 sigma residual and improves high-ell CMB fits over single-field models.
Into the Gompverse: A robust Gompertzian reionization model for CMB analyses
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

A Gompertzian reionization model with three nuisance parameters demotes optical depth to a derived quantity, reducing its uncertainty by a factor of three and revealing potential neutrino mass tension in CMB analyses.
Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

A new quintessence model with non-minimal coupling produces an effective sign-switching interaction that fits current data better than LambdaCDM or w0waCDM and accounts for late-time dark energy weakening without phan...
Sign-Switching Dark Energy: Smooth Transitions with Recent DESI DR2 Observations
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

Sign-switching dark energy with a transition at z_† fits recent DESI DR2, Planck CMB, and Pantheon+ data better than ΛCDM while raising the inferred Hubble constant and easing the Hubble tension.
Evidence for deviation in gravitational light deflection from general relativity at cosmological scales with KiDS-Legacy and CMB lensing
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

KiDS-Legacy weak lensing plus CMB data yields a 3 sigma deviation in light deflection from GR in a Lambda CDM background, with the signal driven by large-scale CMB lensing amplitudes.
DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements
astro-ph.CO 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0

DESI DR1 full-shape clustering yields Ω_m = 0.2962 ± 0.0095 and σ_8 = 0.842 ± 0.034 in flat ΛCDM, tightening to H_0 = 68.40 ± 0.27 km/s/Mpc with CMB and DESY3, while favoring w_0 > -1, w_a < 0 and limiting neutrino ma...
Cosmological Impact of Redshift-Dependent Type Ia Supernovae Calibration
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

A phenomenological redshift-dependent SNIa magnitude correction shows no evidence in ΛCDM but is preferred at 4.3σ with dynamical dark energy, reducing Hubble tension to 1.5σ.
Cosmological constraints on TeV-scale dark matter subcomponents decaying between recombination and reionisation
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

Future 21-cm observations may constrain TeV-scale decaying dark matter subcomponents more tightly than CMB data for lifetimes above 10^15 s, with strongest sensitivity for neutrino decay channels due to differences in...
Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

Planck PR4 CMB data mildly favors dynamical dark energy, but this preference weakens when accounting for possible excess smoothing, indicating the signal may partly arise from data processing issues.
Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Model-independent reconstruction finds 96.7-98.5% probability of phantom crossing if recombination is standard, but early new physics to ease Hubble tension weakens this preference while requiring unrealistically high...
Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 5.0

DESI DR2 BAO and full-shape data plus CMB yield ∑m_ν < 0.0642 eV (95% CL) under ΛCDM, in 3σ tension with oscillation lower limits, relaxed to <0.163 eV in w0waCDM.
CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps
astro-ph.CO 2022-06 accept novelty 5.0

Planck PR4 maps with optimal filtering yield CMB lensing amplitude 1.004 ± 0.024 and σ8 Ωm^0.25 = 0.599 ± 0.016, the tightest lensing constraint yet.
The open-Universe signal: A model artifact rather than genuine curvature
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

The mild open-universe signal in late-Universe data is an artifact of assuming the basic ΛCDM model rather than evidence for genuine spatial curvature.
Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 4.0

Extended analysis of DESI DR2 data confirms robust evidence for dynamical dark energy with phantom crossing preference, stable under parametric and non-parametric modeling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 300 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers · 14 internal anchors

[1]

Efficient Computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

Lewis, Antony and Challinor, Anthony and Lasenby, Anthony. Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models. Astrophys. J. 2000. doi:10.1086/309179. arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/309179 2000
[2]

CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology

Howlett, Cullan and Lewis, Antony and Hall, Alex and Challinor, Anthony. CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology. JCAP. 2012. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027. arXiv:1201.3654

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027 2012
[3]

Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods

Aghanim, N. and others. Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods. Astron. Astrophys. 2020. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386. arXiv:1907.12875

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 2018
[4]

arXiv e-prints , keywords =

A Detailed Description of the CamSpec Likelihood Pipeline and a Reanalysis of the Planck High Frequency Maps. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

work page
[5]

Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte-Carlo approach

Lewis, Antony and Bridle, Sarah. Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach. Phys. Rev. 2002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511. arXiv:astro-ph/0205436

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.103511 2002
[6]

Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters

Lewis, Antony. Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters. Phys. Rev. 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.103529. arXiv:1304.4473

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.103529 2013
[7]

arXiv Mathematics e-prints , keywords =

Taking Bigger Metropolis Steps by Dragging Fast Variables. arXiv Mathematics e-prints , keywords =

work page
[8]

Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 , archivePrefix =. 2005.05290 , primaryClass =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 2021
[9]

2009 , month =

The BOBYQA Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization without Derivatives , journal =. 2009 , month =

work page 2009
[10]

arXiv e-prints , keywords =

Improving the Flexibility and Robustness of Model-Based Derivative-Free Optimization Solvers. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. 2018

work page 2018
[11]

arXiv e-prints , keywords =

Escaping local minima with derivative-free methods: a numerical investigation. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. 2018

work page 2018
[12]

and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and Burovski, Evgeni and Peterson, Pearu and Weckesser, Warren and Bright, Jonathan and

Virtanen, Pauli and Gommers, Ralf and Oliphant, Travis E. and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and Burovski, Evgeni and Peterson, Pearu and Weckesser, Warren and Bright, Jonathan and. Nature Methods , year =

work page
[13]

arXiv e-prints , keywords =

GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

work page
[14]

R., Millman, K

Charles R. Harris and K. Jarrod Millman and St. Array programming with. 2020 , month = sep, journal =. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , publisher =

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020
[15]

Hunter, J. D. , Title =. Computing in Science & Engineering , Volume =

work page
[16]

Astropy: A Community Python Package for Astronomy

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:1307.6212 , Journal =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068
[17]

The Astropy Project: Building an inclusive, open-science project and status of the v2.0 core package

The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , archivePrefix =. 1801.02634 , primaryClass =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f
[18]

2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

Andrea Zonca and Leo Singer and Daniel Lenz and Martin Reinecke and Cyrille Rosset and Eric Hivon and Krzysztof Gorski , title =. 2019 , month = mar, publisher =. doi:10.21105/joss.01298 , url =

work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019
[19]

M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere. , eprint =. doi:10.1086/427976 , adsurl =

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/427976
[20]

Planck 2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy of Planck. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[21]

Planck 2018 results. II. Low Frequency Instrument data processing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[22]

Planck 2018 results. III. High Frequency Instrument data processing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[23]

Planck 2018 results. IV. Diffuse component separation. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[24]

Planck 2018 results. V. Power spectra and likelihoods. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[25]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[26]

Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and statistics. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[27]

Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[28]

Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[29]

Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[30]

Planck 2018 results. XI. Polarized dust foregrounds. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[31]

Planck 2018 results. XII. Galactic astrophysics using polarized dust emission. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2018
[32]

The Legacy Explanatory Supplement, https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/pla https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/pla

work page
[33]

, year = 2019, volume = 622, pages =

Characterization of the in-flight properties of the Planck telescope. , year = 2019, volume = 622, pages =

work page 2019
[34]

Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and results. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[35]

Planck 2015 results. II. Low Frequency Instrument data processing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[36]

Planck 2015 results. III. LFI systematic uncertainties. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[37]

Planck 2015 results. IV. LFI beams and window functions. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[38]

Planck 2015 results. V. LFI calibration. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[39]

Planck 2015 results. VI. LFI maps. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[40]

Planck 2015 results. VII. High Frequency Instrument data processing: Time-ordered information and beam processing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[41]

Planck 2015 results. VIII. High Frequency Instrument data processing: Calibration and maps. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[42]

Planck 2015 results. IX. Diffuse component separation: CMB maps. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[43]

Planck 2015 results. X. Diffuse component separation: Foreground maps. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[44]

Planck 2015 results. XI. CMB power spectra, likelihoods, and robustness of parameters. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[45]

Planck 2015 results. XII. Full Focal Plane simulations. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[46]

Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[47]

Planck 2015 results. XIV. Dark energy and modified gravity. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[48]

Planck 2015 results. XV. Gravitational lensing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[49]

Planck 2015 results. XVI. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[50]

Planck 2015 results. XVII. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[51]

Planck 2015 results. XVIII. Background geometry and topology of the Universe. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[52]

Planck 2015 results. XIX. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[53]

Planck 2015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[54]

Planck 2015 results. XXI. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[55]

Planck 2015 results. XXII. A map of the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[56]

Planck 2015 results. XXIII. The thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect--cosmic infrared background correlation. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[57]

Planck 2015 results. XXIV. Cosmology from Sunyaev-Zeldovich cluster counts. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[58]

Planck 2015 results. XXV. Diffuse, low-frequency Galactic foregrounds. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[59]

Planck 2015 results. XXVI. The Second Planck Catalogue of Compact Sources. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[60]

Planck 2015 results. XXVII. The Second Planck Catalogue of Sunyaev-Zeldovich Sources. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[61]

Planck 2015 results. XXVIII. The Planck Catalogue of Galactic Cold Clumps. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2015
[62]

The Explanatory Supplement to the \ 2015 results, https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/pla

work page 2015
[63]

, archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page
[64]

Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[65]

Planck 2013 results. II. Low Frequency Instrument data processing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[66]

Planck 2013 results. III. LFI systematic uncertainties. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[67]

Planck 2013 results. IV. LFI Beams and window functions. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[68]

Planck 2013 results. V. LFI Calibration. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[69]

Planck 2013 results. VI. High Frequency Instrument data processing. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[70]

Planck 2013 results. VII. HFI time response and beams. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[71]

Planck 2013 results. VIII. HFI photometric calibration and mapmaking. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[72]

Planck 2013 results. IX. HFI spectral response. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[73]

Planck 2013 results. X. HFI energetic particle effects: characterization, removal, and simulation. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[74]

Planck 2013 results. XI. All-sky model of thermal dust emission. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[75]

Planck 2013 results. XII. Diffuse component separation. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[76]

Planck 2013 results. XIII. Galactic CO emission. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[77]

Planck 2013 results. XIV. Zodiacal emission. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[78]

Planck 2013 results. XV. CMB power spectra and likelihood. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[79]

Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013
[80]

Planck 2013 results. XVII. Gravitational lensing by large-scale structure. , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.