Quantifying the global parameter tensions between ACT, SPT, and Planck
Open accessAbstract
The overall cosmological parameter tension between the Atacama Cosmology Telescope 2020 fourth data release (ACT) and Planck 2018 data within the concordance cosmological model is quantified using the Suspiciousness statistic to be $2.6\ensuremath{\sigma}$. Between ACT and the South Pole Telescope (SPT) we find a tension of $2.4\ensuremath{\sigma}$, and $2.8\ensuremath{\sigma}$ between ACT and $\mathrm{Planck}+\mathrm{SPT}$ combined. While it is unclear whether the tension is caused by statistical fluctuations, systematic effects or new physics, caution should be exercised in combining these cosmic microwave background datasets in the context of the $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ standard model of the universe.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Using suspiciousness statistics, the tension between Planck and ACT is 2.6σ assuming a ΛCDM model.
“It is possible to compute the global tensions between these CMB datasets using the suspiciousness statistics [94], finding that between Planck and ACT there is a tension at 2.6σ level, assuming a ΛCDM model.”
From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [94]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 77
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [20]H. Jeffreys. Theory of Probability . International series of monographs on physics. Clarendon Press, 1939. URL https://books.google.co.uk/books?id= Bu1rAAAAIAAJ .
- [25]Lukas T. Hergt, Will J. Handley, Michael P. Hobson, and Anthony N. Lasenby. Bayesian evidence for the tensor-to-scalar ratio r and neutrino masses m ν : Effects of uniform vs logarithmic priors. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:2102.11511, February 2021. · arXiv
- Authors
- Handley, W., & Lemos, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Physical Review D
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2021-03-26
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 2470-0010 (ISSN-L)
- 2470-0029
- OpenAlex
- W3141760549
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 7.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical review. D/Physical review. D. (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Science and Technology Facilities Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Keywords
- cosmological tensions, ACT, South Pole Telescope, Planck, cosmic microwave background, LambdaCDM model, statistical fluctuations, systematic effects, beyond the Standard Model
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
