Cited by 46Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

Tensions between direct measurements of the lens power spectrum from Planck data

Open access
Motloch, Pavel, Hu, Wayne·2018·Physical Review D

Abstract

We apply a recently developed method to directly measure the gravitational lensing power spectrum from CMB power spectra to the Planck satellite data. This method allows us to analyze the tension between the temperature power spectrum and lens reconstruction in a model-independent way. Even when allowing for arbitrary variations in the lensing power spectrum, the tension remains at the $2.4\ensuremath{\sigma}$ level. By separating the lensing and unlensed high redshift information in the CMB power spectra, we also show that under $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ the two are in tension at a similar level, whereas the unlensed information is consistent with lensing reconstruction. These anomalies are driven by the smoother acoustic peaks relative to $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ at $\ensuremath{\ell}\ensuremath{\sim}1250--1500$. Both tensions relax slightly when polarization data are considered. This technique also isolates the one combination of the lensing power spectrum multipoles that the Planck CMB power spectra currently constrain and can be straightforwardly generalized to future data when CMB power spectra constrain multiple aspects of lensing which are themselves correlated with lensing reconstruction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.97.103536

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Recent work confirms some tension between Planck temperature and polarization data versus Planck CMB lensing data.

    “It is worth noting though that recent work confirms some tension between Planck temperature and polarization data versus Planck CMB Lensing data (Motloch and Hu 2018).”

    From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Motloch and Hu 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Motloch, P., & Hu, W.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2018-05-30
Volume
97
Issue
10
ISSN
  • 2470-0010 (ISSN-L)
  • 2470-0029
OpenAlex
W2795195616
Cited by
46
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. D/Physical review. D. (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ATP NNX15AK22G)
  • University of Chicago
  • National Science Foundation (NSF PHY-1125897)
  • Kavli Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FG02-13ER41958)
  • Simons Foundation
  • Government of Canada
  • Province of Ontario
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 › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
CMB temperature power spectrum, Planck satellite data, LambdaCDM model, CMB polarization

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