Cited by 1,014Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 41 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season

Open access

Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., Amiri, M., Barkats, D., Thakur, R. Basu, Bischoff, C. A., Beck, D., Bock, J. J., Boenish, H., Bullock, E., Buza, V., Cheshire, J. R., Connors, J., Cornelison, J., Crumrine, M., Cukierman, A., Denison, E. V., Dierickx, M., Duband, L., Eiben, M., Fatigoni, S., Filippini, J. P., Fliescher, S., Goeckner-Wald, N., Goldfinger, D. C., Grayson, J., Grimes, P., Hall, G., Halal, G., Halpern, M., Hand, E., Harrison, S., Henderson, S., Hildebrandt, S. R., Hilton, G. C., Hubmayr, J., Hui, H., Irwin, K. D., Kang, J., Karkare, K. S., Karpel, E., Kefeli, S., Kernasovskiy, S. A., Kovac, J. M., Kuo, C. L., Lau, K., Leitch, E. M., Lennox, A., Megerian, K. G., Minutolo, L., Moncelsi, L., Nakato, Y., Namikawa, T., Nguyen, H. T., O’Brient, R., Ogburn, R. W., Palladino, S., Prouve, T., Pryke, C., Racine, B., Reintsema, C. D., Richter, S., Schillaci, A., Schwarz, R., Schmitt, B. L., Sheehy, C. D., Soliman, A., Germaine, T. St., Steinbach, B., Sudiwala, R. V., Teply, G. P., Thompson, K. L., Tolan, J. E., Tucker, C., Turner, A. D., Umiltà, C., Vergès, C., Vieregg, A. G., Wandui, A., Weber, A. C., Wiebe, D. V., Willmert, J., Wong, C. L., Wu, W. L. K., Yang, H., Yoon, K. W., Young, E., Yu, C., Zeng, L., Zhang, C., Zhang, S., BICEP/<i>Keck</i> Collaboration·2021·Physical Review Letters

DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.127.151301

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

We present results from an analysis of all data taken by the BICEP2, Keck Array, and BICEP3 CMB polarization experiments up to and including the 2018 observing season. We add additional Keck Array observations at 220 GHz and BICEP3 observations at 95 GHz to the previous 95/150/220 GHz dataset. The Q/U maps now reach depths of 2.8, 2.8, and 8.8 μK_{CMB} arcmin at 95, 150, and 220 GHz, respectively, over an effective area of ≈600 square degrees at 95 GHz and ≈400 square degrees at 150 and 220 GHz. The 220 GHz maps now achieve a signal-to-noise ratio on polarized dust emission exceeding that of Planck at 353 GHz. We take auto- and cross-spectra between these maps and publicly available WMAP and Planck maps at frequencies from 23 to 353 GHz and evaluate the joint likelihood of the spectra versus a multicomponent model of lensed ΛCDM+r+dust+synchrotron+noise. The foreground model has seven parameters, and no longer requires a prior on the frequency spectral index of the dust emission taken from measurements on other regions of the sky. This model is an adequate description of the data at the current noise levels. The likelihood analysis yields the constraint r_{0.05}<0.036 at 95% confidence. Running maximum likelihood search on simulations we obtain unbiased results and find that σ(r)=0.009. These are the strongest constraints to date on primordial gravitational waves.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The BICEP/Keck collaboration analyzed all BICEP2, Keck Array, and BICEP3 CMB polarization data through the 2018 observing season, combined with WMAP and Planck maps, to constrain primordial gravitational waves. They report the strongest limit to date, $r_{0.05}<0.036$ at 95% confidence, with no significant evidence for $r>0$.

Key findings

The baseline likelihood gives $r_{0.05}=0.014^{+0.010}_{-0.011}$ and $r_{0.05}<0.036$ at 95% confidence; simulations give $\sigma(r)=0.009$ and a median 95% upper limit of $r_{0.05}<0.019$.
Foreground parameters: $A_{d,353}=4.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\,\mu\mathrm{K}^2$, $A_{\mathrm{sync},23}<1.4\,\mu\mathrm{K}^2$ at 95% confidence, and $\beta_d=1.49^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$; the synchrotron amplitude now peaks at zero.
New maps reach depths of 2.8, 2.8, and 8.8 $\mu\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{cmb}}\,\mathrm{arcmin}$ at 95, 150, and 220 GHz over effective areas of $\approx 600$ square degrees at 95 GHz and $\approx 400$ square degrees at 150 and 220 GHz.
The 220 GHz maps achieve signal-to-noise on polarized dust emission exceeding that of Planck at 353 GHz; the maximum-likelihood model has PTE 0.94, and the previous limits improved from $r_{0.05}<0.12$ (BKP) to $<0.09$ (BK14) to $<0.07$ (BK15) to $<0.036$ (BK18).

Methods

Analysis of BICEP2, Keck Array, and BICEP3 CMB polarization data through the 2018 observing season, adding Keck 220 GHz and BICEP3 95 GHz data to the previous 95/150/220 GHz dataset; maps are made into Q/U, purified to B-modes, apodized, Fourier transformed, and used to form auto- and cross-spectra.
Joint likelihood uses 66 BB auto- and cross-spectra between BICEP/Keck maps and WMAP 23/33 GHz plus Planck 30, 44, 143, 217, and 353 GHz maps, over $20<\ell<330$ with 9 bandpowers per spectrum.
The model is lensed $\Lambda$CDM + $r$ + dust + synchrotron + noise with eight parameters, evaluated with Hamimeche-Lewis likelihood and CosmoMC MCMC; the dust frequency spectral index prior is removed, and the bandpower covariance matrix comes from 499 signal-and-noise simulations.

Limitations

The paper states that dust decorrelation and foreground complexity more generally “will remain a serious concern” as sensitivity improves, and that the sample variance of the lensing component already dominates $\sigma(r)$.
The paper states that the baseline does not allow the dust decorrelation parameter $\Delta_d$ to vary freely because it is biasing with respect to $r$; it also notes that including EE spectra assumes an exact EE/BB ratio of 2 and “should not be overinterpreted.”
The paper states residual uncertainties from point-source polarized flux may yield an upward bias on $r$ of $1-3\times10^{-3}$, and noise-bias imperfections may yield a downward bias of $2\times10^{-3}$; these are subdominant to the statistical uncertainty.
Evident from the text: the analysis fixes the tensor spectral index $n_t=0$, assumes a power-law dust spatial spectrum and Gaussian dust fluctuations, and relies on external WMAP/Planck data for foreground separation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.127.151301

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 41 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model is an adequate description of the data at the current noise levels.”
- Also stated in: § BICEP / Keck XIII: Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season · p. 4 · plain
  “This model is an acceptable fit to the data with the probability to exceed (PTE) the observed value of χ 2 being 0.94.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- The authors state this as an assumption: The synchrotron frequency spectrum is a simple power law A_sync ∝ ν^β_s.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dust spatial power spectrum is a power law D_ℓ ∝ ℓ^α_d.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The synchrotron spatial power spectrum is a power law D_ℓ ∝ ℓ^α_s.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 220GHz maps now achieve a signal-to-noise on polarized dust emission exceeding that of Planck at 353 GHz.”
- Also stated in: § BICEP / Keck XIII: Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season · p. 6 · plain
  “The signal-to-noise on polarized dust emission of our 220 GHz band is now considerably higher than that of the Planck 353 GHz band-i.e. the 220 × 220 noise point is much further below the dust band than the P353 × P353 point.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The likelihood analysis yields the constraint r 0 . 05 < 0 . 036 at 95% confidence.”
- Also stated in: § BICEP / Keck XIII: Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season · p. 1 · plain
  “r 0 . 05 < 0 . 036 at 95% confidence”
- Also stated in: § ACKNOWLEDGMENTS · p. 7 · plain
  “The upper limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio tightens to r 0 . 05 < 0 . 036 at 95% confidence.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The maximum likelihood model has parameters r 0 . 05 = 0 . 011, A d , 353 = 4 . 4 µ K 2 , A sync , 23 = 0 . 6 µ K 2 , β d = 1 . 5, β s = -3 . 0, α d = -0 . 66, α s = 0 . 00, and ϵ = -0 . 11.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- The authors state this as an assumption: The synchrotron frequency spectrum is a simple power law A_sync ∝ ν^β_s.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dust spatial power spectrum is a power law D_ℓ ∝ ℓ^α_d.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The synchrotron spatial power spectrum is a power law D_ℓ ∝ ℓ^α_s.

Show all 73 claims

It may state two separate claims as one. 53
Probably not a substantial claim. 34

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Running maximum likelihood search on simulations we obtain unbiased results and find that σ ( r ) = 0 . 009.”
- Also stated in: § BICEP / Keck XIII: Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season · p. 5 · plain
  “The distributions of maximum likelihood r values in simulations where the true value of r is zero gave σ ( r 0 . 05 ) = 0 . 020 for BK15 which is reduced to σ ( r 0 . 05 ) = 0 . 009 for BK18”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly the peak value selected is very close to the mean value from Planck 2018 analysis of larger regions of sky β d = 1 . 53 [24].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [24]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Fig. 17 switching to the updated Planck 2018 spectrum corresponds to the transition from red to black-the r constraint shifts slightly up indicating that this is a marginally relevant change at BK18 sensitivity levels.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The power spectrum of the polarized dust emission in the BICEP/Keck field follows a power law.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects are similar to those seen in BK15-the r peak position shifts up, the A d curve narrows, and the A sync curve peaks strongly away from zero.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The EE/BB ratios for dust and synchrotron are both exactly 2.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We next switch from the BK15 data set to the BK18 one-i.e. including the improved sensitivity at 220 GHz and the improved sensitivity and sky area at 95 GHz (magenta to yellow). This makes a substantial difference: the r constraint narrows and its peak position shifts down.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The power spectrum of the polarized dust emission in the BICEP/Keck field follows a power law.
In the paper
“Interestingly the peak value of β d = 1 . 50 selected by our data is close to the mean value from Planck 2018 analysis of larger regions of sky β P d = 1 . 53 ± 0 . 02 [24].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [24]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The corresponding spectra for the Keck 95 GHz, 150 GHz and 220 GHz bands were found to be very similar to the BK15 results shown in Ref. [52].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [52]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“More significant, but still subdominant for the current analysis, are uncertainties from the contributions of polarized flux from point sources in our field, which estimates suggest may yield an upward bias on r of 1-3 × 10 -3 [9, 64, and recent internal work], and imperfections in our noise bias estimates as they interact with leakage deprojection filtering, which recent preliminary work suggests”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [9]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [64]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a joint analysis using multifrequency data from the Planck experiment it was shown that most or all of this is due to polarized emission from dust in our own galaxy [10, hereafter BKP].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [10]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“As part of our standard data reduction we 'deproject' leading order temperature to polarization leakage [9, 34]-in Appendix F we quantify possible residual leakage and some other possible systematics.”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [9]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [34]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Our BICEP/ Keck program first reported detection of an excess over the lensing B -mode expectation at 150 GHz in Ref. [9].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [9]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Under the ΛCDM standard model the CMB polarization pattern is mostly E -mode, with a much smaller B -mode component which arises due to gravitational deflections (lensing) of the CMB photons after their last scattering [5].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [5]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The EE spectra were not used to derive the model but agree well with it under the assumption that EE/BB = 2 for dust, as is known to be close to the case [23, 24].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [23]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [24]
Strength:boosted· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For dust, EE/BB = 2.
In the paper
“At the South Pole the atmosphere is exceptionally transparent and stable at the observation frequencies [17, Fig. 5].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [17, Fig. 5]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Planck analysis consistently finds approximate power law behavior of both the EE and BB dust spectra with exponents ≈ -0 . 4 [23, 24].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [23]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [24]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Since primordial gravitational waves will produce E -modes and B -modes approximately equally it was realized in the late 1990's that the best way to search for them is to look for an excess B -mode signal [6-8].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [6]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [7]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [8]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“(Using the S-PASS data [30] we estimate that the expectation is A sync , 23 ≈ 0 . 4 µ K 2 in the BICEP/ Keck fi eld, which is consistent with our A sync likelihood curve.)”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [30]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If we can detect or set limits on primordial gravitational waves we can set limits on these models [4], and probe physics at energy scales far higher than can ever be accessed in laboratory experiments.”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [4]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is an interesting result given the Planck 2018 TT,TE,EE+lowE result A L = 1 . 18 ± 0 . 065 [2, Eqn. 36b].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [2]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Recently Ref. [55] reported evidence for line-of-sight decorrelation in Planck data by using HI data to select sight lines which integrate over multiple dust clouds.”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [55]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We note that analysis of 2.3 GHz data from S-PASS in conjunction with WMAP and Planck fi nds β s = -3 . 2 with no detected trends with galactic latitude or angular scale [30]”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [30]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Using different apodizations suppresses the amplitude of the cross-spectra as compared to the auto-spectra but this is automatically taken into account in the bandpower window function calculations [18, 53].”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [18]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [53]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This study uses maps of the effective number of clouds taken from Ref. [56] which in Sec. 4.2 specifically examines the BICEP/ Keck patch and states that 'one cloud dominates the column density in the majority of pixels in the BICEP/ Keck region'.”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [56]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In this section we perform tests of the new 2016, 2017 and 2018 data which are the same as those performed on the previous BICEP/ Keck data in Sec. VII.C of Ref. [9], Sec. 6.3 of Ref. [14], Appendix B of BK14, and Appendix B of BK15.”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [9]
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [14]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Ref. [30] finds a value at the bottom end of this range ( ≈ -1) from the S-PASS data for BB at high galactic latitude.”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [30]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such variation of the dust amplitude across the field can potentially produce bias on r given that our re-fit model assumes a single A d value applies to both the smaller BICEP2 / Keck fi eld and the larger BICEP3 fi eld.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The re-fit model assumes a single A_d value applies to both the smaller BICEP2/Keck field and the larger BICEP3 field.
In the paper
“Other additive systematic effects including EMI, magnetic, thermal, and other scan-synchronous sources of residual contamination, and ghost beams, were studied in Ref. [34] and upper limits placed on their contributions equivalent to r < 10 -4 , except in the case of EMI contamination from the satellite uplink transmitter, which was bounded at r < 1 . 7 × 10 -3 with 95% confidence.”
What the sources say
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites [34]
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.

82 of 82

The authors state this as an assumption.
For dust, EE/BB = 2.
“under the assumption that EE/BB = 2 for dust, as is known to be close to the case [23, 24]”
“under the assumption that EE/BB = 2 for dust”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The synchrotron frequency spectrum is a simple power law A_sync ∝ ν^β_s.
“assuming a simple power law for the frequency spectral behavior A sync ∝ ν β s”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dust spatial power spectrum is a power law D_ℓ ∝ ℓ^α_d.
“The spatial power spectrum is taken as a power law D ℓ ∝ ℓ α d marginalizing uniformly over the (generous) range -1 < α d < 0”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The synchrotron spatial power spectrum is a power law D_ℓ ∝ ℓ^α_s.
“The spatial power spectrum is taken as a power law D ℓ ∝ ℓ α s marginalizing over the range -1 < α s < 0 [32].”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The power spectrum of the polarized dust emission in the BICEP/Keck field follows a power law.
“We note that this figure offers empirical backing for an assumption which we make in our mainline analysis: that the power spectrum of the polarized dust emission in our field follows a power law.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dust and synchrotron sky patterns have Gaussian fluctuations.
“The parametric model which we are using, including the approximation of Gaussian fluctuation of the dust (and synchrotron) sky patterns, remains an adequate description of the presently available data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Dust decorrelation exists in the BICEP/Keck sky patch at some level.
“Nonetheless, decorrelation surely exists in our sky patch at some level-the question is whether it is relevant as compared to the BK18 experimental noise.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The EE/BB ratios for dust and synchrotron are both exactly 2.
“under the artificial assumption that the EE/BB ratios for dust and synchrotron are both exactly 2”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The re-fit model assumes a single A_d value applies to both the smaller BICEP2/Keck field and the larger BICEP3 field.
“given that our re-fit model assumes a single A d value applies to both the smaller BICEP2 / Keck fi eld and the larger BICEP3 fi eld.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When running on simulations generated according to the model being re-fit, the input parameter values should be recovered in the mean.
“we then have an a priori expectation that the input parameter values should be recovered in the mean.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Planck 2018 cosmological parameters predict a specific lensing BB spectrum as used in the BK18 baseline analysis.
“The Planck 2018 cosmological parameters predict a specific lensing BB spectrum as used in the 'BK18 baseline' analysis described above.”

11 of 11

Planck 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters
Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., et al. (2020) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 · Cited by 14,258
Self-citation
Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach
Lewis, A., & Bridle, S. (2002) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.103511 · Cited by 3,495
NINE-YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE ( WMAP ) OBSERVATIONS: FINAL MAPS AND RESULTS
Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., Jarosik, N., Hinshaw, G., Odegard, N., Smith, K. M., Hill, R. S., Gold, B., Halpern, M., et al. (2013) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 · Cited by 2,639
Self-citation
A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.
Penzias, A. A., & Wilson, R. W. (1965) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/148307 · Cited by 2,606
Planck 2018 results
Akrami, Y., Arroja, F. M. A., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., Basak, S., et al. (2019) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887 · Cited by 2,435
Self-citation
Detection of B -Mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales by BICEP2
Ade, P. A. R., Aikin, R. W., Barkats, D., Benton, S. J., Bischoff, C. A., Bock, J. J., Brevik, J. A., Buder, I., Bullock, E., Dowell, C. D., et al. (2014) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.241101 · Cited by 1,572
Self-citation
Joint Analysis of BICEP2/ Keck Array and Planck Data
Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Ahmed, Z., Aikin, R. W., Alexander, K. D., Arnaud, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Banday, A. J., Barkats, D., et al. (2015) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.101301 · Cited by 1,013
Self-citation
Signature of Gravity Waves in the Polarization of the Microwave Background
Seljak, U., & Zaldarriaga, M. (1997) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.2054 · Cited by 982
A Probe of Primordial Gravity Waves and Vorticity
Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A. B., & Stebbins, A. J. (1997) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.2058 · Cited by 838
Improved Constraints on Cosmology and Foregrounds from BICEP2 and Keck Array Cosmic Microwave Background Data with Inclusion of 95 GHz Band
Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., Aikin, R. W., Alexander, K. D., Barkats, D., Benton, S. J., Bischoff, C. A., Bock, J. J., Bowens-Rubin, R., Brevik, J. A., et al. (2016) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.031302 · Cited by 649
Self-citation

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 57 references

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,009

Starobinsky inflation beyond the leading order
Toyama, S., & Ketov, S. V. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.063552 · Cited by 9
“…when perturbations left the horizon (at the horizon crossing) as [21, 22] Therefore, tensor perturbations are suppressed with respect to scalar perturbations by the extra factor of N − 1 ∗ , whose value can be estimated by comparing those predictions with CMB measurements [23, 24] , n s ≈ 0 .”
Investigating cosmic histories with a stiff era through gravitational waves
Duval, H., Kuroyanagi, S., Mariotti, A., et al. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.103503 · Cited by 9
Every Poincaré gauge theory is conformal: A compelling case for dynamical vector torsion
Barker, W., Hobson, M., Lasenby, A. N., et al. (2025) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139316 · Cited by 9
“The same scenario arises in classical electromagnetism and in GR: it does not detract from the well-posedness of the model.”
Testing inflation on all scales: a case study with α-attractors
Iacconi, L., Bacchi, M., Guimarães, L. F., & Falciano, F. T. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/06/004 · Cited by 14
Bias on tensor-to-scalar ratio inference with estimated covariance matrices
Beck, D., Cukierman, A. J., & Wu, W. L. K. (2022) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1775 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Non-minimally assisted chaotic inflation
Hyun, S. C., Kim, J., Park, S. C., et al. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/05/045 · Cited by 9
“We have found that the model with n = 1/3 for m = 2, 4 and n = 2/3 for m = 4 moves into the acceptable ranges and becomes compatible with the latest Planck-BICEP/Keck results, even though the assistant field s is assumed to have no sizable potential in the Jordan frame and no direct coupling between the inflaton field…”
BackgroundInfluential
An alternative framework for E-model inflation in supergravity
Pallis, C. (2022) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10381-2 · Cited by 9
“lines in the ns − r plane and compared against the observational data [39] in Figs.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Observational constraints on anisotropies for bouncing alternatives to inflation
Agulló, I., Olmedo, J., & Wilson-Ewing, E. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/045 · Cited by 9
Inflation in Weyl scaling invariant gravity with R3 extensions
Wang, Q.-Y., Tang, Y., & Wu, Y.-L. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.083511 · Cited by 9
Particle production during inflation with a nonminimally coupled spectator scalar field
Yu, Z., Fu, C., & Guo, Z. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123509 · Cited by 8
Parameter space of leptogenesis in polynomial inflation
Drees, M., & Xu, Y. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/036 · Cited by 8
“Monomial inflationary scenarios have been ruled out by recent Planck and BICEP/Keck 2018 measurements [1, 2].”
Background
Evaluating extensions to LCDM: an application of Bayesian model averaging and selection
Paradiso, S., McGee, G., & Percival, W. J. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/021 · Cited by 8
“• BK18 : the Bicep-Keck array CMB polarization data from the 2018 observing season [27].”
Background
Cosmological inflation in the modified gravity model f(Q,C)
Sadatian, S. D., & Hosseini, S. M. R. (2024) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101737 · Cited by 8
The effect of quantum decoherence on inflationary gravitational waves
de Kruijf, J., & Bartolo, N. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/041 · Cited by 14
Simons Observatory: Predeployment Performance of a Large Aperture Telescope Optics Tube in the 90 and 150 GHz Spectral Bands
Sierra, C., Harrington, K., Sutariya, S., et al. (2025) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad8cdc · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Measurement and Modeling of Polarized Atmosphere at the South Pole with SPT-3G
Coerver, A., Zebrowski, J. A., Takakura, S., et al. (2025) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada35d · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Catalogues of cosmologically self-consistent hadronic QCD axion models
Luzio, L. D., Hoof, S., Marinissen, C., & Plakkot, V. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/072 · Cited by 8
Magnetic anti–de Sitter wormholes as seeds for Higgs inflation
Betzios, P., Gialamas, I. D., & Papadoulaki, O. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/9w85-fyhs · Cited by 13
Reheating after axion inflation
Fujita, T., Mukaida, K., & Tsuji, T. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/002 · Cited by 9
“The original idea based on this framework is called natural inflation [5– 7], and has been extended to various axion inflation models including attempts [8–12] to match the current observations [13,14].”
Scalar field fluctuations and the production of dark matter
García, M. A. G., Ke, W., Mambrini, Y., Olive, K. A., & Verner, S. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/039 · Cited by 8
Thermal gravitons from warm inflation
Montefalcone, G., Haghi, B. S. E., Xu, T., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/rnvb-t4lx · Cited by 8
Primordial power spectrum and bispectrum from lattice simulations of axion-U(1) inflation
Jamieson, D., Caravano, A., & Komatsu, E. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/3zml-71jd · Cited by 8
Radiative-corrected Higgs inflation in light of the latest ACT observations
Yuennan, J., Atamurotov, F., & Channuie, P. (2025) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139958 · Cited by 8
CMB-S4: Foreground-cleaning Pipeline Comparison for Measuring Primordial Gravitational Waves
Bianchini, F., Beck, D., Wu, W. L. K., et al. (2025) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03be · Cited by 8
Self-citation
B-mode constraints from Planck low-multipole polarization data
de Belsunce, R., Gratton, S., & Efstathiou, G. (2022) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3321 · Cited by 8
Nonparametric maximum likelihood component separation for CMB polarization data
Leloup, C., Errard, J., & Stompor, R. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123547 · Cited by 8
“BICEP [1], Simons Array [2]), forthcoming (e.”
Effect of instrumental polarization with a half-wave plate on the B-mode signal: prediction and correction
Patanchon, G., Imada, H., Ishino, H., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/074 · Cited by 8
Gravitational waves from preheating in inflation with Weyl symmetry
Hu, W.-Y., Wang, Q.-Y., Ma, Y.-Q., et al. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083542 · Cited by 8
“2 shows some calculations of r and n s with various parameters ζ , β and e-folding number N ∼ (50 , 60) compared with the observation constraints given by the BICEP/Keck collaboration [68].”
Result
Primordial monopoles, black holes and gravitational waves
Moursy, A., & Qaisar Shafi, A. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/064 · Cited by 10
“101) × 10 − 9 [50, 51].”
Method
Alleviating H 0 and S 8 Tensions Simultaneously in K-essence Cosmology
Mansoori, S. A. H., & Moshafi, H. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8350 · Cited by 9
Cosmological stasis from dynamical scalars: Tracking solutions and the possibility of a stasis-induced inflation
Dienes, K. R., Heurtier, L., Huang, F., et al. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.123514 · Cited by 8
Quantumness of relic gravitons
Massimo Giovannini, A. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.123520 · Cited by 10
Asymmetric reheating from a symmetric inflationary potential
Cline, J. M., & Roux, J.-S. (2022) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.043506 · Cited by 8
Gravitino constraints on supergravity inflation
Kawai, S., & Okada, N. (2022) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.l101302 · Cited by 8
“The blue contours on the background are the Planck+BICEP/Keck 2018 1- and 2-σ constraints [3].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Multi-chaotic inflation with and without spectator field
Morishita, Y., Takahashi, T., & Yokoyama, S. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/042 · Cited by 8
Palatini formulation for gauge theory: implications for slow-roll inflation
Räsänen, S., & Verbin, Y. (2023) · The Open Journal of Astrophysics · doi:10.21105/astro.2211.15584 · Cited by 8
Understanding large scale CMB anomalies with the generalized nonminimal derivative coupling during inflation
Tiwari, Y., Bhaumik, N., & Jain, R. K. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.103513 · Cited by 8
“1 and has, therefore, been ruled out from recent Planck 2018 [14] and BICEP 2021 data release [16].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cosmological collider signals of non-Gaussianity from higgs boson in GUT
Maru, N., & Okawa, A. (2023) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x23500756 · Cited by 8
Foreground removal with ILC methods for AliCPT-1
Dou, J., Ghosh, S., Santos, L. C. O., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/006 · Cited by 8
Impact of half-wave plate systematics on the measurement of CMB B-mode polarization
Monelli, M., Komatsu, E., Ghigna, T., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/018 · Cited by 8
“032 (95% CL) [33] (see also [11, 34, 35]).”
Results and Limits of Time-Division Multiplexing for the BICEP Array High-Frequency Receivers
Fatigoni, S., Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., et al. (2024) · Journal of Low Temperature Physics · doi:10.1007/s10909-024-03100-6 · Cited by 7
“Time Domain Multiplexing is a mature and well-characterized technology, with a noise performance that is suitable for high demanding applications aiming to set tight cosmological constraints[[2]].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Forecast of Foreground Cleaning Strategies for AliCPT-1
Zhang, J., Ghosh, S., Dou, J., Liu, Y., Li, S., Chen, J., Wang, J., Zhang, Z., Delabrouille, J., Remazeilles, M., et al. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad5c63 · Cited by 7
Gravitational wave signatures of preheating in Higgs- R 2 inflation
Kim, J., Yang, Z., & Zhang, Y.-L. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/pvtn-z4xt · Cited by 7
No warm inflation from a vanilla axion
Zell, S. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/kp15-3s1c · Cited by 10
Anatomy of parity-violating trispectra in galaxy surveys
Bao, Y., Wang, L.-T., Zhong-zhi Xianyu, A., & Zhong, Y.-M. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/wzrq-8r8m · Cited by 12
Ghost-free non-local F(R) gravity compatible with ACT
Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S. D., & Oikonomou, V. K. (2026) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140290 · Cited by 13
String corrected scalar field inflation compatible with the ACT data
Oikonomou, V. K. (2026) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2026.117437 · Cited by 7
BICEP Array: 150 GHz Detector Module Development
Schillaci, A., Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., et al. (2023) · Journal of Low Temperature Physics · doi:10.1007/s10909-023-03005-w · Cited by 7
Self-citation
New one-parametric extension of the Starobinsky inflationary model
Pozdeeva, E. O., & Vernov, S. Y. (2023) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/acc6a5 · Cited by 7
Nonminimally assisted inflation: a general analysis
Hyun, S. C., Kim, J., Kodama, T., et al. (2023) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/050 · Cited by 7
Comoving curvature perturbation in Jordan and Einstein frames
Díaz, J. J. T., & Karčiauskas, M. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.083535 · Cited by 7
“that those cases, in which F 2 ,φ ≪ F , do not fall within the 2σ region of the latest BICEP/Keck results [50], in contrast to those satisfying F 2 ,φ ≫ F .”
Result
Reheating constraints on modified quadratic chaotic inflation
Yadav, S., Goswami, R., Venkataratnam, K. K., & Yajnik, U. A. (2024) · The European Physical Journal Plus · doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-04979-6 · Cited by 7
“Hence, making the potential compatible with recent observations[47].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Lower tensor-to-scalar ratio as possible signature of modified gravity
Capistrano, A. J. S., Nunes, R. C., & Cabral, L. A. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123517 · Cited by 7
Species Scale and Primordial Gravitational Waves
Scalisi, M. (2024) · Fortschritte der Physik · doi:10.1002/prop.202400033 · Cited by 7
“036 [29].”
Bare mass effects on the reheating process after inflation
Cléry, S., García, M. A. G., Mambrini, Y., & Olive, K. A. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103540 · Cited by 7
Cosmology Large Angular Scale Surveyor (CLASS): 90 GHz Telescope Pointing, Beam Profile, Window Function, and Polarization Performance
Datta, R., Brewer, M. K., Couto, J. D., et al. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad50a0 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Unimodular quadratic gravity and the cosmological constant
Salvio, A. (2024) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138920 · Cited by 7
“This type of inﬂation, known as natural inﬂation, is compatible with present cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations [29–31] when implemented in quadratic gravity [32, 33].”
Result
Gravitational waves from kinetic preheating
Adshead, P. J., Giblin, J. T., & Tishue, A. J. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.043536 · Cited by 7
“[5, 10]) are now strongly disfavored [11, 12] and non-minimal inflationary mechanisms (for example, Starobinsky inflation [2], Higgs inflation [13], and α -attractors [14]) are now the leading candidates for the theory of inflation.”
Background
Imprints of the Local Bubble and Dust Complexity on Polarized Dust Emission
Halal, G., Clark, S. E., & Tahani, M. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e0 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Gravitational wave signatures of post-fragmentation reheating
García, M. A. G., & Pierre, M. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/054 · Cited by 7
“For the inflation model we consider the α -attractor T-models described by the potential [12] V ( ϕ ) = λM 4 which are compatible with the current CMB constraints [5, 6], and which appear in the context of no-scale supergravity [21].”
Method
Chromo-natural inflation supported by enhanced friction from Horndeski gravity
Murata, T., & Kobayashi, T. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/044 · Cited by 7
“03, which is consistent with the CMB observations at 2 σ [68].”
A comparative analysis of dissipation coefficients in warm inflation
dos Santos, F. B. M., de Souza, R., & Alcaniz, J. S. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/071 · Cited by 7
Measuring the anisotropies in astrophysical and cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds with Taiji and LISA networks
Zhao, Z., & Wang, S. (2024) · Science China Physics Mechanics and Astronomy · doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2498-0 · Cited by 7
“At the lowest frequency band, the tensor-to-scalar ratio has been constrained via measurements of B-mode polarization in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) [10].”
Method
Graviton- and inflaton-mediated dark matter production after large field polynomial inflation
Bernal, N., Harz, J., Mojahed, M. A., & Xu, Y. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043517 · Cited by 7
“The blue shaded area indicates the parameter space allowed by the combination of BICEP/Keck 2018 and Planck data [30].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Searching for inflationary particle production in Planck data
Philcox, O. H. E., Kumar, S., & Hill, J. C. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.103523 · Cited by 7
Cosmic inflation from broken conformal symmetry
Cai, R.-G., Hao, Y.-S., & Wang, S.-J. (2022) · Communications in Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1088/1572-9494/ac6b2f · Cited by 9
“The most recent constraint [ 21 ] on cosmic in ﬂ ation still prefers a single-ﬁ eld slow-roll plateau-like potential.”
QUIJOTE scientific results – V. The microwave intensity and polarization spectra of the Galactic regions W49, W51 and IC443
Tramonte, D., Génova-Santos, R., Rubiño-Martín, J. A., et al. (2023) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3502 · Cited by 7
Massive particle pair production and oscillation in Friedman Universe: its effect on inflation
Xue, S.-S. (2023) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11195-6 · Cited by 7
“2) used in the present study was published by BICEP, Keck collaboration [67].”
Method
Modified hybrid inflation, reheating, and stabilization of the electroweak vacuum
Ibrahim, M., Ashry, M., ElKhateeb, E. A., Awad, A., & Moursy, A. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.035023 · Cited by 7
“Both limits of the model are ruled out by Planck observations [24, 25].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
T2 - inflation: Sourced by energy–momentum squared gravity
Mansoori, S. A. H., Felegary, F., Roshan, M., Akarsu, Ö., & Sami, M. (2023) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101360 · Cited by 7
(Multi-field) natural inflation and gravitational waves
Salvio, A., & Sciusco, S. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/03/018 · Cited by 7
The cosmological collider in R 2 inflation
Wu, Y.-P. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/010 · Cited by 7
Geometry and topology of spin random fields
Lerario, A., Marinucci, D., Rossi, M., & Stecconi, M. (2025) · Analysis and Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/s13324-025-01046-w · Cited by 8
Palatini approach and large-scale magnetogenesis
Massimo Giovannini, A. (2021) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/058 · Cited by 8
PROTOCALC, a W-band Polarized Calibrator for Cosmic Microwave Background Telescopes: Application to Simons Observatory and CLASS
Coppi, G., Dachlythra, N., Nati, F., et al. (2025) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adde5f · Cited by 6
Rescaled Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity inflation
Oikonomou, V. K., Gkioni, A., Sdranis, I., et al. (2025) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/adc0dc · Cited by 6
Kinetic gauge friction in natural inflation
Michelotti, M., Quaglia, R. G., Dimastrogiovanni, E., et al. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/058 · Cited by 6
“It is nevertheless ruled out by the most recent CMB observations [29, 94].”
Influential
No-scale Brans-Dicke gravity — ultralight scalar boson & heavy inflaton
Hong, M., Mukaida, K., & Yanagida, T. T. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/032 · Cited by 6
Primordial gravitational wave background as a probe of primordial black holes
Kumar, U. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/ymhr-9711 · Cited by 6
Constraints on the varying electron mass and early dark energy in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 and the implications for inflation
Toda, Y., & Seto, O. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/019 · Cited by 6
Primordial black holes save R 2 inflation
Wang, X., Kohri, K., & Yanagida, T. T. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/050 · Cited by 6
Polynomial potential inflation in the ACT era: From CMB to primordial black holes
Peng, Z.-Z., Chen, Z.-C., & Liü, L. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/hzcf-q2rk · Cited by 53
Non-minimal coupling inflation and dark matter under the ℤ3 symmetry
Cheng, W. S., Liu, X., & Zhou, R. (2023) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/049 · Cited by 6
On the absence of ghosts in quadratic bigravity
Gialamas, I. D., & Tamvakis, K. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/03/016 · Cited by 6
“A well known modification of the standard Einstein-Hilbert action of general relativity is the so called Starobinsky model [12], featuring a quadratic term of the Ricci scalar curvature, which has proven to be quite robust in its inflationary predictions [13, 14].”
MethodResult
The maximal frequency of cosmic gravitons
Massimo Giovannini, A. (2024) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138769 · Cited by 6
Smooth reheating and dark matter via non-Abelian gauge theory
Biondini, S., Kolešová, H., & Procacci, S. (2024) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138995 · Cited by 6
“Current precision measurements e ffi ciently constrain inflationary models [5–7], as well as dark sectors [8–10].”
Background
Pixel domain implementation of the minimally informed CMB map foreground cleaning method
Morshed, M., Rizzieri, A., Leloup, C., et al. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.103521 · Cited by 6
Modeling beam chromaticity for high-resolution CMB analyses
Giardiello, S., Duivenvoorden, A. J., Calabrese, E., Galloni, G., Hasselfield, M., Hill, J. C., Posta, A. L., Louis, T., Madhavacheril, M. S., & Pagano, L. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043502 · Cited by 6
Reheating dynamics in inflationary cosmology: insights from $$\alpha $$-attractor and $$\alpha $$-Starobinsky models
Germán, G. (2025) · The European Physical Journal Plus · doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-06011-x · Cited by 6
Testing leptogenesis and dark matter production during reheating with primordial gravitational waves
Barman, B., Basu, A., Borah, D., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.055016 · Cited by 6
“035 [113].”
Efficient Massive Black Hole Binary parameter estimation for LISA using Sequential Neural Likelihood
Vílchez, I. M., & Sopuerta, C. F. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/022 · Cited by 6
“All these efforts are advancing towards covering the different parts of the grav-∗ itational wave spectrum, but there are still important holes.”
More accurate slow-roll approximations for inflation in scalar-tensor theories
Pozdeeva, E. O., Skugoreva, M. A., TOPORENSKY, A. V., & Vernov, S. Y. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/081 · Cited by 6
“The main inflationary parameters: amplitude of scalar perturbations A s , their spectral index n s , and the tensor-to-scalar ratio of the density perturbations r are constrained by the combined analysis of Planck [1], BICEP/Keck [2] and other observations as follows [3]: A s = (2 .”
Investigating the origin of CMB large-scale features using LiteBIRD and CMB-S4
Petretti, C., Braglia, M., Chen, X., et al. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/06/035 · Cited by 6
“05 Mpc − 1 at 95% confidence by the BICEP/Keck collaboration [9] (see also [10–13] for recent reanalyses of these constraints).”
Impact of evolving dark energy on the search for primordial gravitational waves
Wang, H., Ye, G., & Yun-song Piao, A. (2025) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139744 · Cited by 6
Double inflation via non-minimally coupled spectator
Kubota, M., Oda, K.-Y., Rusak, S., & Takahashi, T. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/06/016 · Cited by 8
Generation of neutrino dark matter, baryon asymmetry, and radiation after quintessential inflation
Fujikura, K., Hashiba, S., & Yokoyama, J. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063537 · Cited by 6
Future Prospects on Constraining Neutrino Cosmology with the Ali CMB Polarization Telescope
Zhang, D., Li, J.-R., Yang, J., et al. (2023) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbe45 · Cited by 6
Conformal B−L and pseudo-Goldstone dark matter
Mohapatra, R. N., & Okada, N. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.095023 · Cited by 6
Model-independent search for anisotropies in stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds and application to LIGO-Virgo’s first three observing runs
Xiao, S., Renzini, A. I., & Weinstein, A. J. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.122002 · Cited by 6
“In other frequency bands, upper limits on SGWBs are set by the isotropy of the Cosmological Microwave Background (CMB) [23] in the lowest frequencies [24], by timing residual analyses in millisecond pulsars in the nHz band [25], by normal modes of the Earth [26] and the Moon [27] in the mHz to Hz band, and loosely by…”
Background
Primordial black hole production in natural and hilltop inflation
Cook, J. L. (2023) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/031 · Cited by 6
“991 which is more than 6σ removed from the observed ns [21].”
Background

Authors: Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., Amiri, M., Barkats, D., Thakur, R. B., Bischoff, C. A., Beck, D., Bock, J. J., Boenish, H., Bullock, E., Buza, V., Cheshire, J. R., Connors, J., Cornelison, J., Crumrine, M., Cukierman, A., Denison, E. V., Dierickx, M., Duband, L., Eiben, M., Fatigoni, S., Filippini, J. P., Fliescher, S., Goeckner-Wald, N., Goldfinger, D. C., Grayson, J., Grimes, P., Hall, G., Halal, G., Halpern, M., Hand, E., Harrison, S., Henderson, S., Hildebrandt, S. R., Hilton, G. C., Hubmayr, J., Hui, H., Irwin, K. D., Kang, J., Karkare, K. S., Karpel, E., Kefeli, S., Kernasovskiy, S. A., Kovac, J. M., Kuo, C. L., Lau, K., Leitch, E. M., Lennox, A., Megerian, K. G., Minutolo, L., Moncelsi, L., Nakato, Y., Namikawa, T., Nguyen, H. T., O’Brient, R., Ogburn, R. W., Palladino, S., Prouve, T., Pryke, C., Racine, B., Reintsema, C. D., Richter, S., Schillaci, A., Schwarz, R., Schmitt, B. L., Sheehy, C. D., Soliman, A., Germaine, T. S., Steinbach, B., Sudiwala, R. V., Teply, G. P., Thompson, K. L., Tolan, J. E., Tucker, C., Turner, A. D., Umiltà, C., Vergès, C., Vieregg, A. G., Wandui, A., Weber, A. C., Wiebe, D. V., Willmert, J., Wong, C. L., Wu, W. L. K., Yang, H., Yoon, K. W., Young, E., Yu, C., Zeng, L., Zhang, C., Zhang, S., & BICEP/<i>Keck</i> Collaboration
Affiliations: Cardiff University (GB)
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (US)
University of British Columbia (CA)
Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian (US)
California Institute of Technology (US)
University of Cincinnati (US)
University of Minnesota (US)
University of Chicago (US)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR)
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Stanford University (US)
Harvard University (US)
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US)
Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (JP)
Service des Basses Températures, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, 38054 Grenoble, France
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Brookhaven National Laboratory (US)
ORCID: Ade, P. A. R.
Ahmed, Z.
Barkats, D.
Bischoff, C. A.
Beck, D.
Bock, J. J.
Buza, V.
Cheshire, J. R.
Cukierman, A.
Dierickx, M.
Eiben, M.
Filippini, J. P.
Goldfinger, D. C.
Grimes, P.
Halal, G.
Halpern, M.
Henderson, S.
Hildebrandt, S. R.
Irwin, K. D.
Karkare, K. S.
Kovac, J. M.
Kuo, C. L.
Leitch, E. M.
Nakato, Y.
Namikawa, T.
Ogburn, R. W.
Pryke, C.
Racine, B.
Schillaci, A.
Sudiwala, R. V.
Thompson, K. L.
Tolan, J. E.
Vergès, C.
Vieregg, A. G.
Wandui, A.
Wiebe, D. V.
Willmert, J.
Wu, W. L. K.
Young, E.
Yu, C.
Zeng, L.
Venue: Physical Review Letters
Publisher: American Physical Society (APS)
Published: 2021-10-04
Volume: 127
Issue: 15
Pages: 151301-151301
ISSN: 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
1079-7114
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.127.151301
OpenAlex: W3202102945
Semantic Scholar: 93637369c8e398b920a6f82f83adf5ffc4fbba76
Cited by: 1,014
References: 57
Citations by year: 2026: 163 · 2025: 253 · 2024: 218 · 2023: 203 · 2022: 162 · 2021: 15
FWCI: 80.49
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: green
arxiv.org
Licence: link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-accepted-manuscript-license (am, 365 d)
Locations: Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
HAL AMU (submittedVersion)
OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders: National Science Foundation (0742818, 0742592, 1044978, 1110087, 1145172, 1145143, 1145248, 1639040, 1638957, 1638978, 1638970)
W. M. Keck Foundation
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (06-ARPA206-0040, 10-SAT10-0017, 12-SAT12-0031, 14-SAT14-0009, 16-SAT-16-0002)
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Canada Foundation for Innovation
University of British Columbia
Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/N000706/1)
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
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 › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords: primordial gravitational waves, BICEP2, Keck Array, CMB polarization, tensor-to-scalar ratio, foreground modeling, polarized dust emission, synchrotron radiation, Planck, WMAP

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Metadata

Record

About these checks