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 accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
89 Own result · 32 Sources not found · 16 Own method · 10 No basis given · 8 Own interpretation
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The BK18 result described in this letter, r 0 . 05 < 0 . 036, represents a fractional improvement equivalent to the two previous steps combined.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- 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
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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
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
“For r , the zero-to-peak likelihood ratio is 0.46.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
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
“r 0 . 05 = 0 . 014 +0 . 010 -0 . 011 ( r 0 . 05 < 0 . 036 at 95% confidence)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“A sync , 23 < 1 . 4 µ K 2 at 95% confidence”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“and that the data do not prefer allowing decorrelation of the dust pattern in the model.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
“Running without foreground parameters on simulations which contain neither lensing or dust gives σ ( r 0 . 05 ) = 0 . 002.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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
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 BK18 data shrinks the contours in the vertical ( r ) direction while the BAO data shrinks the contours in the horizontal ( n s ) direction and shifts the centroid slightly to the right.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 Q/U maps now reach depths of 2.8, 2.8 and 8.8 µ K 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 & 220GHz.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 also find that the value of A d is very similar when evaluated over the larger BICEP3 sky coverage region and the smaller BICEP2 / Keck sky region.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This improves the constraint on primordial gravitational waves parameterized by the tensor-to-scalar ratio r by more than a factor of two over our previous result to r 0 . 05 < 0 . 036 at 95% confidence, setting important additional limits on inflationary models.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 the BK15 analysis the constraint on β d was prior dominated, but for BK18 we see that the data is able to constrain this parameter almost as well as the prior previously did.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“As compared to the previous BK15 analysis, the likelihood curve for r tightens considerably with the peak position shifting down slightly, and the A d curve tightens slightly.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Freeing the amplitude of the lensing power we obtain A BB L = 1 . 03 +0 . 08 -0 . 09 , and the r constraint hardly changes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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 addition the A sync curve now peaks at zero-the weak evidence for synchrotron we saw in BK15 is no longer present.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 95GHz B map is approximately equal parts lensed-ΛCDM signal and noise.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The increase of 1.5 for the real data is smaller than the average increase in the simulations indicating no evidence that synchrotron is present.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“With a uniform prior on A BB L (and marginalizing over all other parameters) we obtain A BB L = 1 . 03 +0 . 08 -0 . 09 showing no tension with ΛCDM.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 r constraint hardly changes due to the fact that the lensing amplitude prefered by the BK18 data is very close to that predicted by the Planck 2018 cosmological parameters.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the larger instantaneous field of view BICEP3 naturally maps a larger area of sky.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Removing synchrotron from the fit (i.e. fixing As = 0, β s = 0, α s = 0 and ϵ = 0) corresponds to a nominal reduction in the number of fit parameters of 4, but the increase in the mean -2 log( L ) for the simulations (which contain no synchrotron) suggests only 2.5 effective free parameters.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“For the 9 × 66 = 594 bandpowers shown in Fig. 15, χ 2 = ( d -m ) T C -1 ( d -m ) = 541 . 6, where d are the bandpower values, m are the model expectation values, and C is the bandpower covariance matrix for the maximum likelihood model. This has a PTE versus the simulations of 0 . 94.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The χ 2 and χ jackknife statistics do not actually have the nominal theory distributions since they are summations of bandpower values which are themselves χ 2 rather than Gaussian distributed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“However, at 220 GHz we start to see dust contamination become comparable in amplitude to the ΛCDM E -modes at the edges of the field.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Interestingly the peak position of A d only shifts a very small amount under these variations showing no evidence for variation of the polarized dust amplitude as averaged across the BICEP3 coverage pattern versus the subset BICEP2 / Keck fi eld.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 dropping the β d prior corresponds to the transition from yellow to red curvesr and A sync show very little change while A d gets just slightly wider.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“As seen in Figures 8 and 9 the BICEP3 sky coverage is larger than the BICEP2 / Keck region.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“If instead we take the sum of the normalized deviations χ = ∑ (( d -m ) /e ) where e is the square-root of the diagonal of C , we find that the PTE versus the simulations is 0.22.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 a simple study we find this to be 2.2% within the multipole range 20 < ℓ < 500 (with a distribution close to Gaussian).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 upper part of Fig. 14 compares the two BB spectra-a large improvement in sensitivity is again clear, and the BK18 220 GHz spectrum is sample variance limited out to ℓ ∼ 200.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The E maps are dominated by ΛCDM signal, and hence are highly correlated across all three bands.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Comparing the three frequencies we see almost identical patterns in the T maps since ΛCDM signal is dominant.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Dropping WMAP results in A sync peaking strongly at zero whereas dropping LFI results in A sync peaking well above zero.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that for the small field only version the A sync peak shifts above zero as it was in BK15.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“For Q and U the patterns are again extremely similar between 95 and 150 GHz, and dominated by the ΛCDM E -mode signal.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“BICEP/ Keck alone (blue) constrains A sync and β d poorly with the r constraint peaking hard at zero.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 Appendix D above we saw that the absolute goodness-of-fit of the baseline model to the data is adequate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Starting with the BK15 data set we first update the version of COSMOMC from Nov2016 to July2019 (green to magenta) which makes very little difference.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Using different apodizations also in principle reduces the correlations of the auto- and cross-spectra which are key to the separation of foreground and CMB signals. However, in the current case the penalty turns out to be negligible.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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 matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two nominally 220 GHz receivers added before the 2015 season actually have passbands centered at ≈ 230 GHz, whereas the two added before the 2016 season have passbands centered at ≈ 220 GHz.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
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 see that the r constraint shifts down slightly and the A sync constraint shifts up slightly.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Allowing decorrelation parameter ∆ d to vary freely while fixing ϵ = 0 leaves the nominal number of parameters unchanged and as expected hardly changes the mean value of -2 log( L ) for the simulations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“It is very interesting that dropping the 150 and 220 GHz bands does not substantially increase the width of the r constraint, although it is unsurprising that it does increase the widths of the A d and β d constraints.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Synchrotron is tightly limited in all the multipole ranges, and not detected in any of them.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Dropping the other HFI bands makes smaller additional changes (red to green).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The shifts on dust parameters ( A d and β d ) are a few percent, and still within statistical uncertainty and upper bounds predicted using maximum likelihood searches on simulations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 find that 60% of the simulations peak at zero, and 11% have a lower zero-to-peak ratio than the real data-i.e. show more evidence for r when the true value is in fact zero.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“They have A d in our sky region which is much greater that the actual level and this modestly increases σ ( r ), although interestingly by an amount that is fractionally less than the increase seen in BK15.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Neither of these models produces detectable bias on r .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 matchedcites [52]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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 real data shows an increase almost exactly equal to that in the mean of simulations-i.e. the data is perfectly compatible with the lensed-ΛCDM expectation plus the simple 3 parameter dust model.”
boostedn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 input values are recovered in the mean although formally there is a small bias detectable on A d .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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 matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [64]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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 recovered bias is ∆( r ) = 1 . 5 ± 1 . 1 × 10 -3 , which is subdominant compared to our statistical uncertainty σ ( r ) = 0 . 009.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For dust, EE/BB = 2.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [17, Fig. 5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To test for systematic contamination we carry out our usual 'jackknife' internal consistency (null) tests on the new 95GHz and 220GHz data as described in Appendices B and C.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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 matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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
“The φ 2 / 3 model now lies outside the 95% contour as does the band of natural inflation models.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites [4]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
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
“In addition in the right panel of Fig. 19 we see that there is very little degeneracy between r and A BB L implying that all one now needs from ΛCDM is the template shape of the lensing B -mode spectrum, and not the amplitude.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that we did not look at the non-jackknife spectra until the above data removals had been done and the null tests determined to be satisfactory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To keep down the total number of spectra we drop the other Planck bands since these provide a negligible amount of additional information.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [53]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [56]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
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 matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Running maximum likelihood searches on simulations indicates that this results in σ ( r ) as low as any other option with no detectable bias on r .”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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 matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all effects considered, the magnitude of the estimated bias on r is significantly smaller than our statistical uncertainty, and not all of the biases have the same sign, which should lead to partial cancelation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this leakage analysis for BK18, care was taken to minimize systematic contamination in the composite beam maps from the FFBM analysis pipeline itself, e.g. by minimizing non-Gaussian noise and excess smoothing.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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
“The driving factor in this improvement in the recovered bias is the inclusion of BICEP3 , which demonstrates lower differential beam power than Keck and BICEP2 , both before and after deprojection.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Levels of these potential sources of contamination have been monitored throughout collection of the current dataset (including EMI reduction from additional shielding at the satellite uplink), and contributions from these effects remain negligible.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
Citations
Cites
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-citationCosmological 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-citationA 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
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-citationDetection 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-citationJoint 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-citationSignature 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
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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 1,009
Reheating consistency condition on the classically conformal U(1)B–L Higgs inflation model
Kawai, S., & Okada, N. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.015013 · Cited by 6
“The background contours are the 68% and 95% confidence level Planck+BICEP/Keck 2018 results [34] (blue), and the LiteBIRD [35] (green) and CMB-S4 [36] (red) 1- and 2-σ prospects for a fiducial model with r = 0.”
BackgroundWeyl gravity extension of Higgs inflation
Aoki, S., & Lee, H. M. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.035045 · Cited by 6
Herrera, R., & Ríos, C. (2024) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101489 · Cited by 6
A constrained NILC method for CMB B mode observations
Zhang, Z., Liu, Y., Li, S., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/014 · Cited by 6
“036 at 95% confidence level[9].”
Climbing over the potential barrier during inflation via null energy condition violation
Pan, S., Cai, Y., & Yun-song Piao, A. (2024) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13340-1 · Cited by 6
“035 within the observational window of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) [38].”
BackgroundProduction and backreaction of massive fermions during axion inflation with non-Abelian gauge fields
Adshead, P. J., Liu, A., & Lozanov, K. D. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/043 · Cited by 6
A note on inflation in dRGT massive gravity
Afshar, B., Riazi, N., & Moradpour, H. (2022) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10393-y · Cited by 6
Do we have a standard model of cosmology?
Efstathiou, G. (2023) · Astronomy & Geophysics · doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atac093 · Cited by 6
On inflationary models in f(R,T) gravity with a kinetic coupling term
Belhaj, A., Benali, M., Hassouni, Y., & Lamaaoune, M. (2023) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x23500434 · Cited by 6
Behavior of α -attractors in warm inflation
Chakraborty, D., & Das, S. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/2m25-gf7c · Cited by 5
Quintessential inflation in Palatini F(R, X) gravity
Dimopoulos, K., Dioguardi, C., Hütsi, G., et al. (2025) · The European Physical Journal Plus · doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-025-07025-1 · Cited by 5
“(24), but H is now determined by the radiation content of the Universe so the equation yields: Hence, by integrating it we get: By using eqs.”
InfluentialBeware of the running n s when producing heavy primordial black holes
Allegrini, S., Iovino, A. J., & Veermäe, H. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/shz2-xzcy · Cited by 5
Comparative study of the strong backreaction regime in axion inflation: the effect of the potential
Lizarraga, J., López-Mediavilla, C., & Urio, A. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/020 · Cited by 5
“Some of these potentials, such as the α -attractors and the Starobinsky models 2 , remain among the most favoured by current CMB measurements [2, 45].”
Liu, Y. T., Azzoni, S., Clark, S. E., et al. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/024 · Cited by 5
Precision predictions of Starobinsky inflation with self-consistent Weyl-squared corrections
Eugenio Bianchi, A., & Gamonal, M. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/vyls-33np · Cited by 12
“036 [14, 15], which disfavors monomial potentials for a scalar field while remaining consistent with the value predicted by the Starobinsky model, r ≃ 3 ( n s − 1) 2 ≈ 0 .”
ACT data and positive running of the spectral index for scalar theory and modified gravity
Odintsov, S. D., & Oikonomou, V. K. (2026) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140805 · Cited by 5
Ultraviolet-regularized power spectrum without infrared distortions in cosmological spacetimes
Ferreiro, A., & Torrentí, F. (2023) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137868 · Cited by 5
Inflation models with Peccei–Quinn symmetry and axion kinetic misalignment
Lee, H. M., Menkara, A. G., Seong, M.-J., et al. (2024) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13648-y · Cited by 5
Numerical simulations of inflationary dynamics: Slow roll and beyond
Bhatt, S. R., Mishra, S. S., Basak, S., & Sahoo, S. N. (2024) · SciPost Physics Codebases · doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.42 · Cited by 5
“From the CMB observations of Planck 2018 [15], we have while the 2 σ constraint on the scalar spectral index is given by Similarly the constraint on the tensor-to-scalar ratio r , from the latest combined observations of Planck 2018 [15] and BICEP/Keck [17], is given by Similarly the CMB bound on r when combined with…”
InfluentialPrimordial black holes in SB SUSY Gauss-Bonnet inflation
Ashrafzadeh, A., Solbi, M., Heydari, S., & Karami, K. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/025 · Cited by 10
Gravitational wave astronomy and the expansion history of the universe
Massimo Giovannini, A. (2025) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x25300030 · Cited by 5
New models of quintessential inflation featuring plateau and hilltop potentials
Mishra, S. S., & Varun Sahni, A. (2025) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13792-z · Cited by 5
Dilatonic Couplings and the Relic Abundance of Ultralight Dark Matter
Alachkar, A., Fairbairn, M., & Marsh, D. J. E. (2025) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.191003 · Cited by 6
Borboruah, Z. A., Deppisch, F. F., Ghoshal, A., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/qyld-mf33 · Cited by 5
“035 from BICEP/Keck observations [93], For our analysis, we fix r = 0 .”
Zhang, J.-R., Chen, J., Jiao, H.-S., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/cz2w-5cfj · Cited by 5
The reheating constraints to natural inflation in Horndeski gravity
Chien, C.-H., Koh, S., & Tumurtushaa, G. (2022) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10236-w · Cited by 5
“3, in light of the latest observational data [10,11, 28], we discussed the theoretical predictions of the natural inflation model with potential given in Eq.”
BackgroundInfluentialSpectral distortions from axion monodromy inflation
Henríquez-Ortiz, R., Mastache, J., & Ramos–Sánchez, S. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/08/054 · Cited by 5
Mitigating Bias in CMB B-modes from Foreground Cleaning Using a Moment Expansion
Sponseller, D., & Kogut, A. (2022) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac846f · Cited by 5
Thermal keV dark matter in a gauged B−L model with cosmic inflation
Borah, D., Das, S. J., & Saha, A. K. (2022) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.055010 · Cited by 5
“In this work, we envisage the scope of realizing warm dark matter in a B−L inflationary framework which also offers correct magnitude of spectral index and tensor to scalar ratio in view of most recent Planck 2018+BICEP/Keck data [29] published in 2021.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPower-law inflation satisfies Penrose’s Weyl curvature hypothesis
D’Amico, G., & Kaloper, N. (2022) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.103503 · Cited by 6
Namikawa, T., & Sherwin, B. D. (2023) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.131001 · Cited by 5
Self-citationBaryon asymmetry from dark matter decay
Borah, D., Das, S. J., & Roshan, R. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.075025 · Cited by 5
Reconstructing k-inflation from n s ( N ) and reheating constraints
Herrera, R., Housset, M., Osses, C., et al. (2023) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101386 · Cited by 5
Postinflationary structure formation boosted by parametric self-resonance
Eggemeier, B., Hayman, P., Niemeyer, J. C., et al. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.043521 · Cited by 5
Watts, D. J., Fuskeland, U., Aurlien, R., et al. (2024) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348330 · Cited by 5
Exploring the impact of the dissipation coefficient in warm Higgs inflation
Cheng, W. S., Chen, X.-W., Zhou, R., et al. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083509 · Cited by 5
Inflation and Higgs phenomenology in a model unifying the DFSZ axion with the majoron
Matlis, M., Dutta, J., Moortgat‐Pick, G., & Ringwald, A. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/007 · Cited by 5
“This relation is furthermore constrained by ns and r: the non-minimal coupling ξ is constrained by r as shown in figure 17 (right) and r is constrained by ns with PLANCK 2018 [39],[35] and BICEP 2021 [40] data.”
MethodObservational constraints on extended Starobinsky and Weyl gravity model of inflation
Burikham, P., Chantavat, T., & Boonaom, P. (2024) · Journal of High Energy Astrophysics · doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.07.005 · Cited by 5
“Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing [55] BICEP/ Keck 2018 (BK18) [4] Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) [12, 59, 6] Dark Energy Survey (DES) [1] Pantheon+ [60] Table 2 The datasets combination used in our work.”
BackgroundMethodRenormalization of the primordial inflationary power spectra
Pla, S., & Stefanek, B. (2024) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138926 · Cited by 8
α -attractor potentials in loop quantum cosmology
Levy, G. L. L. W., & Ramos, R. O. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.043507 · Cited by 5
Unified origin of inflation, baryon asymmetry, and neutrino mass
Kaladharan, A., & Saad, S. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.116012 · Cited by 5
“N ∗ is computed using Two of the observables, spectral index and the tensor-to-scalar ratio, are given by which must satisfy the Planck observations [58, 74]: Using the approximated analytical formula given in Eq.”
Impact of DESI BAO Data on Inflationary Parameters: Stability against late-time new physics
da Costa, S. S. (2024) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101791 · Cited by 5
Strong backreaction of gauge quanta produced during inflation
He, J., Zhang, K.-G., Fu, C., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.103525 · Cited by 5
The swampland and string theory
Palti, E. (2021) · Contemporary Physics · doi:10.1080/00107514.2022.2103275 · Cited by 5
Gravitational waves in a cyclic Universe: resilience through cycles and vacuum state
Angelis, M. D., Smith, A., Giarè, W., & van de Bruck, C. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/036 · Cited by 6
Spectral distortions from promising single and multifield inflationary models
Baur, A., García, M. A. G., Henríquez-Ortiz, R., Hernández-Neri, M., & Ramos–Sánchez, S. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/090 · Cited by 5
“1, even the best predictions of power-law inflation are in strong tension with current constraints on the spectral tilt of scalar perturbations and the tensor-to-scalar ratio [24, 25].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialScale invariant extension of the Standard Model: a nightmare scenario in cosmology
Aoki, M., Kubo, J., & Yang, J. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/096 · Cited by 5
“The idea of cosmic inflation [1–4] is fully consistent with the Planck and BICEP/Keck data of CMB measurements [5–7].”
ResultNoncanonical conformal attractors for single field inflation
Pinhero, T., & Pal, S. (2022) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271822500900 · Cited by 5
Yang, W., Kang, Y.-X., Ali, A., Sui, T.-T., Wu, C.-H., & Hu, Y.-P. (2026) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2026.102224 · Cited by 4
“036 at 95% CL [67].”
Unraveling the Hubble tension with warm inflation
Anupama, B., & Suresh, P. K. (2025) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/adf40a · Cited by 4
“The inflationary paradigm [6], initially proposed to overcome some of the shortcomings of standard cosmology, is still widely accepted among the scientific community to decode the physics of the early universe.”
Jawad, A., Videla, N., Sultan, A. M., et al. (2025) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117101 · Cited by 4
Wen, R. Y., Gebhardt, H. S. G., Heinrich, C., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/hqc3-tbxc · Cited by 4
On the prospects of thermalization of axion-SU(2) inflation
Bhattacharya, S., Fasiello, M., Papageorgiou, A., & Dimastrogiovanni, E. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/080 · Cited by 5
“On the observational side, one ought to first take into account the fact that the simplest realization of axion inflation is at odds with the latest CMB measurements [6, 7].”
Toward a gravitational network: Bridging metric-affine gravity and no-scale supergravity
Gialamas, I. D., Katsoulas, T., & Tamvakis, K. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/kqpy-f2q2 · Cited by 4
The Inflationary Dynamics with the Scalar-Tensor Model
Younesizadeh, F., & Kamani, D. (2025) · General Relativity and Gravitation · doi:10.1007/s10714-025-03500-3 · Cited by 4
“Hence, the spectral index n s can be adjusted to align with the most recent observational data [27–29], which also facilitates a graceful exit from the inflationary phase.”
Power law α -Starobinsky inflation
Saini, S., & Nautiyal, A. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/6q8y-lcg2 · Cited by 4
Lehnert, K. (2026) · Fortschritte der Physik · doi:10.1002/prop.70073 · Cited by 15
Weyl-invariant Einstein–Cartan gravity with a heavy ALP: Higgs inflation and α-attractors
Karananas, G. K., Shaposhnikov, M., & Zell, S. (2026) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140151 · Cited by 4
Four-point correlation functions in axion inflation
Cho, H.-T., & Ng, K. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/005 · Cited by 4
“013 [42, 43], respectively, at the CMB or cosmological scales that correspond to about the first 7 e-foldings of inflation.”
Boltzmann suppressed ultraviolet freeze-in
Bernal, N., Mukherjee, S., & Unwin, J. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/010 · Cited by 4
Instant folded strings, dark energy and a cyclic bouncing universe
Nissan Itzhaki, A., Peleg, U., & Steinhardt, P. J. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/05/084 · Cited by 7
Spectral distortion signatures of step-like inflationary potential
Mastache, J., Barrera, W., & Henríquez-Ortiz, R. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/070 · Cited by 4
“037 using Planck+Bicep-Keck+BAO+lensing data [83, 84]; where BAO stands for baryon acoustic oscillations.”
Embedding warm natural inflation in f(ϕ)T gravity
Yeasmin, S., & Deshamukhya, A. (2024) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x24501586 · Cited by 4
“The latest Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) observations of BICEP/Keck [37] combined with the Planck 2018 data [38] sets an bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio of r 0 .”
MethodResultBig bang nucleosynthesis constraints on the energy-momentum squared gravity: The T 2 model
Jang, D., Gangopadhyay, M. R., Cheoun, M.-K., Kajino, T., & Sami, M. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043525 · Cited by 6
Primordial black holes from the ultraslow-roll phase in the inflaton–curvaton mixed field inflation
Su, B., Li, N., & Feng, L. (2025) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13921-8 · Cited by 4
Hervías-Caimapo, C., Wolz, K., Posta, A. L., et al. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/06/055 · Cited by 4
Purely gravitational dark matter production in warm inflation
Wang, Q.-Y., Jia, T., Chen, P.-R., & Tang, Y. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/jdkz-8z54 · Cited by 4
Observational restrictions and slow-roll D-brane inflation in the special $$F(\phi ,T)$$ gravity
Younesizadeh, F., & Kamani, D. (2025) · General Relativity and Gravitation · doi:10.1007/s10714-025-03448-4 · Cited by 4
“(2.29) The BICEP/Keck 2021 (BK18) [56] impose the following restriction r 0 .”
InfluentialGravitational wave signatures of primordial black hole reheating in upcoming interferometry missions
Paul, D., Haque, M. R., & Pal, S. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/074 · Cited by 4
“On the other hand, data from Planck-2018, along with BICEP2/ Keck [92, 93], provides an upper bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio ( r 0 .”
100 years of mathematical cosmology: Models, theories and problems, Part B
Cotsakis, S., & Yefremov, A. P. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2021.0171 · Cited by 7
Casas, F. J., Vielva, P., Barreiro, R. B., et al. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22208080 · Cited by 4
Post-Inflationary Production of Dark Matter after Inflection Point Slow Roll Inflation
Ghoshal, A., Lambiase, G., Pal, S., et al. (2023) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym15020543 · Cited by 4
Reduced axion abundance from an extended symmetry
Allali, I. J., Hertzberg, M., & Lyu, Y. (2022) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.043535 · Cited by 2
Electromagnetic Waves in Cosmological Spacetime
Staicova, D., & Stoilov, M. (2023) · Universe · doi:10.3390/universe9060292 · Cited by 4
“So far, however, the experiments that have shaped our vision about the Universe and its evolution, such as Planck [5], Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe [6], WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey [7], Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization [8], All Sky Automated Survey for Super Novae [9], Sloan Digital Sky S…”
BackgroundInflation and reheating predictions in f(T) -gravity
Zhang, F.-Y., Zhang, F.-Y., Yu, H., et al. (2024) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101482 · Cited by 4
Higgs Inflation in Unimodular Gravity
Nozari, K., & Malekpour, M. (2024) · Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics · doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae085 · Cited by 4
Inflation and reheating predictions in polynomial inflation with small and large fields
Zhang, F.-Y., & Lin, W. (2024) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138765 · Cited by 4
Inflationary gravitational waves as a probe of the unknown postinflationary primordial Universe
Soman, A. K., Mishra, S. S., Shafi, M., & Basak, S. (2024) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/81wm-jlm6 · Cited by 11
“The latest CMB observations [26, 28] impose constraints on the amplitude of primordial GWs, expressed as an upper bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio, namely, r 0 .”
K -inflation: The legitimacy of the classical treatment
Ageeva, Y., & Petrov, P. K. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.043527 · Cited by 4
Evolving wormhole formation in dRGT massive gravity
Dutta, A., Roy, D., & Chakraborty, S. (2024) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x24501355 · Cited by 4
“In a revised framework, it has been established that the massive gravity theory aligns with the Plank 2018 data and remains consistent when combined with BK18 and BAO, as indicated in [59, 60].”
MethodSlow-roll approximations in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity formulated in terms of e-folding numbers
Pozdeeva, E. O. (2025) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13895-7 · Cited by 4
Geometric reheating of the Universe
Figueroa, D. G., & Loayza, N. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/073 · Cited by 4
“Viable inflationary scenarios must be compatible with observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) [1–3], and in particular with the latest constraint on the B-mode polarization [4, 5], which sets an upper bound on the inflationary Hubble rate as H ∗ ≲ 4 .”
BackgroundPhilcox, O. H. E., & Shiraishi, M. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/pb7x-lp19 · Cited by 4
Primordial black holes and second-order gravitational waves in axionlike hybrid inflation
Ahmed, W., Ghoshal, A., & Zubair, U. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/bkkt-4t37 · Cited by 5
“This choice yields inflationary predictions in excellent agreement with current CMB observations [66, 67].”
Primordial non-Gaussianities for nonsingular Horndeski cosmologies
Ageeva, Y., Kotenko, M., & Petrov, P. K. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/ghz6-w27b · Cited by 4
Inflationary gravitational wave spectral shapes as a test for low-scale leptogenesis
Borboruah, Z. A., Ghoshal, A., Malhotra, L., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/hbd6-4qp7 · Cited by 4
Li, J. (2022) · Universe · doi:10.3390/universe8070367 · Cited by 4
Tian, S. (2022) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043524 · Cited by 7
Dvornikov, M. S. (2022) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271822501413 · Cited by 4
Modified Starobinsky inflation by the R ln (□) R term
Bezerra-Sobrinho, J., & Medeiros, L. G. (2023) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/039 · Cited by 4
Graceful exit from inflation and reheating with twin waterfall scalar fields
Lee, H. M., & Menkara, A. G. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.115019 · Cited by 4
Rinaldi, M., Cecchini, C., Ghoshal, A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2531/1/012012 · Cited by 4
Effect of dissipation on chromo-natural inflation
Yeasmin, S., & Deshamukhya, A. (2023) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x23501129 · Cited by 4
Second-order corrections to Starobinsky inflation
Rodrigues-da-Silva, G., & Medeiros, L. G. (2023) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12149-8 · Cited by 7
Inflation in symmergent metric-Palatini gravity
Bostan, N., Karahan, C., & Sargın, O. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/028 · Cited by 4
“15 and blue(red) contours indicate the recent 95%(68%) CL given by BICEP/Keck [40].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialDilaton–Axion modular inflation in supergravity
Frolovsky, D., & Ketov, S. V. (2024) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271823400084 · Cited by 4
“1 · for the tilt n s of scalar perturbations and the tensor-to-scalar ratio r , respectively, which are fully consistent with the CMB measurements [24, 25]: n s = 0 .”
ResultImpact of dark sector preheating on CMB observables
García, M. A. G., & Pereyra-Flores, A. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/043 · Cited by 4
“004 at the 95% CL [5].”
BackgroundInfluentialConstraining primordial tensor features with the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background
Hamann, J., & Malhotra, A. (2022) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/12/015 · Cited by 4
Unveiling V modes: enhancing CMB sensitivity to BSM physics with a non-ideal half-wave plate
Raffuzzi, N., Lembo, M., Giardiello, S., et al. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/009 · Cited by 3
“The current upper limit on r is taken from the analysis of BICEP2, Keck Array, BICEP3, WMAP, and Planck data, marginalizing over a given model of Galactic dust and synchrotron contaminations [45].”
Analytic results in aligned axion inflation
Greco, F., & Peloso, M. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/074 · Cited by 3
“Cosmological inflation [1–3] provides initial conditions for the early universe cosmology in excellent agreement with large-scale measurements [4, 5].”
Background
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- 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
