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 701–800 of 1,009
Inflation in Scalar-Tensor Theory with Nonminimal Kinetic Coupling
Avdeev, N. A., & TOPORENSKY, A. V. (2023) · Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters · doi:10.1134/s1547477123030093 · Cited by 2
Ultra-Slow-roll Inflation Dynamics in f(R,ϕ,X) Gravity
Keskin, A. I. (2023) · International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences · doi:10.29132/ijpas.1381836 · Cited by 2
Pareek, P., & Nautiyal, A. (2024) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad1b91 · Cited by 2
Kawasaki, M., & Yanagida, T. T. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/014 · Cited by 2
Universe bouncing its way to inflation
Kaur, M., Nandi, D., Choudhury, D., & Seshadri, T. R. (2024) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271824500068 · Cited by 2
“Observations (BICEP/Keck [24] and PLANCK [25]), suggest that, at the pivot scale (k∗ = 0.”
MethodResultPhysical scale adiabatic regularization in cosmological spacetimes
Ferreiro, A., Monin, S., & Torrentí, F. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.045015 · Cited by 5
“The excited tensor perturbations also constitute a relevant source of primordial gravitational waves, whose amplitude is observationally upper bounded by CMB experiments [15].”
BackgroundIs natural inflation in agreement with CMB data?
dos Santos, F. B. M., Rodrigues, G., Rodrigues, J. G., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/03/038 · Cited by 2
Postinflationary production of particle dark matter: Hilltop and Coleman-Weinberg inflation
Ghoshal, A., Khlopov, M., Zygmunt Lalak, A., et al. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063037 · Cited by 2
Gravitational wave non-Gaussianity from trans-Planckian quantum noise
Cielo, M., Fasiello, M., Mangano, G., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/079 · Cited by 2
“CMB-S3 experiments [5, 6] and σr ∼ 10−3 for CMB-S4 [7, 8] and LiteBIRD [9]).”
BackgroundQuantum gravity effects on the tachyon inflation from thermodynamic perspective
Bitaj, M., Rashidi, N., Nozari, K., et al. (2024) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101552 · Cited by 2
Hybrid inflation and gravitational waves from accidentally light scalars
Brümmer, F., Ferrante, G., & Michele Frigerio, A. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.103506 · Cited by 2
“[25].”
MethodElwood, B. D., Grimes, P., Kovac, J. M., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1117/12.3019149 · Cited by 2
Self-citationEvidence for Spatially Distinct Galactic Dust Populations
Shiu, C., Benton, S. J., Filippini, J. P., Fraisse, A. A., Jones, W. C., Nagy, J. M., Padilla, I. L., & Soler, J. D. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad46f6 · Cited by 2
Self-citationLandscape, Swampland and extra dimensions
Ignatios Antoniadis, A., Anchordoqui, L. A., & Lüst, D. (2024) · Corfu Summer Institute School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity (CORFU) · doi:10.22323/1.463.0179 · Cited by 2
Warm inflation with bulk viscous pressure for different solutions of an anisotropic universe
Shokri, M., Sadeghi, J., Herrera, R., et al. (2024) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ad6b52 · Cited by 2
Ishikawa, R., & Ketov, S. V. (2024) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad7187 · Cited by 2
“…(using only gravitational interactions consistent with General Relativity), excellent agreement with recent measurements of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation [2, 3], and its simplicity (having only one free parameter that becomes fixed by the known amplitude of CMB scalar perturbations).”
Constant-roll warm inflation within Rastall gravity
Saleem, R., Shahid, I., Aslam, M. I., et al. (2024) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116728 · Cited by 2
Pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson production from inflaton coupling during reheating
Kaneta, K., Lee, S. M., Oda, K.-Y., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/058 · Cited by 2
“In this example, we are interested in the large non-minimal coupling ξ ≫ 1 as one of the most simplest model which fit to the current observations [8, 37–39].”
ResultRevisiting the Chern-Simons interaction during inflation with a non-canonical pseudo-scalar
Kume, J., Peloso, M., & Bartolo, N. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/044 · Cited by 2
Role of the curvaton after the last Planck dataset
Choi, G., Ke, W., & Olive, K. A. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.023518 · Cited by 2
SIMP dark matter during reheating
Chowdhury, D., & Show, S. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/101 · Cited by 2
“Considering the latest constriants on the inflationary observable from Planck+BICEP/Keck+WMAP [84], the lower bound on E-model (T-model) for α = 1 and α = 2 are 1 .”
Gravitational waves from a gauge field nonminimally coupled to gravity
He, J., Fu, C., Zhang, K.-G., et al. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.023536 · Cited by 2
Quantum amplification, relic gravitons, and Landauer’s conjecture
Massimo Giovannini, A. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.l061301 · Cited by 2
Ghoshal, A., Khlopov, M., Zygmunt Lalak, A., et al. (2025) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139379 · Cited by 2
The LSPE-Strip pointing reconstruction and Star Tracker
MARIS, M., Tomasi, M., Baratto, M., et al. (2025) · Journal of Instrumentation · doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/03/p03029 · Cited by 2
“The current upper limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio parameter, characterizing the relative amplitude of the B-mode component, come from a combination of BICEP/Keck [11] and Planck/PR4 [12] data, yielding 𝑟 0 .”
Probing gravitational dark matter with ultra-high frequency gravitational waves
Xu, Y. (2025) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139483 · Cited by 4
Jiang, H., & Namikawa, T. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083555 · Cited by 2
Self-citationRomero, A., & Kuroyanagi, S. (2025) · Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8887-3_26 · Cited by 2
Global portraits of inflation in nonsingular variables
Järv, L., & Kraiko, D. (2025) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14411-7 · Cited by 3
“Their predictive power really comes to the forefront in the calculations of the spectrum of density perturbations [3, 4], which can be matched to the measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation [5, 6].”
Das, S. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/rytr-blks · Cited by 5
Ultra-high frequency spikes of relic gravitons
Massimo Giovannini, A. (2025) · Classical and Quantum Gravity · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/adff48 · Cited by 2
Implications of Pulsar Timing Arrays for Gauss-Bonnet inflation
Bernardo, R. C., Koh, S., & Tumurtushaa, G. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/013 · Cited by 2
“036 (at the 95% confidence level) [108].”
Breaking the degeneracy of noncanonical quartic inflation by reheating considerations
Safaei, I., & Karami, K. (2025) · International Journal of Modern Physics D · doi:10.1142/s0218271825500919 · Cited by 2
The quantum de Sitter root of quasi de Sitter observables
Gómez, C., & Jiménez, R. (2022) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.101035 · Cited by 2
“Figure adapted from the latest BICEP/Keck Array results [58].”
MethodDynamically induced topological inflation
Choi, G., Lin, W., & Yanagida, T. T. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.036005 · Cited by 2
Axion cosmology in the presence of nontrivial Nambu-Goldstone modes
Yoshimura, M. (2022) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.103522 · Cited by 2
On Cosmological Inflation in Palatini F(R,ϕ) Gravity
AlHallak, M. (2023) · Electronic Conference on Universe (ECU) · doi:10.3390/ecu2023-14048 · Cited by 2
“Section 4 is devoted to studying the observational results of considered models and comparing them to those of Planck 2018 (TT, EE, TE), BK15, and other experiments (lowE, lensing) [7] in addition to a new study about the expected values of the observables according to experiments including CMB (Simons Observatory, CM…”
ResultSidelobe modeling and mitigation for a three mirror anastigmat cosmic microwave background telescope
Gullett, I., Benson, B. A., Besuner, R. W., et al. (2023) · Applied Optics · doi:10.1364/ao.488454 · Cited by 2
Measuring the primordial curvature perturbations from the scalar induced gravitational waves
Li, J., & Guo, G. (2023) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.043536 · Cited by 2
On Extensions of the Starobinsky Model of Inflation
Ivanov, V. R., Ketov, S. V., Pozdeeva, E. O., et al. (2023) · doi:10.3390/ecu2023-14044 · Cited by 2
“The Starobinsky model of inflation [1], which was proposed more than 40 years ago, is in good agreement with the current observational data of the cosmic microwave background radiation [19,20].”
ResultOn inflation potentials in kinetic coupling scenarios
Belhaj, A., Benali, M., Lamaaoune, M., et al. (2023) · Modern Physics Letters A · doi:10.1142/s0217732323500086 · Cited by 2
The scaling of primordial gauge fields
Massimo Giovannini, A. (2023) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137967 · Cited by 3
Borštnik, N. S. M., NIELSEN, H. B., Khlopov, M., & Kleppe, A. (2023) · Založba Univerze v Ljubljani (University of Ljubljana Press) eBooks · doi:10.51746/9789612972097 · Cited by 3
On inflation and axionic dark matter in a scaled gravity
Belhaj, A., Ennadifi, S. E., & Lamaaoune, M. (2024) · The European Physical Journal Plus · doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-04965-y · Cited by 2
“As the previous scenario, to check the obtained results, the contact with observational data including the Planck 2018 and the recently released BICEP/Keck data should be provided [29–31].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialStandard model Higgs inflation supplemented by minimal dark matter
Kawai, S., Okada, N., & Qaisar Shafi, A. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.035026 · Cited by 2
“3 × 10 14 The light blue background contours are the 68% and 95% confidence level Planck+BICEP/Keck 2018 constraints [35].”
BackgroundGeneralized early dark energy and its cosmological consequences
Kodama, T., Shinohara, T., & Takahashi, T. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063518 · Cited by 2
“036 which corresponds to the 2σ upper bound given by Planck observation 2018 [30] and BICEP/Keck Collaboration 2018 [37] for illustration.”
BackgroundUnifying inflationary and reheating solution
Kaur, M., Nandi, D., & Sharath Raghavan, B. (2024) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/045 · Cited by 2
“Slow-roll: the potential, for | ϕ | ≫ 1 leads to slow-roll inflation.”
Dissipative emergence of inflation from a quasicyclic universe
Matsui, H., Papageorgiou, A., Takahashi, F., & Terada, T. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103523 · Cited by 5
String-Inspired Correction to R2 Inflation
Pozdeeva, E. O., Ketov, S. V., & Vernov, S. Y. (2023) · doi:10.3390/ecu2023-14036 · Cited by 2
Inflation and Higgs Phenomenology in a Model Unifying the DFSZ Axion with the MajoronPreprint
Dutta, J., Matlis, M., Moortgat-Pick, G., & Ringwald, A. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.3204/pubdb-2023-05767 · Cited by 2
Modelling Quintessential Inflation in Palatini-Modified Gravity
Dimopoulos, K., Καράμ, Α., López, S., et al. (2022) · Galaxies · doi:10.3390/galaxies10020057 · Cited by 1
Vilenkin, A. (2022) · Low Temperature Physics · doi:10.1063/10.0010201 · Cited by 1
Shaft inflation in Randall-Sundrum model
Loc, N. P. D. (2023) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/02/020 · Cited by 1
A fairy tale of winter - a theory about dark energy, dark matter, and inflation
Li, M. (2023) · Communications in Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1088/1572-9494/ace1dd · Cited by 1
Liu, H., Creswell, J., Tsai, C., et al. (2023) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/025 · Cited by 1
CMB lensing from early-formed dark matter halos
Abe, K. T., & Tashiro, H. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103524 · Cited by 1
The Precursor Small Aperture Telescope (PreSAT) CMB polarimeter
Petroff, M. A., Ahmed, Z., Bock, J. J., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1117/12.3018421 · Cited by 1
Self-citationMahmoudi, S., Sadegh, M., Khodagholizadeh, J., Motie, I., Xue, S.-S., & Blanchard, A. (2024) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13004-0 · Cited by 1
“The detection of CMB radiation has been a major achievement of physics in the twentieth century, leading to the estab-lishmentofthestandardcosmologicalmodel( (cid:2) CDM)[1–5].”
Scaling characteristics of hilltop and hilltop-squared inflation
Lynker, M., & Schimmrigk, R. (2024) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023508 · Cited by 1
Baddis, S. E., & Belhaj, A. (2024) · The European Physical Journal Plus · doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05409-3 · Cited by 1
“In these activities, several models involving a scalar field have been studied to bridge the theoretical predictions with the observational data provided by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Planck experimental results [39–41].”
Swampland program for hypergeometric inflation scenarios in rescaled gravity
Baddis, S. E., & Belhaj, A. (2024) · Modern Physics Letters A · doi:10.1142/s0217732324500962 · Cited by 1
Dissipative quintessential cosmic inflation
Nozari, K., Rajabi, F., & Rashidi, N. (2024) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101592 · Cited by 1
High-efficiency and Low-noise Detectors for the Upgraded CLASS 90 GHz Focal Plane
Núñez, C., Appel, J. W., Datta, R., et al. (2025) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adc602 · Cited by 1
Self-citationAB C MB : deep delensing assisted likelihood-free inference from CMB polarization maps
Yi, K., Fan, Y., Hamann, J., et al. (2024) · Machine Learning Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad9af9 · Cited by 1
“However, in these previous works r is assumed to be known and these delensing techniques may thus not be suitable for inferring r in the usual way, i.e. by constructing a likelihood and then performing posterior inference using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), see e.g. [ 14–16].”
Cosmic Inflation, Dark Energy, and Gravitational Waves
Dimopoulos, K. (2024) · Moscow University Physics Bulletin · doi:10.3103/s0027134924701510 · Cited by 1
Time Scales of Slow-Roll Inflation in Asymptotically Safe Cosmology
Nagy, J., Nagy, S., & Sailer, K. (2025) · Universe · doi:10.3390/universe11030077 · Cited by 1
Felegary, F., Mansoori, S. A. H., Serish, T. F., et al. (2025) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101924 · Cited by 1
Complementary signatures of α -attractor inflation in CMB and cosmic string gravitational waves
Baidya, M., Ghoshal, A., & Mota, D. F. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/81v4-pp8q · Cited by 1
“The value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio, r , is constrained by the Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations [88]: r 0 .”
Testing influence of Hubble tension on the early Universe
Zhang, M.-J., Yang, M., & Wang, J. (2025) · The European Physical Journal C · doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14491-5 · Cited by 1
Leloup, C., Morshed, M., & Rizzieri, A. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/xqbc-pjv3 · Cited by 1
Inflationary dynamics and observables: β-exponential models in Palatini R2 gravity
Bostan, N., & Dejrah, R. H. (2025) · Nuclear Physics B · doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117056 · Cited by 1
Warm inflationary scenario in modified teleparallel gravity with matter-torsion coupling
Hounmenou, S. S., Salako, I. G., Boko, R. D., & Monwanou, A. V. (2025) · High Energy Density Physics · doi:10.1016/j.hedp.2025.101219 · Cited by 1
Ireland, A., Sinha, K., & Xu, T. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/034 · Cited by 1
“036 at 2 σ based on measurements by the BICEP/Keck Array [32].”
AliCPT sensitivity to cosmic reheating
Liu, Y., Lei, M., Drewes, M., et al. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/jylc-xw4v · Cited by 1
“We compare this to current Planck+BK constraints [26] (in blue) and the expected sensitivity from AliCPT-1 in Table II (red ellipses corresponding to benchmark A in the upper panel and C in the lower panel).”
InfluentialInflection point inflation in supergravity
Drees, M., & Zhao, W. (2025) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/089 · Cited by 1
“Recent observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) by the Planck and BI-CEP/Keck experiments strongly favor an exponentially expanding period of the early universe [1, 2], which is called inflation [3–6].”
Taylor, S. R. (2025) · Astrophysics and Space Science · doi:10.1007/s10509-025-04513-9 · Cited by 1
“…from quantum spacetime fluctuations stretched to macroscopic scales, but with a flat energy density spectrum and with an amplitude constrained by CMB (Ade et al. 2021; Tristram et al. 2022; Akrami et al. 2020) and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN; Fields et al. (2020), Caprini and Figueroa (2018))…”
Unbiased primordial gravitational wave inference from the CMB with SMICA
Steier, A., Ghosh, S., & Delabrouille, J. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/080 · Cited by 1
“Several ongoing [5–7] and future [8, 9] CMB experiments specifically target a first detection of CMB polarization B modes originating from PWGs.”
Searching stochastic gravitational wave background landscape across frequency bands
Bao, Y., Boybeyi, T., Mandic, V., et al. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/clps-8322 · Cited by 1
Bias in the tensor-to-scalar ratio from self-interacting dark radiation
Mirón-Granese, N., & Scóccola, C. G. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/z87v-4dp4 · Cited by 1
Classification of f ( R ) theories of inflation and the uniqueness of the Starobinsky model
Piva, M. (2025) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/nywq-8phd · Cited by 1
Bahari, K., Heydari, S., & Karami, K. (2025) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ae2f38 · Cited by 1
“It can also be expressed in terms of the slow-roll parameters as [23] The observational data of Planck 2018 TT, TE, EE + LowE + Lensing + BK18 + BAO at 68% and 95% CL impose the following restrictions on the scalar spectral index n s [24, 25] n s = 0 .”
Eternal inflation near inflection points: a challenge to primordial black hole models
Tomberg, E., & Dimopoulos, K. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/01/033 · Cited by 7
“036 [43] gives the limit H = π A s r/ 2 M Pl ≲ 2 × 10 − 5 M Pl , so eternal inflation is achievable even for quite small ϕ b .”
How light can ALP dark matter be?
Chathirathas, K., & Schwetz, T. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/08/041 · Cited by 1
Primordial black holes as dark matter and the tachyonic trap during inflation
Furuta, Y. S., Karčiauskas, M., Kohri, K., & Saez, A. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/08/033 · Cited by 4
Ranucci, C., Carones, A., Vacher, L., et al. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/01/045 · Cited by 1
Primordial gravitational waves in parity-violating symmetric teleparallel gravity
Zhai, R., Fu, C., Fu, X., et al. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/hw8n-bsw5 · Cited by 1
Forecasts of constraining isotropic cosmic birefringence on AliCPT-1
Dou, J., & Zhao, W. K. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/079 · Cited by 1
“…j ) and ( p, q ) with i ̸ = j and p ̸ = q , and all the power spectra and the covariance matrix are binned with a spacing of ∆ ℓ = 20 at ℓ ∈ [51 , 1490] 5 adopted by the Planck analysis [32, 33]: In this work, we compute the pseudo-C ℓ s on the masked sky and decouple them using NaMASTER 6 [63]…”
Nonminimal couplings to gravity and axion isocurvature bounds
Rigouzzo, C., & Zell, S. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/ctll-ggr6 · Cited by 1
Mar Bastero-gil, A., Osorio, P. G., & Manso, A. T. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/08/027 · Cited by 1
“The area shaded in blue marks the observational range for n s [51], whereas the dashed part of the curves indicates the points where the observational bound for r is not fulfilled, as seen explicitly in Fig.”
InfluentialKhan, S., Kim, J., & Lee, H. M. (2026) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/083 · Cited by 1
Gashti, S. N., Alipour, M. R., Afshar, M. A. S., et al. (2026) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140398 · Cited by 1
Echoes of R3 modification and Goldstone preheating in the CMB-BAO landscape
Modak, T. (2026) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140384 · Cited by 1
No dark matter axion during minimal Higgs inflation
Rigouzzo, C., & Zell, S. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/369q-dxtt · Cited by 1
Hertig, E., Lizancos, A. B., Qu, F. J., Bond, J. R., Calabrese, E., Challinor, A. D., Devlin, M. J., Dunkley, J., Louis, T., Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/ztry-pnlx · Cited by 1
Self-citationGauss–Bonnet inflation: Perturbations, reheating and observational constraints
Younesizadeh, Y., Younesizadeh, F., & Ali, A. E. (2026) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x2650106x · Cited by 1
Inflation in Rastall–Rainbow gravity: Confrontation with Planck, BICEP/Keck and ACT observations
Vitohekpon, I. M., Salako, I. G., Deb, B., & Deshamukhya, A. (2026) · International Journal of Modern Physics A · doi:10.1142/s0217751x26501034 · Cited by 1
dos Santos, F. B. M., Rodrigues, J. G., Rodrigues, G., et al. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/tddw-26tl · Cited by 1
Bernal, N., Mukherjee, S., & Unwin, J. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/1sts-sydk · Cited by 1
“We also show the cosmological limits from BICEP/Keck [29] that constrain T rh and this restricts m ≲ 10 17 GeV.”
Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet inflation and its consistency with ACT observations
NASHED, G. G. L., & Bamba, K. (2026) · Physics of the Dark Universe · doi:10.1016/j.dark.2026.102352 · Cited by 1
Next-to-minimal freeze-in dark matter
Bernal, N., Mukherjee, S., & Unwin, J. (2026) · Physical review. D/Physical review. D. · doi:10.1103/bw63-h2y4 · Cited by 1
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
