<i>Planck</i> 2018 results

Author(s): Aghanim, N; Akrami, Y; Ashdown, M; Aumont, J; Baccigalupi, C; Ballardini, Banday, AJ; Barreiro, RB; Bartolo, Basak, S; Battye, R; Benabed, K; Bernard, JP; Bersanelli, Bielewicz, P; Bock, JJ; Bond, JR; Borrill, Bouchet, FR; Boulanger, F; Bucher, Burigana, Butler, RC; Calabrese, E; Cardoso, JF; Carron, Challinor, A; Chiang, HC; Chluba, Colombo, LPL; Combet, Contreras, D; Crill, BP; Cuttaia, De Bernardis, Zotti, G; Delabrouille, Delouis, JM; DI Valentino, DIego, Dore, O; Douspis, Ducout, Dupac, X; Dusini, Efstathiou, Elsner, Enslin, TA; Eriksen, HK; Fantaye, Farhang, Fergusson, Fernandez-Cobos, Finelli, Forastieri, Frailis, Fraisse, AA; Franceschi, Frolov, Galeotta, Galli, Ganga, Genova-Santos, RT; Gerbino, Ghosh, T; Gonzalez-Nuevo, Gorski, KM; Gratton, Gruppuso, Gudmundsson, JE; Hamann, Handley, W; Hansen, FK; Herranz, Hildebrandt, SR; Hivon, Huang, Z; Jaffe, AH; Jones, WC; Karakci, Keihanen, Keskitalo, Kiiveri, Kim, Kisner, TS | Abstract: In the original version, bounds given in Eqs. (87a) and (87b) on contribution to early-time optical depth, (15,30), contained a numerical error deriving 95th percentile from Monte Carlo samples. The corrected 95% upper are: τ(15,30) l 0:018 (lowE, flat τ(15, 30), FlexKnot), (1) 30) 0:023 knot, FlexKnot): (2) These are factor of 3 larger than originally reported results. Consequently, new do not significantly improve upon previous results Planck data presented Millea Bouchet (2018) as was stated, but instead comparable. Equations give that now similar those Heinrich Hu (2021), who used same 2018 derive bound 0.020 using principal component analysis (PCA) model uniform priors PCA mode amplitudes.