Table 15.
Comparison of ΛCDM+CIP, ΛCDM+AL, and ΛCDM+AL+CIP models with various Planck datasets, when using the baseline Plik likelihood at high ℓ.
| Constraints |
Best fit |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data and model |  |
AL |  |
AL | Δχ2 | lnB |
| TT+lowE | ||||||
| ΛCDM+CIP |  |
15.5 | 1.00 | −6.9 | 1.7 | |
| ΛCDM+AL |  |
0.0 | 1.26 | −8.7 | 2.1 | |
| ΛCDM+AL+CIP | < 24.4 |  |
3.4 | 1.23 | −8.8 | 0.6 |
| TT,TE,EE+lowE | ||||||
| ΛCDM+CIP |  |
10.0 | 1.00 | −5.7 | 0.9 | |
| ΛCDM+AL |  |
0.0 | 1.19 | −9.7 | 2.5 | |
| ΛCDM+AL+CIP | < 12.7 |  |
0.3 | 1.19 | −9.7 | 0.2 |
| TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing (conserv.) | ||||||
| ΛCDM+CIP |  |
3.6 | 1.00 | −3.3 | −1.4 | |
| ΛCDM+AL |  |
0.0 | 1.07 | −3.4 | −1.2 | |
| ΛCDM+AL+CIP |  |
 |
2.9 | 1.07 | −6.4 | −2.8 |
| TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing (aggr.) | ||||||
| ΛCDM+CIP |  |
2.7 | 1.00 | −4.0 | −1.2 | |
| ΛCDM+AL |  |
0.0 | 1.05 | −2.2 | −1.8 | |
| ΛCDM+AL+CIP |  |
 |
2.4 | 1.06 | −6.2 | −3.0 |
Notes. The first two columns (“Constraints”) are the 68% CL ranges or the 95% CL upper bounds on 
(highlighted in bold for ΛCDM+CIP) and AL. The remaining columns give the best-fit pameter values, and the difference of the best-fit χ2 and the difference of the log of the Bayesian evidence with respect to the pure adiabatic ΛCDM model. A negative Δχ2 means that the quoted model fits the data better than ΛCDM, while a positive lnB means that the Bayesian model comparison favours the quoted model, when adopting the uniform priors 
and 0.3 ≤ AL ≤ 1.7.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.