Planck 2018 Results. VI. Cosmological Parameters

Planck Collaboration (N. Aghanim et al.) · Astronomy & Astrophysics / arXiv · 2020 · astronomy · 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 · record planck2018-cosmology
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type was hard to place: the paper's shape is a precision measurement establishing that base-ΛCDM plus six parameters describes the data, which maps best onto 'existence'; it also carries a strong null-result component ('Quotation withheld-ΛCDM model.') that the single-valued facet cannot hold. method is not one of the listed examples — this is analysis of a space-mission observational data set, not an experiment or simulation. Replication status set to 'contested' because the paper itself reports 3.6σ (abstract) to 4.4σ (introduction) tension with local H0 determinations and slight tension with DES combined-probe results, while the Planck-internal parameters are described as stable across data releases. NOTE: the supplied text file is truncated part-way through Sect. 7.9 (dark-matter annihilation); the concluding Sect. 8 is absent, so no quotes could be drawn from the paper's own summary. 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-15 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 4 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.statistics[1].evidence, content_tags.statistics[3].evidence, content_tags.statistics[7].evidence, content_tags.statistics[8].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.

Some quotes on this page contain (cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 6 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.

1 quote on this page breaks a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated a word at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.

2 quotes on this page were cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. They are verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
standard-deviation 3 fields · statistical-power 2 fields · confidence-interval 2 fields · confidence intervals 2 fields · statistical-significance 2 fields · polarization 2 fields · and 1 more →

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 13 concept tags on this paper, 10 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 3 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

cosmic microwave background cosmological parameters Lambda-CDM model dark energy fiducial model baryon acoustic oscillation base-ΛCDM covariance matrices polarization efficiencies Hubble constant modified gravity conservative BBN prior pivot scale THE MODEL EVERY NUMBER IN THE PAPER IS QUOTED AGAINST IS INTRODUCED AS A QUOTED LABEL, WITH A PARAMETER COUNT AND A SCOPE: Quotation withheld The scare quotes and the words `in this paper` are both the collaboration's: the label is declared local to the document, and what it denotes is fixed by a count of parameters rather than by a description WHICH PARAMETERS ARE PRIMITIVE IS STATED AS A CHOICE, NOT AS A FACT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE: the first six parameters are THE ONES ON WHICH WE IMPOSE FLAT PRIORS AND USE AS SAMPLING PARAMETERS; the remaining parameters ARE DERIVED FROM THE FIRST SIX. The same physics could be parameterised the other way round, and the paper says which way it chose AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PARAMETERS IS NAMED “nuisance” IN SCARE QUOTES - AND THE QUOTES COME OFF IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, WHERE THEY ARE SAMPLED ON THE SAME FOOTING AS THE COSMOLOGICAL ONES: a physically motivated parametric model containing “nuisance” parameters; these nuisance parameters ARE SAMPLED, ALONG WITH COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS, during MCMC exploration of the likelihood. The hedge is dropped one sentence after it is made, and the objects it hedged about are treated as first-class A CEILING ON THE PAPER'S OWN INTERPRETATION, STATED BY THE PAPER: a total systematic uncertainty of around half a sigma MAY BE MORE REALISTIC, and VALUES SHOULD NOT BE OVERINTERPRETED BEYOND THIS LEVEL. Not a limitation of the data but an instruction to the reader about how far the numbers may be read - issued by the people who produced them TWO WAYS OF DOING ONE CORRECTION ARE NAMED IN A SINGLE SENTENCE, BY CONTRAST WITH EACH OTHER: adopting the estimates from one spectrum for both (we call this the “map-based” APPROACH); or applying independent estimates from each (the “spectrum-based” APPROACH). Neither name would mean anything without the other; the pair is defined by the difference between two procedures THE NULL EXPLANATION IS DECLARED THE BASELINE ASSUMPTION, IN THOSE WORDS: Quotation withheld Which of the competing accounts gets the default is a choice, and it is named as one rather than argued for EVIDENCE IS GRANTED AND THE CLAIM IS DECLINED IN THE SAME SENTENCE: although both likelihoods CLEARLY SHOW A PREFERENCE for a lensing amplitude above one, THIS CANNOT BE CLAIMED TO BE A ROBUST DETECTION at much over two sigma. `Clearly show` and `cannot be claimed` are asserted of the same result, and the line between them is a number THE COLLABORATION CALLS A PERSISTENT ANOMALY IN ITS OWN DATA A CURIOUS FEATURE: the preference for a lensing amplitude above one within the model IS A CURIOUS FEATURE OF THE PLANCK CMB POWER SPECTRUM DATA, and has already been discussed extensively in three earlier papers, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW SLIGHTLY MORE SIGNIFICANT. A result that has survived three releases, growing, and the standing description of it is an adjective THE AUTHORS CHARACTERISE THEIR OWN REVISION AS LARGELY COSMETIC: it is important to emphasize that these changes to the likelihood ARE LARGELY COSMETIC AND HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS. The word measures a methodological change by its effect on the outputs rather than by what was changed A METHOD CHANGE BETWEEN RELEASES IS STATED AS A DIFFERENCE FROM THE PREVIOUS PAPER, WITH THE OLD PROCEDURE DESCRIBED: Quotation withheld The superseded choice is named, so the two releases' numbers can be read as answers to slightly different questions A COINED ACRONYM IS MINTED FOR OBJECTS THE ANALYSIS ITSELF PRODUCES, AND THE RULE THAT DECIDES HOW MANY OF THEM COUNT IS LEFT UNNAMED: the rotation diagonalizing the Fisher inverse **DEFINES** the eigenmodes; truncation of the hierarchy, to determine the number used for parameter estimation, is performed ACCORDING TO SOME SUITABLY CHOSEN SELECTION CRITERION - AND WE REFER TO THESE MODES AS “eXeMs”. One sentence defines the objects, the next leaves the rule for counting them to be chosen suitably, and the third gives them a name A DISAGREEMENT IS LEFT OPEN WITH ITS THREE POSSIBLE MEANINGS ENUMERATED AND NONE CHOSEN: further work is needed to assess whether the discrepancy IS A STATISTICAL FLUCTUATION, IS CAUSED BY SMALL SYSTEMATIC ERRORS, OR IS A SIGNATURE OF NEW PHYSICS. Noise, error, and discovery are offered as the alternatives, in that order, and the paper declines to rank them AN ASSUMPTION IS JUSTIFIED BY WHAT THE SIMPLEST MODELS PREDICT, WITH THE PRECISION CAVEAT IN A PARENTHESIS: the base model assumes that the spatial hypersurfaces are flat, SUCH AS WOULD BE PREDICTED (TO WITHIN MEASURABLE PRECISION) BY THE SIMPLEST INFLATIONARY MODELS. The warrant for the assumption is the simplicity of a theory, and the hedge is about what an instrument could see A FEATURE THAT PULLS PARAMETERS AWAY FROM THE MODEL IS REPORTED AND REBUTTED IN THE SAME SENTENCE, BY NAMING THE PROBES THAT DO NOT SEE IT: a feature which pulls some parameters that affect the lensing amplitude away from the model; HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE LENSING RECONSTRUCTION OR (in models that also change the background geometry) **BAO DATA**. The anomaly's own paper supplies the evidence against it Planck polarization dark matter baryon density lensing reionization cosmic microwave background (CMB) baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) reionization optical depth Hubble constant H0 matter density optical depth tensor-to-scalar ratio r chi-square confidence-interval confidence intervals correlation degrees-of-freedom degrees of freedom mean mean of standard-deviation standard deviation statistical-power statistical power statistical-significance statistical significance variance observational-study

Method, as described: observational-data-analysis

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field
unrecordable relation	`unhoused_relations`	a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concepts 10 · content_tags 25 · controls 2 · limitations 9 · mechanisms 14 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 9 · transfers 1 · unhoused_relations 1

This record holds no relations between concepts. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	cosmic microwave background anisotropies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	observational-study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: observational-study	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE MODEL EVERY NUMBER IN THE PAPER IS QUOTED AGAINST IS INTRODUCED AS A QUOTED LABEL, WITH A PARAMETER COUNT AND A SCOPE: Quotation withheld The scare quotes and the words `in this paper` are both the collaboration's: the label is declared local to the document, and what it denotes is fixed by a count of parameters rather than by a description	`mechanisms[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: WHICH PARAMETERS ARE PRIMITIVE IS STATED AS A CHOICE, NOT AS A FACT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE: the first six parameters are THE ONES ON WHICH WE IMPOSE FLAT PRIORS AND USE AS SAMPLING PARAMETERS; the remaining parameters ARE DERIVED FROM THE FIRST SIX. The same physics could be parameterised the other way round, and the paper says which way it chose	`mechanisms[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PARAMETERS IS NAMED “nuisance” IN SCARE QUOTES - AND THE QUOTES COME OFF IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, WHERE THEY ARE SAMPLED ON THE SAME FOOTING AS THE COSMOLOGICAL ONES: a physically motivated parametric model containing “nuisance” parameters; these nuisance parameters ARE SAMPLED, ALONG WITH COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS, during MCMC exploration of the likelihood. The hedge is dropped one sentence after it is made, and the objects it hedged about are treated as first-class	`mechanisms[2]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A CEILING ON THE PAPER'S OWN INTERPRETATION, STATED BY THE PAPER: a total systematic uncertainty of around half a sigma MAY BE MORE REALISTIC, and VALUES SHOULD NOT BE OVERINTERPRETED BEYOND THIS LEVEL. Not a limitation of the data but an instruction to the reader about how far the numbers may be read - issued by the people who produced them	`mechanisms[3]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: Three sentences later the same term is spelled without its hyphen - “map-based” in the naming sentence, “mapbased” where the approach is adopted. A lost line-break hyphen and an inconsistency by the authors look identical in an extracted PDF, so this records the observation without claiming which it is. also in: TWO WAYS OF DOING ONE CORRECTION ARE NAMED IN A SINGLE SENTENCE, BY CONTRAST WITH EACH OTHER: adopting the estimates from one spectrum for both (we call this the “map-based” APPROACH); or applying independent estimates from each (the “spectrum-based” APPROACH). Neither name would mean anything without the other; the pair is defined by the difference between two procedures	`mechanisms[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE NULL EXPLANATION IS DECLARED THE BASELINE ASSUMPTION, IN THOSE WORDS: Quotation withheld Which of the competing accounts gets the default is a choice, and it is named as one rather than argued for	`mechanisms[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: EVIDENCE IS GRANTED AND THE CLAIM IS DECLINED IN THE SAME SENTENCE: although both likelihoods CLEARLY SHOW A PREFERENCE for a lensing amplitude above one, THIS CANNOT BE CLAIMED TO BE A ROBUST DETECTION at much over two sigma. `Clearly show` and `cannot be claimed` are asserted of the same result, and the line between them is a number	`mechanisms[6]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE COLLABORATION CALLS A PERSISTENT ANOMALY IN ITS OWN DATA A CURIOUS FEATURE: the preference for a lensing amplitude above one within the model IS A CURIOUS FEATURE OF THE PLANCK CMB POWER SPECTRUM DATA, and has already been discussed extensively in three earlier papers, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW SLIGHTLY MORE SIGNIFICANT. A result that has survived three releases, growing, and the standing description of it is an adjective	`mechanisms[7]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE AUTHORS CHARACTERISE THEIR OWN REVISION AS LARGELY COSMETIC: it is important to emphasize that these changes to the likelihood ARE LARGELY COSMETIC AND HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS. The word measures a methodological change by its effect on the outputs rather than by what was changed	`mechanisms[8]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A METHOD CHANGE BETWEEN RELEASES IS STATED AS A DIFFERENCE FROM THE PREVIOUS PAPER, WITH THE OLD PROCEDURE DESCRIBED: Quotation withheld The superseded choice is named, so the two releases' numbers can be read as answers to slightly different questions	`mechanisms[9]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A COINED ACRONYM IS MINTED FOR OBJECTS THE ANALYSIS ITSELF PRODUCES, AND THE RULE THAT DECIDES HOW MANY OF THEM COUNT IS LEFT UNNAMED: the rotation diagonalizing the Fisher inverse DEFINES the eigenmodes; truncation of the hierarchy, to determine the number used for parameter estimation, is performed ACCORDING TO SOME SUITABLY CHOSEN SELECTION CRITERION - AND WE REFER TO THESE MODES AS “eXeMs”. One sentence defines the objects, the next leaves the rule for counting them to be chosen suitably, and the third gives them a name	`mechanisms[10]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A DISAGREEMENT IS LEFT OPEN WITH ITS THREE POSSIBLE MEANINGS ENUMERATED AND NONE CHOSEN: further work is needed to assess whether the discrepancy IS A STATISTICAL FLUCTUATION, IS CAUSED BY SMALL SYSTEMATIC ERRORS, OR IS A SIGNATURE OF NEW PHYSICS. Noise, error, and discovery are offered as the alternatives, in that order, and the paper declines to rank them	`mechanisms[11]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: AN ASSUMPTION IS JUSTIFIED BY WHAT THE SIMPLEST MODELS PREDICT, WITH THE PRECISION CAVEAT IN A PARENTHESIS: the base model assumes that the spatial hypersurfaces are flat, SUCH AS WOULD BE PREDICTED (TO WITHIN MEASURABLE PRECISION) BY THE SIMPLEST INFLATIONARY MODELS. The warrant for the assumption is the simplicity of a theory, and the hedge is about what an instrument could see	`mechanisms[12]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: The record's limitations[0] quotes this passage and had to stop at “away from the”, one word short of the model's name; its tag says “[model]” in brackets to mark the gap. This span reaches the name and the rebuttal that follows it. also in: A FEATURE THAT PULLS PARAMETERS AWAY FROM THE MODEL IS REPORTED AND REBUTTED IN THE SAME SENTENCE, BY NAMING THE PROBES THAT DO NOT SEE IT: a feature which pulls some parameters that affect the lensing amplitude away from the model; HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE LENSING RECONSTRUCTION OR (in models that also change the background geometry) BAO DATA. The anomaly's own paper supplies the evidence against it	`mechanisms[13]`	0.95	the tagger's words
limitations	a >2-sigma feature pulls some lensing-amplitude parameters away from the model, not supported by other probes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the lensing-amplitude parameters specifically: a >2-sigma feature PULLS SOME PARAMETERS THAT AFFECT THE LENSING AMPLITUDE AWAY FROM THE [model], unsupported by other probes	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Residual systematic errors in the polarization spectra are not folded into the quoted error bars, because the authors judge any such characterisation would be incomplete and could not be given a proper probabilistic form. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every quoted uncertainty in the paper: WE THEREFORE DO NOT EXPLICITLY MODEL AN INCREASE IN ERROR BARS DUE TO THESE RESIDUAL SYSTEMATIC ERRORS - a known error source is excluded by decision	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Imperfect corrections for polarization efficiency and temperature-to-polarization leakage remain the dominant systematic error in the high-multipole polarization spectra. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the polarization results in particular: INACCURACIES IN THE CORRECTIONS FOR EFFECTIVE POLARIZATION EFFICIENCIES AND TEMPERATURE-TO-POLARIZATION LEAKAGE ARE THE MAIN CONTRIBUTORS TO SYSTEMATIC ERRORS	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The origin of the disagreement between Planck and the Lyman-alpha BAO measurements is left unresolved. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the Planck-versus-Lyman-alpha comparison: FURTHER WORK IS NEEDED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE DISCREPANCY ... IS A STATISTICAL FLUCTUATION, IS CAUSED BY SMALL SYSTEMATIC ERRORS, OR IS A SIGNATURE OF new physics	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Residual modelling uncertainty in the small-scale polarization is estimated, not eliminated, and is stated to shift parameters at the half-sigma level. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the small-scale polarization constraints: RESIDUAL MODELLING UNCERTAINTIES ESTIMATED TO AFFECT THEM ONLY AT THE 0.5 SIGMA L[evel] - estimated, not eliminated	`limitations[4]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The choice of which external data to combine with is justified partly by a presentational aim, not only an evidential one. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the external-data selection as a purely evidential choice: the paper gives as its second reason that its primary purpose is to present and emphasize the Planck results	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The likelihood used for the 2018 analysis was built on a fiducial model taken from the previous data release. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the 2018 parameter constraints as independent of the 2015 analysis: the likelihood was constructed using a fiducial model adopted from PCP15	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Cluster counts are excluded from the main parameter grid because their mass calibrations are uncertain. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: these constraints as incorporating cluster counts: they are deliberately excluded from the main parameter grid	`limitations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The headline late-Universe parameters are marked model-dependent in a single parenthesis - 'the inferred (model-dependent) late-Universe parameters are: Hubble constant H0 = ...' - while the angular acoustic scale in the preceding sentence is described as only weakly model-dependent. Two classes of number sit in one abstract with very different warrants, separated by one bracketed word that does not survive being quoted. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[8]`	0.9	the tagger's words
transfers	Bayesian inference via Markov chain Monte Carlo used to estimate cosmological parameters from the cosmic microwave background Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`		the tagger's words
controls	the likelihood built from HALF-MISSION CROSS-spectra rather than auto-spectra Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: noise bias - an auto-spectrum correlates a map's noise with itself and adds a positive term to the power, while two independent halves of the mission have uncorrelated noise that averages away · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	different multipole cuts applied per cross-spectrum Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the multipole ranges where the beam's limited resolution lets noise dominate, so those scales cannot drive the fit · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.9	the tagger's words
concepts	cosmological parameters Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cosmological parameters	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	fiducial model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fiducial model	`concepts[4]`		the paper's words
concepts	baryon acoustic oscillation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: baryon acoustic oscillation	`concepts[5]`		the paper's words
concepts	base-ΛCDM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: base-ΛCDM	`concepts[6]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	covariance matrices Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: covariance matrices	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	polarization efficiencies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: polarization efficiencies	`concepts[8]`	0.85	the paper's words
concepts	Hubble constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Hubble constant	`concepts[9]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	modified gravity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modified gravity	`concepts[10]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	conservative BBN prior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conservative BBN prior	`concepts[11]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	pivot scale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pivot scale	`concepts[12]`	0.9	the paper's words
unhoused_relations	polarization angles → efficiencies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED IN THIS STUDY - the DESIGN form of the negative relation / No edge type can express it: all eight assert that a relation HOLDS. Recorded here because a confounding statement BOUNDS WHAT THE PAPER'S OWN RESULTS CAN MEAN, and it lives in a methods paragraph where nothing downstream will find it. States the mechanism of the inseparability in one word - DEGENERATE - which is the physics term for exactly the relation we cannot express.	`unhoused_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
senses	late-Universe parameter - a quantity the paper marks parenthetically as MODEL-DEPENDENT, inferred by assuming base-LambdaCDM rather than measured directly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	base LambdaCDM - the six-parameter spatially-flat model with a power-law spectrum of adiabatic scalar perturbations, named for use in this paper Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	fiducial model - a model adopted in order to build the covariance matrices and likelihood, rather than one being tested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	polarization efficiencies - AS CALIBRATED: by a procedure the paper itself calls model-dependent, and then BOUNDS rather than defends - the fit is restricted to multipoles where the TT spectra are cosmic-variance limited, which is the reason given for the calibration being insensitive to small changes in the cosmology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	`dark energy` / `modified gravity` - TWO NAMES FOR ONE OBSERVATION, CHOSEN BY WHICH MECHANISM YOU ASSUME: `Quotation withheld` NOT A RENAMING AND NOT A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT A WORD. The measurement is identical either way; the two names record two rival explanations of it, and the sentence assigns a name to each branch before either is established. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	`conservative BBN prior` - A TERM DEFINED BY BEING WIDE ENOUGH NOT TO CHOOSE: `we refer to a “conservative BBN prior,” wb = 0.0222 +/- 0.0005 (68% CL), set to be compatible with each of these three predictions.` The word `conservative` is doing definitional work: the interval is not an estimate of the quantity but a construction that survives three competing determinations. SAME SHAPE AS `brown2020`'s vocabulary built to REMAIN AGNOSTIC on a live question (typology mechanism 26) - here it is a NUMBER built not to decide one. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	A REPORTING CONVENTION STATED IN THE ABSTRACT AND BINDING ON EVERY NUMBER IN IT: `in this abstract we quote 68% confidence regions on measured parameters and 95% on upper limits`. TWO DIFFERENT INTERVALS UNDER ONE `+/-` NOTATION, distinguished only by whether the quantity was measured or bounded. A reader lifting a figure out of this abstract without the convention has a number whose coverage they cannot state. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	`base ΛCDM` - A NAME THAT MEANS `THIS PAPER'S SIX-PARAMETER VERSION`, NOT `THE STANDARD MODEL`. `Quotation withheld` The qualifier `in this paper` is doing real work: `ΛCDM` names a family, and `base` picks out one member by a parameter COUNT. A citing author who writes `ΛCDM` and one who writes `base ΛCDM` are not necessarily referring to the same model, and this sentence is the only thing that fixes which. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[7]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	`As` IS NOT A NUMBER UNTIL A SCALE IS CHOSEN. `Quotation withheld`. The amplitude is scale-dependent, so the quoted value carries an unstated convention with it. A parameter defined at a chosen pivot is a quantity plus a convention, and only one of the two travels with the symbol. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[8]`	0.9	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Markov chain Monte Carlo (Bayesian inference, statistics) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → earlier Planck cosmological-parameter papers PCP13 (Planck Collaboration XVI 2014) and PCP15 (Planck Collaboration XIII 2016) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Riess et al. (2019) distance-ladder measurement of the Hubble constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	67.4±0.5 — inferred Hubble constant H0 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	0.315±0.007 — matter density parameter Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	0.120±0.001 — cold dark matter density Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	6 — base spatially-flat LCDM model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	3.6 — tension with local Hubble-constant measurements Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	< 0.12 — upper bound on total neutrino mass Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:80). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	data are consistent with the base 6-parameter LCDM cosmology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	no compelling evidence for extensions to base LCDM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	a 3.6 sigma tension persists with local Hubble measurements Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	dark-energy equation of state is consistent with a cosmological constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Hubble constant H0 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Hubble constant H0	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	matter density Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: matter density	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	optical depth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: optical depth	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	tensor-to-scalar ratio r Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tensor-to-scalar ratio r	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	cosmic microwave background (CMB) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cosmic microwave background (CMB)	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO)	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	reionization optical depth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reionization optical depth	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-square Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-square	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confidence-interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE REPAIRED: the extractor split a hyphen-space and the quote was recorded faithfully with the damage in it, which made it unanchorable. The repaired string is an EXACT SUBSTRING of the staged text - that is why it was accepted, not because a rule produced it. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: confidence-interval	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	degrees-of-freedom Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE REPAIRED: the extractor split a hyphen-space and the quote was recorded faithfully with the damage in it, which made it unanchorable. The repaired string is an EXACT SUBSTRING of the staged text - that is why it was accepted, not because a rule produced it. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: degrees-of-freedom	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard-deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard-deviation	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: statistical-power	`content_tags.statistics[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: variance	`content_tags.statistics[11]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

content_tags.statistics[3] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.