T, Q, and U maps 

Figure 1: Planck 353 GHz T, Q, and U maps before
(left) and after (right) the application of BICEP2/Keck filtering.
In both cases the maps have been multiplied by the BICEP2/Keck
apodization mask.
The Planck maps are presmoothed to the BICEP2/Keck
beam profile and have the mean value subtracted.
The filtering, in particular the third order polynominal subtraction
to suppress atmospheric pickup, removes largeangular scale signal along the
BICEP2/Keck scanning direction (parallel to the right ascension
direction in the maps here).

PDF / PNG 
Spectra between BICEP2/Keck maps at 150 GHz and Planck maps at 353 GHz 

Figure 2: Single and crossfrequency spectra between BICEP2/Keck
maps at 150 GHz and Planck maps at 353 GHz.
The red curves show the lensedΛCDM expectations.
The left column shows singlefrequency spectra of the
BICEP2, Keck Array, and combined BICEP2/Keck maps.
The BICEP2 spectra are identical to those in BKI,
while the Keck Array and combined are as given in
BKV.
The center column shows crossfrequency spectra between BICEP2/Keck
maps and Planck 353 GHz maps.
The right column shows Planck 353 GHz datasplit crossspectra.
In all cases the error bars are the standard deviations of
lensedΛCDM+noise simulations and hence contain no sample
variance on any other component.
For EE and BB the χ^{2} and χ (sum of deviations)
versus lensedΛCDM for the nine bandpowers shown is marked at upper and lower left
(for the combined BICEP2/Keck points and DS1×DS2, respectively).
In the bottom row (for BB) the center and right panels have a scaling applied such
that signal from dust with the fiducial frequency spectrum
would produce signal with the same apparent amplitude as in the 150 GHz
panel on the left (as indicated by the rightside yaxes).
We see from the significant excess apparent in the bottom center panel
that a substantial amount of the signal detected
at 150 GHz by BICEP2 and Keck Array indeed appears to be
due to dust.

PDF / PNG 
EE and BB crossspectra 

Figure 3: EE (left column) and BB (right column) crossspectra between
BICEP2/Keck maps and all of the polarized frequencies of Planck.
In all cases the quantity plotted is ℓ(ℓ+1)C_{ℓ}/2π
in units of μK_{CMB}^{2}, and the red curves show the lensedΛCDM expectations. The error bars are the standard deviations of
lensedΛCDM+noise simulations and hence contain no sample
variance on any other component.
Also note that the yaxis scales differ from panel to panel
in the right column.
The χ^{2} and χ (sum of deviations)
versus lensedΛCDM for the five bandpowers shown
is marked at upper left.
There are no additional strong detections of
deviation from lensedΛCDM over those
already shown in Figure 2
although BK150×P217 shows some evidence
of excess.

PDF / PNG 
Differences between BICEP2 and Keck Array crossspectra with Planck 

Figure 4: Differences of B150×P353 and K150×P353 BB crossspectra.
The error bars are the standard deviations of the pairwise
differences of signal+noise simulations that share common
input skies.
The probability to exceed the observed values of χ^{2}
and χ statistics, as evaluated against the simulations,
is quoted for bandpower ranges 1–5 (20<ℓ<200) and 1–9 (20<ℓ<330).
There is no evidence that these spectra are statistically incompatible.

PDF / PNG 
Differences between the standard power spectrum estimator and alternate
estimators 

Figure 5: Differences of B150×P353 BB crossspectra
from the standard power spectrum estimator and alternate
estimators.
The error bars are the standard deviations of the pairwise
differences of signal+noise simulations that share common
input skies.
The probability to exceed the observed values of χ^{2} and
χ statistics, as evaluated against simulations, is quoted for bandpower
ranges 1–5 (20<ℓ<200) and 1–9 (20<ℓ<330).
We see that the differences of the real spectra are consistent
with the differences of the simulations.

PDF / PNG 
Likelihood results from a lensedΛCDM+r+dust model


Figure 6: Likelihood results from a basic lensedΛCDM+r+dust
model, fitting BB auto and crossspectra taken between
maps at 150 GHz, 217, and 353 GHz.
The 217 and 353 GHz maps come from Planck.
The primary results (heavy black) use the 150 GHz
combined maps from BICEP2/Keck.
Alternate curves (light blue and red) show how
the results vary when the BICEP2 and Keck Array
only maps are used.
In all cases a Gaussian prior is placed on the dust frequency
spectrum parameter β_{d} = 1.59±0.11.
In the right panel the two dimensional contours
enclose 68% and 95% of the total likelihood.

PDF / PNG 
Likelihood results when varying the data sets and model priors 

Figure 7: Likelihood results when varying the data sets
used and the model priors.

PDF / PNG 
Likelihood results including synchrotron 

Figure 8:
Likelihood results for a fit when adding the lower frequency
bands of Planck, and extending the model to include a
synchrotron component.
The results for two different assumed degrees of
correlation between the dust and synchrotron sky patterns
are compared to those for the comparable model
without synchrotron.

PDF / PNG 
Likelihood results allowing A_{L} to vary 

Figure 9:
Likelihood results for a fit allowing the lensing
scale factor A_{L} to float freely and using all nine bandpowers.
Marginalizing over r and A_{d}, we find that
A_{L}=1.13±0.18 and A_{L}=0 is
ruled out with 7.0 σ significance.

PDF / PNG 
Likelihood results from simulations 

Figure 10:
Likelihoods for r and A_{d}, using BICEP2/Keck and
Planck,
as plotted in Figure 6, overplotted on
constraints obtained from realizations of a
lensedΛCDM+noise+dust model with dust power
similar to that favored by the real data (A_{d}=3.6 μK^{2}).
Half of the r curves peak at zero as expected.

PDF / PNG 
Likelihood results from Planck Sky Model simulations 

Figure 11:
Constraints obtained when adding dust realizations
from the Planck Sky Model version 1.7.8 to the base
lensedΛCDM+noise simulations.
(Curves for 139 regions with peak A_{d}<20 μK^{2}
are plotted.)
We see that the results for r are unbiased in the presence
of dust realizations which do not necessarily follow the
ℓ^{0.42} power law or have Gaussian fluctuations about it.

PDF / PNG 
BB spectrum before and after dust subtraction and Constraint on r from cleaned spectrum 

Figure 12: Upper: BB spectrum of the BICEP2/Keck maps
before and after subtraction of the dust contribution, estimated from
the crossspectrum with Planck 353 GHz.
The error bars are the standard deviations of
simulations, which, in the latter case, have been scaled and combined
in the same way.
The inner error bars are from lensedΛCDM+noise simulations
as in the previous plots, while the outer error bars are from the
lensedΛCDM+noise+dust simulations.
The red curve shows the lensedΛCDM expectation.
Lower: Constraint on r derived from the cleaned spectrum
compared to the fiducial analysis shown in Figure 6.

PDF / PNG 
Expectation values and uncertainties for BB in the BICEP2/Keck field 

Figure 13:
Expectation values, and uncertainties thereon, for the ℓ~80
BB bandpower in the BICEP2/Keck field.
The green and magenta lines correspond to the expected signal power of
lensedΛCDM and r=0.05.
Since CMB units are used, the levels corresponding
to these are flat with frequency.
The grey band shows the best fit
dust model and
the blue shaded region shows the allowed region for synchrotron.
The BICEP2/Keck noise uncertainty is shown as a single starred
point, and the noise uncertainties of the Planck singlefrequency
spectra evaluated in the BICEP2/Keck field are shown in red.
The blue points show the noise uncertainty of the
crossspectra taken between BICEP2/Keck and,
from left to right, Planck 30, 44, 70, 100, 143, 217 and 353 GHz,
and plotted at horizontal positions such that they
can be compared vertically with the dust and sync curves.

PDF / PNG 