Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
We have applied the optimal estimator for f₍₋^local to the 5 year WMAP data. Marginalizing over the amplitude of foreground templates we get -4 < f₍₋^local < 80 at 95% CL. Error bars of previous (sub-optimal) analyses are roughly 40% larger than these. The probability that a Gaussian simulation, analyzed using our estimator, gives a result larger in magnitude than the one we find is 7%. Our pipeline gives consistent results when applied to the three and five year WMAP data releases and agrees well with the results from our own sub-optimal pipeline. We find no evidence of any residual foreground contamination.
Smith et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: