The apparent low power in the CMB temperature anisotropy power spectrum derived from WMAP motivated us to consider the possibility of a non-trivial topology. We focus on some simple spherical multi-connected manifolds (Quaternionic, Octahedral, Truncated Cube and Poincare spaces) and discuss their implications for the CMB in terms of the power spectrum, maps and the correlation matrix. We also perform Bayesian model comparison against the fiducial best-fit LCDM based both on the power spectrum and the correlation matrix to assess their statistical significance. We find that the first year power spectrum shows a slight preference for the Truncated Cube space, but the 3-year data show no evidence for any of these spaces.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) power spectrum derived from the first year WMAP data demonstrates an intriguing lack of power at large scales that cannot be accounted for within the framework of the standard cosmological model. We explore the possibility that this anomaly could be explained by waiving the implicit assumption of a simply connected topology, rather than modifying the physics of the standard model. In particular, we assume that the Universe is slightly closed and its spatial section can be described by one of the simplest spherical multi-connected manifolds (the quaternionic, the octahedral, the truncated cube and the Poincare space). We discuss the implications for the CMB in each case.

One of the most tantalizing results from the WMAP experiment is the suggestion that the power at large scales is anomalously low when compared to the prediction of the ``standard'' Lambda-CDM model. The same anomaly, although with somewhat larger uncertainty, was also previously noted in the COBE data. In this work we discuss possible alternate models that give better fits on large scales and apply a model-comparison technique to select amongst them. We find that models with a cut off in the power spectrum at large scales are indeed preferred by data, but only by a factor of 3.6, at most, in the likelihood ratio, corresponding to about ``1.5 sigma'' if interpreted in the traditional manner. Using the same technique, we have also examined the possibility of a systematic error in the measurement (or prediction) of the large-scale power. Ignoring other evidence that the large-scale modes are properly measured and predicted, we find this possibility somewhat more likely, with roughly a 2.5 sigma evidence.