1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6:
7: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
8:
9: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
10:
11: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
12:
13: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
14:
15: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
16: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
17: %% use the longabstract style option.
18:
19: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
20:
21: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
22: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
23: %% the \begin{document} command.
24: %%
25: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
26: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
27: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
28: %% for information.
29:
30: %\usepackage{multirow}
31: %\usepackage{latexsym}
32:
33: \newcommand{\fnl}{f_\mathrm{NL}}
34:
35: \shortauthors{G.\ De Troia {\it et al.}}
36:
37: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
38: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
43: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
44: %% you desire.
45:
46: \title{Searching for non Gaussian signals in the BOOMERanG 2003 CMB maps}
47:
48: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
49: %% author and affiliation information.
50: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
51: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
52: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
53: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
54:
55:
56: \author{
57: G.~De~Troia\altaffilmark{1,2},
58: P.A.R.~Ade\altaffilmark{4},
59: J.J.~Bock\altaffilmark{5,15},
60: J.R.~Bond\altaffilmark{6},
61: J.~Borrill\altaffilmark{7,17},
62: A.~Boscaleri\altaffilmark{8},
63: P.~Cabella\altaffilmark{21},
64: C.R.~Contaldi\altaffilmark{6,16},
65: B.P.~Crill\altaffilmark{9},
66: P.~de~Bernardis\altaffilmark{2},
67: G.~De~Gasperis\altaffilmark{1},
68: A.~de~Oliveira-Costa\altaffilmark{13},
69: G.~Di~Stefano\altaffilmark{12},
70: P.~G.~Ferreira\altaffilmark{21},
71: E.~Hivon\altaffilmark{11},
72: A.H.~Jaffe\altaffilmark{16},
73: T.S.~Kisner\altaffilmark{7,17},
74: M.~Kunz\altaffilmark{22},
75: W.C.~Jones\altaffilmark{5,15},
76: A.E.~Lange\altaffilmark{15},
77: M.Liguori\altaffilmark{24},
78: S.~Masi\altaffilmark{2},
79: S.~Matarrese\altaffilmark{23},
80: P.D.~Mauskopf\altaffilmark{4},
81: C.J.~MacTavish\altaffilmark{6},
82: A.~Melchiorri\altaffilmark{2,18},
83: T.E.~Montroy\altaffilmark{28},
84: P.~Natoli\altaffilmark{1,19},
85: C.B.~Netterfield\altaffilmark{14},
86: E.~Pascale\altaffilmark{14},
87: F.~Piacentini\altaffilmark{2,25},
88: D.~Pogosyan\altaffilmark{20},
89: G.~Polenta\altaffilmark{2},
90: S.~Prunet\altaffilmark{11},
91: S.~Ricciardi\altaffilmark{2,26},
92: G.~Romeo\altaffilmark{12},
93: J.E.~Ruhl\altaffilmark{3},
94: P. Santini\altaffilmark{2},
95: M.~Tegmark\altaffilmark{13},
96: M. Veneziani\altaffilmark{2,27}, and
97: N.~Vittorio\altaffilmark{1,19}.
98: }
99:
100: \altaffiltext{1}{ Dip. Fisica, Universit\`a Tor
101: Vergata, Roma, Italy}
102: \altaffiltext{2}{ Dip. Fisica, Universit\`a La
103: Sapienza, Roma, Italy}
104: \altaffiltext{3}{ Physics Department, Case Western Reserve University,
105: Cleveland, OH, USA}
106: \altaffiltext{4}{ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University,
107: Cardiff CF24 3YB, Wales, UK}
108: \altaffiltext{5}{ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA}
109: \altaffiltext{6}{Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics,
110: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada}
111: \altaffiltext{7}{ Computational Research Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA}
112: \altaffiltext{8}{ IFAC-CNR, Firenze, Italy}
113: \altaffiltext{9}{ IPAC, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA}
114: %$^{10}$ Dept. of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA\\
115: \altaffiltext{11}{ Institut d'Astrophysique, Paris, France}
116: \altaffiltext{12}{ Istituto Nazionale di Geofisicae Vulcanologia, Roma,~Italy}
117: \altaffiltext{13}{ Dept. of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA}
118: \altaffiltext{14}{ Physics Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada}
119: \altaffiltext{15} {Observational Cosmology, California Institute of
120: Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA}
121: \altaffiltext{16} {Theoretical Physics Group, Imperial College, London, UK}
122: \altaffiltext{17} {Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley, CA, USA}
123: \altaffiltext{18} {INFN, Sezione di Roma 1, Roma, Italy}
124: \altaffiltext{19}{ INFN, Sezione di Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy}
125: \altaffiltext{20} {Dept.\ of Physics,University of Alberta,Edmonton,AB,Canada}
126: \altaffiltext{21} {Astrophysics, University of Oxford, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK}
127: \altaffiltext{22} {D\'epartement de Physique Th\'eorique, Universit\'e de Gen\`eve, Switzerland}
128: \altaffiltext{23} {Dipartimento di Fisica G. Galilei, Universit\`a di Padova and INFN, Sezione di Padova, Italy}
129: \altaffiltext{24} {Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, UK}
130: \altaffiltext{25} {European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC), European Space Agency, Madrid, Spain}
131: \altaffiltext{26} {INAF- Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova,Italy}
132: \altaffiltext{27} {APC, 10 rue Alice Domon et Lonie Duquet,75,Paris Cedex 13}
133: \altaffiltext{28} {Sierra Lobo, Inc. 11401 Hoover Rd. Milan, OH 44846, USA}
134:
135: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
136: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
137: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
138: %% affiliation.
139:
140:
141: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
142: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
143: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
144: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
145: %% editorial office after submission.
146:
147: \begin{abstract}
148: We analyze the BOOMERanG 2003 (B03) 145 GHz temperature map
149: to constrain the amplitude of a non Gaussian, primordial
150: contribution to CMB fluctuations. We perform a pixel space analysis
151: restricted to a portion of the map chosen in view of high
152: sensitivity, very low foreground contamination and tight control of
153: systematic effects. We set up an estimator based on the three
154: Minkowski functionals which relies on high quality simulated data,
155: including non Gaussian CMB maps. We find good agreement with the
156: Gaussian hypothesis and derive the first limits based on BOOMERanG
157: data for the non linear coupling parameter $\fnl$ as $-300<\fnl<650$
158: at $68\%$ CL and $-800<\fnl<1050$ at $95\%$ CL.
159: \end{abstract}
160:
161: \keywords{cosmology: cosmic microwave background}
162:
163:
164: \section{Introduction}
165: While cosmology is entering its precision era, the target of
166: experiments aimed at the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is shifting
167: towards weak signals, e.g.\ polarization, the SZ effect and non
168: Gaussian (NG) features. Detection of NG signals can be of significant
169: help in constraining the mechanisms that explain the generation of
170: cosmological perturbations. Provided that systematic effects will not
171: degrade high sensitivity CMB mapping, present and future experiments
172: could in principle be sensitive to non linearities due to second order
173: effects in perturbation theory~\cite{bartolo}. This signal is usually
174: parametrized by a non linear coupling factor $\fnl$ that controls the
175: level of a quadratic contribution to the primordial gravitational
176: potential $\Phi$ \cite{komatsu_spergel}:
177: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:fnl}
178: \Phi(\mathbf{x})=\Phi_G(\mathbf{x})+\fnl \left[\Phi_G(\mathbf{x})^2 -
179: \left\langle \Phi_G(\mathbf{x})^2 \right\rangle \right]
180: \end{equation}
181: where $\Phi_G$ is a zero mean, Gaussian random field.
182:
183: Several groups have reported NG constraints on CMB data. All
184: suborbital efforts to date have found no significant deviation from
185: Gaussianity in the CMB field: MAXIMA-1 reported $|\fnl|<950$ at
186: $1\sigma$~\cite{santos,wu}, while VSA found an upper limit of 5400 at
187: $2\sigma$ \cite{vsa}; Archeops has recently improved their limits to
188: $-800<\fnl<1100$ ($2\sigma$), although their analysis is based on
189: assumptions only valid for the large angular scales dominated by the
190: Sachs-Wolfe effect~\cite{archeops}. The BOOMERanG 1998 dataset has also
191: been tested for Gaussianity, both in pixel \cite{polenta} and in
192: Fourier \cite{detroia} space, finding no trace of NG signals.
193: However, BOOMERanG has set no $\fnl$ limit so far. One of the purposes
194: of this paper is to provide such limits with the analysis of the new
195: 2003 data. The limits presented here are more stringent than those
196: found by any suborbital experiment to date, properly accounting for
197: sub-horizon angular scales.
198:
199: The WMAP team constrained $\fnl$ to be $-54 < \fnl < 114$
200: \cite{spergel}. Using an improved version of the WMAP team estimator Creminelli et
201: al.\ (2007) set the most stringent limits to date at $-36 < \fnl <
202: 100$. Thus the $\fnl$ analysis does not show any departure from
203: Gaussianity in WMAP data. However, some authors have looked at general
204: deviations from Gaussianity (i.e. not based on any specific
205: parametrization of NG) and claimed highly-significant detection of
206: NG features in the WMAP maps \cite{copi,vielva,cruz}.
207:
208: In this paper we perform a pixel space analysis of the B03
209: temperature (T) data set, using the observed field's moments and Minkowski
210: functionals (MFs) to build Gaussianity tests. We assess the statistical
211: significance of our results comparing the data to a set of highly
212: realistic, Gaussian Monte Carlo (MC) simulated maps. In order to
213: constrain $\fnl$, we build a goodness of fit statistics based on MFs
214: and calibrated against a set of NG CMB maps, that are generated
215: according to the algorithm set forth in \cite{liguori}.
216:
217: The plan of this letter is as follows: in
218: section~\ref{sec1} we briefly describe the B03 experiment,
219: the dataset it has produced and our simulation pipeline. In
220: section~\ref{sec2} we compute the map's moments and MFs
221: of the data and compare results against Gaussian MC
222: simulated maps. Then we derive constraints for $\fnl$.
223: % In section~\ref{sec3} we derive constraints for
224: %$\fnl$.
225: Finally, in section~\ref{sec4} we draw our main conclusions.
226:
227:
228: \section{The BOOMERanG 2003 dataset}
229: \label{sec1}
230: The balloon borne B03 experiment has been flown from Antarctica
231: in 2003. It gathered data for 14 days in
232: three frequency bands, centered at 145, 245 and 345 GHz. Here
233: we restrict ourselves to the 145 GHz data that are most sensitive to
234: CMB fluctuations. These have been obtained with polarization
235: sensitive bolometers (PSB). The analysis of the dataset has produced high quality maps %\cite{masi}
236: of the southern sky that have been conveniently divided in
237: three regions: a ``deep'' (in terms of integration time)
238: survey region ($\sim 90$ square degrees) and a ``shallow'' survey
239: region ($\sim 750$ square degrees), both at high Galactic latitudes,
240: as well as a region of $\sim 300$ square degrees across the Galactic
241: plane. The deep region is completely embedded in the shallow
242: region. Here we only consider a subset of the data that
243: contains all of the deep region and part of the shallow, for a total
244: of 693 square degrees (1.7\% of the sky). The mask
245: we use is square, 26 degrees in side, centered at
246: about RA=$82.6^\circ$ and DEC=$-44.2^\circ$, and excludes all detected
247: point sources in the field.
248: This region has been selected in view of high sensitivity
249: CMB observation with low foreground contamination and was observed
250: with a highly connected
251: scanning strategy to keep systematics under control. We use the
252: T data map reduced jointly from eight PSB at 145 GHz~\cite{masi}.
253: In this region, the signal rms on $3.4'$
254: pixels is $\sim 90~\mu\mathrm{K}$ and instrumental noise has an rms
255: of $\sim 20~\mu\mathrm{K}$ in the deep region and of
256: $\sim 90~\mu\mathrm{K}$ in the shallow region. In
257: harmonic space, binned estimates of the CMB angular power spectrum
258: retain signal to noise $>1$ well beyond $\ell \sim 1000$. One may
259: compare these figures with WMAP: in the three year release, WMAP
260: combined sensitivity in the region observed by B03 is $\sim
261: 100~\mu\mathrm{K}$ on $3.4'$ pixels, close to WMAP's mean
262: pixel error. However, WMAP's beams are broader than B03,
263: so its $\ell$ space error is
264: $\sim$ 5 times larger than B03 at $\ell\simeq 1000$. On the other
265: hand, B03 has not been devised to measure multipoles at $\ell\lesssim
266: 50$. In this sense, our NG analysis probes angular scales
267: complementary to those constrained by WMAP.
268: While we do not consider here the Stokes Q and U polarization maps,
269: our T map has been marginalized with respect to
270: linear polarization. For a description of the
271: instrument and the measured T and polarization maps
272: see~\cite{masi} and for the CMB TT, TE and EE power spectra
273: see~\cite{jones,piacentini,montroy}.
274:
275: To assess the robustness of our tests of Gaussianity we use a set of
276: simulated MC maps that mimic the B03 data. To produce these,
277: we follow the same steps performed when analysing real data. The
278: Gaussian CMB sky signal is simulated from the power
279: spectra that best fits the B03 data
280: \cite{mactavish}.
281: This signal is smoothed according to the measured beam
282: and synthetized into a pixelized sky map, using Healpix
283: routines \cite{healpix}. Using the B03 scanning strategy, the
284: signal map is projected onto 8 timestreams, one for each 145 GHz
285: detector. Noise only timestreams are also produced, as Gaussian realizations of each
286: detector's noise power spectral density, estimated from
287: the data accounting for cross talks among detectors. The timelines
288: are reduced with the ROMA mapmaking code~\cite{natoli,degasperis} replicating
289: the actual flight pointing and transient flagging, to produce
290: %temperature and linear polarization Stokes parameter
291: T,Q and U maps. With this procedure, we
292: can simulate signal, noise and signal plus noise timestream.
293: %We enforce that the map making procedure is
294: %applied to simulated and real data following the same steps.
295:
296: To constrain $\fnl$ we use MC simulations of
297: NG CMB maps obtained from a primordial
298: gravitational potential of the form given in eq. (\ref{eqn:fnl}).
299: These maps have been produced including first order CMB
300: radiative transfer effects \cite{liguori}. The power spectrum of the NG
301: maps is identical to that of the Gaussian CMB
302: simulations.
303:
304: \section{Tests of Gaussianity and constraints on $\fnl$}
305: \label{sec2}
306: Working at $6.8'$ Healpix resolution ($N_\mathrm{side}=512$),
307: we first compute the normalised skewness
308: $S_3$ and kurtosis $S_4$ of our pixelized field $T_i$. These are
309: obtained from the variance $\sigma^2=1/(N-1)\sum_i(T_i-\langle
310: T\rangle)^2$ and from the third and the fourth moment
311: $\mu_3=\sum_i(T_i-\langle T\rangle)^3/N$ and $\mu_4=\sum_i(T_i-\langle
312: T\rangle)^4/N$, where $N$ is the total number of pixels of the map and
313: $\langle T\rangle = \sum_i T_i/N$ its mean. We have $S_3=\mu_3/\sigma^3$, $S_4=\mu_4/\sigma^4-3$. From the data we get $S_3=-0.016$ and $S_4=0.096$.
314: These values are plotted in Fig.~\ref{figura1} as a vertical
315: line and compared to the
316: empirical distribution as derived from the MC
317: (signal plus noise) maps. From the latter we
318: compute the probability $P(S_3^{\mathrm{sim}} >
319: S_3^\mathrm{data})=58\%$ and $P(S_4^\mathrm{sim} >
320: S_4^\mathrm{data})=77\%$. Hence, for these tests the data are
321: compatible with the Gaussian hypothesis. The same tests are repeated
322: after having degraded the map to $13.6'$, finding similar
323: results.
324:
325: \begin{figure}
326: \begin{center}
327: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=3cm]{f1a.ps}
328: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=3cm]{f1b.ps}
329: \caption{The left panel shows the distribution of $S_3$ %the skewness
330: estimator calculated from the
331: 200 Gaussian MC maps. The $S_3$ %skewness
332: value of the B03 data is represented by the vertical line.
333: The right panel shows the same for $S_4$} % kurtosis.}
334: \label{figura1}
335: \end{center}
336: \end{figure}
337:
338: To analyse the map with MFs~\cite{mink_f} we
339: consider the excursion sets $Q$ defined as the map's subsets exceeding a given
340: threshold $\nu$: $Q(\nu)=\{T_i:(T_i-\langle T\rangle)/\sigma >
341: \nu\}$. The three
342: MFs measure the total area
343: of the surviving regions of the map ($M_0$), their total contour
344: length ($M_1$), and the genus of the distribution which is related to
345: the difference between the number of ``hot'' and ``cold'' regions
346: ($M_2$). For a Gaussian field the expectation values of the
347: functionals depend on a single parameter $\tau$:
348: $\langle
349: M_0(\nu)\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{\nu}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]$,
350: $\langle
351: M_1(\nu)\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{\tau}}{8}\mathrm{exp}\left(-\frac{\nu^2}{2}\right)$,
352: $\langle M_2(\nu)\rangle=\frac{\tau}{\sqrt{8\pi^3}}\nu
353: \mathrm{exp}\left(-\frac{\nu^2}{2}\right)$. In the case of a pure CMB
354: signal (no noise), $\tau$ is given by
355: $\tau=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}(2\ell+1)\,\ell(\ell+1)C_{\ell}$
356: \cite{schmalzing,winitzki}. Hence, $M_1$ and $M_2$ depend on the power
357: spectrum $C_\ell$. It is hence critical that the simulations
358: reproduce the model $C_\ell$'s that best fits the data. We work in
359: the flat sky limit, projecting our T values on the plane
360: locally tangent to the map \cite{cabella}. In Fig.~\ref{figura2} we
361: plot MFs for the
362: data and $2\sigma$ limits set by 200 Gaussian simulations, as well as
363: the data residuals and their (again, $2\sigma$) errors.
364:
365: \begin{figure}
366: \begin{center}
367: \includegraphics[width=8cm,height=7.5cm]{f2.ps}
368: \caption{ Left panels show the MFs estimated from
369: the B03 data (diamonds) and the 2$\sigma$ confidence limits from the 200
370: Gaussian MC maps. From top to bottom, the results correspond to the
371: MFs M0, M1 and M2, respectively. Right panels show the residuals between the MC mean
372: and the data.}
373: \label{figura2}
374: \end{center}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377: The functionals are computed at $9$ thresholds evenly spaced between $-4\sigma$ and
378: $+4\sigma$.
379:
380: Using the MC maps we can define a $\chi^2$ statistic:
381: \begin{equation}\label{chisqr}
382: \chi^2_{B,i}=\sum_{\nu\nu^{\prime}}(M_i^B-\langle M^{sim}_i\rangle)_{\nu}C^{-1}_{i,\nu\nu^{\prime}}(M_i^B-\langle M^{sim}_i\rangle)_{{\nu}^{\prime}}.
383: \end{equation}
384: Here $M_i^B$ ($ M^{sim}_i$) is any of the three MFs obtained from the
385: data (simulations), $\langle \cdot \rangle$ is the mean value
386: over MC realizations, and $C_{i,\nu\nu^{\prime}}=\langle
387: (M_{i,\nu}-\langle M_{i,\nu}\rangle) (M_{i,\nu^{\prime}}-\langle
388: M_{i,\nu^{\prime}}\rangle)\rangle$ is a covariance matrix, estimated
389: from an independent set of $\sim 1000$ Gaussian maps. In the first
390: three panels of Fig.~\ref{figura3} we show $\chi^2_i$ for each MF
391: (vertical line), plotted along with the empirical distribution sampled
392: via MC. We can define a ``joint'' estimator by grouping the $M_i$'s in
393: a single, $27$ elements data vector $M_J \equiv
394: \{M_0,M_1,M_2\}$ and defining a $\chi^2_B$ as a trivial extension of
395: Eq.~\ref{chisqr}. It is important that the covariance matrix built
396: for the joint estimator correctly accounts for correlations among
397: different functionals. However, we have found that in order to pin
398: down to a stable level these off-block couplings, one requires a
399: number realizations significantly higher than the $\sim 1000$ used
400: throughout our analysis. The latter number cannot be realistically
401: increased to desired level, because the GLS map making procedure is a
402: demanding computational task, even for the
403: supercomputers we have used. Fortunately, we have found that using
404: white (instead of correlated) noise to estimate the
405: covariance matrix has a negligible impact on the analysis. This
406: finding can indeed be justified a posteriori, because the GLS map
407: making procedure is very effective in suppressing noise
408: correlations, that
409: contribute very weakly to the estimator's final covariance.
410: The joint $\chi^2$ of the data is displayed as
411: the fourth panel in Fig.~\ref{figura3}, along with the MC empirical
412: distibution. The probability $P(\chi^2 > \chi^2_B)$ that a Gaussian map has a
413: larger $\chi^2$ than the B03 map is $76\%$ for $M_0$, $83\%$ for
414: $M_1$, $76\%$ for $M_2$ and $67\%$ for the ``joint'' estimator. The
415: values are fully consistent with the Gaussian hypothesis. We conclude
416: that our pixel space analysis does not detect any sign of NG behavior
417: in the B03 data.
418: \begin{figure}
419: \begin{center}
420: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=2.5cm]{f3a.ps}
421: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=2.5cm]{f3b.ps}
422: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=2.5cm]{f3c.ps}
423: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=2.5cm]{f3d.ps}
424: \caption{The $\chi^2_B$ distribution (histogram) of MC simulated maps
425: and data value (vertical line) for the MFs. Top:
426: area and contour length. Bottom: genus and ``joint'' estimator (see text).}
427: \label{figura3}
428: \end{center}
429: \end{figure}
430:
431: %\section{Constraints on primordial Non Gaussianity}
432: %\label{sec3}
433: %The scope of this section is to constrain the quadratic coupling
434: We now want to constrain the quadratic coupling
435: parameter $\fnl$ defined in Eq.~\ref{eqn:fnl}.
436: To this purpose we simulate NG CMB realizations
437: in the following way: firstly, we generate
438: the Gaussian and NG part of the
439: primordial potential defined by Eq.~(\ref{eqn:fnl});
440: then we convolve them with CMB first order radiation transfer
441: functions to get the final CMB sky.
442: In this way we produce 200
443: $\mathbf{G}$ (Gaussian) maps and 200 $\mathbf{NG}$
444: counterparts (each $\mathbf{G}$ map has a uniquely defined
445: $\mathbf{NG}$ counterpart), so that for a given $\fnl$ our (signal only)
446: map is $\mathbf{G} + \fnl *\mathbf{NG}$. By adding noise maps, we
447: can define MF estimators in the spirit of the
448: section \ref{sec2}, with the difference that they are now functions of $\fnl$:
449: $J_B(\fnl)=M_J^B-\langle M_J(\fnl)\rangle$ (we only consider the
450: ``joint'' estimator in what follows). Consequently, we now define the
451: data $\chi^2$ as $\chi^2_B(\fnl)=J_B(\fnl)^T \mathbf{C}^{-1}J_B(\fnl)$.
452: While in principle the covariance of the $M_J$'s is a function of
453: $\fnl$, this dependence is expected to be weak and is usually
454: neglected \cite{komatsu}. We have tested for this explicitely by using
455: our NG simulations. We plot $\chi^2_B$ as a function of $\fnl$ in
456: Fig.~\ref{figura4} (left panel). Goodness of fit analysis yields
457: $-300<\fnl<650$ at $68\%$ CL and $-800<\fnl<1050$ at $95\%$, with a
458: best fit value ($\chi^2_B$ at its minimum) of $\fnl=200$.
459: In order to cross check
460: this result, we estimate a ``frequentist'' confidence interval for
461: $\fnl$ by sampling the empirical distribution of the $M_J$-based
462: $\chi^2$, computed for $\fnl=200$. The resulting histogram is displayed
463: in the right panel of Fig.\ref{figura4}. This analysis shows that we
464: should expect to constrain $|\fnl|\lesssim 1000$ at $95\%$, thus
465: suggesting that our limits derived through goodness of fit analysis
466: are consistent. One may consider what limits on $\fnl$ would be
467: derived if we use, in place of MFs, the map's
468: skweness and kurtosis defined in Sect.~\ref{sec2} as elements of a two
469: dimensional data vector. We thus repeated our goodness of fit analysis
470: using these statistics and found weaker limits: $-950<\fnl<1350$ at
471: $68\%$ CL ($-1400<\fnl<1800$ at $95\%$ CL). Even so, it is quite
472: remarkable that a crude 1-point pixel statistic degrades the final
473: sensitivity only by a factor $\sim 2$. Of course, in order to find
474: ``optimal'' constraints one has to implement a more sophisticated
475: analysis.
476:
477: \begin{figure}
478: \begin{center}
479: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=3.5cm]{f4a.ps}
480: \includegraphics[width=4cm,height=3.5cm]{f4b.ps}
481: \caption{The left panel shows the B03 data $\chi^2$ ($\chi^2_B$ in the text) as a function of $\fnl$, while the panel on the right shows the empirical $\chi^2$ distribution for NG maps ($\fnl=200$), sampled using 1000 simulations}
482: \label{figura4}
483: \end{center}
484: \end{figure}
485:
486: The B03 dataset is not expected to be noise dominated at the $6.8'$
487: resolution employed in the analysis above. To show that this is the
488: case, we repeated all of our procedures for $13.6'$, finding similar
489: (though slightly weaker) constraints.
490:
491:
492: \section{Conclusions}
493: \label{sec4}
494: We analysed the B03 $145$~GHz T map in search
495: of NG signals. We worked in pixel space at $6.8'$ and
496: $13.6'$ Healpix resolution. We computed the skewness and kurtosis of
497: the map, as well as its three MFs. We compared these estimates against
498: a set of simulated Gaussian maps that have been reduced using the same
499: analysis pipeline as real data, finding no evidence of NG
500: behavior. To quantify the latter statement, we define goodness of fit
501: statistics jointly based on all three MFs, showing
502: that the probability for a Gaussian simulation to have a $\chi^2$
503: larger than the data is $\sim 67\%$. Assuming a model for primordial
504: fluctuations that predicts a quadratic perturbation to the
505: gravitational potential, we set limits on the non linear coupling
506: parameter $\fnl$ as $-800<\fnl<1050$ at $95\%$ CL ($-300<\fnl<650$ at
507: $68\%$ CL). These limits may be regarded as complementary
508: to the constraints set by WMAP in view of the better signal to noise
509: ratio at high resolution in the B03 field.
510:
511: \acknowledgements{BOOMERanG was supported by
512: CIAR, CSA and NERSC in Canada, ASI, University La Sapienza and PNRA in
513: Italy, NASA and NSF in the US. We thank CASPUR and NERSC/LBL. We acknwoledge the use of HEALPix.}
514:
515: \begin{thebibliography}{37}
516: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
517: \bibitem[Bartolo et al.\ 2004]{bartolo}Bartolo N., Komatsu E., Matarrese S., \& Riotto A., Phys. Rept., 402, 103, 2004
518: \bibitem[Komatsu and Spergel 2001]{komatsu_spergel} Komatsu E., Spergel D.N.,
519: Phys.Rev., D63, 063002
520: \bibitem[Komatsu et al.\ 2003]{komatsu} Komatsu E. et al.,Astrophys.J.Suppl. 148 (2003) 119-134, 2003
521: \bibitem[Santos et al.\ 2003]{santos} Santos M.G., et al., MNRAS, 341, 623, 2003
522: \bibitem[Wu et al.\ 2001]{wu} Wu J.H.P., et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 87 (2001) 251303
523: \bibitem[Smith et al.\ 2004]{vsa} Smith S., et al., MNRAS, 352, 887, 2004
524: \bibitem[Curto et al. \ 2006]{archeops} Curto A., et al., astro-ph/0612148,
525: submitted to A\& A, 2006
526: \bibitem[Polenta et al.\ 2002]{polenta} Polenta G., et. al., 2002, ApJ., 572 L27
527: \bibitem[De Troia et al.\ 2003]{detroia} De Troia G., et. al., 2003 MNRAS, 343, 284
528: \bibitem[Spergel et al.\ 2006]{spergel} Spergel D.N., et al., astro-ph/0603449,
529: ApJ, in press
530: \bibitem[Creminelli et al.\ 2007]{creminelli} Creminelli, P., et al., JCAP, 3, 5, 2007
531: \bibitem[Copi et al.\ 2004]{copi} Copi C.J.,Huterer D.,Starkman G.D.,Phys.Rev.,D70, 043515, 2004
532: \bibitem[Vielva et al.\ 2004]{vielva} Vielva P., et al., ApJ, 609, 22-34, 2004
533: \bibitem[Cruz et al.\ 2006]{cruz} Cruz M., et al., MNRAS, 369, 57-67, 2006
534: \bibitem[Liguori et al.\ 2003]{liguori} Liguori M., Matarrese S.\ and Moscardini L., ApJ., 597, 57, 2003
535: \bibitem[Masi et al.\ 2005]{masi} Masi S. et al., astro-ph/0507509, submitted to A\&A, 2005
536: \bibitem[Jones et al.\ 2006]{jones} Jones W.C., et. al., Astrophys.J. 647, 823, 2006
537: \bibitem[Montroy et al.\ 2006]{montroy} Montroy T.E., et al., Astrophys.J. 647, 813, 2006
538: \bibitem[Piacentini et al.\ 2006]{piacentini} Piacentini F., et al., Astrophys.J. 647, 833, 2006
539: \bibitem[MacTavish et al.\ 2006]{mactavish} MacTavish C.J., et al., Astrophys.J. 647, 799, 2006
540: \bibitem[Natoli et al.\ 2001]{natoli} Natoli P., et al.\ , A\&A, 371, 346, 2001
541: \bibitem[De Gasperis et al.\ 2005]{degasperis} de Gasperis G., et al., A\&A, 436, 1159, 2005
542: \bibitem[Gott et al.\ 1990]{mink_f} Gott J.R., et al., ApJ., 352, 1, 1990
543: \bibitem[Cabella et al.\ 2004]{cabella} Cabella P., et al., Phys.Rev. D69,
544: 063007, 2004
545: \bibitem[Schmalzing and G\'orski 1998]{schmalzing} Schmalzing J.\ and G\'orski K.M.\ , MNRAS, 297, 355, 1998
546: \bibitem[Winitzki and Kosowsky 1998]{winitzki} Winitzki S.\ and Kosowsky A.\ , New Astron.\ 3, 75, 1998
547: \bibitem[G\'orski et al.\ 2005]{healpix} G\'orski K. M., et al., ApJ, 622, 759, 2005 %(web page: \verb+http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov+)
548:
549: \end{thebibliography}
550:
551:
552:
553:
554: \end{document}