1:
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \usepackage{apjfonts, natbib}
5:
6: \newcommand{\dasi} {DASI}
7: \newcommand{\dmr} {DMR}
8: \newcommand{\Ot} {\ensuremath{\Omega_{tot}}}
9: \newcommand{\Obh}{\ensuremath{\Omega_bh^2}}
10: \newcommand{\Och}{\ensuremath{\Omega_{cdm}h^2}}
11: \newcommand{\ns} {\ensuremath{n_s}}
12: \newcommand{\Cten}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}_{10}}}
13: \newcommand{\tcp} {\ensuremath{0.0\leq \tau_c \leq0.4}}
14: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\ld}{{\ell '}}
17: \newcommand{\lld}{{\ell \ell'}}
18:
19: \shorttitle{First results from QUaD}
20: \shortauthors{QUaD collaboration}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
25:
26: \title{First season QUaD CMB temperature and polarization power spectra}
27:
28: \author{
29: QUaD collaboration
30: --
31: P.\,Ade\altaffilmark{1},
32: J.\,Bock\altaffilmark{2,3},
33: M.\,Bowden\altaffilmark{1,4},
34: M.\,L.\,Brown\altaffilmark{5,6},
35: G.\,Cahill\altaffilmark{7},
36: J.\,E.\,Carlstrom\altaffilmark{8},
37: P.\,G.\,Castro\altaffilmark{5,9},
38: S.\,Church\altaffilmark{4},
39: T.\,Culverhouse\altaffilmark{8},
40: R.\,Friedman\altaffilmark{8},
41: K.\,Ganga\altaffilmark{10},
42: W.\,K.\,Gear\altaffilmark{1},
43: J.\,Hinderks\altaffilmark{4,11},
44: J.\,Kovac\altaffilmark{3},
45: A.\,E.\,Lange\altaffilmark{3},
46: E.\,Leitch\altaffilmark{2,3},
47: S.\,J.\,Melhuish\altaffilmark{1,12},
48: J.\,A.\,Murphy\altaffilmark{7},
49: A.\,Orlando\altaffilmark{1},
50: R.\,Schwarz\altaffilmark{8},
51: C.\,O'\,Sullivan\altaffilmark{7},
52: L.\,Piccirillo\altaffilmark{1,12},
53: C.\,Pryke\altaffilmark{8},
54: N.\,Rajguru\altaffilmark{1,13},
55: B.\,Rusholme\altaffilmark{4,14},
56: A.\,N.\,Taylor\altaffilmark{5},
57: K.\,L.\,Thompson\altaffilmark{4},
58: E.\,Y.\,S.\,Wu\altaffilmark{4}
59: and
60: M.\,Zemcov\altaffilmark{1,2,3}
61: }
62:
63: \altaffiltext{1}{School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University,
64: Queen's Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK.}
65: \altaffiltext{2}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Dr.,
66: Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.}
67: \altaffiltext{3}{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
68: 91125, USA.}
69: \altaffiltext{4}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and
70: Cosmology, Stanford University, 382 Via Pueblo Mall,
71: Stanford, CA 94305, USA.}
72: \altaffiltext{5}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh,
73: Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK.}
74: \altaffiltext{6}{{\em Current address}: Cavendish Laboratory,
75: University of Cambridge, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 OHE, UK.}
76: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Experimental Physics,
77: National University of Ireland Maynooth, Maynooth, Co. Kildare,
78: Ireland.}
79: \altaffiltext{8}{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics,
80: Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago,
81: 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.}
82: \altaffiltext{9}{{\em Current address}: CENTRA, Departamento de F\'{\i}sica,
83: Edif\'{\i}cio Ci\^{e}ncia, Piso 4,
84: Instituto Superior T\'ecnico - IST, Universidade T\'ecnica de Lisboa,
85: Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal.}
86: \altaffiltext{10}{Laboratoire APC/CNRS, B\^atiment Condorcet,
87: 10, rue Alice Domon et L\'eonie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.}
88: \altaffiltext{11}{{\em Current address}: NASA Goddard Space Flight
89: Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA.}
90: \altaffiltext{12}{{\em Current address}: School of Physics and
91: Astronomy, University of
92: Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.}
93: \altaffiltext{13}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University
94: College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.}
95: \altaffiltext{14}{{\em Current address}:
96: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center,
97: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.}
98:
99:
100: \begin{abstract}
101: QUaD is a bolometric CMB polarimeter sited at the South Pole,
102: operating at frequencies of 100 and 150~GHz.
103: In this paper we report preliminary results from the first season of
104: operation (austral winter 2005).
105: All six CMB power spectra are presented derived as cross spectra
106: between the 100 and 150~GHz maps using 67 days of observation
107: in a low foreground region of approximately 60~square degrees.
108: This data is a small fraction of the data acquired to date.
109: The measured spectra are consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model.
110: We perform jackknife tests which indicate that the observed signal
111: has negligible contamination from instrumental systematics.
112: In addition by using a frequency jackknife we find no evidence for
113: foreground contamination.
114: \end{abstract}
115:
116: \keywords{CMB, anisotropy, polarization, cosmology}
117:
118:
119: \section{Introduction}
120: The CMB is expected to be polarized at the $\sim10\%$ level due to
121: Thomson scattering by free electrons of the local quadrupole in the
122: CMB radiation field at the time of last scattering.
123: The resulting polarization signal can be decomposed into two independent modes.
124: At the time of last scattering, even parity $E$-modes are generated by both
125: scalar and tensor (gravitational wave) metric perturbations while
126: odd-parity $B$-modes are generated only by gravitational waves.
127: A secondary source of $B$-mode polarization comes from the weak
128: gravitational lensing effect of intervening large scale structure,
129: which converts $E$-modes into $B$-modes on small scales.
130:
131: The first detection of the $E$-mode polarization signal was made by the
132: 30~GHz radio interferometer, DASI, in 2002~\citep{kovac02}.
133: Since then, in addition to a further measurement
134: by the DASI experiment~\citep{leitch05}, $E$-mode
135: measurements have been made with the CBI~\citep{readhead04},
136: CAPMAP~\citep{barkats05}, BOOMERanG~\citep{montroy06},
137: WMAP~\citep{page06} and MAXIPOL~\citep{wu06} experiments.
138:
139: High precision measurements of the $E$-mode signal represent a
140: non-trivial test of the standard cosmological model since the
141: polarization of the CMB probes the velocity field at the time of last
142: scattering, as opposed to the density field probed by CMB temperature
143: measurements.
144: In addition, accurate measurements of $E$-mode polarization
145: can be useful for constraining certain cosmological
146: parameters which are fairly insensitive to the CMB temperature field
147: (e.g. isocurvature modes in the early Universe).
148: Such a high resolution measurement of the $E$-mode polarization signal is the
149: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
150: primary science goal of the QUaD\footnote{
151: QUaD stands for ``QUEST and DASI''.
152: In turn, QUEST is ``Q \& U Extragalactic Survey Telescope'' and DASI
153: stands for ``Degree Angular Scale Interferometer''.
154: The two experiments merged to become QUaD in 2003.}
155: experiment.
156: In addition to the polarization, QUaD will, with further analysis,
157: also provide interesting results on the CMB temperature field on small
158: scales.
159:
160: In this paper we present preliminary power spectra measured from
161: QUaD's first season of operation.
162: The paper is organized as follows.
163: In Section~\ref{sec:inst}, we summarize the QUaD instrument
164: and describe the observation strategy and low-level data reduction.
165: Section~\ref{sec:maps} describes our map-making and simulation procedure.
166: Our power spectrum estimation method is described in Section~\ref{sec:spectra_method}
167: and the power spectrum results are presented
168: in Section~\ref{sec:spectra_results} along with results from a number of
169: jackknife tests.
170: In Section~\ref{sec:param_estimation} we estimate cosmological parameters
171: using our spectra and our conclusions are presented
172: in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
173:
174: Throughout this paper when we refer to ``the $\Lambda$CDM model''
175: we mean specifically the model generated by the CMBFAST
176: program~\citep{zaldarriaga00} using the WMAP3 cosmological parameters given under the heading
177: ``Three Year Mean'' in table 2 of \cite{spergel06}.
178: This is the model used in our simulations and shown in the plots.
179:
180: \section{Instrument Summary and Observations}
181: \label{sec:inst}
182:
183: QUaD is a millimeter-wavelength bolometric polarimeter designed for
184: observing the CMB at two frequency bands, 100 and 150~GHz.
185: The experiment is sited at the MAPO observatory, approximately 1~km from
186: the geographic South Pole.
187: First light was achieved in February 2005, and science observations began in May 2005.
188: The telescope is a 2.6~m on-axis Cassegrain with nominal beam sizes of 6.3
189: (100~GHz) and 4.2 (150~GHz) arcminutes.
190: The tower, ground shield and altitude-azimuth mount of the DASI experiment
191: are re-used for QUaD, the ground shield being extended to accommodate
192: the larger telescope structure.
193: The mount has a third axis which rotates
194: about the optical symmetry axis (termed ``deck'' rotation).
195: This is a very useful feature for a polarimeter, as it allows the entire
196: telescope to be rotated to an arbitrary angle with respect to the
197: sky.
198:
199: The QUaD receiver comprises two anti-reflection coated cryogenic
200: re-imaging lenses and a focal plane array of 31~pixels, each composed
201: of a corrugated feed horn and two orthogonal Polarization-Sensitive
202: Bolometers (PSBs;~\cite{2003SPIE.4855..227J}).
203: The PSB pairs are oriented on the focal plane in two groups with bolometer
204: sensitivity angles separated by 45~degrees.
205: This redundancy in detector orientation allows one to construct
206: maps of the sky in Stokes $Q$ \& $U$ with observations at a single
207: deck angle if so desired.
208: Each pixel is single-frequency and the pixels are divided
209: between the two observing bands with 12 at 100~GHz and 19 at 150~GHz.
210: The PSBs are similar to those flown on the successful B2K experiment~\citep{masi06}.
211: A complete description of the receiver along with details of the optical
212: testing and characterization will be provided in Hinderks et al. (in prep).
213:
214: The first season of QUaD observations were completed in October 2005 and
215: consisted of $\sim$100 days of CMB runs, in addition to special runs
216: for pointing model determination, beam mapping, and detector time constant
217: measurements.
218: The CMB runs consist of scanning the telescope back and forth
219: by 7.5 degrees in azimuth, in a series of 30 second constant-elevation ``half-scans''.
220: The telescope is then stepped by 0.02 degrees in elevation and the process repeated
221: to build up a raster map.
222: Since the telescope is sited close to the Earth's axis of rotation,
223: azimuth and elevation closely approximate to right ascension
224: and declination.
225: In the first season we have mapped a 60 square degree patch in the
226: low-foreground B2K deep region~\citep{masi06}.
227: For our chosen scanning speed and observing declination $\ell \sim 2000 f$,
228: where $f$ is the frequency in Hz at which multipole number $\ell$ appears in the
229: time ordered data.
230: The timeconstants of most (80\%) of our detectors are less than 30~ms
231: with the slowest two $\sim 100$~ms corresponding to half power
232: roll-offs at $\ell \sim 10000$ and
233: $\ell \sim 3000$ respectively.
234:
235: To permit the removal of ground contamination, the scanning
236: strategy employs a ``lead-trail'' scheme whereby each hour of
237: observations is split equally between a ``lead'' field (1st half hour)
238: and a ``trail'' field (2nd half hour), separated by 0.5 hours in right ascension.
239: The lead and trail field observations follow exactly the same pattern in
240: telescope azimuth and elevation so a constant ground signal can be
241: removed by differencing the lead and trail field data.
242: Furthermore, each day of observation is split into two 8 hour blocks made
243: over different ranges in azimuth with the telescope rotated at different deck angles.
244: This enables a powerful jackknife test as described below.
245:
246: Initial processing of the raw time-ordered data (TOD) consists of glitch removal,
247: deconvolution of the bolometer temporal response, low pass filtering and down-sampling.
248: The relative calibration factor between channels (and within channels
249: of a given pair) is derived from frequent short scans in elevation
250: (el-nods) which introduce a strong atmospheric gradient into the TOD.
251: This relative calibration is applied separately within each frequency
252: group.
253: Various quality control data cuts are applied at this stage:
254: days with bad weather, bad pointing, poor focal plane temperature stability,
255: or moon contamination are discarded.
256: After applying these data cuts, 67 of the $\sim$100 days of CMB observations remain,
257: and are used in the following science analysis.
258:
259: \section{Map-making and Simulation Process}
260: \label{sec:maps}
261:
262: Two analysis pipelines have been constructed which are independent in the
263: sense that they share no code, although the algorithms are intended to
264: be identical (with some important exceptions --- see below).
265: For this initial analysis we use data which has been point by point
266: lead-trail differenced as described above.
267: There is clear ground pickup in the data, which although mostly common mode,
268: has a polarized component.
269: This pickup appears to be completely canceled in the field difference.
270: We note that many CMB experiments have mitigated ground pickup by
271: field differencing, for example DASI.
272:
273: Before mapping, a best-fit 3rd order
274: polynomial is subtracted from each half-scan to remove the bulk of the
275: $1/f$ noise. The signal from each PSB pair is then summed
276: and differenced and co-added into the map according to the telescope
277: pointing information.
278: In the co-addition, a weighting is applied
279: according to the inverse variance of each 30 second half-scan
280: to properly account for differences
281: in sensitivity across pairs, and to down weight periods of
282: poorer weather.
283: The pair sum data is used to construct total intensity ($T$) maps
284: and the pair difference data is used to construct
285: maps of Stokes $Q$ and $U$ by using the known orientation angle of each
286: detector pair with respect to the sky.
287: During this process, a $\sim 10\%$ correction for the non-ideal
288: polarization efficiency is applied to the differenced PSB data.
289: These angles and efficiencies are measured
290: from special observations of a chopped, polarized, thermal source
291: placed externally to the telescope.
292:
293: While building the $T$, $Q$ and $U$ maps, we
294: also construct the expected $T$, $Q$ and $U$ variance maps under
295: the simple assumption that the noise is uncorrelated (white) in the TOD.
296: These variance maps are used later to weight the signal maps in
297: the power spectrum estimation stage.
298:
299: As described in the next section the power spectrum estimation
300: technique requires signal only, noise only,
301: and signal plus noise simulations of the complete experiment.
302: We generate these as follows.
303:
304: To construct simulated noise timestreams,
305: we Fourier transform each set of half-scans and take
306: the auto and cross spectra between all channel pairs.
307: This allows us to re-generate simulated noise timestreams
308: with the same frequency spectra as the real data {\it and}
309: the proper cross correlations between channels.
310: We assume that the instantaneous signal to noise in the time-ordered
311: data is sufficiently low that the power spectra created in this way
312: accurately estimate the noise.
313:
314: To generate simulated signal timestreams we generate realizations of
315: $T$, $Q$ and $U$ sky maps under
316: the $\Lambda$CDM model using the ``synfast'' generator
317: (part of the HEALPix package\footnote
318: {See http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/index.shtml and \cite{gorski05}}),
319: convolve with the instrumental beam (separately for each detector),
320: and re-sample according to the pointing of the telescope.
321: Included in this process are a scatter in the polarization
322: efficiency factors of the PSB pairs and a scatter in the PSB sensitivity
323: angles.
324: The uncertainties used are derived from the special observations of a chopped,
325: polarized thermal source mentioned above.
326: A detailed beam model is used which is derived from special beam mapping runs on
327: the compact HII region RCW38, daily scans of each detector across
328: this source, and observations of a bright quasar PMN J0538-4405 which
329: lies within our field.
330:
331: Either of the signal or noise simulated timestream, or their sum,
332: is then passed through the standard
333: mapping algorithm (complete with polynomial subtraction and variance
334: weighting) to yield simulated maps.
335:
336: To derive the absolute calibration factor of our experiment we pass
337: the B2K temperature maps~\citep{masi06} through the simulation process
338: to provide maps which are filtered in exactly the same way as the QUaD
339: maps, and are thus directly comparable to them. Both sets of maps are
340: then Fourier transformed and cross spectra taken between them to
341: determine the relative calibration factor. B2K is in turn calibrated
342: against WMAP.
343: (WMAP3 lacks sufficient sensitivity within our small sky area
344: to allow a direct cross calibration.)
345: We perform this calibration separately for the 100~GHz
346: and 150~GHz maps, resulting in $5\%$ absolute calibration
347: uncertainty in units of temperature ($10\%$ in units of power),
348: including both QUaD and BOOMERanG
349: uncertainties~\citep{masi06}.
350: To monitor the absolute stability of the
351: instrument an internal calibration source is inserted into
352: the beam frequently during routine data taking and these readings show excellent
353: stability over the entire season of observations (few percent for
354: any given channel and $0.5\%$ for the gain ratio of a PSB pair).
355:
356: For visual presentation only, we divide by the variance map,
357: transform to $E$ and $B$, and filter to the angular scales where signal
358: to noise is highest, to produce Figure~\ref{fig:maps}.
359:
360: \begin{figure}
361: \epsscale{1.2}
362: \plotone{f1.eps}
363: \caption{QUaD first season field differenced polarization maps decomposed into $E$ and $B$-modes,
364: and filtered to include only the angular scale range $200<\ell<1000$.
365: The top row shows the result for signal (non-jackknife) maps, while
366: the bottom row is for the ``deck'' jackknife (see text).
367: This plot shows 150~GHz maps and the color scale is $\pm30$~$\mu$K$^2$ in all cases.}
368: \label{fig:maps}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: \section{Power Spectrum Estimation Method}
372: \label{sec:spectra_method}
373:
374: To estimate angular power spectra, we employ a Monte Carlo (MC)
375: based analysis.
376: This method requires the creation of noise only simulated
377: power spectra to correct the measured power spectra for noise bias,
378: and signal only power spectra to allow the suppression
379: of power by filtering to be corrected.
380: In addition signal plus noise spectra are required to provide
381: the final covariance matrix of the bandpower measurements.
382:
383: Before measuring power spectra from the real and simulated maps, we
384: apply an inverse variance mask to the maps based on the expected
385: spatial distribution of the noise (using the variance maps mentioned above),
386: and additionally mask a small number (5) of point sources which are apparent
387: in our $T$ maps, and confirmed by external catalogs.
388: We note that none of these sources is detected at high significance
389: in the $Q$ and $U$ maps.
390:
391: At this point the two pipelines diverge --- one
392: follows the standard MASTER technique of \cite{hivon02}, extended to
393: polarization \citep{brown05}, and works explicitly
394: on the curved sky (pseudo-$C_\ell$), while the other makes the flat sky
395: approximation and uses two dimensional Fourier transforms to derive
396: power spectra.
397:
398: The first pipeline measures raw pseudo-$C_\ell$ power spectra from the maps
399: using a modified version of the ``anafast'' program included in the
400: HEALPix package.
401: Estimates of the CMB power spectra are then reconstructed as bandpowers
402: (${\bf P}_b$) from the pseudo-$C_\ell$ measurements using
403: \begin{equation}
404: {\bf P}_b=\sum_{b'}{\bf M}^{-1}_{bb'} \, \sum_\ell P_{b'\ell} \,
405: (\widetilde{\bf C}_\ell-\langle \widetilde{\bf N}_\ell \rangle_{MC}).
406: \label{bandpowers}
407: \end{equation}
408: Here, $P_{b\ell}$ is a binning operator in $\ell$-space,
409: $\widetilde{\bf C}_\ell$ are the raw pseudo-$C_\ell$ spectra
410: measured from the real data and $\langle \widetilde{\bf N}_\ell
411: \rangle_{MC}$ are the average pseudo spectra measured from the
412: noise only simulations.
413: ${\bf M}_{bb'}$ is the binned coupling matrix of \cite{brown05}
414: which corrects for mode-mixing due to the survey
415: geometry.
416: ${\bf M}_{bb'}$ also contains the correction for the effects of
417: both the TOD polynomial filtering and the telescope beam width.
418: These corrections are derived from the set of signal only simulations.
419: Finally, the covariance matrix of the resulting bandpowers is found from
420: the scatter among the power spectra measured from simulations containing
421: signal and noise.
422:
423: The second pipeline takes the two dimensional Fourier
424: transform of the masked maps,
425: converts the $Q$ and $U$ Fourier modes into $E$ and $B$ and
426: calculates bandpowers as the mean of the product of the modes
427: within each annular bin.
428: The product can be taken as the auto spectrum of a given
429: map, or as a cross spectrum between two maps (which need not
430: be at the same frequency).
431: This is done for the real data maps and for each simulation realization.
432: The data spectra then have the mean of the corresponding set of noise only
433: simulations subtracted to noise correct them.
434: Filter/beam suppression factors are calculated as the ratio of the
435: mean of the signal only simulations to the input power spectra,
436: and the data spectra are corrected by dividing out these
437: suppression factors.
438: Finally the bandpower covariance matrix is estimated from the scatter of
439: the signal plus noise simulations in the same way as for
440: pipeline one.
441:
442: The first pipeline explicitly corrects for mixing between the $EE$
443: and $BB$ spectra due to the sky cut using the ${\bf M}_{bb'}$ matrix.
444: The second pipeline does not make such a correction, but the level
445: of mixing into the $BB$ spectra in the signal only simulations
446: is found to be negligible compared to the current
447: instrumental sensitivity ($<0.2$~$\mu$K$^2$).
448: In addition note that the simulations indicate that inter- and
449: intra-spectra mode mixing due to the half-scan polynomial filtering, and lack of
450: cross linking in the map, are absolutely irrelevant for the current
451: analysis.
452:
453: For either pipeline we can take spectra internally within the sets
454: of 100 and 150~GHz maps, or cross spectra between the two frequencies.
455: In this paper, we present only the frequency cross spectra.
456: The single frequency spectra will be presented in a future paper.
457:
458: \section{Results and Jackknife Tests}
459: \label{sec:spectra_results}
460:
461: Figure~\ref{fig:spec1} shows the frequency cross spectra measured from
462: the first season of QUaD data by the two independent pipelines\footnote
463: {Bandpowers, covariance matrices and bandpower window functions are
464: available in numerical form at http://quad.uchicago.edu/quad}.
465: The error bars are the square root of the diagonal elements of the bandpower
466: covariance matrices which are estimated from the run-to-run scatter among
467: MC simulations as described in the previous section.
468: The first pipeline includes a mode decoupling
469: step which narrows the $\ell$ range to which each bandpower
470: responds, while at the same time changing the adjacent bandpower correlation
471: coefficients from their ``natural'' value of $\approx+0.2$ to $\approx-0.2$.
472: This leads to an increase in the diagonal of the bandpower
473: covariance matrix which is reflected by larger error bars on the
474: plot.
475: However we emphasize that the total information content of the
476: bandpowers from both pipelines is similar.
477: In Figure~\ref{fig:spec2} our results are shown compared to
478: published results from other experiments.
479:
480: \begin{figure}
481: \epsscale{1.2}
482: \plotone{f2.eps}
483: \caption{Preliminary QUaD first season results
484: derived as cross power spectra between the 100 and 150~GHz maps.
485: The two sets of points are the results from two completely independent
486: analyzes of the data (see text for details) and are displaced
487: by $\pm10$ in multipole number from their nominal values
488: for clarity.}
489: \label{fig:spec1}
490: \end{figure}
491:
492: \begin{figure}
493: \includegraphics[scale=0.75, angle=-90.]{f3.eps}
494: \vspace{3mm}
495: \caption{Comparison of preliminary QUaD first season power
496: spectrum results to selected other published results to date. The
497: experiments compared to are ACBAR \citep{kuo06}, BOOMERanG
498: \citep{jones06, piacentini06, montroy06}, CBI \citep{sievers05}, DASI
499: \citep{leitch05}, VSA \citep{dickinson04} and WMAP \citep{hinshaw06,
500: page06}. Note that the $TT$ comparison is plotted with a log scale
501: in the y-axis.}
502: \label{fig:spec2}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: A powerful test for systematic contamination from ground pickup, or
506: another source, is the so-called jackknife test.
507: In this paper we use a map based jackknife, forming separate maps
508: from various approximately equally sized data subsets, subtracting these
509: and taking the power spectra of the result.
510: We also do this for the signal plus noise simulations to
511: estimate the expected uncertainty of the jackknife spectra.
512: In as much as the signal originates on the sky it should
513: exactly cancel under jackknife --- depending on the split,
514: and its origin, false signal is not likely to do so.
515: Here we use the following data splits each of which
516: will be explained in turn: deck split, scan direction
517: split, season split, focal plane split and frequency split.
518:
519: The so called deck split is possibly the most powerful test.
520: As mentioned above each day of observations on our CMB field
521: is split into two 8 hour blocks.
522: Because the run starts always at the same local sidereal
523: time these blocks occur always over the same range of azimuth
524: angle as the telescope turns within its ground shield.
525: In addition each block of observations is made always at the same
526: rotation angle of the telescope with respect to the line of sight,
527: with a 60 degree rotation occurring between the two blocks.
528: Hence each given bolometer pair scans the sky at a different
529: orientation angle within each block.
530: Therefore the deck jackknife polarization
531: maps will only cancel if the rotation to the absolute reference
532: frame which occurs in the map making step is being performed
533: correctly.
534: The ground pickup is observed to be very complex with certain
535: pair differences showing a detectable spike always at a certain azimuth angle
536: and rotation angle of the telescope.
537: Hence even if some ground pickup is leaking through the field
538: differencing operation, we certainly do not expect it to
539: appear identically in the deck split $Q$ and $U$ maps
540: and thus to cancel in the deck jackknife.
541: Figure~\ref{fig:dkjack} compares the signal (non-jackknife)
542: and deck jackknife power spectra and we see that
543: the vast majority of the apparent sky signal cancels.
544: Note that where the signal spectra are sample variance dominated the
545: jackknife spectra error bars are smaller since there is no sample
546: variance in a null spectrum.
547:
548: \begin{figure}
549: \epsscale{1.2}
550: \plotone{f4.eps}
551: \caption{QUaD signal spectra compared to deck jackknife spectra.
552: (See text for details.)}
553: \label{fig:dkjack}
554: \end{figure}
555:
556: For the scan direction jackknife we form separate maps from
557: the half-scans in each direction.
558: If deconvolution of the detector temporal response is not done
559: correctly then the forward and backward maps will not match and
560: residuals will remain when they are subtracted.
561: In some cases the time constants of the two halves of a detector
562: pair are not well matched and hence poor deconvolution
563: could lead to leakage from $T$ into polarization making this
564: a very important test.
565:
566: The split season jackknife forms maps from the first half and second
567: half of the used days.
568: If for example there were a drift in the absolute calibration of the instrument
569: over time then cancellation failure would be expected here.
570:
571: The focal plane split forms separate maps using the two orientation
572: groups of bolometer pairs in the focal plane.
573: Because observations are taken at two deck angles it is possible
574: to construct $Q$ and $U$ maps using each group.
575:
576: For the frequency jackknife instead of taking cross spectra between the
577: 100~GHz and 150~GHz maps we subtract them and take the
578: spectra of the frequency difference maps.
579: Any admixture of two or more signal components with differing
580: spatial distributions and frequency spectral indexes is expected to fail
581: this test (for example CMB plus synchrotron and/or dust) ---
582: this is therefore a stringent test for foreground contamination.
583: Figure~\ref{fig:fqjack} compares the signal (non-jackknife)
584: and frequency jackknife power spectra and we see that to the limits of
585: experimental sensitivity the sky pattern is identical at the
586: two frequencies.
587:
588: \begin{figure}
589: \epsscale{1.2}
590: \plotone{f5.eps}
591: \caption{QUaD signal spectra compared to frequency jackknife spectra.
592: (See text for details.)}
593: \label{fig:fqjack}
594: \end{figure}
595:
596: Figures~\ref{fig:dkjack} and~\ref{fig:fqjack} are visually
597: impressive but to quantify how well these tests are passed we have
598: calculated $\chi^2$ statistics for the comparison of the
599: jackknife power spectra with the null model.
600: For some of the jackknifes we do not expect perfect cancellation
601: due to the interaction of the polynomial filtering by the half-scan and
602: the non perfectly overlapping coverage region of the two data subsets.
603: Hence we compare the measured $\chi^2$ values to the distribution which
604: we measure from the set of signal plus noise simulations rather than to
605: a theoretical $\chi^2$ distribution.
606:
607: In Table~\ref{tab:chi2}, the probability to exceed (PTE) the $\chi^2$
608: value measured from the data is tabulated for each spectrum and
609: jackknife test.
610: These numbers are for the first pipeline --- the second pipeline
611: gives results which are similar.
612: Ideally these PTE values should be uniformly distributed from zero to one.
613: The only value which shows an obvious problem is
614: $TT$ in the scan direction case --- the enormous signal to noise of
615: the $TT$ spectrum seen in Figures~\ref{fig:dkjack} and~\ref{fig:fqjack}
616: makes the $TT$ jackknifes sensitive to tiny systematic errors.
617: The jackknife tests of the single frequency spectra show some additional
618: problems passing these formal $\chi^2$ tests and we are hence choosing not
619: to publish these spectra at this time.
620:
621: The final row of Table~\ref{tab:chi2} is not a jackknife --- it is a comparison
622: of our measured spectra against the WMAP3 $\Lambda$CDM model mentioned
623: above and shown in the plots.
624: The PTE values lie within the acceptable range
625: indicating that our measured spectra are consistent with this model.
626:
627: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c c c}
628: \tablewidth{8cm} \tablecaption{PTE values from $\chi^2$
629: tests\label{tab:chi2}} \tablehead{\colhead{Jackknife} &
630: \colhead{$TT$} & \colhead{$TE$} & \colhead{$EE$} & \colhead{$BB$} &
631: \colhead{$TB$} &\colhead{$EB$}}
632: \startdata
633: Deck angle & 0.236 & 0.208 & 0.812 & 0.435 & 0.274 & 0.062 \\
634: Scan direction & 0.000 & 0.173 & 0.304 & 0.375 & 0.236 & 0.223 \\
635: Split season & 0.032 & 0.814 & 0.257 & 0.527 & 0.904 & 0.111 \\
636: Focal plane & 0.193 & 0.702 & 0.079 & 0.503 & 0.450 & 0.225 \\
637: Frequency & 0.034 & 0.306 & 0.610 & 0.452 & 0.642 & 0.135 \\
638: Signal\tablenotemark{a} & 0.501 & 0.964 & 0.415 & 0.482 & 0.066 & 0.809 \\
639: \enddata
640: \tablenotetext{a}{The PTE value for the signal case is
641: calculated against the $\Lambda$CDM model.}
642: \end{deluxetable}
643:
644:
645:
646: \section{Cosmological Parameter Estimation}
647: \label{sec:param_estimation}
648:
649: We have carried out a basic 6 parameter cosmological parameter constraint
650: analysis using our polarization power spectra only, i.e. we use the
651: $TE$, $EE$ and $BB$ spectra, but not $TT$.
652: Our methodology uses the Monte-Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) method and
653: is based on that of the WMAP team as described in \cite{verde03};
654: we impose the same flat priors, the same re-parameterization and the same
655: convergence/mixing test.
656: In addition we optimize the Markov chain step size choice,
657: a fundamental parameter for the correct behavior of the algorithm,
658: by calculating the parameter covariance matrix of a preliminary run of our
659: chains as in \cite{tegmark04}.
660: We deal with the beam and calibration uncertainty using a
661: method proposed by \cite{bridle02} which accomplishes an effective
662: marginalization over these parameters by adding extra terms to the
663: bandpower covariance matrix.
664:
665: The theoretical power spectra are calculated using CAMB \citep{lewis00},
666: and then transformed by means of the experimental bandpower window functions
667: to predictions for the binned $P_b$'s.
668: We assume that the likelihood distribution for our bandpowers is
669: Gaussian, which our signal plus noise simulations indicate is a valid assumption.
670: The bandpower covariance matrix for the $P_b$'s is assumed to be
671: independent of the model, and is estimated from the signal plus noise
672: simulations as described above.
673:
674: In Table \ref{tab:param} we present the marginalized expectation values and
675: 68\% confidence limits for each parameter.
676: Four converged MCMC chains with around 50,000 steps each are merged to obtain these
677: results.
678: For all of the parameters our 68\% confidence limit encloses the WMAP3
679: expectation value.
680: The $\chi^2$ of the model with the parameters listed in the table is 44.1 giving a probability
681: to exceed this by chance of 0.51 (for the 45 degrees of freedom).
682:
683: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c }
684: \tablewidth{5cm}
685: \tablecaption{
686: Polarization only cosmological parameter constraints using preliminary
687: QUaD first season power spectra
688: \label{tab:param}}
689: \tablehead{\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Symbol} & \colhead{Value}}
690: \startdata
691: Baryon density & $\Omega_bh^2$ & $0.0260\,\,_{-0.0059}^{+0.0061}$ \\
692: Matter density & $\Omega_mh^2$ & $0.142\,\,_{-0.031}^{+0.029}$ \\
693: Hubble constant & $h$ & $0.74\,\,_{-0.15}^{+0.16}$ \\
694: Optical depth & $\tau$ & $0.156\,\,_{-0.088}^{+0.089}$ \\
695: Scalar fluctuation amplitude\tablenotemark{a} & $A_s$ & $0.78\,\,_{-0.16}^{+0.16}$ \\
696: Scalar fluctuation index\tablenotemark{a} & $n_s$ & $0.833\,\,_{-0.293}^{+0.283}$ \\
697: \enddata
698: \tablenotetext{a}{The pivot point for $A_s$ and $n_s$ is $k_p=0.05$~Mpc$^{-1}$}
699: \end{deluxetable}
700:
701: \section{Conclusions}
702: \label{sec:conclusions}
703:
704: We have presented preliminary power spectra measured from the first
705: season of observations with QUaD.
706: In this paper we have presented only the
707: frequency cross spectra taken between the 100 and 150~GHz maps.
708: We find that these spectra
709: are entirely consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM model ---
710: the measured $EE$ spectrum has a distinctive peak at $\ell\sim400$
711: exactly as expected, the $TE$ spectrum shows the
712: expected correlations, and the $BB$ spectrum is consistent with zero.
713: A basic polarization only parameter constraint analysis yields
714: confidence limits which agree with the WMAP3 results, and
715: are as tight as those which were derived from CMB temperature
716: spectra just a few years ago.
717:
718: We have performed jackknife tests by measuring power spectra from differenced
719: maps generated under several data splits and find that the results
720: are free from significant instrumental systematics.
721: In addition we have presented a frequency jackknife which indicates
722: that contamination of the CMB by astrophysical foregrounds
723: is negligible for the current experimental sensitivity.
724:
725: We note that this analysis considers only frequency cross spectra
726: and includes only 67 days out of a total of 250 days of CMB
727: observing to date.
728:
729: The QUaD experiment has begun a third season of observations
730: and analysis of the second season data is underway. When completed, we
731: fully expect to improve substantially on the preliminary results
732: presented here.
733:
734:
735: \acknowledgements
736:
737: QUaD is funded by the National Science Foundation in the USA, through
738: grants AST-0096778, ANT-0338138, ANT-0338335 \& ANT-0338238, by the
739: Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in the UK and by the
740: Science Foundation Ireland. We would like to thank the staff of the
741: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and all involved in the United States
742: Antarctic Program for the superb support operation which makes the
743: science presented here possible. Special thanks go to our intrepid
744: winter over scientist Robert Schwarz who has spent three consecutive
745: winter seasons tending the QUaD experiment. MLB acknowledges the award
746: of a PPARC fellowship. SEC acknowledges support from a Stanford Terman
747: Fellowship. JRH acknowledges the support of an NSF Graduate Research
748: Fellowship and a Stanford Graduate Fellowship. CP and JEC acknowledge
749: partial support from the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
750: through the grant NSF PHY-0114422.
751: EYW acknowledges receipt of an NDSEG fellowship.
752:
753: \bibliographystyle{apj}
754: \bibliography{ms}
755:
756: \end{document}
757: