1: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}
2:
3: \documentclass[aps,epsfig]{revtex4} %eqsecnum,
4:
5: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{subfigure}
8:
9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\fnl}{f_{\rm NL}}
14: \newcommand{\alm}{a_{\ell m}^X}
15: \newcommand{\almL}{a_{\ell m}^{X,\rm L}}
16: \newcommand{\almNL}{a_{\ell m}^{X,\rm NL}}
17:
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{Temperature and polarization CMB maps from primordial
22: non-Gaussianities of the local type}
23:
24: \author{Michele Liguori$^1$, Amit Yadav$^2$, Frode K. Hansen$^3$, Eiichiro Komatsu$^4$, Sabino
25: Matarrese$^5$, Benjamin Wandelt$^2$}
26:
27: \affiliation{$^1$Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for
28: Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberfoce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, United
29: Kingdom}
30:
31: \affiliation{$^2$Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
32: 1002 W.~Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801}
33:
34: \affiliation{$^3$Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo,
35: P.O. Box 1029 Blindern, 0315 Oslo, Norway}
36:
37: C\affiliation{$^4$Department of Astronomy, University of Texas at
38: Austin, 2511 Speedway, RLM 15.30 6, TX 78712}
39:
40: \affiliation{$^5$Dipartimento di Fisica ``G. Galilei'', Universit\`a di Padova and
41: INFN, Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova, Italy}
42:
43:
44:
45: \date{\today}
46:
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: The forthcoming {\em Planck} experiment will provide
50: high sensitivity polarization measurements that will allow us to
51: further tighten the $\fnl$ bounds from the temperature data.
52: Monte Carlo simulations of non-Gaussian CMB maps have been used as
53: a fundamental tool to characterize non-Gaussian signatures in the data,
54: as they allow us
55: to calibrate any statistical estimators and understand the effect
56: of systematics, foregrounds and other contaminants.
57: We describe an algorithm to generate high-angular resolution
58: simulations of non-Gaussian CMB maps in temperature {\it and
59: polarization}. We consider non-Gaussianities of the local type, for
60: which the level of non-Gaussianity is defined by the dimensionless
61: parameter, $\fnl$.
62: We then apply the temperature and polarization fast cubic statistics
63: recently developed by Yadav {\em et al.} to a set of non-Gaussian
64: temperature and polarization simulations.
65: We compare our results to theoretical expectations
66: based on a Fisher matrix analysis, test the unbiasedness
67: of the estimator, and study the dependence of the error bars on
68: $\fnl$. All our results are in very good agreement with theoretical
69: predictions, thus confirming the reliability of both the simulation
70: algorithm and the fast cubic temperature and polarization estimator.
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73:
74: \maketitle
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78: Small, but non-vanishing
79: non-Gaussianity of primordial cosmological perturbations is a general
80: prediction of inflation. %Its interest relies
81: %in the fact that
82: The amplitude of
83: the expected non-Gaussian signal is model-dependent and can vary by
84: many orders of magnitude from one inflationary scenario to another. For example, the
85: non-Gaussian signatures produced by single-field slow-roll inflation models
86: are tiny and far below the present and forthcoming experimental
87: sensitivity \cite{acqua,maldacena}. On the other hand many other scenarios predict a level of
88: non-Gaussianity that is within reach of present
89: and forthcoming experiments like WMAP and {\em Planck} (see
90: e.g. \cite{Lyth,BMR,komrev,Ginfl,DBI1,DBI2,Shellard,multifield}). For this
91: reason an experimental detection of non-Gaussianity would rule out
92: the simplest scenarios of slow-roll inflation. More in general,
93: experimental bounds on primordial non-Gaussianity allow us to
94: significantly constrain different scenarios
95: for the generation of perturbations in the context of primordial inflation.
96:
97:
98: Primordial non-Gaussianity from inflation can be described in terms of
99: the 3-point correlation function of the curvature perturbations,
100: $\Phi(\mathbf{k})$, in Fourier space:
101:
102: \be
103: \langle \Phi(\mathbf{k_1}) \Phi(\mathbf{k_2}) \Phi(\mathbf{k_3})
104: \rangle = (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{k_1 + k_2 +
105: k_3})F(k_1,k_2,k_3) \; .
106: \ee
107:
108: Note that $\Phi$ is the curvature perturbation during the matter era,
109: and temperature anisotropy in the Sachs-Wolfe limit is given by
110: $\Delta T/T=-\Phi/3$.
111: Depending on the shape of the function $F(k_1,k_2,k_3)$, we can divide
112: non-Gaussianity from inflation into two different classes:
113: local non-Gaussianity, where $F$ is large for
114: {\em squeezed} configurations (i.e. configurations in which $k_1 <<
115: k_2, k_3$), and non-local non-Gaussianity of the {\em equilateral} type, where
116: the largest contributions come from modes with $k_1 \sim k_2 \sim
117: k_3$. The former kind of non-Gaussianity can be produced in models
118: where primordial perturbations are not generated by inflaton
119: itself but by a second light scalar field (like e.g. in the curvaton
120: model).
121: The latter comes from single field models with a non-minimal
122: Lagrangian containing higher derivative operators.
123: In this paper we will focus on non-Gaussianity of the local type,
124: where the primordial curvature perturbation $\Phi$
125: can be described in terms of the following real space parameterization:
126:
127: \be\label{eqn:phiNG}
128: \Phi(\mathbf{x}) = \Phi_L(\mathbf{x}) + \fnl \left( \Phi_L^2(\mathbf{x}) - \langle \Phi_L^2(\mathbf{x}) \rangle
129: \right) \;.
130: \ee
131:
132: In the last formula $f_{\rm NL}$ is a parameter that defines the amplitude
133: of the primordial non-Gaussian signal. Our previous statement about
134: the detectability of non-Gaussian signatures from inflation can be
135: precisely quantified in terms of this parameter. In standard scenarios of
136: single-field slow roll inflation $f_{\rm NL}$ is generally predicted to be
137: very small and undetectable ($\sim 10^{-2}$ at the end of inflation, $\sim 1$ when
138: second order perturbation theory after inflation is taken into
139: account) whereas other scenarios, like the curvaton or variable
140: decay width models, can naturally give rise to relatively large values
141: of $\fnl$ ($\fnl \sim 10$). This justifies the claim
142: that an experimental
143: detection of $\fnl$ would rule out the simplest single-field
144: inflationary paradigm and allow us to put significant constraints on
145: the other inflationary scenarios.
146:
147: The best way to put experimental
148: bounds on $\fnl$ is
149: to look for non-Gaussianities in CMB anisotropies (but it has been
150: recently pointed out that future deep galaxy-surveys and 21 cm
151: background measurements could provide promising results
152: \cite{Sefusatti,Pillepich,Cooray}).
153: The most stringent constraints on $\fnl$
154: so far come from measurements of the CMB angular bispectrum on the
155: WMAP temperature data
156: %\be
157: $
158: -36 < \fnl < 100 \;\; (95 \% \, c.l.) %\; .
159: $
160: \cite{NGWMAP1,NGWMAP3,Creminelli2}.
161: %\ee
162: This constraint corresponds to a $1-\sigma$ error of $\Delta \fnl =
163: 34$.
164: A Fisher matrix analysis by the authors of \cite{KS2001} showed that
165: WMAP will in principle be able to reach $\Delta \fnl = 20$, while the
166: forthcoming {\em Planck} satellite can achieve $\Delta \fnl = 5$. This means
167: that {\em Planck} will be sensitive to the level of non-Gaussianity
168: predicted by a vast range of different inflationary models. We can
169: improve this constraint further by including
170: the polarization data.
171: %picture if we consider that the previous estimates and
172: %results were obtained by accounting for {\em temperature data
173: % only}.
174: For WMAP all the non-Gaussian information is basically
175: contained in the temperature data, due to large errors in
176: polarization measurements. {\em Planck}, on the other hand,
177: will characterize polarization
178: fluctuations with high accuracy. This will allow us to exploit the additional
179: information contained in polarization data and to gain a further
180: factor of order $2$ in $\Delta \fnl$, thus yielding $\Delta \fnl
181: \simeq 3$ \cite{BabichZalda}.
182: A crucial step in order to exploit all the information contained in
183: the future {\em Planck} dataset is then to {\em extend the tools previously
184: developed for temperature non-Gaussianity in order to include polarization}.
185: This program has been recently started by the authors of \cite{Yadav},
186: where the fast cubic statistic used to analyze WMAP temperature
187: data \cite{KSW,CreminelliKSW} was taken as a starting point to build an
188: optimal cubic estimator that is sensitive to
189: a combination of temperature and polarization primordial
190: fluctuations. In this paper we will extend the non-Gaussian analysis
191: toolkit in order to include the second fundamental element: Monte Carlo
192: simulations of primordial non-Gaussian polarized CMB maps.
193:
194:
195: In section \ref{sec:maps} we will summarize the
196: original algorithm and describe its extension to polarization. We will
197: then apply the fast cubic statistic of \cite{Yadav} to a set of
198: polarized non-Gaussian maps.
199: In this paper we will manly focus our attention on map
200: generation, so the purpose for applying the estimator is mainly to
201: check the reliability of the final maps. This will be done by
202: comparing the final outputs
203: to theoretical predictions in ideal conditions. However in a
204: forthcoming publication we will describe how we actually used the maps
205: in order to test, calibrate and optimize the estimator.
206:
207:
208: \begin{figure}[h]
209: \begin{center}
210: \includegraphics[height=0.6\textheight,width = 0.8\textwidth]{Cls_maps.eps}
211: \caption{CMB angular power spectra extracted from $10$ simulations
212: (triangles)
213: are compared to the theoretical ones computed with
214: CMBfast for the same model (solid black lines) .
215: The cosmological parameters are
216: $\Omega_b = 0.042$, $\Omega_{cdm} = 0.239$, $\Omega_L = 0.719$, $h = 0.73$
217: $n = 1$, and $\tau = 0.09$ (same for all the following figures, unless
218: otherwise stated).
219: }\label{fig:cl}
220: \end{center}
221: \end{figure}
222:
223:
224:
225:
226: \begin{figure}[h]
227: \begin{center}
228: \includegraphics[height = 0.5\textheight, width = 0.7\textwidth]{rtf1.eps}
229: \caption{Temperature (bottom panel) and polarization (upper panel)
230: transfer functions at high $\ell$ at last scattering.}\label{fig:rtf1}
231: \end{center}
232: \end{figure}
233:
234:
235:
236: \begin{figure}[t]
237: \begin{center}
238: \includegraphics[height = 0.5\textheight, width = 0.7\textwidth]{rtf3.eps}
239: \caption{Temperature (bottom panel) and polarization (upper panel)
240: transfer functions at low $\ell$ (reionization and late ISW
241: contributions are visible). The oscillations visible in the plots
242: are little numerical artifacts which have negligible impact on the final
243: results. We have explicitly checked this by increasing the
244: resolution in the k and r-grid by factors of $2$ and $4$ without
245: noticing any improvement in the accuracy of the final $C_\ell$, that
246: can be already reconstructed well using the sampling chosen in the
247: paper (see fig. \ref{fig:cl}) }\label{fig:rtf3}
248: \end{center}
249: \end{figure}
250:
251:
252: \section{Generation of polarized non-Gaussian CMB maps}\label{sec:maps}
253:
254:
255:
256:
257: \begin{figure}[t]
258: \begin{center}
259: \includegraphics[height = 0.5\textheight, width = 0.7\textwidth]{rtf2.eps}
260: \caption{Temperature
261: transfer functions at high $\ell$ and $r$ corresponding to the epoch of
262: reionization. Polarization transfer functions at large $\ell$ are
263: zero in this range.}\label{fig:rtf2}
264: \end{center}
265: \end{figure}
266:
267:
268: Realistic
269: simulations of non-Gaussian CMB maps are indispensable tools
270: for measurements
271: of non-Gaussian signals in the data, as they allow us to test
272: and calibrate estimators and also to include and study all the spurious
273: non-Gaussian signals introduced by contaminants like foregrounds,
274: secondary anisotropies, instrumental noise and so on.
275:
276: The first simulations of temperature maps with primordial
277: non-Gaussianity from $\fnl$ were carried out by Komatsu et
278: al., and used extensively to study Gaussianity of
279: the WMAP data \cite{NGWMAP1}
280: as well as non-trivial topology of the universe \cite{Cornish}.
281: Then, Liguori et al.\cite{liguori} have succeeded in increasing the
282: computational speed, reducing the memory requirement and, most
283: importantly, improving accuracy of the simulated temperature maps.
284: We take this new algorithm developed in \cite{liguori} as a starting point.
285:
286: Our starting point is the relation between the
287: primordial curvature perturbation $\Phi$ and the CMB multipoles
288: $\alm$ via radiation transfer functions $\Delta^{\rm X}_\ell$.
289:
290: \be
291: \alm = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \Phi(\mathbf{k}) Y_{\ell
292: m}(\hat{k}) \Delta_\ell^X(k) \; ,
293: \ee
294: where $\rm X$ refers to either the temperature component $\rm T$
295: or the polarization component $\rm E$.
296:
297: The kind of non-Gaussianity we are considering has a very simple form
298: in real space, where it is local and
299: the non-Gaussian part of the curvature perturbation is simply the square of the
300: Gaussian part (see formula \ref{eqn:phiNG}). For this reason it is
301: convenient to work in real space and define the real space transfer
302: functions $\Delta_\ell(r)$ as:
303:
304: \be\label{eqn:rtf}
305: \Delta_\ell^X(r) \equiv \frac{2}{\pi} \int dk k^2 j_\ell(kr) \Delta_\ell^X(k) \; ,
306: \ee
307: where $j_\ell(kr)$ is the spherical Bessel function of order
308: $\ell$. It can be shown that $\Delta_{\ell}(r)$
309: links the primordial curvature perturbation $\Phi(\mathbf{r})$ in real
310: space to the $\alm$ through the following relation \cite{NGWMAP1,liguori}
311:
312: \be\label{eqn:phi2alm}
313: \alm = \int dr r^2 \Delta_\ell^X(r) \Phi_{\ell m}(r) \; .
314: \ee
315:
316: In this last formula we have introduced the quantities $\Phi_{\ell
317: m}(r)$, which represent the spherical harmonic expansion multipoles
318: of the curvature perturbation $\Phi(r,\hat{r})$ on a shell of given
319: radius $r$. In formulae:
320:
321: \be\label{eqn:philmdef}
322: \Phi_{\ell m}(r) = \int d\Omega_{\hat{r}} Y_{\ell m}(\hat{r}) \Phi(r,\hat{r}) \; .
323: \ee
324:
325: We define the radius $r$ as $r = c(\tau_0 -\tau)$, where $c$ is the
326: speed of light and $\tau_0 - \tau$ is the lookback conformal time. The
327: radius $r$ varies from the origin $r = 0$ to the present time cosmic
328: horizon $r = c\tau_0$. The radii in which $\Phi_{\ell m}(r)$ must be
329: generated depend on the features of the real space transfer function
330: $\Delta_{\ell}^X(r)$ in equation (\ref{eqn:phi2alm}). We will come back
331: to this shortly.
332:
333: Let us assume for the moment that we have been able to numerically
334: generate the Gaussian part of the curvature perturbation multipoles
335: $\Phi^L_{\ell m}(r)$
336: for the chosen set of radii. Starting from here we can
337: now generate the non-Gaussian
338: part $\Phi^{NL}_{\ell m}(r)$ in the following way. First of all we
339: harmonic transform $\Phi^L_{\ell m}(r)$ to get the gaussian part of the
340: curvature perturbation in real space:
341:
342: \be
343: \Phi_{\rm L}(r,\hat{r}) = \sum_\ell \sum_m \Phi^L_{\ell m}(r) Y_{\ell
344: m}(\hat{r}) \; .
345: \ee
346:
347: Then we square $\Phi_{\rm L}(r,\hat{r})$ to get the non Gaussian part of the
348: curvature perturbation on each sampled spherical shell:
349: $\Phi_{\rm NL}(r,\hat{r}) \equiv \Phi_{\rm L}^2(r,\hat{r}) - \langle
350: \Phi_{\rm L}^2(r,\hat{r}) \rangle$. We then calculate the multipoles of this
351: non-Gaussian part through a backward harmonic transform:
352:
353: \be
354: \Phi^{\rm NL}_{\ell m}(r) \equiv \int d\Omega_{\hat{r}}
355: \Phi_{\rm NL}(r,\hat{r}) Y_{\ell m}(\hat{r}) \; .
356: \ee
357:
358: Having computed $\Phi^L_{\ell m}(r)$ and $\Phi^{NL}_{\ell m}(r)$ we
359: can finally obtain the Gaussian and non-Gaussian part of the CMB
360: multipoles, $\almL$ and $\almNL$ respectively, by applying formula
361: (\ref{eqn:phi2alm}):
362:
363: \bea
364: \almL & = & \int dr r^2 \Delta_\ell^X(r) \Phi^{\rm L}_{\ell m}(r) \\
365: \almNL & = & \int dr r^2 \Delta_\ell^X(r) \Phi^{\rm NL}_{\ell m}(r) \; .
366: \eea
367:
368: A CMB map for a chosen value of $\fnl$ can then be obtained simply
369: by summing $\almL + \fnl \almNL$. This means that with a single
370: generation of $\alm$ and $\almNL$ it is possible to generate maps
371: for any value of $\fnl$.
372:
373: We are still left with one problem unsolved i.e. how do we
374: generate the Gaussian curvature perturbation multipoles $\Phi^L_{\ell
375: m}(r)$ ?
376: This issue is complicated by the fact that curvature perturbation multipoles are
377: correlated in real space.
378: The obvious solution would be to generate curvature perturbations in
379: Fourier space, $\Phi({\mathbf k})$, Fourier transform back to real space
380: to obtain $\Phi({\mathbf x})$, change the coordinates from Cartesian
381: to polar to obtain $\Phi(r,\hat{n})$, and finally harmonic transform
382: to obtain $\Phi_{\ell m}(r)$.
383: This is the original approach taken by \cite{NGWMAP1}, which
384: is computationally quite expensive. Also, the coordinate transformation
385: from Cartesian to polar limits accuracy of the maps, especially at
386: high multipoles.
387:
388: A novel approach developed in \cite{liguori} solves this issue by
389: generating $\Phi_{\ell m}(r)$ {\it directly}, without ever worrying
390: about the coordinate transformation.
391: It has been shown in \cite{liguori} that the $\Phi_{\ell m}(k)$ and
392: $\Phi_{\ell m}(r)$ are related by a spherical Bessel transform:
393:
394: \be\label{eqn:bt}
395: \Phi_{\ell m}(r) = \frac{(-i)^\ell}{2 \pi} \int dk k^2 j_{\ell}(kr)
396: \Phi_{\ell m}(k) \; .
397: \ee
398:
399: The problem with this expression is that the Bessel functions
400: oscillate very rapidly. This implies that, for each $(\ell, r)$,
401: the integral above must be
402: sampled in many different $k$ in order to attain sufficient accuracy,
403: thus making the computational cost of such an algorithm prohibitive. A
404: much more convenient solution was found in \cite{liguori}; the idea is
405: to start with a set of Gaussian independent ``white noise'' coefficients
406: $n_{\ell m}(r)$ characterized by the following correlation function:
407:
408: \begin{equation}
409: \label{eqn:whitenoise}
410: \left \langle n_{\ell_1 m_1}(r_1)
411: n^*_{\ell_2 m_2}(r_2) \right \rangle =
412: \frac{\delta^D(r_1-r_2)}{r^2}\delta_{\ell_1}^{\ell_2} \delta_{m_1}^{m_2}\; ;
413: \end{equation}
414:
415: it can be now shown that Gaussian curvature perturbation multipoles $\Phi_{\ell
416: m}^{\rm L}(r)$ with the right correlation properties can be
417: obtained through a convolution of the $n_{\ell m}$ coefficients with
418: suitable ``filters'' $W_\ell$:
419:
420: \begin{equation}
421: \label{eqn:nlm2phil}
422: \Phi^{\rm L}_{\ell m}(r) = \int \! dr_1 \, r_1^2 \, n_{\ell m}(r_1)
423: W_\ell(r,r_1) \; ,
424: \end{equation}
425: where the functions $W_\ell$ are defined as
426:
427: \begin{equation}
428: \label{eqn:filter}
429: W_\ell(r,r_1) =
430: \frac{2}{\pi} \int \! dk \, k^2 \, \sqrt{P_\Phi(k)} \, j_\ell(kr)
431: j_\ell(kr_1) \; ,
432: \end{equation}
433: and $P_\Phi(k)$ is the power spectrum of the primordial curvature perturbation
434: $\Phi_{\rm L}(\mathbf{k})$.
435: As depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:wl1}, \ref{fig:wl2} the filter functions $W_\ell$
436: are smooth. Moreover, as also suggested by the Limber approximation applied
437: to equation (\ref{eqn:filter}), $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ is narrowly peaked around $r$ when $l
438: \gtrsim 10$. This allows to sample the integral
439: (\ref{eqn:nlm2phil}) in much less points than it would be
440: required for the Bessel transform (\ref{eqn:bt}), thus making the
441: problem computationally feasible. Obviously the problem of sampling a
442: highly oscillatory integrand has not disappeared completely, but it has been
443: reduced to the generation of $W_\ell(r,r_1)$. A trick here
444: is that the filters $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ can be {\em pre-computed and stored}
445: once and for all for a given cosmological model and their calculation does not enter in
446: the actual Monte Carlo simulation algorithm. The same argument applies
447: to the radiation transfer functions $\Delta_\ell(r)$ defined in (\ref{eqn:rtf}).
448:
449:
450: Non-Gaussian temperature maps
451: produced with the algorithms described in this section had been
452: already described in \cite{liguori}. Adding polarization to those maps
453: is conceptually straightforward: all one needs to do
454: is to replace $X = T$ with $X = E$ in the previous expressions. This
455: amounts to generating the primordial curvature perturbation in exactly
456: the same way for temperature and
457: polarization maps and finally to use polarization transfer functions
458: in place of temperature transfer functions in the line of sight
459: integral (\ref{eqn:phi2alm}) in order to get $a_{\ell m}^E$. Despite
460: its conceptual immediateness, including polarization in the maps
461: is not technically straightforward. The reason is that CMB
462: polarization is produced by different physical mechanisms with respect
463: to those producing CMB temperature anisotropies.
464: The polarization transfer functions $\Delta^E_\ell(r)$
465: present then several differences with respect to $\Delta^T_\ell(r)$
466: and must be sampled in a different way, thus changing sampling regions
467: and discretization of the r-coordinate which appears in
468: $\Phi_{\ell m}(r)$, $\Delta_\ell(r)$, $W_\ell(r,r_1)$. These
469: technical details will be illustrated in the following two sections.
470:
471:
472: \subsection{Real space transfer functions}\label{sec:rstf}
473:
474: The cosmological model we chose to generate our non-Gaussian maps is
475: characterized by the following parameters: $\Omega_{cdm} = 0.239$,
476: $\Omega_b = 0.042$, $\Omega_\Lambda =
477: 0.719$, $\tau = 0.09$, $h = 0.73$. We considered both a scale
478: invariant primordial spectral index $n=1$ and $n=0.95$, the latest one
479: being the WMAP 3-years best-fit value \cite{NGWMAP3}. Starting from these
480: parameters we generate and extract the Fourier space radiation
481: transfer functions $\Delta^X_\ell(k)$ from a Boltzmann integrator, like for example
482: CMBfast, and then make the integral (\ref{eqn:rtf}) to get
483: $\Delta^X_\ell(r)$. The behavior of $\Delta^X_\ell(r)$ reflects the
484: underlying temperature and polarization CMB physics. In
485: Fig. \ref{fig:rtf1}, we plot the real space
486: temperature and polarization transfer functions for several different
487: values of $\ell > 20$. For the model under examination the conformal time at
488: last scattering, defined
489: as the peak of the visibility function, is $\tau_* \simeq 277 \; \rm Mpc$
490: ($c= 1$) while the present cosmic horizon is $\tau_0 \simeq 13682 \; \rm
491: Mpc$. We thus expect most of the signal to be generated at $r_* \equiv
492: \tau_0 -\tau_* \simeq
493: 13400 \; \rm Mpc$, consistently with what shown in the figure. Despite
494: being smaller, contributions at lower redshifts cannot be neglected. We know
495: that both reionization and the late integrated Sachs Wolfe effect
496: produce significant contributions, especially at low $\ell$'s. The
497: reionization signal is particularly important for polarization, as it
498: produces the observed bump at low $\ell$'s in the polarization
499: spectrum. This is reflected in the behavior of the temperature and
500: polarization transfer functions at low $\ell$ in the
501: post-recombination region, accordingly to what depicted in
502: Fig. \ref{fig:rtf2} and Fig. \ref{fig:rtf3}.
503: According to the radiative transfer
504: physics contained in $\Delta_\ell(r)$, the last scattering surface
505: must be sampled using a large
506: number of points in order to accurately reproduce the acoustic
507: oscillations in the CMB spectrum, while in the low redshift region a
508: good accuracy can be reached with a coarser sampling. More details
509: about the sampled regions and intervals are in table
510: \ref{tab:rsampling}; the idea was to refine the r-grid until a good
511: accuracy in the final $C_\ell$ from the simulated map was reached (see
512: Fig. \ref{fig:cl}). However further sampling optimization in order to
513: improve the speed of the algorithm is probably possible; an algorithm
514: aimed at this kind of optimization is described in
515: \cite{Smith} in the context of bispectrum estimation.
516:
517:
518:
519: \bigskip
520:
521: \begin{table}
522: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
523: \hline
524: {\bf Region} & {\bf Bounds} & {$\mathbf{\Delta r}$} & {\bf N. of shells} \\
525: \hline
526: Recombination & $12632 \; {\rm Mpc} < r < 13682 \; {\rm Mpc}$ & $3.5
527: \rm\; Mpc$ & $300$ \\
528: \hline
529: Reionization 1 & $10007 \; {\rm Mpc} < r < 12632 \; {\rm Mpc}$ & $105
530: \rm Mpc$ & $25$ \\
531: \hline
532: Reionization 2 & $9377 \; {\rm Mpc} < r < 10007 \; {\rm Mpc}$ & $35
533: \rm Mpc$ & $18$ \\
534: \hline
535: Low redshifts & $0 \; {\rm Mpc} < r < 9377 \; {\rm Mpc}$ & $105 \rm
536: Mpc$ & $89$ \\
537: \hline
538: \end{tabular}\caption{Sampling of the
539: r-coordinate in different regions of the simulation box. Different
540: intervals must be sampled with different resolutions, according to
541: the radiative transfer physics described in section \ref{sec:rstf}.}
542: \label{tab:rsampling}
543: \end{table}
544:
545:
546:
547: \subsection{Filter functions}
548:
549: After generating the real radiation transfer functions and fixing the
550: radial coordinate grid, the $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ functions defined in
551: (\ref{eqn:filter}) must be generated for
552: each value of $\ell$, $r$. Due to the highly oscillatory nature of
553: the Bessel functions appearing in the definition of $W_\ell(r,r_1)$,
554: a large number of points is required when sampling the integrand.
555: This makes the numerical computation
556: of $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ quite slow. However, as we were already stressing
557: above, this is not a problem as the $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ functions are
558: pre-computed and stored before the actual Monte Carlo map generation.
559: When computing $W_\ell$ it is useful to make the simple substitution
560: $t = kr$ in the integrand of (\ref{eqn:filter}). This substitution yields:
561:
562: \be
563: W_\ell(r,r_1) = 2 \pi r^{\frac{-n-2}{2}} I_\ell \left( \frac{r_1}{r} \right) \; ,
564: \ee
565:
566: where we have defined:
567:
568: \be
569: I_\ell(x) \equiv \int dt t^{\frac{n}{2}} j_l(t) j_l(tx) \; .
570: \ee
571:
572: From the last formulae we see that $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ actually depends
573: only on the ratio ${r_1/r}$ and not on $r_1$ and $r$ separately. This
574: allows to reduce the dimensionality of the problem and thus to speed up
575: the calculations.
576:
577: In figures \ref{fig:wl1} and \ref{fig:wl2} we plot some $W_\ell$
578: functions for different values of $\ell$, $r$, $r_1$. As expected,
579: $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ approximates a Dirac delta function
580: centered on $r$ with increasing accuracy for larger and larger
581: $\ell$.
582: So for $l \gtrsim 10$
583: the coordinate $r_1$ needs to be sampled in a narrow region centered
584: around $r$. On the other hand, for low values of $\ell$,
585: $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ is non-negligible over a broad
586: $r_1$ range.
587: Thus a coarser $r_1$ sampling over a larger $r_1$ interval is
588: required in this case. To check the accuracy of the numerical
589: computation of $W_\ell(r,r_1)$
590: it is useful to compute the angular power spectrum of $\Phi^L_{\ell
591: m}(r)$ on a given spherical shell. Starting from formula
592: (\ref{eqn:nlm2phil}), and using the correlation properties of the
593: coefficients $n_{\ell m}(r_1)$ described by eqn. (\ref{eqn:whitenoise}) one gets:
594:
595: \bea
596: \left\langle \Phi_{\ell_1 m_1}^L(x) \Phi_{\ell_2 m_2}^{L*}(y) \right\rangle & = &
597: \frac{2}{\pi}\delta_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \delta_{m_1 m_2} \int dr_1 dr_2
598: r_1^2 r_2^2 \left[ \langle n_{\ell_1 m_1}(r_1) n_{\ell_2 m_2}^*(r_2) \rangle
599: \right. \times \nonumber \\
600: & & \left. \times \, W_{\ell_1}(x,r_1) W_{\ell_2}(y,r_2) \right] \nonumber \\
601: & = & \frac{2}{\pi} \int dr_1 dr_2 r_1^2 r_2^2
602: \frac{\delta^{(D)}(r_1-r_2)}{r_1^2} W_{\ell_1}(x,r_1)
603: W_{\ell_2}(y,r_2) \nonumber \\
604: & = & \frac{2}{\pi} \delta_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \delta_{m_1 m_2} \int dr_1
605: r_1^2 W_{\ell_1}(x,r_1) W_{\ell_2}(y,r_2) \; ,
606: \eea
607:
608: which immediately yields:
609:
610: \be\label{eqn:shellnormWl}
611: \langle |\Phi_{\ell m}^L(r)|^2 \rangle = \frac{2}{\pi} \int dr_1 r_1^2
612: W_\ell^2(r,r_1) \; .
613: \ee
614:
615: Alternatively it is possible to use the following formula for the $\Phi_{\ell
616: m}$ correlation function \cite{liguori}:
617:
618: \be
619: \left\langle \Phi_{\ell_1 m_1}^L(x) \Phi_{\ell_2 m_2}^{L*}(y)
620: \right\rangle = \frac{2}{\pi} \delta_{\ell_1}^{\ell_2}
621: \delta_{m_1}^{m_2} \int dk k^2 P_\Phi(k) j_{\ell_1}(kx) j_{\ell_2}(ky)
622: \; ,
623: \ee
624:
625: to find:
626:
627: \be
628: \langle |\Phi_{\ell m}^L(r)|^2 \rangle = \frac{2}{\pi} \int dk k^2
629: P(k) j^2_{\ell}(kr) \; .
630: \ee
631:
632: For a primordial curvature perturbation power spectrum described by a power law
633: expression, $P(k) = Ak^{n-4}$, and using a well-known formula for the
634: Sachs-Wolfe effect, one finally gets:
635:
636: \be\label{eqn:shellnormgamma}
637: \langle |\Phi_{\ell m}^L(r)|^2 \rangle =
638: \frac{2^{n-3} A \, r^{1-n}}{\pi}
639: \frac{\Gamma \left(\ell+\frac{n}{2}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \Gamma
640: \left(3-n \right)}{\Gamma \left(\ell+\frac{5}{2}-\frac{n}{2} \right)
641: \Gamma^2 \left(2-\frac{n}{2}\right)} \; .
642: \ee
643:
644: For a scale invariant primordial power spectrum one obtains, as expected,
645: $|\langle |\Phi_{\ell m}^L(r)|^2 \rangle| \propto {1/l(l+1)}$.
646: As we were anticipating above, one can use formulae (\ref{eqn:shellnormWl}) and
647: (\ref{eqn:shellnormgamma}) to test the $\Phi_{\ell m}(r)$ power
648: spectrum on different shells and the normalization of
649: $W_\ell(r,r_1)$. Results from our simulations are shown in picture
650: \ref{fig:shellnorm}.
651:
652: \begin{table}
653: \begin{center}
654: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
655: \hline
656: {\bf Noise} & {\bf Sky-cut} & $\mathbf{\langle f_{\rm NL}
657: \rangle}$ & $\mathbf{\sigma_{maps}}$ & $\mathbf{\sigma_{fisher}}$ \\
658: \hline
659: No & No & $102.5$ & $11.1$ & $6.9$ \\
660: \hline
661: Homogeneous & No & $104.5$ & $15.8$ & $11$ \\
662: \hline
663: Homogeneous & $f_{sky} = 80$ & $105.2$ & $25.7$ & $12.2$ \\
664: \hline
665: \end{tabular}\caption{Results obtained from the application of the
666: fast temperature $+$ polarization cubic statistics of \cite{Yadav}
667: to a set of 300 non-Gaussian maps with an input $\fnl$ of $100$. First
668: column describes the noise properties of the map, second column is the
669: adopted sky-cut, third column is the average $f_{\rm NL}$ measured by the
670: estimators, fourth column is the measured $\fnl$ standard deviation,
671: fifth column is the expected standard deviation from a Fisher matrix
672: analysis (i.e. neglecting corrections from the non-Gaussian part of
673: the multipoles).}
674: \label{tab:KSWresults}
675: \end{center}
676: \end{table}
677:
678:
679: \begin{figure}[t!]
680: \begin{center}
681: \includegraphics[height=0.5\textheight, width = 0.7\textwidth]{shells.eps}
682: \caption{Angular power spectrum of the Gaussian curvature perturbation multipoles
683: $\Phi_{\ell m}^{\rm L}(r)$ obtained by averaging over all the
684: spherical shells of a given simulation. In this example we consider a spectral index
685: $n = 0.95$ and divide $|\Phi_{\ell m}^{\rm L}(r)|$ by $\sqrt{r^{(1-n)}}$
686: in order to make the normalization of the spectrum
687: independent of the shell radius before averaging. We compare the
688: results extracted from our simulations (red triangles) to the expected shell power
689: spectrum obtained from formula (\ref{eqn:shellnormgamma}), (blue line)}\label{fig:shellnorm}
690: \end{center}
691: \end{figure}
692:
693: \begin{figure}[t!]
694: \begin{center}
695: \includegraphics[height=0.5\textheight, width = 0.7\textwidth]{wl1.eps}
696: \caption{Filter functions $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ plotted as a function
697: of $r_1$ for two different fixed
698: values of $r$. Here we consider low l-values $l \leq 10$, for which
699: the $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ are different from zero and must therefore be
700: sampled in a large $r_1$ region. At high $\ell$ these functions
701: become more and more peaked around $r$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:wl2}.}\label{fig:wl1}
702: \end{center}
703: \end{figure}
704:
705: \begin{figure}[t!]
706: \begin{center}
707: \includegraphics[height=0.5\textheight,width = 0.7\textwidth]{wl2.eps}
708: \caption{Filter functions $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ plotted as a function
709: of $r_1$ for two different fixed
710: values of $r$. As $\ell$ gets larger, the $W_\ell(r,r_1)$ becomes
711: more and more narrowly peaked around $r$.}\label{fig:wl2}
712: \end{center}
713: \end{figure}
714:
715:
716:
717: \section{Fast cubic statistics and non-Gaussian maps}
718:
719: In order to test our algorithm we applied the temperature $+$
720: polarization fast-cubic statistics
721: described in \cite{Yadav} to a set of $300$
722: non-Gaussian simulations obtained from the cosmological
723: parameters $\Omega_b = 0.042$, $\Omega_{cdm} = 0.239$, $\Omega_L = 0.719$,
724: $h = 0.73$
725: $n = 1$, $\tau = 0.09$. In figure \ref{fig:maps} we show a
726: temperature and a
727: polarization intensity map extracted from this set.
728:
729:
730: When skycut is included a non-trivial correlation between large and
731: small $\ell$ is introduced. This correlation in turn produces a leakage of
732: power from high to low multipoles which tends to bias the estimator.
733: This effect has been accurately studied in \cite{Yadav}, where it has
734: also been shown that removing the lowest multipoles from the analysis
735: allows to circumvent this problem without a significant loss of
736: signal. For this reason the
737: first $30$ multipoles were not used in our analysis when a skycut was
738: considered. The exact $\ell_{min}$ was
739: determined by preliminary applying the estimator to a set of Gaussian
740: simulation and estimating its variance as a function of $\ell_{min}$. We considered different
741: sky cut levels and accounted for the presence of homogeneous noise. Our
742: results are summarized in table \ref{tab:KSWresults} .
743:
744:
745: \begin{figure*}
746: \begin{center}
747: \subfigure{\includegraphics[height=0.23\textheight,width =
748: 0.45\textwidth, angle=0]{tempmap_fnl0.ps}} \qquad
749: \subfigure{\includegraphics[height=0.35\textheight,width =
750: 0.3\textwidth,angle=90]{tempmap_fnl3000.ps}} \\
751: \subfigure{\includegraphics[height=0.35\textheight,width =
752: 0.3\textwidth,angle=90]{modmap_fnl0.ps}} \qquad
753: \subfigure{\includegraphics[height=0.35\textheight,width =
754: 0.3\textwidth,angle=90]{modmap_fnl3000.ps}}
755: \end{center}
756:
757: \caption{Left column: temperature and polarization intensity Gaussian
758: CMB simulations obtained from our algorithm. Polarization intensity
759: is defined as $I \equiv \sqrt{Q^2 + U^2}$ where $Q$ and $U$
760: are the Stokes parameters. Right column: temperature and polarization
761: non-Gaussian maps with the same Gaussian seed as in the left column
762: and $\fnl = 3000$. The reason for the choice of such a large $\fnl$
763: is that we wanted to make non-Gaussian effects visible by eye in the
764: figures. The cosmological model adopted for this plots is
765: characterized by: $\Omega_b = 0.042$, $\Omega_{cdm} = 0.239$, $\Omega_L
766: = 0.719$, $h = 0.73$, $n = 1$, $\tau = 0.09$. Temperatures are in
767: $mK$.}\label{fig:maps}
768: \end{figure*}
769:
770:
771:
772:
773: Our computation provides evidence for the unbiasedness of the estimator
774: but shows at
775: the same time a discrepancy between the calculated error bars and
776: Fisher matrix based expectations (note that these expectations are
777: obtained at zeroth order in $\fnl$, thus neglecting $\fnl$-dependent
778: terms in the three point function). These discrepancies are $\fnl$
779: dependent: for small undetectable $\fnl$ we find a good agreement
780: between Fisher matrix estimates and our results whereas increasing
781: values of $\fnl$ produce larger and larger differences. This effect
782: had been predicted and explained by the authors of
783: \cite{Creminelli2}. It arises from $\fnl$ dependent correction terms
784: in the variance of the estimator. These terms become important when
785: $\fnl$ is detected at several sigma. The comparison of our
786: results with those in \cite{Creminelli2} is necessarily approximate
787: because the latter were
788: obtained in the flat-sky approximation and ignoring radiation
789: transfer functions. However we can still cross-check for a qualitative
790: agreement between the two results. Using the above approximations,
791: the $\fnl$-dependent formula describing the estimator variance is:
792:
793: \be
794: \sigma^2 = \langle \sigma^2 \rangle_{\fnl = 0} \left(
795: 1 + \frac{8 \fnl^2 A N_{pix}}{\pi \ln N_{pix}} \right) \; ,
796: \ee
797:
798: where $ \langle \sigma^2 \rangle_{\fnl = 0}$ is the estimator variance
799: in the Gaussian case (i.e. the variance estimated from the Fisher
800: matrix), $A$ is the amplitude of primordial perturbations and
801: $N_{pix}$ is the number of pixels in the map. To simplify the notation
802: we define $\sigma^2_0 \equiv \langle \sigma^2 \rangle_{\fnl = 0}$.
803: Following \cite{Creminelli2} we consider an $\fnl$ detection at
804: $n\sigma_0$. From the formula above:
805:
806: \be
807: \sigma^2 = \sigma_0^2 + \frac{2 n^2
808: \sigma_0^2}{\pi \ln^2 N_{pix}} \; .
809: \ee
810:
811: We then find the expected relative correction to the variance as:
812:
813: \be\label{eqn:relativecorr}
814: \frac{\langle \sigma^2 \rangle}{\sigma_0^2} -1 = \frac{2 n^2}{\pi \ln^2 N_{pix}} \; .
815: \ee
816:
817: In our analysis we have $N_{pix} = 3145728$ (HEALPix $nside =512$) and
818: $\sigma_0 = 6.9$ for the case without sky-cut or noise (see second
819: line of table \ref{tab:KSWresults}). We have an input $\fnl$ of $100$, so
820: this corresponds to $n = 14.5$. Plugging this numbers into the equation
821: above we obtain a relative correction of $0.6$ which is about one
822: third of the
823: observed ${\sigma^2/\sigma_0^2 -1 } = 1.6$ but in qualitative
824: agreement considering the approximations contained in
825: eqn.~(\ref{eqn:relativecorr}). For large enough $\fnl$
826: eqn.~(\ref{eqn:relativecorr}) also
827: predicts the variance of the estimator to decrease as ${1/\ln^2 N_{pix}
828: \sim {1/\ln \ell_{max}}}$, much slower than the Fisher matrix forecast of
829: $\sigma \sim {1/\ell_{max}}$. We explicitly tested this prediction on sets
830: of simulated maps with different $\fnl,N_{pix},\ell_{max}$ and we found
831: a good agreement between theory and simulations, as depicted in figure
832: \ref{fig:sigmascaling}. Thus the results
833: obtained analytically in \cite{Creminelli2} under several simplified
834: assumptions are confirmed by our numerical approach, which works in
835: full-sky and includes radiation transfer functions.
836:
837: \begin{figure}[t!]
838: \begin{center}
839: \includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight, width = 0.8\textwidth]{standdev_V2.ps}
840: \caption{Error bars estimated from different sets of simulations
841: including various $\ell_{lmax}$ and input $\fnl$. The error bars are
842: compared to the corresponding Fisher matrix forecast. As explained in the text,
843: an $\fnl$-dependent correction to the estimator variance make
844: the error bars to scale as ${1/\ln \ell_{max}}$ instead of
845: ${1/\ell_{max}}$ when $\fnl$ is large enough to produce a several
846: sigma detection at a given angular resolution.}\label{fig:sigmascaling}
847: \end{center}
848: \end{figure}
849:
850:
851: \section{Computational requirements and possible applications}
852:
853: Our algorithm takes about $3$ hours on a normal PC
854: to generate a map with $\ell_{max} = 500$,
855: $N_{pix} \simeq 10^6$, corresponding to an analysis at
856: WMAP angular resolution.
857: The most time consuming part is the computation of the harmonic
858: transforms required to generate $\Phi^{\rm NL}_{\ell m}$ from
859: $\Phi^{\rm L}_{\ell m}$. As we generate the primordial curvature perturbation in
860: about $400$ spherical shells we need to make $400$ calls to the
861: HEALpix synfast
862: and anafast subroutines respectively. Thus we can roughly quantify the
863: CPU time for a non-Gaussian simulation at a given resolution as the
864: time required to produce $800$ Gaussian maps at the same resolution.
865: It is thus clear that the generation of maps at the resolution
866: achieved by {\em Planck} constitutes a very intensive computational
867: task and requires a parallelization of the algorithm. Only the
868: temperature version of the code has been parallelized so far, enabling
869: us to generate a map at $\ell_{\max} = 3000$, $nside = 2048$ in about
870: $2$ hours on $60$ processors. A set of $300$ temperature
871: maps with this angular resolution has been generated and
872: tested. Extending the parallel code in order to include polarization
873: should be straightforward, because all the sampling-related problems have
874: been already solved for the serial version of the algorithm presented
875: in this paper and including polarization transfer functions is
876: trivial.
877: The total CPU time to generate a map is going to be
878: unchanged with respect to the temperature-only version, because the
879: primordial curvature perturbation generation scheme is identical and the total
880: number of shells is basically the same. We would like to note here
881: that a different algorithm has been proposed for the
882: generation of non-Gaussian maps in \cite{Smith}. This algorithm can
883: generate maps with a given two and three point function but does not
884: reproduce the higher order correlation functions predicted by the model. By
885: making this approximation, the authors of \cite{Smith} are able to
886: dramatically speed up the computation ($\sim 3$ minutes for a map at
887: $\ell_{max} = 1000$ on a single processor). In the limit of weak
888: non-Gaussianity cite{note1} neglecting higher
889: order correlation functions should be a good approximation. In
890: particular
891: it has been explicitly shown in \cite{Creminelli2} that no
892: additional information on $\fnl$ can be added by applying estimators
893: based on higher order correlators. This conclusion is strictly related
894: to the presence of $\fnl$-dependent correction terms in the variance
895: of the local bispectrum.
896: Note however that these terms have originally been studied in
897: flat-sky approximation and neglecting transfer functions. As an
898: application of our algorithm, in the previous section of this paper
899: we have explicitly cross-checked the results
900: of \cite{Creminelli2} using our simulations which are full-sky and
901: account for radiative transfer \cite{note2}
902:
903: We would also like to stress that being
904: able to correctly reproduce higher order correlation functions in the
905: simulations was fundamental in order to make this test. The reason is
906: that what we are studying here is actually an $\fnl$-dependent
907: correction to the 6-point function (bispectrum variance) coming from
908: a product of the 2-point function with the 4-point function (see again
909: \cite{Creminelli2} for further details).
910:
911: Another obvious application for these simulated maps is given by the
912: possibility
913: to use them in order to test and calibrate not only the bispectrum but
914: any kind of estimator (like e.g. Minkowski functionals, wavelets and
915: so on).
916: In particular the analytical formulae of the Minkowski functionals
917: recently derived by \cite{hikage} may be compared with our
918: simulations of the temperature maps.
919: Our preliminary investigation shows a very good agreement,
920: which gives us further confidence in the accuracy of the simulated
921: temperature maps.
922: Despite the optimality of the bispectrum just discussed above, using
923: different estimators is still important, especially in view of a possible $\fnl$
924: detection by Planck. Alternative estimators should in fact be used in
925: this case in order to cross-validate such detection.
926:
927: Furthermore, it is interesting to notice that the algorithm we are describing is
928: not only able to generate non-Gaussian CMB maps, but it also produces
929: maps of the primordial curvature perturbation $\Phi(r,\hat{r})$,
930: sampled in the
931: relevant radii for the generation of the final CMB signal. This allows us
932: to apply and test tomographic reconstruction techniques of the
933: curvature perturbation like those proposed in \cite{tomography}. This
934: will be the object of a forthcoming publication \cite{yadavinprep}.
935: Finally we would like
936: to observe that the same elegant $r$-sampling optimization technique
937: introduced in \cite{Smith} can be implemented in our case in order
938: to drastically
939: reduce the number of radii in which the primordial curvature perturbation must be
940: evaluated. Following the results of \cite{Smith},
941: a good accuracy in
942: the final maps should be obtained using only $20$ spherical shells in
943: our code after this optimization. As we are now using $400$ shells, we
944: estimate a speed improvement of a factor $\sim 20$. In this way the
945: parallel version of the algorithm should allow the generation of a map
946: at full Planck resolution in $\sim$ $10$ minutes against the present
947: $2$ hours. For this reason CPU time does not seem to be a problem and
948: tests of non-Gaussianity at {\em Planck} angular resolution using
949: our algorithm are perfectly feasible.
950:
951:
952:
953: \section{Conclusions}
954:
955: In this paper the algorithm for the generation of
956: non-Gaussian primordial CMB maps originally introduced in
957: \cite{liguori} has been
958: generalized by including a polarization component in the
959: simulations.
960: Using this generalized algorithm
961: we have produced a set of $300$ temperature and polarization
962: maps at WMAP angular resolution. We have then
963: analyzed these simulations using the fast cubic temperature $+$ polarization
964: statistics recently introduced by the authors of \cite{Yadav}. We have
965: verified that we can extract the correct input $\fnl$ from the maps,
966: thus checking at the same time both the unbiasedness of the estimator and
967: the reliability of the simulations. We also studied the estimator
968: variance on different sets of maps including various angular resolutions and
969: input $\fnl$. We found that an $\fnl$-dependent
970: correction to the estimator variance induces a discrepancy between
971: the error bars extracted from the simulations and the Fisher matrix
972: estimate of the same error bars at $\fnl = 0$. We therefore confirmed
973: previous findings by the authors \cite{Creminelli2}. At the same
974: time, differently from previous approaches, our
975: numerical Monte Carlo analysis allowed us to work in full sky and
976: account for radiation transfer functions. We finally discussed future
977: applications of our
978: simulations, which will include a detailed analysis of non-Gaussian temperature
979: and polarization simulations at Planck angular resolution.
980:
981:
982: \acknowledgments{We acknowledge the use of the HEALpix software
983: \cite{gorski1, gorski2} (see http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/ for
984: further information on HEALpix). We acknowledge partial financial
985: support from from the ASI contract Planck LFI Activity of Phase E2.
986: We would like to thank Paolo Cabella for
987: stimulating discussions and contributions in an early phase of this
988: project. We would also like to thank Paolo Creminelli for useful
989: discussions. ML is supported by PPARC.}
990:
991:
992:
993:
994: \begin{thebibliography}{}
995:
996: \bibitem{acqua}
997: V.~Acquaviva, N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
998: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 667 (2003) 119, [arXiv:astro-ph/0209156]
999:
1000: \bibitem{maldacena}
1001: J.~Maldacena, JHEP\ 0305 (2003) 013, [arXiv:astro-ph/0210603]
1002:
1003: \bibitem{Lyth} D.H. Lyth, C. Ungarelli, D. Wands, Phys.Rev. D67 (2003)
1004: 023503, [arXiv:astro-ph/0208055]
1005:
1006: \bibitem{BMR} N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, A. Riotto,
1007: JHEP 0404 (2004) 006, [arXiv:astro-ph/0308088]
1008:
1009: \bibitem{komrev} N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese, A. Riotto,
1010: Phys.Rept. 402 (2004) 103-266, [arXiv:astro-ph/0406398]
1011:
1012: \bibitem{Ginfl} N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Creminelli,
1013: S. Mukohyama, M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 0404 (2004) 001, [arXiv:hep-ph/0312100]
1014:
1015: \bibitem{DBI1} M. Alishahiha, E. Silverstein, D. Tong Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 123505,
1016: [arXiv:hep-th/0404084]
1017:
1018: \bibitem{DBI2} X. Chen, Phys.Rev. D72 (2005) 123518, [arXiv:astro-ph/0507053]
1019:
1020: \bibitem{Shellard} G.I. Rigopoulos, E.P.S. Shellard, B.J.W. van Tent, [arXiv:astro-ph/0511041]
1021:
1022: \bibitem{multifield} L.E. Allen, S. Gupta, D. Wands,
1023: JCAP 0601 (2006) 006, [arXiv:astro-ph/0509719]
1024:
1025: \bibitem{Sefusatti} E. Sefusatti and E. Komatsu, [arXiv:0705.0343]
1026:
1027: \bibitem{Pillepich} A. Pillepich, C. Porciani, S. Matarrese,
1028: Astrophys.J. 662, 1 (2007) 1-14, [arXiv:astro-ph/0611126]
1029:
1030: \bibitem{Cooray} A. Cooray, Phys.Rev.Lett. 97 (2006) 261301,
1031: [arXiv:astro-ph/0610257]
1032:
1033: \bibitem{NGWMAP1} E. Komatsu, et al., Astrophys.J.Suppl. 143 (2003) 119
1034:
1035: \bibitem{NGWMAP3} D.N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys.J.Suppl. 170 (2007)
1036: 377
1037:
1038: \bibitem{Creminelli2} P. Creminelli, L. Senatore, M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP
1039: 0703 (2007) 005, [arXiv:astro-ph/0606001]
1040:
1041: \bibitem{KS2001} E. Komatsu and D. Spergel, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001)
1042: 063002, [arXiv:astro-ph/0005036]
1043:
1044: \bibitem{BabichZalda} D. Babich, M. Zaldarriaga, Phys.Rev. D70 (2004)
1045: 083005, [arXiv:astro-ph/0408455]
1046:
1047: \bibitem{Yadav} A. P. S. Yadav, E. Komatsu, B. D. Wandelt,
1048: arXiv:astro-ph/0701921
1049:
1050: \bibitem{KSW} E. Komatsu, B. Wandelt, D. Spergel, Astrophys.J. 634
1051: (2005) 14-19, [arXiv:astro-ph/0305189]
1052:
1053: \bibitem{CreminelliKSW} P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis, L.
1054: Senatore, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 0605 (2006) 004
1055:
1056: \bibitem{Cornish} N.J. Cornish, D.N. Spergel, G.D. Starkman, E. Komatsu,
1057: Phys.Rev.Lett. 92 (2004) 201302
1058:
1059: \bibitem{liguori} M. Liguori, S. Matarrese, L. Moscardini,
1060: Astrophys.J. 597 (2003) 57-65, [arXiv:astro-ph/0306248]
1061:
1062: \bibitem{Smith} K. M. Smith, M. Zaldarriaga, [arXiv:astro-ph/0612571]
1063:
1064: \bibitem{hikage} C. Hikage, E. Komatsu, T. Matsubara,
1065: Astrophys. J., 653 (2006) 11
1066:
1067: \bibitem{tomography} A. P. S. Yadav, B. D. Wandelt,
1068: Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 123004, [arXiv:astro-ph/0505386]
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072: \bibitem{yadavinprep} A. P. S. Yadav {\em et al.}, in preparation
1073:
1074: \bibitem{gorski1} K.M. Gorski, et al., Astrophys.J. 622 (2005)
1075: 759-771, [arXiv:astro-ph/0409513 ]
1076:
1077: \bibitem{gorski2} K.M. Gorski, et al., [arXiv:astro-ph/9905275]
1078:
1079: \bibitem{note1} This limit is verified in our case as non-Gaussianity from inflation is small.
1080:
1081: \bibitem{note2} As a subject of future work, all these checks will be repeated by taking into account
1082: possible contaminant effects, like e.g. foreground residuals,
1083: second order anisotropies, systematics,
1084: map-making effects and so on, in order to study their impact on the estimator.
1085:
1086: \end{thebibliography}
1087:
1088: \end{document}
1089:
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093: