1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: %\documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: \usepackage{float}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{epsfig,floatflt}

7: \usepackage{subfigure}

8: 

9: \begin{document}

10: 

11: \title{The joint large-scale foreground---CMB posteriors of the 3-year WMAP data}

12: 

13: \author{H.\ K.\ Eriksen\altaffilmark{1,2,3}, C.

14:   Dickinson\altaffilmark{4}, J. B. Jewell\altaffilmark{4}, A. J.

15:   Banday\altaffilmark{5}, K. M. G\'{o}rski\altaffilmark{4,7}, C. R.

16:   Lawrence\altaffilmark{4}}

17: 

18: \altaffiltext{1}{email: h.k.k.eriksen@astro.uio.no}

19: 

20: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of

21: Oslo, P.O.\ Box 1029 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway}

22: 

23: \altaffiltext{3}{Centre of

24: Mathematics for Applications, University of Oslo, P.O.\ Box 1053

25: Blindern, N-0316 Oslo}

26: 

27: \altaffiltext{4}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute

28: of Technology, Pasadena CA 91109} 

29: 

30: \altaffiltext{5}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,

31: Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.\ 1, Postfach 1317, D-85741 Garching bei

32: M\"unchen, Germany}

33: 

34: \altaffiltext{6}{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478 Warszawa,

35:   Poland}

36: 

37: \date{Received - / Accepted -}

38: 

39: \begin{abstract}

40:   Using a Gibbs sampling algorithm for joint CMB estimation and

41:   component separation, we compute the large-scale CMB and foreground

42:   posteriors of the 3-yr WMAP temperature data.  Our parametric data

43:   model includes the cosmological CMB signal and instrumental noise, a

44:   single power law foreground component with free amplitude and

45:   spectral index for each pixel, a thermal dust template with a single

46:   free overall amplitude, and free monopoles and dipoles at each

47:   frequency. This simple model yields a surprisingly good fit to the

48:   data over the full frequency range from 23 to 94\,GHz.  We obtain a

49:   new estimate of the CMB sky signal and power spectrum, and a new

50:   foreground model, including a measurement of the effective spectral

51:   index over the high-latitude sky.  A particularly significant result

52:   is the detection of a common spurious offset in all frequency bands

53:   of $\sim-13\,\mu\textrm{K}$, as well as a dipole in the V-band data.

54:   Correcting for these is essential when determining the effective

55:   spectral index of the foregrounds. We find that our new foreground

56:   model is in good agreement with template-based model presented by

57:   the WMAP team, but not with their MEM reconstruction. We believe the

58:   latter may be at least partially compromised by the residual offsets

59:   and dipoles in the data.  Fortunately, the CMB power spectrum is not

60:   significantly affected by these issues, as our new spectrum is in

61:   excellent agreement with that published by the WMAP team. The

62:   corresponding cosmological parameters are also virtually unchanged.

63: \end{abstract}

64: 

65: \keywords{cosmic microwave background --- cosmology: observations --- 

66: methods: numerical}

67: 

68: \maketitle

69: 

70: \section{Introduction}

71: 

72: A major challenge in CMB research is component separation, which can

73: be summarized in two questions. First, how can we separate reliably

74: the valuable cosmological signal from confusing foreground emission?

75: Second, how can we propagate accurately the errors induced by this

76: process through to the final analysis products, such as the CMB power

77: spectrum and cosmological parameters?

78: 

79: During the last few years, a new analysis framework capable of

80: addressing these issues in a statistically consistent approach has

81: been developed. This framework is Bayesian in nature, and depends

82: critically on the Gibbs sampling algorithm as its main computational

83: engine. The pioneering ideas were described by

84: \citet{jewell:2004} and \citet{wandelt:2004}, and later implemented

85: for modern CMB data sets for temperature and polarization by

86: \citet{eriksen:2004a} and \citet{larson:2007}, respectively.

87: Applications to the 1-yr and 3-yr WMAP data \citep{bennett:2003a,

88:   hinshaw:2007, page:2007} were described by \citet{odwyer:2004}, and

89: \citet{eriksen:2006,eriksen:2007a}. These papers mainly focused on the

90: cosmological CMB signal, and adopted the foreground corrected data

91: provided by the WMAP team.

92: 

93: Recently this algorithm was extended to include internal component

94: separation capabilities by \citet{eriksen:2007b}.  Using very general

95: parameterizations of the foreground components, this method produces

96: the full joint and exact foreground-CMB posterior, and therefore

97: allows us both to estimate each component separately through

98: marginalized statistics and to propagate the foreground uncertainties

99: through to the final CMB products. The implementation of this

100: algorithm used in this paper is called ``Commander'', and is a direct

101: descendant of the code presented by \citet{eriksen:2004a}.

102: 

103: In this Letter, we apply the method to the 3-yr WMAP temperature

104: observations \citep{hinshaw:2007}.  This data set, with five frequency

105: bands, allows only very limited foreground models; however, the

106: analysis provides a powerful demonstration of the capabilities of the

107: method. For a comprehensive analysis of a controlled simulation with

108: identical properties to this data set, see \citet{eriksen:2007b}.

109: 

110: \section{Data}

111: \label{sec:data}

112: 

113: We consider the 3-yr WMAP temperature data, provided on

114: Lambda\footnote{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov} in the form of sky maps

115: from ten ``differencing assemblies'' covering the frequency range

116: between 23 and 94\,GHz. Since our current implementation of the Gibbs

117: foreground sampler can only handle sky maps with identical beam

118: response \citep{eriksen:2007b}, we downgrade each of these maps to a

119: common resolution of $3^\circ$ FWHM and repixelize at a

120: HEALPix\footnote{http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov} resolution of

121: $N_{\textrm{side}}=64$, corresponding to a pixel size of $55'$. These

122: ten maps are then co-added by frequency into five single frequency

123: band maps at 23, 33, 41, 64 and 94\,GHz (K, Ka, Q, V and W-bands,

124: respectively).

125: 

126: The power from the instrumental noise is less than 1\% of the CMB

127: signal at $\ell=50$ in the V- and W-bands, and less than 2\% at

128: $\ell=100$ \citep{eriksen:2007b}. To regularize the noise covariance

129: matrix at high spatial frequencies, we added $2\,\mu\textrm{K}$ per

130: $3^\circ$ pixel of uniform white noise.  This noise is insignificant

131: at low multipoles, but dominates the signal near the spherical

132: harmonic truncation limit of $\ell_{\textrm{max}}=150$.  We then have

133: five frequency maps at a common resolution of $3^{\circ}$ FWHM, with

134: signal-to-noise ratio of unity at $\ell \sim 120$, and strongly

135: bandwidth limited at $\ell_{\textrm{max}} = 150$.

136: 

137: We choose to include such high $l$'s in the analysis for two reasons.

138: First, our main goal is an accurate approximation of the CMB

139: likelihood at $\ell \le 50$. In order to ensure that the degradation

140: process (i.e., smoothing and noise addition) does not significantly

141: affect these multipoles, it is necessary to go well beyond $\ell \sim

142: 80$--100. Second, significant information on the spatial distribution

143: of foregrounds is obtained by going to higher resolution.

144: 

145: The cost of this treatment of the noise is high $\chi^2$ values in the

146: ecliptic plane \citep{eriksen:2007b}, where the instrumental noise is

147: higher because of WMAP's scanning strategy. However, since these high

148: $\chi^2$ values are caused by unmodelled smoothed, random, white

149: noise, they do not indicate a short-coming of the signal model, but

150: only a slight under-estimation of the statistical errors on small

151: angular scales.  This has been confirmed by otherwise identical

152: analyses at both $4^{\circ}$ and $6^{\circ}$ FWHM.  We present the

153: $3^{\circ}$ FHWM case here as a compromise between angular resolution

154: and accuracy of the noise model.  This issue will further suppressed

155: with additional years of WMAP observations and, eventually,

156: high-sensitivity Planck maps.

157: 

158: We impose the base WMAP Kp2 sky cut \citep{bennett:2003b} on the data,

159: but not the point source cuts.  The base mask is downgraded from its

160: native $N_{\textrm{side}}=512$ resolution to $N_{\textrm{side}} = 64$

161: by excluding all low-resolution pixels for which any one of its

162: sub-pixels is excluded by the high-resolution mask. A total of 42\,081

163: pixels are included, or 85.6\% of the sky.

164: 

165: The frequency bandpass of each map is modelled as a top-hat

166: function, and implemented in terms of effective frequency as a

167: function of spectral index as described by \citet{eriksen:2006}. The

168: frequency specifications of the WMAP radiometers are given by

169: \citet{jarosik:2003}.

170: 

171: 

172: 

173: 

174: \section{Model and methods}

175: \label{sec:model}

176: 

177: We adopt the following simple parametric model $T_{\nu}(p)$ for the

178: observed signal (measured in thermodynamic temperatures) at frequency

179: $\nu$ and pixel $p$,

180: \begin{equation}

181: \begin{split}

182:   T_{\nu}(p) &= s(p) + m^{0}_{\nu} + \sum_{i=1}^{3} m^i_{\nu}

183:   \left[\hat{\mathbf{e}}_i\cdot\hat{\mathbf{n}}(p)\right] + \\+

184:   b&\left[t(p) a(\nu) \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_0^{\textrm{dust}}}\right)^{1.7}\right] + f(p) a(\nu)

185:   \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_0}\right)^{\beta(p)}.

186: \end{split}

187: \end{equation}

188: The first term is the cosmic CMB signal, characterized by a

189: frequency-independent spectrum and a covariance matrix in spherical

190: harmonic space given by the power spectrum, $\left<a^*_{\ell m}

191:   a_{\ell' m'}\right> = C_{\ell} \delta_{\ell \ell'} \delta_{m m'}$,

192: where $s(p) = \sum_{\ell, m} a_{\ell} Y_{\ell m}(p)$. The second and

193: third terms denote a free monopole and three dipole amplitudes at each

194: frequency. We use the standard Cartesian basis vectors projected on

195: the sky, $\{\mathbf{1}, \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{z}\}$, as

196: basis functions for these four modes. The fourth term represents a

197: template-based dust model scaled by a spectral index of $\beta=1.7$,

198: in which $t(p)$ is the dust template (FDS) of \citet{finkbeiner:1999},

199: evaluated at $\nu_{0}^{\textrm{dust}}=$ 94\,GHz, and $a(t)$ is the

200: conversion factor between antenna and thermodynamic temperatures. The

201: last term is a single foreground component with a free amplitude

202: $f(p)$ and spectral index $\beta(p)$ at each pixel. The reference

203: frequency for this component is $\nu_0 = 23$\,GHz.

204: 

205: The free parameters in this model are: 1)~spherical harmonic

206: coefficients $a_{\ell m}$ of the CMB amplitude $s$; 2)~CMB power

207: spectrum coefficients $C_{\ell}$; 3)~monopole and dipole amplitudes at

208: each band; 4)~the amplitude of the dust template; and 5)~amplitudes

209: and spectral indices of the pixel foreground component.

210: 

211: The WMAP data do not have sufficient power to constrain this simple

212: completely by themselves, as there is a very strong degeneracy between

213: the foreground component amplitudes at each pixel and the free

214: monopole and dipole coefficients at each band \citep{eriksen:2007b}.

215: For this reason, we introduce two priors in addition to the Jeffereys'

216: ignorance prior discussed by \citet{eriksen:2007b}. First, we impose a

217: Gaussian prior on the spectral indices of $\beta \sim -3\pm0.3$: A

218: direct fit of the 408 MHz template \citep{haslam:1981} to the WMAP

219: K-band data for Kp2 sky coverage implies an index of -3

220: \citep{davies:2006}, and \citet{davies:1996} determined a typical

221: range for high latitude spectral indices between 408~MHz and 1420~MHz

222: of -2.8 to -3.2. Note that this prior has a noticeable effect only at

223: high Galactic latitudes, where the absolute foreground amplitude is

224: low. At low galactic latitudes, the data dominate the prior by up to a

225: factor of $\sim50$, and any potential bias in the near-plane free-free

226: regions is negligible.

227: 

228: Second, we impose an implicit spectral index orthogonality prior on

229: the monopole and dipole coefficients, as described by

230: \citet{eriksen:2007b}, projecting out the frequency component of these

231: coefficients that matches the free spectral index map, thus

232: effectively determining the zero-level of the foreground amplitude

233: map.  We also tried an alternative approach, first estimating the Q,

234: V, and W-band monopole and dipole coefficients separately given a

235: crude estimate of the spectral index map, and then estimating all

236: other parameters given these coefficients.  Results were very similar.

237: Thus, the two priors adopted in this analysis have a very weak effect

238: on all main results.

239: 

240: Having defined our model and priors, we map out the joint posterior

241: distribution using the foreground Gibbs sampler described by

242: \citet{eriksen:2007b}.  We refer the interested reader to that paper

243: for full details of the algorithm, and for a comprehensive analysis of

244: a realistic simulation corresponding to the same data and model used

245: in this Letter.

246: 

247: Finally, we estimate a new set of cosmological parameters within the

248: standard $\Lambda$CDM model. For this analysis, we follow the approach

249: of \citet{eriksen:2007a}, and replace the low-$\ell$ part of the WMAP

250: likelihood with a new Blackwell-Rao Gibbs-based estimator

251: \citep{chu:2005}. No ancillary data sets beyond the 3-yr WMAP

252: temperature and polarization data are included in the analysis. The

253: CosmoMC code \citep{lewis:2002} is used as the main MCMC engine.

254: 

255: 

256: 

257: 

258: 

259: \section{Results}

260: \label{sec:results}

261: 

262: Figure \ref{fig:sky_maps} shows the marginal posterior mean maps for

263: the CMB sky signal, the foreground amplitude and the foreground

264: spectral index.  Table \ref{tab:monopole} gives the corresponding

265: results for the monopole and dipole coefficients for each frequency

266: band.  The FDS dust template amplitude relative to 94\,GHz and an

267: assumed spectral index of $\beta=1.7$ is $b=0.917\pm0.003$. The CMB

268: power spectrum is discussed separately below.

269: 

270: \begin{figure}[t]

271: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=f1_lowres.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}}

272: \caption{Marginal posterior mean maps in Galactic coordinates. Rows

273:   from top to bottom show the CMB reconstruction, the foreground

274:   amplitude, and the foreground spectral index, respectively.}

275: \label{fig:sky_maps}

276: \end{figure}

277: 

278: 

279: 

280: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}

281: \tablewidth{0pt} 

282: \tabletypesize{\small} 

283: \tablecaption{Monopole and dipole posterior statistics\label{tab:monopole}}

284: \tablecolumns{5}

285: \tablehead{ & Monopole & Dipole X & Dipole Y & Dipole Z \\

286: Band & ($\mu\textrm{K}$) & ($\mu\textrm{K}$)& ($\mu\textrm{K}$)&

287:  ($\mu\textrm{K}$)

288: }

289: 

290: \startdata

291: 

292: K-band    & $-11.8 \pm 0.5$ & $1.7 \pm 1.2$ & $-2.2 \pm 0.8$ & $\phm{-}2.2  \pm 0.1$ \\

293: Ka-band   & $-16.6 \pm 0.5$ & $0.9 \pm 1.2$ & $\phm{-}0.9 \pm 0.8$ & $-1.3 \pm 0.1$ \\

294: Q-band    & $-12.8 \pm 0.5$ & $1.9\pm 1.2$  & $-0.9 \pm 0.8$ & $\phm{-}0.4  \pm 0.1$\\ 

295: V-band    & $-11.1 \pm 0.5$ & $ 1.6\pm 1.2$ & $-3.9 \pm 0.8$ & $\phm{-}4.0  \pm 0.1$ \\ 

296: W-band    & $-12.6 \pm 0.5$ & $ 1.7\pm 1.2$ & $-0.9 \pm 0.8$ & $\phm{-}\,\,\,1.0  \pm 0.1$

297: 

298: %K-band    & $-11.8$ & $1.7$ & $-2.2$ & $\phm{-}2.2  $ \\

299: %Ka-band   & $-16.6$ & $0.9$ & $\phm{-}0.9$ & $-1.3 $ \\

300: %Q-band    & $-12.8$ & $1.9$  & $-0.9 $ & $\phm{-}0.4 $\\ 

301: %V-band    & $-11.1$ & $ 1.6$ & $-3.9 $ & $\phm{-}4.0 .1$ \\ 

302: %W-band    & $-12.6$ & $ 1.7$ & $-0.9 $ & $\phm{-}\,\,\,1.0  \pm 0.1$

303: \enddata

304: \tablecomments{Means and standard deviations of the marginal monopole and dipole posteriors.}

305: \end{deluxetable}

306: 

307: 

308: 

309: 

310: Figure \ref{fig:chisq} shows the average $\chi^2$ computed for each

311: Gibbs sample.  A $\chi^2$ value exceeding $\chi^2 = 15$ corresponds to

312: rejection of the model in that pixel at 99\% statistical significance.

313: Two features are clearly visible in this plot. First, the ecliptic

314: plane, or rather, WMAP's scanning strategy, is clearly visible, and

315: this is mainly due to the unmodelled smoothed noise component at high

316: $\ell$'s, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:data}.

317: 

318: \begin{figure}[t]

319: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=f2.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}}

320: \caption{Mean $\chi^2$ map computed over posterior samples in Galactic

321:   coordinates. A value of $\chi^2 = 15$  is high at the 99\% significance

322:   level.}

323: \label{fig:chisq}

324: \end{figure}

325: 

326: Second, there are clearly visible structures near the Galactic plane,

327: and in particular around regions with known high free-free emission

328: (e.g., the Orion and Ophiucus regions). This is likely due to the fact

329: that a single power-law is not a good approximation to the sum of many

330: foregrounds with comparable amplitudes.  Thus, we have clear evidence

331: of modelling errors in this solution, and we therefore strongly

332: emphasize that the quoted error bars presented in this paper include

333: formal statistical errors only, and not systematic, model-dependent

334: uncertainties. These issues are discussed in depth by

335: \citet{eriksen:2007b}, who find similar behaviour for a controlled,

336: simulated data set.

337: 

338: Although $\chi^2$ is high, the CMB solution obtained is evidently

339: good.  First of all, in the ecliptic poles, where the WMAP

340: instrumental noise is suppressed by the scanning strategy, the

341: $\chi^2$ distribution is essentially perfect. This implies that the

342: signal model as such is adequate at high latitudes.  Second, the CMB

343: map is virtually without signatures of residual foregrounds. (Note

344: that the signal inside the Galactic plane is partially reconstructed

345: using high-latitude information and the assumption of isotropy. The

346: signal on scales smaller than the mask size is washed out because it

347: is not possible to predict these from higher latitudes.)  Finally, the

348: foreground amplitude and spectral index maps correlate very well with

349: known templates of synchrotron and free-free emission. For instance,

350: the spectral index near the Gum nebula and near the Vela regions are

351: close to $\beta=-2.1$, as expected for free-free emission. 

352: 

353: The single most surprising aspects of the solution are the monopole

354: and, possibly, the V-band dipole coefficients, listed in Table

355: \ref{tab:monopole}. Most notably, there is a strong detection of a

356: roughly $\-13 \mu\textrm{K}$ offset common to all frequency bands.

357: Formally speaking, these offset values are only optimal within the

358: current model; however, this type of signal is not degenerate with any

359: other component in the model.  Further, we have attempted to fit

360: several other models assuming no offsets at one or more bands.  These

361: all result in strong, visible residuals in the CMB map, and

362: considerably higher $\chi^2$ values overall.  Finally, very similar

363: results have been obtained by other researchers\footnote{See

364:   discussion lead by P.\ Leahy at

365:   http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=631.} through other methods,

366: although, to our knowledge, these results have not yet been published

367: in the literature. We therefore believe that the monopole and dipole

368: coefficients presented here are more optimal even in an absolute sense

369: than those obtained by WMAP based on a cosecant fit to a plane

370: parallel galaxy model \citep{bennett:2003b}.

371: 

372: Figure \ref{fig:diff_maps} shows the difference maps between the

373: Commander W-band foreground model and the MEM and template-based

374: foreground models of \citet{hinshaw:2007}.  Clearly, our foreground

375: model agrees surprisingly well with the simple template fits, but not

376: with the MEM solution. One possible explanation for this is that

377: although the MEM approach of \citet{hinshaw:2007} does attempt to

378: estimate spectral indices for each pixel, it does not include monopole

379: or dipole components in its model. Therefore, the MEM solution is

380: plausibly compromised by the non-zero offset detected here, at least

381: in part. In addition, the MEM method could be biased by the initial

382: subtraction of the (foreground contaminated) ILC estimate of the CMB

383: anisotropy from the frequency maps, and the use of the 408 MHz data as

384: a prior. Conversely, Commander could be compromised to some extent by

385: the use of power law spectral indices for the combined low frequency

386: foreground component. Nevertheless, the difference is surprising given

387: that the W-band foreground is expected to be mostly comprised of

388: thermal dust emission.

389: 

390: 

391: \begin{figure}[t]

392: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=f3_lowres.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}}

393: \caption{Difference maps of the total ``Commander'' W-band foreground

394:   model with the WMAP MEM model (top panel) and with the WMAP template

395:   fit model (bottom panel).}

396: \label{fig:diff_maps}

397: \end{figure}

398: 

399: The marginal maximum posterior CMB power spectrum is shown in Figure

400: \ref{fig:powspec}, together with the maximum-likelihood/

401: pseudo-$C_{\ell}$ hybrid spectrum computed by the WMAP team.  Perhaps

402: the most notable difference is in the $\ell=21$ multipole, which looks

403: anomalous in the WMAP spectrum, as noted by other authors.

404: 

405: 

406: 

407: 

408: 

409: \begin{figure}[t]

410: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=f4.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}}

411: \caption{The CMB temperature power spectra obtained

412:   in this paper (red) and that by the WMAP team (black). The best-fit

413:   $\Lambda$CDM model spectrum of \citet{spergel:2007} is shown as a

414:   dashed line.}

415: \label{fig:powspec}

416: \end{figure}

417: 

418: The cosmological parameters corresponding to the Commander spectrum

419: for a standard six-parameter $\Lambda$CDM model are

420: $\Omega_{\textrm{b}}\,h^2 =0.0222 \pm 0.0007$, $\Omega_{\textrm{m}} =

421: 0.243 \pm 0.036$, $\log(10^{10}A_{\textrm{s}}) = 3.027 \pm 0.068$, $h

422: = 0.730 \pm 0.032$ and $\tau = 0.089 \pm 0.030$. Corresponding values

423: for the unmodified WMAP likelihood are $\Omega_{\textrm{b}}\,h^2

424: =0.0221 \pm 0.0007$, $\Omega_{\textrm{m}} = 0.242 \pm 0.035$,

425: $\log(10^{10}A_{\textrm{s}}) = 3.030 \pm 0.068$, $h = 0.730 \pm 0.032$

426: and $\tau = 0.091 \pm 0.030$. These values refer to marginal means and

427: standard deviations.

428: 

429: Clearly, the agreement between the two sets of results is excellent,

430: and this provides a strong confirmation of the WMAP results: At the

431: level of precision of the WMAP experiment, details in the foreground

432: model used for foreground correction appear to have only a minor

433: impact on the CMB temperature power spectrum. 

434: 

435: \section{Conclusions}

436: \label{sec:conclusions}

437: 

438: We have presented the first exact Bayesian joint foreground-CMB

439: analysis of the 3-yr WMAP data. We have established a new estimate of

440: both the CMB sky signal and the power spectrum, a detailed foreground

441: model consisting of a foreground amplitude and spectral index map and

442: a dust template amplitude, and also provided new estimates of the

443: residual monopole and dipole coefficients in the WMAP data.

444: 

445: The detection of significant non-zero offsets in the WMAP data is the

446: new result of the greatest immediate importance for the CMB community.

447: These new monopole and dipole estimates could have a significant

448: impact on several previously published results, especially those

449: concerning the foreground composition in the WMAP data. For example,

450: our foreground model is in excellent agreement with the simple

451: template fits presented by \citet{hinshaw:2007}, but not with their

452: MEM reconstruction.

453: 

454: Taking a longer perspective, the most important aspect of this

455: analysis is a demonstration of feasibility of exact and joint

456: foreground-CMB analysis.  This will be essential for Planck, whose

457: high sensitivity and angular resolution demand more accurate

458: foreground separation than \hbox{WMAP}. Considering the flexibility,

459: power, and accuracy of the method employed in this paper, together

460: with its unique capabilities for propagating uncertainties accurately

461: all the way from the postulated foreground model to cosmological

462: parameters, we believe that this should be the baseline analysis

463: strategy for Planck on large angular scales, say $\ell \lesssim 200$.

464: 

465: All results presented in this paper and the basic Gibbs samples are

466: available at http://www.astro.uio.no/$\sim$hke.

467: 

468: \begin{acknowledgements}

469:   We acknowledge use of the HEALPix software \citep{gorski:2005} and

470:   analysis package for deriving the results in this paper. We

471:   acknowledge use of the Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data

472:   Analysis (LAMBDA). This work was partially performed at the Jet

473:   Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a

474:   contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. HKE

475:   acknowledges financial support from the Research Council of Norway.

476: \end{acknowledgements}

477: 

478: 

479: 

480: \begin{thebibliography}{}

481: 

482: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2003a)]{bennett:2003a} 

483: Bennett, C.~L.~et al.~2003a, \apjs, 148, 1

484: 

485: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2003b)]{bennett:2003b} Bennett, C.~L., et al.\ 

486: 2003b, \apjs, 148, 97 

487: 

488: \bibitem[Chu et al.(2005)]{chu:2005} Chu, M., Eriksen, H.~K., Knox,

489:   L., G{\'o}rski, K.~M., Jewell, J.~B., Larson, D.~L., O'Dwyer, I.~J.,

490:   \& Wandelt, B.~D.\ 2005, \prd, 71, 103002

491: 

492: \bibitem[Davies et al.(1996)]{davies:1996} Davies, R. D.,

493:   Watson, R. A. \& Gutierrez, C. M.\ (1996), \mnras, 278, 925

494: 

495: \bibitem[Davies et al.(2006)]{davies:2006} Davies, R. D.,

496:   Dickinson, C., Banday, A. J., Jaffe, T. R., G\'{o}rski, K. M. \& 

497:   Davis, R. J.\  2006, \mnras, 370, 1125

498: 

499: \bibitem[Eriksen et al.(2004a)]{eriksen:2004a} 

500: Eriksen, H.~K., et al.\ 2004a, \apjs, 155, 227

501: 

502: \bibitem[Eriksen et al.(2004b)]{eriksen:2004b} Eriksen, H.~K., Banday, 

503: A.~J., G{\'o}rski, K.~M., \& Lilje, P.~B.\ 2004b, \apj, 612, 633 

504: 

505: \bibitem[Eriksen et al.(2006)]{eriksen:2006} 

506: Eriksen, H.~K., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 665

507: 

508: \bibitem[Eriksen et al.(2007a)]{eriksen:2007a} Eriksen, H.~K., Huey, 

509: G., Banday, A.~J., G{\'o}rski, K.~M., Jewell, J.~B., O'Dwyer, I.~J., \& 

510: Wandelt, B.~D.\ 2007a, \apjl, 665, L1 

511: 

512: \bibitem[Eriksen et al.(2007b)]{eriksen:2007b} Eriksen, H.~K., Jewell,

513:   J.~B., Dickinson, C., Banday, A.~J., G{\'o}rski, K.~M., \& Lawrence,

514:   C. R. 2007b, submitted, ApJ, [arxiv:0709.1058]

515: 

516: \bibitem[Finkbeiner et al.(1999)]{finkbeiner:1999} % FDS models for thermal dust emission

517: Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., \& Schlegel D.J. 1999, ApJ, 524, 867

518: 

519: \bibitem[Finkbeiner(2003)]{finkbeiner:2003} 

520: Finkbeiner, D.~P.\ 2003, \apjs, 146, 407

521: 

522: \bibitem[G{\'o}rski et al.(2005)]{gorski:2005} 

523:   G{\' o}rski, K.~M., Hivon, E., Banday, A.~J., Wandelt, B.~D.,

524:   Hansen, F.\,K., Reinecke, M., \& Bartelmann, M. 2005, \apj, 622, 759

525: 

526: \bibitem[Haslam et al.(1981)]{haslam:1981}

527: Haslam C.G.T., Klein U., Salter C.J., Stoffel H., Wilson W.E., Cleary

528: M.N., Cooke D.J. \& Thomasson P.\ 1981, \aa, 100, 209

529: 

530: \bibitem[Hinshaw et al.(2003)]{hinshaw:2003} 

531:   Hinshaw, G., et al.\ 2003, \apjs, 148, 135

532: 

533: \bibitem[Hinshaw et al.(2007)]{hinshaw:2007} Hinshaw, G., et al.\ 

534: 2007, \apjs, 170, 288 

535: 

536: \bibitem[Jarosik et al.(2003)]{jarosik:2003} Jarosik, N., et al.\ 

537: 2003, \apjs, 145, 413 

538: 

539: \bibitem[Jewell et al.(2004)]{jewell:2004} 

540:   Jewell, J., Levin, S., \& Anderson, C.  H.  2004, \apj, 609, 1

541: 

542: \bibitem[Larson et al.(2007)]{larson:2007} Larson, D.~L., Eriksen, 

543: H.~K., Wandelt, B.~D., G{\'o}rski, K.~M., Huey, G., Jewell, J.~B., \& 

544: O'Dwyer, I.~J.\ 2007, \apj, 656, 653 

545: 

546: \bibitem[Lewis \& Bridle(2002)]{lewis:2002} Lewis, A., \& Bridle, 

547: S.\ 2002, \prd, 66, 103511 

548: 

549: \bibitem[O'Dwyer et al.(2004)]{odwyer:2004} 

550:   O'Dwyer, I. J. et al.\ \apjl, 617, L99

551: 

552: \bibitem[Page et al.(2007)]{page:2007} Page, L., et al.\ 2007, 

553: \apjs, 170, 335 

554: 

555: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2007)]{spergel:2007} Spergel, D.~N., et al.\ 

556: 2007, \apjs, 170, 377 

557: 

558: \bibitem[Wandelt et al.(2004)]{wandelt:2004} 

559:   Wandelt, B.~D., Larson, D.~L., \& Lakshminarayanan, A.\ 2004, \prd,

560:   70, 083511

561: 

562: 

563: \end{thebibliography}

564: 

565: 

566: 

567: 

568: 

569: 

570: \end{document}