1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,letterpaper]{article}
2: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage[usenames]{color}
4:
5:
6: %\usepackage[]{fullpage}
7: %\usepackage{graphicx}
8:
9: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
10: %\DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathscr}{OT1}{pzc}{m}{it}
11:
12:
13:
14: \newlength{\figwidth}
15: \setlength{\figwidth}{0.5\textwidth}
16:
17: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
18: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} % less than or approx. symbol
19:
20: \newcommand{\highlight}[1]{\textcolor{BrickRed}{#1}}
21:
22:
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26:
27: \title{The Scalar Perturbation Spectral index \lowercase{$n_s$}: \emph{WMAP} sensitivity to unresolved point sources}
28:
29: %\author{K.~M.~Huffenberger et al.}%, H.~K.~K. Eriksen, F.~K.~Hansen, A.~J.~Banday, K.~M.~G\'orski, \textit{et al.}}
30:
31: \author{
32: K.~M.~Huffenberger,\altaffilmark{1,2,3}
33: H.~K.~Eriksen,\altaffilmark{4,5}
34: F.~K.~Hansen,\altaffilmark{4,5}%, \textit{et al.}
35: A.~J.~Banday,\altaffilmark{6}
36: K.~M.~G\'orski\altaffilmark{2,3,7}
37: }
38:
39:
40: \altaffiltext{1}{huffenbe@jpl.nasa.gov}
41: \altaffiltext{2}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena CA 91109}
42: \altaffiltext{3}{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
43: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, P.O.\ Box 1029 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway}
44: \altaffiltext{5}{Centre of Mathematics for Applications, University of Oslo, P.O.\ Box 1053 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo}
45: \altaffiltext{6}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,
46: Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.~1, Postfach 1317, D-85741 Garching bei M\"unchen, Germany}
47: \altaffiltext{7}{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478 Warszawa, Poland}
48:
49:
50: \date{Received - / Accepted -}
51:
52:
53:
54: %\maketitle
55:
56: \begin{abstract}
57: Precision measurement of the scalar perturbation spectral index,
58: $n_s$, from the \emph{Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe}
59: temperature angular power spectrum requires the subtraction of
60: unresolved point source power.
61: Here we reconsider this
62: issue, attempting to resolve inconsistencies found in
63: the literature.
64: First, we note a peculiarity in the \emph{WMAP} temperature likelihood's
65: response to the source correction:
66: Cosmological parameters do not respond to increased source errors.
67: An alternative and more direct
68: method for treating this error term acts more sensibly,
69: and also shifts $n_s$ by $\sim0.3\sigma$ closer to unity.
70: Second, we re-examine the source fit used to correct the power
71: spectrum. This fit depends strongly on the galactic
72: cut and the weighting of the map, indicating that either the source
73: population or masking procedure is not isotropic.
74: Jackknife
75: tests appear inconsistent, causing us to
76: assign large uncertainties to account for
77: possible systematics.
78: Third, we note that the \emph{WMAP} team's spectrum
79: was computed with two different weighting
80: schemes: uniform weights transition to inverse noise
81: variance weights at $l=500$. The fit depends on such weighting schemes, so
82: different corrections apply to each multipole range.
83: For the
84: Kp2 mask used in cosmological analysis, we prefer source corrections
85: {$A=0.012\pm0.005$ $\mu$K$^2$} for uniform weighting and
86: {$A=0.015\pm0.005$ $\mu$K$^2$} for $N_{\rm obs}$ weighting. Correcting \emph{WMAP}'s spectrum
87: correspondingly, we compute cosmological parameters with our
88: alternative likelihood, finding
89: $n_s=0.970\pm0.017$
90: and
91: $\sigma_8=0.778\pm0.045$.
92: This $n_s$ is only $1.8\sigma$ from unity, compared to the $\sim 2.6\sigma$
93: \emph{WMAP} 3-year result.
94: Finally, an anomalous feature in the
95: source spectrum at $l<200$ remains, most strongly associated with W-band.
96: \end{abstract}
97: \keywords{cosmology: observations, cosmic microwave background,
98: cosmological parameters, methods: data analysis}
99:
100:
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103: Measuring $n_s$, the spectral index of initial scalar fluctuations,
104: which is scale invariant ($n_s = 1$) in the Harrison-Zeldovich model
105: and slightly shallower in inflation models, is difficult, primarily
106: because experimental systematics require control over a broad range of
107: spatial scales. In inflation, the deviation from unity closely
108: relates to the inflationary potential and the number of $e$-folds of
109: expansion, so a statistically robust measurement of $n_s \neq 1$
110: places compelling constraints on the physics of the inflationary
111: epoch.
112:
113: Because all-sky measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
114: access the largest observable scales in the universe, the angular
115: power spectrum of the CMB, with a long lever arm, is crucial to such
116: studies. Indeed, the latest data release from the \textit{Wilkinson
117: Microwave Anisotropy Probe} (\emph{WMAP}) claims $\sim 2.6\sigma$
118: deviation from the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum \citep{Spergel2007}.
119: Unfortunately, the CMB is not a totally clean measurement. For
120: example, the well-known degeneracy with the optical depth since
121: recombination ($\tau$) makes precision measurement of $n_s$ impossible
122: using CMB temperature anisotropies alone, and polarization is required
123: to break it. Complicated noise properties and hints of unknown
124: systematics in the \emph{WMAP} measurement of large-scale polarization
125: indicate that the systematic
126: uncertainty in both $\tau$ and $n_s$ should still be considered
127: significant \citep{Eriksen2007b}.
128:
129: Another important, but under-appreciated, complication for the
130: measurement of $n_s$ is additional power in the angular spectrum from
131: unresolved, and unmasked, point sources. At high $l$, this shot noise
132: can significantly bias the power spectrum, and consequently $n_s$.
133: The \emph{WMAP} team devised a sensible prescription for dealing with
134: this contaminant: 1) Use the spectral energy distribution measured
135: from detected sources (and distinct from the CMB) to infer it for
136: undetected ones; 2) measure the contamination using multifrequency
137: data; 3) correct the spectrum; and 4) marginalize over the measurement
138: error when computing the likelihood \citep{Hinshaw2003,Hinshaw2007}.
139:
140: \citet{Huffenberger2004} found a level of source contamination
141: consistent with the level in the first \emph{WMAP} data release
142: \citep{Hinshaw2003}. However, based on the three year temperature
143: data \citep{Hinshaw2007}, \citet{Huffenberger2006} measured a point
144: source spectrum with two irregularities. First, at $l>200$ the
145: spectrum is white, but with an amplitude below the value in the
146: original preprint of \citet{Hinshaw2007}. In the present work, we
147: discovered a small error in the power spectra used for the
148: \citet{Huffenberger2006} estimate, which should have reported $A =
149: 0.013 \pm 0.001$ $\mu$K$^2$ instead of $A = 0.011 \pm 0.001$
150: $\mu$K$^2$, still below the original WMAP value of $A = 0.017 \pm
151: 0.002$ $\mu$K$^2$. Prompted by our result, \citet{Hinshaw2007}
152: re-examined the issue, revising their value down somewhat and
153: increasing the error bars, to $A = 0.014 \pm 0.003$ $\mu$K$^2$. The
154: \citet{Spergel2007} bispectrum analysis indicates a non-Gaussianity
155: consistent with these values, but lacks the statistical power of the
156: multifrequency power spectrum comparison. The second peculiarity is
157: that the power at $100<l<200$ in \citet{Huffenberger2006} was
158: inconsistent, at strong statistical significance, with the rest of the
159: white spectrum.
160:
161: This paper again considers the power spectrum source correction
162: procedure in detail. We begin in Section \ref{sec:ns_impact} with a
163: study of the impact of the source correction on the scalar spectral
164: index through the likelihood. Following this, we probe the source
165: amplitude in Section \ref{sec:source_spectra}, examining the
166: dependence of the fit on the sky weighting, mask, year of observation,
167: and frequency dependence, and present our best estimates of the
168: cosmological parameters. These same tests probe the robustness of the
169: $l<200$ feature. Finally, we conclude in Section
170: \ref{sec:conclusions}.
171:
172:
173: \section{Source correction impact on spectral index}
174: \label{sec:ns_impact}
175:
176: The final \emph{WMAP} temperature power spectrum is a noise-weighted
177: combination of cross spectra computed from V- (61 GHz) and W-band (94
178: GHz) maps. Prior to the computation of the angular spectrum, a
179: foreground model is removed from the maps. The individual
180: cross-spectra are corrected for the sky mask, instrument beams, and
181: point source contamination before combination
182: \citep[see][]{Hinshaw2007}. The combined spectrum is folded into the
183: likelihood calculation,\footnote{We are using version 2.2.2 of the
184: \emph{WMAP} likelihood, available at
185: \texttt{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/}.} which interfaces to a Markov Chain Monte Carlo code such
186: as \emph{CosmoMC} \citep{LewisBridle2002}, yielding parameter
187: estimates.
188:
189: Assuming the angular spectrum for sources is white, we wish to explore
190: the dependence of $n_s$ on the size of the source correction. In
191: Figure \ref{fig:src_corr}, we show the correction made by
192: \citet{Hinshaw2007}. The correction is not white, because the
193: combined spectrum gets more contribution from W-band at higher $l$, due to
194: the noise weighting. To change the amplitude of the correction, we
195: simply scale. Later, we discuss the estimation of this amplitude.
196: \begin{figure}
197: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f1.eps}
198: \caption{The size of the source correction in \citet{Hinshaw2007}.} \label{fig:src_corr}
199: \end{figure}
200:
201: We explore two methods for incorporating the source errors into the
202: likelihood. In the first, we use the standard \emph{WMAP} likelihood
203: method. The total log-likelihood is split in two, $-2 \log L = {\cal
204: L} = {\cal L}_0 + {\cal L}_1$, where ${\cal L}_0$ is due to cosmic
205: variance, noise, and mask-induced mode coupling, and ${\cal L}_1$
206: includes the uncertainty due to the point source and beam errors
207: \citep{Hinshaw2003,Hinshaw2007}. The computation of ${\cal L}_1$
208: assumes that total likelihood is Gaussian, and uses the Woodbury
209: formula to compute an update to the likelihood. Under the Gaussian
210: assumption this split is exact. However, the ${\cal L}_0$ term is not
211: treated as Gaussian, but computed using the Gaussian plus log-normal
212: approximation \citep{Verde2003}.
213:
214: Treating the source and beam uncertainty separately is very fast
215: (since the uncertainty can be well approximated by a small number of
216: modes), but not really necessary. It avoids the inversion of a $\sim
217: 1000 \times 1000$ matrix per likelihood evaluation, but the low-$l$
218: part of the code already inverts a $\sim 2000 \times 2000$ matrix.
219: Performing this inversion and including the beam and source term with
220: the other sources of error in ${\cal L}_0$ is therefore little
221: additional burden.
222:
223: We take this step in our second method for incorporating the source
224: errors. We have modified the \emph{WMAP} likelihood code to integrate
225: the beam/point source covariance matrix into the cosmic
226: variance/noise/mask covariance matrix. (This requires inverting the
227: original Fisher matrix, adding the beam/point source term, and
228: inverting back.) Then we feed the new covariance matrix to the
229: Gaussian plus log-normal approximation. Under this procedure, the
230: change in the likelihood due to the inclusion of the beam/point
231: sources term is -2.64, compared to ${\cal L}_1 = -1.22$ computed with
232: the Woodbury expansion, for the test theory spectrum included with the
233: \emph{WMAP} likelihood code (where ${\cal L} \sim 3541$).
234:
235: \begin{figure}
236: \begin{center}
237: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f2a.eps}
238: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f2b.eps}
239: \end{center}
240: \caption{(Top) The change in $n_s$ for given source corrections,
241: $A$. We compare the \emph{WMAP} team's likelihood code to our
242: modified version, which computes the high-$l$ likelihood in a
243: slightly different way. The error in the source correction is
244: fixed at the \citet{Hinshaw2007} value used in
245: \citet{Spergel2007}. The thin lines bound the 68\% probability
246: interval. The \citet{Spergel2007} values are slightly offset
247: horizontally for visibility, and either ignore (higher $n_s$) or
248: include (lower) a correction for Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect
249: contamination. The other $n_s$ values ignore SZ. (Bottom) Using
250: the \emph{WMAP} team's source correction, this plot shows the
251: dependence of $n_s$ on the point source error, $\sigma_A$. }
252: \label{fig:ns_dep}
253: \end{figure}
254: In the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:ns_dep}, we show the dependence of
255: $n_s$ on the source correction. We hold the errors fixed at the
256: \citet{Hinshaw2007} value of $\sigma_A = 0.003$ $\mu$K$^2$, and
257: marginalize over all the other parameters. As the source correction
258: increases, the power spectrum at high $l$ is lowered, and $n_s$
259: decreases. Completely ignoring the source correction shifts $n_s$ by
260: $\sim 0.01$ higher, or about $0.6\sigma$. Our alternative likelihood
261: procedure shifts $n_s$ higher by $0.005$, or $0.3\sigma$.
262:
263: Next we study the influence of error in the source correction. At
264: very small and at very large error, we expect the parameter
265: measurement to be independent of the error. For very small source
266: error, the errors in other quantities dominate. For large errors, all
267: modes which could be contaminated by point sources are effectively
268: projected out, and the parameter measurement is again independent.
269: Near $S/N \sim 1$, the measurement should undergo a transition, where
270: the measurement error increases and (possibly) the mean value changes.
271: In the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:ns_dep}, we show the dependence
272: of $n_s$ on the error on the source correction amplitude. The
273: \emph{WMAP} split likelihood method shows an unexpected result. The
274: size of the point source error apparently has no effect on the
275: measurement of $n_s$. Even with the point source error rivaling the
276: size of the acoustic peaks, there is no effect. The values of the
277: likelihood change, but not the distribution of points in the Markov
278: Chain. This seems to be a clear indication that there is something
279: wrong. The dependence of $n_s$ on $A$ in the top panel implies that
280: at least the error bars should increase as $\sigma_A$ increases.
281:
282: On the other hand, our modified likelihood shows the expected
283: behavior. As the source correction error is made very large, the
284: errors increase by about 38 percent, and the mean value moves above 1.
285: For this likelihood, the modes not subject to contamination by sources
286: actually prefer $n_s > 1$, and a solid measurement of the source
287: contamination is vital to the measurement of $n_s < 1$. We also note
288: that the errors on the source measurement do not make much difference,
289: as long as $\sigma_A < 0.003$. In the next Section, we examine this
290: measurement in more detail.
291:
292: \section{Unresolved point source spectra} \label{sec:source_spectra}
293:
294: \subsection{Method}
295: \label{sec:method}
296: The point source spectrum can be estimated via a linear combination of
297: the individual cross-spectra at several frequencies, a combination
298: which projects out the CMB component.
299: \citet{Huffenberger2004,Huffenberger2006} examined the unresolved
300: source component in \emph{WMAP} data, using a generalized version of
301: the method for the same task from \citet{Hinshaw2003}.
302:
303: In addition to V- and W-band used for cosmological measurement, the
304: source analysis uses Q-band (41 GHz) because the contaminating sources
305: are much brighter at lower frequencies. There are 276 cross-spectra
306: in these three bands, accounting for all combinations of differencing
307: assemblies per channel, and treating the three years of observation
308: separately. These are combined as
309: \begin{equation}
310: A_L = \sum_{L'} \sum_{i \neq j} W_{LL'}^{ij} D_{L'}^{ij}
311: \label{eq:amplitude}
312: \end{equation}
313: to give the point source amplitude $A_L$ in a band denoted by $L$,
314: where the weight is $W_L^{ij}$ for the binned cross spectrum estimate
315: $ D_L^{ij}$, made from maps $i$ and $j$. The map cross spectra
316: $D_L^{ij}$ include the CMB power spectrum and the contribution from
317: sources. By virtue of being cross-spectra ($i \neq j$), they are
318: noisy but do not have a noise bias. The weights are based upon the
319: frequency independence of the CMB signal (in thermodynamic temperature
320: units), the spectral energy distribution of the sources (measured for
321: bright sources as $\beta \sim -2.0$, $S \propto \nu^{\beta+2}$
322: \citep{Hinshaw2003,Trushkin2003,Hinshaw2007}), and the estimated noise
323: covariance in the cross spectrum measurements. (See
324: \citet{Huffenberger2004,Huffenberger2006} for details.)
325:
326: The weights obey the constraint
327: \begin{equation}
328: \sum_{L'} \sum_{ij} W_{LL'}^{ij} = 0,
329: \end{equation}
330: which means that no CMB will leak into the point source estimate if
331: the maps are properly calibrated and the instrumental beams are
332: perfectly deconvolved from the spectra. If the source spectral energy
333: distribution is correct, the weights also provide an unbiased estimate
334: of the point source power spectrum even if the noise covariance is
335: wrong (although an incorrect noise covariance leads to sub-optimal
336: estimates and incorrect error bars).
337:
338: The covariance of the source power spectrum estimate is
339: \begin{equation}
340: \langle A_L A_{L'} \rangle = ({\mathbf {W \Sigma_D W }})_{LL'},
341: \end{equation}
342: where $\mathbf {\Sigma_D}$ is the estimate of the cross spectrum
343: covariance matrix. If the covariance matrix is diagonal in
344: cross-spectra and multipole bin, then the weights are diagonal in
345: multipole. Under this assumption, we plot some example weights in
346: Figure \ref{fig:weights}.
347: \begin{figure}
348: \begin{center}
349: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f3.eps}
350: \end{center}
351: \caption{The weights for various cross-spectra in the source measurement, using the Kp2 mask, and two different map weighting. The individual weights for the 276 cross-spectra were summed together based on frequency coverage, yielding the 6 combinations shown.}
352: \label{fig:weights}
353: \end{figure}
354:
355: The expected shot noise angular spectrum of sources in the \emph{WMAP}
356: data is flat in $C_l$, so we plot our measured spectra as $l$ versus
357: $C_l$. Throughout we normalize the spectrum at Q band in antenna
358: temperature, which gets a larger signal than V or W.
359:
360: In the following subsections, we describe several tests of the point
361: source measurement to explore the robustness of these features and
362: their origin. Tests included changing the weights on the map for
363: computing the spectrum, modifying the mask,
364: fitting for the galactic hemispheres separately, fitting year by year,
365: and changing the assumed source spectral energy distribution.
366:
367: %In this work, we use our own tools to compute the cross spectra from the maps, using the MASTER \citep{Hivon2002} technique, and the source contribution from the cross spectra. Where we have points of comparison, these tools have been extensively checked again the WMAP results.
368:
369: \subsection{Spectrum at $l > 200$}
370:
371: Whatever the cause of the excess power at $l<200$ reported by
372: \citet{Huffenberger2006} may be, it is very likely not relevant for
373: correcting the spectrum at high $l$. In this Section, we therefore
374: first concentrate on the correction required for the cosmological
375: analysis, considering only $l \ge 200$, and then return to the
376: anomalous low-$l$ feature in Section \ref{sec:lowl_excess}.
377:
378: In a maximum likelihood estimate of the power spectrum, the map is
379: weighted by the pixel-pixel inverse signal plus noise covariance. At
380: small scales this estimate is computationally impractical, and
381: \citet{Hinshaw2007} instead approximate it using two weighting schemes
382: in the computation of the power spectra. In the signal dominated
383: regime at $l<500$, they use spectra where every pixel is weighted
384: evenly; in the noise dominated regime at $l>500$, the maps are inverse
385: noise weighted (i.e. weighted by the number of observations, $N_{\rm
386: obs}$).
387:
388: We compute the cross-spectrum using these two schemes and estimate the
389: source contribution, plotted in Figure \ref{fig:nobs}.
390: \begin{figure}
391: \begin{center}
392: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f4.eps}
393: \end{center}
394: \caption{Fits for the unmasked source component, comparing spectra computed from maps using uniform weight outside of the mask with using $N_{\rm obs}$ (inverse variance) weighting, plotted as the Q-band amplitude. The lowest $l$-bin has no detection and is not shown.}
395: \label{fig:nobs}
396: \end{figure}
397: The flat portion of the spectrum is notably higher in the $N_{\rm
398: obs}$ weighted case. Specifically, for a white noise fit including
399: $l>200$, $A = 0.015 \pm 0.001$ $\mu$K$^2$ versus $A = 0.012 \pm 0.001$
400: $\mu$K$^2$ for the flat weighting. (The single amplitude fits for all
401: combinations we tried are compiled in Table~\ref{tab:fits}.) This
402: leads immediately to a key point: Since the combined spectrum is built
403: from two weighting schemes at different $l$'s, the source correction
404: must be different as well. Thus we should have a smaller source
405: correction for $l<500$ and a larger correction for $l>500$. The
406: weighting scheme used by \citet{Hinshaw2007} is not specified.
407:
408: \begin{deluxetable}{lllccc}
409: %\tablewidth{0pt}
410: \tabletypesize{\small}
411: \tablecaption{Fits for source amplitude \label{tab:fits}}
412: \tablecolumns{6}
413: \tablehead{Mask&Weight&Subset&$A$&$\sigma_A$ & $\chi^2$/dof\\ & & &\multicolumn{2}{c}{($\mu$K$^2$, ant. Q)} &}
414:
415: \tablecomments{Fits for source power spectrum amplitude, including data at $l>200$.}
416:
417: \startdata
418:
419: \cutinhead{Diagonal Covariance}
420:
421: 30kp0 & flat & all & 0.006 & 0.001 & 0.25 \\
422: kp2 & flat & VW & 0.006 & 0.004 & 1.99 \\
423: kp0 & flat & all & 0.008 & 0.001 & 0.54 \\
424: kp2 & flat & noQ1 & 0.010 & 0.001 & 2.02 \\
425: kp2 & flat & noQ2 & 0.010 & 0.001 & 0.71 \\
426: kp2 & flat & yr12 & 0.011 & 0.002 & 1.02 \\
427: kp2 & flat & yr13 & 0.011 & 0.002 & 1.10 \\
428: kp2 & flat & all (N. hemi.) & 0.011 & 0.001 & 0.92 \\
429: kp2 & flat & all & 0.012 & 0.001 & 1.39 \\
430: kp2 & flat & yr22 & 0.012 & 0.003 & 1.16 \\
431: kp2 & flat & yr23 & 0.012 & 0.002 & 0.50 \\
432: kp2 & flat & QW & 0.013 & 0.001 & 0.70 \\
433: kp2 & flat & all (S. hemi.) & 0.013 & 0.001 & 0.68 \\
434: kp2 & flat & noW1W2 & 0.013 & 0.001 & 2.48 \\
435: kp2 & flat & noW3W4 & 0.013 & 0.001 & 1.23 \\
436: kp2 & flat & QV & 0.014 & 0.001 & 1.65 \\
437: kp2 & nobs & all & 0.015 & 0.001 & 0.69 \\
438: kp2 & flat & yr11 & 0.017 & 0.003 & 0.87 \\
439: kp2 & flat & yr33 & 0.017 & 0.003 & 0.20 \\
440:
441: \cutinhead{Diagonal + beams errors}
442:
443: kp2 & flat & noQ1 & 0.009 & 0.001 & 1.87 \\
444: kp2 & flat & VW & 0.010 & 0.004 & 2.07 \\
445: kp2 & flat & noQ2 & 0.010 & 0.001 & 0.73 \\
446: kp2 & flat & yr12 & 0.011 & 0.002 & 1.05 \\
447: kp2 & flat & yr13 & 0.011 & 0.002 & 1.10 \\
448: kp2 & flat & yr22 & 0.011 & 0.003 & 1.11 \\
449: kp2 & flat & yr23 & 0.011 & 0.002 & 0.34 \\
450: kp2 & flat & all & 0.012 & 0.001 & 1.53 \\
451: kp2 & flat & QW & 0.013 & 0.001 & 0.72 \\
452: kp2 & nobs & all & 0.015 & 0.001 & 0.79 \\
453: kp2 & flat & QV & 0.016 & 0.001 & 2.30 \\
454: kp2 & flat & yr33 & 0.017 & 0.003 & 0.25 \\
455: kp2 & flat & yr11 & 0.019 & 0.003 & 0.85 \\
456:
457: \enddata
458:
459: \end{deluxetable}
460:
461: This source level difference is a strong indication that the source
462: population contaminating the \emph{WMAP} spectrum is not isotropic.
463: One possible scenario is the following: Because source positions are
464: stochastic, and source power strongly favors brighter sources ($C_l
465: \propto \int dS\, S^2 \, dN/dS$), brighter sources which, by chance,
466: fell in the best observed regions could boost the spectrum in the $N_{\rm
467: obs}$ weighting over uniform weighting. However, the size of this
468: effect is much too small to be a viable explanation. We computed power
469: spectra of Monte Carlo realizations of a noiseless map containing
470: isotropically distributed faint sources, based on differential source
471: counts $dN/dS \propto S^{-2.3}$ \citep{WhiteMaj2004,Cleary2005},
472: normalized to \emph{WMAP} source counts at 1 Jy, setting an upper flux
473: limit to reproduce a reasonable amount of power. Over 1000
474: simulations, for a bin $100 < l < 150$, the rms fluctuation of the
475: difference in power between the uniform and $N_{\rm obs}$ spectra is
476: 1.8 percent, and should be smaller at higher $l$. Thus the odds are
477: very slight that the change in the power is due to chance alignments
478: of sources with the well observed part of the sky; sources at the
479: appropriate flux level are too numerous. Alternatively, the observed
480: anisotropy in the source population could be either be representative
481: of the real sources, or indicate a problem with the masking procedure,
482: with bright sources slipping through.
483:
484: The $N_{\rm obs}$ weighting emphasizes the ecliptic poles, so these
485: are the best places to look for suspect sources.
486: \begin{figure}
487: \begin{center}
488: \includegraphics[width=0.95\figwidth]{f5.eps}
489: \end{center}
490: \caption{The difference map, Q$-$ILC, shows two point-like objects near the LMC, left, compared to the Q-band noise rms for the same region, right, based on the number of observations reported by the \emph{WMAP} team.}
491: \label{fig:lmc}
492: \end{figure}
493: In particular, visual inspection of a Q$-$ILC difference map
494: (Figure~\ref{fig:lmc}) shows two bright sources near the Large
495: Magellanic Cloud, in the highly observed portion of the sky near the
496: south ecliptic pole. These sources are as bright as some of the
497: sources found by the \emph{WMAP} source-detection algorithm, and
498: indeed the brighter one is included in the subsequent catalogs of
499: \citet{Lopez-Caniego2007} and \citet{NieZhang2007}, based on
500: \emph{WMAP} data. The presence of the nearby LMC may have interfered
501: with the source finding procedure.
502:
503: Changing the sky cut gives further indications of an anisotropic
504: source population. In addition to the Kp2 cut used in the
505: cosmological analysis, we recomputed the point source fit using
506: cross-spectra generated with two additional masks and uniform
507: weighting: the Kp0 mask and a conservative mask consisting of the
508: union of Kp0 with a $|b| < 30^\circ$ cut galactic cut (see
509: Figure~\ref{fig:maskdep}).
510: \begin{figure}
511: \begin{center}
512: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f6a.eps}
513: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f6b.eps}
514: \end{center}
515: \caption{(Top) Three masks used in this analysis. The smallest, and
516: most aggressive mask is the \emph{WMAP} Kp2 mask, intermediate is
517: Kp0, and most conservative is the union of Kp0 and a $|b| <
518: 30^\circ$ cut. (Bottom) The source power spectrum, computed with
519: three different masks. As the mask becomes larger, the power goes
520: down, suggesting a concentration of unmasked source power near the
521: galactic plane.}
522: \label{fig:maskdep}
523: \end{figure}
524: As seen in Table \ref{tab:fits}, the source power drops significantly
525: as we expand the masks, indicating that \textit{unmasked} sources are
526: brighter or more common near the plane. This raises two
527: possibilities. Either some of the sources are galactic in origin, or
528: sources are less efficiently found and masked near the plane.
529:
530: From a visual inspection of the Q$-$ILC difference map, we find $\sim
531: 6$ more bright point-like objects, many near the galactic plane, and
532: all in the southern hemisphere (see Table \ref{tab:new-sources}).
533: Many of these objects are also already noted in the
534: the \citet{Lopez-Caniego2007} and \citet{NieZhang2007} catalogs.
535: Computing the power spectrum in hemispheres (with the Kp2 mask), the source amplitudes straddle the value for the whole sky. At $l<200$, the Northern hemisphere has slightly less source power and the the Southern slightly more (See Figure~\ref{fig:hemi}).
536: \begin{figure}
537: \begin{center}
538: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f7.eps}
539: \end{center}
540: \caption{The source power spectrum, computed in hemispheres with the Kp2 mask.}
541: \label{fig:hemi}
542: \end{figure}
543:
544: The \emph{WMAP} source mask, built from a variety of catalogs
545: \citep{Hinshaw2003,Hinshaw2007}, may not cover the sky evenly, because
546: of differences in sensitivity in different regions. It may be more
547: difficult to identify sources amid large galactic foregrounds. This
548: would be particularly true for flat spectrum sources in lower
549: frequency radio surveys. The \emph{WMAP} source mask has noticeable
550: gaps near the galactic plane, but outside the Kp2 and Kp0 masks.
551:
552:
553:
554: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
555: \tablewidth{\figwidth}
556: \tabletypesize{\small}
557: \tablecaption{Sources found in Q$-$ILC\label{tab:new-sources}}
558: \tablecolumns{5}
559: \tablehead{RA&Dec.&Gal. lon.&Gal. lat.&ID}
560: %\tablehead{Gal. lon. & Gal. lat. & ID }
561: \tablecomments{Point-like objects, found visually in a Q$-$ILC difference map. Marked sources (*,$^\dag$) were found respectively in the catalog of \citet{Lopez-Caniego2007} and \citet{NieZhang2007}.}
562: \label{tab:new-sources}
563:
564: \startdata
565: 00 43 14& -73 16 30 &
566: 303.7 &-44.0 & PMNJ0047-7308*,$^\dag$\\ %&3034954
567: 01 04 11& -72 08 02 &
568: 301.5 &-45.0 & PMNJ0059-7210*,$^\dag$ \\ % &3034730
569: 04 51 56& -69 31 10 &
570: 276.2 &-33.7 & --- \\ % &1839228
571: 05 20 56& -66 10 24 &
572: 281.0 &-35.6& PMNJ0506-6109*,$^\dag$ \\ % &3062103
573: 06 49 57& -16 56 12 &
574: 227.9 &-8.0 & PMNJ0650-1637* \\ %&2874317
575: 20 50 59& +28 51 35 &
576: 72.5 &-9.7 & ---$^\dag$ \\ % &1448280
577: 20 52 02& +31 55 18 &
578: 75.1 &-8.0 & ---\\ % &1447870
579: 20 57 54& +31 29 08 &
580: 75.6 &-9.2 & ---$^\dag$ \\ % &1447712
581: \enddata
582:
583:
584: \end{deluxetable}
585:
586: Two jackknife tests, breaking the data into subgroups, also show some
587: peculiarities. First, we divided up the cross spectra based on the years of observation (Figure~\ref{fig:years}).
588: \begin{figure}
589: \begin{center}
590: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f8.eps}
591: \end{center}
592: \caption{Year by year comparisons of the point source power spectrum. }
593: \label{fig:years}
594: \end{figure}
595: Each individual year accounts for 28 cross-spectra, while a pair of
596: years accounts for 64. At $l > 200$, the fits for individual years
597: are always as greater than for pairs of different years. The largest
598: estimate is the (year~3~$\times$~year~3) fit, at $A = 0.017 \pm 0.003$
599: $\mu$K$^2$, while the smallest is (year~1~$\times$~year~2), at $0.011 \pm
600: 0.002$ $\mu$K$^2$. This seems unlikely to be due to chance, and could
601: have a number of causes. For example, a slight cross-correlation
602: between Q1 and Q2 or between Q and V, introducing a small noise bias
603: in the cross spectra, could have this effect. Removing either Q1 or
604: Q2 from the source estimate, the amplitude drops to $A = 0.010 \pm
605: 0.001$ $\mu$K$^2$.
606:
607: However, this dependence on the Q band could also be due to the shape
608: of the source spectrum. For the second jackknife test, we broke the
609: cross spectra up by band. We considered combinations with Q and V
610: bands only, Q and W only, and V and W only. These spectra are shown
611: in Figure~\ref{fig:bands}.
612: \begin{figure}
613: \begin{center}
614: \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{f9.eps}
615: \end{center}
616: \caption{The source power spectrum estimate for combinations of bands.}
617: \label{fig:bands}
618: \end{figure}
619: At $l>200$, the V+W combinations are very noisy, and have the lowest
620: source fit, $A = 0.006 \pm 0.004$ $\mu$K$^2$, though the $\chi^2$ is
621: poor. The Q+V combination has the largest source amplitude, $A =
622: 0.016 \pm 0.001$ $\mu$K$^2$. This discrepancy could mean that the
623: source spectrum is incorrect: If the true spectrum is steeper than the
624: $\beta = -2$ we have used, or the spectrum steepens between V and W,
625: one could observe this effect. In this case, the Q+V combination
626: gives the most accurate measurement of the Q band source
627: contamination, but this is not used in the cosmological analysis. To
628: get the correction in V and W bands, we are better off to scale from
629: the lower amplitude, although even this is not completely
630: satisfactory. Using the wrong spectrum for sources means that
631: the shape of the source correction will be somewhat incorrect.
632: We gradually steepened the source spectrum, and re-fit. The Q+V, Q+W,
633: and V+W fits can be brought within $1 \sigma$ by setting $\beta =
634: -2.5$. These can be made equal (at $A=0.012$ $\mu$K$^2$) by setting
635: $\beta \sim -2.9$, which compared to $\beta = -2.0$ would represent a 50
636: percent smaller amplitude in V and an 80 percent smaller amplitude in
637: W. If true, the source correction should be made correspondingly smaller.
638: (We continue to quote values of $A$ in Q-band assuming $\beta = -2.0$ scaling to
639: V and W.)
640:
641:
642: In the appendix, we discuss the impact of beam errors. These tend to
643: have little impact on the spectrum at $l>200$, since the resulting CMB
644: leakage is large where the CMB is large, at lower $l$.
645:
646: Finally, we must decide by how much to correct the combined
647: \emph{WMAP} spectrum. There is a strong detection of unresolved power
648: in the \emph{WMAP} spectra, but as we have seen through the above tests, our
649: knowledge of the character of these sources is poor. Our best fit
650: amplitudes including all the data are $A = 0.012$ $\mu$K$^2$ for flat
651: weighting and $A = 0.015$ $\mu$K$^2$ for $N_{\rm obs}$ weighting. But
652: the spectral effects (from considering V and W without Q) indicate it
653: might be much lower, while individual year fits are much higher. We
654: then are forced to the unsatisfying course of artificially inflating
655: the error bars beyond their nominal statistical values, in order to
656: account for these possibilities. Therefore we set the error on the
657: source estimates at $\sigma_A = 0.005$ $\mu$K$^2$.
658:
659: %\subsection{Cosmological Parameters}
660:
661: To obtain our final estimate for cosmological parameters, we correct
662: the spectrum for point sources using the two amplitudes quoted above
663: (uniform weights for $l<500$ and $N_{\rm obs}$ weights for $l>500$),
664: and our modified likelihood code. The marginalized parameters from
665: the resulting Markov chains are given in Table \ref{tab:parameters},
666: both considering \emph{WMAP} data alone and including data from ACBAR \citep{kuo2004}
667: and BOOMERanG \citep{jones2006,montroy2006,piacentini2006}. Because of
668: the new likelihood and the broadened error bars, this new value of
669: $n_s = 0.970\pm0.017$ is only $1.8\sigma$ away from 1. Another consequence
670: is that $\sigma_8$ increases to $0.778 \pm 0.045$.
671:
672: \begin{deluxetable}{lrr}
673: %\tablewidth{0pt}
674: \tabletypesize{\small}
675: \tablecaption{Cosmological parameters\label{tab:parameters}}
676: \tablecolumns{3}
677: \tablehead{Parameter & \emph{WMAP} & Source/likelihood corrected }
678: \startdata
679: \cutinhead{\emph{WMAP} data only}
680: $\Omega_{\textrm{b}}\,h^2$ & $0.0223\pm0.0007$ & $0.0220 \pm 0.0008$ \\
681: $\Omega_{\textrm{m}}$ & $0.237\pm0.034$ & $0.242 \pm 0.037$ \\
682: % $\log(10^{10}A_{\textrm{s}})$ & --- & $3.052\pm0.070$ \\
683: $h$ & $0.735\pm0.032$ & $0.731 \pm 0.034$ \\
684: $\tau$ & $0.088\pm0.030$ & $0.090 \pm 0.030$ \\
685: $n_{\textrm{s}}$ & $0.951\pm0.016$ & $0.968 \pm 0.017$ \\
686: $\sigma_8$ & $0.742\pm0.051$ & $0.780 \pm 0.052$ \\
687: \cutinhead{\emph{WMAP} + ACBAR + BOOMERANG}
688: $\Omega_{\textrm{b}}\,h^2$ & $0.0232\pm0.0007$ & $0.0224 \pm 0.0007$ \\
689: $\Omega_{\textrm{m}}$ & $0.233\pm0.034$ & $0.234 \pm 0.032$ \\
690: % $\log(10^{10}A_{\textrm{s}})$ & --- & $3.052\pm0.066$ \\
691: $h$ & $0.739\pm0.033$ & $0.742 \pm 0.032$ \\
692: $\tau$ & $0.088\pm0.032$ & $0.092 \pm 0.030$ \\
693: $n_{\textrm{s}}$ & $0.951\pm0.016$ & $0.970 \pm 0.017$ \\
694: $\sigma_8$ & $0.739\pm0.051$ & $0.778 \pm 0.045$ \\
695: \enddata
696: \tablecomments{Comparison of marginalized parameter results obtained
697: from Table 5 of \citet{Spergel2007} (second column) and
698: after our modifications to the source correction and likelihood (third column).}
699: \end{deluxetable}
700:
701: \subsection{Excess at $l < 200$}
702: \label{sec:lowl_excess}
703:
704: We now turn to the $l < 200$ feature, which is inconsistent with a
705: white noise spectrum. This is present in both the uniform and $N_{\rm
706: obs}$ weighted spectra, and in each year and pair of years. Because
707: of its shape and prominence at low $l$, we initially considered two
708: specific explanations. The first possibility concerned mis-estimation
709: of the overall multiplicative map calibration of each DA map: If two
710: maps are calibrated differently, the weights $W_L^{ij}$ in Equation
711: \ref{eq:amplitude} would not cancel the CMB component precisely. Thus,
712: one would observe a leakage from the CMB signal into the point source
713: spectrum, with a signature resembling the CMB power spectrum. A
714: similar effect would be caused by beam uncertainties. In Appendix A,
715: we present the formalism to take these uncertainties into account in
716: the method described in Section \ref{sec:method}, and the results from
717: the corresponding analysis of the \emph{WMAP} data are presented in the
718: bottom Section of Table \ref{tab:fits}. The conclusion from these
719: computations is that neither calibration nor beam uncertainties can
720: explain this effect.
721:
722: A third hypothesis is residual galactic foregrounds, which should show
723: through the mask and frequency dependency. As the galactic cut widens
724: from Kp2 to the wide cut (Figure~\ref{fig:maskdep}), the bin from
725: $l=100$--$150$ drops about 0.017 $\mu$K$^2$. At the same time the fit
726: for the white noise level drops by 0.006 $\mu$K$^2$. Subtracting off
727: the white noise levels for each, the component in the excess has
728: dropped by about 40 percent. The power in the excess is still
729: significant, even for this broad cut.
730:
731: Next, we turn to the estimates using only two bands. In this case, we
732: see that the feature is strongly enhanced in the V+W combinations,
733: about the same in the Q+W combination, but clearly diminished in the
734: Q+V combination. The latter appears consistent with the flat source
735: spectrum. This may indicate that the excess is associated with the W
736: band. On the other hand, because the W band spectra tend to carry
737: negative weight in these estimates (Figure \ref{fig:weights}), this
738: excess would represent a deficit of power in W, which is peculiar. It
739: may indicate an over-subtraction of the galactic foreground template
740: in W band, which could have consequences for the cosmological
741: analysis. At this point, it is difficult to be definitive.
742:
743:
744: \section{Conclusions}
745: \label{sec:conclusions}
746:
747: We have reanalyzed the source correction procedure for the three-year
748: data release of \emph{WMAP}. First, we considered the impact of this
749: procedure in the \emph{WMAP} likelihood code. Surprisingly, we found that the
750: \emph{WMAP} likelihood does not react to changes in the point source
751: correction error. We have devised a modified likelihood which does
752: respond as expected, although we note that more work is needed to
753: completely validate this approach, as it couples to the important
754: problem of how to approximate a non-Gaussian likelihood with fitting
755: formulas over a wide multipole range. To conclude $n_s < 1$, a
756: precision measurement of the source contamination is required. We
757: note that the modes not contaminated favor $n_s$ consistent with
758: unity.
759:
760: Second, we found several indications that the unmasked source
761: population in \emph{WMAP} data is anisotropic. This implies that the
762: combined spectrum should be corrected differently in two multipole
763: regions, based on the weighting of the map. Anisotropy in the
764: unmasked sources is unexpected, but can be turned to an advantage: By
765: very carefully masking near the ecliptic poles and galaxy, or
766: employing a wide galactic cut, the point source contamination can be
767: cut substantially. This gain must be weighed against the reduction of
768: the sky area.
769:
770: We note irregularities in jackknife tests of the source fit, grouped
771: by time of observation or frequency band. This prompted us to adopt
772: large errors on the source fit, to account for systematics beyond the
773: estimate of statistical error which accompanies our measurement. This
774: step is necessary to treat the source correction conservatively. With
775: the modified likelihood and reduced source amplitude from ignoring the
776: excess at $l<200$, these enlarged error bars are responsible for
777: raising our values of $n_s$ and $\sigma_8$.
778:
779: Finally, the previously noted anomalous $l < 200$ feature is still
780: present, shows signs of being spatially associated with the galaxy,
781: and is most strongly associated with the W band. On the other hand,
782: it does not appear to be associated with calibration or beam errors.
783: It may represent an over-subtraction of the foreground template in W,
784: although further investigation is warranted. However, the immediate
785: conclusion is that this part of the spectrum should not be used to
786: infer the point source amplitude at higher $l$'s.
787:
788: \begin{acknowledgements}
789: We thank the \emph{WMAP} team for useful discussions and for
790: providing additional data. In particular we thank Gary Hinshaw,
791: Michael Nolta, and Lyman Page, who suggested examining the effect of
792: beam uncertainties. HEALPix software \citep{healpix} was used to
793: deriving some results in this paper. We also acknowledge use of the
794: Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA). HKE
795: acknowledges financial support from the Research Council of
796: Norway.
797: This work was partially performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
798: California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA.
799: \end{acknowledgements}
800:
801: \bibliographystyle{hapj} % or your favorite style
802: \bibliography{wmap_ns_certainty}
803:
804:
805: \appendix
806: \section{Leakage from Calibration and Beam Errors}
807:
808: In the appendix, we estimate the leakage from CMB into the point
809: source estimate. We consider two sources of leakage, the overall
810: calibration of the map and the errors in the beam deconvolution. Each
811: of these can cause the CMB spectrum to have a slightly different
812: amplitude or shape in each of the cross spectra. This means that the
813: CMB will not cancel itself in the weighted linear combination to give
814: the source estimate. This leakage can be accounted for in the cross
815: spectrum covariance. The calibration is a constant function of $l$, and the beam error is nearly so over a wide range of scales, so the shape of the leakage term strongly follows the CMB power spectrum, which drops rapidly with $l$.
816:
817: The calibration uncertainty is simpler, so we begin there. In the signal (s) dominated regime, without including point sources, we can model the calibration errors with
818: \begin{equation}
819: d_i = (1+g_i) s.
820: \end{equation}
821: where the calibration in map $d_i$ is quantified with dimensionless factors $g_i$ with $\langle g_i \rangle = 0$ and $\langle g_i g_j \rangle = \sigma_g^2 \delta_{ij}$. Then the estimated cross-spectra are
822: \begin{equation}
823: D_l^{ij} = (1 + g_i + g_j + g_i g_j) \hat C_l.
824: \end{equation}
825: Where $\hat C_l$ is the power spectrum of the particular sky realization (although in the actual calculation, we substitute the \emph{WMAP} best-fit spectrum).
826: In the cross spectrum $i \neq j $, so this is an unbiased estimator, $\langle D_l^{ij} \rangle = \hat C_l$.
827: The covariance is
828: \begin{equation}
829: {\rm Cov}(D^{ij}_l, D^{pq}_{l'}) = \hat C_l \hat C_{l'} \left[ \sigma^2_g (\delta_{ip} + \delta_{iq} + \delta_{jp} + \delta_{jq})
830: + \sigma_g^4 (\delta_{ip}\delta_{jq} + \delta_{iq}\delta_{jp}) \right].
831: \end{equation}
832: Essentially, the variance only gets a contribution in terms where the two cross-spectra share a map.
833:
834: The point source estimate is
835: \begin{equation}
836: A_l = \sum_{l'} \sum_{(ij)} W_{ll'}^{ij} D_{l'}^{ij} = \sum_{l'} \hat C_{l'} \sum_{(ij)} W_{ll'}^{ij} (g_i + g_j + g_i g_j)
837: \end{equation}
838: where one term has dropped out because the weights sum to zero. Because we have not included any source contribution, we have $\langle A_l \rangle = 0$, where the ensemble average is over the calibration factors.
839: For plotting, its useful to compute the variance due to the calibration factors
840: \begin{eqnarray}
841: \langle A^2_l \rangle &=& \sum_{l'l''} \hat C_{l'} \hat C_{l''} \sum_{(ij)\,(pq)} W_{ll'}^{ij} W_{ll''}^{pq} \left[ \sigma^2_g (\delta_{ip} + \delta_{iq} + \delta_{jp} + \delta_{jq}) + \sigma_g^4 (\delta_{ip}\delta_{jq} + \delta_{iq}\delta_{jp}) \right]
842: \label{eqn:calvar}
843: \end{eqnarray}
844:
845: A word about binning the spectrum is appropriate here. In practice we bin the spectrum because the large number of cross-spectra (276) and multipoles ($\sim 800$) slows the computation, and the signal-to-noise per multipole in low. We may
846: define a binning matrix $G_{Ll}$ which averages quantities in non-overlapping bands indexed by $L$, and compute our estimate from the binned cross spectra $\sum_l G_{Ll} D_l^{ij}$.
847: The quantity we are now computing is the variance in a bin. Since the weights are also computed in bands, this reduces to replacing the $l$s with $L$s and replacing each power spectrum term $C_l$ with $\sum_l G_{Ll} \hat C_l $.
848:
849: In \citet{Jarosik2007}, the calibration uncertainty is quoted as 0.5 percent, so $\sigma_g = 0.005$. As written, we are assuming the all maps are uncorrelated, the case if the calibration fluctuations are dominated by noise as expected \citep{Page2007Personal}. In this case, fluctuations in the calibration are fairly small compared to the source estimate. If the calibration is dominated by something else, say foregrounds, then whole bands could be correlated, and the calibration leakage can be substantial compared to the source fit.
850:
851:
852: In a similar way, we can estimate the beam uncertainties. We begin with
853: \begin{equation}
854: d^i_{lm} = \hat B^i_l ( 1 + E^i_l ) s_{lm},
855: \end{equation}
856: where $\hat B^i_l$ is an unbiased measurement of the beam, and $E^i_l$ is the (small) fractional difference between the true beam and the measured beam. We assume all beams have independent errors, and define a $\delta$-function-like object $\delta^B_{ij}$, which is unity when maps $i$ and $j$ share a beam, and zero otherwise. With this definition, we may use a describe the beam error with a Gaussian distribution with $\langle E^i_l \rangle = 0$ and
857: \begin{equation}
858: \langle E^i_l E^j_l \rangle = \Sigma^{B,i}_{ll'} \delta^B_{ij}.
859: \end{equation}
860: That is, the beam errors are correlated in $l$ but not between beams. The beam-deconvolved cross spectra are
861: \begin{equation}
862: D^{ij}_l = (1 + E^i_l)(1 + E^j_l) \hat C_l.
863: \end{equation}
864: Following the same procedure as with gain calibrations, we find a similar expression for the covariance:
865: \begin{equation}
866: {\rm Cov}(D^{ij}_l, D^{pq}_{l'}) = \hat C_l \left[ \Sigma^{B,i}_{ll'} (\delta^B_{ip} + \delta^B_{iq})
867: + \Sigma^{B,j}_{ll'} (\delta^B_{jp} + \delta^B_{jq})
868: + \Sigma^{B,i}_{ll'} \Sigma^{B,j}_{ll'} (\delta^B_{ip}\delta^B_{jq} + \delta^B_{iq}\delta^B_{jp}) \right] \hat C_{l'}.
869: \end{equation}
870:
871:
872: %\begin{eqnarray}
873: %\langle A_l A_{l'} \rangle &=& \sum_{ij\,pq} W_l^{ij} W_{l'}^{pq} \\ \nonumber
874: %&&\times \hat C_l \left[ \Sigma^{B,i}_{ll'} (\delta^B_{ip} + \delta^B_{iq})
875: %+ \Sigma^{B,j}_{ll'} (\delta^B_{jp} + \delta^B_{jq}) \right. \\ \nonumber
876: %&& \qquad \left. + \Sigma^{B,i}_{ll'} \Sigma^{B,j}_{ll'} (\delta^B_{ip}\delta^B_{jq} + \delta^B_{iq}\delta^B_{jp}) \right] \hat C_{l'}
877: %\label{eqn:beam_uncertainty}
878: %\end{eqnarray}
879:
880: \emph{WMAP} found that the beam uncertainty can be well represented as a small number of orthogonal modes ($\sim 10$) \cite{Hinshaw2003,Hinshaw2007}:
881: \begin{equation}
882: \Sigma^{B,i}_{ll'} = \sum_r U^i_{rl} U^{i}_{rl'}.
883: \end{equation}
884: where $r$ denotes the mode.
885: Here the binning is a little more complicated than for the calibration uncertainty. Instead of simply $\hat C_l$, the quantities which must be binned are $\hat C_l U^i_l$ (for the first-order terms) and $\hat C_l U^i_{rl} U^j_{tl}$ (for the second order term).
886:
887: At this time, the beam modes for each \emph{WMAP} differencing assembly are not public. (Only the modes for the combined spectrum are included in the likelihood code.) To approximate the beam modes, we take the beam errors from \citet{Jarosik2007} (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:beamerr_fit}). We treat each of these as a single mode for the associated beam, correlating all the multipoles in that beam. This should provide a conservative estimate of the beam covariance, though it does not capture all of its properties.
888: \begin{figure}
889: \begin{center}
890: \includegraphics[width=0.98\figwidth]{f10a.eps}
891: \includegraphics[width=0.98\figwidth]{f10b.eps}
892: \end{center}
893: \caption{(Left) Beam errors taken from \citet{Jarosik2007}. The Q-band errors rise smoothly to $\sim 0.08$ at $l=800$. (Right) rms leakage of the CMB into the point source measurement, with and without taking the contribution to the beam covariance into account. }
894: \label{fig:beamerr_fit}
895: \end{figure}
896: With these approximate modes, we can compute the beam variance and the rms CMB leakage for any set of weights. This is plotted in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:beamerr_fit}. For our standard diagonal covariance, the rms beam leakage at first looks like a promising explanation for the $l < 200$ excess. It has a similar shape, and strong correlations bin-to-bin. However, when we recompute the weights taking the beam covariance into account, we produce a similar estimate for point sources in a combination which allows very little CMB leakage. Given the estimated size of the rms residual CMB, it is surprising that the source estimates are so similar. Perhaps this is an indication that the beam covariance is overestimated. In any case, the $l < 200$ is either not due to beams, or the approximation for the beam modes is very poor.
897:
898:
899: \end{document}