1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % Gregory Dobler (started May 24, 2007) %
3: % %
4: % 3-yr WMAP foregrounds paper %
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6:
7:
8: %
9: % Classes, packages, and comments
10: %
11: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
12: \usepackage{graphicx}
13:
14: %
15: % Equations, figures, tables, and references
16: %
17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\bel}[1]{\be\label{eq:#1}}
19: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}} \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand\bp{\begin{figure}}
21: \newcommand\ep{\end{figure}} \newcommand\bpm{\begin{figure*}}
22: \newcommand\epm{\end{figure*}} \newcommand{\btab}{\begin{tabular}}
23: \newcommand{\etab}{\end{tabular}} \newcommand{\bt}{\begin{table}}
24: \newcommand{\et}{\end{table}} \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{enumerate}}
25: \newcommand{\een}{\end{enumerate}} \newcommand\reffig[1]{Figure
26: \ref{fig:#1}} \newcommand\refeq[1]{Equation \ref{eq:#1}}
27: \newcommand\refsec[1]{\S \ref{sec:#1}} \newcommand\reftbl[1]{Table
28: \ref{tbl:#1}}
29:
30: %
31: % Alignment
32: %
33: \newcommand{\bcn}{\begin{center}}
34: \newcommand{\ecn}{\end{center}}
35:
36: %
37: % Symbols
38: %
39: \newcommand\Res{{\rm\bf r}}
40: \newcommand{\rmbf}[1]{{\rm\bf #1}}
41: \newcommand{\hal}{H$\alpha$}
42:
43:
44: \begin{document}
45:
46: \title{Extended Anomalous Foreground Emission in the WMAP 3-Year Data}
47:
48: \author{Gregory Dobler\altaffilmark{1,2} \& Douglas P.
49: Finkbeiner\altaffilmark{1}}
50:
51: \altaffiltext{1}{
52: Institute for Theory and Computation,
53: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS-51,
54: Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
55: }
56: \altaffiltext{2}{gdobler@cfa.harvard.edu}
57:
58:
59: \begin{abstract}
60: We study the spectral and morphological characteristics of the
61: diffuse Galactic emission in the WMAP temperature data using a
62: template-based multi-linear regression, and obtain the following
63: results. 1. We confirm previous observations of a bump in the
64: dust-correlated spectrum, consistent with the Draine \& Lazarian
65: spinning dust model. 2. We also confirm the ``haze'' signal in the
66: inner Galaxy, and argue that it does not follow a free--free
67: spectrum as first thought, but instead is synchrotron emission from
68: a hard electron cosmic-ray population. 3. In a departure from
69: previous work, we allow the spectrum of \hal-correlated emission
70: (which is used to trace the free--free component) to float in the
71: fit, and find that it does not follow the expected free--free
72: spectrum. Instead there is a bump near 50 GHz, modifying the
73: spectrum at the 20\% level, which we speculate is caused by spinning
74: dust in the warm ionized medium. 4. The derived cross-correlation
75: spectra are not sensitive to the map zero points, but are sensitive
76: to the choice of CMB estimator. In cases where the CMB estimator is
77: derived by minimizing variance of a linear combination of the WMAP
78: bands, we show that a bias proportional to the cross-correlation of
79: each template and the true CMB is always present. This bias can be
80: larger than any of the foreground signals in some bands. 5.
81: Lastly, we consider the frequency coverage and sensitivity of the
82: \emph{Planck} mission, and suggest linear combination coefficients
83: for the CMB template that will reduce both the statistical and
84: systematic uncertainty in the synchrotron and haze spectra by more
85: than an order of magnitude.
86: \end{abstract}
87:
88: \keywords{
89: diffuse radiation ---
90: dust, extinction ---
91: ISM: clouds ---
92: radiation mechanisms: non-thermal ---
93: radio continuum: ISM
94: }
95:
96:
97: \section{Introduction}
98:
99: Observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) by the
100: \emph{Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe} (WMAP) have revolutionized
101: our understanding of cosmology and placed strong constraints on
102: cosmological parameters \citep{spergel03,spergel07,tegmark04}.
103: Moreover, the WMAP foreground signal represents the most detailed and
104: sensitive full-sky maps of Galactic microwave emission, providing an
105: enormous wealth of information about the physical processes in the
106: interstellar medium (ISM).
107:
108: \subsection{Galactic emission mechanisms}
109: There are three well established types of Galactic foreground
110: signals at WMAP frequencies: free--free (or thermal bremsstrahlung) emission
111: from interaction of free electrons with ions, dust emission from grains
112: heated by the surrounding radiation field, and
113: synchrotron emission from supernova shock accelerated electrons. In addition,
114: there are two other emission mechanisms which have proven more difficult to
115: characterize: spinning dust and the anomalous ``haze''
116: \citep{finkbeiner04}. Spinning dust refers to emission from the
117: smallest dust grains which have non-negligible electric dipole moments
118: and are excited into rotational modes through a variety of mechanisms
119: \citep[cf.][]{DL98b}. The physical origin of the haze is uncertain.
120:
121: Though initially controversial \citep{bennett03}, numerous authors
122: have presented evidence for a spinning dust spectrum when combining
123: WMAP data with external data sets \citep{deO04,gb04,boughn07}.
124: Using only WMAP data, \citet{bennett03} and \citet{hinshaw07} point
125: out that it is difficult to spectrally distinguish certain spinning
126: dust models from synchrotron. However, in our companion paper
127: \citep[][hereafter DF07]{DF07}, we show that a spinning dust spectrum
128: is indeed recoverable using exclusively WMAP data, though it is not
129: spatially correlated with the \emph{thermal} dust emission.
130:
131: The haze was originally thought \citep{finkbeiner04} to be free--free emission
132: from ionized gas which is too hot to be visible in recombination line maps and
133: too cold to be visible in X-ray maps. However, gas at the required temperature
134: $T \sim 10^5$ K is thermally unstable \citep{spitzer}. Furthermore, we will
135: show in \refsec{results} that the spectrum of the haze is inconsistent with
136: free--free emission and is most likely explained as a hard synchrotron component
137: which is morphologically and spectrally distinct from the above mentioned
138: \emph{soft} synchrotron.
139:
140: \subsection{MEM analysis}
141: With the first and third year data releases, the WMAP team provided a dual
142: foreground analysis: a maximum entropy method (MEM) and a template fitting
143: algorithm. The former was intended to improve our understanding of the
144: astrophysics of foreground emission while the latter (more statistically stable)
145: algorithm was meant to produce CMB maps with well characterized noise properties
146: for use in the cosmological analysis \citep{bennett03,hinshaw07}.
147:
148: Although the total observed emission matches the MEM model to better than 1\%,
149: ``Low residual solutions are highly constrained, but not necessarily unique or
150: correct'' \citep[][p. 108]{bennett03}. The MEM method is a pixel-by-pixel fit
151: which minimizes the functional $H(p) = A(p) + \lambda(p)B(p)$ \citep{press92}
152: where $\lambda$ is a regularizing parameter,
153: \be
154: A(p) = \chi^2(p) = \sum_p[T(\nu,p) - T_m(\nu,p)]^2/\sigma^2,
155: \ee
156: \bel{mem}
157: B(p) = \sum_c T_c(p) \ln[T_c(p)/P_c(p)],
158: \ee
159: and the sum is over Galactic emission components. $P_c(p)$ is a prior template
160: for component $c$, normalized to the same frequency as $T_c$ \citep[see][for
161: details]{bennett03,hinshaw07}.
162:
163: The noise properties of a MEM-derived CMB map are complicated, e.g. by the fact
164: that noise is clipped to be non-negative by the logarithm in \refeq{mem}.
165: Because simple noise properties are desirable for a cosmological power spectrum
166: analysis, a template-based map is used instead. In the end, \citet{bennett03}
167: and \citet{hinshaw07} fit spatial templates for the dust, free--free, and
168: synchrotron ISM emissions to WMAP Q, V, and W bands. They find that the
169: remaining contamination in the maps is sufficiently subdominant outside the Kp2
170: mask so that the effect on the CMB power spectrum is negligible.
171:
172:
173: \subsection{``Anomalous'' ISM emission mechanisms}
174: \label{sec:anomalous}
175:
176: Given their dual approach, an important question to address is: why have the
177: foreground analyses of the WMAP team not positively identified the spinning dust
178: emission in DF07 and the haze emission in \citet{finkbeiner04}?
179:
180: With the MEM analysis, there are two pitfalls. First and most importantly, the
181: MEM analysis generates a map of the spectral behavior of the soft synchrotron
182: \emph{in each pixel}. Since the free--free and dust spectra are kept fixed in
183: the model, deviations away from these assumed prior spectra are absorbed into
184: this ``spectral index map'' for synchrotron. Second, when minimizing $H(p)$, if
185: the recovered model $T_m(\nu,p)$ yields negative pixel values, $\lambda(p)$ is
186: increased until the results are greater than zero. These two effects
187: combine so that foreground emission which does not match the prior templates and
188: spectra (i.e., spinning dust and haze emission) are simultaneously absorbed
189: into the synchrotron spectral index map and washed out by adding priors back
190: into each pixel to enforce positivity. Since minimizing $H(p)$ in this way is
191: repeated multiple times (with the synchrotron spectral index map being
192: ``updated'' with each iteration) the results of the MEM analysis naturally
193: strongly resemble the priors.
194:
195: With the template fitting algorithm, the difficulty arises in the
196: choice of a synchrotron template. Because the WMAP signal to noise
197: ratio is far superior to previous surveys, \citet{hinshaw07} use the
198: difference of the two lowest WMAP frequency maps (K$-$Ka) as a
199: template for synchrotron\footnote{
200: \citet{bennett03} used the synchrotron template described in
201: \refsec{foremaps}, and an excess south of the Galactic Center is
202: indeed visible in their residual maps (their Fig. 11, upper right panel).}.
203: They acknowledge that
204: this template necessarily contains free--free emission as well, but it
205: \emph{also} contains the haze and spinning dust emission. Thus, the
206: haze and spinning dust are simultaneously explicitly fit with this
207: template. In addition, the spectra of the dust emission and
208: free--free emission are again kept fixed so deviations are difficult
209: to identify.
210:
211: Given the numerous challenges involved in a CMB foreground analysis and the
212: serious questions about whether all the relevant foreground emission mechanisms
213: have even been identified yet, we choose an approach that is simple enough to
214: have well characterized noise properties, but flexible enough to allow us to
215: find surprises. In the limit where the spectrum of each component is invariant
216: with position, one still has the choice of assuming a perfect spatial template,
217: or assuming knowledge of the spectrum of each component. Given that the
218: spectrum of each component can vary with position, neither of these approaches
219: is strictly correct. Nevertheless, as we shall see, there is still much to be
220: learned by making a too rigid assumption and then studying the resulting
221: residuals.
222:
223:
224:
225: \section{Methods}
226:
227: We proceed under the assumption that the morphologies of the foreground
228: components are well characterized by external data sets and that their spectra
229: do not vary significantly over our regions of interest (see
230: \refsec{regfits}). Thus, in principle, we should be able to find the
231: appropriate linear combination of the foreground templates which, when combined
232: with a CMB template, can be subtracted from the WMAP data leaving only random
233: residuals consistent with noise.
234:
235: \subsection{Template maps}
236: \label{sec:foremaps}
237: Each of the templates used in our fits has been discussed in detail by previous
238: authors \citep{bennett03,finkbeiner04,davies06,hinshaw07} and so we only
239: briefly review them here.
240:
241: \emph{Free--free:} Free--free (or thermal bremsstrahlung) emission originates
242: from the Coulomb interaction of free electrons with ions in a warm gas. Since
243: this emission is proportional to gas density squared, maps of H$\alpha$
244: recombination line emission (which is also proportional to density squared)
245: roughly trace the morphology of the gas and thus also the free--free emission.
246: Our template for this foreground is the H$\alpha$ map, assembled from the VTSS
247: \citep{dennison98}, SHASSA \citep{gaustad01}, and WHAM \citep{haffner03} surveys
248: by \citet{finkbeiner03}. Extinction by dust (both in front of and
249: mixed with the warm gas) presents a potential challenge in
250: interpreting H$\alpha$ as a tracer of free--free emission
251: \citep{bennett03,finkbeiner04}. We correct the \hal\ map for dust
252: extinction using the prescription in \citet{finkbeiner03}, and further
253: mitigate the effect by limiting our interest only to regions where the
254: dust extinction is $A(H\alpha) \equiv 2.65E(B-V) < 1$ mag, where $A$
255: is related to the dust optical depth $\tau_d = A/(1.086$ mag).
256:
257: The free--free spectrum is constrained by physics
258: \citep{spitzer,bennett03} as \be T \propto \nu^{\alpha},
259: \label{eq:ffspec}
260: \ee
261: where $\alpha \sim -2.15$, $T$ is in antenna temperature, and the
262: proportionality depends only on the electron temperature $T_e$. Thus the only
263: free parameter is a scaling factor equivalent to the electron temperature
264: on the sky (but see \S \ref{sec:results}), though this temperature is expected
265: to vary with position.
266:
267: \emph{Thermal and spinning dust:} The emission produced from tiny
268: interstellar dust grains
269: vibrating in equilibrium with the surrounding radiation field has been mapped
270: across the sky by \citet{schlegel98}. We use their full-sky map evaluated at 94
271: GHz by \citet{finkbeiner99} (hereafter, the FDS map) as a dust
272: template.\footnote{the H$\alpha$ and FDS maps can be found online at
273: http://www.skymaps.info} The smallest of these dust grains are expected to have
274: a non-negligible electric dipole moment and so can also emit radiation at WMAP
275: frequencies through rotational modes excited by collisions with ions. Thus our
276: template also traces spinning dust emission. Since the spectral dependence of
277: the spinning dust is not well known, we use our fit to constrain the frequency
278: dependence of the dust-correlated foregrounds.
279:
280: \emph{Soft synchrotron:} As relativistic, shock accelerated electrons
281: travel through the Galactic magnetic field, they emit synchrotron
282: radiation with a characteristic frequency dependence $\propto
283: \nu^{\beta}$ (in antenna temperature units). At 408 MHz, this
284: emission was measured by \citet{haslam82}, and we use their full-sky
285: map as a tracer of soft synchrotron. As pointed out by
286: \citet{bennett03} and \citet{hinshaw07} the spectral index $\beta$ is
287: expected to vary across the sky, and in particular, the spectrum may
288: be harder near regions of recent supernova activity. Though we use
289: our fit to evaluate the spectra of the 408 MHz-correlated synchrotron
290: emission, we note that a value of $\beta = -3.05$ removes most of the
291: emission at high latitude (most notably the prominent ``North Galactic
292: Spur'' feature).
293:
294: \emph{CMB:} As we shall see in \refsec{results}, the choice of CMB
295: estimator can dramatically affect the inferred foreground spectra in a
296: given fit. To illustrate this sensitivity, we use six different CMB
297: estimators defined as follows.
298: \begin{itemize}
299: \item
300: CMB1 -- The published internal linear combination (ILC) map derived by the WMAP
301: team for the 3-yr data.\footnote{available at \texttt{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/}}
302: \item CMB2 -- An ILC with the coefficients that the WMAP team have
303: found best cancel their Region 0 foregrounds in the three year data
304: \citet{hinshaw07}. This ILC is given by,
305: \be
306: \begin{array}{ccl}
307: {\rm CMB2} & = & 0.156 \ T_{\rm K} \ - \ 0.888 \ T_{\rm Ka} \ + \ 0.030 \
308: T_{\rm Q} \\
309: & & + \ 2.045 \ T_{\rm V} \ - \ 0.342 \ T_{\rm W},
310: \end{array}
311: \ee
312: where $T_j$ is the observed WMAP temperature data in band $j$, in thermodynamic $\Delta T$ units.
313: \item
314: CMB3 -- An ILC which minimizes the variance over our unmasked pixels. Here
315: \be
316: \begin{array}{ccl}
317: {\rm CMB3} & = & -0.032 \ T_{\rm K} \ - \ 0.205 \ T_{\rm Ka} \ + \ 0.037 \
318: T_{\rm Q} \\
319: & & + \ 0.441 \ T_{\rm V} \ + \ 0.760 \ T_{\rm W}.
320: \end{array}
321: \ee
322: \item
323: CMB4 -- A ``high frequency (HF) estimator'' that removes the dominant
324: foregrounds (thermal dust and free--free) from the 94 GHz WMAP data,
325: \be
326: \begin{array}{ccl}
327: {\rm CMB4} & = & T_{\rm W} - FDS - A H\alpha,
328: \end{array}
329: \ee
330: where the constant $A$ is determined from the approximate free--free amplitude at
331: 23 GHz and traced to 94 GHz via \refeq{ffspec}.
332: \item
333: CMB5 -- A model for the thermal dust is subtracted from all of the WMAP bands
334: using $T_{\rm dust} = (\nu/94\mbox{ GHz})^{1.7} \times$ FDS. A minimum variance
335: ILC is then generated from this thermal dust pre-subtracted data (denoted by
336: primes). The variance is minimized for,
337: \be
338: \begin{array}{ccl}
339: {\rm CMB5} & = & 0.104 \ T'_{\rm K} \ - \ 0.289 \ T'_{\rm Ka} \
340: - \ 0.190 \ T'_{\rm Q} \\
341: & & + \ 0.317 \ T'_{\rm V} \ + \ 1.059 \ T'_{\rm W},
342: \end{array}
343: \ee
344: \item
345: CMB6 -- A cleaned map of the 3-year data, cleaned with the \citet{tegmark03}
346: (TOH) method.\footnote{available at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/wmap.html}
347: This method utilizes a linear weighting of the data in which the weights depend
348: on the multipole $\ell$ of the spherical harmonic expansion of each of the five
349: WMAP bands.
350: \end{itemize}
351:
352: In the limit where the noise in each WMAP band is equal to
353: $\sigma_0$, the measurement noise of the ILC is simply
354: \be
355: \sigma_L = \sigma_0\sqrt{\sum_b \zeta_b^2}
356: \ee
357: so CMB3 and CMB5 are significantly less noisy than CMB1 and CMB2. Due to the
358: complicated weighting of the TOH method, the measurement noise properties
359: of CMB6 are quite complicated.
360:
361:
362: \emph{Mask:} In addition to masking out all point sources listed in
363: the WMAP team's three year catalog, as noted above, we mask all
364: regions of the sky where the H$\alpha$ extinction due to dust
365: $A(\mbox{H}\alpha)=2.65 E(B-V) \ge 1$ mag. We also mask out the LMC,
366: SMC, M31, Orion-Barnard's Loop, NGC 5090, and $\zeta$--Oph. This mask
367: covers $21.5\%$ of the sky.
368:
369:
370:
371: \subsection{Fitting procedure}
372: \label{sec:fitpro}
373: Our model is that the observed WMAP data is a linear combination
374: of the foreground templates plus the CMB\footnote{Variations in the foreground
375: spectra from place to place on the sky will be explored by fitting smaller
376: regions in upcoming sections} plus noise. Therefore, we want to solve the
377: matrix equation
378: \bel{mateq}
379: P \rmbf{a} = \rmbf{w},
380: \ee
381: where \rmbf{w} is the CMB-subtracted WMAP data and $P$ is a ``template
382: matrix'' whose columns
383: consist of the foreground templates outlined in \S \ref{sec:foremaps}, for the
384: coefficient vector \rmbf{a} whose entries represent the weights of the
385: individual foregrounds.
386:
387: The template matrix can be represented schematically by a block-diagonal matrix,
388: \be
389: P=
390: \left(
391: \begin{array}{ccccc}
392: P_1 & & & & \\
393: & P_2 & & & \\
394: & & P_3 & & \\
395: & & & P_4 & \\
396: & & & & P_5
397: \end{array}
398: \right),
399: \ee
400: where the 5 blocks correspond to the 5 WMAP bands, and each block has
401: the form
402: \be
403: P_b=
404: \left(
405: \begin{array}{ccc}
406: f_{1,b} & d_{1,b} & s_{1,b} \\
407: f_{2,b} & d_{2,b} & s_{2,b} \\
408: f_{3,b} & d_{3,b} & s_{3,b} \\
409: . & . & . \\
410: . & . & . \\
411: . & . & . \\
412: f_{N_p,b} & d_{N_p,b} & s_{N_p,b}
413: \end{array}
414: \right),
415: \ee
416: where \rmbf{f}, \rmbf{d}, and \rmbf{s} are the templates for free--free,
417: thermal and spinning dust, and soft synchrotron emission (in thermodynamic mK)
418: respectively. This makes $P$ a $5 N_p \times 15$ matrix. For each
419: template, the mean of the unmasked pixels is subtracted, making the
420: results of this fit insensitive to zero-point errors in the templates.
421: For each template column, the first index represents the pixel number
422: and the second represents a WMAP frequency band --- i.e., 1=23 GHz
423: (K), 2=33 GHz (Ka), etc. The total number of un-masked pixels in each
424: map is
425: $N_p$. For our most general fits, we assume no knowledge of the \rmbf{f},
426: \rmbf{d}, and \rmbf{s}
427: spectra, and so those templates do not differ for each band. Rather, we
428: explicitly \emph{fit} the spectra as discussed below.
429:
430: The CMB-subtracted WMAP data and the coefficient vector are column vectors,
431: \be
432: \rmbf{w} =
433: \left(
434: \begin{array}{c}
435: T_{1,1} - c_1 \\
436: T_{2,1} - c_2 \\
437: T_{3,1} - c_3 \\
438: . \\
439: . \\
440: . \\
441: T_{1,2} - c_1 \\
442: . \\
443: . \\
444: . \\
445: T_{N_p,5} - c_{N_p}
446: \end{array}
447: \right)
448: \mbox{ \ \ and \ \ }
449: \rmbf{a} =
450: \left(
451: \begin{array}{c}
452: a_{f,1} \\
453: a_{d,1} \\
454: a_{s,1} \\
455: a_{f,2} \\
456: a_{d,2} \\
457: a_{s,2} \\
458: . \\
459: . \\
460: . \\
461: a_{s,5} \\
462: \end{array}
463: \right),
464: \ee
465: where $T_{i,j}$ is the observed WMAP temperature data in pixel $i$ and band $j$,
466: and \rmbf{c} is one of our CMB estimators. Their lengths are $5 N_p$ and 15
467: respectively.
468:
469: Since $P$ is not a square matrix with linearly independent rows, it is not
470: invertible. To solve \refeq{mateq} we calculate $P^+$, where $^+$ denotes the
471: \emph{pseudoinverse}.\footnote{The pseudoinverse is defined as, $P^+ = B
472: \Sigma^+ U^T$, where the singular value decomposition of $P = U \Sigma B^T$ and
473: $\Sigma^+$ is the transpose of $\Sigma$ with all non-zero singular values
474: replaced by their inverse. In the case of a square, non-singular matrix, $P^+
475: \rightarrow P^{-1}$.} The solution $\rmbf{a} = P^+ \rmbf{w}$ minimizes the
476: quantity $e^2 = ||P\rmbf{a}-\rmbf{w}||^2$, so that if we divide both sides
477: of \refeq{mateq} by the uncertainty
478: $\sigma$ (following Bennett et al. 2003 and Hinshaw et al. 2007,
479: we use the mean measurement noise in each WMAP band), the solution\footnote{From
480: the properties of the pseudoinverse,
481: $P P^+ P = P$ and $[P P^+]^T = P P^+$, it is easy to show that, if the columns
482: of $P$ are linearly independent as they are in our case, $P^+ = [P^T P]^{-1}
483: P^T$, making our technique equivalent to other $\chi^2$ minimization techniques
484: \citep[e.g.][]{tegmark03,deO06}.
485: }
486: \bel{fitsol}
487: \rmbf{a} = \left( P/\sigma\right)^+ \left( \rmbf{w}/\sigma \right)
488: \ee
489: minimizes the quantity
490: \bel{chisq}
491: \left\|\frac{P}{\sigma} \ \rmbf{a} - \frac{\rmbf{w}}{\sigma}\right\|^2 =
492: \frac{\|P\rmbf{a}-\rmbf{w}\|^2}{\sigma^2} \equiv \chi^2.
493: \ee
494:
495: This fitting procedure is flexible in that additional foreground components can
496: be incorporated by simply adding columns to the template matrix. We will
497: exploit this feature in \refsec{results} to model the anomalous ``haze'' excess
498: emission towards the Galactic center.
499:
500: The five components of each coefficient (e.g., $\rmbf{a}_{d,j}$, with j=[1:5])
501: represent a fit of both the amplitude and spectrum of
502: the associated emission. By simultaneously fitting all of the spectra for all
503: of the foregrounds, we can completely decouple the bands from each other in our
504: fits. Additionally, we also perform less general fits in which various spectra
505: are fixed to follow the dependencies in \refsec{foremaps} (see
506: \reftbl{fittypes}). We point out that, fitting the spectrum of the free--free
507: emission serves as a check on the assumption that it is well described by
508: Equation \ref{eq:ffspec} (see \refsec{results}).
509:
510:
511:
512:
513: \section{Results}
514: \label{sec:results}
515: We have performed both full-sky fits as well as fits of smaller regions --- the
516: motivation being that both the soft synchrotron and spinning dust spectra should
517: vary from place to place across the sky. Our fits are characterized by the
518: $\chi^2$ statistic of \refeq{chisq} and by the residual map,
519: \be
520: \Res = P\rmbf{a} - \rmbf{w},
521: \ee
522: which guides intuition and serves as a visual aid in evaluating the goodness of
523: fit.
524:
525: \begin{deluxetable}{c|cccc|ccc}
526: \tablehead{
527: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Spectra Fit} & \multicolumn{3}{|c}{$\chi^2/\nu$} \\
528: Type & H$\alpha$ & Dust & Haslam & Haze$^{\dagger}$ & FS & GC &
529: RG$^{\ddagger}$
530: }
531: \startdata
532: 1 & & x & & & 3.514 & 6.700 & 4.572 \\
533: 2 & & x & & x & 2.993 & 5.147 & 4.213 \\
534: 3 & x & x & & & 3.498 & 6.656 & 4.302 \\
535: 4 & x & x & & x & 2.977 & 5.126 & 4.168 \\
536: 5 & & x & x & & 3.506 & 6.650 & 4.241 \\
537: 6 & & x & x & x & 2.988 & 5.106 & 4.169 \\
538: 7 & x & x & x & & 3.489 & 6.611 & 4.208 \\
539: 8 & x & x & x & x & 2.972 & 5.082 & 4.148
540: \enddata
541: \tablecomments{
542: The different types of fits performed with the procedure outlined in
543: \refsec{fitpro} using CMB5 for a CMB estimator. Fit types are characterized by
544: which spectra are fit, and in which region of the sky: full-sky (FS), Galactic
545: center (GC, $l,b=[-45:+45]$), or specific regions of interest (RG, see
546: \reffig{regions-map}). $\dagger$ The haze template is described in
547: \refsec{fs-and-gc-fits}. $\ddagger$ The $\chi^2/\nu$ for the RG fits are
548: averaged over all 12 regions.
549: }\label{tbl:fittypes}
550: \end{deluxetable}
551:
552: The fits can be separated into eight types as outlined in \reftbl{fittypes}.
553: The types designate which spectra are fit and whether the fit was over
554: the full-sky (FS), the Galactic center (GC -- $l,b=[-45:+45]$), or the
555: ``regions'' (RG), which were chosen as regions of interest based on $\Res$ for a
556: full-sky fit (see \reffig{regions-map}). Also shown in \reftbl{fittypes} are
557: the $\chi^2/\nu$ for each fit type, where $\nu$ is the number of degrees of
558: freedom and is given by
559: \be
560: \nu = N_p - N_a,
561: \ee
562: with $N_a$ the number of elements in the coefficient vector. Throughout the rest
563: of this paper, we concentrate exclusively on our most general fit types 7 and 8,
564: and unless otherwise noted, use CMB5 for a CMB estimator. This estimator is
565: attractive both because of its uncomplicated noise properties and because the
566: thermal dust emission has arguably the most well understood amplitude and
567: spectral behavior making it amenable to pre-subtraction before forming an ILC.
568:
569:
570:
571: \subsection{Full-sky and Galactic center residual maps}
572: \label{sec:fs-and-gc-fits}
573:
574: \bpm
575: \centerline{
576: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f1.eps}
577: }
578: \caption{
579: Residual maps $\Res$ for three of the five bands and for FS7 and FS8 fits using
580: CMB5 (the K, Ka, and Q band maps are stretched to $\pm 0.25$, $\pm 0.12$, and
581: $\pm 0.08$ mK respectively; all maps are mean subtracted).
582: The unsubtracted WMAP data are also shown for comparison. The FS7 fit removes
583: much of the
584: emission, however there is a remaining excess towards the Galactic center. This
585: excess emission is particularly notable south of the Galactic center where
586: obscuration by dust and gas is negligible. FS8 incorporates a simple spatial
587: template for this haze and removes much of the residuals in that region.
588: }\label{fig:fullsky}
589: \epm
590:
591: \reffig{fullsky} shows $\Res_{\rm FS7}$ as well as the unsubtracted
592: maps for K, Ka, and Q bands, stretched to $\pm 0.25$, $\pm 0.12$, and $\pm 0.08$
593: mK respectively. The fit yields
594: $\chi_{\rm FS7}^2/\nu = 3.49$, removing 95.8\%, 95.7\%, 96.3\%,
595: 97.5\%, and 99.7\% (for K, Ka, Q, V, and W\footnote{The noise in W
596: band is especially
597: low because the coefficient of $T_W$ in the CMB5 estimator is very
598: close to one, so the CMB-subtracted W band data has essentially no
599: W band data in it. Therefore results from W band should be viewed
600: with suspicion.} bands respectively) of the
601: variance from the WMAP data. However, it is clear from the second row
602: of \reffig{fullsky} that there is still a remaining emission residual
603: towards the Galactic center (GC).
604: This residual is the
605: ``haze'' present in the 1 year data as shown by \citet{finkbeiner04}.
606:
607: Although the average power in the haze is small (with a mean of just 0.59 kJy/sr
608: per pixel at 23 GHz within 30 degrees of the GC in the southern sky), our fit may
609: be compensating for its presence by adjusting the weights of the other
610: foreground templates. To relax the stress on the fit, we adopt a crude model for
611: the haze emission,
612: \bel{haze-mod}
613: \rmbf{h} \propto \left\{
614: \begin{array}{cl}
615: \frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{r_0} & \mbox{for } r < r_0; \\
616: 0 & \mbox{for } r > r_0,
617: \end{array}
618: \right.
619: \ee
620: where $r$ is the distance to the Galactic center and we arbitrarily
621: set $r_0 = 45$ degrees. Since the emission mechanism is unknown, we
622: fit the spectrum of the haze as well. The extent to which the other
623: fit parameters change gives an idea of the cross talk between the haze
624: and the other templates.
625:
626: The third row of Figure \ref{fig:fullsky} shows residual maps for FS8. It is
627: clear from $\Res_{\rm FS8}$ alone that the fit is improved, particularly in the
628: southern GC where obscuration from dust and gas is minimal and in the high
629: latitude north where the North Galactic Spur synchrotron feature is no longer over
630: subtracted at 23 GHz (compare rows 2 and 3 of Figure \ref{fig:fullsky}). Though
631: $\chi^2/\nu_{\rm FS8} = 2.97$ is only slightly lower than the FS7 fit, we
632: emphasize that the number of degrees of freedom is quite large ($\nu \sim
633: 155,000$) and so the likelihood for the FS8 model is significantly higher.
634: Furthermore, we are including many pixels at large Galactic latitudes where the
635: signal to noise is very low and the amplitude of the haze is very small.
636:
637: \bp
638: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f2.eps}
639: \caption{
640: The same as \reffig{fullsky} except for the GC fits ($l,b = [-45:45]$ degrees).
641: Though GC7 explicitly fits the free--free, dust, \emph{and} synchrotron spectra,
642: the haze is still present in $\Res_{\rm GC7}$ indicating that it is
643: morphologically dissimilar to the those templates. The quality of the fit is
644: substantially improved with the inclusion of a haze template (GC8). The extended
645: structure in the north-west GC is likely due to an imperfect haze template.
646: }\label{fig:gc}
647: \ep
648:
649: Since the ISM may have different properties near the GC (i.e., lower gas
650: temperature due to more efficient cooling because of higher metallicity,
651: increased supernova activity, etc.), it is instructive to consider this region
652: separately from the rest of the sky. \reffig{gc} shows $\Res$ maps for
653: the GC7 and GC8 fits. There is a significant decrease in $\chi^2/\nu$ from GC7
654: to GC8 with the inclusion of our haze template --- from 6.61 for GC7 to 5.08 for
655: GC8. The substantially oversubtracted regions near the edge of the mask in
656: $\Res_{\rm GC7}$ indicate that the fit is indeed attempting to compensate for
657: the haze by adjusting the amplitudes of other templates. Although there is
658: still some over subtraction in $\Res_{\rm GC8}$, the overall quality of the fit
659: is much improved, particularly in the southern sky.
660:
661: In the \emph{northern} sky, there is a large structure just north-west of the GC
662: in and around the region of Rho-Oph. Typically, extended regions of over- or
663: under-subtraction in our fits are indicative of variations in the physical
664: conditions of the emission media. However, in this circumstance, it is unclear
665: if the under-subtraction is due to an over simplification of the radial haze
666: profile given our template for this component (\refeq{haze-mod}). The next step
667: is to subdivide the sky into certain regions of interest where our fit is the
668: least successful and fit those regions explicitly.
669:
670:
671:
672: \subsection{Regional fits and composite maps}
673: \label{sec:regfits}
674: \bp
675: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f3.eps}
676: \caption{
677: Illustration of the 12 regions independently fit in the RG fits. Breaking the sky
678: up in this way removes many of the over- and under-subtracted features in the
679: residual maps, particularly the excess emission in the north-west GC.
680: }\label{fig:regions-map}
681: \ep
682:
683: \bpm
684: \centerline{
685: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f4.eps}
686: }
687: \caption{
688: Residual maps for the RG7 and RG8 fits using CMB5, with the same stretch as
689: \reffig{fullsky}. The haze is still present in the $\Res_{\rm RG7}$ fits
690: despite the relatively small size of the fitting regions. The bottom row shows
691: $\Res_{\rm RG8}$ with the subtracted haze in each region added back in to that
692: region. These maps are unsmoothed and no continuity constraints are placed on
693: the region boundaries.
694: }\label{fig:fullsky-regions}
695: \epm
696:
697: Our regions of interest were identified as regions of particularly notable over- or
698: under-subtraction in $\Res_{FS8}$. \reffig{regions-map} shows the boundaries of
699: these regions superimposed on the raw WMAP data at 23 GHz, $\Res_{\rm FS8}$, as
700: well as a composite map for $\Res_{\rm RG8}$ (a fit which includes our haze
701: template). The residual map (which is actually the residual maps of each region
702: stitched together with \emph{no} smoothing) is shown for both RG8 and RG7 fits
703: in \reffig{fullsky-regions} (the maps stretched to the same units as
704: \reffig{fullsky}).
705:
706: At all frequencies, the RG8 fit more effectively removes the foregrounds than
707: the RG7 fit. There are more regions of over-subtraction in $\Res_{\rm RG7}$
708: (both at high latitudes and around the mask edges) compared to $\Res_{\rm RG8}$,
709: the region boundaries are somewhat less continuous in $\Res_{\rm RG7}$, and most
710: importantly, the haze is \emph{still} present in the $\Res_{\rm RG7}$ maps.
711: These composite $\Res$ maps are completely unsmoothed and it is a testament to
712: the quality of our RG8 fit that there are no discernible large scale brightness
713: gradients between adjacent regions.
714:
715: Lastly, we define the residual haze map
716: \be
717: \Res_{H} = \Res_{\rm RG8} + \rmbf{a}_{h} \rmbf{h},
718: \ee
719: where the appropriate amount of haze is added back in to each region (i.e., the
720: same amount as was subtracted by the fit). The bottom row of
721: \reffig{fullsky-regions} shows $\Res_H$. Despite the fact that the haze fit
722: coefficients are not constrained to be continuous across the region boundaries,
723: $\Res_H$ has no clear discontinuities.
724:
725:
726:
727: \subsection{Foreground spectra}
728:
729: \bpm
730: \centerline{
731: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f5a.eps}
732: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f5b.eps}
733: }
734: \centerline{
735: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f5c.eps}
736: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f5d.eps}
737: }
738: \caption{
739: Foreground spectra for the FS8 fits with our six CMB estimators: solid = CMB1,
740: dotted = CMB2, short dashed = CMB3, dot-dashed = CMB4, dot-dot-dot-dashed =
741: CMB5, and long dashed = CMB6. The error bars on the coefficients are the formal
742: error bars on the fit (see text).
743: }\label{fig:spectra-fs}
744: \epm
745:
746: \reffig{spectra-fs} shows the FS8 spectra (coefficient vectors) in kJy/sr per
747: template unit: Rayleighs for H$\alpha$, mK for FDS and Haslam, and arbitrary
748: units for the haze. The most striking feature of these spectra are that they
749: are very sensitively dependent on the estimator used for the CMB. For example,
750: the synchrotron spectrum actually appears to turn \emph{up} at high frequencies
751: for CMB1, CMB2, and CMB3, while CMB4 and CMB5 give the more physically motivated
752: power law type spectra. This dependence is entirely due to the contamination of
753: the CMB by foregrounds, which can never fully be removed for any CMB estimator.
754: Thus, when we remove the estimator from the WMAP data to perform the foreground
755: fit, we have inadvertently added (or subtracted) some foregrounds from the data
756: with essentially the spectrum of the CMB ($I_{\nu} \propto \nu^{2}$). We
757: emphasize that the contamination is small, so that it has minimal effect on the
758: \emph{variance} of the CMB estimator, but it is large compared to the relative
759: amplitudes of the foregrounds. This is especially true for estimators which
760: minimize the variance of an ILC; in this case the contamination is proportional to
761: the cross correlation of the true CMB with the true foregrounds
762: (see \refsec{ilc-bias}).
763:
764: Despite the large uncertainties, there are concrete conclusions that can be drawn
765: from \reffig{spectra-fs}. First, the H$\alpha$-correlated emission does
766: \emph{not} follow the $I_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-0.15}$ frequency dependence as
767: expected. Instead there is a bump in the spectrum around 30 GHz. In our
768: companion paper \citep{DF07} we argue that the H$\alpha$-correlated
769: emission has a spectrum that is consistent with a classical $\nu^{-0.15}$
770: spectrum plus a WIM spinning dust component. Second, although the soft
771: synchrotron and haze spectra vary substantially with CMB estimator type, for a
772: given type, the haze is always \emph{harder} than the normal soft synchrotron, a
773: point which we explore in more detail below.
774:
775: Finally, like \citet{bennett03}, \citet{finkbeiner04}, \citet{davies06}, and
776: \citet{hinshaw07}, we find that the dust-correlated emission falls from 94 to 61
777: GHz but then rises to 23 GHz consistent with emission from both thermal and
778: spinning dust. Since these spectra are the result of fits over large areas of
779: the sky and the spinning dust spectrum is expected to vary with position, it is
780: not surprising that we do not see a peak in the dust-correlated emission in the
781: range 20-40 GHz as in the \citet{DL98b} models. Rather, we are seeing a
782: superposition of many spinning dust spectra with varying peak frequencies. This
783: has led to the misidentification of the this dust-correlated emission as
784: synchrotron in the past \citep{bennett03,hinshaw07}.
785:
786: It is tempting to conclude that the RG fits for the individual regions can be
787: used to construct a map of the variation in the spinning dust spectra across the
788: sky. Such a map would represent an ``excitation map'' or ``irradiation map''
789: for the dust grains. However, this is simply not possible given the
790: contamination of the CMB estimator by the foregrounds.\footnote{Uncertain zero
791: point variation across the maps (due to instrumental limitations, imperfect
792: zodiacal light subtraction, etc.) is also a consideration, but it is
793: subdominant.}
794:
795:
796:
797: \subsection{Comparison of the haze and soft synchrotron}
798: \label{sec:haze-vs-sync}
799:
800: From \reffig{spectra-fs} it seems that the haze spectrum is inconsistent with a
801: $\nu^{-0.15}$ free--free spectrum. While some of the CMB estimators do yield
802: such hard spectra at low frequencies, those fits turn up at high frequencies.
803: This behavior is \emph{much} less likely than simply a contamination of the CMB
804: estimator by the haze emission. Furthermore, the haze is most clearly visible
805: in the southern GC where dust obscuration is minimal so that the haze should
806: either show up in the H$\alpha$ map (if it is $T < 10^5$ K gas) or in the ROSAT
807: X-ray data (if it is $T > 10^6$ K gas). Since neither of these is the case, and
808: since gas at intermediate temperatures is thermally unstable
809: \citep[see][]{spitzer}, we concluded that the most likely source of the haze is
810: synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons. \reffig{spectra-fs} also
811: shows that this synchrotron emission is harder than the soft synchrotron traced
812: by the Haslam 408 MHz map.\footnote{In their first and third year temperature
813: analysis, the WMAP team concludes that the spectrum of the \emph{soft}
814: synchrotron is harder near the Galactic plane and particularly near the Galactic
815: center \citep{bennett03,hinshaw07}. This may be inconsistent with
816: \citet{page07} and \citet{kogut07} who find a more or less constant synchrotron
817: spectral index across the sky from the WMAP polarization data. Given the
818: difficulties in the interpretation of the MEM analysis (see \refsec{anomalous}),
819: the reason for the discrepancy is unclear.}
820:
821: \bpm
822: \centerline{
823: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f6a.eps}
824: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f6b.eps}
825: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f6c.eps}
826: }
827: \caption{
828: Number density contours of unmasked pixel (with $l=[-25:+25]$ and $b=[-45:0]$)
829: temperatures in the $\Res_{H}$ (blue) and $\Res_{H+S}$ (dashed) maps for the RG8
830: fits at 23, 33, and 41 GHz for CMB5. Though the spectral slope is somewhat
831: uncertain between each band and can vary significantly depending on which CMB
832: estimator is used (see Table \ref{tbl:synchslope}), the best fit spectral
833: slope for the haze emission is distinctly harder than for the total synchrotron.
834: }\label{fig:haze-scatter}
835: \epm
836:
837: \bpm
838: \centerline{
839: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f7.eps}
840: }
841: \caption{
842: An RGB representation of $\Res_{H}$ and $\Res_{H+S}$ for RG8 with CMB5. The color
843: coding indicates the spectral index, in antenna temperature,
844: of a given pixel. In particular, the bluer
845: haze region (\emph{box}) indicates a harder spectrum than the redder synchrotron emission.
846: }\label{fig:rgb-haze}
847: \epm
848:
849: \reffig{haze-scatter} shows density contours for a scatter plot of the unmasked
850: pixel values in $\Res_{H}$ and the total synchrotron residual map, $\Res_{H+S} =
851: \Res_H + \rmbf{a}_{s} \rmbf{s}$, in antenna temperature for various frequency
852: combinations. The pixels shown have $l=[-25:+25]$ and $b=[-45:0]$. Despite the
853: large scatter, the $\Res_H$ emission appears to be a distinctly separate
854: component of synchrotron emission with a spectral index that is significantly
855: harder than the synchrotron (as shown in Table \ref{tbl:synchslope} this
856: behavior persists for all CMB estimator types, though the precise spectral
857: indices are very uncertain due to the CMB estimator bias describe in
858: \refsec{ilc-bias}).
859: This point is underscored in an RGB color coded
860: map of the 23, 33, and 41 GHz $\Res_H$ and $\Res_S$ maps. The haze emission is
861: distinctly bluer (harder spectral index) than the total, redder (softer)
862: synchrotron emission in the Galactic center.
863:
864: \begin{deluxetable}{|c|ccc|ccc|}
865: \tablehead{
866: CMB & & $\beta_{S}$ & & & $\beta_{H}$ & \\
867: estimator & 23/33 & 33/41 & 23/41 & 23/33 & 33/41 & 23/41
868: }
869: \startdata
870: 1 & -2.86 & -2.58 & -2.81 & -2.14 & -2.13 & -2.23 \\
871: 2 & -2.78 & -2.47 & -2.71 & -1.98 & -1.98 & -2.01 \\
872: 3 & -2.75 & -2.53 & -2.66 & -2.24 & -2.56 & -2.31 \\
873: 4 & -3.15 & -3.33 & -3.22 & -2.57 & -3.14 & -2.76 \\
874: 5 & -3.10 & -3.13 & -3.15 & -2.39 & -2.67 & -2.52 \\
875: 6 & -3.00 & -3.05 & -3.01 & -2.37 & -2.92 & -2.51
876: \enddata
877: \tablecomments{
878: The best fit spectral slopes for $\Res_{H+S}$ ($\beta_{S}$) and $\Res_{H}$
879: ($\beta_{H}$) maps for the RG8 fits at 23, 33, and 41 GHz over unmasked pixels
880: (with $l=[-25:+25]$ and $b=[-45:0]$, see \reffig{haze-scatter}). Though there
881: is significant scatter in the inferred spectral index, the haze residual is
882: always \emph{harder} than the total synchrotron signal.
883: }\label{tbl:synchslope}
884: \end{deluxetable}
885:
886: \reffig{inthaze} shows the total intensity of the haze as a function of distance
887: south of the Galactic center. The radial bins are 20 degrees wide and separated
888: by 1 degree in latitude. Our simple $1/r$ profile for the haze emission is not
889: adequately describing the structure of the haze --- which is also clear from the
890: residual maps in Figures \ref{fig:fullsky} and \ref{fig:gc}. Furthermore, the
891: systematic error bars due to chance correlation between the haze and the CMB are
892: quite large, particularly at high frequencies.
893:
894:
895:
896: \section{CMB estimator bias}
897: \label{sec:ilc-bias}
898:
899: While the statistical uncertainty in our fits comes from measurement noise in the
900: WMAP data, systematic uncertainties in our fits are dominated by contamination of
901: the CMB estimator by the foreground components. We have used six different CMB
902: estimators, but they can be separated into two categories: ILC type estimators in
903: which multiple WMAP bands are combined to approximately cancel the foregrounds
904: (CMB1, CMB2, CMB3, and CMB5), and HF estimators in which a model for the thermal
905: dust and free--free emission is removed from the highest WMAP band to
906: approximately leave the CMB (CMB4).
907:
908:
909: \subsection{ILC estimators}
910:
911: \citet{hinshaw07} point out that the WMAP data consists of the ``true'' CMB,
912: $T_c$ plus some additional contamination by foreground components $T_j$ which have
913: some spectral dependence $N_{i,j}$ where $i$ and $j$ represent the observing band
914: and foreground component respectively. That is,
915: \be
916: W_i = T_c + \sum_j N_{i,j} T_j
917: \ee
918: so that an internal linear combination of the WMAP bands is,
919: \bel{ilcdef}
920: \begin{array}{ccl}
921: L & = & \sum_i \zeta_i W_i \\
922: && \\
923: & = & \sum_i \zeta_i T_c + \sum_{j,i} \zeta_i N_{i,j} T_j \\
924: && \\
925: & = & T_c + \sum_j \Gamma_j T_j,
926: \end{array}
927: \ee
928: where $\zeta_i$ are constrained to sum to one in order to preserve
929: unity response to the CMB, and $\Gamma_j$ parameterizes the
930: contamination of $L$ by foreground $j$.
931:
932: \bpm
933: \centerline{
934: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f8a.eps}
935: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f8b.eps}
936: }
937: \centerline{
938: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f8c.eps}
939: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f8d.eps}
940: }
941: \caption{
942: Integrated haze (from the bottom panel of \reffig{fullsky-regions}) in kJy/sr as a
943: function of radial distance south of the Galactic center. The radial bins are 20
944: degrees wide and separated by 1 degree in longitude. The inner error bars are due
945: to the formal error on the fit coefficients, the outer error bars are the
946: 1-$\sigma$ standard deviation of the temperature fluctuations in a given radial
947: bin, and the dotted lines represent the bias due to chance correlation between the
948: CMB and the haze.
949: }\label{fig:inthaze}
950: \epm
951:
952: Let us consider that there are four types of foreground emission: free--free
953: ($F$), dust ($D$), soft synchrotron ($S$), and the haze ($H$). Each of these has
954: an associated $\Gamma$, and so the ILC is given by
955: \be
956: L = T_{c} + \Gamma_{F} T_{F} + \Gamma_{D} T_{D}
957: + \Gamma_{S} T_{S} + \Gamma_{H} T_{H}.
958: \ee
959: Since $\zeta_i$ are chosen to minimize the variance in $L$,
960: \bel{diffeq}
961: \frac{\partial \langle L^2 \rangle}{\partial \Gamma_j} = 0
962: \ee
963: for all $j$, and we have explicitly assumed mean subtracted maps so that $\langle
964: L \rangle = \langle T_{c} \rangle = \langle T_{j} \rangle = 0$. Now,
965: \bel{ilcsq}
966: \begin{array}{ccl}
967: L^2 & = & T_{c}^2 + 2\sum_{j} \Gamma_j T_{c} T_{j} \\
968: & & \\
969:
970: & & + 2 \sum_{j} \sum_{k \neq j} \Gamma_j \Gamma_k T_{k} T_{j}
971: \\
972: & & \\
973: & & + \sum_{j} \Gamma_j^2 T_{j}^2
974: \end{array}
975: \ee
976: so that \refeq{diffeq} reads
977: \bel{long}
978: 0 = 2 \langle T_{c} T_{j} \rangle +
979: 2 \sum_{k \neq j} \Gamma_{k} \langle T_{j} T_{k} \rangle +
980: 2 \Gamma_j \langle T_{j}^2 \rangle.
981: \ee
982: (note: the notation in \refeq{long} can be compactified into $0=\sum_{\psi}
983: \Gamma_{\psi} \langle T_{j} T_{\psi} \rangle$ where $\psi=[c,F,D,S,H]$ and
984: $\Gamma_c \equiv 1$) Thus, we can solve explicitly for
985: \bel{gammaj}
986: \Gamma_{j} = - \frac{\langle T_{c} T_{j} \rangle
987: + \sum_{k \neq j} \Gamma_k \langle T_{j}T_{k} \rangle}
988: { \langle T_{j}^2 \rangle}
989: \ee
990: In the limit of only one foreground $T_{f}$ the second term (which represents
991: cross correlation between the different foreground morphologies) disappears and
992: this reduces to $\Gamma = \Gamma(T_{c},T_{f}) = -\sigma_{cf}/\sigma_{f}^2$ as
993: derived with a similar method by Hinshaw et al (2006).
994:
995: According to \refeq{gammaj}, the ILC map is biased towards anti-correlation
996: between different ``true'' foreground emission morphologies and the ``true''
997: CMB. However, since we do not know the true $T_{c}$ or $T_{j}$ \emph{a priori},
998: we have no information about how much of each foreground to add back into $L$ in
999: order to correct for this factor.
1000:
1001: We can use Monte Carlo techniques to estimate the amplitude (but \emph{not} the
1002: sign) of the error in $L$ due to foreground contamination as follows. We
1003: construct 100 realizations of the CMB by generating random phases for the
1004: measured power, $C_{\ell}$, in each Fourier mode of the binned three year
1005: WMAP power spectrum ($\ell_{\rm max} = 986$) from \citet{spergel07}. For each
1006: realization $T'_{c}$ we can estimate $\Gamma$ with a reasonable foreground
1007: template $T'_{j}$ which we suppose traces the morphology of the emission
1008: (see \refsec{foremaps}).
1009:
1010: \bpm
1011: \centerline{
1012: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f9a.eps}
1013: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f9b.eps}
1014: }
1015: \centerline{
1016: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f9c.eps}
1017: \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{f9d.eps}
1018: }
1019: \caption{
1020: Distribution of ILC chance cross correlation biases for 100 realizations of the
1021: CMB sky. a.) H$\alpha$-correlated emission, b.) dust-correlated emission, c.)
1022: Haslam-correlated emission, and d.) haze emission.
1023: }\label{fig:ilc-bias}
1024: \epm
1025:
1026: Figure \ref{fig:ilc-bias} shows histograms of
1027: \be
1028: \Gamma' \sigma_j = \Gamma(T'_{c},T'_{j}) \sigma_j,
1029: \ee
1030: where $\sigma_j$ is the standard deviation over unmasked pixels of the foreground
1031: template $T'_{j}$ ($T'_{j} = $ H$\alpha$, FDS, Haslam, and
1032: haze), for all 100 realizations of the CMB sky. We multiply by $\sigma_j$ to
1033: obtain the contamination in a ``typical'' pixel in the ILC map. Each histogram
1034: has a mean consistent with zero,
1035: \be
1036: \langle \Gamma' \rangle \approx 0 \mbox{ for each } T'_{j}
1037: \ee
1038: as expected since the CMB realization $T'_{c}$ is just as likely as $-T'_{c}$.
1039: The implication is that we can only estimate the \emph{uncertainty} in $T_{\rm
1040: ILC}$, we cannot explicitly correct for the bias.
1041:
1042: It is important to note that, although $L$ cannot be corrected for the
1043: cross-correlation bias, the net effect is to \emph{decrease} the
1044: variance relative to the true CMB, $T_c$. Since the bias of the
1045: variance is not mean zero, the effect on the power spectrum of the CMB
1046: can be estimated \citep[cf.][]{hinshaw07}.
1047:
1048:
1049:
1050: \subsection{HF type estimators}
1051: The bias in a HF estimator is easy to understand and due entirely to the
1052: residual foreground emission after subtraction of thermal dust and free--free.
1053: Assuming perfect subtraction of these two foregrounds, whatever other
1054: foregrounds are left in the HF estimator are subtracted off all lower frequency
1055: bands leading to a systematic bias towards softer spectra for the soft
1056: synchrotron and haze components.
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060: \subsection{Forecasts for \emph{Planck}}
1061: \label{sec:planck}
1062:
1063: The principle advantage of the \emph{Planck} mission over WMAP is the large range of
1064: frequency coverage. In particular, the multiple channels at very high frequency
1065: reduce the foreground problem to (mostly) a single emission mechanism, thermal
1066: dust. In order to exploit this feature, we suggest a new approach based on an
1067: ILC type CMB estimator. However, instead of minimizing the variance (which we
1068: have seen leads to large cross-correlation uncertainties), we choose the ILC
1069: coefficients $\zeta_i$ to cancel as many \emph{power law} foreground components
1070: as possible. This estimator can then be subtracted off of lower frequency bands
1071: with very minimal bias contamination of the inferred foreground spectra
1072:
1073: \emph{Planck}'s frequency coverage is 30, 44, 70, 100, 143, 217, 353, 545, and 857 GHz.
1074: If we estimate that spinning dust emission is negligible above 100 GHz, then
1075: these bands contain mostly thermal dust ($T \propto \nu^{\beta_+}$ with $1.6
1076: \leq \beta_+ \leq 2.3$) and also small amounts of free--free, synchrotron, and
1077: haze ($T \propto \nu^{\beta_-}$ with $-3.1 \leq \beta_- \leq -2.1$).
1078:
1079: In order to find an ILC that optimally cancels out this range of power
1080: law indices, we formulate the error function,
1081: \bel{delta}
1082: \delta_{94}(\beta) = \frac{T_{94}}{\sum_i \zeta_i T_i},
1083: \ee
1084: for a foreground spectrum, normalized to 94 GHz, $T_i = T_{94} (\nu_i/94 {\rm \
1085: GHz})^{\beta}$, where $\nu_i$ are the \emph{Planck} bands above 100 GHz and the sum is over
1086: bands. The physical interpretation of $\delta_{94}(\beta)$ is that it
1087: represents the fractional bias in the inferred 94 GHz amplitude of a foreground
1088: with power law index $\beta$. We minimize $\int \delta_{94}^2 d\beta$ with
1089: respect to $\zeta_i$ over the range $\beta_+$ and $\beta_-$ defined above.
1090: \reffig{pl-spec} shows the resultant $\delta_{94}$. With these $\zeta_i$ we can
1091: form the \emph{Planck} ILC $L_{\rm P} = \sum_i \zeta_i P_i$, where $P_i$ are the \emph{Planck}
1092: data in thermodynamic mK at band $i$. We find that
1093: \bel{plc-ilc}
1094: \begin{array}{ccl}
1095: L_{\rm P} $ = $ -1.49 P_{143} + 3.21 P_{217} - 0.74 P_{353} \\
1096: $ $ + 0.02 P_{545} - 3.21 \times 10^{-5} P_{857}
1097: \end{array}
1098: \ee
1099: minimizes the area under the $\delta_{94}^2$ curve over the $\beta$
1100: range of interest. Using only the high frequency channels in this way
1101: avoids ambiguities due to an uncertain spinning dust spectrum.
1102:
1103: To estimate the contamination of $L_{\rm P}$ by synchrotron and haze emission
1104: we must make a couple of assumptions. First, let us assume that these
1105: foregrounds follow a power law with with amplitudes of roughly our fit results
1106: at 23 GHz from \reffig{spectra-fs} and indices $-3.1 \leq \beta_S \leq -2.7$ and
1107: $-2.7 \leq \beta_H \leq -2.4$ respectively. Second, we make the implicit
1108: approximation that the morphologies of the foreground emission mechanisms do not
1109: change with frequency and that they are still well represented by the templates
1110: in \refsec{foremaps}.
1111:
1112: \reffig{pl-spec} shows our estimates for the error bars on the ``mock true''
1113: soft synchrotron and haze spectra at WMAP frequencies given three CMB
1114: estimators: a WMAP only ILC (leading to cross correlation bias errors), our WMAP
1115: HF estimator CMB4, and the $L_{\rm P}$ estimator. As we have already seen, the
1116: WMAP only ILC clearly yields very large uncertainties, though they have the
1117: advantage of being mean zero (averaged over an ensemble of CMB realizations).
1118: CMB4 does significantly better, though now the errors are systematically biased
1119: towards softer spectra. With $L_{\rm P}$, the bias errors are almost completely
1120: eliminated. For a foreground with indices $\beta =$ -3.1, -2.7, and -2.4, the
1121: bias errors at 23 (94) GHz are $-$0.11\%, $-$0.06\%, and $+$0.13\% ($-$7.6\%,
1122: $-$2.2\%, and $+$3.3\%) respectively.
1123:
1124: We emphasize that we have by no means attempted to formulate the ``optimal''
1125: foreground removal algorithm for \emph{Planck}. There have been numerous
1126: discussions on the topic describing and comparing different cleaning
1127: methods.\footnote{E.g.,
1128: \citet{brandt94} undertook an early study of foreground removal with multiple
1129: frequency bands, \citet{tegmark03} and \citet{deO06} describe an ILC type
1130: method in which the weighting depends on the multipole $\ell$ of the spherical
1131: harmonic decompostion, \citet{barreiro04} expands on the MEM analysis,
1132: \citet{eriksen06} describe a component separation method, \citet{hansen06}
1133: tackle the problem with a wavelet analysis, and \citet{dodelson97} attempts to
1134: ``design'' an experiment with optimal frequency coverage for removing
1135: foregrounds.}
1136: Rather, we have demonstrated that, by exploiting the many bands and high
1137: frequency coverage, this simple \emph{Planck} ILC will substantially reduce the
1138: systematic biases in the inferred foreground spectra compared to WMAP.
1139:
1140: \bpm
1141: \centerline{
1142: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f10a.eps}
1143: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f10b.eps}
1144: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f10c.eps}
1145: }
1146: \caption{
1147: Left panel: fractional error in the inferred 94 GHz amplitude of a foreground
1148: with $T \propto \nu^{\beta}$ due to contamination of the \emph{Planck} ILC $L_{\rm P}$
1149: (see \refeq{plc-ilc}). Center and right panels: biases due to foreground
1150: contamination of different CMB estimators for mock soft synchrotron ($T_S
1151: \propto \nu^{\beta_S}$ with $-3.1 \leq \beta_S \leq -2.7$) and the haze ($T_H
1152: \propto \nu^{\beta_H}$ with $-2.7 \leq \beta_H \leq -2.4$). The mock spectrum is
1153: shown with a solid line. The dotted lines are the mean zero ILC bias errors
1154: using only WMAP data alone, the dashed lines are the systematic biases due to
1155: CMB4, and the dot-dashed lines are the systematic bias using $L_{\rm P}$. The
1156: systematic biases with \emph{Planck} are more than an order of magnitude smaller than
1157: for a WMAP HF estimator.
1158: }\label{fig:pl-spec}
1159: \epm
1160:
1161:
1162:
1163: \section{Discussion}
1164: We have carried out a multi-linear regression fit to the WMAP data using
1165: foreground templates for free--free, soft synchrotron, and dust emission. We
1166: perform fits over both the (nearly) full-sky as well as smaller regions of
1167: interest. Our method simultaneously fits the amplitude and spectrum of each
1168: emission component and is immune to priors or initial ``guesses'' for the
1169: template amplitudes.
1170:
1171: Importantly, we find that the spectra of the
1172: foreground emission mechanisms cannot be determined to high accuracy
1173: with the WMAP data. The root cause is that any estimator of the CMB
1174: will necessarily be contaminated by the foregrounds to some degree, so
1175: that subtracting the CMB estimator from the WMAP data systematically
1176: biases the inferred foreground spectra. Thus, the fit spectrum for
1177: each foreground is contaminated by some amount of CMB spectrum. The
1178: degree of systematic bias in the foreground spectra can be quite large
1179: and varies dramatically among our different CMB estimators. It is
1180: worth noting that the degree of contamination of a given CMB estimator
1181: does not significantly affect the variance of the estimator.
1182:
1183: We find that, upon removing the free--free, dust, and soft synchrotron emission,
1184: the 3--year WMAP data still contains the ``haze'' seen by Finkbeiner (2004).
1185: Since this haze emission is present in all residual maps regardless of which CMB
1186: estimator is used, we conclude that it is not an artifact of imperfect CMB
1187: subtraction. We have included a simple $1/r$ template for the haze to relax the
1188: stress on the other foreground components in our fit. This template imperfectly
1189: matches the morphology of the haze, but allows us to simultaneously fit an
1190: approximate amplitude and spectra of the haze emission as well.
1191:
1192: Despite the above issue of bias errors, we can make the following concrete
1193: statements about our fit foreground spectra.
1194:
1195:
1196: \begin{enumerate}
1197: \item
1198:
1199: We find that the H$\alpha$-correlated emission does not follow a simple
1200: $I_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-0.15}$ free--free powerlaw as expected from theory. Rather
1201: we find a bump in the H$\alpha$-correlated emission which we argue in our
1202: companion paper D+F (2007) can be explained by a mixture of free--free gas and
1203: spinning dust. We emphasize that this bump is \emph{not} due to the contamination
1204: of the CMB estimator by the foregrounds.
1205:
1206: \item
1207: The dust-correlated emission has the now familiar fall off from 23 to 41 GHz
1208: consistent with a superposition of D+L spinning dust spectra and then a rise at 94
1209: GHz from thermal dust emission. We cannot use our multi-region fits to map out
1210: variations in the spinning dust spectrum from place to place across the sky since
1211: the uncertainty from the systematic bias dominates.
1212:
1213: \item
1214: Our soft synchrotron spectra are very sensitively dependent on which CMB estimator
1215: is used. For example, with the WMAP team's published ILC, the soft synchrotron
1216: spectrum actually turns up at high frequencies, while other estimators show a
1217: steadily falling spectrum (with $T_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\beta}$ where $\beta \approx
1218: -3.0$.) This ambiguity is entirely due to the contamination of the CMB
1219: estimator by soft synchrotron type emission.
1220:
1221: \item The haze spectrum is similarly very uncertain due to CMB
1222: estimator bias, however, for a given estimator, the haze spectrum is
1223: always harder than the soft synchrotron. For reasons outlined in
1224: \refsec{haze-vs-sync}, we suspect that the haze emission is due to
1225: hard synchrotron from a separate component of very energetic
1226: electrons near the Galactic center. Possible sources include
1227: products of dark matter annihilation \citep{hooper07} or a single
1228: energetic event in the last million years, e.g. a gamma-ray burst
1229: \citep{broderick07}.
1230: \end{enumerate}
1231:
1232: Upcoming experiments like \emph{Planck} will significantly reduce the
1233: problem of CMB estimator bias in the inferred foreground spectra due
1234: to the improved high frequency coverage. In particular, for
1235: frequencies $\nu > 100$ GHz the \emph{Planck} data will be virtually free of
1236: all foregrounds except for thermal dust. Removing this one bright
1237: component with five bands is significantly less ambiguous than
1238: removing three or four bright components with five bands.
1239: Furthermore, what little free--free, soft synchrotron, and haze emission there
1240: is at these high frequencies can be roughly eliminated in a \emph{Planck} CMB estimator
1241: through the appropriate choice of ILC coefficients. We estimate that the
1242: systematic uncertainties in soft synchrotron and haze spectra will be reduced by
1243: more than an order of magnitude compared to WMAP.
1244:
1245: Galactic foreground emission represents the most significant contaminant in
1246: determining cosmological parameters. Ironically, the reverse statement is also
1247: true and in order to make progress towards determining the ``true'' spectra of
1248: the foreground emission, a more reliable estimate of the CMB sky is required.
1249:
1250:
1251:
1252: \acknowledgements
1253: We thank Gary Hinshaw, Angelica de Oliveira-Costa, Max Tegmark, and the
1254: anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions. Some of the results in
1255: this paper were derived using HEALPix \citep{gorski99,calabretta07}. This
1256: research made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) and the IDL
1257: Astronomy User's Library at Goddard\footnote{Available at
1258: \texttt{http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov}}. DPF and GD are supported in part by
1259: NASA LTSA grant NAG5-12972.
1260:
1261: \clearpage
1262:
1263: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1264:
1265: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Barreiro et al.}{2004}]{barreiro04}
1266: Barreiro R.B. et al., 2004, MNRAS, 351, 515
1267:
1268: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bennett et al.}{2003}]{bennett03}
1269: Bennett C.L. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 97
1270:
1271: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Boughn \& Pober}{2007}]{boughn07}
1272: Boughn S.P. \& Pober J.C., 2007, ApJ, 661, 938
1273:
1274: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brandt et al.}{1994}]{brandt94}
1275: Brandt W.N. et al., 1994, ApJ, 424, 1
1276:
1277: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Broderick et al.}{2007}]{broderick07}
1278: Broderick A. E., Finkbeiner D. P., Afshordi N., \& Dobler G.,
1279: 2007, \emph{in prep.}
1280:
1281: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Calabretta \& Roukema}{2007}]{calabretta07}
1282: Calabretta M.R. \& Roukema B.F., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 865
1283:
1284: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davies et al.}{2006}]{davies06}
1285: Davies R.D., Dickinson C., Banday A.J., Jaffe T.R., G\'{o}rski K.M., \&
1286: Davis R.J., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1125
1287:
1288: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Oliveira-Costa et al.}{1997}]{deO97}
1289: de Oliveira-Costa A., Kogut A., Devlin M.J., Netterfield C.B., Page L.A.,
1290: \& Wollack E.J., 1997, ApJ, 482, L17
1291:
1292: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Oliveira-Costa et al.}{1998}]{deO98}
1293: de Oliveira-Costa A., Tegmark M., Page L., \& Boughn S., 1998, ApJ, 509, L9
1294:
1295: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Oliveira-Costa et al.}{1999}]{deO99}
1296: de Oliveira-Costa A. et al., 1999, ApJ, 527, L9
1297:
1298: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Oliveira-Costa et al.}{2002}]{deO02}
1299: de Oliveira-Costa A. et al., 2002, ApJ, 567, 363
1300:
1301: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Oliveira-Costa et al.}{2004}]{deO04}
1302: de Oliveira-Costa A. et al., 2004, ApJ, 606, L89
1303:
1304: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Oliveira-Costa \& Tegmark}{2006}]{deO06}
1305: de Oliveira-Costa A. \& Tegmark M., Phys. Rev. D, 2006, 74, 023005
1306:
1307:
1308: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dennison et al.}{1998}]{dennison98}
1309: Dennison B., Simonetti J.H., \& Topasna G., 1998,
1310: Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia, 15, 147
1311:
1312: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dobler \& Finkbeiner}{2007}]{DF07}
1313: Dobler G. \& Finkbeiner D.P, 2007, in preparation
1314:
1315: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dodelson}{1997}]{dodelson97}
1316: Dodelson S., ApJ, 1997, 482, 577
1317:
1318: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Draine \& Lazarian}{1998a}]{DL98a}
1319: Drain B.T. \& Lazarian A., 1998a, ApJ, 494, L19
1320:
1321: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Draine \& Lazarian}{1998b}]{DL98b}
1322: Drain B.T. \& Lazarian A., 1998b, ApJ, 508, 157
1323:
1324: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Draine \& Lazarian}{1999}]{DL99}
1325: Drain B.T. \& Lazarian A., 1999, ApJ, 512, 740
1326:
1327: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eriksen et al.}{2006}]{eriksen06}
1328: Eriksen H.K. et al., 2006, ApJ, 641, 665
1329:
1330: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Finkbeiner et al.}{2002}]{F02}
1331: Finkbeiner D.P., Schlegel D.J, Frank, C., \& Heiles C.,
1332: 2002, ApJ, 566, 898
1333:
1334: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Finkbeiner}{2003}]{finkbeiner03}
1335: Finkbeiner D.P., 2003, ApJS, 146, 407
1336:
1337: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Finkbeiner}{2004}]{finkbeiner04}
1338: Finkbeiner D.P., 2004, ApJ, 614, 186
1339:
1340: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Finkbeiner, Langston, \& Minter}{2004}]{gb04}
1341: Finkbeiner D. P., Langston G. I., \& Minter A. H. 2004, ApJ, 617, 350
1342:
1343: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Finkbeiner et al.}{1999}]{finkbeiner99}
1344: Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., \& Schlegel D.J., 1999, ApJ, 524, 867
1345:
1346: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gaustad et al.}{2001}]{gaustad01}
1347: Gaustad J.E., McCullough P.R., Rosing W., \& Van Buren D., 2001, PASP, 113,
1348: 1326
1349:
1350: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{G\'orski et al.}{1999}]{gorski99}
1351: G\'{o}rski K.M., Hivon E., \& Wandelt B.D., 1999, in MPA/ESO Cosmology
1352: Conf., Evolution of Large-Scale Structure, ed. A. J. Banday, R. K. Sheth, \& L.
1353: N. da Costa (Garching: ESO), 37
1354:
1355: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hansen et al.}{2006}]{hansen06}
1356: Hansen F.K., Banday A.J., Eriksen H.K., G\'{o}rski K.M., \& Lilje P.B.,
1357: 2006, ApJ, 648, 784
1358:
1359: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Haslam et al.}{1982}]{haslam82}
1360: Haslam C.G.T., Stoffel H., Salter C.J., \& Wilson W.E., 1982, A\&AS, 47, 1
1361:
1362: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Haffner et al.}{2003}]{haffner03}
1363: Haffner L.M., Reynolds R.J., Tufte S.L., Madsen G.J., Jaehnig K.P., \&
1364: Percival J.W., 2003, ApJS, 149, 405
1365:
1366: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hinshaw et al.}{2007}]{hinshaw07}
1367: Hinshaw G. et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 288
1368:
1369: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hooper et al.}{2007}]{hooper07}
1370: Hooper D., Finkbeiner D.P., \& Dobler G., 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 3012
1371:
1372: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kogut et al.}{1996}]{kogut96}
1373: Kogut A. et al., 1996, ApJ, 464, L5
1374:
1375: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kogut et al.}{2007}]{kogut07}
1376: Kogut A. et al., 2007, astro-ph/0704.3991
1377:
1378: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Page et al.}{2007}]{page07}
1379: Page L. et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 335
1380:
1381: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press et al.}{1992}]{press92}
1382: Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., Vetterling W. T., \& Flannery B. P., 1992,
1383: Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
1384:
1385:
1386: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schlegel et al.}{1998}]{schlegel98}
1387: Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D.P., \& Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
1388:
1389: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel et al.}{2003}]{spergel03}
1390: Spergel D.N. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
1391:
1392: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel et al.}{2007}]{spergel07}
1393: Spergel D.N. et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
1394:
1395: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spitzer}{1978}]{spitzer}
1396: Spitzer L. 1978, \emph{Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium},
1397:
1398: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tegmark et al.}{2003}]{tegmark03}
1399: Tegmark M., de Oliveira-Costa A., \& Hamilton A., 2003, Phys. Rev. D,
1400: 68, l3523
1401:
1402: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tegmark et al.}{2004}]{tegmark04}
1403: Tegmark M. et al., 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 103501
1404:
1405: \end{thebibliography}
1406:
1407: \end{document}
1408: