1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING %
3: % %
4: % `Preparing an article for publication in an Institute of Physics %
5: % Publishing journal using LaTeX' %
6: % %
7: % LaTeX source code `ioplau2e.tex' used to generate `author %
8: % guidelines', the documentation explaining and demonstrating use %
9: % of the Institute of Physics Publishing LaTeX preprint files %
10: % `iopart.cls, iopart12.clo and iopart10.clo'. %
11: % %
12: % `ioplau2e.tex' itself uses LaTeX with `iopart.cls' %
13: % %
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: %
16: %
17: % First we have a character check
18: %
19: % ! exclamation mark " double quote
20: % # hash ` opening quote (grave)
21: % & ampersand ' closing quote (acute)
22: % $ dollar % percent
23: % ( open parenthesis ) close paren.
24: % - hyphen = equals sign
25: % | vertical bar ~ tilde
26: % @ at sign _ underscore
27: % { open curly brace } close curly
28: % [ open square ] close square bracket
29: % + plus sign ; semi-colon
30: % * asterisk : colon
31: % < open angle bracket > close angle
32: % , comma . full stop
33: % ? question mark / forward slash
34: % \ backslash ^ circumflex
35: %
36: % ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
37: % abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
38: % 1234567890
39: %
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: %
42: \documentclass[referee]{aa}
43: %Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
44: \usepackage{graphicx}
45: \usepackage{txfonts}
46: \begin{document}
47:
48: \title{Model independent approaches to reionization in the analysis of
49: upcoming CMB data}
50:
51: \author{Loris P.L. Colombo \and Elena Pierpaoli}
52:
53: \institute{Department of Physics \& Astronomy,
54: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0484}
55: %\ead{colombo@usc.edu}
56:
57: %\date{/}
58:
59: \abstract{}{On large angular scales, CMB polarization depends mostly
60: on the evolution of the ionization level of the IGM during
61: reionization. In order to avoid biasing parameter estimates, an
62: accurate and model independent approach to reionization is needed
63: when analyzing high precision data, like those expected from the
64: Planck experiment. In this paper we consider two recently proposed
65: methods of fitting for reionization and we discuss their respective
66: advantages.}{We test both methods by performing
67: a MonteCarlo Markov Chain analysis of simulated Planck data,
68: assuming different fiducial reionization histories. We take into
69: account both temperature and polarization data up to high multipoles,
70: and we fit for both reionization and non reionization parameters.}
71: {We find that while a wrong assumption on reionization may bias
72: $\tau_e$, $A_s$ and $r$ by $1-3$ standard deviations, other
73: parameters, in particular $n_s$, are not significantly biased. The
74: additional reionization parameters introduced by considering the
75: model independent methods do not affect the accuracy of the
76: estimates of the main cosmological parameters, the biggest
77: degradation being of order $ \sim 15\%$ for $\tau_e$. Finally, we
78: show that neglecting Helium contribution in the analysis increase
79: the bias on $\tau_e$, $r$ and $A_s$ even when a general fitting
80: approach to reionization is assumed.}{}
81:
82: \keywords{Cosmology: cosmic microwave background -- Cosmology:
83: cosmological parameters}
84:
85: \titlerunning{Model independent approaches to reionization and
86: CMB data}
87: \authorrunning{Colombo \& Pierpaoli}
88: \maketitle
89:
90: \section{Introduction}
91: \label{sec:intro}
92:
93: The upcoming measurements of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) by the
94: Planck mission will allow for an unprecedented accuracy in the
95: determination of the CMB angular power spectra. Due to its full sky
96: coverage and sensitivity, Planck will provide an accurate
97: characterization of $E$--mode polarization autocorrelation power
98: spectrum, $C_l^{EE}$, at large angular scales, and either detect or
99: significantly improve the current limits on the $B$--mode polarization
100: power spectrum, $C_l^{BB}$. While other CMB polarization are currently
101: planned (e.g.,~\cite{taylor04,yoon06,mactavish07,samtleben08}), none
102: of them is expected to provide a measurement of the lowest $C_l^{EE}$
103: multipoles with an accuracy better than Planck. To a first
104: approximation, the average power of $C_l^{EE}$ on these scales depends mostly
105: on the optical depth to Thomson scattering due to reionization,
106: $\tau_e$. The value of $\tau_e$ also determines the suppression of the
107: intermediate to high multipoles of the temperature power spectrum,
108: $C_l^{TT}$. Current data by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
109: (WMAP) imply a value $\tau_e = 0.087 \pm 0.017$, with variations of
110: $\Delta\tau_e \simeq 0.01$ depending on the details of the analysis
111: procedure and data sets considered (\cite{dunkley08}). These constraints
112: assume that reionization is a sharp transition occurring at a given
113: redshift $z_r$.
114:
115: However, theoretical and numerical studies suggest that reionization
116: is a fairly complex process, possibly resulting from the sum of
117: several contributions occurring over different time frames
118: (e.g.~\cite{barkana01,venkatesan03,wyithe03,cen03,haiman03,shull07}). In
119: addition, observations of Ly$\alpha$ emitters in the redshift
120: range $6 < z < 7$, show a rapid evolution of the neutral Hydrogen
121: fraction of the intergalactic medium (IGM)~\cite{ota07}. In the
122: context of a sharp reionization, a reionization redshift $z \simeq 7$
123: implies $\tau_e \simeq 0.04$, and WMAP 5--year data rule out such
124: scenario at more than $3.5\sigma$ significance level. In order to
125: represent our ignorance of the reionization process, it is then
126: necessary to relax the hypothesis on reionization, and consider more
127: complex reionization histories.
128:
129: In this case, the low $C_l^{EE}$ and $C_l^{BB}$ multipoles depend not
130: just on $\tau_e$ but also on the detailed redshift evolution of the
131: (assumed homogeneous) number density of free electrons in the IGM,
132: $x_e(z)$, expressed in units of the Hydrogen atoms number density. For
133: fixed values of $\tau_e$ and all other relevant cosmological
134: parameters, differences in $x_e(z)$ affect the shape of the
135: polarization power spectra up to multipoles $l \simeq 40-50$. An
136: incorrect ansatz on reionization may lead to a strong bias in the
137: determination of $\tau_e$~(\cite{kaplinghat03,holder03,colombo05}). In
138: turn a bias on $\tau_e$ may result in errors on related parameter,
139: such as the normalization of the primordial power spectrum of density
140: fluctuations, $A_s$, and the tensor--to--scalar ratio $r$. At the
141: sensitivity level of current WMAP data, such bias is a fraction of the
142: experimental error, and current constraints on the optical depth can
143: be considered safe. In turn, this implies that constraints on the
144: other main cosmological parameters, in particular on $n_s$, are not
145: strongly dependent on the value of $\tau_e$ (\cite{dunkley08}). Planck
146: sensitivity, however, will be $\sim 10$ times better than WMAP 5--year
147: data~\footnote{Comparing the nominal single channel WMAP sensitivity
148: with the specifications for Planck 143GHz channel.} making an
149: accurate and model independent approach to reionization a requirement
150: for correct determination of $\tau_e$ and the other cosmological
151: parameters.
152:
153: One such approach is to simply divide the redshift interval relevant
154: for reionization in a number of bins and try to directly constrain the
155: averaged value of $x_e(z)$ in each bin (\cite{lewis06}). The
156: implementation of the method is straightforward and allows to easily
157: take into account direct constraints on $x_e(z)$ (e.g. from 21cm
158: measurements,~\cite{tashiro08}). However, the choice of bins characteristics
159: is not obvious, and allowing for a fine redshift resolution implies
160: the addition of a significant number of strongly correlated parameters.
161:
162: A principal component (PC) approach (\cite{hu03,mortonson07a}) is a
163: possible alternative. The reionization history is decomposed over a
164: set of eigenmodes, which encode the effects of a change in $x_e(z)$ on
165: $C_l^{EE}$. The amplitude of each eigenmode is left as a free
166: parameter to be determined from the data. The advantage of the method
167: lies in that a reduced number ($\sim 5$) eigenmodes is sufficient to
168: approximate the effects of a generic reionization history on the
169: $C_l^{EE}$'s. Using a Monte Carlo Markov Chains (MCMC) approach,
170: %\cite{mortonson07a,mortonson07b}
171: Mortonson \& Hu (2007a, 2007b) showed that PC analysis allows to
172: correctly recover the value of $\tau_e$, also avoiding the
173: introduction of spurious effects on $r$. These results considered only
174: the $l<100$ polarization multipoles, and assumed that the remaining
175: cosmological parameters were fixed to their correct value. However,
176: actual data analysis needs to include also temperature data and high
177: multipoles, and simultaneously fit for the whole set of cosmological
178: parameters.
179:
180: CMB data allow to probe a large number of different parameters and
181: Planck is expected to measure the basic cosmological parameters with
182: high accuracy (\cite{bluebook}), providing reference values for other
183: kinds of measurements which probe only a subset of the parameter space
184: (e.g., SNIa data) and/or cover different redshift ranges and scales
185: (e.g., galaxy surveys, Ly$\alpha$ measurements). However, estimates of
186: Planck performances typically take into consideration only the basic
187: sharp reionization model, which can be accurately described by one
188: parameter. Introduction of new (reionization) parameters in the model
189: may give rise to new degeneracies, which in turn may bias the
190: estimates of the other parameters and worsen the accuracy of their
191: determinations. In addition, degeneracies also decrease the efficiency
192: of the parameter estimation procedure. In the light of the upcoming
193: Planck data, it is then relevant to compare how these methods affect
194: the whole parameter estimation process, i.e., considering also $TT$
195: and $TE$ spectra and high--$\ell$'s, and including also
196: non--reionization parameters, under the same set of conditions.
197:
198: Moreover, previous studies did not take into account Helium
199: reionization (see, e.g., \cite{shull04,furlanetto07} and references
200: therein). Helium reionization has been often neglected in CMB studies,
201: as it contributes at most $~10\%$ of the total optical depth. However,
202: the Planck satellites is expected to measure $\tau_e$ with a precision
203: of a few percent (\cite{bluebook}) and it is interesting to study
204: whether Helium contribution must be explicitly accounted for in the
205: modeling of reionization. In addition to the physical aspects of
206: reionization modeling and their impact on parameter estimation, the
207: computational aspects of the problem need to be factored in. The
208: analysis of current and future experiments require significant
209: numerical resources. Choosing an inappropriate parametrization can
210: greatly decrease the efficiency of MCMC methods, even more so when
211: including a large number of parameters poorly constrained by data. In
212: this paper we perform a comparison of the performances of the two
213: approaches by simulating future Planck data, corresponding to
214: different fiducial reionization histories both with and without Helium
215: contribution, and analyze them assuming either sharp reionization or
216: the two methods outlined below. We consider in the analysis
217: polarization and temperature data up to multipoles $l = 2000$, and fit
218: simultaneously for the main cosmological parameters. We discuss the
219: the advantages of each methods, both in terms of the effects on the
220: recovered parameters and in terms of computational cost.
221:
222: The outline of the paper is as follow. In Section~\ref{sec:model}, we
223: briefly review the proposed model independent methods. In the
224: following Section~\ref{sec:analysis}, we discuss the fiducial
225: reionization histories considered and our simulations of experimental
226: data and MCMC analysis. We present our results in Section~\ref{sec:res} and
227: we draw our conclusions in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
228:
229: \section{Model Independent Approaches to Reionization}
230: \label{sec:model}
231:
232: \subsection{Binning The Reionization History}
233: \label{sec:binning}
234: We consider the redshift set $z_0 < z_1 < z_2 < ... <z_N$,
235: dividing the interval $(z_0,z_N)$ into $N$ bins, so that
236: \begin{equation}
237: x_e(z) = x_{e,i}~~~~~~ z_{i -1} < z < z_i,~~i=1,...,N.
238: \end{equation}
239: In modeling the reionization history, we neglect Helium reionization
240: and assume $x_e(z) =1$ for $z < z_0$ while for $z > z_N$ we match
241: $x_e(z)$ to the small residual ionization level from incomplete
242: recombination. In particular, according to data on Ly$\alpha$
243: emitters (\cite{ota07}) and quasar spectra (\cite{fan06}), we assume $z_0
244: =6$. Fixing $z_N = 30$ allows for the contributions of the first stars
245: and/or early black holes (\cite{ricotti05}) to $\tau_e$; we ignore here
246: the possible X-ray emission from high--$z$ dark--matter interactions
247: (e.g.~\cite{hansen04,mapelli06}). The interval $(z_0,z_N)$ is then
248: divided into $N = 6$ equal bins.
249:
250: To avoid instabilities during numerical integration, we in practice
251: enforce an analytical expression for $x_e(z)$:
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: \label{eq:chi}
254: x_e(z) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} x_{e,i} \chi_i (z)~~~~~~ \\
255: \chi_i(z) = {1 \over 2} \left\{ {\rm tanh}\left[\alpha {\eta(z)-\eta(z_{i-1})
256: \over \eta(z_{i-1})} \right] - {\rm tanh}\left[\alpha {\eta(z)-\eta(z_i)
257: \over \eta(z_i)} \right]
258: \right\}~;
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: where $\eta(z)$ is the conformal time at redshift $z$ and $\alpha$
261: governs the sharpness of the transition. Following CAMB (\cite{camb}),
262: we usually take $\alpha= 150$. We also assume a flat prior on the
263: $x_{e,i}$. As pointed out by Lewis et al. (2006)
264: %~\cite{lewis06},
265: constraints on the
266: $x_{e,i}$ may depend significantly on the details of the binning
267: kernels and the priors, if the data are poor. In addition, results for
268: adjacent bins will usually be strongly correlated.
269:
270: \subsection{Principal Component Analysis}
271: \label{sec:pca}
272: Following Mortonson \& Hu (2007a, 2007b)
273: %~\cite{mortonson07a,mortonson07b},
274: we divide the interval
275: $(z_0,z_N)$ in $N$ equal bins of width $\Delta z = 0.25$, and consider
276: a fiducial binned reionization history $\{x_{e,i}\}, i=1,2,...,N$. We
277: take $z_0 = 6$ and $ z_N =30$ and define $x_e(z)$ outside this
278: interval as we did in the previous section. An estimate of the
279: accuracy with which an experiment can measure the $\{x_{e,i}\}$ is
280: given by the Fisher matrix. Since we are interested in the effects of
281: $x_e(z)$ on CMB spectra, we can approximate the Fisher matrix as:
282: \begin{equation}
283: F_{i,j} \sim \sum_{l=2}^{l_{max}}\sum_{l'=2}^{l_{max}} {\partial C_l^{\rm EE} \over
284: \partial x_{e,i}}{\rm Cov}(C_l^{\rm EE},C_{l'}^{\rm EE})^{-1}
285: {\partial C_{l'}^{\rm EE} \over \partial x_{e,j}}.
286: \end{equation}
287: For a full--sky noise--free experiment, the covariance ${\rm
288: Cov}(C_l^{\rm EE},C_{l'}^{\rm EE}) = {2 \over 2l +1} (C_l^{\rm EE}
289: )^2 \delta_{ll'}$, and the main contribution to the Fisher matrix
290: comes from the $ l \lesssim l_{max} = 100$ multipoles of $C_l^{\rm
291: EE}$. Contributions from $TT$ and $TE$ modes are negligible with
292: respect to those from $E$--mode polarization and we do not include
293: them into the definition of the Fisher matrix. In the following we
294: will test if this approximation is still adequate when considering
295: also high--$l$ $TT$ data.
296:
297: The principal components of $x_e(z)$ are defined as the eigenvectors,
298: $S_n(z_i)$, of the Fisher matrix:
299: \begin{equation}
300: F_{i,j} = {1 \over N^2} \sum_{n=1}^N S_n(z_i) \lambda_n^2 S_n(z_j)~;
301: \end{equation}
302: which satisfy the orthonormalization conditions:
303: \begin{eqnarray}
304: \sum_{i=1}^{N} S_n(z_i)S_m(z_j) \Delta z = (z_N -z_0) \delta_{nm}~, \\
305: \sum_{n=1}^{N} S_n(z_i)S_n(z_j) = N \delta_{ij}~.
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: In the limit $\Delta z \rightarrow 0$, the first relation can be replaced
308: with an integral over $z$, and a generic $x_e(z)$ can be written as:
309: \begin{equation}
310: \label{eq:sum}
311: x_e(z) = x_e^{fid}(z) + \sum_{n=1}^N \mu_n S_n(z)~.
312: \end{equation}
313: In this representation, we replaced the $N$ values $\{ x_{e,i} \}$
314: defining a generic $x_e(z)$ with respect to our choice of binning,
315: with the $N$ mode amplitudes $\{ \mu_n \}$. Thus, in principle, the
316: number of parameters required to characterize a generic reionization
317: history has not changed. However Mortonson \& Hu (2007a)
318: %~\cite{mortonson07a}
319: showed that most
320: information needed to determine CMB features is contained in the $\sim
321: 5$ eigenmodes corresponding to the highest eigenvalues, $\lambda^2_n$,
322: thus allowing for a significant compression of information. When
323: truncating the sum in Equation~(\ref{eq:sum}), care must be taken that
324: the resulting $x_e (z)$ be consistent with the definition of the
325: Hydrogen ionization fraction, i.e. $0 < x_e(z) < 1$.
326:
327: From an operative point of view, when analyzing the synthetic data, we define
328: $S_n(z)$ in analogy with Equation~(\ref{eq:chi}). In addition, we take
329: flat priors on the $\{ \mu_n \}$ and check that the resulting $x_e(z)$
330: does not have unphysical values.
331:
332: \section{Analysis of Simulated Data}
333: \label{sec:analysis}
334:
335: \subsection{Reference Models}
336: \label{sec:reference}
337: In order to test the effects on parameter estimation of the model
338: independent approaches discussed in the previous section, we consider
339: an ideal experiment with instrumental characteristics like the nominal
340: performance of the 143GHz Planck channel (\cite{bluebook}): Gaussian
341: beam of width $\theta_{\rm FWHM} = 7.1'$, temperature and polarization
342: sensitivities of $\sigma_{\rm T} = 42 \mu{\rm K{\cdot}arcmin}$ and
343: $\sigma_{\rm P} = 80 \mu{\rm K{\cdot}arcmin}$, respectively, and
344: assuming a sky coverage $f_{\rm sky} = 0.80$. The actual Planck
345: performance will exceed this specification, both due to the
346: availability of more frequency channels and to an actual noise level
347: which is better that the nominal requirements cited here. However,
348: real data will require a significant foreground removal, and possibly
349: not all channels will be available for cosmological analysis.
350: While the actual Planck data analysis will therefore need to incorporate
351: more subtleties, the main aim of this work is a comparison of different
352: approaches to reionization modeling.
353:
354: We then generate simulated data corresponding to different fiducial
355: reionization histories: 1) a sharp reionization model with $\tau_e =
356: 0.085$; 2) a model with the same $\tau_e$ but:
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: x_e(z) & = & 1~~~~~~~~~~~ z < 6 \\
359: \nonumber
360: & = & 0.15~~~~~~~ 6 < z < 30~;
361: \end{eqnarray}
362: notice that this is the same reionization model used to define the
363: eigenmodes; 3) a model with the same $\tau_e$ and:
364: \begin{eqnarray}
365: x_e(z) & = & 1.158~~~~~~~~~~ z < 3 \\
366: \nonumber
367: & = & 1.079~~~~~~~~~~ 3 < z < 6 \\
368: \nonumber
369: & = & 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 < z < 10.65~.
370: \end{eqnarray}
371: The values of the remaining cosmological parameters are unchanged
372: between the models: the physical baryon and cold dark matter densities
373: $\omega_b = 0.0224$ and $\omega_c = 0.112$, respectively; the slope
374: and amplitude of the primordial power--law spectrum of density
375: fluctuations $n_s = 0.95$ and ${\cal A_{\rm s}} \equiv
376: \log_{10}(10^{10} A_{\rm s}) = 3.135$; the Hubble parameter $H_0 = 72
377: $Km/s/Mpc; $r (k = 0.05 {\rm Mpc^{-1}}) = 0.1$ and $Y_{\rm He} = 0.24$
378: is the Helium mass fraction. The spectral index of tensor modes is
379: fixed according to the consistency relation for slow--roll inflation:
380: $n_T = -r/8 = -.0125$. Even though the effects of reionization models
381: considered here are restricted to the $l <100$ (see
382: figure~\ref{fig:cls}) multipoles of $E$ and $B$--mode power spectra,
383: we take into account also temperature data, as we are interested in
384: assessing the effects of the different parametrizations also on
385: non--reionization parameters. Each models is in turn analyzed: 1)
386: assuming a sharp reionization, 2) considering $N=6$ bins of $\Delta z
387: = 4$ between $z_0 = 6$ and $z_N = 30$, 3) using the principal
388: components method. Besides fitting for the reionization parameters, we
389: take also take $\{\omega_b,\omega_c,n_s,{\cal A_{\rm s}},H_0,r\}$ as
390: free parameters, while $n_T$ and $Y_{\rm He}$ are fixed to the input
391: values.
392:
393: \begin{figure}
394: \begin{center}
395: \includegraphics*[width=12cm]{fig1.eps}
396: \end{center}
397: \caption{\label{fig:cls} Fiducial models. Top left: $x_e(z)$ for a
398: sharp reionization (solid line), two--step reionization
399: (short--dashed) and Helium reionization (long--dashed). All models
400: have $\tau_e = 0.085$, and the same values of the other cosmological
401: parameters. The other panels show the corresponding angular power
402: spectra for $TE$ (top right), $EE$ (bottom left) and $BB$ (bottom
403: right). The dotted line shows the assumed Planck noise power
404: spectrum.}
405: \end{figure}
406:
407: We notice here that complete ionization in the fiducial
408: sharp--reionization model happens at $z_r \simeq 11$. Thus, the
409: corresponding reionization history can not be correctly modeled
410: neither by the binning scheme we selected nor by a small (i.e $\le 5$)
411: number of eigenmodes. Conversely, the two--step fiducial model can be
412: accurately parametrized by both model independent approaches. The
413: third model has been chosen as a toy model of Helium
414: reionization. Numerical studies
415: suggest that Helium singly ionizes at about the same time as
416: Hydrogen (\cite{venkatesan03,shapiro04}), due to the closeness of the
417: respective ionization energies. The simplest way to account for Helium
418: reionization would be to assume a single reionization
419: event after which $x_e \simeq 1.08$. However, as discussed above,
420: comparison of WMAP measurements and Ly$\alpha$ observations suggest an
421: extended reionization process in which ionization of the IGM begins at
422: $z_r \sim 20$ and is completed by $z \sim 6-7$. In this kind of
423: scenario, Helium contribution allows $x_e$ to exceed unity only for $z
424: \lesssim 6$. We follow here a conservative approach and consider
425: doubly ionized Helium for $z < 3$ and singly ionized Helium for $3 < z
426: < 6$; Helium contribution to the total optical depth is then $\Delta
427: \tau_e \sim 0.004$.
428:
429: \subsection{Likelihood approximation}
430: \label{sec:approx}
431: A set of CMB measurements can be represented by a set of vector
432: coefficients ${\bf a}_{lm} = \{ a_{lm}^T, a_{lm}^E, a_{lm}^B \}$, with
433: covariance matrix ${\bf C}_l \equiv \langle {\bf a}_{lm} {\bf
434: a}_{l'm'}^\dagger \rangle \delta_{ll'} \delta_{mm'}$
435: (e.g.~\cite{percival06,hamimeche08}); the corresponding quadratic
436: estimator is given by:
437: \begin{equation}
438: \label{eq:quadratic}
439: {\hat {\bf C}}_l = {1 \over 2l +1} \sum_{m = -l}^l {\bf a}_{lm} {\bf
440: a}_{lm}^\dagger~.
441: \end{equation}
442: For a full--sky, noise--free experiment with infinite resolution, the
443: ${\hat {\bf C}}_l$ are distributed according to a Wishart
444: distribution. Using Bayes theorem, the corresponding log--likelihood,
445: normalized so that ${\cal L} = 1$ for ${\bf C}_l ={\hat {\bf C}}_l $,
446: is given by:
447: \begin{equation}
448: \label{eq:likelihood}
449: -2 \ln {\cal L} (\{{\bf C}_l \}| \{{\hat {\bf C}}_l\}) =
450: \sum_{l=2}^{l_{max}} (2l +1) \left [ {\rm Tr} ({\hat {\bf C}}_l {\bf
451: C}_l^{-1}) -\ln (|{\hat {\bf C}}_l{\bf C}_l^{-1}|) -3 \right]~.
452: \end{equation}
453: In the presence of white isotropic noise and assuming a perfect
454: Gaussian beam, the above expression is still valid if we replace
455: ${\bf C}_l$ with ${\bf C}_l +{\bf N}_l$, where ${\bf N}_l = {\rm diag}
456: ({\cal N}_l^T,{\cal N}_l^P,{\cal N}_l^P)$ is the noise correlation
457: matrix, while the noise power spectrum ${\cal N}_l^T = \sigma_{\rm
458: T}^2 \exp \left[ l(l+1) \theta_{\rm FWHM}^2 /(8 \ln 2)\right]$ and
459: similarly for polarization. An analogous substitution is required for
460: the estimator ${\hat {\bf C}}_l$.
461:
462: If full--sky measurements are not available, the spherical harmonics
463: coefficients for the cut sky, ${\tilde a}_{lm}^X$, are a linear
464: combination of true spherical harmonics coefficients corresponding to
465: different modes and multipoles,
466: \begin{equation}
467: \label{eq:atilde}
468: {\tilde a}_{lm}^X = \sum_Y \sum_{l'm'} K^{XY}_{lm l'm'} a_{l'm'}^Y
469: \end{equation}
470: where the kernels $K^{XY}_{lm l'm'}$ encodes the effect of non uniform
471: sky coverage~\cite{hivon02}. In this case
472: Equation~(\ref{eq:likelihood}) is no longer valid, although for
473: azimuthal symmetric cuts an analytic expression for the likelihood
474: can still be evaluated (\cite{lewis02}), although at the cost of a
475: significantly increased computational time. Here, instead, we suppose
476: that the mode coupling resulting from incomplete sky coverage can be
477: accounted for by multiplying Equation~(\ref{eq:likelihood}) by a
478: factor $f_{sky}^2$. Although this approximation does not correctly
479: account for mode mixing, in particular $E$--$B$ mixing, in this way
480: the likelihood functions still peaks at the full sky value, therefore
481: any bias we find in our results is due to the modeling of reionization
482: rather than the likelihood approximation. In addition, while errors on
483: parameters may not be correctly estimated by this approximation, a
484: correct assessment of errors would need to take into account the
485: actual details of the data analysis pipeline, including tod filtering,
486: map making and foreground removal, which are beyond the scope of this
487: paper.
488:
489: We then perform a MCMC analysis of the simulated data
490: using a version of the CosmoMC package (\cite{cosmomc}) modified to take
491: into account different reionization models. We also fix $l_{max} =
492: 2000$. We determine convergence of our chains by requiring that the
493: Gelman \& Rubin ratio be $R -1 < 0.05$ and simultaneously checking the
494: stability of the $95\%$ confidence limit on all parameters. In
495: practice, this latter criterion leads to $R -1 \sim 0.02-0.03$ for the
496: converged chains.
497:
498: \section{Results}
499: \label{sec:res}
500:
501: First of all, in order to identify how parameters can be affected by
502: an incorrect assumption on reionization, we can compare the results of
503: analyzing the three reference models assuming a sharp reionization.
504: In Figure~\ref{fig:confr1} we show the resulting marginalized
505: distribution. When an incorrect assumption on reionization is made the
506: estimate of $\tau_e$ is biased by 1 or more standard deviations,
507: depending on the fiducial reionization history, in agreement with
508: previous
509: findings (\cite{kaplinghat03,holder03,colombo05,mortonson07a}). For the
510: models considered here, the bias is more relevant in the case of the
511: two--step fiducial model, as in this scenario reionization starts
512: significantly earlier than in either of the other models considered;
513: thus the range of multipoles affected is greater. The corresponding
514: numerical values are summarized by the third columns of
515: tables~\ref{tab:twostep} through~\ref{tab:helium} for the sharp,
516: two--step and Helium reionization fiducial models described in
517: Section~\ref{sec:reference}, respectively. For each parameter, we
518: report the mean estimated by the chains.
519:
520: %Table~\ref{tab:twostep} through~\ref{tab:helium} report the results of
521: %the MCMC analysis for the sharp, two--step and Helium reionization
522: %fiducial models described in section~\ref{sec:reference},
523: %respectively. Each fiducial model has been analyzed with different
524: %assumptions on reionization and bold faced entries show when the estimate
525: %of a parameter differ from the input value by more than half standard
526: %deviation. Several considerations can be made.
527:
528: \begin{figure}
529: \begin{center}
530: \includegraphics*[width=12cm]{fig2.eps}
531: \end{center}
532: \caption{\label{fig:confr1} Results for MCMC analysis assuming a sharp
533: reionization for three different fiducial models: sharp reionization
534: (solid lines), two--step reionization model (short--dashed) and
535: Helium reionization (long--dashed). The reference value of the input
536: parameters, shown by the vertical dotted lines, are the same in all
537: fiducial models}
538: \end{figure}
539:
540: \begin{table}[!hbt]
541: \begin{center}
542: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
543: \hline \hline
544: \multicolumn{4}{c}{{\rm Two--step reionization}} \\
545: \hline \hline
546: & fiducial & SR & BR & E3 &E5 \\
547: & value & & & & \\
548: $100 \omega_b $& $2.24$ &$ 2.238 \pm 0.015$&$2.236 \pm 0.015$&
549: $2.238 \pm 0.015$& $2.235 \pm 0.015$ \\
550: $\omega_c $&$.112$&$.1121 \pm .0013 $&$.1120 \pm .0014 $&
551: $ .1121 \pm .0013$& $ .1120 \pm .0014$ \\
552: $\tau_e $&$.085$&${\bf .1087 \pm .0057}$&$.0874 \pm .0055 $&
553: $ .0862 \pm .0051$& $ .0877 \pm .0056$ \\
554: $n_s $&$.950$&$.9502 \pm .0038 $&$.9496 \pm .0039 $&
555: $ .9492 \pm .0038$&$ .9495 \pm .0041$ \\
556: ${\cal A}_s$&$3.135$&${\bf 3.183 \pm 0.011 }$&$3.140 \pm 0.011 $&
557: $ 3.138 \pm 0.010$&$3.138 \pm 0.011$ \\
558: $r $&$.10$&${\bf .053 \pm .021 }$&$.096 \pm .027 $&
559: $ .100 \pm .027$&$.098 \pm .027 $ \\
560: $H_0 $&$72$&$71.94 \pm 0.66 $&$71.93 \pm 0.67 $&
561: $ 71.88 \pm 0.66 $&$71.92 \pm 0.68 $\\
562: \hline\hline
563: \end{tabular}
564:
565: \caption{\textsl{Parameter estimates for a two--step reionization
566: fiducial model with $\tau_e = 0.085$ and other parameters as
567: specified in the text, assuming: a sharp reionization (SR), a
568: binned reionization (BR), either 3 (E3) or 5 (E5) principal
569: components eigenmodes. Bold faced entries show when the bias
570: between the input and recovered value exceeds half the associated
571: error.}}
572: \label{tab:twostep}
573: \end{center}
574: \end{table}
575:
576: \begin{table}[!hbt]
577: \begin{center}
578: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
579: \hline \hline
580: \multicolumn{4}{c}{{\rm Sharp reionization}} \\
581: \hline \hline
582: &fiducial & SR & BR & E5 \\
583: &value & & &\\
584: $100 \omega_b $&$.224$&$ 2.240 \pm 0.015$&$2.242 \pm 0.015$&
585: $2.242 \pm 0.015$ \\
586: $\omega_c $&$.112$&$.1119 \pm .0013 $&$.1118 \pm .0013 $&
587: $ .1117 \pm .0013$ \\
588: $\tau_e $&$.085$&$.0848 \pm .0046 $&$.0853 \pm .0053 $&
589: $ .0830 \pm .0052$ \\
590: $n_s $&$.950$&$.9506 \pm .0039 $&$.9509 \pm .0039 $&
591: $ .9505 \pm .0040$ \\
592: ${\cal A}_s$&$3.135$&$3.136 \pm 0.009 $&$3.137 \pm 0.010 $&
593: $ 3.132 \pm 0.009$ \\
594: $r $&$.10$&$.104 \pm .026 $&${\bf .118 \pm .027} $&
595: ${\bf .120 \pm .029}$ \\
596: $H_0 $&$72$&$72.03 \pm 0.66 $&$72.14 \pm 0.66 $&
597: $ 72.12 \pm 0.63 $ \\
598: \hline\hline
599: \end{tabular}
600:
601: \caption{\textsl{ Same as Table~\ref{tab:twostep} but for a sharp
602: reionization fiducial model analyzed assuming: a sharp
603: reionization (SR), a binned reionization (BR), 5 (E5) principal
604: components eigenmodes. }}
605: \label{tab:sharp}
606: \end{center}
607: \end{table}
608:
609: \begin{table}[!hbt]
610: \begin{center}
611: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
612: \hline \hline
613: \multicolumn{4}{c}{{\rm Helium reionization}} \\
614: \hline \hline
615: &fiducial & SR & BR & E5 \\
616: &value & & & \\
617: $100 \omega_b $&$2.24$&$ 2.240 \pm 0.015 $&$ 2.242 \pm 0.015$ &$ 2.242 \pm 0.014$
618: \\
619: $\omega_c $&$.112$&$.1119 \pm .0013 $&$.1116 \pm .0013$& $.1117 \pm .0013 $
620: \\
621: $\tau_e $&$.085$&${\bf .0816 \pm .0044}$&$.0831 \pm .0049 $&${\bf .0820 \pm .0047}$
622: \\
623: $n_s $&$.95$&$.9506 \pm .0039$&$.9512 \pm .0039$&$.9508 \pm .0039 $
624: \\
625: ${\cal A}_s $&$3.135$&${\bf 3.129 \pm 0.009 }$&$3.132 \pm 0.010 $&$3.132 \pm 0.009 $
626: \\
627: $r $&$.10$&$.108 \pm .028 $& ${\bf .124 \pm .027 }$ &${\bf .123 \pm .027}$
628: \\
629: $H_0 $&$72$&$72.05 \pm 0.68 $& $72.18 \pm 0.65 $&$72.13 \pm 0.64 $
630: \\
631: \hline\hline
632: \end{tabular}
633:
634: \caption{\textsl{Same as Table~\ref{tab:twostep} but for a Helium
635: reionization fiducial model analyzed assuming: a sharp
636: reionization (SR), a binned reionization (BR), 5 (E5) principal
637: components eigenmodes.}}
638: \label{tab:helium}
639: \end{center}
640: \end{table}
641:
642: In turn, an incorrect determination of $\tau_e$ biases the value of
643: the amplitude of the primordial power spectrum according to $A_s
644: e^{-2\tau_e} = const$, and also results in a wrong determination of
645: $r$, as pointed out by \cite{mortonson07b}. Notice that here we fixed
646: the value of the tensor spectral index; leaving $n_T$ as a free
647: parameter would slightly increase the error on $r$, reducing the
648: significance of the discrepancy. Other parameters are mostly
649: unaffected. In particular, it is interesting to notice that the
650: distribution for $n_s$ does not depend on the reionization priors,
651: even though information from polarization is critical to break the
652: $\tau_e$--$n_s$ degeneracy present in $TT$ spectra. This is due to the
653: fact that at the sensitivity level considered here it is possible to
654: get information on $n_s$ from the $l>100$ multipoles; on these scales
655: the $n_s$ affect the $l$--scaling of the power spectrum, while the
656: reionization history affect the $C_l$'s with an overall suppression
657: depending on the value of $\tau_e$. With Planck $l$--leverage, it is
658: possible to disentangle the effects of $n_s$ and $\tau_e$, and recast any
659: uncertainty on $\tau_e$ on the value of $A_s$. Since deviation of $n_s$ from
660: unity allow to place constraints on the shape of inflation potential,
661: we can conclude that such constraints will be safe even if an
662: incorrect assumption on reionization is made.
663:
664: \begin{figure}
665: \begin{center}
666: \includegraphics*[width=12cm]{fig3.eps}
667: \end{center}
668: \caption{\label{fig:confr2} Results for MCMC analysis for two--step
669: reionization fiducial model. Model has been analysed assuming a
670: sharp reionization (solid lines), a binned reionization
671: (long--dashed) and using 3 (short--dashed) or 5 (dot--dashed)
672: principal components.}
673: \end{figure}
674:
675: \begin{figure}
676: \begin{center}
677: \includegraphics*[width=12cm]{fig4.eps}
678: \end{center}
679: \caption{\label{fig:xe_step} Constraints on values of $x_e(z)$ in bins
680: of width $\Delta z = 4$ between $z_0 = 6$ and $z_N = 30$ for a
681: two--step reionization fiducial model. The dashed line show the
682: input value of $x_e(z)$ in each bin.}
683: \end{figure}
684:
685: We next turn to the model independent
686: approaches (\cite{lewis06,mortonson07a,mortonson07b}). In particular, we
687: assess the effect of introducing these additional parameters on the
688: whole analysis procedure, on the same set of data. As a first case, we
689: consider a fiducial two--step reionization model. In principle,
690: fitting this reionization would require a low number of reionization
691: parameter, e.g. a single value of $x_e(z)$ for $6 < z < 30$, or a
692: single eigenmode. Here instead, we run MCMC assuming a $N=6$ redshift
693: bins, or either 3 or 5 eigenmodes. By considering more reionization
694: parameters than effectively needed, we can study whether a bias is
695: introduced or if error estimates are affected.
696:
697: Figure~\ref{fig:confr2} shows the resulting marginalized
698: likelihoods. For reference purpose, we also repeat results for the
699: sharp reionization history. Notice that for the binned and the PC
700: analysis, $\tau_e$ is a derived parameter. It is clear that in this
701: case the modeling of reionization does not bear a strong impact on the
702: estimates of the various parameters. Estimates of $\tau_e$ shift by
703: $\sim 0.2\sigma$ depending on the methods considered, while the
704: corresponding error for the 3 eigenmodes analysis is $\sim 10\%$
705: smaller than in the other cases. There are no other significant
706: differences between the $3$ and $5$ eigenmodes, or between eigenmodes
707: and bins results. Both the binned reionization and principal
708: components methods slightly overestimate $\tau_e$, however the
709: difference between input and recovered values are below half a
710: standard deviation and are compatible with the statistical
711: uncertainty. In fact, the Gelman and Rubin convergence diagnostic $R$
712: roughly translates into $R \simeq 1 +r_x$, where $r_x$ is the ratio
713: between the variance of the sample mean and the variance of the target
714: distribution (\cite{dunkley05}), so that a value $R -1 \sim 0.05$
715: corresponds to an uncertainty on the mean of about 25\% of the
716: measured standard deviation.
717:
718: Reconstruction of the reionization history, on the other hand, is not
719: particularly accurate. Figure~\ref{fig:xe_step} shows constraints on
720: the value of the ionization fraction $x_{e,i}$ in the different
721: bins. Only weak upper limits are found: the target model could be
722: clearly described by just a single value of ${x_e}$ and the data do
723: not allow to significantly constrain the additional
724: parameters. However, it is reassuring that this does not have any
725: adverse effect on the accuracy with which data can constrain $\tau_e$
726: and other relevant parameters. This is possibly because, while $x_e$
727: bins are highly correlated (\cite{lewis06}), we do not find significant
728: degeneracies between the reionization parameters and the remaining
729: cosmological ones. A qualitatively similar conclusion holds for the
730: eigenvalue method: even though we add a significant number of poorly
731: constrained parameters, the accuracy on the reconstruction of the main
732: cosmological parameters is unaffected. In general, we find that the
733: different model independent approaches considered lead to shift in the
734: estimates of $0.1-0.2\sigma$; in the case of non--reionization
735: parameters, this holds also for the sharp $\tau_e$ analysis. Error
736: estimates increase at most by $10-15\%$ over the sharp reionization
737: value.
738:
739: As a second case, we consider a fiducial sharp reionization model,
740: analysed with either $N=6$ redshift bins or 5 PC eigenmodes
741: (see Figure~\ref{fig:confr3}). This case is conceptually opposite to the
742: previous one, as the fiducial reionization history cannot be
743: accurately described by either modeling we considered. In this case,
744: we do not consider the 3 PC model, as in general 3 eigenmodes are not
745: enough to accurately recover the reionization parameters even when all
746: other parameters are kept fixed (\cite{mortonson07a}).
747:
748: Also in this case, both parametrizations considered measure $\tau_e$
749: without any relevant bias, although the 5 PC method slightly
750: underestimate it. Again, the discrepancy is compatible with the
751: statistical uncertainty. When either model independent approach is
752: assumed, the error on $\tau_e$ increase by just $\sim 15\%$ over the
753: error that would be obtained by analyzing the data assuming a sharp
754: reionization. It is interesting to note that both modeling
755: overestimate $r$ by $\sim 0.6 -0.7$ standard deviations. While this
756: does not represent a significant bias, it could be an hint that the
757: modeling of reionization considered is not fully adequate to the
758: underlying data and more eigenmodes, or a different binning scheme,
759: need to be included in the analysis. In general, checking that results
760: are consistent between different parametrizations allow to minimize
761: these spurious effect.
762:
763: We next consider the impact of Helium reionization. Let us recall
764: that both the bins and PC approaches we implemented here assume that
765: $x_e(z) =1$ at $z \le 6$, therefore Helium reionization is not
766: accounted for in the modeling using for data analysis. Comparing
767: results for this case with those for the sharp reionization fiducial
768: history, then, allows to establish whether Helium reionization needs
769: to be included in the modeling. Results of the analysis are
770: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:helium} and Figure~\ref{fig:confr4}.
771:
772: At the sensitivity level considered, we find that the estimated value
773: of $\tau_e$ is consistent with the fiducial value at the $1\sigma$
774: level, regardless of the assumptions on reionization. More in detail,
775: assuming a sharp reionization or using 5 PC, $\tau_e$ is biased by $0.6
776: -0.8\sigma$, while using bins $\tau_e$ is recovered within $0.5\sigma$
777: from the input value. In addition, $r$ is overestimated by $\sim
778: 0.9\sigma$, both using bins and PC, while assuming sharp reionization
779: $r$ is recovered without a significant bias. This is due to the fact
780: that, for fixed $\tau_e$, Helium contribution alters the reionization
781: history at $z \lesssim 6$ and therefore increases the power in $EE$
782: and $BB$ spectra at multipoles $l <5$, with respect to a sharp
783: reionization model. On the other hand, in extended reionization
784: scenarios, power is shifted from $l <5$ multipoles to $10< l <30 $
785: multipoles, as reionization starts earlier than in a sharp
786: reionization scenario with the same $\tau_e$
787: (\cite{kaplinghat03,colombo05}). For the sharp reionization fiducial
788: model, instead, the model independent approaches overestimated $r$ by
789: $\sim 0.6 -0.7\sigma$ and $\tau_e$ was recovered to within half a
790: standard deviation, regardless of the assumptions on reionization (see
791: Table~\ref{tab:sharp}). This suggests that Helium reionization must
792: be explicitly taken into account in our modeling, more so if we
793: consider that the actual Planck performance is likely to exceed the
794: conservative specifications assumed here, and Helium contribution is
795: probably higher than that of our conservative approach. However, a
796: more in depth study of the impact of Helium reionization in CMB data
797: analysis is required.
798:
799: Finally, we briefly discuss the computational costs of the different
800: approaches. For the fiducial histories considered, we found that
801: chains assuming 6 $x_e$ bins take 30-50\% more time to converge than
802: those assuming 5 PC eigenmodes. In principle, under ideal condition,
803: MCMC methods scale linearly with the number of parameters, so we can
804: expect the chains for the binned analysis to take $\sim 10\%$ more,
805: simply due to the different number of parameters in the two
806: models. However, reaching this theoretical limit is significantly
807: dependent on an efficient proposal distribution, i.e. on an accurate
808: covariance matrix in the case of Gaussian proposal
809: densities (\cite{dunkley05}). In this work, for each model we run a
810: preliminary set of chains of 60000 points (total) to determine a
811: starting covariance matrix. The difference in convergence times we
812: found here suggests that the orthogonality of the eigenmodes allow for
813: a more efficient exploration of the parameter space, even though such
814: orthogonality holds properly only when the target reionization history
815: is near the fiducial model used to define the
816: eigenmodes (\cite{mortonson07a}). A full assessment of this point
817: would, however, require more simulations than those performed in this
818: work, and is likely to depend on the details of the actual
819: reionization history assumed as a fiducial model.
820:
821: \begin{figure}
822: \begin{center}
823: \includegraphics*[width=12cm]{fig5.eps}
824: \end{center}
825: \caption{\label{fig:confr3} Results for MCMC analysis for a sharp
826: reionization fiducial model. Model has been analysed assuming a
827: sharp reionization (solid lines), a binned reionization
828: (long--dashed) and using 5 principal components (short--dashed).}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831:
832: \begin{figure}
833: \begin{center}
834: \includegraphics*[width=12cm]{fig6.eps}
835: \end{center}
836: \caption{\label{fig:confr4} Results for MCMC analysis for the Helium
837: reionization fiducial model. Model has been analysed assuming a
838: sharp reionization (solid lines), a binned reionization
839: (long--dashed) and using 5 principal components (short--dashed).}
840: \end{figure}
841:
842: \section{Conclusions}
843: \label{sec:conclusions}
844:
845: With the advent of high precision CMB polarization measurements, a
846: detailed modeling of reionization becomes of great relevance, both to
847: better constrain the detail of reionization itself and to avoid biases
848: on the cosmological parameters, in particular those related to
849: inflation. If the actual reionization history is not a single, quick
850: transition, assuming a sharp reionization while analyzing data may
851: lead to bias of 1 or more standard deviations on parameters like $\tau_e$,
852: $A_s$ and $r$. However, a full theoretical understanding of
853: reionization is still lacking and consensus on a physically motivated
854: parametrization of the effects of reionization on CMB has not aroused
855: yet. Thus, two model independent parametrizations have been recently
856: proposed: using a binned reionization history (\cite{lewis06})and
857: principal component approach (\cite{hu03,mortonson07a}).
858:
859: In this work we have considered both approaches and applied them to
860: simulated Planck data in order to asses their accuracy and to find out
861: any side--effect on the estimation of the other cosmological
862: parameters. We considered fiducial models with the same values of all
863: cosmological parameters, but with different reionization histories, and
864: we analyzed these models assuming a sharp reionization or using both model
865: independent approaches. In our analysis, we included $TT$, $TE$, $EE$
866: and $BB$ spectra up to multipoles $l_{max} = 2000$, and we fitted both
867: for the reionization parameters and for the remaining cosmological parameters.
868: In agreement with previous results considering only $EE$ data and/or low
869: multipoles (\cite{kaplinghat03,colombo05,mortonson07a}), we found that the
870: sharp reionization analysis give accurate results only when the
871: fiducial model is not significantly different from a sharp
872: reionization history, while in general biases of order $1$--$3$
873: standard deviations can be expected on $\tau_e$, $A_s$ and $r$.
874:
875: On the other hand, we found that both model independent methods are
876: able to correctly recover the various parameters; none of the
877: approaches provide a significant advantage over the other in term of
878: accuracy of the recovered parameters. More in detail, the correct
879: value of $\tau_e$ and $A_s$ are recovered to better than half a
880: standard deviation. The additional parameters, either for bin
881: reionization or for principal components, increase the error in
882: $\tau_e$ by $\sim 15\%$, but do not affect the error on the other
883: parameters. However, when the target model is not accurately described
884: by the adopted parametrization, we noticed a residual bias on $r$, of
885: order $0.6-0.7\sigma$. While this level of bias can be considered
886: safe, it nonetheless indicates that our parametrization can be
887: refined. More in general, to further reduce this bias, it is
888: helpful to include as much external information on reionization than
889: can be available, e.g. using 21 cm measurements. These external
890: constraints can be directly implemented into a binned reionization
891: approach, while for PC analysis additional work is required.
892:
893: It is worth noticing that estimates of the remaining parameters, such
894: as $\omega_b$, $\omega_c$ and $n_s$, are largely unaffected by the
895: assumptions on reionization. This is valid not only when a model
896: independent description of reionization is adopted, but also when the
897: modeling of reionization assumed for data analysis is not an adequate
898: description of the actual reionization history. In particular,
899: estimates of $n_s$ from current and future experiments can be
900: considered safe, regardless of the details of reionization.
901:
902: We also considered a toy model of Helium reionization, in order to
903: assess whether such contribution must be explicitly accounted for. We
904: assumed a fiducial model with Helium contributing to the ionization
905: fraction at redshifts $z <6$, however both the bin reionization and
906: the principal component method used for analyzing the simulated data
907: assumed $x_e(z) =1$ for $z \le 6$. A comparison of the results of this
908: analysis, with those for a sharp reionization fiducial model with the
909: same $\tau_e$, show that the discrepancy between fiducial and
910: recovered value increase by $\sim 0.2-0.5\sigma$ for $\tau_e$, $A_s$ and
911: $r$, in the case of the Helium reionization fiducial model. However,
912: in no case we detected a bias of $1\sigma$ or more. Even though
913: Helium contributes to the total optical depth for $\Delta \tau_e =
914: 0.004$, compared to an expected error $\sigma(\tau_e) \simeq 0.005$,
915: these results suggest that Helium reionization need to be explicitly
916: taken into account in the analysis of future data.
917:
918: Finally, we point out that, while we did not found significant
919: differences between the model independent approaches considered in
920: terms of the accuracy of the recovered parameters, in order to reach
921: convergence a bin reionization approach requires $\sim 30-50\%$ more
922: time than a principal component method. Since the analysis of
923: current and future CMB data sets require significant computational
924: resources, this latter aspect needs to be taken into account when
925: choosing a modeling of reionization.
926:
927: \begin{acknowledgements}
928: This work is supported by NASA grant NNX07AH59G and JPL--Planck
929: subcontract no. 1290790. EP is an NSF--ADVANCE fellow (AST--0649899)
930: also supported by JPL SURP award no. 1314616. We acknowledge the use
931: of the CAMB and CosmoMC packages, as well as the computational
932: resources provided by the University of Southern California's Center
933: for High-Performance Computing and Communications. The authors thank
934: Caltech for hospitality.
935: \end{acknowledgements}
936:
937: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
938:
939: \bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb 2001]{barkana01} Barkana, R. \& Loeb, A. 2001,
940: \prd, 349, 125--238
941:
942:
943: \bibitem[http://www.camb.info/]{camb} CAMB: http://www.camb.info/
944:
945: \bibitem[Cen 2003]{cen03} Cen, R. 2003, \apj, 591, 12--37
946:
947: \bibitem[Colombo et al. 2005]{colombo05} Colombo, L.P.L. et al. 2005,
948: \aap , 435, 413--420
949:
950: \bibitem[http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc/]{cosmomc} CosmoMC
951: http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc/
952:
953: \bibitem[Dunkley et al. 2005]{dunkley05}Dunkley, J. et al. 2005,
954: \mnras, 356, 925-936
955:
956: \bibitem[Dunkley et al.2008]{dunkley08} Dunkley J et al. 2008
957: [preprint arXiv:0803.0586v1]
958:
959: \bibitem[Fan et al. 2006]{fan06} Fan, X. et al. 2006, \aj, 132, 117
960:
961: \bibitem[Furlanetto \& Peng 2007]{furlanetto07} Furlanetto, S.R. \&
962: Peng, O.S. 2007, \aj submitted [preprint
963: arXiv:0711.1542v1]
964:
965: \bibitem[Gnedin \& Fan 2006]{gnedin06} Gnedin, N.Y. \& Fan, X. 2006,
966: \apj , 648, 1
967:
968: \bibitem[Haiman \& Zolder 2003]{haiman03} Haiman, Z. \& Holder, G.P. 2003,
969: \apj, 595, 1--12
970:
971: \bibitem[Hamimeche \& Lewis 2008]{hamimeche08} Hamimeche,S. \& Lewis, A.
972: 2008 [preprint arXiv:0801.0554v1]
973:
974:
975: \bibitem[Hansen \& Haiman 2004]{hansen04} Hansen, S.H. \& Haiman, Z.
976: 2004, \apj, 600, 26-31
977:
978: \bibitem[Hivon et al. 2002]{hivon02} Hivon, E. et al. 2002, \apj,
979: 567, 2
980:
981: \bibitem[Holder et al. 2003]{holder03} Holder, G. et al. 2003, \apj,
982: 595, 13--18
983:
984: \bibitem[Hu \& Holder 2003]{hu03} Hu, W. \& Holder, G.P. 2003, \prd,
985: 68, 023001
986:
987: \bibitem[Kaplinghat et al. 2003]{kaplinghat03} Kaplinghat, M. et
988: al. 2003, \apj, 583, 24--32
989:
990: \bibitem[Lewis et al. 2002]{lewis02} Lewis, A. et al. 2002, \prd,
991: 65, 023505
992:
993: \bibitem[Lewis et al. 2006]{lewis06} Lewis A., Weller, J. \& Battye, R.
994: 2006, \mnras, 373, 561--570
995:
996: \bibitem[MacTavish et al. 2007]{mactavish07} MacTavish, C.J. et al. 2007
997: [preprint arXiv:0710.0375v1]
998:
999: \bibitem[Mapelli et al. 2006]{mapelli06} Mapelli, M. et al. 2006, \mnras,
1000: 369, 1719-1724
1001:
1002: \bibitem[Mortonson \& Hu 2007a]{mortonson07a} Mortonson, M.J. \& Hu, W.
1003: 2007, \apj submitted [preprint arXiv:0705.1132v1]
1004:
1005: \bibitem[Mortonson \& Hu 2007b]{mortonson07b} Mortonson, M.J. \& Hu, W.
1006: 2007, \apj submitted [preprint arXiv:0710.4162v1]
1007:
1008: \bibitem[Ota et al. 2007]{ota07} Ota, K. et al. 2007, \apj, [preprint
1009: arXiv:0707.1561v1]
1010:
1011: \bibitem[Percival \& Brown 2006]{percival06} Percival, W.J. \& Brown, M.
1012: L. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1104
1013:
1014: \bibitem[Planck Blue Book]{bluebook} Planck Blue Book:
1015: http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/PLANCK/docs/Bluebook-ESA-SCI(2005)1\_V2.pdf
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Ricotti et al. 2005]{ricotti05} Ricotti, M., Ostriker, J.P. \&
1018: Gnedin, N.Y. 2005, \mnras, 357, 207
1019:
1020: \bibitem[Samtleben 2008]{samtleben08} Samtleben, D. 2008 in the
1021: Proceedings `A Century of Cosmology', San Servolo (Venezia, Italy),
1022: August 2007 [preprint arXiv:0802.2657v1]
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Shapiro et al. 2004]{shapiro04} Shapiro, P.R. et al. 2004,
1025: \mnras, 348, 753--782
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Shull et al. 2004]{shull04} Shull, J.M. et al. 2004, \apj, 600, 570
1028:
1029: \bibitem[Shull \& Venkatesan 2007]{shull07} Shull, J.M. \& Venkatesan,A.
1030: 2007, \apj, submitted [preprint
1031: arXiv:astro-ph/0702323v1]
1032:
1033: \bibitem[Tashiro et al. 2008]{tashiro08} Tashiro, H. et al. 2008,
1034: \mnras, submitted [preprint arXiv:0802.3893v1]
1035:
1036: \bibitem[Taylor et al. 2004]{taylor04} Taylor, A. et al. 2004 in
1037: roceedings of the XXXVIXth Rencontres de Moriond "Exploring the
1038: Universe" [preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0407148v1]
1039:
1040: \bibitem[Venkatesan et al. 2003]{venkatesan03} Venkatesan, A., Tumlinson,
1041: J. \& Shull, J.M. 2003, \apj, 584, 621--632
1042:
1043: \bibitem[Wyithe \& Loeb 2003]{wyithe03} Wyithe, S. \& Loeb, A. 2003, \apj,
1044: 586, 693--708
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Yoon et al. 2006]{yoon06} Yoon, K.W. et al. 2006 in Millimeter
1047: and Submillimeter Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy III,
1048: Proceedings of SPIE, 6275, 2006 [preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0606278v1]
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054: \end{thebibliography}
1055:
1056: \end{document}
1057:
1058: