1: 

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: \usepackage{apjfonts, natbib}

4: 

5: 

6: \newcommand{\dasi}   {DASI}

7: \newcommand{\dmr}    {DMR}

8: \newcommand{\Ot} {\ensuremath{\Omega_{tot}}}

9: \newcommand{\Obh}{\ensuremath{\Omega_bh^2}}

10: \newcommand{\Och}{\ensuremath{\Omega_{cdm}h^2}}

11: \newcommand{\ns} {\ensuremath{n_s}}

12: \newcommand{\Cten}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}_{10}}}

13: \newcommand{\tcp}  {\ensuremath{0.0\leq \tau_c \leq0.4}}

14: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

15: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

16: \newcommand{\ld}{{\ell '}}

17: \newcommand{\lld}{{\ell \ell'}}

18: 

19: \shorttitle{Second results from QUaD}

20: \shortauthors{QUaD collaboration}

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: 

24: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}

25: 

26: \title{Second and third season QUaD CMB temperature and polarization power spectra}

27: 

28: \author{

29:   QUaD collaboration

30:   --

31:   C.\,Pryke\altaffilmark{1},

32:   P.\,Ade\altaffilmark{2},

33:   J.\,Bock\altaffilmark{3,4},

34:   M.\,Bowden\altaffilmark{2,5},

35:   M.\,L.\,Brown\altaffilmark{6,7},

36:   G.\,Cahill\altaffilmark{8},

37:   P.\,G.\,Castro\altaffilmark{6,9},

38:   S.\,Church\altaffilmark{5},

39:   T.\,Culverhouse\altaffilmark{1},

40:   R.\,Friedman\altaffilmark{1},

41:   K.\,Ganga\altaffilmark{10},

42:   W.\,K.\,Gear\altaffilmark{2},

43:   S.\,Gupta\altaffilmark{2},

44:   J.\,Hinderks\altaffilmark{5,11},

45:   J.\,Kovac\altaffilmark{4},

46:   A.\,E.\,Lange\altaffilmark{4},

47:   E.\,Leitch\altaffilmark{3,4},

48:   S.\,J.\,Melhuish\altaffilmark{2,12},

49:   Y.\,Memari\altaffilmark{6},

50:   J.\,A.\,Murphy\altaffilmark{8},

51:   A.\,Orlando\altaffilmark{2,4}

52:   R.\,Schwarz\altaffilmark{1},

53:   C.\,O'\,Sullivan\altaffilmark{8},

54:   L.\,Piccirillo\altaffilmark{2,12},

55:   N.\,Rajguru\altaffilmark{2,13},

56:   B.\,Rusholme\altaffilmark{5,14},

57:   A.\,N.\,Taylor\altaffilmark{6},

58:   K.\,L.\,Thompson\altaffilmark{5},

59:   A.\,H.\,Turner\altaffilmark{2},

60:   E.\,Y.\,S.\,Wu\altaffilmark{5}

61:   and

62:   M.\,Zemcov\altaffilmark{2,3,4}

63: }

64: 

65: \altaffiltext{1}{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics,

66:   Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago,

67:   5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.}

68: \altaffiltext{2}{School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University,

69:   Queen's Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK.}

70: \altaffiltext{3}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Dr.,

71:   Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.}

72: \altaffiltext{4}{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

73:   91125, USA.}

74: \altaffiltext{5}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and

75: Cosmology and Department of Physics, Stanford University,

76: 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.}

77: \altaffiltext{6}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh,

78:   Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK.}

79: \altaffiltext{7}{{\em Current address}: Cavendish Laboratory,

80:   University of Cambridge, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 OHE, UK.}

81: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Experimental Physics,

82:   National University of Ireland Maynooth, Maynooth, Co. Kildare,

83:   Ireland.}

84: \altaffiltext{9}{{\em Current address}: CENTRA, Departamento de F\'{\i}sica,

85:   Edif\'{\i}cio Ci\^{e}ncia, Piso 4,

86:   Instituto Superior T\'ecnico - IST, Universidade T\'ecnica de Lisboa,

87:   Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal.}

88: \altaffiltext{10}{Laboratoire APC/CNRS, B\^atiment Condorcet,

89:   10, rue Alice Domon et L\'eonie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.}

90: \altaffiltext{11}{{\em Current address}: NASA Goddard Space Flight

91:   Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA.}

92: \altaffiltext{12}{{\em Current address}: School of Physics and

93:   Astronomy, University of

94:   Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.}

95: \altaffiltext{13}{{\em Current address}: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University

96:   College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.}

97: \altaffiltext{14}{{\em Current address}:

98:   Infrared Processing and Analysis Center,

99:   California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.}

100: 

101: 

102: \begin{abstract}

103: We report results from the second and third seasons of observation

104: with the QUaD experiment.

105: Angular power spectra of the Cosmic Microwave Background are derived

106: for both temperature and polarization at both 100~GHz and 150~GHz,

107: and as cross frequency spectra.

108: All spectra are subjected to an extensive set of jackknife tests to

109: probe for possible systematic contamination.

110: For the implemented data cuts and processing technique such contamination

111: is undetectable.

112: We analyze the difference map formed between the 100 and 150~GHz

113: bands and find no evidence of foreground contamination in polarization.

114: The spectra are then combined to form a single set of results which are

115: shown to be consistent with the prevailing LCDM model.

116: The sensitivity of the polarization results is considerably

117: better than that of any previous experiment ---

118: for the first time multiple acoustic peaks are detected

119: in the $E$-mode power spectrum at high significance.

120: \end{abstract}

121: 

122: \keywords{(cosmology:) cosmic microwave background,

123: cosmology: observations,

124: polarization}

125: 

126: \begin{figure*}

127: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{relgains.eps}}

128: \caption{{\it Left:} the relative gains of the first ten 150~GHz detector channels

129: as measured by elevation nods every half hour over two seasons.

130: {\it Right:} a histogram of the percentage fluctuations of the timeseries

131: at left including all channels.}

132: \label{fig:relgains}

133: \end{figure*}

134: 

135: \section{Introduction}

136: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

137: 

138: The anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) gives

139: us direct insight into the structure of the Universe

140: when it was a tiny fraction of its current age, and is

141: one of the central pillars of the enormously successful

142: standard cosmological model.

143: The temperature anisotropy power spectrum has now been measured

144: to good precision from the largest angular scales down to

145: a small fraction of a degree~(e.g.~\cite{reichardt08})

146: --- the expected series

147: of acoustic peaks is present and fitting the spectrum

148: yields tight constraints on the basic parameters of

149: the cosmological model~(e.g.~\cite{dunkley08}).

150: 

151: The CMB is expected to be polarized at the $\sim10$\% level

152: principally because of motions in the material at the

153: time of last scattering.

154: Since the plasma flows along gradients in the density

155: field the resulting observable polarization pattern has gradients

156: ($E$-modes), but zero curl ($B$-modes) (e.g.~\cite{hu_white97}).

157: Given a standard cosmological model fit to the temperature spectrum

158: ($TT$), the $E$-mode spectrum ($EE$), and temperature-$E$-mode cross

159: spectrum ($TE$), are nearly deterministically predicted ---

160: only at the largest angular scales is there additional

161: information.

162: It is important to remember that, although very successful,

163: the standard cosmological model (which we will refer to

164: throughout as LCDM), contains several components which we have

165: only circumstantial evidence for

166: (dark matter and dark energy).

167: Measuring the $EE$ and $TE$ spectra is thus a crucial test of the

168: overall theoretical paradigm.

169: 

170: As the CMB travels to us through the developing large scale

171: structure subtle deflections due to gravitational lensing

172: occur (e.g.~\cite{hu03}).

173: This converts some fraction of the $E$-mode pattern

174: into the so-called lensing $B$-modes --- this effect

175: is most important at smaller angular scales.

176: In addition, if the cosmogenic theory known as inflation

177: is correct, there must also be large angular scale $B$-modes

178: caused by gravity waves propagating through the

179: primordial plasma (e.g.~\cite{seljakzaldarriaga97}).

180: 

181: The polarization of the CMB was first detected by the

182: DASI experiment~\citep{kovac02}, and since then

183: several experiments have reported measurements

184: of the $EE$ and $TE$ spectra~\citep{barkats05,readhead04,montroy06,

185: sievers05,page06,bischoff08,nolta08}.

186: Thus far all reported measurements are consistent with LCDM,

187: although precision remains limited.

188: $B$-mode polarization has not yet been detected --- all

189: results so far are upper limits.

190: We previously reported preliminary results from QUaD in~\cite{ade07}.

191: In this paper we report considerably improved results using

192: data from the second and third seasons of observations.

193: 

194: This paper is structured as follows: in Section~\ref{sec:instobs}

195: we briefly review the instrument and detail the observations,

196: Section~\ref{sec:lldataproc}

197: describes the low level data processing and calibration,

198: Section~\ref{sec:time2map} outlines the steps used

199: to make timestream data into maps, Section~\ref{sec:sims}

200: describes the simulation methodology, Section~\ref{sec:maps2spec}

201: converts the maps into power spectra, Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes}

202: gives the results of jackknife tests, Section~\ref{sec:foregrounds}

203: describes foreground studies, Section~\ref{sec:combspec}

204: gives the final combined power spectrum results,

205: Section~\ref{sec:systematics} contains some further investigations

206: of systematic effects, and

207: Section~\ref{sec:conclusions} states our conclusions.

208: 

209: \section{Instrument and Observations}

210: \label{sec:instobs}

211: 

212: The design, implementation, and performance of the QUaD experiment

213: is described in detail in a companion paper~\citep{hinderks08} hereafter

214: referred to as the ``Instrument Paper'' --- only a 

215: very brief summary will be given here.

216: QUaD was a 2.6~m Cassegrain radio telescope on the mount

217: originally constructed for the DASI experiment~\citep{leitch02}.

218: This is an az/el mount with a third axis

219: allowing the entire optics and receiver to be rotated around

220: the line of sight (referred to as ``deck'' rotation).

221: The QUaD receiver consisted of 31~pairs of polarization sensitive

222: bolometers (PSBs;~\cite{2003SPIE.4855..227J}), 12 at 100~GHz,

223: and 19 at 150~GHz.

224: The detector pairs were arranged in two orientation angle groups

225: separated by 45$^\circ$.

226: The mount is enclosed in a large bowl shaped reflective ground

227: shield on top of a tower approximately 1~km from the geographic

228: South Pole.

229: The bolometers were read out using AC bias electronics,

230: and digitized by a 100~Hz, 16~bit ADC.

231: The raw data were staged on disk at Pole and transferred out daily

232: via satellite.

233: QUaD was decommissioned in late 2007.

234: 

235: The observations reported on in this paper were made during the

236: Austral winter seasons of 2006 and 2007 --- the QUaD telescope was

237: not able to observe during the summer due to contamination from the Sun.

238: Complete CMB observation runs occurred on 171 days of 2006 and 118

239: days of 2007 (defined as an uninterrupted run with the Sun below the horizon).

240: Of these available 289 days 44 were

241: rejected after initial low level processing --- mostly due to very bad weather,

242: with a few due to instrumental problems.

243: A further 43 days show obvious signs of contamination by the Moon,

244: and 59 more fail a very conservative Moon proximity cut ---

245: Moon contamination is discussed in the Instrument Paper and

246: Section~\ref{sec:mooncontam} below.

247: This leaves us with a total of 143 days of data which are used in the current analysis.

248: For simplicity the cut granularity is very coarse ---

249: we only consider complete days, and if there

250: is anything wrong with any part of a day we cut the entire day.

251: It would certainly be possible to include somewhat more data with

252: additional work.

253: In Figure~\ref{fig:relgains} we can see the resulting set of days

254: used --- the monthly gaps are due to the rising and setting

255: of the Moon.

256: 

257: The QUaD telescope is mounted on a tower at one end of the

258: MAPO observatory building.

259: At Pole the celestial sphere rotates about the zenith every 24 hours.

260: Therefore to minimize the potential for contamination from the building,

261: or the heat plume from the furnace it contains, each day of

262: observation starts at a fixed LST such that our chosen

263: CMB field (centered on RA~5.5h, Dec~-50$^\circ$) has just cleared the 

264: laboratory building.

265: The observations are split into two blocks, each of eight hours,

266: with special calibration observations

267: before and after each block.

268: Between the two blocks the entire telescope is rotated by 60$^\circ$ around

269: the line of sight, and then approximately 30~minutes are allowed for

270: thermal stabilization.

271: The total observation schedule takes about 19~hours, with the

272: remainder of the 24~hour period being taken up by fridge cycling.

273: 

274: Each 8~hour block of CMB observations is divided into

275: 16~half hour periods.

276: Each starts with an observation of the internal calibration

277: source followed by an ``elevation nod'' --- the telescope

278: is moved up and then down again by one degree in elevation

279: injecting a large signal into the data stream due to the atmospheric

280: gradient (see the Instrument Paper for details).

281: The telescope is then scanned back and forth five times over a

282: 7.5$^\circ$ throw in azimuth, with the scan being applied as a

283: modulation on top of sidereal tracking.

284: The scan rate is 0.25$^\circ$ per second in azimuth translating

285: to around 0.16$^\circ$ per second on the sky at our observing elevation.

286: The pointing position is then stepped by 0.02$^\circ$ in declination

287: and the process repeated four times.

288: Including time for moves and settling, these calibration

289: observations, plus the 40 ``half-scans'' of 30~seconds each,

290: take half an hour.

291: 

292: During the first half hour of each pair the pointing center

293: is RA 5.25h.

294: This is then set to RA 5.75h and the declination offsets

295: repeated during the second half hour.

296: The observations are thus taken in a lead-trail manner where

297: the scanning pattern is identical in ground fixed

298: azimuth-elevation coordinates between the two half

299: hours of each pair.

300: By subtracting the lead and trail data one therefore cancels

301: any signal coming from the ground which is constant over

302: the half hour, while producing a difference map of the sky.

303: We do see significant ground pickup and lead-trail

304: field differencing is used throughout the analysis presented in

305: this paper (see Section~\ref{sec:fielddiff}).

306: 

307: From hour to hour the declination offsets

308: are cumulative, but they are reset before the second

309: eight hour block.

310: The telescope therefore scans a ``letter box'' region

311: 0.64$^\circ$ high in Dec twice per day, at two different line of

312: sight rotation angles.

313: Each day the observation region steps by 0.64$^\circ$ in Dec to cover

314: the entire field as rapidly as possibly (in $\approx9$~days), and then cycles around

315: with a 0.16$^\circ$ offset to generate an eventual four fold

316: interleaved coverage pattern (after 37~days).

317: This observation pattern was repeated throughout the 2006 and 2007

318: seasons a total of $\approx8.5$ times.

319: Figure~\ref{fig:fieldmap} shows the location of the QUaD

320: field.

321: 

322: \begin{figure}[h]

323: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fieldmap.eps}}

324: \caption{Location of the QUaD lead-trail fields delineated in white

325: on an equal area azimuthal projection about the SCP.

326: The color map is the prediction of dust emission intensity

327: at 150~GHz from FDS model 8~\citep{finkbeiner99}.

328: The color scale is linear from 0 to 100~$\mu$K,

329: and is heavily saturated.

330: (The B03 deep and shallow regions are delineated in red,

331: while the white asterisk and cross show the locations

332: of RCW38 and PKS0537-441 respectively.)}

333: \label{fig:fieldmap}

334: \end{figure}

335: 

336: Note that only azimuth scanning is used.

337: Since the telescope is only $\sim1$~km from the Earth's rotational

338: axis essentially zero ``cross-linking'' of the map occurs.

339: For the multipole range presented in this paper this has only

340: a small negative impact on the final CMB power spectrum

341: results.

342: 

343: The bright galactic HII region RCW38 was observed on 11 days

344: distributed through 2006 and 2007, to monitor the beam offset

345: angles and shapes, and the bright quasar PKS0537-441 was observed

346: during the 2007 season to further study the beam shapes.

347: These observations are used in the analysis below

348: (see Sections~\ref{sec:detoffang} and~\ref{sec:beamwid}).

349: 

350: We also observed several other discrete sources (Cen A, Galactic Center, Moon),

351: as well as conducted a survey of part of the galactic plane.

352: These observations will be described in future papers.

353: 

354: \section{Low Level Data Processing}

355: \label{sec:lldataproc}

356: 

357: This section describes the low level data processing

358: which occurs before the timestream is binned into

359: maps (Section~\ref{sec:time2map}) and

360: analyzed to generate simulations (Section~\ref{sec:sims}).

361: The data is deconvolved to remove the effects of detector

362: timeconstants, relative gain calibrated,

363: and field differenced.

364: 

365: \subsection{Deconvolution of detector temporal response}

366: \label{sec:deconv}

367: 

368: The initial stages of the data reduction are performed

369: on each day of data individually.

370: The first step is deconvolution of the detector time constants ---

371: the bolometers have non-instantaneous response to changes in

372: incident optical power, and hence the output data timestream

373: is a low pass filtered version of the desired input waveform.

374: With knowledge of the detector time-constants this filtering

375: can be undone at the price of increased high frequency

376: noise.

377: 

378: We measured the temporal response of our detectors in situ

379: using an external Gunn oscillator source as described

380: in the Instrument Paper.

381: We find that many of the detectors are well fit by a simple

382: single time-constant model.

383: The median primary time constant is 16~ms.

384: However a substantial fraction ($\sim 50$\%) require a second additive

385: time-constant to obtain a good fit --- we are hypothesizing

386: that some fraction of the incident heat goes into a second

387: reservoir which has a weaker coupling to the thermal bath.

388: In a couple of cases the second time-constant is several

389: seconds long but the two time-constant model is still a

390: good fit --- we retain these detectors.

391: In two other cases the dual time-constant model is not

392: a good fit and we reject these detectors leading to the

393: loss of two channel pairs (both at 100~GHz).

394: 

395: To check that the deconvolution process is working, and

396: that the timeconstants are stable over time, we examine

397: forward-backward jackknife maps of the bright

398: compact source RCW38 taken on 11 days

399: distributed through 2006 and 2007.

400: These show no detectable residuals and hence cancellation

401: to $\ll 1$\%.

402: 

403: As part of the deconvolution process the timestream

404: is also low pass filtered to $<5$~Hz.

405: After deconvolution we de-glitch

406: to remove cosmic ray hits etc.\ (loosing $\ll1$\% of the data).

407: 

408: For this analysis we also exclude two additional channel

409: pairs; one (at 150~GHz) due to a time evolving scan synchronous

410: signal, and a second (at 100~GHz) due to strongly

411: atypical pair differenced noise.

412: We are thus left with 9 of the possible 12 pairs at 100~GHz,

413: and 18 of the 19 pairs at 150~GHz.

414: 

415: \subsection{Relative gain calibration via elevation nods}

416: \label{sec:relgains}

417: 

418: We measure the relative gains of the detector channels

419: using the elevation nod method mentioned in

420: Section~\ref{sec:instobs} above.

421: The airmass through which each channel pair was

422: looking is calculated from the elevation encoder

423: reading and then regressed against the observed signal

424: to yield a calibration factor in volts per airmass.

425: We then simply normalize each channel's gain to the mean

426: of all channels:

427: 

428: \begin{equation}

429: V'_i(t) = V_i(t)  \frac{\overline{g}}{g_i}

430: \end{equation}

431: 

432: \noindent where subscript $i$ is a loop over channels,

433: $V(t)$ are the detector timeseries data, and $g$ are

434: the elevation nod gain factors.

435: This equalizes the gains both within, and between, channel

436: pairs.

437: 

438: The nominal accuracy of each elevation nod gain measurement

439: is $\ll 1$\%.

440: Weak trends in the apparent relative gains are observed

441: over short and long timescales, the cause of which is unknown.

442: However as we see in Figure~\ref{fig:relgains} this leads to

443: fluctuation over the entire two season time span of only $\approx 1$\% rms.

444: In this analysis we choose to regard these variations as real

445: and the relative gains derived from each elevation

446: nod are applied to the subsequent 40 half-scans.

447: 

448: However even if these apparent variations are false,

449: random errors of this magnitude will cause negligible 

450: leakage of total intensity to polarization (hereafter $T$ to pol.\ leakage)

451: as, for example, $T$ will leak sometimes into $+Q$ and

452: and sometimes into $-Q$, averaging down in the final maps

453: over both time and detector pairs.

454: 

455: Possible systematic errors in the relative gains are of much

456: greater concern and are discussed and simulated further in

457: Section~\ref{sec:ditherrelgains}.

458: Imperfect deconvolution would lead to the relative

459: gain of a detector pair being a function of temporal

460: frequency.

461: Since the elevation nods measure the gain at

462: an effective frequency well below the CMB measurement band

463: this would result in systematic $T$ to pol.\

464: leakage.

465: Using the Gunn oscillator derived time constants

466: and deconvolution procedure described in Section~\ref{sec:deconv}

467: the lack of ``monopole'' residuals in pair difference jackknife maps

468: of the bright source RCW38 indicate that the low

469: frequency elevation nod gains are accurate to better than 1\%

470: at high (beam scale) frequencies.

471: 

472: \subsection{Examination of timestream and noise spectra}

473: 

474: The sum of the signals from a PSB pair measures the total

475: intensity of the incident radiation, while the difference

476: measures polarization.

477: Having performed the relative gain calibration and

478: sum/difference operations Figure~\ref{fig:timestream}

479: shows a typical scan set at this stage of the processing.

480: Atmospheric emission at 100 and 150~GHz is dominated by

481: oxygen and water vapor respectively.

482: The intensity of the radiation received is an integral over

483: the temperature and density

484: along the atmospheric column through which the telescope is looking.

485: Water vapor is poorly mixed in the atmosphere

486: leading to much greater fluctuations at 150~GHz.

487: From the lack of an obvious scan synchronous component

488: we can infer that the wind blows inhomogeneities through

489: the beam faster than the telescope scans.

490: Since the QUaD beams do not diverge until high in the

491: atmosphere the pair sum timestreams are highly correlated

492: across the array.

493: As expected the atmospheric emission is clearly very weakly

494: polarized leading to strong cancellation in the pair

495: difference timestreams.

496: 

497: \begin{figure}[h]

498: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{timestream.eps}}

499: \caption{Timestream data for a sample scan set.

500: The top panel shows the azimuth angle, and the middle panels

501: the pair sum and difference detector timestreams with relative

502: gain calibration applied;

503: red/orange colors are the 100~GHz pairs, while blue/green colors

504: are the 150~GHz.

505: The bottom panel shows the dark channels.

506: In all cases an approximate scaling to temperature units

507: has been applied.

508: For the purposes of this illustration the timestreams have been

509: heavily low pass filtered (to $\leq 1$~Hz).}

510: \label{fig:timestream}

511: \end{figure}

512: 

513: Figure~\ref{fig:todspec} shows the mean power spectral

514: densities (PSDs) of the detector timestreams.

515: To make this plot spectra were computed for each channel

516: and half-scan and then averaged over a day of data.

517: We see substantial $1/f$ noise in the pair sum data.

518: The $1/f$ knee shifts up in bad weather and

519: down in good --- the plot is for a day of intermediate quality.

520: For our scanning speed (0.25$^\circ$/sec in azimuth) and observing

521: elevation ($\sim50^\circ$) the conversion from timestream

522: frequency~$f$ to multipole on the sky is $\ell \sim 2000 f$,

523: giving a ``science band'' of $0.1 < f < 1$~Hz.

524: Even on the worst days used in this analysis the pair

525: difference spectra remain close to white within this range.

526: See the Instrument Paper for further details of the

527: sensitivity.

528: Note the lack of narrow line noise within the

529: science band --- some channels show microphonic lines at much higher

530: frequencies.

531: The roll-off above 5~Hz is imposed in the initial processing

532: as part of the deconvolution procedure.

533: Also note the uniform noise properties of the

534: detectors within each frequency group.

535: (The ``roll up'' towards higher frequencies observed in

536: some pairs is due to the deconvolution of exceptionally

537: long time constant detectors.)

538: 

539: 

540: \begin{figure*}[h]

541: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{todspec.eps}}

542: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{todspec_sim.eps}}

543: \caption{{\it Left:} Timestream PSDs averaged over a single day of data.

544: Pair sum and pair difference spectra are shown;

545: red/orange colors are the 100~GHz pairs, while blue/green colors

546: are the 150~GHz.

547: The range of frequencies corresponding to $200<\ell<2000$ is enclosed

548: within the dotted lines.

549: See the text for further details.

550: {\it Right:} The same thing for simulated noise timestream

551: (see Section~\ref{sec:noisims}).}

552: \label{fig:todspec}

553: \end{figure*}

554: 

555: 

556: 

557: \subsection{Long term gain equalization via calibration source}

558: \label{sec:gainsupcor}

559: 

560: The QUaD telescope was equipped with a battery

561: powered, remote controlled calibration source mounted

562: behind the secondary mirror, inside the foam cone.

563: Before each half hour of observations the 45$^\circ$ flip mirror was commanded

564: down and the polarizer grid rotated several times

565: injecting a sinusoidally modulated signal into the detector timestreams ---

566: see the Instrument Paper for details.

567: The low level analysis measures the modulation amplitude for each channel.

568: Figure~\ref{fig:gainsupcor} shows the time series for one channel over the

569: whole season and also the volts per airmass as measured

570: by the elevation nods.

571: There is a clear anti-correlation --- as the atmosphere becomes more

572: opaque the atmospheric loading goes up, suppressing the detector

573: gains.

574: (The source temperature is monitored and shows no correlation with

575: the external temperature.)

576: For the good weather data used in this analysis the suppression is 

577: $\leq10$\%.

578: We make a linear regression of the mean calibration source timeseries

579: against the mean elevation nod timeseries within each frequency band and use

580: this to apply a correction.

581: After application of this correction we believe the absolute

582: gain of the QUaD system to be stable at the few percent level

583: over the entire 2006 and 2007 seasons.

584: 

585: \begin{figure*}[h]

586: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{gainsupcor.eps}}

587: \caption{{\it Top:} the atmospheric emission measured by elevation nods in volts

588: per airmass for a sample detector.

589: {\it Middle:} the sinusoidal modulation amplitude of the calibration source

590: as observed by the same channel.

591: {\it Bottom:} the calibration source amplitude after application

592: of the loading gain suppression correction (see text).

593: Histograms over all channels of the percentage fluctuation in the

594: pre- and post-corrected timeseries are shown to the right.}

595: \label{fig:gainsupcor}

596: \end{figure*}

597: 

598: \subsection{Field differencing}

599: \label{sec:fielddiff}

600: 

601: If we do not field difference ground pickup produces

602: obvious artifacts in the final co-added maps.

603: In the timestream this pickup is normally not visible above the detector and

604: atmospheric noise as we see in Figure~\ref{fig:timestream}.

605: However on the very worst days, the very worst pairs

606: can show pickup equivalent to as much as $5$~mK CMB across a half-scan in the

607: pair differenced data.

608: We are confident that this is ground signal because

609: it is not present in the dark channels, is fixed in

610: azimuth angle, is worst in the bottom row pixels, and correlates

611: with the amount of snow present on the ground shield ---

612: see the Instrument Paper for further details.

613: 

614: We note that the ground signal does not show structure

615: smaller than a few degrees which is expected since it

616: is near field pickup.

617: It may be possible to remove the ground signal

618: sufficiently well using a template based approach,

619: and we are investigating this option.

620: However for the analysis presented here we have applied

621: simple lead-trail differencing throughout.

622: In doing so we make the assumption that the ground signal,

623: which clearly does change from day to day, is stable

624: to the relevant level of accuracy over the half hour timescale.

625: In the field differenced maps no artifacts are visible.

626: Ultimately the jackknife tests presented

627: in Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes} are the most sensitive

628: test for residual ground contamination.

629: 

630: The start/end points of each half-scan are carefully

631: tuned to give a best fit to the ideal linear scan motion.

632: We then apply field differencing point-by-point

633: in the timestream by subtracting from each half-scan its

634: partner occurring half an hour later.

635: The delta RA between the differenced points has a standard

636: deviation of 0.007$^\circ$. 

637: 

638: Note that for a Gaussian random field, such as the CMB,

639: the power spectrum of a difference field (in the limit of no correlations) is

640: twice that of an un-differenced field, with

641: an associated increase in the sample variance

642: due to the reduced effective sky area.

643: The QUAD field differencing is explicitly modeled 

644: in our analysis pipeline.

645: 

646: \section{From Timestream to Maps}

647: \label{sec:time2map}

648: 

649: To make polarization maps three more ingredients are required - knowledge

650: of the overall pointing of the telescope, of the relative pointing

651: of each of the detectors, and of the polarization angles

652: and efficiencies of the detectors.

653: 

654: \subsection{Overall telescope pointing}

655: \label{sec:pointing}

656: 

657: 

658: 

659: The QUaD mount used a nine parameter online pointing model

660: derived from optical and radio observations as described in

661: the Instrument Paper.

662: During special radio pointing runs this was shown to have

663: an absolute accuracy over the hemisphere of $\sim0.5'$ rms.

664: 

665: In addition a pointing check was performed on RCW38 before and

666: after each eight hour block of CMB observations.

667: These also indicate a $\sim0.5'$ rms wander in the absolute

668: pointing.

669: Attempts were made to use the measured offsets to make an offline

670: pointing correction but it was not possible to demonstrate

671: any clear improvement, although a few days were rejected due to

672: abnormally large pointing errors.

673: Note that the effect of a pointing wander of the observed

674: magnitude is included in our simulations below.

675: 

676: \subsection{Detector offset angles}

677: \label{sec:detoffang}

678: 

679: On eleven days throughout the 2006 and 2007 seasons full

680: day observations were conducted of RCW38

681: at three line-of-sight orientations (``deck'' angles).

682: For each day the data from each channel were fit to the six parameter

683: model of an elliptical Gaussian beam with free centroid positions,

684: orientation angle and widths.

685: We did the fits both in the timestream, and in maps, yielding

686: equivalent results.

687: The scatter in the centroid positions for a given detector over

688: the set of days is $\sim0.5'$ consistent with the overall pointing wander

689: of $\sim0.5'$ rms discussed above.

690: There is hence no evidence for systematic

691: changes in the detector offset angles over time.

692: We therefore take the detector offset angles as the mean over the set

693: of observed values in the RCW38 runs and estimate their uncertainty

694: as a negligible $\sim0.15'$.

695: 

696: \subsection{Detector polarization angle and efficiency}

697: \label{sec:polpar}

698: 

699: Our best measurements of the polarization angles of the

700: detectors come from in situ measurements of an external

701: source as described in the Instrument Paper.

702: A chopped thermal source was placed behind a polarizing grid and

703: observed with the telescope at many rotation angles,

704: the signal from each PSB tracing out a sinusoid.

705: The phase of these sinusoids gives the detector polarization

706: angle, the fitted values agreeing with the design values 

707: with a scatter of around one degree rms.

708: Since this is compatible with the estimated measurement uncertainty

709: we have used the design values in this analysis when

710: constructing maps.

711: 

712: The degree to which the sinusoid mentioned above fails

713: to reach zero represents the response of a measurement channel to

714: anti-aligned radiation.

715: This ratio of minimum to maximum response is 

716: conventionally referred to as the cross polar leakage

717: $\epsilon$.

718: Our measured values of $\epsilon$ have a mean of 0.08 

719: with an rms scatter of 0.015.

720: In this analysis we have assumed the mean value to apply to all channels

721: when constructing maps, and included scatter in the

722: simulations (see Section~\ref{sec:sigsims}).

723: Note that for an experiment of this type cross polar leakage

724: does not imply $T$ to pol.\ leakage --- it is simply a small loss

725: of efficiency, which must be corrected by an additional

726: calibration factor applied only to the pair difference data.

727: The effect of systematic error on $\epsilon$ is

728: discussed in Section~\ref{sec:poleff} below.

729: 

730: \subsection{Map Making}

731: \label{sec:mapmaking}

732: 

733: To make maps we perform the following operations:

734: sum and difference the detector timestreams for each pair,

735: remove a third order polynomial across each 30~second half-scan,

736: and bin into a grid of pixels weighting by the inverse variance

737: of each half-scan.

738: In this analysis the pixelization is in RA and Dec,

739: and the pixels are 0.02$^\circ$ square.

740: The polynomial subtraction removes the bulk of the

741: atmospheric $1/f$ noise allowing the simplicity of

742: ``naive'' map making without incurring a large noise penalty.

743: 

744: For the pair sum data only the signal times the weights, and the

745: weights themselves, must be accumulated to form the temperature map.

746: For the pair difference the product of the

747: data and the sine and cosine of the detector angle as projected

748: on the sky are accumulated.

749: Then a 2x2 matrix inversion is performed for each pixel

750: to produce $Q$ and $U$ maps.

751: We emphasize that for this matrix to be invertible

752: any given pixel needs to have been measured at only

753: two distinct grid angles --- in the presence of noise, angles

754: separated by 45$^\circ$ are optimal.

755: The only gain from having a more uniform distribution of angles

756: is in averaging down a limited number of systematic effects

757: (such as beam size or pointing mismatch).

758: In practice since we have detector pairs of two orientation angles, and observe

759: at two deck angles, pixels in the central region of our

760: maps have been measured at four angles.

761: 

762: \subsection{Absolute Calibration}

763: \label{sec:abscal}

764: 

765: At this point we have $T$, $Q$, and $U$ maps at each frequency in raw

766: detector units (volts).

767: To scale these into $\mu$K we perform a correlation analysis

768: versus two noise independent temperature maps from the

769: 2003 flight of the Boomerang experiment (B03) --- which in turn have

770: been calibrated against WMAP with a 2\% stated uncertainty~\citep{masi06}.

771: The B03 maps are first passed through the QUaD simulation pipeline

772: (described in Section~\ref{sec:sigsims} below).

773: The raw QUaD and ``B03 as seen by QUaD'' maps are then both

774: apodized by the QUaD sensitivity mask (see Section~\ref{sec:apmask}),

775: Fourier transformed,

776: and cross spectra taken between the QUaD map and one B03 map,

777: and between the two B03 maps.

778: For each bandpower $b$ we then calculate our absolute calibration

779: factor as,

780: 

781: \begin{equation}

782: a_b = \frac{w_{Q,b}}{w_{C,b}} \frac{\left\langle m_R m_C \right\rangle}{\left\langle m_R m_Q \right\rangle}

783: \label{eqn:abscal}

784: \end{equation}

785: 

786: \noindent where $w$ is the Fourier transform of the beam, %beam window function,

787: $m$ are the modes of the Fourier transform of the apodized map,

788: $R$, $C$ and $Q$ refer to the ``reference'', ``calibration'' and QUaD

789: maps respectively, and the mean is taken over the modes

790: in a given annulus of the Fourier plane. 

791: 

792: This calibration factor should ideally be a constant value for

793: each bandpower (multipole range).

794: In practice we find that it is for $200< \ell <800$ where the

795: B03 beam correction (and therefore uncertainty on that correction)

796: is modest, and we therefore take the average value across that range.

797: We have also performed the same operation

798: using various combinations of the WMAP Q, V and W band maps.

799: Due to the much larger beams of WMAP, the beam corrections are

800: very large, and the signal to noise low.

801: However based on these results, and the point to point scatter

802: in the B03 analysis, we estimate a 5\% uncertainty

803: in our primary B03 derived absolute calibration factors.

804: 

805: \subsection{Map Results}

806: 

807: Figure~\ref{fig:sigmaps} shows the 100 and 150~GHz $T$, $Q$ and $U$ maps

808: as generated using the process described in Section~\ref{sec:mapmaking}.

809: The signal to noise in the $T$ maps is extremely high as

810: is evident from the excellent spacial correlation of the

811: pattern between the two frequencies.

812: We deliberately plot the $Q$ and $U$ maps on the same color

813: scale to visually emphasize how small the polarization of the CMB

814: is compared to the degree scale structure in $T$.

815: Three discrete sources are weakly detected in the temperature maps,

816: but are not detected in polarization.

817: 

818: \begin{figure*}[h]

819: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{sigmaps.eps}}

820: \caption{QUaD 100 and 150~GHz $T$, $Q$ and $U$ field difference maps.

821: The color scale is $\pm200$~$\mu$K in all cases, and the maps

822: have been smoothed with a $5'$ FWHM Gaussian kernel.

823: (Black circles indicate discrete sources which are

824: removed in the power spectrum analysis.)}

825: \label{fig:sigmaps}

826: \end{figure*}

827: 

828: \subsection{Jackknife Maps}

829: 

830: The CMB polarization signal is extremely small necessitating

831: extreme attention to detail.

832: To probe for the presence of contaminating signal that

833: does not originate on the sky we perform a set of

834: jackknife tests.

835: For each test we split the timestream data into two approximately

836: equal subsets which should contain (nearly) the same sky signal, but

837: which might contain different false signal.

838: We then generate maps for each data subset

839: and difference them to produce jackknife maps:

840: 

841: \begin{eqnarray}

842: M^J & = & (M^1 - M^2)/2 \\

843: V^J & = & (V^1 + V^2)/4

844: \end{eqnarray}

845: 

846: \noindent where $M^J$ is the jackknife map, $M^1$ and $M^2$ are

847: the split maps and $V$ are the corresponding variance maps.

848: Note that we form jackknife maps with this normalization

849: by analogy to the non-jackknife map which is effectively

850: $(M^1 + M^2)/2$.

851: 

852: Plots of the jackknife maps are not presented here as they are

853: not particularly informative --- they look like noise.

854: However Section~\ref{sec:2dfpc} includes plots of the Fourier

855: transform of some sample jackknife maps,

856: and Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes} probes for any hint of structure

857: in these maps which is inconsistent with noise.

858: 

859: \section{Generation of Simulated Timestream}

860: \label{sec:sims}

861: 

862: Power spectra of maps such as those shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sigmaps}

863: need to be corrected for two effects: the ``noise bias'' (principally

864: affecting auto spectra), and the suppression of power due to the effects

865: of timestream filtering and finite beam size.

866: In addition we need to estimate the size of the final bandpower

867: uncertainties due to sample and noise variance.

868: We do this broadly following the MASTER technique~\citep{hivon02},

869: which requires accurate timestream level simulations of signal and noise.

870: 

871: \subsection{Signal simulations}

872: \label{sec:sigsims}

873: 

874: To construct simulations of signal timestream we start with LCDM

875: power spectra generated using the CMBFAST

876: program~\citep{zaldarriaga00} using the WMAP3 cosmological parameters given under the heading

877: ``Three Year Mean'' in Table 2 of~\cite{spergel06},

878: and feed these into the ``synfast'' generator

879: (part of the HEALPix package\footnote

880: {See http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/index.shtml and~\cite{gorski05}})

881: to yield curved sky maps of $T$, $Q$ and $U$ at a resolution of

882: $0.4'$ (NSIDE of 8192).

883: 

884: We then read each day of data in turn, and loop over detectors.

885: For each we calculate the sky map $M_d$ which would be seen by

886: a detector of the given angle and polarization efficiency

887: by combining the $T$, $Q$ and $U$

888: input maps according to

889: 

890: \begin{equation}

891: M_d = \frac{1}{2} \left( M_T + \frac{1-\epsilon}{1+\epsilon} \left( M_Q \cos 2 \theta + M_U \sin 2 \theta \right) \right)

892: \end{equation}

893: 

894: \noindent where $\epsilon$ is the cross polar leakage

895: and $\theta$ is the detector polarization angle.

896: This ideal sky map is then convolved with an elliptical Gaussian

897: smoothing kernel with the appropriate parameters to simulate

898: the effect of the beam.

899: Finally we interpolate off the smoothed map along the pointing

900: trajectory for the given detector, computed as the observed

901: telescope pointing direction plus the detector

902: offset angle.

903: 

904: In Section~\ref{sec:polpar} we mentioned that

905: fixed nominal values are used for the detector

906: polarization angles and efficiencies when constructing

907: maps.

908: For each simulation realization we generate values

909: for each detector normally distributed about

910: these nominal values with the measured rms scatter

911: (1$^\circ$ and 0.015 respectively).

912: The simulated data is then re-mapped assuming the nominal

913: values as usual.

914: 

915: To simulate the small pointing wander mentioned in

916: Section~\ref{sec:pointing} we generate Gaussian

917: random numbers with zero mean and $\sigma$ of $0.5'$

918: as the RA and Dec offsets at the start and end of each

919: eight hour block.

920: We then linearly interpolate these offsets to each time-step

921: and add them in to the observed pointing trajectory.

922: Although in reality the wander has a more complex behavior

923: given the observation strategy, and averaged over hundreds of

924: days of data, this will lead to a broadening of the effective

925: beam width of the correct (very small) amount.

926: 

927: The detector offset angles are taken as fixed at our best estimate

928: values --- we have no evidence for time variation as mentioned

929: in Section~\ref{sec:detoffang} above.

930: Note that the measured beam centroid positions show repeatable

931: offsets between the two halves of each detector pair

932: with rms magnitude of $\sim 0.1'$.

933: When we construct maps using pair sum and difference data

934: we use the mean for each pair.

935: However when we sample from the sky to generate simulated

936: timestream we use the measured individual detector values.

937: Hence any $T$ to pol.\ mixing which occurs due to beam centroid mismatch

938: is fully included in the simulations --- and found to

939: be negligible --- see Section~\ref{sec:beammismatch}.

940: 

941: Note that generation of simulated signal timestreams takes

942: place before the field differencing operation --- effects

943: such as actual signal correlations and mismatch of pointing coordinates between lead 

944: and trail fields will therefore be included.

945: 

946: \subsubsection{Measurement of the beam widths}

947: \label{sec:beamwid}

948: 

949: To convolve the ideal sky map with the beam we need to know

950: the beam shape for each detector.

951: We have obtained this from nine days of special observations

952: of the bright quasar PKS0537-441, which is a point source at

953: the angular resolution of our experiment~\citep{fey00}.

954: The mean of the measured major and minor FWHM's is $5.0'$ at 100~GHz

955: and $3.5'$ at 150~GHz with uncertainties of $\approx 2$\%.

956: There is evidence for a small degree of variation in width between

957: the detectors of a given frequency band, and for $\leq 10$\% elongation 

958: (mismatch between the major and minor widths),

959: but for any given detector these are sub-dominant to the measurement uncertainty.

960: As when determining the detector offset angles from measurements of

961: RCW38 (see Section~\ref{sec:detoffang} above) we

962: have performed the elliptical Gaussian fits in both the timestream

963: and in maps yielding nearly identical beam widths and angles.

964: For further details see the Instrument Paper and our

965: Optics Paper~\citep{osullivan08}.

966: 

967: The effective beam width in our CMB field co-added maps is measured

968: with low signal to noise by the quasar PKS0524-485

969: (the brightest of the circled sources in Figure~\ref{fig:sigmaps}). 

970: This source appears as a Gaussian peak with width consistent

971: with the single day observations of PKS0537-441.

972: 

973: \subsection{Noise simulations}

974: \label{sec:noisims}

975: 

976: As shown in Figures~\ref{fig:timestream} and~\ref{fig:todspec}

977: the detector timestream is dominated by heavily correlated

978: low frequency atmospheric noise.

979: The goal of the timestream noise generator is to reproduce

980: simulated half-scans which are indistinguishable from the

981: real under a battery of tests in both the time

982: and frequency domains.

983: 

984: To achieve this we find it necessary to measure and re-generate

985: longer pieces of timestream, and then cut them down

986: to the half-scans which are actually used when constructing

987: the maps.

988: First the complete time period spanning each five scan set 

989: is Fourier transformed (including turn arounds).

990: Then for each of a set of logarithmically spaced frequency bins

991: we take the covariance matrix

992: of the Fourier modes between all channels.

993: This matrix is Cholesky decomposed and used to mix

994: uncorrelated random numbers to re-generate the observed

995: degree of covariance.

996: This process is repeated for each frequency bin

997: and then the resulting sets of Fourier modes are inverse

998: transformed to yield simulated timestream.

999: Possible correlations between the real and imaginary

1000: parts of each Fourier mode are preserved by using

1001: complex covariance and Cholesky matrices, but

1002: this process assumes the Fourier modes are correlated

1003: only between channels, and not between modes.

1004: Breaking the simulated timestream down into half-scans

1005: reintroduces such correlations and

1006: we find it has equivalent temporal and spectral

1007: characteristics to the real data under a variety

1008: of statistical tests.

1009: 

1010: As an example the right part of Figure~\ref{fig:todspec}

1011: shows the power spectra

1012: of the resulting simulated timestream --- comparing to

1013: the real PSDs in the left part of the figure

1014: we see an excellent match.

1015: Note that the simulation produces non pair differenced

1016: timestream which has then been differenced to generate

1017: the spectra shown in Figure~\ref{fig:todspec} --- it is clear that the

1018: channel-channel correlations are being reproduced to high accuracy.

1019: The narrow lines in the real spectra are re-generated as broader

1020: boxcar features due to the frequency bin width used in the

1021: simulation process --- this is irrelevant since these

1022: frequencies are far above the science band.

1023: 

1024: The signal to noise ratio in the timestream data is

1025: sufficiently low that we do not need to

1026: subtract the signal contribution before taking the noise

1027: spectra.

1028: (The PSD of signal only LCDM timestream

1029: is more than 2 order of magnitude below the noise

1030: at all frequencies for the pair sum, and 4 orders of

1031: magnitude for the pair difference.)

1032: To confirm that the noise modeling operates correctly we

1033: have performed a ``sim the sim'' study where the output

1034: of a single signal plus noise timestream simulation is used as

1035: the input to a complete simulation set, passing all the jackknife

1036: tests described in Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes} as expected.

1037: 

1038: 

1039: \subsection{Simulated maps}

1040: 

1041: We generate many realizations of signal and noise timestream

1042: and produce the full set of un-split and jackknife split maps from

1043: these using the same code used to make maps of the real

1044: timestream in Section~\ref{sec:mapmaking} above.

1045: For each realization we then add the signal and noise maps

1046: to form signal plus noise maps --- since the map making

1047: process is linear this is equivalent to adding the timestreams,

1048: and computationally more efficient.

1049: The generation of simulation realizations is computationally

1050: costly and hence their number is relatively small (500 in this

1051: analysis).

1052: 

1053: \section{From Maps to Power Spectra}

1054: \label{sec:maps2spec}

1055: 

1056: This section will describe the various steps which take us from

1057: the real and simulated maps to angular power spectra.

1058: 

1059: \subsection{The apodization mask}

1060: \label{sec:apmask}

1061: 

1062: In addition to the signal maps $M_{T,Q,U}$ the process described in

1063: Section~\ref{sec:mapmaking} also produces maps of

1064: estimated variance $V_{T,Q,U}$ based on the variance of each co-added half-scan,

1065: assuming that the noise is white.

1066: Empirically these are found to be close to correct for

1067: the polarization maps and a 10\% (20\%) underestimate

1068: for the 100~GHz (150~GHz) $T$ maps, as expected since

1069: the pair sum data contains significant $1/f$ noise.

1070: We take the inverse of these variance maps as the apodization

1071: masks:

1072: 

1073: \begin{equation}

1074: A_X = \frac{1}{V_X}

1075: \end{equation}

1076: 

1077: However due to the partially overlapping ``tiles'' of coverage

1078: resulting from our observation strategy and the differing detector

1079: offset angles there are sharp steps in the masks (of $\sim10$\% magnitude).

1080: If these steps are not smoothed out then the product

1081: of the map and mask (the quantity which is about to get

1082: Fourier transformed) will also have sharp steps.

1083: Such steps correspond to a mixing of power from large to small

1084: scales which is particularly undesirable in the $TT$ spectra

1085: where even a small fractional contribution from the

1086: very large low multipole $C_\ell$ values would dominate

1087: over the intrinsic power in the damping tail region

1088: of the spectrum\footnote{

1089: Note that the relevant ratio is in $C_\ell$, not $\ell(\ell+1)C_\ell$

1090: which is the quantity conventionally plotted ---

1091: for the $TT$ spectrum under LCDM $C_{200}/C_{2000}\approx 2500$}.

1092: To mitigate this effect we convolve the inverse variance mask

1093: with a Gaussian shaped smoothing kernel of FWHM 0.5$^\circ$:

1094: 

1095: \begin{equation}

1096: A'_X = A_X \ast G

1097: \end{equation}

1098: 

1099: We emphasize that an arbitrary apodization mask can be used without

1100: biasing the results and, in fact, the inverse variance mask

1101: is only optimal in the limit of low signal to noise which is

1102: not the case for the $T$ maps.

1103: In principle an optimal mask could be generated for each spectrum,

1104: and in fact each bandpower within each spectrum, based on its

1105: signal to noise, but we have not pursued this complication

1106: in this analysis.

1107: 

1108: After smoothing we inject Gaussian shaped ``divots'' with FWHM of 0.5$^\circ$

1109: into the apodization masks at the locations of three discrete

1110: sources circled in Figure~\ref{fig:sigmaps} to null out any

1111: effect they might otherwise have on the results:

1112: 

1113: \begin{equation}

1114: A''_x = A'_X \left( 1 - \sum_i{ \exp \left( - \left( \frac{(x-x_{o,i})^2 +

1115:                         (y-y_{o,i})^2}{\sigma^2} \right) \right)} \right)

1116: \end{equation}

1117: 

1118: \noindent where $x$ and $y$ are the pixel coordinates, $x_{o,i}$

1119: and $y_{o,i}$ are the source locations, and the loop $i$

1120: is over the set of sources to be nulled.

1121: Note that although the sources are visible only

1122: in the $T$ maps we apply the same masking in

1123: polarization also.

1124: 

1125: The final apodization masks imply an effective sky area

1126: for this analysis of $\approx 25$~square degrees.

1127: 

1128: \subsection{Fourier Transform and Power Spectra}

1129: \label{sec:ft_and_ps}

1130: 

1131: We next make the flat sky approximations

1132: and take the two dimensional discrete Fourier transform of the product

1133: of the map and apodization mask:

1134: 

1135: \begin{equation}

1136: m_X = c \ \mathrm{FT}(M_X A''_X)

1137: \label{do_ft}

1138: \end{equation}

1139: 

1140: \noindent where $c$ is a normalization constant which acts to

1141: make the apodization and Fourier transform operations total power

1142: preserving.

1143: 

1144: In the Fourier domain the transform from $Q,U$ to $E,B$

1145: is simply

1146: 

1147: \begin{eqnarray}

1148:   m_E & = & +m_Q \cos 2 \phi + m_U \sin 2 \phi \\

1149:   m_B & = & -m_Q \sin 2 \phi + m_U \cos 2 \phi

1150: \end{eqnarray}

1151: 

1152: \noindent where $\phi$ is the polar angle of each mode $m$

1153: with respect to the Fourier plane origin.

1154: 

1155: We then take products of the (complex) modes

1156: within and between each set

1157: 

1158: \begin{equation}

1159: p_{XY} = m_X m^*_Y

1160: \end{equation}

1161: 

1162: \noindent where $X$ and $Y$ can be $T$, $Q$ or $U$ at either

1163: 100 or 150~GHz.

1164: 

1165: Each set of mode products $p_{XY}$ is then multiplied by $d = \ell(\ell+1)/2\pi$

1166: where the multipole $\ell = 2\pi u$, and $u$ is the Fourier

1167: conjugate variable to angular distance from the map center.

1168: Finally we take the binned angular power spectra

1169: 

1170: \begin{equation}

1171: b_{XY,i} = \left\langle d p_{XY,i} \right\rangle

1172: \label{eqn:mk_bandpowers}

1173: \end{equation}

1174: 

1175: \noindent where the mean is taken over the modes

1176: in each annulus $i$ of the Fourier plane.

1177: The multiplication of the map by the mask in real

1178: space corresponds to a convolution in Fourier space ---

1179: hence the Fourier modes $m_X$ are correlated and so are

1180: the bandpower estimates $b_{XY}$.

1181: For this analysis we set the bin spacing to $\Delta \ell =81$

1182: which results in correlation of $\sim20$\%.

1183: No importance should be attached to the exact value 81 ---

1184: it was an arbitrary choice made early on and remained

1185: unchanged throughout the development of the analysis.

1186: 

1187: The above description is a slight simplification of the

1188: actual procedure used.

1189: In reality for each cross spectrum $XY$ we enforce a common

1190: apodization mask $A''_{XY} = \sqrt{A''_X A''_Y}$ before taking

1191: the Fourier transforms and proceeding to power spectra.

1192: 

1193: \subsection{Fourier Plane Masking}

1194: \label{sec:2dfpc}

1195: 

1196: The strong theoretical expectation is that the CMB

1197: is isotropic on the sky and therefore also in the two

1198: dimensional Fourier plane.

1199: The noise however is certainly not --- atmospheric variation

1200: injects strong low frequency fluctuations ($1/f$ noise) along

1201: the scan direction and hence in a band around the perpendicular

1202: direction in the Fourier domain.

1203: We are perfectly at liberty to down weight or excise portions

1204: of the Fourier plane when we take power spectra --- no bias

1205: will result so long as the weight/cut criteria are independent

1206: of the mode values of the real maps.

1207: 

1208: Figure~\ref{fig:2dfp} shows the 150~GHz $T$ and $Q$ Fourier

1209: modes for the deck jackknife map.

1210: The third order polynomial filter which has been applied

1211: to each half-scan removes power along the scan direction

1212: producing the dark vertical bands down the middle of the plots.

1213: Atmospheric $1/f$ which survives the filtering appears

1214: as a brighter band either side of the dark band in the $T$

1215: plot, but due to the unpolarized nature of the atmosphere, does

1216: not appear in the $Q$ plot (see Section~\ref{sec:noisims}

1217: above).

1218: Because the atmospheric noise is highly correlated amongst

1219: adjacent detector pairs in the array we in fact see a complex

1220: structured pattern of non-uniform noise in the $T$ plot ---

1221: our noise simulations fully reproduce this pattern.

1222: 

1223: \begin{figure}[h]

1224: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{2dfp.eps}}

1225: \caption{Fourier transforms of the apodized 150~GHz $T$ and $Q$ deck

1226: jackknife maps.

1227: The real part of the square of the Fourier modes is shown with

1228: a linear color stretch.

1229: The red circles indicate the annuli within which means are taken

1230: to generate bandpower values.

1231: Note that the horizontal direction in this plot corresponds to

1232: the scan direction --- see text for further details.}

1233: \label{fig:2dfp}

1234: \end{figure}

1235: 

1236: Section~\ref{sec:apmask} mentioned the need to smooth

1237: the inverse variance derived apodization mask to reduce

1238: up-mixing of power from small to large multipoles.

1239: There is an additional similar, but smaller, effect.

1240: Due to the detector offset angles each has observed a

1241: slightly different rectangular patch of the CMB sky.

1242: We polynomial filter each detector's timestream for each

1243: half-scan to reduce atmospheric noise, and so

1244: the CMB modes removed from each ``tile'' are slightly

1245: different.

1246: Hence when we co-add the data from all detectors

1247: small step artifacts are present in the overall map

1248: at the tile overlap boundaries.

1249: Examining the non-jackknife Fourier $T$ modes using plots

1250: similar to those shown in Figure~\ref{fig:2dfp} we see

1251: up-mixed power becoming dominant over the intrinsic for

1252: multipoles at $\ell>1800$ in a narrow band around the

1253: scan direction axis --- as expected, since the artifacts

1254: are vertical step edges in the maps.

1255: This spurious power is also seen in the signal only

1256: simulations confirming its origin is up-mixing.

1257: Note that this effect is only significant in $T$

1258: due to the much larger ratio between low and high

1259: multipoles than in the polarization spectra.

1260: However we excise these modes when generating all power

1261: spectra resulting in a trivial increase in the uncertainty

1262: of our highest bandpowers ($<3$\%).

1263: This effect will be more important in a future analysis

1264: extending to $\ell=3000$.

1265: 

1266: One could weight the Fourier modes when combining

1267: to form power spectra based on their signal to noise ratio

1268: as measured in the signal and noise simulations.

1269: This would be (at least a partial) substitute for the polynomial

1270: half-scan filtering --- one either removes the atmospheric

1271: $1/f$ in the timestream or in the two dimensional Fourier

1272: plane.

1273: Looking at Figure~\ref{fig:2dfp} such Fourier plane weighting

1274: would clearly be beneficial for the $TT$ spectra.

1275: Although we have experimented with such weights and cuts

1276: we have not implemented them in the analysis presented

1277: here --- the benefit for the essentially white noise

1278: polarization spectra is close to zero.

1279: 

1280: \subsection{Raw spectra compared to simulations}

1281: 

1282: By taking the mean of the masked Fourier mode products within

1283: each annulus we generate raw power spectra of the real and simulated maps.

1284: Figure~\ref{fig:rawrealsimspec}

1285: compares the 150~GHz $EE$ spectra and is in a sense the fundamental

1286: result of our analysis --- is the observed spectrum consistent

1287: with being a realization of LCDM plus noise?

1288: To test that hypothesis we could simply perform $\chi^2$ tests at this point.

1289: However, for presentation purposes, and to allow our spectra

1290: to be used for cosmological parameter analyses, we proceed

1291: to noise and filter correct them as follows.

1292: 

1293: \begin{figure}[h]

1294: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{rawrealsimspec.eps}}

1295: \caption{Comparison of real and simulated raw 150~GHz $EE$ spectra.

1296: The cyan curves are the ensemble of signal plus noise simulations,

1297: the black points are the observed bandpower values, and the blue

1298: curve is the mean of the ensemble of noise only simulations.}

1299: \label{fig:rawrealsimspec}

1300: \end{figure}

1301: 

1302: \subsection{Removing the noise bias}

1303: 

1304: At this point in the analysis we have sets of bandpower

1305: values calculated using Equation~\ref{eqn:mk_bandpowers}

1306: for each of the auto and cross spectra.

1307: We have these for the real spectra, and each realization

1308: of the signal only, noise only, and signal plus noise

1309: simulations.

1310: We will denote these $\mathbf{r}_{XY}$, $\mathbf{s}_{XY}$,

1311: $\mathbf{n}_{XY}$ and $\mathbf{sn}_{XY}$ respectively.

1312: 

1313: To remove the noise bias we take the mean of the ensemble

1314: of noise only simulations and subtract from the

1315: real spectra

1316: 

1317: \begin{equation}

1318: \mathbf{r}'_{XY} = \mathbf{r}_{XY} - \overline{\mathbf{n}_{XY}}

1319: \label{eqn:noise_debias}

1320: \end{equation}

1321: 

1322: \noindent

1323: In Figure~\ref{fig:rawrealsimspec}

1324: the blue curve is subtracted from the black points.

1325: Correlated noise, presumably from the atmosphere,

1326: is fully simulated by the process described in

1327: Section~\ref{sec:noisims} above.

1328: Such noise can result in the mean noise cross spectra

1329: --- where cross spectrum means either within, or across

1330: frequency bands --- being non zero.

1331: In practice the levels are very small compared to the auto

1332: spectra but for completeness we subtract them anyway.

1333: 

1334: \subsection{Band power window functions}

1335: \label{sec:bpwf}

1336: 

1337: As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:ft_and_ps}

1338: multiplication by the apodization mask in image space

1339: corresponds to convolution in the Fourier plane by

1340: the Fourier transform of that mask.

1341: In Figure~\ref{fig:2dfp} we see that adjacent Fourier modes

1342: (pixels) are highly correlated, and that the resulting annular

1343: mean bandpower estimates will therefore also be correlated.

1344: We thus need to know how much each multipole on the sky

1345: contributes to each experimental bandpower --- the so called ``band power

1346: window functions'' (BPWF's)~\citep{knox99}.

1347: This could be determined by running sets of signal

1348: only simulations, each with non-zero input power only in a narrow band

1349: of multipoles.

1350: However the computational cost of doing this in practice is too high,

1351: and we hence use an alternate, much faster method.

1352: 

1353: We take each narrow annulus in the Fourier plane in turn

1354: and convolve this with the Fourier transform of the mask.

1355: For $Q$ and $U$ we generate annuli corresponding to pure

1356: $E$ or $B$ modes.

1357: Taking the power spectrum of the convolved annuli measures

1358: the response of each experimental bandpower to sky power

1359: in the given annulus.

1360: Placing these spectra into the rows of a matrix, the

1361: columns are then the desired BPWF's (interpolating to

1362: every multipole).

1363: For $BB$ we have two functions per bandpower representing

1364: the response to true $BB$ sky power, and also the response to $EE$.

1365: In practice the mixing is $\sim10$\% in our lowest bandpower

1366: and falls rapidly with increasing $\ell$ (see Section~\ref{sec:ebmix}).

1367: Figure~\ref{fig:bpwf} shows some example BPWF's.

1368: 

1369: \begin{figure}[h]

1370: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{bpwf.eps}}

1371: \caption{The bandpower window functions for the 150~GHz

1372: $BB$ spectrum.

1373: Each blue curve shows the relative response to $BB$ sky

1374: power, while the corresponding red curves show the response

1375: to $EE$.}

1376: \label{fig:bpwf}

1377: \end{figure}

1378: 

1379: \subsection{Determining the filter/beam suppression factor}

1380: \label{sec:filtbeamcorr}

1381: 

1382: Using the BPWF's described above

1383: we can calculate the expectation values $\mathbf{e}_{XY}$

1384: of the observed bandpowers given the input LCDM power spectra used to

1385: generate the signal simulations.

1386: We then take the ratio of the mean of the signal only simulated spectra

1387: to these expectation values to empirically

1388: determine the suppression of power which has occurred

1389: due to the convolution of the sky by the telescope

1390: beam pattern, and the polynomial filtering of the timestream

1391: 

1392: \begin{equation}

1393: \mathbf{f}_{XY} = \frac{\overline{\mathbf{s}_{XY}}}{\mathbf{e}_{XY}}

1394: \end{equation}

1395: 

1396: \noindent --- this is the factor by which the real spectra must be divided

1397: to yield an un-biased estimate of the true sky power.

1398: Note that this process will automatically include any simulated suppression

1399: effect (including the so-called "pixel window functions").

1400: Figure~\ref{fig:filtbeam} illustrates this step --- the curve

1401: in the lower panel approaches the ``beam window function''

1402: $W_\ell$ at higher $\ell$.

1403: 

1404: \begin{figure}[h]

1405: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{filtbeam.eps}}

1406: \caption{{\it Upper:} Input $EE$ spectrum (red line), calculated

1407: expectation values (red crosses), and mean simulated signal only

1408: spectrum (magenta circles).

1409: {\it Lower:} The ratio of the two sets of points in the upper panel --- 

1410: the filter/beam suppression factor.

1411: (This plot is for the 150~GHz spectrum.)}

1412: \label{fig:filtbeam}

1413: \end{figure}

1414: 

1415: We now divide the spectra by their respective suppression factors

1416: 

1417: \begin{equation}

1418: \mathbf{r}''_{XY} = \frac{\mathbf{r}'_{XY}}{\mathbf{f}_{XY}}

1419: \label{eqn:filterbeam_corr}

1420: \end{equation}

1421: 

1422: \noindent In practice we apply the $\mathbf{f}_{TT}$ correction

1423: to the $TT$ spectra and the $\mathbf{f}_{EE}$ correction to the

1424: $EE$, $BB$ and $EB$ spectra.

1425: For the $TE$, $TB$ spectra we use the geometric mean

1426: of $\mathbf{f}_{TT}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{EE}$.

1427: 

1428: \subsection{Power spectrum results}

1429: 

1430: We also apply the noise de-bias and filter/beam correction

1431: operations of Equations~\ref{eqn:noise_debias} and~\ref{eqn:filterbeam_corr}

1432: to each signal plus noise realization.

1433: Their fluctuation then provides an estimate

1434: of the uncertainty of the real bandpower values.

1435: This uncertainty will only be correct in as much as the

1436: theory spectrum used as input to the signal simulations

1437: matches reality --- if there is any significant disagreement

1438: one should iterate the entire process until it converges.

1439: As we will see in Section~\ref{sec:comp2lcdm} our results are

1440: in fact perfectly compatible with the WMAP3 based model used

1441: as input to the signal simulations (see Section~\ref{sec:sigsims})

1442: so there is no need to iterate.

1443: 

1444: Figure~\ref{fig:spec_res} shows the full set of 21 signal spectra:

1445: within each frequency band we have $TT$, $TE$, $EE$, $BB$, $TB$

1446: and $EB$, while across frequency bands we can

1447: form $T_{100}T_{150}$, $T_{100}E_{150}$, $E_{100}T_{150}$,

1448: $E_{100}E_{150}$, $B_{100}B_{150}$, $T_{100}B_{150}$, $B_{100}T_{150}$,

1449: $E_{100}B_{150}$ and $B_{100}E_{150}$.

1450: We see that the 150~GHz spectra have better sensitivity than the

1451: 100~GHz --- this is partly due to the larger number of detectors

1452: at the higher frequency, but mostly due to the smaller beam size

1453: (and hence smaller beam correction).

1454: 

1455: \begin{figure*}[h]

1456: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{spec_res.eps}}

1457: \caption{The full set of QUaD power spectrum results.

1458: The blue points are the signal spectra, the magenta the deck jackknife

1459: (see text for definition), and the red curves a conventional LCDM model.

1460: The horizontal and vertical axes are multipole $\ell$ and $\ell(\ell+1)C_l/2\pi$

1461: ($\mu$K$^2$) respectively.

1462: Each bandpower is $\sim20$\% correlated with its neighbors and, where

1463: signal dominated, there are strong correlations between bandpowers across

1464: frequency bands.

1465: The error bars are the standard deviation of the simulated signal

1466: plus noise bandpower values, and the two sets of points have been

1467: offset by $\pm15$ in $\ell$ from their nominal values for clarity.

1468: Note that absolute calibration and beam size uncertainty are not

1469: included in the error bars.

1470: The jackknife spectra are consistent with null --- see Table~\ref{tab:ptes}

1471: and the text.}

1472: \label{fig:spec_res}

1473: \end{figure*}

1474: 

1475: \subsection{Alternate analysis}

1476: 

1477: The main analysis in this paper comes from an evolution

1478: of ``pipeline 2'' in our previous paper~\cite{ade07}.

1479: A second pipeline exists, the

1480: low level parts of which are derived from our

1481: previous ``pipeline 1'', but which, for the results

1482: presented here, is now also performing flat sky power spectrum

1483: estimation.

1484: This pipeline currently has noise modeling

1485: that is somewhat less sophisticated than that described in

1486: Section~\ref{sec:noisims}.

1487: The two pipelines were independently written and share no code.

1488: Although the algorithms implemented are intended to be basically

1489: the same they are sure to differ in some (hopefully unimportant)

1490: details.

1491: The fact that the final results agree very closely therefore

1492: adds considerable additional confidence.

1493: Figure~\ref{fig:2anal} compares the 150~GHz spectra from

1494: the two pipeline.

1495: 

1496: \begin{figure}[h]

1497: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{2anal.eps}}

1498: \caption{Comparison of 150~GHz spectra for the main (blue points)

1499: and alternate (magenta points) pipelines.

1500: The horizontal and vertical axes are multipole $\ell$ and $\ell(\ell+1)C_l/2\pi$

1501: ($\mu$K$^2$) respectively,

1502: and the two sets of points have been

1503: offset by $\pm15$ in $\ell$ from their nominal values for clarity.}

1504: \label{fig:2anal}

1505: \end{figure}

1506: 

1507: 

1508: \section{Jackknife tests}

1509: \label{sec:jackknifes}

1510: 

1511: To probe the results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spec_res} for systematic

1512: contamination we conduct a battery of jackknife tests.

1513: As mentioned above split dataset maps of the real data and

1514: each simulation realization are generated.

1515: Each split divides the timestream data into two approximately

1516: equal subsets which should contain (nearly) identical sky signal,

1517: but which might contain different contaminating signal.

1518: In this analysis we consider four such data splits which we call

1519: the deck angle jackknife, scan direction jackknife, split season

1520: jackknife and focal plane jackknife.

1521: Each of these is described in more detail below.

1522: 

1523: For each jackknife the split maps are subtracted from one another,

1524: divided by two, and we then proceed to power spectrum estimation as usual.

1525: For the real spectra

1526: we then calculate the $\chi^2$ versus the null model

1527: 

1528: \begin{equation}

1529: \chi^2 = \mathbf{r}'' \mathbf{C}^{-1} \mathbf{r}''^t

1530: \label{eqn:chisq}

1531: \end{equation}

1532: 

1533: \noindent where $\mathbf{C}$ is the bandpower covariance matrix as estimated from the ensemble

1534: of signal plus noise simulations.

1535: We also calculate $\chi^2$ for each signal plus noise simulation.

1536: The generation of simulation realizations is computationally

1537: costly and hence their number is relatively small (500 in this

1538: analysis).

1539: This has two implications.

1540: Firstly, since bandpower correlations beyond nearest neighbor

1541: are sufficiently weak as to be lost in the measurement noise, we 

1542: set all but the main and first two off diagonals of the

1543: bandpower covariance matrix to zero.

1544: Secondly when calculating the $\chi^2$ values for the signal plus noise

1545: realizations extreme fluctuations have the opportunity to

1546: partially self-compensate by injecting extra covariance

1547: into the matrix which they will be measured against, biasing the

1548: resulting $\chi^2$ values low.

1549: To get around this we re-calculate the covariance

1550: matrix excluding each realization in turn before calculating

1551: the $\chi^2$ for that realization.

1552: 

1553: We find that the simulated jackknife $\chi^2$ distributions

1554: for $TT$ do not follow the analytical expectation.

1555: Examining Figure~\ref{fig:bpdevs}, which shows the bandpower

1556: deviations of the deck jack spectra, we see that there are

1557: two reasons why.

1558: Firstly the simulated bandpower distributions

1559: are significantly non-Gaussian --- the colored lines do not sit

1560: at $-2$ through $+2$.

1561: Secondly, and more importantly, there is significant

1562: predicted imperfect cancellation --- the simulated distribution

1563: deviates strongly from a median of zero at large angular scales.

1564: The reason for this latter effect was mentioned in

1565: Section~\ref{sec:2dfpc} ---

1566: in any split where the sky coverage ``tiling'' for the two

1567: subsets is non-identical the interaction of the true

1568: sky brightness distribution and the half-scan polynomial filtering generates

1569: slightly different output maps.

1570: Consistent with our overall simulation based approach we therefore

1571: take the probability to exceed (PTE) the real spectra $\chi^2$

1572: values versus the simulated distributions, rather than the

1573: analytical.

1574: 

1575: \begin{figure*}[h]

1576: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{bpdevs.eps}}

1577: \caption{Bandpower deviations of the deck jackknife spectra.

1578: The horizontal axis is multipole number.

1579: The spectra shown as magenta points in Figure~\ref{fig:spec_res} have

1580: been divided by their error bars to investigate the

1581: contribution of each bandpower to $\chi^2$.

1582: The green, red and blue lines show the 2.3\%, 15.9\%, 50\%, 84.1\% and 97.7\%

1583: points of the integral distribution of the simulated signal plus noise

1584: bandpower values.

1585: }

1586: \label{fig:bpdevs}

1587: \end{figure*}

1588: 

1589: Table~\ref{tab:ptes} shows the full set of PTE values for all

1590: the jackknifes and spectra --- there are no strong indications

1591: of problems.

1592: These values are expected to be uniformly distributed between

1593: zero and one, and in Figure~\ref{fig:pte_dist} they are seen to be so.

1594: See the following sub-sections for detailed discussion of these results.

1595: 

1596: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c}

1597: \tablecaption{Jackknife PTE values from $\chi^2$ tests \label{tab:ptes}}

1598: \tablehead{\colhead{Jackknife} &

1599: \colhead{100~GHz} & \colhead{150~GHz} & \colhead{Cross} & \colhead{Alt.\ Cross}}

1600: \startdata

1601: \input{ptetab}

1602: \enddata

1603: \end{deluxetable}

1604: 

1605: \begin{figure}[hhhhh]

1606: \begin{center}

1607: \resizebox{0.7\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{pte_dist.eps}}

1608: \end{center}

1609: \caption{Distribution of the $\chi^2$ PTE values from Table~\ref{tab:ptes}.}

1610: \label{fig:pte_dist}

1611: \end{figure}

1612: 

1613: \subsection{Deck jackknife}

1614: 

1615: The deck angle jackknife is perhaps the most powerful.

1616: Due to the locking of our daily observations to LST

1617: the two halves of this split contain data taken over

1618: completely different ranges of telescope azimuth.

1619: In addition, and equally importantly, the entire

1620: telescope is rotated by 60$^\circ$ around the line of sight

1621: between the two observation sessions.

1622: The two data subsets are therefore separated from one another

1623: in time, azimuth angle, and detector polarization

1624: angle as projected on the sky.

1625: It is very hard to conceive of a source of contamination

1626: which would be common in the polarized maps for the two

1627: halves of this split.

1628: We see no significant indication of problems with the deck angle

1629: jackknife in Figures~\ref{fig:spec_res} and~\ref{fig:bpdevs},

1630: or in Table~\ref{tab:ptes}.

1631: One might perhaps worry about the rather

1632: low values for 150~GHz and cross-frequency $TT$ but we caution

1633: against over-interpreting such numbers --- the table

1634: contains 84 numbers so on average four numbers below 0.05

1635: are to be expected.

1636: In addition looking at Figure~\ref{fig:bpdevs} we see that

1637: the bandpower making the strongest contribution to the cross

1638: frequency $\chi^2$ has a very low deviation in the

1639: 150~GHz spectra.

1640: Note that Figure~\ref{fig:pte_dist} shows no obvious excess of low

1641: PTE values.

1642: 

1643: \subsection{Scan direction jackknife}

1644: 

1645: The scan direction jackknife splits the data into the

1646: out-going and returning half of the scans.

1647: In terms of external contamination this is perhaps the

1648: easiest test to pass --- only something very rapidly varying

1649: would cause it to fail.

1650: However it is a stringent test for internal instrumental effects.

1651: Any scan synchronous false signal, caused perhaps by

1652: motion of the liquid cryogens in the tanks provoked by

1653: the telescope motion, would likely fail to cancel in this

1654: jackknife.

1655: Also any failure to adequately deconvolve the temporal

1656: response of the detector channels would cause this

1657: test to fail.

1658: Looking at Table~\ref{tab:ptes} we see no problems.

1659: 

1660: \subsection{Split season jackknife}

1661: 

1662: For the split season jackknife we have divided the time ordered

1663: list of days in half (not in fact into 2006 and 2007 --- the split

1664: occurs in late August 2006).

1665: We then make maps with each set of days and difference

1666: them.

1667: This test would fail if there were a significant shift

1668: in the absolute calibration of the telescope system

1669: beyond the atmospheric loading effect whose correction is described

1670: in Section~\ref{sec:gainsupcor}.

1671: Looking at Table~\ref{tab:ptes} we see a few

1672: numbers below $0.05$ but nothing highly significant.

1673: Examining the bandpower deviations (a plot

1674: not shown in this paper analogous to Figure~\ref{fig:bpdevs})

1675: we find that for each spectrum with a low PTE it is caused

1676: by a different bandpower(s), giving no further hint

1677: of any problem.

1678: 

1679: \subsection{Focal plane jackknife}

1680: 

1681: This jackknife splits the detectors into the two

1682: orientation groups which are separated by 45$^\circ$ --- referred

1683: to as instrument-$Q$ and instrument-$U$.

1684: Due to co-adding across the two deck angles each map

1685: pixel has still been observed at two polarization angles

1686: allowing the construction of $Q$ and $U$ maps as usual.

1687: This test is perhaps the weakest, but might reveal

1688: problems with instrumental false signal in a subset of

1689: the pairs (although it is hard to see how that would not

1690: also show up in the deck angle jackknife).

1691: Looking at Table~\ref{tab:ptes} we see no problems.

1692: Although this jackknife includes the lowest number

1693: in the table (0.008) one such number is not improbable

1694: and we note again that the PTE distribution

1695: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pte_dist} is consistent

1696: with uniform.

1697: 

1698: \section{Foreground Studies}

1699: \label{sec:foregrounds}

1700: 

1701: \subsection{Frequency difference maps and spectra}

1702: 

1703: We can also take the difference between our 100~GHz and 150~GHz maps.

1704: It is important to be clear that this is not a jackknife in the

1705: sense of Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes} --- the true sky brightness

1706: distribution may in fact differ at these two frequencies.

1707: Therefore any failure to cancel might be due to the presence

1708: of astrophysical foregrounds, as well as instrumental systematics or

1709: contamination.

1710: 

1711: As described in Section~\ref{sec:abscal} we find the

1712: absolute calibration scalings for our 100 and 150~GHz maps

1713: by cross correlating them against the same B03 maps (which are at 150~GHz).

1714: However, if the sky pattern differs at these two frequencies then 

1715: this will still show up in the frequency difference maps.

1716: Figure~\ref{fig:fjackmaps} shows the difference between the

1717: real 100 and 150~GHz $T$ maps, and the same thing for

1718: a signal plus noise simulation realization.

1719: 

1720: As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes}, when subtracting

1721: maps with different sky coverage ``tiling'' a small degree of

1722: mismatch is expected due to the polynomial filtering.

1723: This is the cause of the vertical ``step edges'' observed in the upper

1724: panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fjackmaps}.

1725: The simulation realizations show similar effects, although in the

1726: real map they do appear to be unusually strong.

1727: Note that we also expect to see cancellation failure at smaller

1728: angular scales due to the differing beam sizes for the two

1729: frequency bands.

1730: 

1731: \begin{figure}[h]

1732: \begin{center}

1733: \resizebox{0.65\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fjackmaps.eps}}

1734: \end{center}

1735: \caption{{\it Upper:} The difference between the 100 and 150~GHz $T$ maps

1736: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sigmaps} on a $\pm20$~$\mu$K color

1737: stretch.

1738: {\it Lower:} The same thing for a signal plus noise simulation

1739: realization.}

1740: \label{fig:fjackmaps}

1741: \end{figure}

1742: 

1743: We next take power spectra of the frequency difference maps and compare

1744: them to simulation as was done for the jackknifes in Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes}.

1745: Figure~\ref{fig:bpdevs_fjack} shows the resulting bandpower

1746: deviations --- PTE values analogous to those in Table~\ref{tab:ptes}

1747: are shown in the Figure.

1748: The $TT$ spectrum shows larger deviations at low multipoles

1749: than expected from the simulations, and the probability that

1750: these are caused by the differing ``tiling'' effect alone

1751: is low.

1752: However the absolute value of these bandpowers is

1753: $\approx 15$~$\mu$K$^2$ to be compared to the 1000's of $\mu$K$^2$

1754: in the un-differenced map --- i.e.\ the fractional cancellation failure

1755: is very small, and completely irrelevant compared to the sample

1756: variance in the $TT$ spectra.

1757: It is not clear whether the excess cancellation failure is

1758: due to instrumental effects or real foreground signal.

1759: 

1760: \begin{figure}[h]

1761: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{bpdevs_fjack.eps}}

1762: \caption{{\it Left:} Frequency difference spectra and {\it Right:}

1763: the associated bandpower deviations.

1764: $\chi^2$ is taken using the bandpower covariance matrix

1765: and converted to the PTE value shown on each panel.

1766: (For further explanation see the captions to the analogous

1767: Figures~\ref{fig:spec_res} and~\ref{fig:bpdevs}.)}

1768: \label{fig:bpdevs_fjack}

1769: \end{figure}

1770: 

1771: \subsection{Predicted diffuse foreground levels}

1772: 

1773: Our field was chosen to partially overlap the B03 deep field to allow

1774: absolute calibration against that map.

1775: They in turn chose the location based in part on the position

1776: of the Sun during their balloon flight.

1777: Although low, the foreground emission in this region is

1778: not the lowest available on the sky.

1779: 

1780: To obtain estimates for the expected level of foreground

1781: dust emission we use the FDS model 8 extrapolation of IRAS

1782: maps~\citep{finkbeiner99} --- this is shown in

1783: Figure~\ref{fig:fieldmap}.

1784: For synchrotron emission we use an extrapolation

1785: of 408~MHz maps~\citep{haslam81,finkbeiner01}.

1786: We pass these maps through the QUaD simulation pipeline,

1787: including the field differencing and filtering operations.

1788: For dust the maximum of the resulting $TT$ spectra is

1789: $\sim4$~$\mu$K$^2$ (150~GHz, $\ell=200$) while the synchrotron

1790: maximum is a negligible 0.03~$\mu$K$^2$

1791: (100~GHz, $\ell=200$).

1792: Although these models are possibly not the current

1793: best available data it is clear that such extrapolations

1794: will not give detectable levels in either temperature

1795: or polarization, in the presence of CMB, and given the

1796: sensitivity of QUaD.

1797: 

1798: \subsection{Point Sources}

1799: 

1800: Three discrete sources are visible in the 100 and 150~GHz $T$

1801: maps shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sigmaps}.

1802: As described in Section~\ref{sec:apmask} these are masked

1803: before taking the power spectra.

1804: Turning off the masking of these sources we find that

1805: the 100~GHz $TT$ bandpowers increase by $\approx10$\% at

1806: the highest multipole considered in this paper (2000)

1807: with the increase falling off to lower multipoles.

1808: The 150~GHz $TT$ spectrum shows an increase of $\approx3$\%

1809: at $\ell$ of 2000 and a similar falloff.

1810: The $EE$ and $BB$ bandpowers show changes of $\ll 1$\%.

1811: 

1812: The source flux distribution $dN/ds$ is typically a power

1813: law with the majority of the anisotropic power being

1814: contributed by the brightest few sources.

1815: We therefore estimate the residual point source contribution

1816: to be $<3$\% in the highest bin of 100~GHz $TT$, $<1$\%

1817: in the highest bin of 150~GHz $TT$ and negligible

1818: in all other spectra.

1819: 

1820: \subsection{Template cross correlation}

1821: 

1822: 

1823: To test for the possibility of emission correlated with

1824: thermal dust, but stronger than expected on the basis of

1825: extrapolation, we have carried out a template cross correlation

1826: study.

1827: After passing the FDS dust maps through our  

1828: pipeline the resulting maps were cross correlated with the  

1829: corresponding QUaD CMB maps.

1830: Though we might expect some non-zero correlation simply by a chance

1831: alignment of large scale structure~\citep{chiang07}, we find that  

1832: compared to simulations there is no evidence of contamination.

1833: Indeed analyzing the cross 

1834: power spectra at both 100 and 150~GHz between dust and CMB on a  

1835: per bandpower basis, against simulations, reveals no problems, nor any  

1836: suggestion that dust foregrounds are responsible for the cancellation  

1837: failure seen in the lower bandpowers of the frequency difference $TT$  

1838: spectrum.

1839: 

1840: \section{Combined Spectra}

1841: \label{sec:combspec}

1842: 

1843: We now wish to form a single combined set of spectra from

1844: the 100~GHz, 150~GHz and frequency-cross results presented above.

1845: For each bandpower of each spectrum we take the

1846: $3 \times 3$ covariance matrix over the ensemble of

1847: signal plus noise simulations ($4 \times 4$ for $TE$, $TB$ and $EB$).

1848: The combination weights are the column (or row) sums of the inverse of

1849: this matrix.

1850: The improvement over the 150~GHz bandpower uncertainties is

1851: between zero and 30\% depending on whether the bandpower

1852: is signal or noise dominated.

1853: The BPWF's are also combined.

1854: Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comb} shows the combined spectra as

1855: compared to their expectation values under LCDM.

1856: The plotted bandpowers, together with their covariance matrices

1857: and bandpower window functions, are

1858: available in numerical form at http://quad.uchicago.edu/quad.

1859: In contrast to the jackknife spectra, for the signal spectra

1860: we find the simulated bandpower distributions to be Gaussian

1861: (Cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes}).

1862: 

1863: \begin{figure}[h]

1864: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{spec_comb.eps}}

1865: \caption{Combined QUaD power spectra shown as black points

1866: with error bars.

1867: The red crosses are the expectation values for each bandpower

1868: given the LCDM model plotted as a red line.

1869: Note the differing y-axis scales.}

1870: \label{fig:spec_comb}

1871: \end{figure}

1872: 

1873: \subsection{Absolute Calibration and Beam Systematics}

1874: \label{sec:syserr}

1875: 

1876: In addition to the sample and noise variance error bars

1877: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comb} there are two

1878: major sources of systematic uncertainty.

1879: The first of these is the uncertainty on our absolute

1880: calibration against the B03 maps.

1881: As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:abscal} we

1882: estimate this uncertainty as 5\% in temperature units

1883: (10\% in power).

1884: To estimate this uncertainty one simply

1885: multiplies the bandpower expectation values by 0.1, and takes

1886: the outer product as an addition to the bandpower

1887: covariance matrix:

1888: 

1889: \begin{equation}

1890: \mathbf{C}_a = \sigma_a^2 \mathbf{e}^t \mathbf{e}

1891: \end{equation}

1892: 

1893: \noindent where $\sigma_a=0.1$.

1894: 

1895: The second major systematic effect is uncertainty on

1896: the width of the telescope beam.

1897: It is highly unlikely that the widths used in the

1898: simulations are significantly broader than the true values

1899: --- they are very close to the results of physical

1900: optics calculations~\citep{osullivan08}.

1901: However, it is conceivable that we have somehow under-estimated

1902: the pointing wander and associated effects discussed in

1903: Section~\ref{sec:sigsims} above, causing the effective

1904: overall beam width in the simulations to be narrower

1905: than that in the real maps, and the suppression factor curve

1906: plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:filtbeam} to be higher than it

1907: should be.

1908: This would cause the corrected bandpower values

1909: to be biased low with increasing $\ell$.

1910: 

1911: In addition we have not yet carried out exhaustive

1912: investigations of the beam shape and measurement uncertainties.

1913: Therefore we very conservatively assign a beam width

1914: uncertainty of 10\% for this analysis with the expectation

1915: that this will be improved upon in a future analysis dedicated

1916: to high $\ell$ $TT$.

1917: The effective beam FWHM for the combined spectra is

1918: $4.1'$ and the fractional shift in the bandpower values

1919: which would result from increasing this is well approximated by

1920: 

1921: \begin{equation}

1922: S_\ell = \frac{W_\ell}{W'_\ell} - 1 = e^{\sigma_b^2 (\delta^2+2\delta) \ell(\ell+1)} - 1

1923: \end{equation}

1924: 

1925: \noindent where $\sigma_b = \theta_\mathrm{FWHM} / \sqrt{8 \ln 2}$, and

1926: $\delta=0.1$ is the fractional beam error.

1927: To estimate this uncertainty one multiplies the bandpower expectation values

1928: by the $S_\ell$ factors calculated at the band center $\ell$ values,

1929: and takes the outer product as an addition to the bandpower

1930: covariance matrix.

1931: 

1932: \begin{equation}

1933: \mathbf{C}_w = \left( \mathbf{e} S_\ell \right)^t \left( \mathbf{e} S_\ell \right)

1934: \end{equation}

1935: 

1936: Figure~\ref{fig:comb_uncers} shows the magnitude of these

1937: uncertainties, as well as the sample and noise variance,

1938: for each of our combined spectra.

1939: All spectra except $BB$ are sample variance dominated at

1940: lower $\ell$, and all but $TT$ are noise dominated at high

1941: $\ell$.

1942: Absolute calibration uncertainty is sub-dominant to random

1943: uncertainty for all spectra at all $\ell$.

1944: Beam uncertainty becomes the dominant effect for $TT$

1945: at high $\ell$. 

1946: 

1947: \begin{figure}[h]

1948: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{comb_uncers.eps}}

1949: \caption{Contributions of the various sources of uncertainty

1950: for the combined bandpowers.}

1951: \label{fig:comb_uncers}

1952: \end{figure}

1953: 

1954: \subsection{Comparison to LCDM}

1955: \label{sec:comp2lcdm}

1956: 

1957: As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:combspec}, for the signal

1958: spectra we find the simulated bandpower distributions to be Gaussian.

1959: In addition we find the simulated $\chi^2$ distributions to be

1960: consistent with the analytical expectation.

1961: Therefore, in contrast to the jackknife spectra, for the signal

1962: spectra we quote the analytical probability

1963: to exceed.

1964: Figure~\ref{fig:bpdevs_comb} shows the bandpower

1965: deviations comparing the combined spectra to

1966: LCDM and the null model.

1967: Our results are clearly perfectly compatible with LCDM

1968: and crushingly incompatible with the no polarization

1969: hypothesis.

1970: Note that $\sim 10$ $EE$ bandpowers have $> 4 \sigma$

1971: significance.

1972: 

1973: \begin{figure}[h]

1974: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{bpdevs_comb.eps}}

1975: \caption{Bandpower deviations comparing the combined

1976: spectra to {\it left:} LCDM, and {\it right:} the null model.

1977: The horizontal axis is multipole number.

1978: The respective model expectation values have been subtracted from the

1979: spectra shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comb} and the result

1980: divided by the error bars.

1981: Noted on each panel is the $\chi^2 / \mathrm{ndf}$ and the probability

1982: to exceed this value by chance ($\chi^2$ being calculated using

1983: the bandpower covariance matrix).

1984: Note the differing $y$-axis ranges in the right column.

1985: Note also that the $BB$ LCDM expectation values contain a significant

1986: leakage contribution and this is why the left and right $BB$

1987: panels differ so much --- see Section~\ref{sec:ebmix} for details.}

1988: \label{fig:bpdevs_comb}

1989: \end{figure}

1990: 

1991: \subsection{Investigation of $EE$ peaks}

1992: 

1993: Looking at Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comb} we appear to see three

1994: or four of the expected acoustic peaks in the $EE$ spectrum.

1995: It is interesting to ask at what significance these have been

1996: detected.

1997: One way to do this is to determine the $\chi^2$ of the observed

1998: bandpowers against a version of the LCDM model which has been

1999: smoothed sufficiently to remove the peaks.

2000: Figure~\ref{fig:comb_fit} shows the result --- the LCDM model

2001: has been convolved with a Gaussian with $\sigma_\ell = 150$.

2002: We see that the probability that such a model is correct is very

2003: low, the $\chi^2$ PTE being $0.001$.

2004: 

2005: \begin{figure}[h]

2006: \begin{center}

2007: \resizebox{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{comb_fit.eps}}

2008: \end{center}

2009: \caption{Comparing the combined $EE$ spectrum (blue points) to

2010: LCDM (red curve) and a smooth curve without peaks (green curve).

2011: The $\chi^2 / \mathrm{ndf}$, and the probability

2012: to exceed this value by chance, is noted for each model

2013: ($\chi^2$ being calculated using the bandpower covariance matrix).}

2014: \label{fig:comb_fit}

2015: \end{figure}

2016: 

2017: In LCDM the $TT$ and $EE$ peaks are approximately half a

2018: cycle out of phase with one another.

2019: If $\ell_s$ is the peak spacing, and $n$ is the peak

2020: number (starting from one), then the approximate locations of the

2021: $TT$ peaks are $(n-1/4)\ell_s$, while the $EE$ peaks are at $(n-3/4)\ell_s$.

2022: To investigate how well our $EE$ bandpowers constrain

2023: the peak spacing, phase and amplitude we carry out an analysis

2024: similar to that of~\cite{readhead04}.

2025: Subtracting the smoothed version of the LCDM $EE$ spectrum

2026: from the un-smoothed (i.e.\ subtracting the green from the red

2027: curves in Figure~\ref{fig:comb_fit}) results in a series

2028: of approximately sinusoidal modulations whose fractional

2029: amplitude dies away close to linearly from the 2nd to the 9th

2030: peaks.

2031: This fact allows us to generate ``toy-model'' $EE$ spectra

2032: which follow the envelope of LCDM using

2033: 

2034: \begin{equation}

2035: t(\ell) = s(\ell) + a \: v(\ell) \: \sin\left(2\pi\frac{\ell}{\ell_s} + p \right)

2036: \end{equation}

2037: 

2038: \noindent where $s(\ell)$ is the smoothed version of the LCDM spectrum,

2039: $v(\ell)$ is the linear falloff, $a$ is a re-scaling of

2040: the amplitude, and $p$ is the phase.

2041: We then fit this model to the data ---

2042: Figure~\ref{fig:eepeakphase} shows the results.

2043: We find $\ell_s = 306 \pm 10$, $p = 13^\circ \pm 33^\circ$

2044: and $a = 0.86 \pm 0.17$, consistent with LCDM,

2045: as is shown in the right part of the figure.

2046: Using WMAP $TT$ data \cite{page03} found the spacing

2047: between the first and second peaks to be $315\pm2$.

2048: The consistency of peak phases

2049: and spacings between temperature data and these new QUaD

2050: $EE$ results constitutes yet another confirmation

2051: of the acoustic oscillation paradigm of CMB anisotropies.

2052: \cite{readhead04} allowed only the phase and amplitude

2053: to be free parameters finding $p=24\pm33^\circ$ ---

2054: making this restriction we find $p=9\pm13^\circ$.

2055: 

2056: \begin{figure}[h]

2057: \begin{center}

2058: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{eepeakphase.eps}}

2059: \end{center}

2060: \caption{{\it Left:} Fitting a ``toy-model'' to the combined $EE$ spectrum

2061: to determine the peak spacing, phase and amplitude, and the uncertainties

2062: thereon.

2063: The red line is the initial LCDM model, which is then smoothed

2064: and sinusoidally modulated with a range of peak spacings

2065: from 280 to 320 to generate the example family of curves shown in green.

2066: The best fitting model curve is shown in magenta, and the

2067: associated parameter constraints indicated.

2068: {\it Right:} The location of the $TT$ and $EE$ peaks under

2069: LCDM as compared to the best fit model and its uncertainty range.

2070: The WMAP points are from~\cite{page03}.}

2071: \label{fig:eepeakphase}

2072: \end{figure}

2073: 

2074: \subsection{$BB$ limits and comparison to other experiments}

2075: 

2076: The $BB$ results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comb}

2077: are consistent with zero sky power, and 

2078: we therefore interpret these results as upper limits.

2079: To convert the observed values into confidence

2080: limits we find the 95\% integral point of the positive

2081: part of the bandpower probability density function (which is assumed to be

2082: Gaussian with mean and spread as in Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comb}).

2083: Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comp} shows a comparison of these

2084: limits, and our other spectra, to published results from other experiments.

2085: In this figure $EE$ is shown on a log-scale, and hence to avoid

2086: clutter only bandpowers whose center value is more than twice

2087: the distance between the center value and the lower end of

2088: the 68\% confidence limit are shown.

2089: For $TE$, $EE$ and $BB$ QUaD breaks new ground --- for $TT$

2090: the high $\ell$ precision is comparable to ACBAR,

2091: although the beam uncertainty is larger in the present analysis.

2092: 

2093: \begin{figure*}[h]

2094: \resizebox{!}{0.8\textheight}{\includegraphics{spec_comp.eps}}

2095: \caption{QUaD power spectra compared to results from

2096: WMAP~\citep{nolta08}, ACBAR~\citep{reichardt08},

2097: B03~\citep{piacentini06,montroy06}, CBI~\citep{sievers05},

2098: CAPMAP~\citep{bischoff08} and DASI~\citep{leitch05}.

2099: The $BB$ upper limits are stated values where provided,

2100: and otherwise the 95\% point of the positive part of the

2101: bandpower pdf.}% (using offset log-normal parameters when available).}

2102: \label{fig:spec_comp}

2103: \end{figure*}

2104: 

2105: \subsection{$E$ and $B$ maps}

2106: 

2107: In Figure~\ref{fig:spec_comb} it is clear that we detect

2108: dramatically more $E$-mode power on the sky than $B$-mode.

2109: Another way to visualize this is in the image plane.

2110: Having converted the apodized $Q$ and $U$ maps to $E$ and $B$ Fourier modes

2111: as described in Section~\ref{sec:maps2spec}

2112: we can take the inverse Fourier transform to produce $E$ and $B$ maps.

2113: To enhance the signal to noise we apply a Fourier space filter\footnote{

2114: Here we use a Weiner filter assuming the LCDM $EE$ spectrum,

2115: but a band pass filter $200<\ell<2000$ produces

2116: a qualitatively similar result.}.

2117: Figure~\ref{fig:ebmap} shows the result --- the $E$ map

2118: contains far more structure than the $B$ map.

2119: To confirm that the residual $B$ signal is consistent

2120: with noise the figure also shows equivalent deck

2121: jackknife maps.

2122: 

2123: \begin{figure}[h]

2124: \begin{center}

2125: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{ebmap.eps}}

2126: \end{center}

2127: \caption{$E$ and $B$ signal and (deck) jackknife maps.

2128: The color scale is $\pm20$~$\mu$K.

2129: These maps have been apodized and filtered to enhance signal-to-noise

2130: --- see text for details.}

2131: \label{fig:ebmap}

2132: \end{figure}

2133: 

2134: \section{Systematic Issues}

2135: \label{sec:systematics}

2136: 

2137: There are a wide range of systematic effects which potentially

2138: mix $T$ into pol.\ and/or $EE$ into $BB$.

2139: In practice, as seen in Section~\ref{sec:comp2lcdm}, our

2140: results are consistent with the LCDM prediction

2141: of lensing $BB$, which is an order of magnitude

2142: smaller than our noise induced bandpower uncertainty,

2143: and hence effectively zero for the purposes

2144: of our experiment.

2145: 

2146: While there are many ways to produce false $BB$ signal,

2147: it is virtually impossible that true $BB$ power could

2148: somehow be canceled out through systematic effects.

2149: The fact that our $BB$ results are consistent with

2150: zero is therefore powerful evidence that systematic mixing effects have

2151: been controlled to the required level of precision.

2152: 

2153: Note that from an instrumental point of view this

2154: is a fortunate accident of cosmology --- the

2155: theoretical prediction is that the

2156: CMB sky presents us with a high purity

2157: ``test pattern'' against which we can validate our experiment.

2158: If we did see $BB$ power at a level greater than the LCDM prediction

2159: extensive investigation of possible systematics would

2160: be required to attempt to verify that it was real.

2161: But since we do not see any $BB$ further investigation

2162: of mixing systematics is arguably unnecessary.

2163: However, for completeness, we present some additional discussion

2164: below.

2165: 

2166: \subsection{$EE$ to $BB$ mixing due to the sky cut}

2167: \label{sec:ebmix}

2168: 

2169: Since the transform from $Q,U$ to $E,B$ is non-local,

2170: for less than full sky coverage leakage occurs

2171: from the $EE$ spectrum to $BB$ (and vice versa, although

2172: this is irrelevant under LCDM).

2173: In this analysis we deal with this effect through the

2174: cross-spectra BPWF's discussed in Section~\ref{sec:bpwf}.

2175: For LCDM our $BB$ expectation values peak at 0.7~$\mu$K$^2$

2176: for $\ell=360$ and fall rapidly to higher multipoles.

2177: At the current level of sensitivity including

2178: the cross spectral BPWF's is just starting to become necessary ---

2179: as we see from the increased $\chi^2$ value

2180: going from the LCDM to null model $BB$ panels in

2181: Figure~\ref{fig:bpdevs_comb}.

2182: 

2183: Our signal only simulations include several other

2184: effects which potentially produce false $BB$ signal

2185: (including beam centroid mismatch and grid angle uncertainty --- see

2186: Section~\ref{sec:sigsims}).

2187: However for the standard simulation parameters we

2188: find that the sky cut effect is dominant since

2189: the mean $BB$ simulated spectrum follows the expectation

2190: values calculated using the cross-spectral BPWF's.

2191: 

2192: The original MASTER approach~\citep{hivon02} includes a ``de-mixing''

2193: correction, and this was subsequently extended to

2194: polarization (e.g.~\cite{brown05}).

2195: Such techniques reduce spectral mixing in the mean,

2196: and hence also reduce the cross-spectra BPWF's.

2197: More recently a technique was proposed by~\cite{smith07} 

2198: which results in much lower mixing from $E$ to $B$ within

2199: any given realization --- 

2200: we have implemented this in the flat sky case, and confirmed

2201: with simulations that it works.

2202: However since this complication is unnecessary we

2203: do not include it in this paper.

2204: 

2205: \subsection{Curved sky versus flat sky}

2206: 

2207: 

2208: The analysis presented here uses flat sky 

2209: power spectrum estimation while

2210: most recent CMB analyses have been conducted in the 

2211: spherical harmonic basis.

2212: By using full curved sky maps as the input to our 

2213: signal timestream simulation,

2214: our power estimation is normalized to recover 

2215: the curved-sky input power.

2216: In addition these simulations empirically test

2217: for problems associated with 

2218: these flat-sky estimators, which are found to be

2219: negligible for our small ($\sim 6 \times 6^\circ$)

2220: patch of sky.

2221: As mentioned above $EE$ to $BB$ leakage is dominated

2222: by the cut sky effect and is well reproduced in the simulations

2223: by the cross-spectral BPWF's

2224: --- for QUAD the use of flat-sky power estimators does not contribute 

2225: significantly to this leakage.

2226: 

2227: \subsection{Relative Gain Calibration}

2228: \label{sec:ditherrelgains}

2229: 

2230: In Section~\ref{sec:relgains} the elevation nod based method we

2231: use to equalize the detector gains was described.

2232: This method appears to be very accurate, and we do not include

2233: any scatter in the standard simulations.

2234: However, since error in the pair relative gains

2235: leads to $T$ to pol.\ leakage

2236: there are a couple of issues which one might worry about.

2237: 

2238: The elevation nods integrate over the full

2239: beam including any far sidelobes, whereas when mapping the

2240: CMB, it is the ratio of the main lobe gains which we wish

2241: to know.

2242: Sky dips extending over a much larger zenith

2243: angle range (5 to 45$^\circ$) follow the expected

2244: $\sec(\theta)$ dependence very closely ($<1$\% rms residual), indicating that

2245: the elevation nods are not distorted by sidelobe response.

2246: 

2247: The two detectors of each pair share a common feed horn

2248: and filters, but one might worry that the bandpasses of

2249: the fore and aft detectors might still differ.

2250: Since the atmospheric emission has a different frequency

2251: spectrum from the CMB this might lead to a systematic error

2252: in the relative gain within each pair.

2253: 

2254: To test how such errors would play out in practice

2255: we ran some special simulations where the input

2256: sky maps contain $T$ only, and where the detector

2257: pair gains are deliberately systematically distorted such that

2258: $g_\mathrm{fore}/g_\mathrm{aft}=1.03$ --- far worse than the

2259: $<1$\% constraint on possible mismatch which we derive

2260: from RCW38 observations.

2261: We find that the resulting $EE$ and $BB$ spectra

2262: follow the same form as the input $TT$ spectrum

2263: with a peak of 0.4~$\mu$K$^2$ at $\ell=200$.

2264: It is important to note that even for a systematic

2265: error like this there is still considerable averaging

2266: down as pairs of different angles, at different

2267: telescope orientations, leak $T$ into, for

2268: instance, both $+Q$ and $-Q$ within a given map pixel.

2269: Making the gain ratio errors a random 3\% across the focal

2270: plane (but fixed over time) the averaging down

2271: is much more effective and the peak leakage

2272: becomes 0.1~$\mu$K$^2$.

2273: 

2274: \subsection{Pair beam mismatch}

2275: \label{sec:beammismatch}

2276: 

2277: As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:sigsims} we observe

2278: repeatable beam centroid offsets between the two

2279: halves of each detector pair, fixed in the instrument frame,

2280: with rms magnitude of $\sim 0.1'$.

2281: $T$ to pol.\ leakage introduced by this effect is included

2282: in the standard simulations but makes a negligible

2283: contribution.

2284: However for interest we run some special simulations with only

2285: $T$ input introducing random pair centroid offsets with rms magnitude of

2286: $2'$ --- twenty times the observed value.

2287: We find that the resulting leakage has a broad peak at

2288: $\sim2$~$\mu$K$^2$ around $\ell\sim1000$ for 100~GHz, and

2289: $\sim1$~$\mu$K$^2$ for 150~GHz.

2290: In addition we run simulations under the totally unrealistic

2291: scenario that all pairs are systematically offset in the

2292: same direction by $1'$ and find leakage

2293: of 6~$\mu$K$^2$ at $\ell\sim1000$.

2294: 

2295: For the standard simulations we use the individual

2296: channel major/minor fit widths and orientation

2297: angles as measured using PKS0537-441.

2298: Some of the apparent variation between channels in

2299: these observations is measurement noise, but there is

2300: some real variation, and $\leq 10$\% elongation.

2301: To investigate the impact of differential

2302: beam size we run special $T$ only simulations with

2303: both the major and minor axis FWHM for one half of each

2304: pair systematically inflated by $1.4'$ ---

2305: the resulting leakage peaks at $\sim1.5$~$\mu$K$^2$

2306: above $\ell\sim1500$.

2307: For differential elongation, where we inflate only

2308: one axis of one half of each pair

2309: (with a common orientation angle for all pairs), we find

2310: $\sim1$~$\mu$K$^2$ above $\ell\sim1500$.

2311: 

2312: \subsection{Polarization angle}

2313: \label{sec:polang}

2314: 

2315: As seen in Section~\ref{sec:comp2lcdm} our results

2316: are consistent with LCDM ---

2317: we detect considerable $EE$ power and no $BB$.

2318: This is in itself confirmation that the assumed

2319: polarization angles of the detectors are known to sufficient

2320: accuracy.

2321: If we did see significant $BB$ we might suspect

2322: that it was false signal due to incorrect angles.

2323: But it would be nearly impossible for

2324: a sky which truly had $B$-mode power to appear

2325: not to due to incorrect detector angles.

2326: 

2327: To confirm this we re-generated the real

2328: maps using detector angles systematically biased

2329: from the best estimate values

2330: by far more than the 1$^\circ$ estimated uncertainty

2331: (see Section~\ref{sec:polpar} and the Instrument Paper).

2332: For a 5$^\circ$ bias there is almost no effect --- the $\chi^2$

2333: PTE versus LCDM for the $BB$ spectrum (as shown in

2334: Figure~\ref{fig:bpdevs_comb}) falls from 0.56 to 0.21.

2335: Only at 10$^\circ$ do we start to see significant extra

2336: signal in the $BB$ bandpowers, and $\chi^2$ failure

2337: versus LCDM for $BB$ (and $EB$).

2338: 

2339: \subsection{Polarization efficiency}

2340: \label{sec:poleff}

2341: 

2342: As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:polpar}, and

2343: our Instrument Paper, we

2344: measure the polarization efficiency of our detectors

2345: to be $\epsilon=0.08$ with rms scatter of 0.015.

2346: An additional calibration factor $\gamma=(1-\epsilon)/(1+\epsilon)$

2347: is then applied to the pair difference data.

2348: Random errors in $\epsilon$ will average down, while a

2349: systematic error will translate into a shift in the

2350: absolute calibration of the polarization power spectra

2351: $\sim 4$ times as large (including the additional doubling

2352: when going from units of temperature to power).

2353: Since we estimate the uncertainty on $\bar{\epsilon}$

2354: to be~$<0.02$ the implied uncertainty

2355: on the polarization spectra is sub-dominant

2356: to the overall absolute calibration uncertainty.

2357: 

2358: \subsection{Moon pickup}

2359: \label{sec:mooncontam}

2360: 

2361: QUaD has a variety of far sidelobes as described in the

2362: accompanying Instrument Paper.

2363: It is not clear which of these produces the bulk of

2364: the highly polarized ground pickup mentioned in

2365: Section~\ref{sec:fielddiff} --- however since the field

2366: differencing is so effective at removing this contamination

2367: this is probably of academic interest only.

2368: However, any source of contamination which moves with

2369: respect to the ground

2370: will not be removed by field differencing.

2371: 

2372: Part of our basic low level data reduction infrastructure

2373: involves making single pair sum and difference maps

2374: for each 8 hour block of observations.

2375: On certain days when the Moon is high above the horizon,

2376: but at a very large angle from the telescope pointing direction,

2377: we see obvious stripes in these maps.

2378: Even after cutting these visibly contaminated days from the 

2379: analysis, we

2380: saw a strong peak towards zero in the PTE distribution

2381: as show in Figure~\ref{fig:pte_dist}, and some

2382: $\chi^2$ values were much too large.

2383: 

2384: Extensive effort has been required to elucidate the coupling

2385: mechanism by which the Moon enters the CMB field data.

2386: We have determined that radiation reflects off the

2387: inside surface of the foam cone creating a polarized ring

2388: sidelobe at $\approx100^\circ$ from the main beam.

2389: The shape of the pickup across any given scan

2390: has been successfully modeled using the position of the Moon

2391: relative to the telescope pointing direction, the feed offset

2392: angle, and the detector polarization angle (see the

2393: Instrument Paper for details).

2394: 

2395: Using this model we cut data periods 

2396: which are potentially contaminated by the Moon.

2397: For this analysis the cut is simple and quite aggressive

2398: --- for any day where the Moon passes within a generous band

2399: about the ring sidelobe we simply discard the entire day.

2400: A future analysis could retain slightly more data

2401: by selectively cutting channels, and using a time granularity

2402: shorter than a whole day.

2403: Performing this cut we reject an additional 59 days of observation

2404: but as seen in Section~\ref{sec:jackknifes} the jackknife tests

2405: pass, meaning that we can

2406: be confident of the final power spectrum results.

2407: 

2408: \section{Conclusions}

2409: \label{sec:conclusions}

2410: 

2411: We have described the observations, data reduction, simulation

2412: and power spectrum analysis of the QUaD experiment.

2413: The results reported here are from 143 days of data taken in the

2414: second and third (final) seasons of observation, employing

2415: a conservative Moon cut, and simple lead-trail differencing.

2416: A future analysis may be able to include more data, and/or

2417: reduce the information lost in the ground removal.

2418: 

2419: The three sets of power spectra, 100~GHz, 150~GHz and

2420: frequency-cross, have been subjected to an extensive set of

2421: jackknife tests and residual systematic contamination has been

2422: shown to be undetectable above the instrumental noise.

2423: 

2424: The combined spectra improve very considerably

2425: in sensitivity over previous results, and are consistent with LCDM ---

2426: the standard cosmological model has passed yet another

2427: stringent test.

2428: Furthermore we find that a smooth curve is a very poor

2429: fit to the observed $EE$ spectrum --- acoustic peaks

2430: in the $EE$ spectrum have been detected with high significance

2431: for the first time.

2432: The impact of possible instrumental systematics has been considered in

2433: detail, but in fact the tight upper limits on $BB$ power

2434: obtained are in themselves extremely powerful evidence

2435: that such effects are adequately controlled.

2436: 

2437: \acknowledgements

2438: 

2439: QUaD is funded by the National Science Foundation in the USA, through

2440: grants AST-0096778, ANT-0338138, ANT-0338335 \& ANT-0338238, by the

2441: Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in the UK, and by the

2442: Science Foundation Ireland. We would like to thank the staff of the

2443: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and all involved in the United

2444: States Antarctic Program for the superb support operation which makes

2445: the science presented here possible. Special thanks go to our intrepid

2446: winter over scientist Robert Schwarz who spent three consecutive

2447: winter seasons tending the QUaD experiment. The BOOMERanG

2448: collaboration kindly allowed the use of their CMB maps for our

2449: calibration purposes.  MLB acknowledges the award of a PPARC

2450: fellowship. SEC acknowledges support from a Stanford Terman

2451: Fellowship. JRH acknowledges the support of an NSF Graduate Research

2452: Fellowship and a Stanford Graduate Fellowship. CP and JEC acknowledge

2453: partial support from the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics

2454: through the grant NSF PHY-0114422.  EYW acknowledges receipt of an

2455: NDSEG fellowship.

2456: JMK acknowledges support from a John B.\ and Nelly L.\ Kilroy Foundation 

2457: Fellowship.

2458: 

2459: \bibliographystyle{apj}

2460: \bibliography{ms}

2461: 

2462: \end{document}

2463: