1: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: %\usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{natbib}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{PReBeaM for \textsc{Planck}: A Polarized Regularized Beam Deconvolution Map-Making Method}
9:
10: \author{Charmaine Armitage-Caplan\altaffilmark{1} and Benjamin D.~Wandelt
11: \altaffilmark{1,2,3}}
12:
13: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, UIUC, 1110 W Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801}
14: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, UIUC, 1002 W Green
15: Street, Urbana, IL 61801}
16: \altaffiltext{3}{Center for Advanced Studies, UIUC, 912 W Illinois Street, Urbana,
17: IL 61801}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: We describe a maximum likelihood regularized beam deconvolution map-making algorithm for
21: data from high resolution, polarization sensitive instruments, such as the \textsc{Planck}
22: data set.
23: The resulting algorithm, which we call PReBeaM, is pixel-free and solves for the map directly
24: in spherical harmonic space, avoiding pixelization artifacts.
25: While Fourier methods like ours are expected to work best when applied to smooth, large-scale
26: asymmetric beam systematics (such as far-side lobe effects) we show that our $m$-truncated
27: spherical harmonic representation of the beam results in negligible reconstruction error
28: -- even for $m$ as small as 4 for a polarized elliptically asymmetric beam.
29: We describe a hybrid OpenMP/MPI parallelization scheme which allows us to store and manipulate
30: the time-ordered data from instruments with arbitrary scanning strategy.
31: Finally, we apply our technique to noisy data and show that it succeeds in removing visible
32: power spectrum artifacts without generating excess noise on small scales.
33: \end{abstract}
34: \keywords{cosmic microwave background -- cosmology: observations -- methods: data analysis}
35:
36: \section{Introduction}
37:
38: One of the most exciting prospects for the upcoming \textsc{Planck} satellite
39: is its capability to measure the polarization anisotropies of the CMB over
40: the entire sky in nine frequency channels. The potential
41: rewards from these measurements are many and include tighter constraints on cosmological
42: parameters, determination of the reionization history of the universe, and detection
43: of signatures left by primordial gravitational waves generated during inflation \citep{bluebook}.
44:
45: Measurement of the CMB polarization signal presents a great experimental
46: challenge as it is an order of magnitude smaller than the temperature signal
47: and is especially susceptible to distortions due to optical systematics and
48: foreground contaminants.
49: Indeed, if left untreated, leakage from the much stronger temperature signal will
50: contaminate the polarization maps. Maps and spectra will also suffer from leakage from
51: E-mode polarization to B-mode polarization, jeopardizing the potential detection
52: of inflationary B-modes. At the resolution and sensitivity of the next generation
53: of experiments, including the Planck mission, studies of primordial non-Gaussianity
54: may also be sensitive to beam-induced systematics.
55: In this paper, we present a novel technique for both assessing and removing
56: systematic effects due to beams in temperature and polarization maps.
57:
58: The \textsc{Planck} satellite is designed
59: to extract essentially all of the information in the primordial temperature anisotropies and
60: to measure the polarization anisotropies to high accuracy for $2\lesssim\ell\lesssim 2500$.
61: This will be achieved
62: by measuring the full-sky signal to an angular resolution of 5', to a sensitivity of
63: $\Delta$T/T $\sim 2$x$10^{-6}$, and over a frequency range of 30-857 GHz \citep{bluebook}.
64: The scientific performance of \textsc{Planck} depends, in part, on the behavior of systematic
65: effects which may distort the signal.
66:
67: A primary objective of \textsc{Planck} is to produce
68: all-sky CMB maps at each frequency. The process by which the satellite's time-ordered data (TOD)
69: is wrapped back on to the sphere to create an image is known as map-making. The
70: map-making process becomes difficult due to a number of challenges: distortions in the beam,
71: foreground contamination through far-side lobes, size of the data, and correlated noise effects.
72: It is of critical importance to fully
73: characterize the beam, and use this information during map-making to
74: deconvolve beam effects. We have previously described a powerful map-making
75: algorithm which implements the beam deconvolution technique for temperature
76: measurements \citep{AW04}. In this paper, we will extend that description
77: to include {\it polarization} measurements. We refer to this new technique
78: as PReBeaM: Polarized Regularized Beam deconvolution Map-making.
79: While we focus on reconstructing the map with a uniform effective beam and
80: realize corrections to the power spectrum as a consequence, other work
81: by \citet{Souradeep06} and \citet{Mitra07} has
82: focused on deriving corrections to the power spectrum due to asymmetric
83: (non-circular) beam effects.
84:
85: Within the \textsc{Planck} collaboration, the CTP working group has developed
86: five map-making methods and
87: compared their results using the simulated 30 GHz data in what is known as the Trieste paper
88: \citep{Trieste}.
89: The Trieste paper
90: assessed the impact of beam asymmetries on the \textsc{Planck} spectra without attempting
91: to treat the problem of beam asymmetry at the map-making level (an angular power spectrum
92: correction method was developed based on simplifying assumptions).
93: In addition to PReBeaM, another deconvolution map-making
94: technique for \textsc{Planck} has been established by \citet{Harrison08}.
95: Both methods allow for arbitrary beam shapes and in both cases the
96: asymmetry of the beam is parametrized by an asymmetry parameter $m_{max}$ which can vary
97: between 0 and $\ell_{max}$. Our method scales
98: computationally as a function
99: of $m_{max}$; this is advantageous when large gains in accuracy can be achieved with small
100: increases in $m_{max}$. In contrast, the Harrison method incurs a fixed
101: computational expense
102: for arbitrarily large $m_{max}$.
103: The Harrison method takes advantage of the Planck scanning strategy
104: to condense the full TOD into phase-binned rings, thereby
105: achieving a significant reduction in processing time.
106:
107: A complete characterization of the beam includes both the main beam and the
108: far-side lobes. Sidelobes are located as far away as $90^{\circ}$ from the main focal plane
109: beam, and therefore require a large $m_{max}$
110: parameter for a complete harmonic description. In \citet{AW04} we demonstrated
111: the full potential of our
112: method using far-side lobes and maps with foreground signals. Here, we show the
113: usefulness of PReBeaM
114: for deconvolving main-beam distortions. In fact, we find that it makes
115: sense to use PReBeaM
116: for main beam effects since only a small $m_{max}$ parameter is needed to capture the azimuthal
117: structure of the main beam. In this way, we profit from the computational advantage
118: of our method
119: in the case of small $m_{max}$, allowing for the unified treatment of main beam and side lobe
120: effects.
121:
122: In \S\ref{sec:deconv} we describe the deconvolution map-making algorithm for PReBeaM. The simulated data and beams are detailed in \S\ref{sec:sims}.
123: We present results in \S\ref{sec:results} showing the effectiveness of PReBeaM
124: in removing systematic effects due to beam asymmetry and we discuss computational considerations.
125: We finish with our conclusions from this study in \S\ref{sec:conclusion}.
126:
127: \section{PReBeaM Method}
128: \label{sec:deconv}
129: First we review the standard set-up to the map-making problem for a solution
130: of the least-squares (or maximum-likelihood) type.
131:
132: The TOD generated by a detector is effectively a
133: convolution of the true CMB sky with a beam function. If we consider the sky as
134: a pixelized vector, it will have length $n_{pixel}\times n_{pol}$ where $n_{pol}=3$
135: for the I (total intensity), Q, and U Stokes components.
136: The $n_{TOD}$-length TOD vector {\bf d} is the result
137: of a matrix multiplication of the observation matrix {\bf A} with the sky {\bf s}
138: \begin{equation}
139: \mathbf{A} \mathbf{s} = \mathbf{d}.
140: \end{equation}
141: In our implementation of the maximum-likelihood solution, we refer to {\bf A} as the convolution operator.
142: {\bf A} encodes information about both the scanning strategy and
143: the optics of the scanning instrument.
144: The least-squares estimate of the true sky, ${\bf \hat{s}}$, is given by the
145: normal equation
146: \begin{equation}
147: \label{eq:normal}
148: \mathbf{A}^{\mathrm{T}} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{\hat{s}} = \mathbf{A}^{\mathrm{T}}
149: \mathbf{d}
150: \end{equation}
151: where ${\mathbf A^{\mathrm{T}}}$ is the transpose convolution operator.
152: Equation (\ref{eq:normal}) is exact if the noise is stationary and uncorrelated
153: in the time-ordered domain. The generalization to non-white noise is as follows
154: \begin{equation}
155: \mathbf{A}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{\hat{s}} =
156: \mathbf{A}^{\mathrm{T}} \mathbf{N}^{-1}\mathbf{d}
157: \end{equation}
158: where {\bf N} is a noise covariance matrix. In this work we consider CMB only and CMB plus white noise.
159:
160: We modify the normal equation by introducing a regularization technique
161: in order cope with the ill-conditioned nature
162: of the coefficient matrix {\bf A}$^{\mathrm T}${\bf A}. We split off the ill-conditioned
163: part of {\bf A} by factoring it into two parts: {\bf A} = {\bf BG}.
164: The factor {\bf G} is what we refer to as the {\it regularizer} in PReBeaM.
165: In general, the regularizer can be any target beam; a natural
166: choice would be the angle-averaged detector beam.
167: In our study, we choose {\bf G} to be a
168: Gaussian smoothing matrix, defined in harmonic space as
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: \label{eq:regular}
171: G_{\ell}^I & = & \exp\left(\frac{-\sigma^2\ell(\ell+1)}{2}\right)\nonumber\\
172: G_{\ell}^{G,C} & = & \exp\left(\frac{-\sigma^2(\ell(\ell+1)-4)}{2}\right)
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: where $\sigma$ = FWHM/$\sqrt{8\ln2}$.
175: The superscripts $G$ and $C$ refer to the gradient and curl
176: components in the typical linear polarization decomposition.
177: Our modified normal
178: equation becomes
179: \begin{equation}
180: \mathbf{B}^{\mathrm{T}} \mathbf{B} \mathbf{\hat{x}} = \mathbf{B}^{\mathrm{T}}
181: \mathbf{d}
182: \end{equation}
183: where we are solving for {\bf x} = {\bf G}$\mathbf{\hat{s}}$. In this way, we do not
184: attempt to reconstruct the sky at a higher resolution than that of the instrument.
185:
186: In a standard pixel-based solution of equation (\ref{eq:normal}), in which one assumes
187: that the observing beam is spherically symmetric, ${\mathbf A}$ is a sparsely-filled
188: pointing matrix. For polarization measurements, each row of ${\mathbf A}$ contains
189: only three non-zero elements. The deconvolution map-making approach does not
190: assume spherically symmetric beams, instead allowing for arbitrary beam shapes.
191: We achieve this added complexity primarily by solving the normal
192: equation in spherical harmonic space in order to make use of fast and exact algorithms
193: for the convolution and transpose convolution of two arbitrary functions on the sphere \citep{WG01,C00}.
194: These algorithms are described in abbreviated form below. A secondary advantage of operating
195: entirely in harmonic space is that artifacts due to pixelization (such as uneven sampling of the pixel)
196: are completely avoided.
197:
198:
199: \subsection{Fast all-sky convolution for polariametry measurements}
200: For a full presentation of the formalism for convolution of an
201: instrument beam with a sky signal, the reader is referred to \citet{C00}.
202:
203: In compact spherical harmonic basis, equation (\ref{eq:normal}) is written as
204: \begin{equation}
205: \label{eq:norm_harm}
206: A^T_{L'M'mm'm''}A_{mm'm''LM} s_{LM} = A^T_{L'M'mm'm''}T_{mm'm''}
207: \end{equation}
208: where $s_{LM}$ is the spherical harmonic representation of the sky and $T_{mm'm''}$
209: is defined as the result of a convolution of a band-limited function
210: b with the sky s.
211: The \textsc{Planck} Level-S software \citep{R06} nomenclature refers to $T_{mm'm''}$ as a
212: {\it ring set}.
213: This is written in harmonic space as
214: \begin{eqnarray}
215: \label{eq:conv_harm}
216: T_{mm'm''} = \sum_{\ell} (\frac{1}{2}s_{\ell m}^I b_{\ell M'}^{I\ast} +
217: s_{\ell m}^G b_{\ell M'}^{G\ast} \nonumber \\+ s_{\ell m}^C b_{\ell M'}^{C\ast})
218: d_{mM}^{\ell}(\theta_E) d_{MM'}^{\ell}(\theta)
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: where $(\theta_E,\theta)$ are fixed parameters which define the scanning geometry.
221:
222: In equation (\ref{eq:conv_harm}), $d_{mM}^{\ell}(\theta_E)$ and $d_{MM'}^{\ell}(\theta)$
223: are related to the Wigner D-matrices by
224: \begin{equation}
225: D^{\ell}_{m'm}(\phi,\theta,\psi) = e^{-im'\phi}d^{\ell}_{m'm}(\theta)e^{-im\psi}.
226: \end{equation}
227:
228: Analogously, the transpose convolution in harmonic space is given by
229: \begin{equation}
230: \label{eq:tconv_harm}
231: y^{P\ast}_{\ell m} = \sum_{m'm''} d^{\ell}_{mm'}(\theta_E)
232: d^{\ell}_{m'm''}(\theta) b_{\ell m''}^{P\ast} T_{mm'm''}
233: \end{equation}
234: where $P=I,G,C$.
235:
236: \subsection{PReBeaM Implementation}
237:
238: Now we outline the algorithmic steps taken to
239: make a map from a TOD vector by PReBeaM.
240:
241: First we construct the
242: right-hand side of equation (\ref{eq:norm_harm}) in two steps: converting TOD to a $T_{mm'm''}$
243: array and applying ${\mathrm{\bf A^T}}$.
244: $T_{mm'm''}$ is constructed by transpose interpolating the TOD vector {\bf d}.
245: The transpose
246: interpolation of the TOD vector onto the $T_{mm'm''}$ grid is akin to a binning step,
247: where each element of the TOD is mapped, via interpolation weights, to several
248: elements of the $T_{mm'm''}$ cube according to the orientation and position of
249: that data point in the scanning-strategy. The interpolation scheme is described in greater
250: detail in \S\ref{sec:interpol}.
251: Next, we transpose convolve the beam coefficients $b_{\ell m}$ with $T_{mm'm''}$ according to
252: equation (\ref{eq:tconv_harm}).
253:
254: Once the right-hand side has been computed, we use the
255: conjugate gradient iterative method to solve
256: equation (\ref{eq:normal}). With each iteration, the coefficient matrix ${\mathrm{\bf A^TA}}$, is applied
257: using the following procedure:
258: \begin{enumerate}
259: \item Apply the convolution operator, {\bf A}, to project the sky $a_{\ell m}$ on to
260: the convolution grid $T_{mm'm''}$
261: \item Inverse Fourier transform over the first two indices of $T_{mm'm''}$ to
262: get $T_{\Phi_2,\Theta,m''}$ (we omit the transform over $m''$ as it is
263: incorporated in the interpolation scheme)
264: \item Forward interpolate from $T_{\Phi_2,\Theta,m''}$ to a TOD vector
265: \item Transpose interpolate from the TOD vector to a new ring set $T'_{\Phi_2,\Theta,m''}$
266: \item Fourier transform over the first two indices of $T'_{\Phi_2,\Theta,m''}$ to get
267: $T'_{mm'm''}$
268: \item Apply the transpose convolution operator, ${\mathrm{\bf A^T}}$, to project the ring set $T'_{mm'm''}$
269: back into a new sky $a_{\ell m}$ vector
270: \end{enumerate}
271:
272: \subsection{Polynomial Interpolation and Zero-Padding}
273: \label{sec:interpol}
274: PReBeaM uses the same polynomial interpolation as implemented in the Level-S software
275: used to generate the simulation TODs and as described in \citet{R06}. The objective
276: of forward interpolation is to construct a TOD element at a particular co-latitude, longitude
277: and beam orientation using several elements of the ring set $T$ and their corresponding weights.
278: Transpose interpolation operates in exactly the opposite manner as the forward interpolation:
279: distributing a single element in the TOD to multiple elements of the ring set.
280: This is done using the same weights calculated for the forward interpolation. The entire
281: operation of interpolation and transpose interpolation from ring set to TOD and back again
282: is depicted in figure \ref{fig:interpol}
283:
284: \begin{figure}[h]
285: \includegraphics[ width=.4\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
286: angle=0,origin=1B]{f1.eps}
287: \caption{Forward interpolation from ring set to TOD element and transpose interpolation
288: from TOD element to ring set.}
289: \label{fig:interpol}
290: \end{figure}
291:
292: PReBeaM also includes the option
293: to zero-pad during the FFT and inverse FFT steps. This means that the working array (either
294: $T_{mm'm''}$ or $T_{\Phi_2,\Theta,m''}$) is enlarged and padded with zeroes out
295: to $\ell_{max,pad}>\ell_{max}$. This has the effect of decreasing
296: the sampling interval.
297: We found that the combined effects of small-order polynomial interpolation (order 1 or 3)
298: and zero-padding
299: of $2\times\ell_{max}$ or $4\times\ell_{max}$
300: dramatically reduced the residuals in our maps.
301:
302: \subsection{Parallelization Description}
303: PReBeaM employs a hierarchical parallelization scheme using
304: both shared-memory (OpenMP) and distributed-memory (MPI) types of
305: parallelization. The map-making was performed on the NERSC computer Bassi. Bassi processors
306: are distributed among compute nodes, with 8 processors per node. OpenMP tasks occur within a node
307: and MPI tasks occur between nodes.
308:
309: We show a diagram of our hybrid parallelization scheme in Figure \ref{fig:parallel}.
310: The full TOD and pointings are divided equally between the nodes for input and
311: storage of pointings.
312: Within an iteration loop, four head nodes are designated to perform the convolutions, while the
313: remaining active nodes are dedicated to the interpolation routines. Each
314: of these four nodes performs the convolution of the sky with one of the four detectors.
315: The resulting arrays are then distributed to all nodes for interpolation over the
316: segment of data stored there
317: and then gathered
318: back onto the designated nodes for transpose convolution. Finally, the $a_{\ell m}$ are
319: summed, using MPI task mpi\_reduce, into a single $a_{\ell m}$ on a
320: single node; this is the new estimate for the sky vector.
321:
322:
323: \begin{figure}
324: \includegraphics[ width=.4\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
325: angle=0,origin=1B]{f2.eps}
326: \caption{Depiction of hybrid parallelization scheme used in PReBeaM. Rectangles represent work
327: done on a node, ellipses represent data products, and
328: arrows represent transfer of data. The work done within a node (convolution, interpolation and
329: their transpose operations) is parallelized using OpenMP.
330: This shows a slice of two head nodes though the algorithm may operate on many more nodes.}
331: \label{fig:parallel}
332: \end{figure}
333:
334: This particular scheme was devised so that the four distinct convolutions that must occur
335: (one sky with four different beams) can take place simultaneously, while the pointings are
336: distributed among as many nodes as possible for maximum speed in interpolation. Both convolution
337: and interpolation and their transpose operations make use of all processors on a node by using OpenMP
338: directives.
339:
340: \section{Simulations and Beams}
341: \label{sec:sims}
342: The simulated \textsc{Planck} data on which PReBeaM was run was generated by the
343: \textsc{Planck} CTP
344: working group for the study of the performance and accuracy of five
345: map-making codes summarized in the Trieste paper \citep{Trieste}.
346: \textsc{Planck} will spin at a rate of approximately one rpm, with an angle between the spin
347: axis and the optical axis of $\sim 85^{\circ}$. We used the cycloidal scan
348: strategy in which the spin axis follows a circular path with a period of six months,
349: and the angle between the spin axis and
350: the anti-Sun direction is $7.5^{\circ}$.
351: TODs were generated for 366 days for the four 30 GHz Low Frenquency Instrument (LFI)
352: detectors. At a
353: sampling frequency of 32.5 Hz, this corresponds to 1.028x$10^9$ samples per detector,
354: for a total of over 65 Gb of data and pointings.
355: The simulated data
356: also included the effects of variable spin velocity and nutation (the option
357: to include the effects of a finite sampling period was not included).
358:
359: The data was simulated with elliptical having with a geometric mean FWHM of
360: $32.^{\prime}1865$ and ellipticity (maximum FWHM divided by minimum FWHM)
361: of 1.3562 and 1.3929 for each pair of horns. The widths and orientations
362: of the beams were different; this was referred to as {\it beam mismatch} in the Trieste paper.
363: In spherical harmonic space, the simulation beams were
364: described up to a beam $m_{max}$ of 14. The same beams were used in PReBeaM to solve
365: for the map, although we allowed the beam asymmetry parameter $m_{max}$ to vary.
366:
367:
368: \section{Results and Discussion}
369: \label{sec:results}
370: For this paper, we make temperature and polarization maps from simulated
371: one-year observations
372: of the four 30 GHz detectors of the \textsc{Planck} LFI.
373: We examine two cases: CMB signal only and CMB plus uncorrelated (white) noise. Foreground signals and correlated
374: noise properties will be examined in a future paper.
375: The 30 GHz data was an optimal choice for this analysis
376: because the low sampling rate and resolution minimize the data volume, while the large
377: beam ellipticity allows us to demonstrate the full potential of our beam deconvolution technique.
378:
379:
380: PReBeaM operates entirely in harmonic space, solving for and producing as output $a_{\ell m}$.
381: For visualization purposes, maps were made from $a_{\ell m}$'s out to $\ell_{max}$ 512
382: and at the Healpix \citep{healpix} resolution
383: of nside 512 ($\sim 7^{\prime\prime}$ pixel size). Most of the results presented in
384: this paper were
385: attained with an FFT zero-padding
386: of factor four, an interpolation order of 3, and an asymmetry parameter of $m_{max}=$4 (we note
387: where the parameters differ from this).
388: To compare with the input signal,
389: a reference map representing the true sky was created by smoothing the
390: input $a_{\ell m}$ by a Gaussian beam of FWHM = $32.^{\prime}1865$. Similarly, our
391: regularizer $G$
392: (in equation (\ref{eq:regular})) was set to have a FWHM of $32.^{\prime}1865$ to match
393: this smoothing.
394: As noted in \S\ref{sec:sims}, the same data we use here has been processed by five map-making
395: codes in \cite{Trieste}. We have chosen to compare our results with the analogous results
396: from Springtide, one of the codes in this study. Springtide was chosen, out of the
397: five codes, because it
398: is the map-making code installed in and used by the \textsc{Planck} Data Processing Centers
399: for the HFI and LFI
400: instrument. It is sufficient to compare with Springtide only as no significant differences in
401: accuracy were found between codes (with similar baselines and in the absence of noise)
402: \citep{Trieste}.
403: In the absence of noise, Springtide is algorithmically akin to a straight-forward binning of
404: the TOD into a
405: sky pixel map. Because we are using Springtide to represent all non-beam-deconvolution methods
406: we will refer to the Springtide maps as the {\it binned} maps.
407:
408:
409: We begin by examining the spectra in the binned map, PReBeaM map and
410: the smoothed input map shown in Figure \ref{fig:cls}. The
411: effect of the beam mismatch
412: is clearly seen where the peaks and valleys of the binned map
413: spectra have been shifted towards higher multipoles.
414: The detectors measure different Stokes I which translates
415: to artifacts in the polarization map. Deconvolution suppresses leakage from temperature
416: to polarization as evidenced by the PReBeaM spectra which overlays the input spectra.
417: This shift is expected
418: to remain apparent in the TE spectra of non-beam-deconvolved maps even in the
419: presence of noise because of larger temperature
420: signal and the temperature-to-polarization cross-coupling.
421:
422:
423: \begin{figure*}
424: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
425: angle=0]{clEE.ps}
426: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
427: angle=0]{clTE.ps}
428: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
429: angle=0]{clBB.ps}
430: \caption{EE, TE, and BB spectra of smoothed input map (black curve), binned map (blue curve)
431: and PReBeaM (red curve). The EE and TE spectra show
432: the effect of temperature-to-polarization cross-coupling seen in the binned map
433: spectra as shifts in the peaks and valleys and absent from the PReBeaM spectra. The input BB spectra
434: is absent from the BB plot since the input B-modes were zero.
435: TT spectra are omitted since differences in the three spectra are not apparent in this representation.}
436: \label{fig:cls}
437: \end{figure*}
438:
439: The fractional difference in the angular power spectrum
440: (defined as $(C_{\ell_{out}}-C_{\ell_{in}})/C_{\ell_{in}}$) of the input and output maps
441: is shown in Figure \ref{fig:cls_frac}. We show the fractional difference spectra for the
442: TT, EE, and cross-correlation TE signals, omitting the BB spectra since $C^{BB}_{\ell}$
443: is zero in the simulation of the CMB map .
444: The results for PReBeaM are shown at three
445: intervals: the 25th, 50th and 75th iterations. This shows the behavior of the power
446: spectra as PReBeaM converges on the solution.
447: The beam mismatch effect is also seen in Figure \ref{fig:cls_frac}, where the fractional difference
448: in the PReBeaM spectra lie closer to zero than the binned map spectra over the full range of multipole moments
449: for EE and TE.
450:
451: \begin{figure*}
452: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
453: angle=0]{clTT_frac.ps}
454: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
455: angle=0]{clEE_frac.ps}
456: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
457: angle=0]{clTE_frac.ps}
458: \caption{Fractional difference in power spectrum for PReBeaM (red, blue, and cyan curves) and
459: the binned map (black curve) for TT, EE, and TE. Spectra for PReBeaM are shown as a function
460: of number of iterations to demonstrate convergence.}
461: \label{fig:cls_frac}
462: \end{figure*}
463:
464: As described earlier, PReBeaM allows for variation in the asymmetry parameter $m_{max}$. We examined
465: the performance of PReBeaM as a function of $m_{max}$, setting it to 2, 4 and 6. A remarkable improvement
466: in the power spectra was found by increasing $m_{max}$ from 2 to 4, while an increase from 4 to 6 only resulted
467: in marginal improvements. This effect is best seen in the BB power spectra as shown in Figure \ref{fig:mmax}.
468: Thus, while the input TOD was simulated with a beam having an $m_{max}$ cut-off of 14, PReBeaM
469: operates optimally at an $m_{max}$ of just 4, thereby allowing us to capitalize
470: on the computational property that PReBeaM scales as $m_{max}$.
471:
472:
473: \begin{figure*}
474: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
475: angle=0]{clBB_mmax.ps}
476: \caption{BB power spectra as a function of asymmetry parameter $m_{max}$ for $m_{max}=$ 2 (blue curve)
477: , 4 (cyan curve), and 6 (red curve). The input BB spectra was zero so
478: the smallest output BB spectra is most desirable. In this run, the PReBeaM input parameters interpolation order
479: and zero-padding were set to 1 and 2, respectively.}
480: \label{fig:mmax}
481: \end{figure*}
482:
483: We define a quantity called $n_{\sigma}$
484: \begin{equation}
485: n_{\sigma_{\ell}} = \sum_{\ell^{\prime}=2}^{\ell}\frac{|\Delta C_{\ell^{\prime}}|} {\sigma_{Planck_{\ell^{\prime}}}}
486: \end{equation}
487: which we use to quantify the maximum, or worst-case bias beam systematics could induce
488: in a cosmological parameter that happened to be degenerate with that parameter.
489: The quantity $\sigma_{Planck}$ is the expected one-sigma errors for the LFI 30 GHz channel,
490: computed as the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix for the
491: simulated input spectra, assuming a sky fraction of 0.65.
492: The $n_{sigma}$ values are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:nsigs} and show that
493: PReBeaM reduces the worst case bias due to untreated beam systematics from tens of sigma to
494: much less than one sigma over the entire $\ell$ range.
495:
496: \begin{figure*}
497: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
498: angle=0]{nsigTT.ps}
499: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
500: angle=0]{nsigEE.ps}
501: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
502: angle=0]{nsigBB.ps}
503: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
504: angle=0]{nsigTE.ps}
505: \caption{Worst case bias in estimation of cosmological parameters due to
506: errors in the power spectra of PReBeaM (dashed curve) and due to the errors in the power
507: spectra of the binned map (solid curve).}
508: \label{fig:nsigs}
509: \end{figure*}
510:
511: We examine the resulting temperature and polarization (Q and U) maps.
512: The output map for both PReBeaM and the binned map was
513: subtracted from the smoothed input map at the same resolution to make the
514: residual maps shown in Figure \ref{fig:resmaps}. PReBeaM residuals were plotted
515: on the same color scale as the binned map, showing that PReBeaM attained smaller
516: residuals for both temperature and polarization.
517:
518: \begin{figure*}
519: \includegraphics[ scale=.3, keepaspectratio,
520: angle=90]{preresT500.ps}
521: \includegraphics[ scale=.3, keepaspectratio,
522: angle=90]{spgresT500.ps}
523: \includegraphics[ scale=.3, keepaspectratio,
524: angle=90]{preresQ500.ps}
525: \includegraphics[ scale=.3, keepaspectratio,
526: angle=90]{spgresQ500.ps}
527: \includegraphics[ scale=.3, keepaspectratio,
528: angle=90]{preresU500.ps}
529: \includegraphics[ scale=.3, keepaspectratio,
530: angle=90]{spgresU500.ps}
531: \caption{The residuals between the input reference sky and PReBeaM output (left column) and the
532: residual between the input reference sky and the binned map (right column) for Temperature (T),
533: and the Stokes Q, and U parameters.}
534: \label{fig:resmaps}
535: \end{figure*}
536:
537: As a final test, we run PReBeaM on TOD containing CMB signal and white noise and compare
538: with the smoothed input CMB spectrum and the analogous results from Springtide (in this
539: case we refer to Springtide directly since this is not simply a binned map).
540: The level of the uncorrelated noise is specifed in the detector database and has
541: a nominal standard deviation per sample time of $\sigma=1350\mu K$ \citep{Trieste}.
542: PReBeaM achieves a noticeably superior fit to the input spectrum compared with Springtide
543: from $\ell\sim150$ to $\sim250$. Assessing the relative performance of PReBeaM and
544: Springtide in more detail would require performing Monte Carlo averages. We focus on the
545: TE spectrum since the improvement is visible even for a single simulation. For the other
546: spectra PReBeaM performs as least as well as Springtide but the detailed difference are more
547: difficult to assess without a Monte Carlo study.
548:
549: \begin{figure*}
550: \includegraphics[ width=.5\textwidth,keepaspectratio,
551: angle=0]{clTE_whitenoise.ps}
552: \caption{TE spectrum of CMB and white noise for Springtide (blue curve) and PReBeaM (red curve).
553: The smoothed input map is shown in black.
554: Following the example in \cite{Trieste},
555: we reduce $\ell$ to $\ell$ variation by filtering the spectra by a sliding average
556: ($\Delta\ell=20$).
557: In this run, the PReBeaM input parameters interpolation order
558: and zero-padding were set to 1 and 4, respectively. While PReBeaM performs at least as well as Springtide in the TT, EE, and BB spectra, we omit
559: these spectra since the detailed differences are difficult to assess without an in-depth
560: Monte Carlo study.}
561: \label{fig:whitenoise}
562: \end{figure*}
563:
564: \subsection{Computational Considerations}
565: The computational costs and advantages of our method should be noted. To perform a
566: convolution up to $\ell_{max}$ requires $\mathcal{O}(\ell^3_{max}m_{max})$ for the
567: general case. Since $m_{max}$ is bounded by $\ell_{max}$, the cost never
568: scales worse than $\mathcal{O}(\ell^4_{max})$ and is only $\mathcal{O}(\ell^3_{max})$ for
569: the symmetric beam case. By comparison, a
570: brute force computation in pixel space would require $\mathcal{O}(\ell^5_{max})$. In this study,
571: data was simulated with beams having an asymmetry parameter of $m_{max}=14$, but maps were made using
572: a cut-off value of $m_{max}=4$ in PReBeaM. We have demonstrated that computational
573: cost can be conserved while still achieving the benefits of beam deconvolution
574:
575: It was found that an increase in the zero-padding factor from two to four produced
576: superior results over
577: an increase in the interpolation order from one to three.
578: An optimal run of PReBeaM will therefore include the largest zero-padding possible given
579: machine memory constraints in conjunction with a polynomial interpolation of order one or three.
580: This is advantageous since the time spent in an FFT is nearly negligible and affected
581: only minimally with an increase in zero-padding. In contrast, time for interpolation scales
582: as interpolation-order-squared and as this is a TOD-handling step, it dominates over any cost
583: incurred by convolutions. In the case of the results shown here, interpolation steps consume
584: more than 90\% of the wall-clock time per iteration.
585:
586: The results produced here were generated using 12 nodes on NERSC computer Bassi
587: (making use of all 8 processors
588: per node) and was complete in about 29 wall-clock hours, for a total of 2797-CPU hours.
589: The maximum task memory was 20 GB on a single node.
590:
591: \section{Conclusion}
592: \label{sec:conclusion}
593:
594: We have found that PReBeaM has outperformed the standard binned noiseless map
595: using two measures: spectra and
596: residual maps. We examined the fractional differences in the spectra
597: and found markedly smaller differences in the PReBeaM spectra versus the binned map spectra across
598: a range of multipole moments. We find that
599: map-making codes which do not deconvolve
600: beam asymmetries lead to significant systematics in the polarization power spectra
601: measurements. The temperature-to-polarization cross-coupling due to beam asymmetries
602: is manifested as shifts in the peaks and valleys of the spectra. These shifts are absent from the
603: PReBeaM spectra. We translated the errors found in the power spectra to an estimate of the
604: statistical significance of the errors in a parameter estimation resulting from these spectra,
605: which we call $n_{\sigma}$. This analysis showed that the worst case parameter bias due to
606: beam-induced power spectrum systematics could be tens of sigma while PReBeaM reduces the
607: risk of parameter bias due to beam systematics to much less than 1 sigma
608: We also found the I, Q, and U component residual maps to be smaller for PReBeaM than
609: for the binned map, implying smaller map-making errors.
610:
611:
612: We have presented here the first results from PReBeaM for a straightforward test cases of
613: CMB only and CMB plus white noise,
614: and including only the effects of beams in the main focal plane. However, there is great
615: potential for using PReBeaM to remove or assess systematics due to the combination of foregrounds
616: and beam side lobes. Systematics introduced by side lobes will appear on the largest scales,
617: potentially impeding the detection of primordial B-modes on the scales where they are most
618: likely to be measured.
619: We have already shown for temperature measurements \citep{AW04} that our
620: deconvolution technique can be used to remove effects due to side lobes. Future work will
621: examine the noise properties of PReBeaM maps and will include foregrounds from extragalactic
622: sources and diffuse Galactic emission.
623:
624: \begin{thebibliography}{}
625: \bibitem[Armitage \& Wandelt(2004)]{AW04} Armitage, C., \& Wandelt, B. 2004,
626: Phys. Rev. D 70, 123007
627: \bibitem[Ashdown et al.(2008)]{Trieste} Ashdown, M. A. J. et al. 2008, submitted to AA, astro-ph 0702483
628: \bibitem[Challinor et al.(2000)]{C00} Challinor, A. et al 2000, Phys. Rev. D 62, 123002
629: \bibitem[Gorski et al.(2005)]{healpix} G\'orski, K. et al 2005, ``The HEALPix Primer'' (Version 2.00),
630: available at \url{http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov}
631: \bibitem[Harrison et al.(2008)]{Harrison08} Harrison, D. L., van Leeuwen, F.,
632: and Ashdown, M. A. J. 2008, in preparation
633: \bibitem[Mitra et al.(2007)]{Mitra07} Mitra, S., et al. 2007, astro-ph 0702100
634: \bibitem[The Planck Collaboration(2005)]{bluebook} The Planck Collaboration
635: 2005, ESA-SCI(2005)-1., astro-ph 0604069v1
636: \bibitem[Reinecke et al.(2006)]{R06} Reinecke, M. et al. 2006, A\&A, 445, 373
637: \bibitem[Souradeep et al.(2006)]{Souradeep06} Souradeep, T. et al. 2006, \nar, 50, 1030
638: \bibitem[Wandelt \& Gorski(2001)]{WG01} Wandelt, B. \& G\'{o}rski, K. 2001,
639: Phys. Rev. D 63, 123002
640: \end{thebibliography}
641:
642: \end{document}
643: