1: \documentclass[aps,epsfig]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} 

5: 

6: % PRIMORDIAL POTENTIAL

7: \newcommand{\fix}{\Phi(\mathbf{x})}

8: \newcommand{\fiLx}{\Phi_{\rm L}(\mathbf{x})}

9: \newcommand{\fiLxsquare}{\Phi^2_{\rm L}(\mathbf{x})}

10: \newcommand{\fiNLx}{\Phi_{\rm NL}(\mathbf{x})}

11: \newcommand{\fik}{\Phi(\mathbf{k})}

12: \newcommand{\fiLk}{\Phi_{\rm L}(\mathbf{k})}

13: \newcommand{\fiLkone}{\Phi_{\rm L}(\mathbf{k_1})}

14: \newcommand{\fiLktwo}{\Phi_{\rm L}(\mathbf{k_2})}

15: \newcommand{\fiLkthree}{\Phi_{\rm L}(\mathbf{k_3})}

16: \newcommand{\fiLkfour}{\Phi_{\rm L}(\mathbf{k_4})}

17: \newcommand{\fiNLk}{\Phi_{\rm NL}(\mathbf{k})}

18: \newcommand{\fiNLkone}{\Phi_{\rm NL}(\mathbf{k_1})}

19: \newcommand{\fiNLktwo}{\Phi_{\rm NL}(\mathbf{k_2})}

20: \newcommand{\fiNLkthree}{\Phi_{\rm NL}(\mathbf{k_3})}

21: 

22: 

23: % CONVOLUTION RELATED QUANTITIES

24: \newcommand{\kernel}{f_{\rm NL} (\mathbf{k_1},\mathbf{k_2},\mathbf{k_3})}

25: \newcommand{\dirac}{\delta^{(3)}\,(\mathbf{k_1+k_2-k})}

26: \newcommand{\dirackonektwokthree}{\delta^{(3)}\,(\mathbf{k_1+k_2+k_3})}

27: 

28: % ABBREVIATIONS FOR THE MOST USED COMMANDS

29: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

30: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

31: \newcommand{\beqarr}{\begin{eqnarray}}

32: \newcommand{\eeqarr}{\end{eqnarray}}

33: 

34: % ANGULAR PARTS

35: \newcommand{\angk}{\hat{k}}

36: \newcommand{\angn}{\hat{n}}

37: 

38: % TRANSFER FUNCTIONS

39: \newcommand{\tfnow}{\Delta_\ell(k,\tau_0)}

40: \newcommand{\tf}{\Delta_\ell(k)}

41: \newcommand{\tfone}{\Delta_{\ell_1}(k_1)}

42: \newcommand{\tftwo}{\Delta_{\ell_2}(k_2)}

43: \newcommand{\tfthree}{\Delta_{\ell_3}(k_3)}

44: \newcommand{\tffour}{\Delta_{\ell_1^\prime}(k)}

45: \newcommand{\deltatilde}{\tilde{\Delta}_{\ell_3}(k_3)}

46: 

47: % MULTIPOLES

48: \newcommand{\alm}{a_{\ell m}}

49: \newcommand{\almL}{a_{\ell m}^{\rm L}}

50: \newcommand{\almNL}{a_{\ell m}^{\rm NL}}

51: \newcommand{\almone}{a_{\ell_1 m_1}}

52: \newcommand{\almLone}{a_{\ell_1 m_1}^{\rm L}}

53: \newcommand{\almNLone}{a_{\ell_1 m_1}^{\rm NL}}

54: \newcommand{\almtwo}{a_{\ell_2 m_2}}

55: \newcommand{\almLtwo}{a_{\ell_2 m_2}^{\rm L}}

56: \newcommand{\almNLtwo}{a_{\ell_2 m_2}^{\rm NL}}

57: \newcommand{\almthree}{a_{\ell_3 m_3}}

58: \newcommand{\almLthree}{a_{\ell_3 m_3}^{\rm L}}

59: \newcommand{\almNLthree}{a_{\ell_3 m_3}^{\rm NL}}

60: 

61: % SPHERICAL HARMONICS

62: \newcommand{\YLMstar}{Y_{L M}^*}

63: \newcommand{\Ylmstar}{Y_{\ell m}^*}

64: \newcommand{\Ylmstarone}{Y_{\ell_1 m_1}^*}

65: \newcommand{\Ylmstartwo}{Y_{\ell_2 m_2}^*}

66: \newcommand{\Ylmstarthree}{Y_{\ell_3 m_3}^*}

67: \newcommand{\Ylmstarfour}{Y_{\ell_1^\prime m_1^\prime}^*}

68: \newcommand{\Ylmstarfive}{Y_{\ell_2^\prime m_2^\prime}^*}

69: \newcommand{\Ylmstarsix}{Y_{\ell_3^\prime m_3^\prime}^*}

70: 

71: \newcommand{\YLM}{Y_{L M}}

72: \newcommand{\Ylm}{Y_{\ell m}}

73: \newcommand{\Ylmone}{Y_{\ell_1 m_1}}

74: \newcommand{\Ylmtwo}{Y_{\ell_2 m_2}}

75: \newcommand{\Ylmthree}{Y_{\ell_3 m_3}}

76: \newcommand{\Ylmfour}{Y_{\ell_1^\prime m_1^\prime}}

77: \newcommand{\Ylmfive}{Y_{\ell_2^\prime m_2^\prime}}

78: \newcommand{\Ylmsix}{Y_{\ell_3^\prime m_3^\prime}}

79: 

80: % BESSEL FUNCTIONS

81: \newcommand{\jl}{j_\ell(k r)}

82: \newcommand{\jlfourone}{j_{\ell_1^\prime}(k_1 r)}

83: \newcommand{\jlfivetwo}{j_{\ell_2^\prime}(k_2 r)}

84: \newcommand{\jlsixthree}{j_{\ell_3^\prime}(k_3 r)}

85: \newcommand{\jlsix}{j_{\ell_3^\prime}(k r)}

86: \newcommand{\jlthree}{j_{\ell_3}(k_3 r)}

87: \newcommand{\jlthreetau}{j_{\ell_3}(k r)}

88: 

89: % GAUNT INTEGRALS

90: \newcommand{\Gaunt}{\mathcal{G}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \, \ell_3}^{m_1 m_2 m_3}}

91: \newcommand{\Gaunttwo}{\mathcal{G}_{\ell_1^\prime \, \ell_2^\prime \, \ell_3}^{m_1^\prime m_2^\prime m_3}}

92: \newcommand{\Gauntstardef}{\mathcal{H}_{\ell_1 \, \ell_2 \, \ell_3}^{m_1 m_2 m_3}}

93: \newcommand{\Gauntstarone}{\mathcal{G}_{\ell_1 \, L \,\, \ell_1^\prime}^{-m_1 M m_1^\prime}}

94: \newcommand{\Gauntstartwo}{\mathcal{G}_{\ell_2^\prime \, \ell_2 \, L}^{-m_2^\prime m_2 M}}

95: 

96: % INTEGRATION VARIABLES

97: \newcommand{\dangn}{d \angn}

98: \newcommand{\dangk}{d \angk}

99: \newcommand{\dangkone}{d \angk_1}

100: \newcommand{\dangktwo}{d \angk_2}

101: \newcommand{\dangkthree}{d \angk_3}

102: \newcommand{\dk}{d^3 k}

103: \newcommand{\dkone}{d^3 k_1}

104: \newcommand{\dktwo}{d^3 k_2}

105: \newcommand{\dkthree}{d^3 k_3}

106: \newcommand{\dkfour}{d^3 k_4}

107: \newcommand{\dallk}{\dkone \dktwo \dk}

108: 

109: % FOURIER TRANSFORM

110: \newcommand{\FT}{ \int  \! \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} 

111: e^{i\mathbf{k} \cdot \angn \tau_0}}

112: \newcommand{\planewave}{e^{i\mathbf{k \cdot x}}}

113: \newcommand{\dallkfourier}{\frac{\dkone}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\dktwo}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\dkthree}{(2\pi)^3}}

114: 

115: %BISPECTRA

116: \newcommand{\Bis}{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^{m_1 m_2 m_3}}

117: \newcommand{\Avbis}{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}}

118: \newcommand{\Redbis}{b_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}}

119: \newcommand{\Redbisloc}{b^{\rm local}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}}

120: \newcommand{\Redbiseq}{b^{\rm equil}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}}

121: \newcommand{\fnlloc}{f_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}}

122: \newcommand{\fnleq}{f_{\rm NL}^{\rm equil}}

123: \newcommand{\fnllocest}{\hat{f}_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}}

124: \newcommand{\fnleqest}{\hat{f}_{\rm NL}^{\rm equil}}

125: \newcommand{\fnl}{f_{\rm NL}}

126: \newcommand{\fnlest}{\hat{f}_{\rm NL}}

127: \newcommand{\A}{A_S}

128: 

129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

130: 

131: \begin{document}

132: 

133: \author{Michele Liguori$^1$ and Antonio Riotto$^2,^3$}

134: 

135: \affiliation{$^1$Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for

136: Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberfoce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, United

137: Kingdom}

138: 

139: \affiliation{$^2$INFN, sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova,

140:   Italy} 

141: \affiliation{$^3$CERN, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}

142: 

143: 

144: \title{Impact of Uncertainties in the Cosmological Parameters on\\

145:   the Measurement of Primordial non-Gaussianity}

146: 

147: \begin{abstract}

148: \noindent We study the impact of cosmological parameters' uncertainties on

149: estimates of the primordial NG parameter $\fnl$ in local and

150: equilateral models of non-Gaussianity. We show

151: that propagating these errors increases the $\fnl$ $1\sigma$ uncertainty

152: by a term ${\delta \fnlloc / \fnlloc} \simeq 16 \%$ for WMAP and  

153: ${\delta \fnlloc / \fnlloc} \simeq 5 \%$ for Planck in the local case, whereas for

154: equilateral configurations the correction term are  ${\delta \fnleq / \fnleq}

155: \simeq 14 \%$ and ${\delta \fnleq / \fnleq } \simeq 4\%$, respectively. If we 

156: assume for $\fnlloc$ a central value $\langle \fnlloc \rangle \simeq

157: 60$, according to recent WMAP 5-years estimates, we obtain for Planck a final

158: correction $\Delta \fnlloc \simeq 3$. Although not dramatic, this

159: correction is at the level of the expected estimator uncertainty for Planck, and

160: should then be taken into account when quoting the significance of an

161: eventual future detection.

162: In current estimates of $\fnl$ the cosmological parameters

163: are held fixed at their best-fit values. We finally note that the

164: impact of uncertainties in the cosmological

165: parameters on the final $\fnl$ error bar would become totally negligible if

166: the parameters were allowed to vary in the analysis and then

167: marginalized over.

168: \end{abstract}

169: 

170: 

171: \maketitle

172: 

173: \section{Introduction}

174: 

175: \noindent Research of primordial non-Gaussianity in the Cosmic Microwave

176: Background (CMB) is an important field of cosmology today. 

177: In a recent work, Yadav and Wandelt \cite{YadavWandelt} claim 

178: a $3 \sigma$ detection of a large NG signal in the 

179: WMAP 3-years data.

180: The following WMAP 5-years analysis produced similar results but

181: showed a reduction of statistical significance

182: from about $3$ to $2 \sigma$ \cite{WMAP5}. 

183: Yadav and Wandelt estimate, using WMAP 3-years data, is

184: \beq

185: 27 \leq \fnlloc \leq 147  \;\;  (95\% \, {\rm c.l.}) \; .

186: \eeq

187: The WMAP 5-years estimate is:

188: \beq

189: -9 \leq \fnlloc \leq 111  \;\;  (95\% \, {\rm c.l.}) \; ,

190: \eeq

191: where $\fnl$ is a dimensionless parameter defining the strength of

192: primordial non-Gaussianity (NG) \cite{NGreview}, and the superscript 

193: ''local'' indicates that

194: we are considering a primordial NG curvature perturbation of

195: the form 

196: \beq

197: \fix = \fiLx + \fnlloc \left(\fiLxsquare - \langle \fiLxsquare \rangle

198: \right) \; ,

199: \eeq

200: where $\fix$ is the total gravitational potential, $\fiLx$ is the gravitational potential

201: computed at the linear level and $\langle\cdots \rangle$ stands for the 

202: ensemble average.  

203: The reason for calling this a local NG model

204: relies in the fact that the NG part of the primordial

205: curvature perturbation is a local functional of the Gaussian part.

206: The local shape of NG arises from standard single-field

207: slow-roll inflation \cite{standard} as well as from alternative inflationary 

208: scenarios for the generation of primordial perturbations, like 

209: the curvaton \cite{curvaton} or inhomogenous (pre)reheating models \cite{gamma1}, or even from

210: alternatives to inflation, such as ekpyrotic and cyclic models 

211: \cite{ek}. Other models, such as DBI inflation \cite{dbi} and ghost

212: inflation \cite{ghost},

213: predict a different kind of primordial NG, called 

214:   "equilateral", because the three point function for this kind of

215: NG is peaked on equilateral configurations, in which the

216: lengths of the three wavevectors forming a triangle in Fourier space are

217: equal \cite{shape}. This second form of NG is characterised by the

218: parameter $\fnleq$, which defines the amplitude of the equilateral

219: triangles. In the following we will sometimes write the amplitude

220: of NG simply as $\fnl$, without any superscript. When we do so,

221: we mean that our conclusions apply to both the local and the equilateral

222: case, with no need for distinction.

223: 

224: Standard single field inflation predicts

225: $\fnlloc \sim 10^{-2}$ at the end of inflation \cite{standard}  (and therefore a final value 

226: $\fnlloc \sim $ unity  after general relativistic second-order perturbation 

227: effetcs are taken into account \cite{second}). It is thus clear

228: that large central values of $\fnlloc$, like those obtained in the

229: above mentioned analyses, are going to rule out the simplest scenarios 

230: of inflation as viable models of the Early Universe. On the other

231: hand, the low statistical significance of the final WMAP 5-years

232: result makes any conclusion premature at this stage. With its high

233: angular resolution and sensitivity Planck will allow to significantly

234: improve the statistical estimate of $\fnlloc$, reducing the final error

235: bars from the present $\Delta \fnlloc \simeq 30$ to a final value of

236: $\Delta \fnlloc \simeq 5$ \cite{KomatsuSpergel} 

237: thus allowing a many $\sigma$ detection of non-Gaussianity if the

238: present large central values of $\fnlloc$ were to be confirmed. An

239: eventual detection of a large $\fnl$ by Planck would not  however

240: automatically imply that the observed non-Gaussianity is primordial in

241: origin. A number of effects can produce a {\em spurious} NG

242: signal that can bias the final estimate. The most relevant examples of

243: NG contaminants are probably given by diffuse foregrounds emission,

244: unresolved point sources contamination, NG noise. Both the

245: analyses by Yadav and Wandelt and by the WMAP team consider all these

246: effects and conclude that they do not significantly affect the $\fnlloc$

247: measurement from WMAP data. The picture gets however more complicated

248: when we consider future Planck data.  It has been recently shown 

249: that several effects that

250: are not important in the analysis of WMAP data become no longer negligible

251: with Planck. For example, Serra and Cooray \cite{SerraCooray} studied

252: NG contributions arising 

253: from several secondary sources, and concluded that effects such as the

254: cross-correlations SZ-lensing and ISW-lensing produce a bias in the

255: estimate of $\fnlloc$ which is at the level of the expected estimator

256: variance at Planck angular resolution. Analogous conclusions have been reached

257: by Babich and Pierpaoli \cite{BabichPierpaoli} for the

258: cross correlations of density and lensing magnification of radio and SZ

259: point sources with the ISW effect. Note that all these effects are

260: unimportant for present analyses both because they involve higher

261: multipoles than those reached at the WMAP angular resolution, and

262: because they produce a bias $\Delta \fnlloc \sim 1$, thus much smaller than

263: the WMAP sensitivity to $\fnlloc$, which is $\Delta \fnlloc \sim 30$. 

264: However, the much higher angular resolution

265: achieved by Planck and an expected predicted sensitivity on $\fnlloc$

266: given by $\Delta \fnlloc \sim 5$ (and $\Delta \fnlloc \sim 3$ if

267: polarisation data are included in the analysis) 

268: will make the above mentioned sources of NG  

269: contamination no longer negligible in the future.

270: In other words, the same 

271: nice properties that make Planck more sensitive to the detection of a primordial

272: NG signal (i.e. high angular resolution and sensitivity)

273: make it in fact also much more sensitive to the observation of

274: NG contaminants and require a very careful investigation of

275: all the potential sources of bias in the estimate of $\fnl$.

276: 

277: In this paper we will consider another  potential source of uncertainty in the

278: detection of NG, namely

279: the propagation of the uncertainties 

280: in the cosmological parameters on the measured value of $\fnl$. This

281: effect can be summarised as follows: the

282: estimator usually employed to measure $\fnl$ assumes a given

283: underlying cosmological model obtained by fixing the cosmological

284: parameters at their best-fit values (obtained from the two-point CMB likelihood

285: analysis of the experiment under exam). However the cosmological

286: parameter estimates are characterised by uncertainties that should be

287: propagated into the $\fnl$ estimate in order to accurately quote the

288: final error bars. The uncertainties in the

289: cosmological parameters can be safely neglected as long as they are

290: much smaller than the variance of the NG estimator. While this works well 

291: for WMAP, it is a priori unclear whether it is still a good approximation 

292: for Planck. 

293:  

294: The paper is structured as follow: in

295: section \ref{sec:bias} we will describe the $\fnl$ estimator

296: commonly employed in the analysis and study in detail the effect of 

297: cosmological parameters uncertainties on this estimator. After

298: deriving the error propagation formulae (\ref{eqn:bias}) and

299: (\ref{eqn:propagation}) we will apply them to obtain analytical and

300: numerical estimates of the expected $\fnl$ uncertainty for WMAP and

301: Planck, both in the local and equilateral case.

302: In section \ref{sec:Fisher} we will then consider the possibility of 

303: applying a more complex analysis in which $\fnl$ is estimated by

304: firstly allowing the cosmological parameters to vary and then by marginalising over

305: them, rather than by fixing the cosmological model. In

306: this case we 

307: adopt a Fisher matrix approach to propagate the parameter uncertainties

308: on the final predicted $\Delta \fnl$. We will finally discuss

309: our results and draw our conclusion in section \ref{sec:Conclusions}.

310: 

311: 

312: \section{Errors propagation}\label{sec:bias}

313: \noindent

314: The estimate of $\fnl$ from CMB data are usually obtained from

315: measurements of the three point function in harmonic space,

316: called the angular bispectrum and defined as:

317: \beq

318: \Bis \equiv \left\langle a_{\ell_1}^{m_1} a_{\ell_2}^{m_2}

319: a_{\ell_3}^{m_3} \right\rangle \; .

320: \eeq

321: Due to rotational invariance of the CMB sky the angular bispectrum can

322: be written as:

323: \beq

324: \Bis = \Gaunt \Redbis \; ,

325: \eeq

326: where $\Gaunt$ is the Gaunt integral:

327: \beq

328: \Gaunt = 

329:  \sqrt{\frac{(2 \ell_1 +1)(2 \ell_2 + 1)(2 \ell_3 + 1)}{4 \pi}}

330:              \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

331: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

332: 	       0      &  0     &  0    

333: 	           \end{array} \right)

334:              \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

335:              \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

336:                m_1      &  m_2     &  m_3    

337:              \end{array} \right)  \, ,

338: \eeq

339: while $\Redbis$ is called the reduced bispectrum and contains all the

340: relevant physical information. Analytic formulae for both the local

341: and equilateral cases have been computed

342: \cite{KomatsuSpergel,Creminellietal}. The local reduced bispectrum can

343: be written as:

344: \beq\label{eqn:locbis}

345: \Redbisloc = 2 \fnlloc \int dr r^2 \alpha_{\ell_1}(r) \beta_{\ell_2}(r)

346:   \beta_{\ell_3}(r) + (2 \, {\rm perm}.) \; ,

347: \eeq

348: whereas the equilateral bispectrum is

349: \beq\label{eqn:eqbis}

350: \Redbiseq = 6 \fnleq \int dr r^2 \alpha_{\ell_1}(r) \beta_{\ell_2}(r)

351: \beta_{\ell_3}(r) + (2 \, {\rm perm}.) + \delta_{\ell_1}(r) \delta_{\ell_2}(r)

352: \delta_{\ell_3}(r) + \beta_{\ell_1}(r) \gamma_{\ell_2}(r)

353: \delta_{\ell_3}(r) + (5 \,

354: {\rm perm}.) \; .

355: \eeq

356: The functions

357: $\alpha_\ell(r)$,$\beta_\ell(r)$,$\gamma_\ell(r)$,$\delta_\ell(r)$

358: appearing in the previous formulae are defined as:

359: \beqarr\label{eqn:radialcoeff}

360: \alpha_\ell(r) & = & \frac{2}{\pi} \int dk k^2 \Delta_\ell(k)

361: j_\ell(kr)\;,  \nonumber \\

362: \beta_\ell(r) & = & \frac{2}{\pi} \int dk k^2 P_\Phi(k) \Delta_\ell(k)

363: j_\ell(kr)\; , \nonumber \\

364: \gamma_\ell(r) & = & \frac{2}{\pi} \int dk k^2 P_\Phi^{1/3}(k) \Delta_\ell(k)

365: j_\ell(kr)\; ,\nonumber \\ 

366: \delta_\ell(r) & = & \frac{2}{\pi} \int dk k^2 P_\Phi^{2/3}(k) \Delta_\ell(k)

367: j_\ell(kr) \; .

368: \eeqarr

369: In the previous set of formulae $\Delta_\ell(k)$ indicates the CMB

370: radiation transfer function and $P_\Phi(k)$ is the power spectrum of

371: primordial curvature perturbation. It is thus clear that the reduced

372: bispectrum will be dependent on the cosmological parameters.

373: 

374: The NG estimator

375: which is generally employed to analyse CMB data can be written as \cite{KSW1,KSW2}:

376: \beq

377: \hat{f}_{\rm NL} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3} 

378: \sum_{m_1  m_2 m_3} \Gaunt \frac{b_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}}{C_{\ell_1} C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}}

379: \almone \almtwo \almthree \; ,

380: \eeq

381: where $b_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}$ is the analytical form of the

382: primordial reduced bispectrum for the model we are considering (i.e. either

383: local or equilateral), whereas $N$ is a normalisation factor designed

384: to produce unitary response when $\fnl = 1$:

385: \beq

386: N = \sum_{\ell_1 < \ell_2 < \ell_3} \frac{(2

387:   \ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4 \pi} 

388:    \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

389: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

390: 	       0      &  0     &  0    

391: 	           \end{array} \right)^2

392:    \frac{(b^{\fnl = 1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3})^2}{C_{\ell_1} C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}}

393:    \; .

394: \eeq

395: An additional linear term is added to the estimator when dealing with

396: anisotropic noise in the data. We will not include such term here as

397: it is not dependent on the cosmological parameters and thus does not affect

398: our estimates.

399: The estimated value of $\fnl$ is then obtained by correlating the

400: observed bispectrum with the theoretically expected one for a given

401: primordial shape (local or equilateral) and {\em given cosmological model}, 

402: and dividing by a suitable normalisation factor. Also the

403: normalisation will be dependent on the bispectrum shape and on the 

404: cosmological parameters, as both $b_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}$ and

405: $C_\ell$ are. The $C_\ell$ and $b_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}$ that enter

406: the estimator are calculated by assuming the best-fit cosmological

407: model for the experiment under consideration. However, the best-fit

408: cosmological parameters are characterised by uncertainties that

409: propagate to $\hat{f}_{\rm NL}$. The aim of this work is to analyse

410: this effect in detail and assess its significance for WMAP and Planck.

411: As a start, following \cite{Creminellietal} let us assume that the

412: cosmological model assumed in the calculation of $\Redbis$ and

413: $C_\ell$ is not the ``real'' one. Let us call the reduced bispectrum obtained from

414: the real cosmological parameters $\tilde{b}_{\ell_1 \ell_2

415: \ell_3}$. It is then easy to see that the average value of the

416: estimator will be \cite{Creminellietal}:

417: \beqarr

418: \langle \hat{f}_{\rm NL} \rangle & = & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\ell_1 <

419:    \ell_2 <

420:    \ell_3}  \frac{(2

421:   \ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4 \pi} 

422:    \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

423: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

424: 	       0      &  0     &  0    

425: 	           \end{array} \right)^2

426:    \frac{b^{\fnl = 1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3} \langle \almone \almtwo \almthree \rangle

427:        }{C_{\ell_1}C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}} \nonumber \\

428:      & = &             \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\ell_1 < \ell_2 <

429:    \ell_3}  \frac{(2

430:   \ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4 \pi} 

431:    \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

432: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

433: 	       0      &  0     &  0    

434: 	           \end{array} \right)^2

435:    \frac{b^{\fnl = 1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3} \tilde{b}_{\ell_1 \ell_2

436:        \ell_3}}{C_{\ell_1}C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}} \; ,

437: \eeqarr 

438: throughout the paper we will use a superscript $\hat{}$ on $\fnl$

439: whenever we want to indicate a statistical estimate  

440: If we now want to estimate the bias $\delta \fnl$ due to the mismatch

441: between the assumed cosmological model and the real one, we can write:

442: \beqarr

443: \delta \fnlest \equiv \langle \hat{f}_{\rm NL} \rangle - \fnl & = & 

444:    \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\ell_1 < \ell_2 <\ell_3}  \frac{(2\ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4 \pi} 

445:    \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

446: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

447: 	       0      &  0     &  0    

448: 	           \end{array} \right)^2

449:    \frac{b^{\fnl = 1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3} \tilde{b}_{\ell_1 \ell_2

450:    \ell_3}}{C_{\ell_1}C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}} \nonumber \; ,\\

451:    & - & 

452:    \frac{\fnl}{N} \sum_{\ell_1 < \ell_2 <\ell_3}  \frac{(2\ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4 \pi} 

453:    \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

454: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

455:              0      &  0     &  0    

456: 	           \end{array} \right)^2

457:    \frac{b^{\fnl = 1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3} b^{\fnl =1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2

458:    \ell_3}}{C_{\ell_1} C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}}

459:    \nonumber  \; ,\\

460:    & \simeq & 

461:       \frac{\fnl}{N} \sum_{\ell_1 < \ell_2 <\ell_3}  \frac{(2\ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4 \pi} 

462:    \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

463: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

464:              0      &  0     &  0    

465: 	           \end{array} \right)^2

466:    \frac{b^{\fnl = 1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3} \delta b_{\ell_1 \ell_2

467:    \ell_3}}{C_{\ell_1}C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}} \; .

468: \eeqarr

469: In this last formula, $\delta b_{\ell_1 \ell_2

470: \ell_3}$ is the difference between the theoretical bispectra

471: computed for the ``real'' and ``assumed'' cosmological model; all the

472: quantities with a superscript $\sim$ are computed in the ``real''

473: cosmological model. If we

474: then have a cosmological parameter characterised by an uncertainty 

475: $\delta p$ we simply propagate this uncertainty on the $\fnl$

476: estimate as:

477: \beq\label{eqn:bias}

478: \delta  \fnlest  = \frac{\delta \fnlest}{\delta p} {\delta p} \simeq

479:       \left[ \frac{\fnl}{N} \sum_{\ell_1 < \ell_2 <\ell_3}  \frac{(2\ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4 \pi} 

480:    \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

481: 	     \ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\

482:              0      &  0     &  0    

483: 	           \end{array} \right)^2

484:    \frac{b^{\fnl = 1}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3} \frac{\delta b_{\ell_1 \ell_2

485:    \ell_3}}{\delta p}}{C_{\ell_1}C_{\ell_2} C_{\ell_3}} \right] \delta

486:    p \; .

487: \eeq

488: The term in square brackets expresses

489: the derivative of $\fnlest$ with respect to the parameter $p$ as a

490: function of the derivative of the bispectrum with respect to  $p$. 

491: As an estimate of the uncertainty on the parameter $p$ we can use the

492: standard deviation and thus substitute $\delta p$, indicating a

493: general small variation of the parameter in the previous formula,

494: with $\sigma_p$, expressing its $1\sigma$ uncertainty. The formula

495: above then simply reads:

496: \beq

497: \sigma_{f_{\rm NL}} = \frac{\partial \fnlest}{\partial p} \sigma_p \; ;

498: \eeq        

499: this is the standard formula of error propagation. Note that here and in

500: the following equations,

501: we sometimes indicate uncertainties in a parameter

502: using the letter $\delta$ (e.g. $\delta p$), sometimes we use

503: $\sigma$, e.g. $\sigma_{\fnl}$. With $\delta$ we just generically

504: indicate a small variation in the parameter (possibly dependent on the

505: variation in one or more other parameters)

506: , whereas with $\sigma$ we

507: specifically refer to the standard deviation.

508:  

509: In general we have a cosmological model defined by a set of parameters 

510: $\{p_i\}$. All these parameters are allowed to vary and can be correlated. 

511: The standard error propagation formula in this case becomes:

512: \beq\label{eqn:propagation}

513: \delta  \fnlest  = \sqrt{\sum_{ij}\left. \frac{\partial \fnl}{\partial

514:    p_i}\right|_{p_i = \bar{p}_i}

515:                     \left.\frac{\partial \fnl}{\partial

516:    p_j}\right|_{p_j=\bar{p}_j} {\rm Cov}(p_i,p_j)} 

517: \eeq  

518: where the average values $\bar{p}_i$ of the parameters and their  

519: covariance matrix ${\rm Cov}(p_i,p_j)$ are determined from a standard

520: CMB-likelihood

521: analysis, in which the anisotropies are assumed

522: Gaussian. 

523: In our analysis we considered a model characterised by the six

524: parameters $A_S,n_s,\tau,\omega_b = \Omega_b h^2,\omega_m

525: = \Omega_m h^2,\Omega_\Lambda\}$, respectively defining the amplitude of

526: curvature perturbation at $k_0 = $0.002/Mpc, the scalar spectral

527: index, the optical depth to reionization, the physical density of

528: baryons, the physical density of matter and the dark energy density.

529: We fixed these parameters at their maximum likelihood values from the

530: WMAP 5-year analysis and as an estimate of the covariance matrix we 

531: computed the Fisher matrix of the parameters. In the computation 

532: of the Fisher matrix we consider two cases: in the first case we use

533: the $41$, $61$ and $94$ Ghz frequency channels of WMAP (Q+V+W bands)

534: \cite{lambda} and

535: in the second we consider the combination of the $143$ and $217$ Ghz

536: frequency channels of Planck \cite{Bluebook}. For the numerical

537: details of the computation (e.g. choice of the step size for the

538: derivatives w.r.t. cosmological parameters) we closely followed the

539: methodology presented in \cite{HuTegmark}.

540: We then computed the CMB local and

541: equilateral bispectra numerically using formulae

542: (\ref{eqn:locbis}),(\ref{eqn:eqbis}),(\ref{eqn:radialcoeff}) and we

543: took two sided numerical derivatives to evaluate ${\partial B/ \partial

544:  p_i}$. For the steps of the derivatives we again followed the 

545: prescriptions of 

546: \cite{HuTegmark}. Our calculation shows that the $\fnl$ error bars get

547: relative corrections  ${\delta \fnlloc/ \fnlloc} \simeq 16.5 \%$ and 

548: ${\delta \fnleq/ \fnleq} \simeq 14.5 \%$ for WMAP

549: in the local and equilateral case, while for Planck 

550: we have ${\delta \fnlloc / \fnlloc}

551: \simeq 5 \%$ and ${\delta \fnleq / \fnleq} \simeq 4.5 \%$. Before discussing the

552: significance of this correction let us try to understand this result

553: in a more intuitive way by employing some analytical approximations. 

554: From figures \ref{fig:derivativeswmap} and \ref{fig:derivativesplanck}

555:    we see that most

556: of the contribution to $\delta \fnl$ from error propagation comes 

557: from only 3 of the 6 considered parameters: $A_S$,$n_s$

558: and $\tau$ (this is in agreement with the results of

559: \cite{YadavWandelt}). We will then restrict the following 

560: simplified analysis to these three parameters.

561:  

562: 

563: \begin{figure}[h]

564: \begin{center}

565: \includegraphics[height=0.6\textheight,width = 0.9\textwidth]{derivwmap2.ps}

566: \caption{Contribution of the different cosmological parameter

567: uncertainties to the final error in the estimate of $\fnlloc$ (lower

568: panel) and $\fnleq$  (upper panel) as a function of $\ell_{\rm max}$. The

569: quantity $({\partial \fnl / \partial p_i}) \sigma_{p_i}$ is plotted for each of the

570: six parameter in the model. In this figure we considered an experiment 

571: with the characteristics of WMAP.

572: }\label{fig:derivativeswmap}

573: \end{center}

574: \end{figure}

575: 

576: \begin{figure}[h]

577: \begin{center}

578: \includegraphics[height=0.6\textheight,width = 0.9\textwidth]{derivplanck2.ps}

579: \caption{Contribution of the different cosmological parameter

580: uncertainties to the final error in the estimate of $\fnlloc$ (lower

581: panel) and $\fnleq$ for an experiment 

582: with the characteristics of Planck.}\label{fig:derivativesplanck}

583: \end{center}

584: \end{figure}

585: 

586: The first step of this analysis is to get analytical

587: expressions for the derivatives of the bispectrum with respect to $A_S,n_S,\tau$.

588: From formulae (\ref{eqn:radialcoeff}) it can be

589: easily seen that ${\partial B / \partial A_S} = {2B / A_S}$. The

590: fractional variation in $\fnlest$ corresponding to a variation $\delta

591: A_S$ is then:

592: \beq

593: \frac{\delta \fnlest}{\delta A_S} \delta A_S = 2 \fnlest \frac{\delta A_S}{A_S} 

594: \eeq

595: The parameter $\tau$ defines the optical depth to

596: reionization and the effect of changing it can be described by

597: introducing a multiplicative factor $e^{-\tau}$ in front of the

598: radiation transfer function at high $\ell's$. Note that the radiation 

599: transfer functions appear in the definition of the bispectrum through

600: the functions $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ defined in formula

601: (\ref{eqn:radialcoeff}). The bispectrum modes that give the largest 

602: contributions in the local case to the final signal-to-noise ratio are the so called

603: squeezed configuration, i.e. configuration where one

604: of the three $\ell's$ is much smaller than the other two, and

605: equilateral triangles in the other case (see

606: e.g. \cite{Creminellietal}). 

607: For this reason, in the local

608: case one of the three $\ell$'s will be super-horizon and the

609: corresponding transfer function will not show a multiplicative

610: factor $e^{-\tau}$ in front. In the equilateral case all modes are

611: sub-horizon in the important configurations. We can then write

612: $\tilde{b}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^{\rm local} = \exp(-2\tau) \Redbisloc$

613: and $\tilde{b}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^{\rm equil} = \exp(-3\tau)

614: \Redbiseq$. Substituting into equation (\ref{eqn:bias}) we find

615: $\delta \fnlloc \simeq -2 \fnlloc \delta \tau$ and 

616: $\delta \fnleq \simeq  -3 \fnleq \delta \tau$. Note

617: though that the parameter $\tau$ obtained from the $C_\ell$ likelihood analysis 

618: is degenerate with the amplitude of the spectrum of primordial curvature 

619: perturbations. In order to include this degeneration in our simplified

620: description, for a given variation in $\tau$ we will also introduce a

621: variation in the power spectrum amplitude 

622: that leaves the final $C_\ell$ unchanged. This is obtained by

623: multiplying the amplitude 

624: by a factor $\exp (a \delta \tau)$, where $a=2,3$ in the locl and

625: equilateral case respectively. A small shift $\delta \tau$ in the ionisation optical depth

626: then implies a shift in the amplitude equal to $\delta \A \simeq 2 \A \delta \tau$. 

627: The total bispectrum variation $\delta B$ is then given by (we

628: omit the subscript $\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3$ for 

629: simplicity of notation):

630: \beqarr

631: \frac{\delta B}{\delta \tau} \delta \tau & = & \frac{\partial

632:   B}{\partial \tau} \delta \tau 

633: + \frac{\partial B}{\partial \A} \frac{\delta \A}{\delta \tau} \delta \tau \nonumber \\

634:          & = & -a B e^{-a \delta \tau} \delta \tau + 4 B e^{a \delta \tau} \delta \tau \nonumber \\

635:          & \simeq & (4-a) B \delta \tau \; ,

636: \eeqarr

637: where in the last line we neglected second order terms in $\delta \tau$. The total variation in $\fnlest$

638: for a given $\delta \tau$ is then:

639: \beq

640: \frac{\delta \fnlest}{\delta \tau} \delta \tau = (4-a) \fnlest \delta \tau

641: \eeq

642: The remaining parameter

643: to take into account is the scalar spectral index $n$. Our next step

644: is then the evaluation of ${\delta B / \delta n}$. First of all we

645: note that when changing 

646: $n$ we have to change the power

647: spectrum normalisation accordingly because the normalisation is

648: defined at a given pivot scale. To compute $\delta B$ arising from a small 

649: change in the spectral index we then have to evaluate again:

650: \beq

651: \frac{\delta B}{\delta n} \delta n = \frac{\partial B}{\partial n} \delta n + \frac{\partial

652:   B}{\partial A} \frac{\delta A}{\delta n} \delta n \; ,

653: \eeq

654: where the partial derivative with respect to $n$ is taken by assuming

655: $A$ fixed. 

656: The authors of \cite{Liddleetal} use

657: WMAP 3-years data to find that the normalisation is well fit by the following

658: expression:

659: \beq

660: \A^{WMAP} = \tilde{A}_S \frac{\exp(-1.24+1.04r)(1-n)}{\sqrt{1+0.53r}} \; ,

661: \eeq

662: where $r$ is the tensor-to-scalar ratio. We will use this ansatz,

663: with the additional assumption $r=0$. In this way we obtain, for

664: a given variation $\delta n$ of the scalar spectral index:

665: $\delta A = 1.24 A \delta n$ and, correspondingly, $\delta B \simeq

666: 2.5 \delta n$. Finally, to approximately evaluate ${\partial B /

667: \partial n}$ we work in the pure SW regime. Estimates of the

668: signal-to-noise ratio have in this case been obtained by Komatsu and

669: Spergel \cite{KomatsuSpergel} for the equilateral configurations and

670: by Babich and Zaldarriaga \cite{BabichZaldarriaga} for the squeezed ones for $n=1$. Extending their results,  we obtain that in both cases:

671: \beq

672: \frac{\partial \fnlest}{\partial n} \simeq \frac{\fnl}{2}

673: \left[\log \left( \ell_{\rm max}

674:   \right) -\frac{1}{(1-n)} \right] \; ;

675: \eeq

676: this allows to write the variation in $\fnlest$ for a given $\delta n$

677: \beq

678: \frac{\delta \fnlest}{\fnlest} \simeq \left[2.5 -\frac{1}{2(1-n)} +\frac{1}{2} \log \left( \ell_{\rm max}

679:   \right) \right]  \delta n \; .

680: \eeq

681: Having an expression for the derivatives of the bispectrum 

682: with respect to each of the three parameters $\A$,$n$ and $\tau$ we

683: can now propagate the error

684: using Eq. (\ref{eqn:propagation}), that for this particular case

685: reads

686: \beq

687: \sigma_{\fnlest} = \sqrt{\left(\frac{\delta \fnlest}{\delta \tilde{A}_S}\right)^2 \sigma_{\tilde{A}_S}^2 +

688: \left(\frac{\delta \fnlest}{\delta \tau}\right)^2 \sigma_{\tau}^2+

689: \left(\frac{\delta \fnlest}{\delta n}\right)^2

690: \sigma_{n}^2} \; .

691: \eeq

692: Note that, as mentioned above, the correlation of $A_S$ with $\tau$

693: and $n$ is accounted for by the ansatz we have made for $A_S$:

694: \beq

695: A_S = \tilde{A}_S \exp\left[-a \tau -1.24(1-n)\right] \; ,

696: \eeq

697: whereas the correlation between $\tau$ and $n$ has been neglected in

698: the previous formula.

699: Using the expressions just derived above for ${\delta \fnlest / \delta

700:   \tilde{A}_S}$, ${\delta \fnlest / \delta \tau}$ and ${\delta \fnlest / \delta

701:   n}$  we finally get:

702: \beq 

703: \frac{\sigma_{\fnlest}}{\fnlest} = \sqrt{

704:   \left(2 \frac{\sigma_{\tilde{A}_S}}{A_S}\right)^2 

705:   + \left[ (4-a)\sigma_\tau \right]^2 

706:   + \left[2.5 -\frac{1}{2(1-n)} +\frac{1}{2} \log \left( \ell_{\rm max}

707:   \right) \right]^2

708:   \sigma_n^2} \; .

709: \eeq

710: The present WMAP 5-years analysis yields a fractional uncertainty on the

711: amplitude of the curvature power spectrum of order $3 \%$, while

712: $\sigma_\tau \simeq 0.016$ and $\sigma_{n} = 0.015$. Substituting

713: these numbers in the last formula yields a total fractional correction

714: of order $14 \%$ on $\fnlest$, in very good agreement with the

715: numerical results. If we now consider an experiment with the

716: characteristics of Planck, our Fisher matrix analysis give a

717: fractional uncertainty on $A_S$ of order $1.5 \%$, $\sigma_n 

718: = 0.004$, $\sigma_\tau = 0.005$. This produces a final fractional

719: correction of order $\simeq 5 \%$ on $\fnl$, again in very good

720: agreement with the numerical estimate.

721: 

722: To understand whether these corrections are negligible or not we have

723: now to

724: compare it with the 1$\sigma$ 

725: uncertainty $\Delta \fnl$ of the estimator, obtained with fixed

726: cosmological parameters. The WMAP analysis finds 

727: $\Delta \fnlloc \simeq 30$, $\Delta \fnleq \simeq 100$, and central

728: values $\fnlloc \simeq 60$ and $\fnleq \simeq 70$. Using the

729: fractional uncertainties above we get a contribution to the final

730: error bar from cosmological parameters uncertainties that amounts to

731: $\Delta \fnlloc \simeq 10$ and $\Delta \fnleq \simeq 9$.

732: The effect of propagating cosmological parameters uncertainties

733: can then be neglected for the equilateral shape, where the error bars

734: are larger, whereas it is

735: more important for the local shape 

736: (about $30 \%$ of the presently quoted error bar). 

737: If we now consider Planck, Fisher matrix based forecasts predict 

738: $\Delta\fnlloc \simeq 5$ and $\Delta \fnleq \simeq 60$. If we assume

739: the $\fnl$ central values found by the WMAP analysis we obtain a small effect

740: for the equilateral case, whereas $\delta \fnlloc \simeq 3$, i.e. of

741: the same order of magnitude as $\Delta \fnlloc$. This analysis then suggests that the

742: effect of propagating uncertainties in the cosmological parameters on the

743: final $\fnlloc$ error bar should be taken into account if large

744: central values of $\fnlloc$ are found with Planck. Note that a value

745: of $\fnlloc$ of order $60$ would mean a many $\sigma$ detection with

746: Planck. Correcting the error bar in order to account for error 

747: propagation effects would not change this result but it would on the

748: other hand modify the level of significance of such a detection.

749: 

750: Before concluding this section, we would like to stress again that the 

751: estimator of $\fnl$ currently employed in the analyses

752: fixes the cosmological parameters at their best-fit values. A way to

753: reduce the impact of the uncertainties on the parameters would be to 

754: perform a joint likelihood analysis in which the cosmological

755: parameters are allowed to vary and then marginalise over their

756: uncertainties. Obtaining a forecast of the final $\fnl$ error if this

757: approach is taken is the purpose of the next section.

758: 

759: 

760: 

761: \section{Fisher matrix}\label{sec:Fisher}

762: \noindent

763: As we were mentioning in the previous section, the optimal approach to

764: the $\fnl$

765: measurement would be to treat the cosmological parameters as nuisance

766: parameters and to marginalise over their distributions in order to get

767: the final $\fnl$ estimate. The

768: error on $\fnl$ can in this case be estimated by a Fisher matrix

769: analysis. If we consider a set

770: $\mathbf{p} = \{ p_i \}$ of cosmological parameters we can express the

771: Fisher matrix as \cite{KomatsuSpergel,SefusattiKomatsu}:

772: \beq\label{eqn:Fisher}

773: F_{ij} = \sum_{2 < \ell_1 < \ell_2  < \ell_3} \frac{\partial

774:   \Avbis}{\partial p_i} \frac{\partial \Avbis}{\partial p_j} \frac{1}{\sigma^2} \; ,

775: \eeq 

776: where $\sigma^2$ is the bispectrum variance. In the limit of small

777: non-Gaussianity we can take $\sigma^2 = C_{\ell_1} C_{\ell_2}

778: C_{\ell_3} \Delta_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}$, where $\Delta$ takes the

779: values $1$,$2$,$6$ when two $\ell$'s are different, two of them are

780: the same and all are the same respectively. Following the results of

781: the previous

782: section, we know that the relevant set of parameters to consider is

783: $\mathbf{p} = \{\fnl, A, n, \tau\}$. Two account for cosmological

784: parameter uncertainties we  

785: add a Gaussian prior on the ith parameter with variance $\sigma_i^2$,

786: where $\sigma_i$ is the standard deviation obtained from the two-point 

787: function likelihood analysis. This approach is feasible as long as we

788: deal with weak non-Gaussianity and the two and three point function

789: can then be treated as uncorrelated.  

790: A Gaussian prior on the ith parameter with variance

791: $\sigma_i^2$ is imposed by simply adding a 

792: $\frac{1}{\sigma_i^2}$ term to the $ii$ entry of the Fisher matrix (see

793: e.g. \cite{TegmarkEfstathiou}). Once the Fisher matrix has been computed, 

794: the error on the $i$-th parameter after marginalising over

795: the others can be estimated in the standard way as:

796: \beq

797: \sigma_{p_i} = \sqrt{F_{ii}^{-1}} \; .

798: \eeq

799: Before moving to the numerical evaluation of formula

800: (\ref{eqn:Fisher}) for the full set of parameters 

801: let us start with a simplified case in which only $\fnl$ and $\tau$

802: are considered in the analysis and let us for simplicity restrict ourselves to the local

803: case. In this case, having made the approximation

804: (explained in the previous section) ${\partial B / \partial \tau} =

805: \exp(-2 \tau) B$, a simple analytical calculation gives

806:   the following Fisher matrix:

807: \begin{equation}

808: F = \left(\begin{array}{cc}

809:           \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2}       

810:       &   -2f_{\rm NL} \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2} \\

811:           -2f_{\rm NL}  \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2}  

812:       &   4f_{\rm NL}^2 \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2}

813:        \end{array}\right)

814:         \; ,

815: \end{equation}

816: where $\sigma_B^2$ is the bispectrum variance defined above.

817: This matrix is singular for $f_{\rm NL} \ne 0$, meaning that $f_{\rm NL}$ and $\tau$

818: are degenerate parameters. Adding a Gaussian prior on $\tau$

819: with variance $\sigma_\tau^2$ breaks the degeneracy.

820: \begin{equation}

821: F = \left(\begin{array}{cc}

822:           \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2}       

823:       &   -2f_{\rm NL} \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2} \\

824:           -2f_{\rm NL}  \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2}  

825:       &   4f_{\rm NL}^2 \sum \frac{B_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \ell_3}^2}{\sigma_B^2}

826:           + \frac{1}{\sigma_\tau^2}

827:        \end{array}\right)

828:         \; .

829: \end{equation}

830: Inverting the Fisher matrix and taking the square roots yields the

831: final error on $\fnl$:

832: \begin{equation}

833: \sigma_{f_{\rm NL}} =

834: \sqrt{\frac{1}{\sum \frac{B^2}{\sigma_B^2}} 

835:                   \left( 1+4\sigma_\tau^2 f_{\rm NL}^2 

836: 		  \sum

837: 		  \frac{B^2}{\sigma_B^2} \right)} \; .	  

838: \end{equation}

839: If we call $\Delta f_{\rm NL}$ the estimated Fisher matrix error when we

840: {\em do not} marginalise over $\tau$ 

841: (i.e. the error usually quoted in the literature) then we see from the 

842: previous formula that:

843: \begin{equation}

844: \sigma_{\fnl} = \sqrt{(\Delta f_{\rm NL})^2 + 4 \sigma^2_{\tau} \fnl^2}

845: \; ;	  

846: \end{equation}

847: note the difference with respect to the previous approach in which

848: cosmological parameters were fixed. In that case the cosmological 

849: parameter errors biased the estimator and the uncertainties propagated

850: linearly (see also \cite{Creminellietal}):

851: \beq

852: \sigma_{\fnl} = \Delta {\fnl} + 2 \fnl \sigma_\tau \; .

853: \eeq

854: As we saw in the previous section, the error propagation scheme 

855: arising from the standard approach of fixing cosmological parameters

856: produces a relative correction of a few percent for WMAP and

857: Planck. We concluded that this correction is small but not always

858: negligible for Planck.

859: On the other hand the 

860: marginalisation approach used here makes the additional uncertainty 

861: much smaller than it was previously and always negligible, 

862: even for very large central value of $\fnl$, unless $\fnl$ is large enough

863: to produce a many $\sigma$ detection for a given experiment 

864: (see Fig. \ref{fig:errtau}).  

865: 

866: \begin{figure}[h]

867: \begin{center}

868: \includegraphics[height=0.6\textheight,width = 0.9\textwidth]{errtau.ps}

869: \caption{Correction to $\Delta {\fnl}$ after marginalisation over

870:   $\tau$ is performed in a toy model where only uncertainties over $\tau$ are

871:   considered. We plot the correction as a function of $\Delta

872:   \fnl$. The correction becomes significant only when $\Delta \fnl$ is

873:   small enough to produce a many $\sigma$ detection for a given $\fnl$.  

874: }\label{fig:errtau}

875: \end{center}

876: \end{figure}

877: 

878: As long as only the parameter $\tau$ is considered we can then

879: conclude that both for WMAP ($\sigma_{\tau} = 0.016$, $\Delta \fnlloc

880: \simeq 30$) and Planck ($\sigma_{\tau} = 0.016$, $\Delta \fnlloc \simeq

881: 5$) the correction to the $f_{\rm NL}$ error bars is totally negligible: 

882: $\delta \fnlloc < 0.2 \% \fnl$, assuming a central value $\fnl \simeq

883: 60$. 

884: From the formula above we basically see that

885: the effect of marginalising over $\tau$ is to suppress the correction

886: mentioned in the previous section by a further factor

887: $\Delta {\fnl}$. Moreover we recover the correction mentioned in the

888: previous section in the limit $\Delta \fnl \rightarrow 0$. All this

889: makes sense: the correction from cosmological parameters uncertainties

890: is significant only if the error bar on $\fnl$ before

891: marginalisation is comparable to the error bars on the other

892: parameters; moreover a full likelihood estimation optimises 

893: the final error bar on $\fnl$ with respect to an analysis in which the

894: cosmological parameters are held fixed. The same results arise when we

895: account not only for $\tau$, but we consider the full set $\{A, n,

896: \tau, \fnl \}$. In this case we evaluated $\delta \fnl$ 

897: numerically from formula (\ref{eqn:Fisher}) and obtained that the

898: correction on the $\fnl$ error bar after marginalisation is always 

899: less than $0.5 \%$. 

900: The conclusion is that if  a full

901: likelihood analysis including the two and three point functions 

902: is applied in order to estimate $\fnl$, then the

903: impact of cosmological parameters uncertainties is totally

904: negligible. 

905: 

906: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:Conclusions}

907: \noindent

908: In this paper we considered the effect of propagating cosmological 

909: parameters uncertainties on the estimate of the primordial

910: NG parameter $\fnl$. We firstly show that, accounting for

911: the large central value of $\fnl$ presently measured

912: \cite{YadavWandelt,WMAP5}, the final correction from parameters

913: uncertainties is of order $30 \%$ of the quoted $\fnlloc$ error bar for

914: WMAP and at about the same level of the predicted $\fnlloc$ error

915: bars for Planck. If a large $\fnl$ will be observed by Planck,

916: the effect of these uncertainties will then be not big enough to

917: change the conclusion that a large level of primordial non-Gaussianity

918: is present in the data. However the effect is important enough to change

919: the significance of the detection and should be taken into account

920: when quoting the error bars. We finally show that the effect of

921: cosmological parameters uncertainties becomes totally

922: negligible if we do not fix the cosmological parameters in the analysis,  but we 

923: treat them as nuisance parameters and marginalise over their

924: distribution in order to obtain the final $\fnl$ estimate. 

925: Even if optimal, this last approach is nevertheless

926: probably still inconvenient. A joint-likelihood 

927: evaluation would require a large amount of time and the final gain 

928: in the error bar would be significant only for large values of $\fnl$,

929: but those would produce a significant detection even in the 

930: sub-optimal approach. 

931: 

932: \acknowledgements

933: This work is partially supported by the European Community'sResearch 

934: Training Networks undr contracts MRTN-CT-2004-503369 and 

935: MRTN-CT-2006-035505.

936: 

937: 

938: 

939: 

940: 

941: 

942: \begin{thebibliography}{}

943: 

944: \bibitem{YadavWandelt}

945: A.~P.~S.~Yadav and B.~D.~Wandelt,

946:   %``Evidence of Primordial non-Gaussianity $(f_{\rm NL})$ in the Wilkinson

947:   %Microwave Anisotropy Probe 3-Year Data at 2.8$\sigma$,''

948:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 100}, 181301 (2008).

949: 

950: 

951: \bibitem{WMAP5}

952: E.~Komatsu {\it et al.}  [WMAP Collaboration],

953:   %``Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP\altaffilmark 1 )

954:   %Observations:Cosmological Interpretation,''

955:   arXiv:0803.0547 [astro-ph].

956: 

957: \bibitem{NGreview} For a review, see 

958: N.~Bartolo, E.~Komatsu, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,

959:   %``non-Gaussianity from inflation: Theory and observations,''

960:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 402}, 103 (2004)

961:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0406398].

962: 

963: \bibitem{standard} V.~Acquaviva, N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,

964:   %``Second-order cosmological perturbations from inflation,''

965:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 667}, 119 (2003)

966:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0209156];  J.~M.~Maldacena,

967:   %``NG features of primordial fluctuations in single field

968:   %inflationary models,''

969:   JHEP {\bf 0305}, 013 (2003)

970:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0210603].

971: 

972: \bibitem{curvaton}

973: K. Enqvist and M. S. Sloth,

974: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B626}, 395 (2002);

975: D. Lyth and D. Wands,

976: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 524}, 5 (2002);

977: T. Moroi and T. Takahashi,

978: {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 522}, 215 (2001)

979: [Erratum-ibid. {\bf 539}, 303 (2002)].

980: 

981: \bibitem{gamma1}

982: G. Dvali, A. Gruzinov, and M. Zaldarriaga,

983: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 69}, 023505 (2004); 

984: L.~Kofman,
  %``Probing string theory with modulated cosmological fluctuations,''
  arXiv:astro-ph/0303614.;  E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto and A.~Vallinotto,

985:   %``Curvature perturbations from broken symmetries,''

986:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 71}, 043513 (2005)

987:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0410546];  E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto and A.~Vallinotto,

988:   %``non-Gaussianity from broken symmetries,''

989:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 73}, 023522 (2006)

990:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0511198].

991: 

992: \bibitem{ek} K.~Koyama, S.~Mizuno, F.~Vernizzi and D.~Wands,
  %``NGities from ekpyrotic collapse with multiple fields,''
  JCAP {\bf 0711}, 024 (2007)
  [arXiv:0708.4321 [hep-th]]; E.~I.~Buchbinder, J.~Khoury and B.~A.~Ovrut,
  %``NGities in New Ekpyrotic Cosmology,''
  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 100}, 171302 (2008)
  [arXiv:0710.5172 [hep-th]].

993: 

994: \bibitem{dbi} M.~Alishahiha, E.~Silverstein and D.~Tong,
  %``DBI in the sky,''
  Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 70}, 123505 (2004)
  [arXiv:hep-th/0404084].

995: 

996: \bibitem{ghost} N.~Arkani-Hamed, P.~Creminelli, S.~Mukohyama and M.~Zaldarriaga,
  %``Ghost inflation,''
  JCAP {\bf 0404}, 001 (2004)
  [arXiv:hep-th/0312100].

997: 

998: \bibitem{shape} D.~Babich, P.~Creminelli and M.~Zaldarriaga,
  %``The shape of NGities,''
  JCAP {\bf 0408}, 009 (2004)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0405356].

999: 

1000: 

1001: \bibitem{second}N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``Evolution of second-order cosmological perturbations and
  %non-Gaussianity,''
  JCAP {\bf 0401}, 003 (2004)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0309692];
  N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``Enhancement of non-Gaussianity after inflation,''
  JHEP {\bf 0404}, 006 (2004)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0308088]; 

1002:  N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``Gauge-invariant temperature anisotropies and primordial  non-Gaussianity,''
  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 231301 (2004)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0407505]; N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``non-Gaussianity of Large-Scale CMB Anisotropies beyond Perturbation
  %Theory,''
  JCAP {\bf 0508}, 010 (2005)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0506410]; N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``The Full Second-Order Radiation Transfer Function for Large-Scale CMB
  %Anisotropies,''
  JCAP {\bf 0605}, 010 (2006)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0512481]; N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``CMB Anisotropies at Second Order I,''
  JCAP {\bf 0606}, 024 (2006)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0604416]; N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``CMB Anisotropies at Second-Order II: Analytical Approach,''
  JCAP {\bf 0701}, 019 (2007)
  [arXiv:astro-ph/0610110]; G.~D'Amico, N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
  %``CMB temperature anisotropies from third order gravitational
  %perturbations,''
  JCAP {\bf 0801}, 005 (2008)
  [arXiv:0707.2894 [astro-ph]]; C.~Pitrou, J.~P.~Uzan and F.~Bernardeau,
  %``Cosmic microwave background bispectrum on small angular scales,''
  arXiv:0807.0341 [astro-ph].

1003: 

1004: 

1005: \bibitem{KomatsuSpergel}

1006: E. Komatsu and D. Spergel, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001)

1007: 063002, [arXiv:astro-ph/0005036] 

1008: 

1009: \bibitem{SerraCooray}

1010: P. Serra, A. Cooray,

1011: Phys. Rev. D 77, 107305 (2008), [arXiv:0801.3276]

1012: 

1013: \bibitem{BabichPierpaoli}

1014: D. Babich, E. Pierpaoli, [arXiv:0803.1161]

1015: 

1016: \bibitem{BabichZaldarriaga}

1017: D. Babich, M. Zaldarriaga,

1018: Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 083005,

1019: [arXiv:astro-ph/0408455] 

1020: 

1021: \bibitem{Creminellietal}  

1022: P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis, L.  Senatore, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga, 

1023: JCAP 0605 (2006) 004, [arXiv:astro-ph/0509029] 

1024: 

1025: \bibitem{KSW1} 

1026: E. Komatsu, B. Wandelt, D. Spergel, Astrophys.J. 634

1027: (2005) 14-19, [arXiv:astro-ph/0305189]

1028: 

1029: \bibitem{KSW2}

1030: A. Yadav {\em et al.}, [arXiv:0711.4933]

1031:  

1032: \bibitem{Bluebook}

1033: ``ESA Planck, The Scientific Programme'',

1034: http://www.planck.fr/heading4.html

1035: 

1036: \bibitem{HuTegmark}

1037: W. Hu, M. Tegmark, Astrophys.J. 518 (1999) 2-23,

1038: [arXiv:astro-ph/9807130]

1039: 

1040: \bibitem{lambda}

1041: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/

1042: 

1043: \bibitem{Liddleetal}

1044: A. R. Liddle {\em et al.}

1045: Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 083512, [arXiv:astro-ph/0607275]

1046: 

1047: \bibitem{SefusattiKomatsu}

1048: E. Sefusatti, E. Komatsu,

1049: [arXiv:0705.0343] 

1050: 

1051: \bibitem{TegmarkEfstathiou}

1052: J. R. Bond, G. Efstathiou, M. Tegmark,

1053: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 291 (1997) L33-L41, [arXiv:astro-ph/9702100]

1054: 

1055: \end{thebibliography}{}

1056: 

1057: \end{document}

1058: 

1059: