1:
2: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \textheight 21cm
5: \textwidth 15.5cm
6: %---
7: %documentstyle[11pt,psfig]{article}\renewcommand{\textwidth}{14.5 cm}
8: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4,psfig]{article}
9: %\input{epsf}
10: \begin{document}
11: \pagenumbering{arabic}
12:
13: %\hoffset-1.0in
14: %\voffset-0.8in
15:
16: \begin{center}
17: \title{AMPLITUDE-PHASE ANALYSIS OF COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND MAPS}
18: \author{\hspace{0.5cm} P. Naselsky$^{2}$, D.Novikov$^{1,3}$ and
19: Joseph Silk$^{1}$. \\
20: $^1$ Astronomy Department, University of Oxford, NAPL, Keble Road, \\
21: Oxford OX1 3RH, UK \\
22: $^2$ Theoretical Astrophysics Center, Juliane Maries Vej 30,
23: DK-2100 \\
24: Copenhagen, Denmark \\
25: $^3$ Astro-Space Center of P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute,
26: Profsouznaya 84/32, \\
27: Moscow, Russia, \\
28: $^4$ Rostov State University, Zorge 5, Rostov-on-Don, Russia}
29: \date{}
30: \maketitle
31: \end{center}
32: \begin{abstract}
33:
34: We propose a novel method for the extraction of unresolved point
35: sources from
36: CMB maps. This method is based on the analysis of the phase distribution
37: of the Fourier components for the observed signal and unlike most
38: other methods of
39: denoising does not require any significant assumptions about the
40: expected CMB signal.
41: The aim of our paper is to show how, using our algorithm, the contribution from
42: point sources can be separated from the resulting signal on all scales. We
43: believe that this technique is potentially a very powerful
44: tool for extracting this type of noise from future high resolution maps.
45:
46:
47: \vspace{0.3cm}
48:
49: {\it Subject headings:} cosmic microwave background,
50: cosmology, statistics, observations.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55: Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is fundamental
56: for our understanding the primordial inhomogeneity of the Universe.
57: After the successful COBE experiment, attention has been focused
58: on the investigation of small scale perturbations, that can provide
59: unique information about the most important cosmological parameters.
60: One of the major problems in the modern CMB cosmology is to
61: separate noise of various origins (such as dust emission,
62: synchrotron radiation and
63: unresolved point sources (see e.g. Banday et al. 1996)) from
64: the original cosmological signal. Many authors have already applied
65: various
66: methods such as Wiener filtering (Tegmark and Efstathiou 1996, Bouchet
67: and Gispert 1999),
68: maximum entropy technique (Hobson et al. 1999), radical compression
69: (Bond et al. 1998),
70: power filtering (Gorski et. al. 1997, Naselsky et. al. 1999) and
71: wavelet techniques ( e.g. Sanz et al. 1999) to extract noise from the CMB
72: data.
73:
74: All of these techniques
75: have been tested for removing the noise from the real observational data.
76: It is necessary to note that, for different strategies and for different
77: experiments, different schemes could be chosen as most appropriate. The
78: choice
79: of the algorithm also depends on the particular type of foreground
80: emission
81: to be extracted.
82:
83: The aim of our paper is to overcome the problem of detecting and
84: extracting
85: the
86: background of unresolved point sources from the original map.
87: The measured signal in the real observational data is
88: always smoothed with some
89: filtering angle $\theta_f$ because of the final antenna beam resolution.
90: Therefore, unresolved point sources could make a significant contribution
91: to
92: the resulting signal on all scales.
93: This type of noise
94: should be removed from the original map before any subsequent
95: analysis is made.
96:
97: Recently (Cayon et al. 1999) have proposed the use of isotropic wavelets
98: for removing noise in the form of point sources. Their technique is
99: based on the fact, that the field in the vicinity of the source
100: should be in the form of the antenna profile. Unfortunately the Gaussian
101: CMB field can also form real peaks with the same profile, so that
102: a lot of 'artificial sources' could be found using this technique.
103: Besides,
104: the antenna profile is not necessarily isotropic (indeed, as a rule it
105: is very anisotropic). Therefore, isotropic wavelets should not be
106: considered as an absolute cure against such a type of noise.
107:
108: In this paper we consider an approach, which is based on the distribution
109: of phases. The idea of using phases of random fields was introduced by
110: A.Melott et al (1991); Coles and Chiang (2000a,b) for the Large Scale
111: Structure formation in the Universe. Below we develop the phase-amplitude
112: analysis method for investigation of the CMB anisotropy and foreground.
113: The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2
114: we briefly review the basic definitions, consider a simulated
115: one-dimensional
116: scan of the CMB first with a single point source, then with a background
117: of such a
118: sources. In section 3 we generalize our results into two-dimensional maps.
119: Finally, we suggest an algorithm for denoising.
120: In section 4 we
121: discuss the results and potential of the method for analyzing high
122: resolution maps.
123:
124: \section{Point sources in one-dimensional scans.}
125:
126:
127: In this section we consider 1D CMB scans with a
128: background of point sources. This approach could be very
129: useful for data analysis of one-dimensional experiments
130: with high resolution (such as RATAN 600). We extend this discussion
131: to two-dimensional experiments (such as the new generation of
132: interferometer experiments) in section 3.
133: The
134: investigation of point sources is especially easy in one
135: dimension, can be easily generalized into two-dimensional maps
136: and will help us to understand the advantage of the proposed technique.
137:
138: \begin{center}
139: {\bf Definitions}
140: \end{center}
141:
142: In 1D the deviation of the temperature from its mean value
143: $\Delta T=T- \langle T \rangle$ in a scan is
144: described by the simple Fourier series:
145:
146: \begin{equation}
147: \Delta T(\theta)=\sum_k a_k \cos(k\theta)+b_k \sin(k\theta)
148: \end{equation}
149: where k is an integer number and $\theta$ can be expressed in terms of
150: of the real angle on the sky ($\theta_{sky}$) as follows:
151: $\theta=\frac{\theta_{tot}}{2\pi}\theta_{sky}$. Here $\theta_{tot}$ means
152: the total length of the scan.
153:
154: The detected temperature fluctuations $\Delta T$ can as usual be naturally
155: divided
156: into two parts: cosmological signal and noise:
157:
158: \begin{equation}
159: \Delta T(\theta)=\Delta T^s(\theta) + \Delta T^n(\theta)
160: \end{equation}
161: where $s$ and $n$ denote signal and noise respectively.
162: Therefore, the Fourier transform components $a_k, b_k $ can be also
163: expressed
164: as a sum of Fourier decomposition of these two terms:
165:
166: \begin{equation}
167: \begin{array}{l}
168: a_k=a_k^s+a_k^n,\\
169: b_k=b_k^s+b_k^n.\\
170: \end{array}
171: \end{equation}
172:
173:
174: The statistically isotropic distribution of the
175: CMB temperature anisotropy is supposed to be in the form of a
176: random Gaussian field with the power spectrum $P_{CMB}(k)$, which
177: determined by the appropriate cosmological model. The coefficients
178: $a_k^s, b_k^s$ depend on the spectrum of the CMB, the antenna filtering
179: function
180: $\widetilde{F}(\theta-\theta^*,\theta_f)$ and the actual realization
181: of the random Gaussian process on the sky. In general, they obey the
182: formulae:
183: $ \langle a_k^sa_{k'}^s \rangle =
184: \langle b_k^sb_{k'}^s \rangle =\delta_{kk'}F(k,k_f)P_{CMB}(k)$.
185: Here, $F(k,k_f)$ is the
186: Fourier transform of the filtering function and $\theta_f$ is the antenna
187: resolution angle. $k_f$ is a wavenumber which corresponds to this
188: resolution:
189: $k_f=1/\theta_f$. In our simulations we use the usual expression for
190: $a_k,b_k$:
191:
192: \begin{equation}
193: \begin{array}{l}
194: a_k^s=\alpha_kF^{\frac{1}{2}}(k,k_f)P_{CMB}^{\frac{1}{2}}(k),\\
195: b_k^s=\beta_kF^{\frac{1}{2}}(k,k_f)P_{CMB}^{\frac{1}{2}}(k),\\
196: \end{array}
197: \end{equation}
198: where $\alpha_k,\beta_k$ are independent Gaussian numbers with zero mean
199: and
200: unit dispersion.
201:
202: In this paper we consider the noise in the form of isolated unresolved
203: point sources.
204: This means that the average distance between sources is larger than
205: the resolution scale $\theta_f$.
206: Therefore, the shape of the 'noise' field around the point source
207: determined by the
208: filtering function F:
209:
210: \[
211: \Delta
212: T_n(\theta)=\int\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}\gamma_j\delta(\theta^*-\theta)
213: \widetilde{F}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta^*-\theta,\theta_f)d\theta^*=
214: \]
215: \begin{equation}
216: =\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}\gamma_j\widetilde{F}^{\frac{1}{2}}
217: (\theta-\theta_j,\theta_f)
218: \end{equation}
219: where $\gamma_j,\theta_j$ are the amplitude and the position of the j-th
220: point source, respectively, and
221: $N_{ps}$ is the total number of point sources in the considered scan.
222: According to equation [5], the Fourier components of the noise can be
223: described by the following very
224: simple and convenient formulae:
225:
226: \begin{equation}
227: \begin{array} {l}
228: a_k^n=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}\gamma_j\cos(k\theta_j)F^{\frac{1}{2}}(k,k_f),\\
229: b_k^n=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}\gamma_j\sin(k\theta_j)F^{\frac{1}{2}}(k,k_f).\\
230: \end{array}
231: \end{equation}
232:
233: For further investigation we have to introduce the phase: $\varphi_k$ of
234: the k-th harmonic.
235: Using equations [1,3] one can write:
236:
237: \begin{equation}
238: \varphi_k=\arctan\left[\frac{b_k}{a_k}\right]=
239: \arctan\left[\frac{b_k^s+b_k^n}{a_k^s+a_k^n}\right]
240: \end{equation}
241:
242: If the resulting field at the scales $k$ is dominated by the Gaussian CMB
243: signal ($S_k/N_k>>1$),
244: then $\varphi_k \approx arctg(b_k^s/a_k^s)$. In this case the phases of
245: the k-th
246: harmonics are random independent uncorrelated values, uniformly
247: distributed from 0 to $2\pi$.
248: On the other hand, if the
249: signal at these scales is much smaller than the noise, then the
250: distribution of phases is
251: determined by the positions and amplitudes of point sources on the scan.
252: In Fig.1,
253: we present the spectrum of CMB in one dimension $P_{CMB}(k)$ for the
254: standard CDM model
255: together with the spectrum of point sources. Both spectra are smoothed
256: with the Gaussian
257: filtering function $F(k,k_f)=\exp(-\frac{k^2}{2k_f^2})$. It is well known
258: that the CMB
259: signal disappears when $k$ becomes larger than some value $k_d$. This value
260: corresponds to
261: the damping scale of the CMB fluctuations. Therefore, at the small scales
262: the resulting field
263: is dominated by the noise.
264: Note that $k_d$ should not be necessary interpreted as the damping scale.
265: Roughly speaking, this is the scale where noise from sources becomes
266: larger
267: then the CMB signal.
268:
269: \parbox{4.5in}{
270: {\includegraphics[scale=0.55,width=4.5in,totalheight=2.5in]{fig1.ps}
271: }
272:
273:
274:
275: \
276: {\small {\bf{Fig.~1} \ }
277: { The power spectrum of the CMB (solid line) for one-dimensional
278: ($360^o$)
279: scan together with the spectrum of point sources (dashed line).
280:
281: }}}
282:
283: \vspace{1cm}
284:
285: It is easy to see, from equations [4,6,7], that the process of smoothing
286: does not change the
287: phases of the primordial signal. The filtering function $F(k,k_f)$ has
288: simply disappeared
289: from the right hand side of the equation [7]. Therefore, if $k_f>k_d$,
290: we have the
291: possibility of measuring the phases only for high $k$ values of the noise.
292: Below we describe how
293: the information about the phase distribution for high values of $k$ can be
294: used for very
295: precise detection and extraction of the contribution from the sources for
296: all values of
297: $k$
298:
299: \begin{center}
300: {\bf Detection of a single point source}
301: \end{center}
302:
303: Let us consider the simplest example by dealing with a single
304: unresolved
305: point source on the scan. In order to remove the contribution from
306: this source, we have to know its precise location $\theta_1$ and
307: amplitude $\gamma_1$ (see Fig.2).
308:
309: \parbox{4.5in}{
310: {\includegraphics[scale=0.55,width=4.5in,totalheight=4.5in]{fig2.ps}
311: }
312:
313:
314:
315: \
316: {\small {\bf{Fig.~2} \ }
317: { Upper panel: simulated CMB field on $100^o$ scan ($1^o$
318: corresponds
319: to $\approx 0.03^o$ on the sky) (dashed line) and the field from a
320: single point source (solid line). Lower panel: the same as the upper one,
321: but
322: with better resolution. The field in the vicinity of the point source
323: behaves
324: like an ordinary Gaussian fluctuation.
325: }}}
326:
327: \vspace{1cm}
328:
329: The contribution from this source to the resulting field according to
330: equation [5] is then:
331:
332:
333: \begin{equation}
334: \Delta T_n=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{k_{max}}\gamma_1\cos(k(\theta-\theta_1))
335: F^{\frac{1}{2}}(k,k_f)
336: \end{equation}
337: where $k_{max}$ is the maximum value of $k$ that can be detected in the
338: experiment.
339:
340: As has been already mentioned, for $k$ larger then some value $k_d$,
341: phases $\varphi_k$ are just the phases of the point source. From equations
342: [6,7], we obtain:
343:
344: \begin{equation}
345: \varphi_k=mod_{2\pi}(k\theta_1)
346: \end{equation}
347:
348: It suffices to have only two phases (for example $\varphi_k$ and
349: $\varphi_{k+1}$,
350: $k>k_d$) to find the location of the source $\theta_1$:
351:
352: \begin{equation}
353: \theta_1=\varphi_{k+1}-\varphi_k
354: \end{equation}
355: In Fig.3 we show the behavior of the phases $\varphi_k$, $1<k<k_{max}$
356: together with the phases of the source. For small values of $k$: $k<<k_d$
357: the phases are distributed uniformly and at large $k$ we can definitely
358: see
359: the regular structure that is consistent with equation [9].
360:
361: \parbox{4.5in}{
362:
363: {\includegraphics[scale=0.55,width=4.5in,totalheight=4.5in]{fig3.ps} }
364:
365:
366:
367: \
368: {\small {\bf{Fig.~3} \ }
369: { The phases of the point source (circles) and phases of the
370: resulting signal: CMB + Point source (crosses).
371:
372: }}}
373:
374: \vspace{1cm}
375:
376: In Fig.4 we also show the positions of maxima for all harmonics. Location
377: of the maxima for the k-th harmonic can be found by the formulae:
378:
379: \begin{equation}
380: \theta_{max}^k=\frac{\varphi_k+2\pi*n}{k}
381: \end{equation}
382: where n is an integer number. The straight vertical line points to
383: the location of the source because one of the maxima in each harmonic
384: is coincident with this location.
385:
386: \parbox{4.5in}{
387:
388: {\includegraphics[scale=0.55,width=4.5in,totalheight=3.5in]{fig4.ps} }
389:
390:
391:
392: \
393: {\small {\bf{Fig.~4} \ }
394: { Positions of maxima for each harmonic. Each point
395: represents the positions of maxima for the k-th harmonic. For small k
396: they are distributed uniformly (according to the Gaussian distribution
397: of the CMB). The large dot shows the location of the source.
398:
399: }}}
400:
401: \vspace{1cm}
402:
403: The remaining part of the problem is to find the amplitude - $\gamma_1$.
404: Let us defined the field $\Delta T^{k_d}(\theta)$ as a part of the field
405: $\Delta T(\theta)$ that consists only of the high harmonics:
406:
407: \begin{equation}
408: \Delta T^{k_d}(\theta)=\sum\limits_{k=k_d}^{k_{max}}a_k \cos(k\theta)+b_k
409: \sin(k\theta)
410: \end{equation}
411: Using the formulae [8], we now can write down the obvious relation:
412: \begin{equation}
413: \gamma_1= \Delta T^{k_d}(\theta_1)/\sum\limits_{k=k_d}^{k_{max}}F(k,k_f)
414: \end{equation}
415:
416: Therefore, according to [3,6], we have found the contribution from this
417: source to all harmonics from $k=1$ to $k=k_{max}$.
418:
419: \begin{center}
420: {\bf Background of point sources}
421: \end{center}
422:
423: In this subsection we generalize our algorithm to the case where there are
424: an unknown number of point sources in the considered scan. In a situation
425: like this, we have to find not only positions and amplitudes of each
426: source but also the total number of them: $N_{ps}$.
427:
428: We believe that many different techniques based on the results
429: of the previous subsection could be proposed to solve this
430: problem. We suggest a simple iteration scheme.
431: As has been already noticed above, we can consider the
432: field $\Delta T^{k_d}$, which consists only of high harmonics.
433: Therefore, only point sources make a contribution to this
434: field:
435: \begin{equation}
436: \begin{array} {l}
437: \Delta T^{k_d}(\theta)=\sum\limits_{k=k_d}^{k_{max}}a_k^n \cos(k\theta)
438: +b_k^n \sin(k\theta)=\\
439: =\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}
440: \gamma_j\sum\limits_{k=k_d}^{k_{max}}
441: F^{\frac{1}{2}}(k,k_f)\cos(k(\theta-\theta_j))
442: \end{array}
443: \end{equation}
444: We now introduce the filter function $L(k)=F(k-k_d,k_l)/F(k,k_f)$
445: and consider the filtered field:
446: \begin{equation}
447: \Delta \widetilde{T}_k^{k_d}=\Delta {T}_k^{k_d}L^{\frac{1}{2}}(k)
448: \end{equation}
449: According to [14,15], one can write:
450:
451: \begin{equation}
452: \begin{array} {l}
453: \Delta \widetilde{T}^{k_d}(\theta)=\\
454: \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}\gamma_j
455:
456: \cos(k_d(\theta-\theta_j))\sum\limits_{k=1}^{kmax-k_d}
457: \cos(k(\theta-\theta_j))F(k,k_l)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
458:
459: %\hspace{1cm}
460: -\sin(k_d(\theta-\theta_j))\sum\limits_{k=1}^{kmax-k_d}
461: \sin(k(\theta-\theta_j))F(k,k_l)^{\frac{1}{2}}
462:
463: \end{array}
464: \end{equation}
465: If we can put $k_l<<k_d<<k_{max}$, then the second term on the right hand
466: side of equation [16] is small and:
467:
468: \begin{equation}
469: \Delta \widetilde{T}^{k_d}(\theta) \approx
470: \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}\gamma_j
471: \sum\limits_{k=1}^{kmax-k_d}
472: \cos(k(\theta-\theta_j))F(k,k_l)^{\frac{1}{2}}
473: \end{equation}
474: This equation is very close to [8] and, therefore, the procedure of
475: filtering gives us the possibility of 'localizing' the field in the
476: vicinity
477: of a point source.
478:
479: In reality equation [17] is not quite correct because $k_d$ and $k_{max}$
480: are values of approximately the same order and, therefore, peaks,
481: that are more or less close to each other can interfere (fig. 4).
482: This is the reason
483: why we choose the iteration technique to remove point sources.
484:
485: We propose the following algorithm. Let us construct the field
486: $\Delta \widetilde{T}_o^{k_d}=\Delta \widetilde{T}^{k_d}$
487: and find its highest maximum. This
488: maximum most probably corresponds to the most powerful isolated
489: point source on the scan. The position and value of this maximum
490: give us the location $\theta_1$ and the amplitude $\gamma_1$ (eq[13])
491: of this source.
492: After that, we construct
493: the field $\Delta \widetilde{T}_1^{k_d}$ 'without' this point source:
494:
495: \begin{equation}
496: \Delta \widetilde{T}_1^{k_d}(\theta)=\Delta \widetilde{T}_0^{k_d}(\theta)-
497: \gamma_1\sum\limits_{k=k_d}^{kmax}
498: \cos(k(\theta-\theta_1))L(k,k_l)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
499: \end{equation}
500: The contribution from this source to the field and its interference
501: with other sources is now removed. This allows us to find more
502: precisely the next highest maximum. Therefore, we apply the same procedure
503: to the field $\Delta \widetilde{T}_1^{k_d}$ and find $\theta_2$,
504: $\gamma_2$
505: and so on (Fig.5).
506:
507: \parbox{4.5in}{
508: {\includegraphics[scale=0.55,width=4.5in,totalheight=4.5in]{fig5.ps}
509: }
510:
511:
512:
513: \
514: {\small {\bf{Fig.~5} \ }
515: { The iteration scheme. Each panel represents the residuals
516: $\Delta \widetilde{T}_i^{k_d}$ from
517: the initial field $\Delta \widetilde{T}_o^{k_d}=
518: \Delta \widetilde{T}^{k_d}$ after the i-th iteration.
519:
520: }}}
521:
522: \vspace{1cm}
523:
524:
525: We perform these iterations until the dispersion $\sigma_i^{k_d}$
526: ($(\sigma_i^{k_d})^2=\langle(\Delta \widetilde{T}_i^{k_d})^2 \rangle$)
527: becomes significantly smaller then $\sigma_o^{k_d}$ (Fig.6).
528: The total number of iterations that is needed to significantly reduce
529: the initial dispersion gives us approximately the number of point sources
530: $N_{ps}$ and each iteration gives the location $\theta_i$ and the
531: amplitude
532: $\gamma_i$ of the i-th source.
533: Note, that
534: \begin{equation}
535: (\sigma_i^{k_d})^2=\sum\limits_{j}\gamma_j^2,
536: \hspace{1cm}\gamma_j<\gamma_i
537: \end{equation}
538: and roughly speaking, in Fig.7 we can see the cumulative distribution
539: of point sources over the power $\gamma$.
540: Finally, since we have the position $\theta_i$ and amplitude $\gamma_i$,
541: the contribution
542: to the field from all point sources may be
543: removed in the same manner, as was done for a single point
544: source in the previous subsection.
545:
546:
547:
548: \parbox{4.5in}{
549: {\includegraphics[scale=0.55,width=4.5in,totalheight=3.5in]{fig6.ps}
550: }
551:
552:
553:
554: \
555: {\small {\bf{Fig.~6} \ }
556: {The decrease of the dispersion for
557: $\Delta \widetilde{T}^{k_d}$ with each iteration.
558:
559: }}}
560:
561: \parbox{4.5in}{
562: {\includegraphics[scale=0.55,width=4.5in,totalheight=3.5in]{fig7.ps}
563: }
564:
565:
566:
567: \
568: {\small {\bf{Fig.~7} \ }
569: { The final result. The initial field of point sources (solid line),
570: restored field by our method (dashed line), and residuals (dotted line).
571:
572: }}}
573:
574: \newpage
575:
576:
577: \vspace{1cm}
578:
579:
580:
581: \section{Point sources in two dimensions.}
582:
583: In this section we briefly describe our results in two dimensions.
584: Without loss of generality we may consider a small region of the
585: sky and assume that the geometry is approximately flat. Under
586: this assumption, the part of the detected signal which is determined
587: by the noise associated with $N_{ps}$ point sources can be represented
588: according to the previous section by writing:
589:
590: \begin{equation}
591: \begin{array} {l}
592: \Delta T_n(\vec{x})=\sum\limits_{\vec{k}}a_k^n \cos(\vec{k}\vec{x})
593: +b_k^n \sin(\vec{k}\vec{x})=\\
594: \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}
595: \gamma_j\sum\limits_{\vec{k}}
596: F^{\frac{1}{2}}(\vec{k},|\vec{k}_f|)\cos(\vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_j))
597: \end{array}
598: \end{equation}
599: where $\vec{x}_j$ is the position of the j-th point source in the
600: Cartesian
601: coordinate system and $|\vec{k}_f|$ corresponds to the antenna resolution.
602: Analogously to the one-dimensional case, this field should be filtered with
603: some appropriate function.
604: The convenient filter function $L(\vec{k})$ that we use in this case is as
605: follows:
606:
607: \begin{equation}
608: \begin{array} {l}
609: L(\vec{k})=F^{-1}(\vec(k),|\vec{k}_f|) \hspace{0.8cm} if \hspace{0.2cm}
610: |\vec{k}_d|<|\vec{k}|<|\vec{k}_{max}|,\\
611: L(\vec{k})=0 \hspace{1.1cm} if \hspace{0.4cm} |\vec{k}|<|\vec{k}_d|
612: \hspace{0.2cm} or
613: \hspace{0.2cm} |\vec{k}|>|\vec{k}_{max}|.
614: \end{array}
615: \end{equation}
616: According to [15,20,21] one can write:
617:
618: \begin{equation}
619: \Delta \widetilde{T}^{k_d}(\vec{k})= \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{ps}}\gamma_j
620: \sum\limits_{|\vec{k}|=|\vec{k}_d|}^{|\vec{k}|=|\vec{k}_{max}|}
621: \cos(\vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_j))
622: \end{equation}
623: Therefore, the filtered function $\Delta \widetilde{T}^{k_d}(\vec{k})$ at
624: the point $\vec{x}=\vec{x}_j$
625: has a peak with amplitude equal to the power of j-th point source times the
626: number of modes that we
627: can use for data analysis in the appropriate experiment.
628:
629: In our simulations of the signal+noise we use the standard CDM model and
630: background of
631: 100 point sources randomly distributed over the $10^o \times 10^o$ map.
632: Without loss of
633: generality we use the
634: simple symmetric Gaussian antenna profile. All these calculations, of
635: course, could be done for any arbitrary antenna beam.
636: In Fig.8 we show the map of the CMB
637: together with the maps of noise, CMB+noise and the filtered map of
638: CMB+noise. The last
639: one shows us more or less clearly the positions and powers of point
640: sources. The significant
641: anisotropy that appears in the last map occurs for the following reason.
642: According to
643: formulae [21] we use only the set of harmonics $k_1,k_2$, that obey the
644: relation
645: $k_1^2+k_2^2>k_d^2$. Therefore, the number of horizontal and vertical waves is
646: larger than the number of waves in any other direction. (This problem does not
647: occur if we use
648: spherical harmonics $Y_l^m$ with $l>l_d$).
649:
650: We apply the same iteration technique as in the previous section and
651: therefore separate
652: noise from the cosmological signal (Fig.9). It is necessary to note that
653: each iteration
654: removes an appropriate point source at the beginning of this
655: process for the
656: most powerful and separated sources.
657: For the weaker sources, additional iterations are needed.
658: The signal from the j-th source
659: decreases as
660: $\approx \frac{\gamma_j}{((\vec{k}_{max}-\vec{k_d})\delta r)^2}$, where
661: $\delta r$
662: is the distance from the peak (in one dimension this dependence is
663: linear).
664:
665: \newpage
666: \textheight 8.5in
667: \hoffset-1.5in
668:
669: \begin{center}
670: \parbox{7.5in}{
671: \includegraphics[scale=0.8,width=7.5in,totalheight=7.5in]{fig8.ps}
672:
673: \begin{center}
674: {\small {\bf{Fig.~8} \ }
675: {Simulated sky maps of $10^o \times 10^o$.
676:
677: }}
678: \end{center}
679: }
680: \end{center}
681:
682:
683: \begin{center}
684: \parbox{7.5in}{
685: \includegraphics[scale=0.8,width=7.5in,totalheight=7.5in]{fig9.ps}
686:
687: \begin{center}
688: {\small {\bf{Fig.~9} \ }
689: {Noise maps (i.e. removed sources) after different numbers of iterations.
690: The size and shading of each source is proportional to its amplitude.
691:
692: }}
693: \end{center}
694: }
695: \end{center}
696: \newpage
697: \textheight 21cm
698: \hoffset-0in
699:
700: This
701: affects the neighboring peaks and can change their
702: amplitudes. Therefore,
703: this approximation works if $((\vec{k}_{max}-\vec{k_d})\delta r_{ij})^2
704: <<\frac{\gamma_i}{\gamma_j}$, where $r_{ij}$ is the separation between
705: the i-th and j-th
706: peaks (the i-th peak is the closest to the j-th peak). Otherwise, the
707: amplitudes that have been
708: found
709: in each iteration would not correspond to the powers of the sources and
710: we therefore
711: have to perform a
712: number of iterations that is larger than the number of sources.
713:
714: \section{Conclusions}
715:
716: In this paper we present a powerful method for extraction of unresolved
717: point sources from future high resolution CMB maps (such as MAP, Planck,
718: VSA, CBI, DASY, AMI and RATAN 600).
719: Our method is based on the distribution of phases.
720: The most important advantage of our technique is that we do not make any
721: strong
722: assumptions about the expected CMB signal as well as about the antenna
723: profile.
724: Most other techniques use the estimated power spectrum of the
725: CMB and noise
726: before the
727: data analysis is implemented (e.g. Wiener filter) or they require special
728: assumptions about the antenna profile (e.g., wavelets techniques).
729: It is worth stressing that, for example, assumptions about the CMB power
730: spectrum
731: can lead to incorrect interpretations of the observational data. Roughly
732: speaking, by making such assumptions, one runs the risk of generating the
733: result one wants and any discrepancies are consider to be errors.
734:
735: Our algorithm is numerically very efficient. It is a linear
736: algorithm and requires $Nln(N)\times N_{ps}$ operations, where N is the
737: number of
738: pixels. Therefore it can be
739: easily applied to the analysis of large data sets.
740: We have demonstrated the accuracy which can be achieved using
741: our algorithm to remove the contribution from point sources on all
742: scales.
743: We believe that this technique is potentially a very powerful
744: tool for extracting this type of noise from future high resolution maps.
745:
746: \begin{center}
747: {\bf Acknowledgments}
748: \end{center}
749: We are very grateful to I.Novikov and A.Doroshkevich for discussions
750: and P.Coles and R.Scherrer for informative communications.
751: This investigation was partly supported by INTAS under grant number
752: 97-1192, by RFFI under grant 17625 and by Danmarks Grundforkskningfond
753: through its support for TAC.
754:
755: \begin{center}
756: {\bf References}
757: \end{center}
758: .\\
759: Banday, A.J., Gorski, K.M., Bennett, C.L., Hinshaw, G.,
760: Kogut, A., \&
761: Smoot, G.F., ApJ. Letters, {\bf 468}, 85, 1996\\
762: Bond, J.R., A.N.Jaffe and L.Knox, Phys. Rev. D. 57,
763: 2117, 1998.\\
764: Bouchet, F.R. \& Gispert, R. 1999, astro-ph/9903176\\
765: Cayon, L., Sanz, J.L., Barreiro., R.B., Martinez-Gonzalez, E.,
766: Vielva, P., Toffolatti, L., Silk, J., Diego, J.M. and
767: F. Argueso astro-ph/9912471\\
768: Coles, P. and L.Y.Chiang, MNRAS, {\bf 311}, 809, 2000a.\\
769: Coles, P. and L.Y.Chiang, Nature, {\bf 406}, 376-378, 2000b.\\
770: Hobson, M.P., Barreiro, R.B., Toffolatti, L., Lasenby, A.N.,
771: Sanz, J.L., Jones, A.W. \& Bouchet, F.R. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 232.\\
772: Gorski, K.M., Proceedings of the 31-st Recontres de Marion
773: Astrophysics Meeting, p. 77, 1997, astro-ph/9701191.\\
774: Guiderdony, B. 1999, astro-ph/9903112\\
775: Melott, A., S. Shandarin and R. Scherrer, ApJ. {\bf 377},
776: 79, 1991.\\
777: Novikov, D.I., Naselsky, P.D., Jorgensen, H.E., Christensen,
778: P.R., Novikov, I.D., Norgaarrd-Nielsen, H.U., astro-ph/0001432\\
779: Sanz, J.L., Barreiro, R.B., Cayon, L., Martinez-Gonzalez, E.,
780: Ruiz, G.A., Diaz, F.J., Argueso, F., Silk, J., and
781: L. Toffolatti, 1999, astro-ph/9909497\\
782: Tegmark,M. \& Efstathiou, G. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1297.
783:
784: \end{document}
785:
786:
787:
788:
789: