1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\etal}{et\ al.\ }
6: \newcommand{\mdot}{\dot{\rm M}}
7:
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement From Python V}
13: \author{K. Coble\altaffilmark{1,2}, S. Dodelson\altaffilmark{3,1},
14: M. Dragovan\altaffilmark{4}, K. Ganga\altaffilmark{5},
15: L. Knox\altaffilmark{6}, J. Kovac\altaffilmark{1}, B. Ratra\altaffilmark{7}, and T. Souradeep\altaffilmark{7,8}}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, USA, coble@hyde.uchicago.edu.}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum, 1300 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA.}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Box 500 MS-209, Batavia, IL 60510, USA.}
20: \altaffiltext{4}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, 169-506, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.}
21: \altaffiltext{5}{Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 100-22, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.}
22: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA.}
23: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics, Kansas State University, 116 Cardwell Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.}
24: \altaffiltext{8}{IUCAA, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India.}
25:
26:
27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: We analyze observations of the microwave sky made with the Python
32: experiment in its fifth year of operation at the Amundsen-Scott South
33: Pole Station in Antarctica. After modeling the noise and constructing a map,
34: we extract the cosmic signal from the data. We simultaneously
35: estimate the angular power spectrum in eight bands ranging from large
36: ($\ell \sim 40$) to small ($\ell \sim 260$) angular scales, with power detected
37: in the first six bands. There is a significant
38: rise in the power spectrum from large to smaller ($\ell \sim 200$) scales,
39: consistent with that expected from acoustic oscillations in the early
40: Universe. We compare this Python V map to a map made from data taken
41: in the third year of Python. Python III observations were made at a
42: frequency of 90 GHz and covered a subset of the region of the sky
43: covered by Python V observations, which were made at 40 GHz. Good
44: agreement is obtained both visually (with a filtered version of the
45: map) and via a likelihood ratio test.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \keywords{cosmic microwave background - cosmology: observations}
50:
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52:
53: \section{INTRODUCTION}
54:
55: Since the detection of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background
56: by the COBE satellite, many experiments have measured the angular
57: power spectrum at degree and sub-degree angular scales (e.g.,
58: Netterfield et al. 2002; Halverson et al. 2002; Lee et al. 2001;
59: Miller et al. 1999). The Python V data set has sufficient sky coverage to
60: probe the smallest scales to which COBE was sensitive, while having a
61: small enough beam to detect the rise in the angular power spectrum to
62: degree angular scales, providing a link in $\ell$-space between COBE and
63: other recent measurements.
64:
65: Python V is the latest of the Python experiments at the South
66: Pole. Dragovan et al. (1994), Ruhl et al. (1995), and Platt et al.
67: (1997) describe Python I--III and Rocha, et al. (1999) derive constraints
68: on cosmological parameters from these data. Kovac et al. (1997)
69: describe the Python IV results.
70:
71: The Python V experiment, observations, and data reduction are
72: described in Coble et al. (1999). In that paper, we
73: analyzed individual modulations of the data. The modulations
74: can be thought of as filters which have little sensitivity to some of
75: the contaminants in the time stream. For example, they have no
76: sensitivity to gradients, which should get a large contribution from
77: the atmosphere and from the ground shield.
78: The modulation approach also provided a rapid
79: means of compressing a large amount of data (19 Gbytes) into a more
80: manageable size. Measurements of anisotropy were reported for eight
81: different modulations of the sky signal; the results indicated a sharp
82: rise in the power spectrum.
83:
84: In this paper we find the constraints on the power spectrum due to all
85: of the modulations simultaneously. We use the modulations as our
86: starting point, rather than the time stream, to take advantage of the
87: contaminant filtering and data compression. We extend the analysis of
88: Coble et al. (1999) by accounting for the correlations (in both signal
89: and noise) between different modulations. From the modulations we
90: find the best-fit map and its associated noise covariance. From this
91: map and its associated covariance matrix we estimate the power
92: spectrum simultaneously in eight bands.
93:
94: In $\S$ 2 we briefly review the instrument and the data set.
95: In $\S$ 3 we discuss
96: the estimation of the noise matrix. In $\S$ 4 we describe how to
97: use this matrix to construct a map and a noise matrix for the map.
98: This map is used in $\S$ 5 to estimate the angular power spectrum
99: in eight bands. In $\S$ 6 we check the power spectrum derived from
100: the map with the power spectrum derived directly from the modulated
101: data. In $\S$ 7 we compare the 40 GHz Python V data with the 90
102: GHz Python III data (Platt et al. 1997), which covered a subset of the
103: region of the sky covered by Python V. We find good agreement between
104: the two observations in the region of overlap, providing a
105: valuable consistency check. This is another
106: indication of a lack of significant foreground contamination (see also our
107: estimates in Ganga et al. 2002). We conclude in $\S$ 8.
108:
109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
110:
111: \section{INSTRUMENT AND DATA}
112:
113: We begin with a brief review of the Python V instrument and data,
114: emphasizing the terminology used to describe the different subsets of
115: data. More detailed descriptions of the instrument can be found
116: in Coble (1999) and Alvarez (1996). A more detailed description
117: of the Python V data set can be found in Coble (1999).
118:
119: The receiver consists of two focal-plane feeds, each with a
120: single 37-45 GHz HEMT amplifier. The two focal-plane feeds of the
121: receiver correspond to two beams at the same declination separated by
122: 2.80$^\circ$ on the sky. Each of the two feeds is split into two
123: frequency channels near 40 GHz, yielding a total of four data channels.
124: The receiver is mounted on a 0.75 m-diameter off-axis parabolic
125: telescope, which is surrounded by a large 12-panel ground shield.
126: The instrument was calibrated using thermal loads for the DC calibration;
127: the overall uncertainty in the calibration of the data set is
128: estimated to be (+15\%, -12\%) in $\Delta T$. The combined absolute and
129: relative pointing uncertainty is estimated to be $0.15^{\circ}$,
130: as determined by measurements of the Moon and the Carina nebula
131: ($\alpha=10.73^{\rm h}, \delta=-59.65 ^{\circ}$).
132: The Python V beam is well approximated by an asymmetric Gaussian of FWHM
133: $0.91^{+0.03}_{-0.01} {\rm deg} \times 1.02^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ deg ($az \times el$),
134: as determined from scans of the Carina nebula and the Moon.
135: Given this beam size uncertainty of approximately $0.015^\circ$,
136: the band power can move roughly by a factor of
137: $\exp ( \pm l(0.425)(0.015)(\pi/180) )$, only a $3\%$
138: effect at $l=200$.
139:
140: Python V observations were taken from November 1996
141: through February 1997. Two regions of sky were observed: the Python V main
142: field, a $7.5^{\circ} \times 67.7^{\circ}$ region of sky centered at
143: $\alpha=23.18^{\rm h}$, $\delta=-48.58^{\circ}$ (J2000) which includes
144: fields measured during the previous four seasons of Python observations and
145: a $3.0^{\circ} \times 30.0^{\circ}$ region of sky centered
146: at $\alpha=3.00^{\rm h}$, $\delta=-62.01^{\circ}$ (J2000), which
147: encompasses the region observed with the ACME
148: telescope (Gundersen et al. 1995).
149: The total sky coverage for the Python V regions is 598 deg$^2$.
150:
151: Both Python V regions are observed with a grid spacing of 0.92$^{\circ}$
152: in elevation and 2.5$^{\circ}$ in right ascension, in 345 effective
153: {\it field}s. There are 309 unique field positions, but some positions
154: are observed at different times of the observing season and are thus
155: counted as different fields for analysis purposes.
156: The telescope is positioned on one of the fields and the chopper
157: smoothly scans the beams 17$^{\circ}$ in azimuth in a nearly triangular wave
158: pattern at 5.1 Hz. One {\it cycle} corresponds to all of the data
159: taken in one back-and-forth scan along the sky. A cycle consists of
160: $128$ {\it samples} along the sky in the given field. A {\it stare} is
161: $164$ cycles, again centered on the same spot on the sky. One data
162: {\it file} consists of roughly ten stares, at adjacent fields on the
163: sky. Typically, a file corresponds to data taken over five to ten
164: minutes (depending on how many stares it contains). The telescope
165: remains on this {\it set} of fields for roughly $13$ hours, so any set
166: of fields is typically observed in about one hundred consecutive files.
167: This terminology is summarized in Table 1 and illustrated
168: in Figure \ref{fig1}.
169:
170: \placetable{tbl1}
171:
172: \placefigure{fig1}
173:
174: In software, the data are modulated such that the
175: {\it spatial} responses are cosines apodized with a Hann
176: window. In order to take advantage of the large sky coverage of Python V,
177: which allows us to probe large angular scales, we also use an additional
178: cosine modulation which was not apodized by a Hann window.
179: Data taken during the right
180: and left-going portions of the chopper cycle are modulated separately, to
181: allow for cross-checks of the data. Sine modulations are not used in the
182: analysis because they are anti-symmetric and are thus sensitive to
183: gradients.
184: The modulated data in a given stare is a linear
185: combination of the samples:
186: \begin{equation}
187: D_{ima} = \sum_{s=1}^{128} M_{ms} d_{isa}.
188: \label{eq:mods1}
189: \end{equation}
190: The index $i=1,\ldots,690$ labels the field and feed; $m=1,\ldots,8$ labels the
191: modulation; $a=1,\ldots,N_f$ labels the file which looks at a given
192: set of fields; $s=1,\ldots,128$ indexes the sample number; $d$ is the
193: unmodulated data which has been co-added over all cycles in a stare.
194:
195: A chopper synchronous offset, due to differing amounts of spillover,
196: is removed from each data file by subtracting the average of all
197: stares in a file. This is not just a DC offset; there is an offset
198: removed for each modulation. The chopper synchronous offset is
199: discussed in detail in Coble (1999), but typical values are 100 to 200
200: $\mu {\rm K}$ for each modulation, stable over a timescale of $\sim 5$ files.
201:
202: When the data are binned in terrestrial
203: azimuth, a periodic signal due to the 12 panels of the ground shield
204: is evident, especially in the lower-$\ell$ modulations. This signal of
205: period 30$^{\circ}$ is fit for an amplitude and is subtracted.
206: Removal of the ground shield offset
207: has less than 4\% effect on the final angular power spectrum
208: because when the data are binned in RA, the effect
209: averages out. The ground shield offset is discussed in detail in
210: Coble (1999), but typical values for the signal amplitude are
211: less than 100 $\mu {\rm K}$.
212:
213: Both the chopper synchronous offset and the ground shield offset
214: subtractions are accounted for by adding a constraint matrix,
215: {$\bf C^C$}, to the noise matrix (Bond, Jaffe, \& Knox 1998). The precise form
216: of these matrices is given in Coble (1999). Their impact on the final
217: result is minimal since they serve to remove only a handful of modes
218: from the analysis. In the Coble \etal (1999) analysis, the chopper
219: synchronous offset
220: and the ground shield signal were removed from the data, but the ground shield
221: constraint matrix was not included in the analysis. The constraint
222: matrix for the chopper synchronous offset was included in that analysis.
223:
224: After the data have been modulated and offsets removed, the right- and
225: left-going data, which have been properly phased, are co-added, as are
226: data from channels which observe the same points on the sky.
227: Data pointing at a field $i$ from all files are averaged to form
228: \begin{equation}
229: D_{im} = {1\over N_f} \sum_{a=1}^{N_f} D_{ima}.
230: \end{equation}
231: This final data vector has $5520$ ($=345$ fields $\times$ 2 feeds
232: $\times$ 8 modulations) components. The next section describes our
233: modeling of the noise properties of these data.
234:
235:
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237:
238: \section{NOISE MODEL}
239:
240: Accurate modeling of the noise is often one of the most difficult
241: tasks in CMB analysis. The noise model we develop below enables
242: us to estimate the angular power spectrum in
243: eight bands {\it simultaneously}. See Coble (1999) for a
244: more detailed discussion of the noise modeling of the Python V data.
245: In Coble et al. (1999), we modeled the noise only for
246: individual modulations. The noise model described here also models
247: the cross-modulation terms, allowing us to include cross-modulation
248: correlations in the power spectrum analysis. The noise level for the
249: Python V data is $\lesssim 1 {\rm mK s}^{1/2}$.
250:
251: Our noise model assumes that the covariance between fields taken with
252: different sets of files is negligible (as in Coble et al. 1999)
253: because of the chopper offset removal and because of the long time
254: between measurements. An analysis comparing the noise estimated
255: on different timescales indicates that Python V noise is dominated by
256: detector noise and is Gaussian.
257:
258: Since many different files look at the same field on the sky, there is
259: a simple way to estimate the noise covariance matrix. We first
260: estimate the noise matrix via:
261: \begin{equation}
262: \hat C^N_{ijmm^{\prime}}
263: = {1\over N_f} \sum_{a=1}^{N_f}
264: ( D_{ima} - D_{im} )
265: ( D_{jm'a} - D_{jm'} )
266: \label{eq:naive}
267: \end{equation}
268: where again $i,j$ index the different fields, $m,m'$ the eight
269: modulations, and we sum over all $N_f$ files which observe the fields
270: of interest. However, since there are typically only 100 files
271: for each field, the sample variance on the noise estimate
272: is $\sim 1/(100)^{1/2}$, or 10\%, which will
273: severely bias estimates of band power. Hence we do not
274: use this naive estimator.
275:
276: To obtain a better estimate of the noise, in Coble et al. (1999),
277: we averaged the
278: variances for each set of files and then scaled the off-diagonal
279: elements of the covariance to the average variance in a given set based
280: on a model derived from the entire Python V data set. In that paper,
281: $C^N_{ijmm'}$ was computed for each individual modulation,
282: i.e., with $m=m'$ only.
283: Several consistency checks were performed showing that
284: the final noise model for
285: the single modulation analysis was a good one.
286:
287: In this cross-modulation analysis, we initially extended the method
288: in Coble et al. (1999) to account for cross-modulation terms in
289: $C^N_{ijmm'}$, i.e., terms with $m \neq m'$.
290: To test this noise model, we constructed $\chi^2={\bf D}^t({\bf
291: C^N}+{\bf C^C})^{-1}{\bf D}$, for each observing set (which typically
292: includes of order ten fields observed $\sim 100$ times each). There
293: is very little CMB signal in any one set, so we expect $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ to
294: be close to one. The results fail this $\chi^2$ test,
295: indicating that a better model of the cross-modulation noise is necessary.
296:
297: To go beyond the initial estimators, we assume
298: the cross-modulation noise matrix factors as
299: \begin{equation}
300: C^N_{ijmm^{\prime}}=C^M_{mm^{\prime}} C^F_{ij},
301: \label{eq:cnijmm}
302: \end{equation}
303: where {$\bf C^M$} describes the cross-modulation correlations and {$\bf C^F$}
304: the field-field correlations. The cross-modulation correlations
305: are derived from the sample-space covariance matrix {$\bf C^S$}:
306: \begin{equation}
307: C^M_{mm^{\prime}}= \sum_{s,s'=1}^{128} M_{ms} C^S_{ss'} M_{m's'}.
308: \label{eq:cnmm}
309: \end{equation}
310: The matrix ${\bf C^S}$ describes the noise in the timestream as a
311: function of chopper sample $s$. To clarify, ${\bf C^S}$ is a 128
312: $\times$ 128 matrix, ${\bf C^M}$ is a $8\times 8$ matrix, and ${\bf
313: C^F}$ is a 690 $\times$ 690 matrix for Python V. Models for ${\bf
314: C^S}$ and ${\bf C^F}$ are needed in order to construct ${\bf C^N}$.
315:
316: If we assume that ${\bf C^S}$ depends only on
317: chopper sample separation $\Delta s=s-s^{\prime}$,
318: it can be computed from the following function:
319: \begin{equation}
320: f(\Delta s)={1\over N_S} \sum_{s}d_{s}d_{s+\Delta s}
321: \label{eq:fdeltas}
322: \end{equation}
323: where $N_S$ is the number of samples and $d_s$ is the unmodulated data.
324: For example, the $C^S_{12}$ component is given
325: by $f(\Delta s = 1)$.
326: In order to compute $f(\Delta s)$, a chopper synchronous offset is
327: first subtracted from the raw data. Then
328: $f(\Delta s)$ is calculated for each
329: channel, cycle and stare in a file. $f(\Delta s)$ is
330: then averaged over cycles, stares, and files.
331: Figure \ref{fig2} shows $f(\Delta s)$ for each channel
332: in one of the sets.
333:
334: \placefigure{fig2}
335:
336:
337: With this model for the sample correlation function, it
338: is now straightforward to compute ${\bf C^M}$ for each set and channel
339: following equation (\ref{eq:cnmm}). ${\bf C^M}$ matrices for
340: channels which look at the same point on the sky and for
341: right and left-going chopper data are averaged, yielding
342: ${\bf C^M}$ matrices for both feeds in each set.
343: As an example, ${\bf C^M}$ for one set and feed is shown
344: in Figure \ref{fig3}.
345:
346: \placefigure{fig3}
347:
348: In order to get a simple form for ${\bf C^F}$, the field
349: correlation matrix, we ignore the correlations between the
350: two feeds and assume the correlation between
351: fields $i$ and $j$ come only from the chopper offset subtraction. We
352: investigated several similar noise models and found that these
353: assumptions do not change the single modulation angular power spectrum
354: significantly, so we assume ${\bf C^F}$ is of this form for the
355: cross-modulation analysis.
356:
357: Finally, since this noise model is derived from sample to sample
358: fluctuations, it is larger
359: than the corresponding noise derived from the co-added data by a factor
360: of $\sim 10^4$, so $C^N_{ijmm^{\prime}}$ must be normalized to the
361: variance in the co-added data for each set. Since ${\bf C^M}$
362: accounts for the relative normalization of all of the modulations,
363: $C^N_{ijmm^{\prime}}$ must be normalized to the
364: variance in only one modulation of the co-added data for each set.
365: We normalize to modulation 8 because we expect the higher order
366: modulations to be
367: least affected by the ground shield.
368: Figure \ref{fig4} shows the $\chi^2$/dof for each set
369: using the final cross-modulation noise model, indicating
370: a good final noise model.
371:
372: \placefigure{fig4}
373:
374: As another check on the noise matrix used in the cross-modulation
375: analysis, single modulation band powers were computed using
376: the $C^N_{ijmm}$ components of $C^N_{ijmm^{\prime}}$. These are
377: consistent with the band powers given in Coble et al. (1999).
378:
379:
380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
381:
382: \section{MAPS}
383:
384: We want to estimate the power spectrum from the Python V
385: data. Ideally, given the non-circular beam, this should be done
386: directly from the modulated data. This would require us to form the
387: likelihood function from the covariance matrix for the $N=5520$ data
388: points. Inversion or Cholesky decomposition of matrices are $N^3$
389: processes so computational demands are significantly alleviated by
390: creating a map (with $N=1666$ at highest resolution) from the
391: modulated data and then estimating the power spectrum from the map.
392: This technique was used in an analysis of the MSAM-I experiment
393: (Wilson et al. 2000), for which the power spectrum estimated using the
394: map is consistent with the power spectrum estimated directly from the
395: modulated data. The inversion problem of map making and the circular
396: beam assumption used in it does call for cross-checks and verification
397: against likelihood analyses of the modulated data. The results of such
398: tests are summarized in $\S$ 6.
399:
400: The data can be expressed as:
401: \begin{equation}
402: {\bf D} = {\bf M}{\bf T} + {\bf n}
403: \label{eq:tdef}
404: \end{equation}
405: with noise covariance matrix $\langle nn \rangle = {\bf N} = {\bf C^N}+{\bf C^C}$.
406: As mentioned above, the data vector $\bf D$ has $5520$ elements.
407: The matrix ${\bf M}$ describes the experimental processing of the
408: underlying temperature field; it is equal to the modulations
409: with an index corresponding
410: to each pixel at which we estimate the temperature $\bf T$.
411: Given the modeling of the data as in equation (\ref{eq:tdef}),
412: the minimum variance estimator for $\bf T$ is
413: \begin{equation}
414: \hat T = \tilde {\bf N} {\bf M} {\bf N^{-1}} {\bf D}.
415: \label{eq:lincom}
416: \end{equation}
417: This estimator will be distributed around the
418: true temperature due to noise,
419: where ${\bf \tilde N}$, the noise covariance
420: matrix for the map, is given by
421: \begin{equation}
422: {\bf \tilde N}
423: \equiv \langle (\hat T - {\bf T})(\hat T - {\bf T}) \rangle =
424: {\bf \left( M^T N^{-1} M \right)^{-1}}.
425: \label{eq:cn_map}
426: \end{equation}
427:
428: The inversion in equation~(\ref{eq:cn_map}) is singular, so it is performed
429: via Singular Value Decomposition. It is obvious which modes are
430: singular and should be neglected. We have tested various thresholds
431: and found no change in the results. The pixels in the map are $30'$
432: in RA which corresponds to about $20'$ on the sky. Coarser grids gave
433: similar results for the band powers; as we will see, there is little
434: sensitivity to modes with $\ell>200$, so $20'$ (a third of the beam size)
435: is more than adequate.
436:
437: Another advantage of the map basis is that the theory covariance
438: matrix is simple to compute. In the map basis, the theory covariance
439: matrix simplifies to
440: \begin{equation}
441: {C^T_{ij}} = <T_i T_j > = \sum_\ell {2\ell+1\over 4\pi}
442: P_\ell(\cos\theta_{ij}) e^{-\ell^2\sigma^2} C_\ell,
443: \label{eq:ct_map}
444: \end{equation}
445: where $i$ and $j$ now refer to map pixels, $P_\ell$ is a Legendre polynomial,
446: and $\theta_{ij}$ is the angular separation between points. We take $\sigma =
447: (\sigma_{az} \sigma_{el})^{1/2} = 0.425 \times 0.96^{\circ}$.
448: Taking the beam to be circular will not change the band
449: powers significantly (see $\S$ 6). From equation~(\ref{eq:ct_map}), the window
450: functions in the map basis only depend on the angular separation
451: $\theta_{ij}$ and not on any of the details of the observing strategy.
452: This is a smaller basis than that used in the analysis of the modulated
453: data which accounts for beam non-circularity, described in $\S$ 6.
454: Indeed, one way to think of a map is that it is the linear combination
455: of the data for which the signal (and therefore its covariance) is
456: nearly independent of the specific experimental observing strategy. The
457: noise covariance for the map (eq. [\ref{eq:cn_map}]) accounts for
458: all of the experimental processing and the constraints.
459:
460: Although we are primarily interested in the map as a vehicle on the
461: road to the power spectrum, it can also be Wiener-filtered to produce
462: a realistic image of the sky. Wiener-filtered maps of both of the Python
463: V regions are shown in Figure \ref{fig5}. We use the unfiltered
464: map for power spectrum
465: estimation. The map serves another useful function apart from its use
466: for the power spectrum. One can use maps to compare different data sets
467: that were
468: processed in completely different manners. In $\S$ 7 we present a
469: visual comparison of Python III and Python V. First, though, let us
470: compute the power spectrum.
471:
472: \placefigure{fig5}
473:
474: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
475:
476: \section{ANGULAR POWER SPECTRUM FROM THE MAP}
477:
478: \def\cd{ {\cal C}}
479: \def\cl{ {\cal C}_\ell}
480: \def\C{ {\cal C}}
481: We now use the map to estimate the CMB anisotropy power spectrum. Because
482: the observations are far short of full sky coverage, we
483: cannot determine individual $C_\ell$'s. Instead,
484: we parameterize the theory covariance
485: matrix, {$\bf C^T$}, with the power
486: spectrum, $\cl \equiv \ell(\ell+1) C_\ell/(2\pi)$,
487: broken into bands of $\C_\ell$, denoted by $a$
488: \begin{equation}
489: \cl = \sum_a \chi_{_{a(\ell)}} \C_a;
490: \chi_{_{a(\ell)}} = \left\{
491: \begin{array}{r@{\quad:\quad}l}
492: 1 & \ell_{min}(a) < \ell < \ell_{max}(a) \\
493: 0 & {\rm otherwise}
494: \end{array}
495: \right.
496: \label{eq:cl}
497: \end{equation}
498: so that within each band $a$, $\cl=\C_a={\rm constant}$
499: and $\ell_{min}(a)$ and $\ell_{max}(a)$ delimit the range of band
500: $a$. We use eight contiguous bands of equal width, as given in
501: Table 2.
502:
503: Since the CMB anisotropy appears
504: to be Gaussian on the angular scales probed by the Python V experiment
505: (Park et al. 2001; Wu et al. 2001; Shandarin et al. 2002),
506: we can in principle use the theory covariance matrix for the
507: map (eq.~[\ref{eq:ct_map}]) together with the map noise
508: matrix, $\tilde N$, and the pixelized map data, $\bf T$,
509: to form the full likelihood function:
510: \begin{equation}
511: {\cal{L}}={(2\pi)^{-N/2}}
512: {{\rm det}({\bf C})}^{-1/2}{\rm exp}{(-\chi^{2}/2)}
513: \label{eq:like}
514: \end{equation}
515: where $\chi^{2} = \bf T^t {\bf C^{-1}} \bf T $ and ${\bf C}={\bf
516: C^{T}+ \tilde N}$. We can then find the $\C_a$ which maximize it by
517: conducting a direct, grid-based search in the full eight-dimensional
518: parameter space. In practice, this is of course unfeasible because it
519: would require of order ten likelihood evaluations in every dimension
520: of parameter space. The likelihood function computation requires an
521: inversion and a determinant of a large matrix (in our finest
522: pixelization, $1666\times 1666$), so it is certainly impractical to
523: attempt this $10^8$ times.
524:
525: Instead, we use the quadratic estimator (Bond, Jaffe, \& Knox 1998; Tegmark 1997)
526: to find the maximum likelihood band powers and their errors. Defining
527: \be
528: A_{a,ij} \equiv \left[{\bf C^{-1}} {\partial C_T \over \partial \C_a}
529: {\bf C^{-1}}\right]_{ij}
530: \ee
531: where {\bf $C$} is the full theory plus noise covariance matrix,
532: the Fisher Matrix which describes the errors is
533: \be
534: F_{ab} =
535: {1\over 2}{\rm Tr}\left[{\partial C_T \over \partial \C_a} A_b
536: \right]
537: \ee
538: and the quadratic estimator is
539: \be
540: \hat \C_a = \C_a^{(0)} + {1\over 2} F^{-1}_{ab}
541: \Big( \bf T A_b \bf T - {\rm Tr}\left[ {\bf C^{-1}}
542: {\partial C_T \over \partial \C_b} \right]\Big)
543: .\ee
544: We start from a flat spectrum (e.g. all $\C_a^{(0)} = 1000\ \mu {\rm K}^2$)
545: and iterate four times. Convergence to well within the
546: size of the error bars is usually reached by the second
547: iteration.
548:
549: The band temperature $\Delta T_\ell (= \cl^{1/2})$
550: results of the likelihood analysis are shown in Figure
551: \ref{fig6} and given in Table 2. The $\Delta T_\ell$
552: error bars here account only for the statistical uncertainties, and in
553: particular, do not account for the calibration or beam uncertainties.
554: The Fisher matrix is given in Table 3. We emphasize that the
555: values of the angular power spectrum differ from those in Coble
556: et al. (1999) because we are including more information in this
557: analysis: the cross-modulation correlations. Again, single modulation
558: band powers computed using the $C^N_{ijmm}$ components
559: of $C^N_{ijmm^{\prime}}$ are
560: consistent with the band powers given in Coble et al. (1999).
561:
562: \placefigure{fig6}
563:
564: \placetable{tbl2}
565:
566: \placetable{tbl3}
567:
568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
569:
570: \section{Comparison of Band Temperatures from Modulated Data and Map}
571:
572: The map has a much smaller basis ($N=1666$ at the finest pixelization) than
573: the modulated data ($N=5520$) and hence allows for speedier likelihood
574: analysis. However, map making is an extra step that needs verification. In
575: particular, the map analysis has to assume a circular beam when constructing
576: the theory covariance matrix {$\bf C^T$}.
577:
578: In the modulated data basis, the beam corresponds unambiguously to the
579: measured beam response function. The non-circular (elliptical) Python V
580: beam is an additional complication for {$\bf C^T$} computations.
581: Souradeep \& Ratra (2001) develop computationally rapid methods for
582: computing {$\bf C^T$} for experiments with non-circular beams. The constant
583: elevation scans of the Python V experiment allow us to exactly incorporate
584: the effects of beam non-circularity, without recourse to any approximation.
585:
586: The larger size of the modulated data basis makes the 8 band likelihood
587: analysis described in $\S$ 5 computationally expensive. We therefore choose
588: to compare the map basis and modulated data basis results using a simplified
589: analysis that accounts for the cross-correlation between modulations in a
590: limited manner. This likelihood analysis estimates the band temperatures in
591: each of the 8 $\ell$-space bins while holding fixed the other 7 band
592: temperatures at the central values obtained in $\S$ 5.
593:
594: Table 4 compares the band temperature estimates in the map basis and the
595: modulated data basis. The two sets of results agree to 0.5 $\sigma$. The
596: differences become larger for higher $\ell$ bins and possibly arise from
597: non-circular beam effects. Souradeep \& Ratra (2001) show that non-circular
598: beam effects become more important above the $\ell$ value corresponding to
599: the inverse beamwidth.
600:
601: \placetable{tbl4}
602:
603: The Python V band powers can be used in combination with the results of
604: other experiments to test for consistency and constrain cosmological
605: parameters. This can be done in a way that accounts for the
606: non--Gaussianity of the band power uncertainty by using the offset
607: log--normal form for the likelihood given in Bond, Jaffe, \& Knox (2000):
608: \be
609: -2\ln{\cal L} = \sum_{a,b}\left(Z_a^{\rm t}-Z_a^{\rm d}\right)M_{ab}^Z\left(Z_b^{\rm t}-Z_b^{\rm d}\right)
610: \ee
611: where
612: \be
613: Z_a^{\rm d} \equiv \ln(\C_a+x_a),
614: \ee
615: \be
616: Z_a^{\rm t} \equiv \ln\left(\sum_{l \in a}\C_l/N_l + x_a\right),
617: \ee
618: and
619: \be
620: M_{ab}^Z \equiv F_{ab}\left(\C_a+x_a\right)\left(\C_b+x_b\right).
621: \ee
622: Again $a, b$ denote bands. We have approximated the band--power
623: window function as a tophat with width $N_l = 30$.
624:
625: We have fit the $x_a$ and $\C_a$ parameters of this form to our
626: one--dimensional likelihood curves, as directly evaluated from the
627: modulated data in Table 4. The Fisher matrix comes from the quadratic
628: estimator applied to the maps. Table 5 gives the parameters of
629: the offset log-normal analytic fits to the band power likelihoods.
630:
631: \placetable{tbl5}
632:
633: Table 6 compares band temperatures estimated with and without the
634: circular beam approximation, from single modulation analyses where
635: the correlations between modulations are ignored
636: (as in Coble et al. 1999). The last column
637: corrects the results obtained by Coble et al. (1999) for a systematic
638: underestimation of the error bars by a factor of $\log_{10}e$. These results
639: also use the non-circular beam and do not use the flat-sky approximation
640: (Souradeep \& Ratra 2001). The effect
641: of the circular beam approximation on the Python V power spectrum is minimal,
642: but would be greater for an experiment with higher S/N.
643:
644: \placetable{tbl6}
645:
646:
647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
648:
649: \section{COMPARISON WITH PYTHON III}
650:
651: Using the technique of $\S$ 4, maps of the sky are
652: constructed from the Python III data. We compared the maps in two different
653: ways.
654: First, we decomposed each map into its signal to noise eigenmodes.
655: Keeping all the modes results in little useful
656: visual information since most of the features in such a map are noise.
657: Therefore, we excluded all modes with S/N
658: less than $1.7$; stopping at S/N $=1$ retains too
659: much noise. The resulting maps
660: are shown in Figure
661: \ref{fig7}.
662: Since Python III has higher S/N than Python V, it retains many more modes.
663: Therefore, not all the features seen in the Python III
664: map should be visible in the
665: Python V map. However, structures found in
666: the Python V map are evident in the Python III map,
667: implying that Python III and Python V are consistent with each other.
668:
669: \placefigure{fig7}
670:
671: While the visual comparison is quite useful, it is difficult
672: to judge the significance of the agreement in this manner.
673: For a more quantitative comparison we use the
674: $\beta$ test of Knox et al. (1998). This statistic
675: has a number of possible interpretations, one of
676: which is that it is the log of the ``probability enhancement
677: factor''. That is, it tells us how much more probable
678: the data sets 1 and 2 are viewed jointly, as opposed to disjointly:
679: \be
680: \beta \equiv \ln{ P(T_1, T_2) \over P(T_1) P(T_2)}.
681: \ee
682: This can be re-written in terms of the likelihood function:
683: \be
684: \beta = \ln {\cal L}(T_1,T_2) - \ln {\cal L}(T_1) - \ln {\cal L}(T_2)
685: \ee
686: The joint likelihood for the two data sets uses the likelihood equation with the data
687: and the noise covariance being a concatenation of those from the two data sets.
688: It also uses the theory covariance between the two sets.
689:
690: We find $\beta = 6.9$, which means that the data is $e^{6.9} = 992$ times
691: more probable viewed jointly than disjointly.
692: This shows that the data sets have significantly more
693: in common than they would if they were unrelated to each other.
694:
695: We can also examine how likely this value of $\beta$ is, under
696: these two different assumptions. The first assumption
697: is that the data sets are related to each other exactly as we expect
698: due to their locations on the sky, and our inference of
699: the signal power spectrum from the Python V data. With
700: assumption 1 we find that
701: $\langle \beta \rangle = 11.7 \pm 4.3$. If instead
702: we assume that the two data sets are completely unrelated (perhaps
703: because one is completely contaminated), then
704: $\langle \beta \rangle = -19.9 \pm 9.4$. We
705: see that $\beta$ differs by 1.1 standard deviations from
706: the expected value and 2.8 standard
707: deviations from the value {\it expected in the absence of
708: cross-correlations}.
709:
710: The $\beta$ statistic is model-dependent, but we found that
711: it changed by less than 15\% as we varied the amplitude
712: of the assumed power spectrum by amounts consistent with
713: the error bars and as we adjusted the calibration by $\pm 30\%$.
714:
715:
716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
717:
718:
719: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
720:
721: The Python V experiment densely samples 598 square degrees of the microwave
722: sky and constrains the CMB anisotropy angular power spectrum from $\ell
723: \sim$ 40 to $\ell \sim$ 260, showing that power is increasing from large
724: to smaller ($\ell \sim$ 200) angular scales. The noise matrix constructed in
725: $\S$ 3 enables us to simultaneously estimate the angular power spectrum in
726: eight bands. The power spectra estimated from the map and directly from the
727: modulated data are consistent. The rise seen in Figure \ref{fig6}
728: is characteristic of acoustic oscillations in the early Universe.
729: A number of other measurements also indicate such a rise in power
730: (e.g., Ganga, Ratra, \& Sugiyama 1996; Netterfield et al. 1997;
731: de Oliveira-Costa et al. 1998; Torbet et al. 1999; Podariu et al. 2001; as well
732: as experiments mentioned in $\S$~1).
733: Python V extends to larger scales (lower $\ell$) than these,
734: to the smallest scales to which COBE was sensitive.
735:
736: The Python III and V experiments differ in significant ways, including
737: frequency, receiver, year, and noise properties. Nevertheless, the maps
738: and the $\beta$ test in $\S$ 7 indicate that they both detect similar
739: signals, a rare and very valuable consistency check and confirmation.
740:
741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
742:
743: \acknowledgments
744:
745: This work was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, PYI grant
746: NSF AST 90-57089, and the NSF under a cooperative agreement with the
747: Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica (CARA), grant NSF OPP
748: 89-20223. CARA is an NSF Science and Technology Center. KC is supported
749: by NSF grant AST-0104465.
750: The work of SD was supported by the DOE and by NASA grant NAG 5-10842
751: at Fermilab, and by NSF grant PHY-0079251 at Chicago.
752: BR and TS acknowledge support from NSF CAREER grant AST-9875031.
753:
754: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
755:
756:
757: \begin{thebibliography}{}
758:
759: %\bibitem[()]{}
760:
761: \bibitem[(Alvarez 1996)]{alv} Alvarez, D. 1996, PhD thesis, Princeton University
762:
763: \bibitem[(Bond et al. 1998)]{bjkI} Bond, J. R., Jaffe, A., and Knox, L. 1998, Phys. Rev. D57, 2117
764:
765: \bibitem[(Bond et al. 2000)]{bjkII} Bond, J. R., Jaffe, A., and Knox, L. 2000, ApJ, 533, 19
766:
767: \bibitem[(Coble 1999)]{kc_thesis} Coble, K. 1999, PhD thesis, University of Chicago, {\tt astro-ph/9911419}
768:
769: \bibitem[(Coble et al. 1999)]{py5_1} Coble, K., et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, L5
770:
771: \bibitem[de Oliveira-Costa et al. (1998)]{deoliveiracosta98} de Oliveira-Costa, A., Devlin, M. J., Herbig, T., Miller, A. D., Netterfield, C. B., Page, L. A., \& Tegmark, M. 1998, \apj, 509, L77
772:
773: \bibitem[Dragovan et al. 1994]{dragovan94} Dragovan, M., Ruhl, J. E., Novak, G., Platt, S. R., Crone, B., Pernic, R., \&\ Peterson, J. B. 1994 ApJ, 427, L67
774:
775: \bibitem[Ganga et al. (2002)]{ganga01} Ganga, K., et al. 2002, in preparation
776:
777: \bibitem[Ganga, Ratra, \& Sugiyama (1996)]{ganga96} Ganga, K., Ratra, B., \& Sugiyama, N. 1996, \apj, 461, L61
778:
779: \bibitem[(Gundersen et al. 1995)]{jg} Gundersen, J. O., et al. 1995, \apjl, 443, L57
780:
781: \bibitem[Halverson et al. (2002)]{dasi} Halverson, N. W., et al. 2002, \apj, 568, 38
782:
783: \bibitem[(Knox et al. 1998)]{beta} Knox, L., Bond, J. R., Jaffe, A. H., Segal, M., \& Charbonneau, D. 1998 Phys. Rev. D, 58, 083004
784:
785: \bibitem[(PyIV)]{py4} Kovac, J., Dragovan, M., Schleuning, D. A., Alvarez, D., Peterson, J. B., Miller, K., Platt, S. R., Novak, G. 1997, BAAS, 29.5, 112.04
786:
787: \bibitem[(Maxima)]{maxima} Lee, A. T., et al. 2001, \apj, 561, L1
788:
789: %\bibitem[Miller (2001)]{miller01} Miller, A. D., 2001, GR16 proceedings to appear in World Scientific, {\tt astro-ph/0112052}
790:
791: \bibitem[Miller et al. (1999)]{toco} Miller, A. D., et al. 1999, \apj, 524, L1
792:
793: \bibitem[(BOOMERANG)]{boom} Netterfield, C. B., et al. 2002, \apj, 571, 604
794:
795: \bibitem[Netterfield et al. (1997)]{netterfield97} Netterfield, C. B., Devlin, M. J., Jarosik, N., Page, L., \& Wollack, E. J. 1997, ApJ, 474, 47
796:
797: \bibitem[Park et al. (2001)]{park01} Park, C.-G., Park, C., Ratra, B., \& Tegmark, M. 2001, ApJ, 556, 582
798:
799: \bibitem[Platt et al. 1997]{platt97} Platt, S. R., Kovac, J., Dragovan, M.,
800: Peterson, J. B., \& Ruhl, J. E. 1997, ApJ, 475, L1
801:
802: \bibitem[Podariu et al. (2001)]{podariu01} Podariu, S., Souradeep, T., Gott, J. R., Ratra, B., \& Vogeley, M. S. 2001, ApJ, 559, 9
803:
804:
805: \bibitem[Rocha et al. (1999)]{rocha99} Rocha, G., Stompor, R., Ganga, K., Ratra, B., Platt, S. R., Sugiyama, N., \& G\'orski, K. M. 1999, ApJ, 525, 1
806:
807: \bibitem[Ruhl et al. 1995]{ruhl95} Ruhl, J. E., Dragovan, M., Platt, S. R., Kovac, J., \&\ Novak, G. 1995, ApJ, 453, L1
808:
809: \bibitem[Shandarin et al. (2002)]{shandarin01} Shandarin, S. F., Feldman, H. A., Xu, Y., \& Tegmark, M. 2002, \apjs, 141, 1
810:
811: \bibitem[Souradeep \& Ratra (2001)]{souradeep01} Souradeep, T., \& Ratra, B. 2001, \apj, 560, 28
812:
813: \bibitem[(Tegmark 1997)]{teg97} Tegmark, M. 1997, Phys.Rev. D, 55, 5895
814:
815: \bibitem[(Toco 1997)]{toco97} Torbet, E., et al. 1999, \apj, 521, L79
816:
817: \bibitem[(Wilson et al. 2000)]{msamredo} Wilson, G. W., et al. 2000, ApJ, 532, 57
818:
819: \bibitem[Wu et al. (2001)]{wu} Wu, J.-H. P., et al. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 251303
820:
821: \end{thebibliography}
822:
823:
824: %%%%%%%%%%% Figures %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\cl
825:
826: \clearpage
827:
828: \begin{figure}
829: \epsscale{1.0}
830: \plotone{f1.eps}
831: \caption{Observing sets. Each set is observed for
832: approximately a day (leaving $\sim$ 13 hours of good data) before moving
833: on to the next set. Neighboring sets in the main Python V region overlap
834: by 1 field. Circles represent the fields and arrows point to the
835: end fields in each set.
836: In addition to the sets shown, sets ib, jb, kb, and lb were
837: observed with a scan pattern of 5 fields per file.
838: \label{fig1}}
839: \end{figure}
840:
841: \clearpage
842:
843: \begin{figure}
844: \epsscale{1.0}
845: \plotone{f2.eps}
846: \caption{Correlation as a function of sample separation,
847: $f(\Delta s)$, for all four data channels in one of the sets of files.
848: The noise is a combination of atmospheric and
849: instrumental noise. Channel 5 is our most
850: sensitive channel. Channel 3 is a dark channel.
851: These noise levels correspond to $\lesssim 1 {\rm mK s}^{1/2}$.
852: \label{fig2}}
853: \end{figure}
854:
855: \clearpage
856:
857: \begin{figure}
858: \epsscale{0.7}
859: \plotone{f3.eps}
860: \caption{${\bf C^M}$ for one
861: set and feed. Elements that are more than two modulations
862: apart are relatively uncorrelated.
863: \label{fig3}}
864: \end{figure}
865:
866: \clearpage
867:
868: \begin{figure}
869: \epsscale{1.0}
870: \plotone{f4.eps}
871: \caption{$\chi^2$/dof for each set using the final
872: noise matrix.
873: Typical number of dof is 96 (= 13 stares $\times$ 8 modulations less 8 constraints),
874: though some are much smaller.
875: The $\chi^2$/dof close to 1 indicates that the final cross-modulation
876: noise model is a good one.
877: \label{fig4}}
878: \end{figure}
879:
880: \clearpage
881:
882: \begin{figure}
883: \epsscale{0.5}
884: \plotone{f5.eps}
885: \caption{Wiener-filtered CMB map for the Main and South Python V regions. The maps are plotted with the same size and temperature scales. The unfiltered map was used for power spectrum estimation.
886: \label{fig5}}
887: \end{figure}
888: \notetoeditor{Figure 5 should span both columns in the printed version}
889:
890: \clearpage
891:
892: \begin{figure}
893: \epsscale{1.0}
894: \plotone{f6.eps}
895: \caption{Angular power spectrum from the
896: cross-modulation analysis. Band powers are
897: simultaneously estimated in 8 $\ell$-space bands.
898: Horizontal bars indicate the width of the bands.
899: Errors are $1\sigma$ statistical only and do not include calibration or beam
900: uncertainties. The last two bins do not show 2$\sigma$ detections.
901: The corresponding 2$\sigma$ upper limits on $\Delta T_\ell$ are
902: 174 and 211 $\mu$K, respectively.
903: \label{fig6}}
904: \end{figure}
905:
906: \clearpage
907:
908: \begin{figure}
909: \epsscale{1.0}
910: \plotone{f7.eps}
911: \caption{Comparison of Python V and Python III maps.
912: The maps are made using only the highest S/N modes.
913: Structures found in the Python V map are evident in the Python III map,
914: implying that Python III and Python V are consistent with each other.
915: \label{fig7}}
916: \end{figure}
917:
918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Tables %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
919: \clearpage
920:
921: \begin{table*}
922: \begin{center}
923: \begin{tabular}{|ll|}
924: \tableline
925: Term & Definition\\
926: \tableline
927: Field & Center position for an observation.\\
928: Cycle & One back-and-forth scan along the sky centered on one\\
929: & field. Consists of 128 samples.\\
930: Stare & 164 consecutive cycles, again centered on the same field.\\
931: File & Approximately 10 consecutive stares. Each stare is\\
932: & centered on a new adjacent field.\\
933: Set & Approximately 100 consecutive files (about 13 hours of\\
934: & data taking) of the same $\sim$ 10 fields.\\
935: \tableline
936: \end{tabular}
937: \end{center}
938: \caption{Data subset terminology. See Figure \ref{fig1} for a visual representation of the sets of fields.}
939: \label{tbl1}
940: \end{table*}
941:
942: \clearpage
943:
944: \begin{table*}
945: \begin{center}
946: \begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
947: \tableline
948: Bin & $\ell$ & $\Delta T_\ell\ (\mu {\rm K})$\\
949: \tableline
950: 1 & $44^{+15}_{-15}$ & $ 22_{-5}^{+4}$ \\
951: 2 & $75^{+15}_{-15}$ & $ 24_{-7}^{+6}$ \\
952: 3 & $106^{+15}_{-15}$ & $ 34_{-9}^{+7}$ \\
953: 4 & $137^{+15}_{-15}$ & $ 50_{-12}^{+9}$ \\
954: 5 & $168^{+15}_{-15}$ & $ 61_{-17}^{+13}$ \\
955: 6 & $199^{+15}_{-15}$ & $ 77_{-28}^{+20}$ \\
956: 7 & $230^{+15}_{-15}$ & $0^{+87}_{-0}$ \\
957: 8 & $261^{+15}_{-15}$ & $ 69_{-69}^{+71}$ \\
958: \tableline
959: \end{tabular}
960: \end{center}
961: \caption{Python V final angular power spectrum. This comes from the
962: cross-modulation analysis.
963: Note-- Band powers are simultaneously estimated in 8 $\ell$-space bands.
964: Error bars are 1$\sigma$ statistical only
965: and do not account for the calibration or beam uncertainties.
966: The last two bins do not show 2$\sigma$ detections. The corresponding
967: 2$\sigma$ upper limits on $\Delta T_\ell$ are 174 and 211 $\mu$K,
968: respectively.}
969: \label{tbl2}
970: \end{table*}
971:
972: \clearpage
973:
974: \begin{table*}
975: \begin{center}
976: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccccccc|}
977: \tableline
978: & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8\\
979: \tableline
980: 1 & 1.00 & -0.164 & 0.012 & -0.008 & -0.003 & -0.003 & -0.002 & -0.002 \\
981: 2 & -0.164 & 1.00 & -0.211 & 0.019 & -0.011 & -0.004 & -0.002 & -0.004 \\
982: 3 & 0.012 & -0.211 & 1.00 & -0.217 & 0.024 & -0.012 & 0.000 & -0.014 \\
983: 4 & -0.008 & 0.019 & -0.217 & 1.00 & -0.228 & 0.030 & 0.005 & -0.064 \\
984: 5 & -0.003 & -0.011 & 0.024 & -0.228 & 1.00 & -0.236 & 0.017 & -0.089 \\
985: 6 & -0.003 & -0.004 & -0.012 & 0.030 & -0.236 & 1.00 & -0.361 & -0.003 \\
986: 7 & -0.002 & -0.002 & 0.000 & 0.005 & 0.017 & -0.361 & 1.00 & -0.385 \\
987: 8 & -0.002 & -0.004 & -0.014 & -0.064 & -0.089 & -0.003 & -0.385 & 1.00 \\
988: \tableline
989: \end{tabular}
990: \end{center}
991: \caption{Fisher Matrix $F^{-1}_{ab}/(\sqrt{F^{-1}_{aa}F^{-1}_{bb}})$.}
992: \label{tbl3}
993: \end{table*}
994:
995: \clearpage
996:
997: \begin{table*}
998: \begin{center}
999: \begin{tabular}{|cccc|}
1000: \tableline
1001: $ {\rm Bin} $ & $ \ell $ & $ \Delta T_\ell\ (\mu {\rm K})$
1002: & $ \Delta T_\ell\ (\mu {\rm K})$ \\
1003: & & (Map) & (Modulated Data) \\
1004: \tableline
1005: 1 & $44^{+15}_{-15}$ & $25^{+5}_{-6}$ & $25^{+6}_{-5}$ \\
1006: 2 & $75^{+15}_{-15}$ & $23^{+5}_{-7}$ & $22^{+6}_{-5}$ \\
1007: 3 & $106^{+15}_{-15}$ & $34^{+7}_{-8}$ & $32^{+8}_{-7}$ \\
1008: 4 & $137^{+15}_{-15}$ & $51^{+9}_{-11}$ & $50^{+9}_{-9}$ \\
1009: 5 & $168^{+15}_{-15}$ & $60^{+12}_{-16}$ & $56^{+15}_{-17}$\\
1010: 6 & $199^{+15}_{-15}$ & $74^{+18}_{-25}$ & $67^{+22}_{-20}$\\
1011: 7 & $230^{+15}_{-15}$ & $0^{+56}_{-0}$ & $9^{+53}_{-9}$\\
1012: 8 & $261^{+15}_{-15}$ & $46^{+78}_{-45}$ & $70^{+39}_{-70}$ \\
1013: \tableline
1014: \end{tabular}
1015: \end{center}
1016: \caption{Comparison of angular power spectra from the
1017: map and from the modulated data.
1018: Note-- These are from analyses that account for the cross-correlations
1019: between modulations in a more limited manner than the full simultaneous
1020: band power estimation of Table \ref{tbl2}, as described in the text.
1021: Error bars are 1$\sigma$ statistical only.
1022: The last two bins do not show 2$\sigma$ detections. The corresponding
1023: 2$\sigma$ upper limits on $\Delta T_\ell$ are 112 and
1024: 202 $\mu {\rm K}$ (from the map) and 104 and
1025: 181 $\mu {\rm K}$ (from the modulated data), respectively.}
1026: \label{tbl4}
1027: \end{table*}
1028:
1029: \clearpage
1030:
1031: \begin{table*}
1032: \begin{center}
1033: \begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
1034: \tableline
1035: ${\rm Bin}$ &$x(\mu {\rm K}^2)$ & $\C_a (\mu {\rm K}^2)$\\
1036: \tableline
1037: 1 & 100 &620 \\
1038: 2 & 200 & 500 \\
1039: 3 & 500 & 1050 \\
1040: 4 &5000 & 2600 \\
1041: 5 &5000 & 3150\\
1042: 6 &6000 &4570\\
1043: 7 &20000 & 0 \\
1044: 8 &60000 &5000\\
1045: \tableline
1046: \end{tabular}
1047: \end{center}
1048: \caption{Parameters of the offset log-normal analytic form
1049: for the band power likelihood.}
1050: \label{tbl5}
1051: \end{table*}
1052:
1053:
1054: \clearpage
1055:
1056: \begin{table*}
1057: \begin{center}
1058: \begin{tabular}{|cccc|}
1059: \tableline
1060: Modulation & $\ell$ & $\Delta T_\ell\ (\mu {\rm K})$
1061: & $\Delta T_\ell\ (\mu {\rm K})$ \\
1062: & & (circular beam) & (elliptical beam) \\
1063: \tableline
1064: 1 & $50^{+44}_{-29}$ & $23^{+5}_{-4}$ & $23^{+5}_{-4}$ \\
1065: 2 & $74^{+56}_{-39}$ & $24^{+6}_{-6}$ & $24^{+6}_{-6}$ \\
1066: 3& $108^{+49}_{-41}$ & $30^{+7}_{-7}$ & $30^{+7}_{-7}$ \\
1067: 4& $140^{+45}_{-41}$ & $31^{+12}_{-13}$ & $30^{+12}_{-13}$ \\
1068: 5& $172^{+43}_{-40}$ & $60^{+16}_{-17}$ & $57^{+15}_{-16}$\\
1069: 6& $203^{+40}_{-38}$ & $102^{+24}_{-24}$ & $95^{+22}_{-22}$\\
1070: 7& $233^{+40}_{-38}$ & $69^{+34}_{-64}$ & $61^{+30}_{-57}$\\
1071: 8& $264^{+39}_{-37}$ & $0^{+90}_{-0}$ & $0^{+78}_{-0}$ \\
1072: \tableline
1073: \end{tabular}
1074: \end{center}
1075: \caption{Comparison of single modulation angular power spectra with and without
1076: the circular beam approximation.
1077: Note-- These are from analyses that ignore
1078: correlations between the modulations. The last column
1079: corrects the results obtained by Coble et al. (1999) for a systematic
1080: underestimation of the error bars by a factor of $\log_{10}e$.
1081: Error bars are 1$\sigma$ statistical only.
1082: The last two bins do not show 2$\sigma$ detections. The corresponding
1083: 2$\sigma$ upper limits on $\Delta T_\ell$ are 158 and
1084: 165 $\mu {\rm K}$ (for the circular beam) and 142 and
1085: 143 $\mu {\rm K}$ (for the elliptical beam), respectively.}
1086: \label{tbl6}
1087: \end{table*}
1088:
1089: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1090:
1091: \end{document}
1092:
1093:
1094: