1: % for apj submission
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn]{emulateapj}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: % for preprints
7: %\documentclass{article}
8: %\usepackage{times}
9: %\usepackage[oneolumn]{emulateapj}
10: \usepackage{natbib}
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
12:
13: %\usepackage{flushrt}
14: %\input aas_journals.tex
15:
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
17: %\usepackage{epsfig}
18: %\usepackage{graphicx}
19: %\usepackage{amssymb}
20:
21: %\slugcomment{Submitted to the \emph{ApJ Letters}
22:
23: %\usepackage{epsfig}
24: %\topmargin=-1in
25: %\oddsidemargin=0in
26: %\evensidemargin=0in
27: %\textheight=9.3in
28: %\textwidth=6.5in
29:
30:
31: % my macros
32: \newcommand{\nc}{\newcommand}
33:
34: \nc{\mpc}{\rm {h^{-1}Mpc }}
35: \nc{\etal}{{\it et al.\ }}
36: \nc{\xiav}{\bar{\xi}}
37: \nc{\omav}{\bar{\omega}}
38: \nc{\bn}{\bar{N}}
39: \nc{\tP}{\tilde{P}}
40: \nc{\tF}{\tilde{F}}
41: \nc{\avg}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle}
42: \nc{\abs}[1]{\mid{#1}\mid}
43: \nc{\T}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle_C}
44:
45:
46: \nc{\eg}{{\it e.g.,\ }}
47: \nc{\ie}{{\it i.e.\ }}
48:
49:
50:
51: \nc{\be}[1]{\begin{equation}\mbox{$\label{#1}$}}
52: \nc{\bea}[1]{\begin{eqnarray} \mbox{$\label{#1}$}}
53: \nc{\Section}[2]{\section{#2}\label{#1}}
54: \nc{\Bibitem}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}
55: \nc{\Label}[1]{\label{#1}}
56:
57: \nc{\vev}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}
58:
59: \nc{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
60: \nc{\ee}{\end{equation}}
61: \nc{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
62:
63: \def\lcdm{$\Lambda$CDM~}
64: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
65: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
66: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
67: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
68: \nc\map{{\sl WMAP\ }}
69:
70:
71: \begin{document}
72: %\pagestyle{empty}
73:
74: %\include{toc}
75: \title{The Angular Power Spectrum of the First-Year WMAP Data Reanalysed}
76:
77:
78: \author{Pablo Fosalba\altaffilmark{1}, Istv\'an Szapudi\altaffilmark{1}}
79:
80: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
81: 2680 Woodlawn Dr, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA}
82:
83:
84: %\email{fosalba@ifa.hawaii.edu}
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87:
88: We measure the angular power spectrum of the WMAP first-year
89: temperature anisotropy maps. We use SpICE
90: (Spatially Inhomogeneous Correlation Estimator) to estimate $C_\ell$'s
91: for multipoles $\ell=2-900$
92: from all possible cross-correlation channels.
93: Except for the map-making stage, our measurements provide an
94: independent analysis of that by \cite{HinshawEtal2003a}.
95: Despite the different methods used, there is virtually no difference
96: between the two measurements for $\ell \simlt 700$ ;
97: the highest $\ell$'s are still compatible within $1-\sigma$ errors.
98: We use a novel {\sl intra-bin variance} method to constrain $C_\ell$ errors in a
99: model independent way. Simulations show that our implementation of the
100: technique is unbiased within 1\% for $\ell \simgt 100$.
101: When applied to WMAP data, the intra-bin variance estimator
102: yields diagonal errors $\sim 10\%$ larger than those reported by the WMAP team
103: for $100 < \ell < 450$.
104: This translates into a 2.4 $\sigma$ detection of systematics
105: since no difference is expected between the SpICE and the WMAP team estimator window functions in this multipole range.
106: With our measurement of the $C_{\ell}$'s and errors, we get $\chi^2/d.o.f. = 1.042$ for a
107: best-fit \lcdm model, which has a 14 \% probability, whereas the WMAP team
108: \citep{SpergelEtal2003} obtained $\chi^2/d.o.f. = 1.066$, which has a 5 \% probability.
109: We assess the impact of our results on cosmological parameters using
110: Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations.
111: From WMAP data alone, assuming spatially flat power law \lcdm models,
112: we obtain the reionization optical depth
113: $\tau = 0.145 \pm 0.067$, spectral index $n_s = 0.99 \pm 0.04$, Hubble constant
114: $h = 0.67 \pm 0.05$, baryon density $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.0218 \pm 0.0014$, cold dark
115: matter density $\Omega_{cdm} h^2 = 0.122 \pm 0.018$, and $\sigma_8 = 0.92 \pm 0.12$,
116: consistent with a reionization redshift $z_{re} = 16 \pm 5$ (68 $\%$ CL).
117:
118:
119: \end{abstract}
120:
121: \keywords{cosmic microwave background --- cosmology: theory --- methods:
122: statistical}
123: \section{Introduction}
124:
125: The {\sl Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe} satellite (WMAP)
126: has provided the clearest view of the
127: primordial universe to date. Its unprecedented high sensitivity and
128: spatial resolution resulted
129: in a unique set of cosmic microwave background
130: (CMB) radiation maps with close to
131: full sky coverage and uniformly high quality.
132: As a result, fundamental cosmological parameters can
133: be constrained to the highest precision ever.
134: Thorough analysis of this dataset \citep{BennettEtal2003a}
135: yielded a cosmic variance limited measurement of the
136: angular power spectrum, $C_\ell$'s,
137: of the CMB temperature anisotropy
138: for multipoles $\ell \simlt 350$ (\cite{HinshawEtal2003a}; hereafter H03). This
139: confirmed and improved measurements from previous experiments
140: (\eg \cite{MillerEtal1999,deBernardisEtal2000,HananyEtal2000,Halverson2002,MasonEtal2003,ScottEtal2003,BenoitEtal2003}).
141: The acoustic peak structure revealed by the WMAP temperature and polarization
142: power spectra provided strong
143: observational support to inflation and constrained
144: viable cosmological scenarios to the domain of flat
145: \lcdm models and its close variants.
146:
147: Considering the importance of these results, our principal aim is to
148: estimate the angular power spectrum in a completely independent way
149: in the full range of multipoles probed by WMAP, $2 \le \ell \le 900$,
150: and systematically compare results to H03.
151: Our $C_{\ell}$ estimation pipeline is based on
152: SpICE \footnote{\rm http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/cosmowave/} \citep[Spatially Inhomogeneous Correlator Estimator;][]{SzapudiEtal2001a,SzapudiEtal2001b},
153: a quadratic estimator based on correlation functions.
154: SpICE performs edge corrections and heuristic minimum variance
155: weighting in pixel
156: \footnote{The harmonic space alternative using pseudo $C_{\ell}$'s
157: is MASTER \citep{HivonEtal2002}.}
158: space to produce nearly optimal results.
159: Our fast HEALPix \footnote{\rm http://www.eso.org/science/healpix/}
160: implementation of SpICE scales as ${\rm {\cal O} (N^{3/2})}$
161: (${\rm N}$ is number of pixels).
162:
163:
164: \section{Power Spectrum Estimation}
165: \label{sec:ps}
166:
167:
168: Our estimation methodology closely follows that of H03,
169: but adapted to our technique:
170:
171: {\em Step 1:} We use
172: the {\sl foreground cleaned intensity maps}
173: for the 3 highest frequency bands Q, V \& W downloaded from the
174: LAMBDA website \footnote{\rm http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/}.
175: Strong diffuse Galactic emission and resolved point sources are masked out
176: using the Kp0 and Kp2 masks, that leaves $76.8\%$ and $85.0\%$
177: of the sky useful for cosmological analyses, respectively.
178: Monopole $\ell=0$ and dipole $\ell=1$ terms are also removed from
179: non-masked pixels.
180:
181: {\em Step 2:} Power-spectrum estimation is performed via SpICE:
182: we compute the cross-correlations from 28 different pairs of channels
183: constructed from the 8 ``differencing assemblies'' (DAs)
184: Q1 through W4. Noise correlation among different
185: channels is negligible, therefore our cross-power estimator is unbiased
186: with respect to the noise (see \eg H03).
187: Like H03,
188: we implement an heuristic $\ell$-dependent
189: pixel noise weighting scheme that minimizes errors:
190: we use flat weights (mask weight only) for
191: $\ell < 200$, inverse pixel noise variance for $\ell > 450$,
192: and a transitional inverse rms noise weight
193: in the intermediate range $200 < \ell < 450$.
194:
195:
196: {\em Step 3:}
197: A model for the power spectrum for unresolved extragalactic radio sources
198: is subtracted from the cross-power
199: spectrum of each channel. We implement the model given in \S3.1 of
200: H03.
201:
202:
203: {\em Step 4:}
204: $C_\ell$'s from different
205: channels are optimally combined using an inverse noise
206: weighting, with DA sensitivities as described in the LAMBDA website.
207: All channels are included, except for those in Q-band that are only used
208: in the intermediate $\ell$-range. This helps minimizing galactic contamination
209: at low $\ell$ and the window function cut-off at the highest multipoles.
210:
211:
212: {\em Step 5:}
213: Our quadratic estimator is defined in pixel space,
214: where mask effects
215: can be easily corrected for \citep[cf.][]{SzapudiEtal2001a}.
216: The two point correlation function is then transformed
217: into harmonic space via Gauss-Legendre quadrature
218: to obtain the $C_{\ell}$'s deconvolved from
219: the window function of the experiment.
220: Symmetrized non-Gaussian beam transfer profiles
221: \citep{PageEtal2003}
222: and pixel window functions are corrected for in $\ell$-space.
223:
224:
225:
226: \section{Principal Results}
227: \label{sec:res}
228:
229: \begin{figure}[htb]
230: \figurenum{1}
231: \epsscale{1.}
232: \plotone{f1.eps}
233: \caption{WMAP angular power spectrum of the 1st-year
234: temperature anisotropy data.
235: {Upper panel:} Measurement for individual multipoles (red line)
236: using the Kp2 sky cut.
237: Results from by H03 are also shown (black line,
238: nearly indistinguishable from red). The agreement is
239: excellent for most $\ell$'s.
240: {Lower panel:} Binned power spectrum for two different sky cuts,
241: Kp2 (red) \& Kp0 (blue).
242: We find excellent agreement with H03
243: (black line) for all multipoles
244: $\ell \simlt 700$ and a slightly different amplitude for the highest $\ell$'s.
245: \label{fig:cls}}
246: \end{figure}
247:
248: Figure~\ref{fig:cls} shows the angular power spectrum of WMAP,
249: $\Delta T^2_{\ell} \equiv \ell(\ell+1)C_{\ell}/2 \pi$, in $\mu$K$^2$ units,
250: measured with SpICE.
251: Upper panel shows the power spectrum
252: for individual multipoles, using Kp2 sky cut.
253: Our measurement (red line)
254: is in excellent agreement with H03
255: (black line), multipole by multipole.
256: In particular, for the quadrupole and octopole
257: we find $\Delta T^2_{2} \sim 135 \mu$K$^2$ and
258: $\Delta T^2_{3} \sim 591 \mu$K$^2$, respectively
259: (H03 get $\sim 123\mu$K$^2$ and $\sim 612 \mu$K$^2$).
260: For the highest ${\ell}$'s we find slightly different amplitudes
261: than H03,
262: but consistent at the 1-$\sigma$ level.
263:
264:
265:
266: For the most part, we observe no systematic dependence of the measured
267: $C_{\ell}$'s on the sky cut (see difference between red and blue
268: lines in bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:cls}).
269: However,
270: using Kp0 instead of Kp2 yields
271: a $15\%$ lower amplitude of the octopole $\ell=3$ and a $15-20\%$
272: smaller amplitudes for the 3 highest band-powers centered at
273: $\ell_{\rm eff} \sim 660, 750, 850$.
274: This effect might be due to imperfect
275: foreground removal and/or the intrinsic estimator variance due to finite
276: volume and edge effects.
277: We estimated the dispersion in a set of WMAP simulations
278: with Kp0 \& Kp2 sky cuts to be of the same order
279: as the measured differences in the $C_{\ell}$'s of the
280: data. On the other hand, the cross-correlation amplitude
281: between the clean WMAP maps and the best fit foreground templates is at the 5\% and 10\% level of the WMAP $C_{\ell}$'s for the lowest and highest $\ell$'s, respectively.
282: We thus conclude that sample variance due to sky coverage
283: can account for most of the observed difference in the $C_\ell$'s,
284: while residual foreground contamination is always subdominant.
285: The low level of systematics in Kp2, and
286: the increased statistical errors due to the decreased sky fraction left by
287: Kp0, motivate us to adopt Kp2
288: (as in H03) for the best estimate of the $C_{\ell}$'s.
289:
290:
291: \section{Error Estimation}
292: \label{sec:errors}
293:
294: In order to estimate the covariance of our $C_\ell$'s, we generated MC
295: simulations of the CMB sky and instrument noise for each of the
296: 8 DA's (Q1 through W4). We
297: used the {\sl running index} \lcdm model that best fits
298: a combination of WMAP, CBI \& ACBAR data (denoted {\sl WMAPext} in
299: \cite{SpergelEtal2003}).
300: Maps were convolved with the symmetric (non-Gaussian) beam
301: transfer function for each DA \citep{PageEtal2003}.
302: As for the noise simulations, we downloaded 100 sky maps per DA
303: from the LAMBDA website.
304: These simulate 1 full year of flight instrument noise
305: and they include all known radiometric effects
306: \citep{HinshawEtal2003b,JarosikEtal2003}.
307: Simulations were analyzed in exactly the same way as the data (see \S\ref{sec:ps}).
308: All in all, we have constrained the
309: errors from $1500$ measurements in MC simulations (combining cross spectra using 100 MC's for
310: each of the 6 highest frequency DA's V1 through W4)
311: for the multipole ranges $\ell < 200$ and $\ell > 450$,
312: and $2800$ measurements (combining cross-spectra using 100 MC's from each of the 8 DA's Q1 through W4)
313: for the intermediate $\ell$-range $200 < \ell < 450$.
314:
315:
316: \begin{figure}[htb]
317: \figurenum{2}
318: \epsscale{1.}
319: \plotone{f2.eps}
320: \caption{Errorbars estimated from uncorrelated (dash line) and
321: correlated noise (solid smooth line) are shown. The spiky
322: solid line shows the variance of the $C_\ell$'s among the
323: data channels, what should depend on noise only. The Monte Carlo
324: simulations with non-uniform noise appear to describe well the mean rms errors.}
325: \label{fig:lowlerr}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: For multipoles $\ell<350$, errors in the WMAP power spectrum are dominated
329: by cosmic or
330: sample variance (see H03) and the noise only contributes
331: at the few percent level.
332: Figure~\ref{fig:lowlerr} displays the noise contribution
333: to the relative errors at low multipoles, $\ell \simlt 100$.
334: Correlated noise simulation results are displayed
335: (smooth solid line) along with results from
336: uncorrelated noise simulations (dashed line).
337: The latter tends to underestimate errors by $\sim 1\%$.
338: Alternatively the noise level can be estimated from the data
339: rms dispersion among the WMAP channels used (oscillating solid line).
340: These results are in excellent agreement
341: with H03 (cf. lower panel in their Figure~4).
342:
343: At higher $\ell$'s pixel noise and systematic effects
344: (\eg beam and mode coupling, residual foregrounds)
345: increasingly dominate the errors.
346: MC methods assume detailed knowledge of all such
347: effects. To provide a model independent check of the errors,
348: we introduce a novel technique that allows estimating errors directly from the data:
349: the {\sl intra-bin variance} (IBV) method.
350: IBV estimates the variance of a given $C_{\ell}$ from
351: the rms dispersion in a bin $\rm B_{\ell}$ centered on $\ell$.
352: The bin-width ${\Delta \ell}$ is a
353: matter of practical consideration, balancing variance and bias.
354: More precisely, our estimator for $\sigma(C_{\ell})$ reads
355: \begin{equation}
356: \sigma^2(C_{\ell}) = {1 \over {\Delta {\ell} -1}}
357: \sum_{{\ell}^{\prime} \in {\rm B_{\ell}}}
358: ({\Delta C_{{\ell}^{\prime}}}-{\langle{\Delta C_{\ell}\rangle}})^2
359: \label{eq:ibv}
360: \end{equation}
361: where $\langle{\Delta C_{\ell}} \rangle = 1/\Delta {\ell} \sum_{{\ell}^{\prime} \in \rm B_{\ell}} \Delta C_{{\ell}^{\prime}},\,$
362: $\Delta C_{\ell} = {\bar C_{\ell}} - C^{\rm th}_{\ell}$,
363: ${\bar{C_{\ell}}}$ is the mean of the measured $C_{\ell}$'s over channels,
364: and $C^{\rm th}_{\ell}$ is
365: our best guess for the data mean using a theoretical \lcdm model.
366: The latter is subtracted to decrease the bias due to the
367: slope of the angular power spectrum.
368: We used $C^{\rm th}_{\ell}$ from the WMAP best-fit {\sl running index}
369: \lcdm model
370: \citep{SpergelEtal2003},
371: although this is not critical: no baseline subtraction only biases
372: at a few percent level.
373: By construction, IBV should not be used to obtain errors with high
374: resolution but to
375: assess the overall level of errors in
376: a range of $\ell$'s, typically larger than $\Delta \ell$.
377:
378: \begin{figure}[htb]
379: \figurenum{3}
380: \epsscale{1.}
381: \plotone{f3.eps}
382: \caption{Solid lines show the ratio of intra-bin variance (IBV) to Monte Carlo
383: errors measured in WMAP simulations. At $\ell\simeq 300$
384: lines correspond to $\Delta\ell = 6,9,18,36$ (bottom up). The third
385: line ($\Delta\ell=18$) is unbiased for $\ell > 100$.
386: Upper dotted lines (in reverse order to solid lines)
387: correspond to the relative rms error on the estimated IBV errors
388: (\eg in the convention used, $1.15$ means $15\%$ error).}
389: \label{fig:ibcal}
390: \end{figure}
391:
392:
393: Figure~\ref{fig:ibcal} shows the ratio between the {\sl mean}
394: IBV rms dispersion to the usual MC rms dispersion,
395: both estimated from $\sim 3000$ WMAP simulations of CMB
396: signal and correlated noise. Narrow bins yield
397: slightly biased (under-)estimates of the MC error at few percent level, possibly
398: due to small mode-to-mode couplings.
399: IBV method with $\Delta \ell = 18$ yields
400: unbiased estimates of the error for WMAP simulations
401: at the 1\% level for $\ell \simgt 100$.
402: Doubling $\Delta \ell$ introduces a slight high bias and significant
403: edge effects for low $\ell$'s that could be caused by
404: the residual slope of the $C_{\ell}$'s.
405: The unbiased bin-width, $\Delta \ell = 18$,
406: with $15\%$ variance
407: is our choice for the WMAP error estimation.
408:
409:
410: \begin{figure}[htb]
411: \figurenum{4}
412: \epsscale{1.}
413: \plotone{f4.eps}
414: \caption{Ratio of measured errors vs. published WMAP
415: errors \citep{VerdeEtal2003,HinshawEtal2003b,KogutEtal2003}.
416: The noisy blue line and smooth red line through the latter
417: show the usual MC dispersion and the average IBV error respectively,
418: for the same set of simulations. The large amplitude oscillating black line
419: shows the IBV estimator applied to the WMAP
420: data. The IBV method detects 8-15\% larger errors than the
421: published ones. A conservative IBV error estimation
422: is depicted by the solid straight line obtained from
423: a linear least square fit.}
424: \label{fig:ibdata}
425: \end{figure}
426:
427: Figure~\ref{fig:ibdata} displays the WMAP data diagonal errorbars computed with the IBV
428: method (spiky solid line) compared to the previously published
429: diagonal errors (\cite{VerdeEtal2003},\cite{HinshawEtal2003b},\cite{KogutEtal2003}).
430: The largest IBV errors appear to correlate well
431: with the outliers of the data $C_{\ell}$'s with
432: respect to the best-fit \lcdm model (see Figure~3 in \cite{SpergelEtal2003}), suggesting
433: that our IBV estimator is closely related to a diagonal $\chi^2$ test.
434: It is clear that the mean overall error is higher than originally estimated (otherwise the IBV
435: curve would fluctuate around unity). The simplest and most conservative interpretation
436: of our results yields a monotonic error increase with respect to the
437: WMAP team diagonal errors of the form,
438: $\sigma(C_{\ell})_{IBV}/\sigma(C_{\ell})_{WMAP} \simeq 1.08 + 8.5\cdot 10^{-5} ({\ell}-100)$
439: for $\ell>100$ (straight solid line in Figure~\ref{fig:ibdata}). This smooth
440: prediction results from a least squares minimization to the IBV curve
441: (large amplitude oscillating line in Figure~\ref{fig:ibdata}).
442: Note that for $\ell > 450$, the error excess is consistent with the
443: errors estimated from MC simulations with {\sl correlated} instrument noise
444: (see noisy line in Figure~\ref{fig:ibdata} growing from left to right).
445:
446: In the range $100 < \ell < 450$ the mean error level is
447: incompatible with both MC simulations that include correlated noise and the WMAP team published errors:
448: given that there are approximately 16 independent $\Delta {\ell}$ bins,
449: with an intrinsic 15 \% error each, and that the mean error excess is 9 \% in this $\ell$-range,
450: this amounts to a 2.4 $\sigma$ detection of the error excess.
451: We have checked that using the $C_{\ell}$'s measured by \cite{HinshawEtal2003a} yields
452: comparable IBV errors in this multipole range.
453: The excellent $\ell$-by-$\ell$ agreement between the SpICE and WMAP team's
454: measurement of the $C_{\ell}$'s
455: (see Figure~\ref{fig:cls}) indicates that both estimators window functions are virtually identical
456: in this regime, and thus the observed error excess points to systematics
457: unaccounted for in the WMAP team analyses.
458: For $\ell > 450$ the interpretation is less clear
459: as there are hints that both window functions
460: might be slightly different (see lower panel in Figure~\ref{fig:cls}).
461: Such differences might arise in the practical implementation of the estimators.
462: We also estimate a $\sim 5\%$ correlated noise contribution at $\ell<100$
463: (see Figure~\ref{fig:lowlerr}),
464: that was neglected in previous likelihood analyses.
465: A more robust assessment of errors is provided below using the full $\chi^2$ test,
466: where off-diagonal
467: terms are also taken into account following Eq.(15) in \cite{VerdeEtal2003}.
468:
469:
470: \section{Discussion: Cosmological Parameters}
471:
472:
473: We investigate the implications of our measurements
474: using a Bayesian analysis of cosmological parameter estimation.
475: %(see \eg \cite{ChristensenEtal2001}).
476: We use CosmoMC\footnote{\rm http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc},
477: a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) implementation \citep{LewisBridle2002}
478: based on CAMB\footnote{\rm http://camb.info} (\cite{LewisEtal1999};
479: see also CMBFAST\footnote{\rm http://cmbfast.org}, \cite{SeljakZaldarriaga1996}).
480: In order to allow direct comparison with \cite{SpergelEtal2003}, we focus
481: on the simplest 6-parameter cosmological model consistent
482: with the WMAP temperature and cross-polarization data.
483: Following \cite{VerdeEtal2003}, we assume a set of flat
484: \lcdm models
485: with radiation, baryons, cold dark matter and cosmological constant. Primordial
486: fluctuations are taken to be adiabatic and Gaussian with a
487: power-law power spectrum.
488: We use the physical dark matter $\Omega_{cdm} h^2$ and baryon $\Omega_b h^2$
489: densities, the reionization optical depth $\tau$, the scalar spectral
490: index $n_s$,
491: the normalized Hubble constant $h$, and the dark matter power spectrum
492: normalization $\sigma_8$ \citep{KosowskyEtal2002}.
493: We estimate paramaters by combining
494: 4 independent chains with 30000 accepted points each,
495: and use the 6 paramater covariance matrix as proposal density from precomputed
496: runs. This yields an excellent convergence-mixing
497: Gelman \& Rubin statistic $R-1 \simlt 0.02$ for all cases studied.
498:
499:
500: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}
501: \tablecaption{Best Fit Parameters for Power Law $\Lambda$ CDM$^a$
502: \label{tab:bestfit}}
503: \tablewidth{0pt}
504: \tablehead{
505: \colhead{} & \colhead{SpICE $C_{\ell}$'s} & \colhead{WMAP $C_{\ell}$'s} \\
506: \colhead{} & \colhead{IBV Errors$^{b}$} & \colhead{Standard Errors$^{c}$}}
507: \startdata
508: $\tau$ &\ensuremath{0.145 \pm 0.067} &
509: \ensuremath{0.151 \pm 0.069} \\
510: $n_s$ &\ensuremath{0.99 \pm 0.04} &
511: \ensuremath{0.99 \pm 0.04} \\
512: $h$ &\ensuremath{0.67 \pm 0.05} &
513: \ensuremath{0.70 \pm 0.05} \\
514: $\Omega_b h^2$ &\ensuremath{0.0218 \pm 0.0014} &
515: \ensuremath{0.0234 \pm 0.0013} \\
516: $\Omega_{cdm} h^2$ &\ensuremath{0.122 \pm 0.018} &
517: \ensuremath{0.123 \pm 0.017} \\
518: $\sigma_8$ &\ensuremath{0.92 \pm 0.12} &
519: \ensuremath{0.92 \pm 0.11} \\
520: $\chi^2_{eff}/dof$ &1398.8/1342 &1428.7/1342 \\
521: \enddata
522: \tablenotetext{a}{WMAP Data Only. We impose a prior $\tau<0.3$.
523: Table values are mean expectation values for the marginalized distribution
524: and errors are the $68 \%$ (symmetrized) confidence intervals.
525: }
526: \tablenotetext{b}{Parameters estimated with our MCMC's using
527: $C_{\ell}$'s measured with SpICE and IBV errors (see \S\ref{sec:errors}).}
528: \tablenotetext{c}{Same as b, but
529: using $C_{\ell}$'s from H03 and
530: errors from \cite{VerdeEtal2003,HinshawEtal2003b,KogutEtal2003}.}
531: \end{deluxetable}
532:
533: Table~1 summarizes our results. Imposing the prior $\tau < 0.3$,
534: we find best fit values matching those of \cite{SpergelEtal2003}. In particular
535: we obtain a $\chi^2/d.o.f. = 1.042$ (\ie it has a 14 \% probability) for the best-fit model
536: (see first column in Table~1),
537: which is a slightly better fit to the data than that of
538: \cite{SpergelEtal2003}, $\chi^2/d.o.f. = 1.066$ (\ie 5 \% probability).
539: Our $h$ and $\tau$ are slightly lower but still consistent at the $1-\sigma$ level.
540: This is more significant for our
541: estimates of the $C_{\ell}$'s and errors (see first column in Table~1).
542: In particular, our measurement $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.0218 \pm 0.0014$ agrees
543: with that from the latest BBN results $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.022 \pm 0.002$
544: \citep{CyburtEtal2003,VangioniEtal2003,CuocoEtal2003}.
545: We have checked that relaxing the $\tau$ prior yields larger values of
546: $\tau = 0.19 \pm 0.12$ \citep[cf.][]{TegmarkEtal2004}.
547: Our main results (see first column in Table~1) are
548: in excellent agreement with the best-fit values from WMAP+SDSS \citep{TegmarkEtal2004},
549: and suggest a redshift of (abrupt) reionization $z_{re} = 16 \pm 5$ ($68\%$ CL).
550: Data products and additional plots from this work can be found at
551: {\rm http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/cosmowave/wmap.html}
552:
553: We thank an anonymous referee for insightful comments,
554: Jun Pan for help and discussions,
555: Olivier Dore, Hans K. Eriksen, Eiichiro Komatsu for useful comments,
556: and Antony Lewis for help with CosmoMC.
557: We acknowledge extensive use of the
558: Legacy Archive for Microwave Background
559: Data Analysis (LAMBDA). Support for LAMBDA is provided by the NASA
560: Office of Space Science.
561: Some of the results in this paper have been derived
562: using HEALPix \citep{GorskiEtal1998}.
563: This research was supported by NASA through
564: ATP NASA NAG5-12101 and AISR NAG5-11996,
565: as well as by NSF grants AST02-06243 and ITR 1120201-128440.
566:
567: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
568: %%%%% References %%%%%
569:
570: % to use bibtex files
571: %\bibliography{clbib}
572: %\bibliographystyle{apj} %>>>> makes bibtex use spiebib.bst
573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
574:
575: %to include bibliography
576: \input ms.bbl
577: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
578:
579:
580: %\clearpage
581:
582:
583: \end{document}
584:
585:
586:
587:
588:
589:
590: