1: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{float}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{epsfig,floatflt}
5: \usepackage{subfigure}
6: %\doublespace
7:
8: %\received{2004 July 2}
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Bayesian Power Spectrum Analysis of the First-Year \emph{WMAP} data }
12:
13: \author{I.\ J.\ O'Dwyer\altaffilmark{1},
14: H.\ K.\ Eriksen\altaffilmark{2,3,4,5},
15: B.\ D.\ Wandelt\altaffilmark{1,6},
16: J.\ B.\ Jewell\altaffilmark{4},
17: D.\ L.\ Larson\altaffilmark{6},
18: K.\ M.\ G\'orski\altaffilmark{4,5,7},
19: A.\ J.\ Banday\altaffilmark{8},
20: S.\ Levin\altaffilmark{4},
21: P.\ B.\ Lilje\altaffilmark{2}
22: }
23:
24: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy Department,
25: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801-3080}
26: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo,
27: P.O.\ Box 1029 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway}
28: \altaffiltext{3}{Centre of Mathematics for Applications,
29: University of Oslo, P.O.\ Box 1053 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo}
30: \altaffiltext{4}{JPL, M/S 169/327, 4800 Oak Grove Drive,
31: Pasadena CA 91109}
32: \altaffiltext{5}{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
33: 91125}
34: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801-3080}
35: \altaffiltext{7}{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4,
36: 00-478 Warszawa, Poland}
37: \altaffiltext{8}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.\
38: 1, Postfach 1317, D-85741 Garching bei M\"unchen, Germany}
39:
40: %\date{Received - / Accepted -}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43:
44: We present the first results from a Bayesian analysis of the \emph{WMAP}
45: first year data using a Gibbs sampling technique. Using two independent,
46: parallel
47: supercomputer codes we analyze the \emph{WMAP} Q, V and W bands. The
48: analysis results in a full probabilistic description of the information
49: the \emph{WMAP} data set contains about the power spectrum and the
50: all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies. We present the
51: complete probability distributions for
52: each $C_\ell$ including any non-Gaussianities of the power spectrum
53: likelihood.
54: While we find good overall agreement with the previously published
55: \emph{WMAP} spectrum, our analysis uncovers discrepancies in the power
56: spectrum estimates at low $\ell$ multipoles. For example we claim the
57: best-fit $\Lambda$CDM model is consistent with the $C_2$ inferred from our
58: combined Q+V+W analysis with a 10\% probability of an even larger
59: theoretical $C_2$. Based on our exact analysis we can therefore attribute
60: the "low quadrupole issue" to a statistical fluctuation.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \keywords{cosmic microwave background --- cosmology: observations ---
64: methods: numerical}
65:
66: %\maketitle
67:
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70:
71: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) power spectrum estimation from large
72: datasets such as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (\emph{WMAP})
73: \citep{bennett:2003a} presents a considerable computational
74: challenge. With the exception of some specialized methods \citep{oh:1999,WH2003}, obtaining
75: the power spectrum and error bars for a generalized, large CMB
76: dataset without introducing significant simplifications has,
77: until now, been computationally impossible. However, a
78: new numerical approach based on Gibbs sampling has been developed recently by
79: Jewell, Levin, and Anderson (2004) and Wandelt, Larson, and
80: Lakshminarayanan (2004) which offers the hope of
81: overcoming these computational difficulties and allowing the analysis of
82: large CMB datasets regardless of scanning strategy, noise characteristics
83: and so on. In this letter we present our results from the application of
84: this new method to the first year \emph{WMAP} data. We developed two
85: independent, parallel codes to achieve this and a detailed description of the
86: implementation of these codes is given in a
87: companion publication \citep{eriksen:2004}. The analysis
88: results in a full, multivariate probabilistic description of the information the
89: \emph{WMAP} data set contains about the power spectrum and the all-sky map of the
90: CMB anisotropies. For the purposes of this letter we limit ourselves to a presentation of the
91: results at each angular scale $\ell$, leaving a full multivariate
92: exploration of the \emph{WMAP} likelihood for a
93: future publication. In \S 2 we give a very brief
94: overview of our method and in \S 3 we present on overview of the
95: implementation of our codes. \S 4 contains our results, provides
96: some interpretation and discusses what light our method can
97: shed on some of the anomalies in the \emph{WMAP} power spectrum that have been
98: discussed in the literature (e.g.~\citet{hinshaw:2003,
99: spergel:2003,efstathiou:2004, slosar:2004}). Our conclusions and future
100: directions for this work are detailed in \S 5.
101: %\footnote{For supporting information and data see http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/$\sim$iodwyer/research\#wmap}
102:
103:
104: \section{Method Overview}
105:
106: In this section we present only a very brief overview of our method and
107: codes and refer the reader to \citet{eriksen:2004} for a detailed discussion
108: of our implementations and \citet{jewell:2002} and \citet{wandelt:2003} for
109: a discussion of the underlying principles.
110:
111: The main difference between our approach and previous attempts at power
112: spectrum estimation is that rather than trying to solve the maximum likelihood
113: problem directly, we \emph{sample} from the probability density of the power
114: spectrum $C_\ell$ given the data $\mathbf{d}$,
115: $P(C_{\ell} | \mathbf{d})$. While directly sampling from this density is
116: difficult or impossible, we can sample from the joint posterior
117: density $P(C_{\ell}, \mathbf{s} | \mathbf{d})$, where $\mathbf{s}$
118: is the CMB signal map. Expectation values of any statistic of the
119: $C_{\ell}$ will converge to the expectation values of
120: $P(C_{\ell} | \mathbf{d})$. The theory of Gibbs sampling \citep{gelfandsmith:1990, tanner:1996} tells us that if we can
121: sample from the conditional densities $P(\mathbf{s}|C_{\ell}, \mathbf{d})$ and
122: $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{s},\mathbf{d})$ then iterating the following two sampling equations
123: will, after an initial burn-in period, lead to a sample from
124: the joint posterior $P(C_{\ell}, \mathbf{s}| \mathbf{d})$:
125: \begin{align}
126: \mathbf{s}^{i+1} &\hookleftarrow P(\mathbf{s}|C_{\ell}^{i}, \mathbf{d}), \\
127: C_{\ell}^{i+1} &\hookleftarrow P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{s}^{i+1}).
128: \end{align}
129: Here the symbol ``$\hookleftarrow$'' denotes drawing a random realization from the
130: density on the right. The conditional density of the signal given the
131: most recent $C_{\ell}$ sample is $P(\mathbf{s}|C_{\ell}^{i},
132: \mathbf{d})\propto G(S^i(S^i+N)^{-1}m,((S^i)^{-1}+N^{-1})^{-1})$,
133: where $\mathbf{m}$ is the map constructed from the data $\mathbf{d}$. To
134: sample from this density we simply generate a Gaussian variate with
135: the required mean and covariance. The density for the $C_{\ell}$
136: factorizes to an inverse gamma distribution due to the special form of
137: $S$ and sampling from this is very simple. For each $\ell$ we compute
138: $\sigma_{\ell}=\sum^{+l}_{m={-l}}|s^i_{lm}|^2$ and a (2$\ell$-1)-vector
139: of Gaussian random variates with zero mean and unit variance. Then
140: $C_{\ell}^{i+1}={\sigma_{\ell}\over{|\rho_l|^2}}$. Given this sample from
141: $P(C_{\ell}, \mathbf{s}|\mathbf{d})$, the marginalization over
142: $\mathbf{s}$ to obtain $P(C_{\ell}|\mathbf{d})$ is trivially
143: accomplished: just ignore the
144: $\mathbf{s}$ in the tuple $(C_\ell,\mathbf{s})$. Of course this is not to say
145: that the $\mathbf{s}$ sample is purely ancillary in the analysis: it is also of interest to
146: explore $P(\mathbf{s}|\mathbf{d})$ which is a full representation of the
147: CMB signal content of the data.
148:
149: The scaling of this Monte Carlo method is
150: $\mathcal{O}(N_{\textrm{pix}}^{3/2})$ and corresponds to the scaling of
151: the spherical harmonic transforms performed by the HEALPix algorithm.
152: Other issues which affect our
153: computational cost are the choice of a good preconditioner for our linear
154: algebra solver, the correlation length between samples and the length of
155: burn-in time required for the sampling scheme, eqs.~1 and 2, to converge. We
156: perform the sampling in eq.~1, by means of solving linear systems of equations
157: using the Conjugate Gradient algorithm. The computational cost of this
158: method is therefore highly dependent on the choice of a good preconditioner
159: for this system. We experimented with several preconditioners and found
160: examples which gave convergence in a few tens of iterations. The number of
161: samples we need to obtain in order to adequately describe the statistics of
162: the power spectrum will depend upon the degree of correlation between
163: successive samples. A detailed discussion of these issues can be found in
164: \citet{eriksen:2004}.
165:
166: %In addition, the length of time required for burn-in is
167: %dictated by how good our initial guess for the power spectrum is. One of the
168: %existing fast but approximate $C_\ell$ estimators can be used to complement
169: %our method by providing a starting guess for the sampling approach.
170:
171: \subsection{Foregrounds}
172: An appealing feature of the sampling approach is its ability to incorporate
173: virtually any real-world complications, as discussed by \citet{jewell:2002}
174: and \citet{wandelt:2003}. A few examples of this flexibility are applications
175: to $f^{-1}$ noise, asymmetric beams or arbitrary sky coverage. Foreground
176: estimation and removal are also possible. In principle, detailed prior
177: knowledge of all anticipated foregrounds can be included and the algorithm
178: will then return the level of the foreground supported by the data in the
179: map. However, for this first analysis we limit ourselves to including two
180: simple foreground components: (1) a stochastic model of the monopole and
181: dipole in the maps, and (2) a stochastic model of the foreground
182: component. These models are encoded in terms of uniform, improper priors that express
183: our ignorance of the monopole and dipole in the maps as well as the foreground
184: contributions in the regions that are flagged in the foreground masks supplied
185: by the \emph{WMAP} team. Traditionally this masked region is excluded from the
186: analysis altogether. In the Bayesian approach it is modeled as a region where
187: the foregrounds are completely unknown. Sampling from the posterior density
188: reconstructs the signal in the masked region, based on the correlation
189: structure discovered on the unmasked portion of the sky. The details of these
190: foreground models are outlined in the above papers as well as in
191: \citet{eriksen:2004}.
192:
193:
194: \section{Implementation}
195:
196: We used two independently developed implementations of the algorithm to
197: produce our results: MAGIC \citep{wandeltconf:2004} and Commander.
198: These are both parallel implementations of the sampling algorithm. Having
199: results from both MAGIC and Commander allowed us to cross-check results and
200: provided valuable redundancy. Our tests of the codes are detailed in
201: \citet{eriksen:2004} and these showed that both codes were producing
202: results consistent with each other. In both codes our noise model for
203: each channel consisted of combining the published
204: number of observations per pixel with the noise per sample for each channel
205: and assuming the noise to be uncorrelated. We also show in
206: \citet{eriksen:2004} that residual correlated noise in the \emph{WMAP} maps
207: has negligible effect on our results.
208:
209: The data input to these codes were the first year \emph{WMAP}
210: maps\footnote{available at http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov} for
211: all 8 of the cosmologically interesting frequency bands (2 at Q-, 2 at V-
212: and 4 at W-band). For all channels we used template corrected maps following \citet{bennett:2003a}.
213: We performed two analyses with these data. First we analyzed the data
214: in the V and W channels separately by band, using
215: unweighted averages of the channel maps and computing an effective beam window
216: function. For these runs we chose the conservative Kp0 mask and ran single,
217: long chains, containing 1000 samples for each band. Q-band was
218: analyzed more aggressively, combining the channels on
219: the likelihood level \citep{eriksen:2004}, and using the Kp2 mask to
220: assess potential foreground contamination. These
221: analyses will be labeled Q, V and W in the following.
222:
223: The second analysis uses the optimal combination of all 8
224: channels in the likelihood using their respective
225: noise specifications and beam window functions. We will refer to this joint
226: analysis as QVW in the following.
227: As before, we specified
228: a stochastic model for the monopole and dipole component as well as
229: complete ignorance about the foregrounds within a region on the
230: sky. For the QVW analysis this region was defined by the more aggressive Kp2 mask.
231: Both the Q and QVW analyses were done in parallel, short
232: chains ($\sim$10 chains, $\sim$100 samples each) initialized with plausible
233: starting spectra inspired by the \emph{WMAP} analysis
234: \citep{hinshaw:2003}.
235:
236: \section{Results} All of the results presented here are based on $\sim$ 1000 samples for each
237: frequency band, which required a total of $\sim$15,000 hours of CPU time
238:
239: Figure \ref{fig:QVWsignal} shows the Bayes estimate (posterior mean) for the
240: signal QVW analysis. This map represents the CMB signal content in the Q, V,
241: and W bands of the \emph{WMAP}
242: data. This map shows detail where the data warrants
243: it and smoothes where the data is poor. The CMB signal is clearly visible
244: outside the Galaxy and the algorithm has reconstructed the signal in
245: the Galactic plane for the largest scale modes, consistent with the
246: signal phases and correlations it has discovered on the high latitude
247: sky. There is insufficient information in the map for the algorithm
248: to reconstruct the smaller scale modes in the galactic plane.
249: This result is a non-linear generalization of the
250: Wiener filter which does not assume prior information
251: about the signal correlations but discovers them from the data.
252:
253: Figure \ref{fig:4ps} shows the power spectra we obtain for Q-,
254: V- and W-band and the combined QVW analysis. Large scale features in
255: the power spectra are consistently reproduced across all the channels.
256:
257:
258: In Figure \ref{fig:20panelcomb}, we show the probability distribution of the
259: $C_\ell$ samples for some $\ell$ of interest. Since the original
260: \emph{WMAP} analysis was released there has been some controversy
261: regarding a lack of power at the largest angular scales (lowest $\ell$'s)
262: e.g. \citep{efstathiou:2004, slosar:2004}. It can be
263: seen from the plots that our estimates of these $C_{\ell}$'s are consistent
264: with the original determinations made by the \emph{WMAP} team, but
265: that there are significant, non-Gaussian uncertainties on our estimates which indicate
266: that low values of $C_\ell$ for the largest angular scales are not so
267: unexpected. We also over-plot the
268: results using the \emph{WMAP} internal linear combination map with the
269: Kp2 mask from \citet{efstathiou:2004} in our figure. It can be seen
270: that there is good agreement between the values obtained in our
271: analysis and that of Efstathiou.
272:
273: For easy reference we show the cumulative probability distributions for the
274: lowest $\ell$ in Figure
275: \ref{fig:odds}. One can read off the probability that the actual theory
276: $C_\ell$ are lower than the prediction from any particular model. Probabilities
277: close to 0 or 1 indicate a poor fit, or outlier. A search over all strongly signal dominated
278: $\ell$ from 2 to 350 using our V and W band analyses resulted
279: in 10 outliers (within 0.01 of 0 or 1) for V band ($\ell=$54, 73, 114, 117, 121, 179, 181, 209, 300,
280: 322) and 9 outliers for W band ($\ell$=73, 82, 117, 121, 181, 261, 334, 341,
281: 344). For 349 tests this corresponds to only a slightly higher number of outliers
282: than expected based on counting statistics, and is entirely unremarkable if we
283: only count those outliers that appear in both bands. Based on
284: this $\ell$-by-$\ell$ analysis the ``bite'' in the spectrum does not seem
285: particularly extraordinary, with only one outlier in the range of
286: 200-220. However, all $C_\ell$ at $205<\ell<210$ are quite far below the best fit and will most likely
287: be noted as a highly significant outlier in a full multivariate analysis of the joint
288: posterior density.
289:
290: \section{Discussions and Conclusions}
291: \label{sec:conclusions}
292:
293: We have implemented the Gibbs sampling technique introduced by
294: \citet{jewell:2002} and \citet{wandelt:2003}, and applied it to
295: the \emph{WMAP} data. This first presentation of our results focuses on the
296: inferred marginalized likelihoods for each $\ell$. We find that these are
297: broadly consistent with previous
298: determinations of the power spectrum. By
299: virtue of using a Bayesian analysis we can present
300: present a more complete picture of the
301: uncertainties in the estimates across all relevant scales. Previous likelihood-based work to generate a full
302: probabilistic description (e.g.~\citet{slosar:2004}) were limited to looking at
303: only the lowest $\ell$ due to the computational difficulty involved. We present
304: an analysis that
305: covers the region from $\ell=2$ to $\ell=500$. A multivariate treatment will
306: therefore allows a rigorous assessment of
307: the significance of anomalies in the power spectrum such as the low power
308: on large angular scales, the ``bite'' in the power spectrum near the peak,
309: etc., as well as using the full multivariate posterior density as the input to
310: parameter estimation. This is particularly interesting since the Bayesian
311: approach yields a \emph{converging} analytic approximation to
312: the likelihood of $C_\ell$ given the data, it is not necessary to
313: construct parametric approximations to the likelihood such as the Gaussian or shifted log-normal
314: approximations. A detailed study of these issues will be presented in a future
315: publication.
316:
317: More information can be drawn from the data
318: in the future. The extension
319: to more complex foreground models, the inclusion of correlated noise and
320: the addition of polarization to the analysis will all be of great interest,
321: especially in view of the upcoming release of the second year of
322: \emph{WMAP} data and, further in the future, the \emph{Planck} experiment.
323:
324: \begin{acknowledgements}
325: We acknowledge use of the
326: HEALPix\footnote{http://www.eso.org/science/healpix/} software (G\'orski, Hivon \& Wandelt 1998) and analysis package. We also acknowledge use of the Legacy
327: Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA). H.\ K.\ E.\
328: and P.\ B.\ L.\ acknowledge financial support from the Research
329: Council of Norway, including a Ph.\ D.\ studentship for H.\ K.\
330: E. This work has also received support from The Research Council of
331: Norway (Programme for Supercomputing) through a grant of computing
332: time. This work was partially performed at the Jet Propulsion
333: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with
334: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This work was partially
335: supported by an NCSA Faculty Fellowship for B.D.W. This research
336: used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing
337: Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the
338: U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.
339:
340: \end{acknowledgements}
341:
342:
343: \begin{thebibliography}{}
344:
345: \bibitem[Bennett \emph{et al.}(2003a)]{bennett:2003a} Bennett, C.~L.~\emph{et al.}\
346: 2003a, \apjs, 148, 1
347: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%
348:
349: \bibitem[Bennett \emph{et al.}(2003b)]{bennett:2003b} Bennett, C.~L.~\emph{et al.}\
350: 2003b, \apjs, 148, 97
351: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302208;%%
352:
353: %\bibitem[Efstathiou(2004a)]{efstathiou:2004a} Efstathiou, G. 2004,
354: % \mnras, 349, 603
355: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0307515;%%
356:
357: \bibitem[Efstathiou(2004)]{efstathiou:2004} Efstathiou, G. 2004,
358: \mnras, 348, 885
359: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310207;%%
360:
361: \bibitem[Eriksen \emph{et al.}(2004)]{eriksen:2004} Eriksen, H. ~K.~\emph{et al.}\
362: 2004, \apjs, accepted, astro-ph/0407028
363: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0407028;%%
364:
365: \bibitem[Gelfand and Smith (1990)]{gelfandsmith:1990} Gelfand, A.~E. and
366: Smith, A.\ F.\ M. 1990, J. Am. Stat. Asso. 85, 398
367:
368: \bibitem[G\'orski \emph{et al.}(1999)]{gorski:1999} G\'orski, K. M., Hivon,
369: E., \& Wandelt, B. D., 1999, in Evolution of Large-Scale Structure:
370: from Recombination to Garching, ed. A. J. Banday, R. K. Sheth, \&
371: L. N. da Costa (Garching, Germany: European Southern Observatory), 37
372: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9812350;%%
373:
374: \bibitem[Hinshaw \emph{et al.}(2003)]{hinshaw:2003} Hinshaw, G.\ \emph{et al.}\ 2003,
375: \apjs, 148, 135
376: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302217;%%
377:
378: \bibitem[Jewell \emph{et al.}(2004)]{jewell:2002} Jewell, J., Levin, S., \&
379: Anderson, C. H. 2004, \apj, 609, 1
380: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0209560;%%
381:
382: \bibitem[Oh \emph{et al.}(1999)]{oh:1999} Oh, S. P., Spergel, D. N., \&
383: Hinshaw, G. 1999, \apj, 510 551
384: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9805339;%%
385:
386: %%\bibitem[Shewchuk(1994)]{shewchuk:1994} Shewchuk, J. R. 1994,
387: %% http://www.cs.cmu.edu/$\sim$quake-papers/painless-conjugate-gradient.ps
388:
389: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0403073;%%
390: \bibitem[Slosar, Seljak, \& Makarov(2004)]{slosar:2004} Slosar, A.,
Seljak, U., \& Makarov, A.\ 2004, \prd, 69, 123003
391:
392: \bibitem[Spergel \emph{et al.}(2003)]{spergel:2003} Spergel, D. N.,\ \emph{et al.}, 2003
393: \apjs, 148, 175S
394:
395: \bibitem[Tanner (1996)]{tanner:1996} Tanner, M. ~A. 1996, \emph{Tools for
396: statistical inference}, 3rd e. Springer-Verlag, New York.
397:
398: \bibitem[Wandelt \emph{et al.}~(2004)]{wandelt:2003} Wandelt, B. D., Larson, D. L., \&
399: Lakshminarayanan, A. 2003, PRD accepted [astro-ph/0310080]
400: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310080;%%
401: \bibitem[Wandelt (2004)]{wandeltconf:2004} Wandelt, B. D. 2004, in ``Stanford
402: 2003, Statistical problems in particle physics, astrophysics and
403: cosmology'', Lyons, L. \emph{et al.} (Eds.), p. 229 [astro-ph/0401623]
404:
405: \bibitem[Wandelt and Hansen (2003)]{WH2003} Wandelt, B. D. and Hansen,
406: F. 2003, \prd, 67, 023001
407:
408:
409: \end{thebibliography}
410:
411: \clearpage
412:
413: %\begin{figure}
414: %\centering{MAP OF MEAN SIGNAL IN THE JOINT QVW SAMPLES GOES HERE}
415: %\vspace{6cm}
416: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=f1.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}}
417: %\plotone{f1.eps}
418: \figcaption{The posterior mean $\langle\mathbf{s}\rangle_{P(\mathbf{s}| \mathbf{d})}$ of the
419: CMB signal $\mathbf{s}$ given the \emph{WMAP} first year data, including all
420: 8 channels in the Q, V and W bands. This map represents the CMB
421: signal content of the \emph{WMAP} data. It
422: contains detail where the data warrants it and smoothes where the data is
423: poor. For example, the algorithm is able to reconstruct the
424: largest scale modes in the Galactic plane based on the signal phases
425: and correlations it discovers in regions of the map outside the
426: Galactic plane. The smallest scale which can be reproduced in the Galactic
427: plane is set by the mask size and is a natural consequence of Wiener
428: filtering.
429: \label{fig:QVWsignal}}
430: %\end{figure}
431:
432:
433:
434: %\begin{figure}
435: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=f2.eps,clip=}}
436: %\plotone{f2.eps}
437: \figcaption{Four power spectra obtained from the Gibbs sampling
438: algorithm. The uppermost panel shows the Q-band power spectrum,
439: then V-band, W-band and finally the lower panel the combined
440: analysis from all eight cosmologically interesting \emph{WMAP}
441: channels. Gray dots represent the individual samples and the
442: dark line is the mode of the unbinned power spectrum. The lighter gray
443: line in the bottom panel is the \emph{WMAP} combined CMB power spectrum
444: and where the line is not visible the difference between our result and
445: the original \emph{WMAP} result differ by less than the width of the
446: line. The Q and Q+V+W result was obtained with an initial power
447: spectrum based on the \emph{WMAP} best-fit power spectrum with a random
448: component, while the V and W results were obtained using an initial
449: spectrum proportional to 1/${\ell(\ell+1)}$. Our V and W results
450: were obtained using the conservative Kp0 mask while our Q-band
451: result uses the Kp2 mask. This was done to assess potential foreground
452: contamination, which we find no evidence for.
453: \label{fig:4ps}}
454: %\end{figure}
455:
456:
457:
458: %\begin{figure*}
459: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=f3.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}}
460: %\plotone{f3.eps}
461: \figcaption{The probability distributions of the $C_{\ell}$ samples for a selected set of
462: $\ell$ giving the probability of obtaining a value
463: of $C_{\ell}$ within a given histogram bin. We plot results for the
464: significantly non-Gaussian low-$\ell$ multipoles and for selected
465: higher values based on their deviation from the best-fit
466: $\Lambda$-CDM model. There are 50 bins in each
467: histogram. Red, green and blue
468: histograms are Q, V and W-band
469: respectively. Black is the combined QVW analysis. The dotted
470: vertical line is the \emph{WMAP} best estimate of the $C_\ell$ value.
471: The solid line is the \emph{WMAP} best fit theory $C_\ell$'s and the
472: dash-dot-dot line is the average of the samples from our algorithms.
473: For $\ell < 7$ the dashed lines show the \emph{WMAP}-ILC values from
474: \citet{efstathiou:2004} for comparison. Further plots are
475: available at http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/$\sim$iodwyer/research\#wmap.
476: \label{fig:20panelcomb}}
477: %\end{figure*}
478:
479:
480:
481: %\begin{figure}
482: %\mbox{\epsfig{figure=f4.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}}
483: %\plotone{f4.eps}
484: \figcaption{Easy-to-use representation for evaluating theoretical models of the
485: power spectrum at the
486: lowest $\ell$. We plot the probability $P(C_\ell^\mathrm{theory}<C_\ell)$
487: against $ \ell(\ell+1)C_\ell/2\pi$ for the largest angular scales probed by
488: \emph{WMAP}. Theorists can evaluate the goodness of fit of their model $C_\ell$ with the
489: \emph{WMAP} data by reading off the probability from this graph. If $P$ is within
490: 0.025 of 1 or 0, the model would be ruled out at the 5\% level based on that
491: $\ell$ alone. The vertical dotted line is the \emph{WMAP} best fit theory assuming a constant scalar
492: spectral index $n_s$. The probability is $\sim$90\% that the the actual theory
493: $C_2$ is smaller.
494: \label{fig:odds}}
495: %\end{figure}
496:
497:
498: \clearpage
499:
500: \pagestyle{empty}
501:
502: \begin{figure}
503: \plotone{f1.eps}
504: \end{figure}
505:
506: \begin{figure}
507: \vspace{-2cm}
508: \epsscale{0.9}
509: \plotone{f2.eps}
510: \end{figure}
511:
512: \begin{figure}
513: \epsscale{1}
514: \plotone{f3.eps}
515: \end{figure}
516:
517: \clearpage
518:
519: \begin{figure}
520: \plotone{f4.eps}
521: \end{figure}
522:
523:
524: \end{document}
525:
526:
527: