1: % for apj submission
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
4:
5:
6: % for preprints
7: \documentclass[twocolumn, letterpaper]{emulateapj}
8: \usepackage{natbib}
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
10:
11: %\usepackage{flushrt}
12: %\input aas_journals.tex
13:
14: %\documentclass{article}
15: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
16: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
17:
18: \usepackage{epsfig}
19: %\topmargin=-1in
20: %\oddsidemargin=0in
21: %\evensidemargin=0in
22: %\textheight=9.3in
23: %\textwidth=6.5in
24:
25: %\slugcomment{submitted to ApJ.}
26: % my macros
27: \newcommand{\mpc}{\rm {h^{-1}Mpc }}
28: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\ }}
29: \newcommand{\xiav}{\bar{\xi}}
30: \newcommand{\omav}{\bar{\omega}}
31: %\newcommand{\bn}{\bar{N}}
32: \newcommand{\tP}{\tilde{P}}
33: \newcommand{\tF}{\tilde{F}}
34: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle}
35: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\mid{#1}\mid}
36: \newcommand{\T}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle_C}
37: % some more
38: \newcommand{\ltsima}{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
39: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
40: \newcommand{\gtsima}{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
41: \newcommand{\gsim}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
42: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.,\ }}
43: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.\ }}
44:
45: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
46: \let\ga=\gtrsim
47: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
48: \let\la=\lesssim
49:
50: %for bispectrum paper
51: \def\Cl{$C^{21}_l$}
52: \def\ClX{$C^{21}_l(X)$}
53: \def\bCl{$\bar{C}^{21}_l$}
54: \def\fNL{$f_{NL}$}
55: \newcommand{\alm}[1]{a_{l_#1 m_#1}}
56: \newcommand{\bn}{\hat{\bf n}}
57: \newcommand{\bm}{\hat{\bf m}}
58: \newcommand{\bl}{\hat{\bf l}}
59: \newcommand{\bk}{\hat{\bf k}}
60: \newcommand{\Ylm}[1]{Y_{l_#1}^{m_#1}}
61: \newcommand{\Ylmn}{Y_{l}^{m}}
62: \newcommand{\almn}{a_{l m}}
63:
64: \newcommand{\tw}{\tilde{\xi}}
65:
66: \begin{document}
67: %\pagestyle{empty}
68:
69: %\include{toc}
70: \title{Constraining Primordial Non-Gaussianities from the WMAP2
71: 2-1 Cumulant Correlator Power Spectrum}
72:
73: \author{ Gang Chen\altaffilmark{1} and Istv\'an Szapudi\altaffilmark{1} }
74:
75: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
76: 2680 Woodlawn Dr, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA}
77:
78: \begin{abstract}
79:
80: We measure the 2-1 cumulant correlator power spectrum \Cl, a degenerate
81: bispectrum, from the second data release of the Wilkinson
82: Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). Our high resolution measurements with SpICE
83: span a large configuration space ($\simeq 168\times999$) corresponding
84: to the possible cross-correlations of the maps recorded
85: by the different differencing assemblies.
86: We present a novel method to recover
87: the eigenmodes of the correspondingly large
88: Monte Carlo covariance matrix.
89: We examine its eigenvalue spectrum and use random matrix theory
90: to show that the off diagonal terms are dominated by noise.
91: We minimize the $\chi^2$ to obtain constraints for the
92: non-linear coupling parameter $f_{NL} = 22 \pm 52\, (1\sigma)$.
93:
94: \end{abstract}
95:
96: \keywords{cosmic microwave background --- cosmology: theory --- methods:
97: statistical}
98:
99:
100: \section{Introduction}
101:
102: Quantifying the non-Gaussianity in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
103: puts constraints on inflationary models and possibly
104: identifies non-linear effects from large scale structure.
105: In addition, systematics
106: and foregrounds might also produce
107: non-Gaussian signatures; this possibly weakens
108: constraints on the primordial and secondary non-Gaussianities.
109:
110: A natural phenomenological parametrization of
111: non-Gaussian models is in terms of the
112: perturbative non-linear coupling in the primordial curvature
113: perturbation \citep{KomatsuSpergel2001}:
114: \begin{equation}
115: \label{eq:modelreal}
116: \Phi({\mathbf x})
117: =\Phi_L({\mathbf x})
118: +f_{NL}\left(
119: \Phi^2_{L}({\mathbf x})-
120: \left<\Phi^2_{L}({\mathbf x})\right>
121: \right),
122: \end{equation}
123: where $\Phi_L({\mathbf x})$ denotes the linear Gaussian
124: part of the Bardeen curvature and $f_{NL}$ is the
125: non-linear coupling parameter.
126: The resulting leading-order non-Gaussianity is at the
127: three-point level. Thus, the three point correlation function
128: \cite[e.g.,][and references therein]{ChenSzapudi2005}
129: or its spherical harmonic transform, the bispectrum, directly
130: estimate the leading order effect.
131:
132: The bispectrum has been used extensively for studying non-Gaussianity
133: \citep{KomatsuEtal2005, CreminelliEtal2006, MedeirosContaldi2006,
134: LiguoriEtal2006, CabellaEtal2006}. In previous measurements,
135: the pseudo-bispectrum was used, which, like the pseudo-$C_l$'s,
136: ignores in detail the effects of the complicated geometry induced by
137: Galactic cut and cut-out holes. Pixel space statistics, such
138: as the three-point correlation function, trivially deconvolve
139: the geometric effects, as the convolution kernel is diagonal in
140: pixel space. Indeed, SpICE \citep[][Spatially Inhomogenous Correlation
141: Estimator]{SzapudiEtal2001a}
142: uses this simple fact to estimate the angular power spectrum
143: without explicitly inverting the $M_{ll^\prime}$ kernel \citep{HivonEtal2002}.
144: For the bispectrum, the convolution kernel is even more complex than
145: for the $C_l$'s, therefore pixel space methods
146: are advantagous. We use the fact that the
147: SpICE algorithm can be used to calculate (deconvolved)
148: power spectrum of cumulant correlators $\avg{\delta T^N \delta T^M}$
149: \citep{SzapudiEtal1992}.
150: These are degenerate $N+M$-point correlation functions, and
151: their power spectra correspond to integrated $N+M-1$ poly-spectra.
152: In this paper we focus on the 2-1 cumulant correlator
153: power spectrum which is directly related to bispectrum
154: configurations. These contain less configration information
155: than the full bispectrum, although retain more than the
156: skewness \citep{KomatsuEtal2005}. Note that in terms
157: of $f_{NL}$, with near optimal weighting, the statistical
158: power of the skewness is nearly as optimal as the full bispectrum
159: \citep{KomatsuEtal2003, SpergelEtal2006}. For models
160: with non-trivial configuration dependence, this is not the case.
161:
162: We introduce the power spectrum of the 2-1 cumulant
163: correlator together with the corresponding theoretical
164: theoretical predictions. Statistical estimation in the
165: data and simulations, and the theoretical calculations are
166: are described in \S3.
167: In \S4 we investigate the covariance matrix of the measurements,
168: the $\chi^2$ analysis of $f_{NL}$.
169: We summarize and discuss the work in \S5.
170:
171: \section{power spectrum of 2-1 cumulant correlator}
172:
173: For the temperature fluctuation field
174: $T(\hat{\bf n})$ in CMB, the 2-1 cumulant correlator
175: is simply expressed as $\left<T(\hat{\bf n})^2T(\hat{\bf m})\right>$,
176: where the ensemble average can be replaced by spatial (angular)
177: average due to the assumed rotational invariance and ergodicity
178: of the universe.
179: Its Fourier or spherical harmonic transform
180: corresponds to a set of summed (integrated) bispectrum
181: configurations \citep{Cooray2001}:
182: \begin{equation}
183: C_l^{21} = \sum_{l_1 l_2} B_{l_1 l_2 l} W_{l_1}W_{l_2}W_{l} \left(
184: \begin{array}{ccc}
185: l_1 & l_2 & l \\
186: 0 & 0 & 0
187: \end{array}
188: \right)
189: \sqrt{
190: (2 l_1+1) (2 l_2+1) \over 4\pi (2 l+1) } \, .
191: \label{eqn:finalform}
192: \end{equation}
193: Here $B_{l_1 l_2 l}$ is the bispectrum and $W_l$ is the multiple of the
194: pixel window function and beam function of the CMB map.
195:
196: The above equation
197: can be used to turn a theoretical prediction for the full bispectrum
198: into a prediction for the 2-1 cumulant correlator power spectrum.
199: We follow closely the method
200: described in \cite{KomatsuSpergel2001} to predict the full bispectrum
201: using our modified version of CAMB\footnote{http://camb.info/}.
202: Then we sum the above Equation~\ref{eqn:finalform} in $l_1$ and
203: $l_2$ up to $l_i=2000$ where $W_l \simeq 0.001$.
204: Because of the linear dependency of the bispectrum on $f_{NL}$,
205: we perform the calculation with $f_{NL}=1$.
206:
207: Due to the similarity of cumulant correlators to two-point
208: correlation functions, the analogous technique can be used
209: for them as for measuring $C_l$. We use cross correlations
210: of a triplet of maps for each measurement to avoid
211: the uncertainties in the noise bias.
212: The SpICE \citep{SzapudiEtal2001a} algorithm
213: uses harmonic transforms to calculate fast correlation
214: functions of two maps, and Legendre integration
215: \citep{SzapudiEtal2001b} to obtain the final power spectrum.
216: To obtain 2-1 cumulant correlators, the first two maps have to
217: be multiplied first, as it is described next in detail.
218: The final power spectrum can be directly compared with
219: the theoretical prediction, as it is fully corrected for
220: the complicated pixel geometry of the underlying maps.
221: Our measurement is the first such bispectrum measurement, where
222: the geometry is accurately taken into account.
223:
224:
225: \section{Measurements and Predictions}
226:
227: We use WMAP three year coadded foreground reduced sky maps
228: \citep[][hereafter WMAP2]{JarosikEtal2006}\footnote{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/}
229: with the resolution of $n_{side}=512$.
230: There are 8 differencing assemblies differencing assemblies (DAs) for the Q, V, and W bands.
231: We calculated the cross correlations
232: among these 8 maps and there are $(8\times7)/2\times6 = 168$
233: combinations. The factor of $1/2$ is explained by the invariance
234: of the 2-1 cumulant correlator under the exchange of the first
235: two maps. We index the triplet of maps used in the cross-correlations
236: by $X$ and denote the power spectrum by \ClX. First we prepare
237: a ``square temperature'' map by multiplying pixel by pixel the first two
238: maps in a triplet. The resulting map is cross-correlated by the third
239: map with SpICE. We use the more conservative Kp0 mask since non-Gaussianities
240: are expected to be more sensitive to foregrounds than the power spectrum.
241: It takes about 330 minutes to calculate
242: all 168 spectra on a 2 GHz class CPU
243: for the WMAP data (or for one set of simulations).
244: Figure~1 displays typical measurements
245: together with theoretical predictions and simulation results
246: for the triplet X=(Q1,Q2,V1).
247:
248:
249: %
250: %
251: \begin{figure}[htb]
252: \epsscale{1.}
253: \plotone{f1.eps}
254: \caption{
255: A typical results
256: of the 2-1 cumulant power spectrum normalized to
257: the triplet $X = (Q1,Q2,V1)$.
258: The lower solid curve is the theoretical
259: prediction for $f_{NL}=-100$;
260: the upper solid line
261: is the standard deviation from 200 simulations;
262: the dotted line corresponds to the absolute values from WMAP2.
263: \textit{Inset}: the data (without absolute value) and theory
264: on a linear scale renormalized by the standard deviation measured
265: from the simulations.
266: }
267: \label{fig:C2l}
268: \end{figure}
269: %
270: %
271:
272:
273: Qualitatively, there is no obvious sign of non-Gaussianities. To
274: obtain accurate constraints, we estimate covariances from
275: a set of Monte Carlo simulations and fit the $f_{NL}$ parameter.
276: Gaussian simulations ($f_{NL}$=0) suffice, since the covariance
277: is dominated by the Gaussian noise
278: as long as $f_{NL}<500$ \citep{KomatsuEtal2003}, which we already
279: know to be true. We generated 200 simulations with
280: SYNFAST in HEALPix package\footnote{http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/}.
281: We used the WMAP first year (WMAP1) power spectrum available from the
282: Lambda website
283: \footnote{The WMAP2 power spectrum was not available at this
284: writing but the difference should be insignificant for our purposes.
285: } for input. It is the best fit $\Lambda$CDM
286: model using a scale-dependent (running)
287: primordial spectral index, using WMAP1,
288: CBI and ACBAR CMB data,
289: plus the 2dF and Lyman-alpha data.
290: For each simulation we generate 8 DA maps closely mimicking the data
291: \citep{SpergelEtal2003}. These maps represent the same realization
292: of the CMB but with different noise and beam for each.
293: Our noise model is somewhat simplistic, and uses
294: Gaussian realizations with standard deviation $\sigma_0/\sqrt{N_{obs}}$,
295: where the effective number of observations $N_{obs}$ varies
296: across the sky and for different DAs, and $\sigma_0$
297: is a constant for each DA. This does not take
298: into account possible correlations in the noise, but at this
299: writing no noise maps were available for WMAP2; our measurements in WMAP1
300: with more realistic noise indicate that the effects of the noise correlations
301: are negligible on our measurement (see the last section for details).
302: Finally, each simulation was analyzed exactly the same way as the data:
303: we performed $33,600$ measurements in $16,00$ maps.
304:
305: \section{The Covariance Matrix and $\chi^2$ Analysis}
306:
307: Let us extend our notation and
308: label our measurements and predictions for triplet $X$ as
309: $C_l^{21}(X,s)$, where $s$ stands for
310: the theory ($s=0$), one of the 200 simulations($s=1, ..., 200$),
311: or the WMAP data($s=201$). Our goal is to obtain quantitative
312: constraints for $f_{NL}$ using these results. In particular,
313: we focus on the covariance matrix (CM).
314:
315: \subsection{The Covariance Matrix}
316:
317: The simulations can be used to obtain
318: an experimental CM the standard way.
319: Without any further binning, the CM is a square matrix of size
320: $p=168\times999 = 167832$ (999 stands for $l=2,...,1000$).
321: A matrix of this size can only be inverted with supercomputers.
322: To overcome this problem, we introduce a novel,
323: generally applicable technique which speeds up the inversion
324: of experimental covariance matrices. We show that the
325: singular value decomposition (SVD) of the CM is related to another
326: matrix of smaller size governed by the number of simulations.
327:
328: Let M be the matrix where each raws and columns correspond
329: to configurations and simulations, respectively.
330: The SVD of this $m \times n$ matrix $M$
331: (the number of rows $m$ is typically larger than the number of columns $n$)
332: is given by $ M = U \Lambda V^T$. Here $U$ is a $m \times n$
333: column-orthonormal matrix, $\Lambda$ is a $n \times n$
334: diagonal matrix with non-negative elements, and
335: $V$ is a $n \times n$ orthonormal matrix. In this notation
336: the CM can be expressed as $1/nMM^T$. The corresponding
337: SVD is $U(1/n\Lambda^2)U^T$. This can obtain more efficiently by solving
338: the dual problem $M^TM=V^T\Lambda^2V$. Once the eigenvalues
339: and $V$ are obtained from this smaller matrix,
340: $U=MV\Lambda^{-1}$ can be calculated. This procedure is much faster
341: than the direct calculation of the covariance matrix, as long
342: as $m \gg n$. Also, it is clear from the arguments, that the
343: CM has at most $n$ non-degenerate eigenmodes. Unfortunately,
344: using only a small number of noisy eigenmodes means that
345: we cannot fully exploit the information content of our data.
346: While we have performed $\chi^2$ analysis using the full
347: data set, a more reliable result can be obtained
348: by compressing the data.
349:
350: \subsection{Binning}
351:
352: It would be desirable to combine different measurements
353: of the same $l$ with inverse variance weighting
354: to compress our data set. Such a combination
355: for the angular power spectrum is nearly optimal
356: \citep{FosalbaSzapudi2004}. The generalization is
357: a bit more complex, since the pixel and beam window
358: functions for a particular triplet in Equation~\ref{eqn:finalform}
359: cannot be decomposed, therefore one cannot simply obtain
360: corrected $C^{21}_l$ estimates independent of window functions.
361:
362: To overcome this problem we introduce a new unbiased quantity,
363: \begin{equation}
364: \widetilde{C}_l^{21}(X,s) =C_l^{21}(X,s)\times\frac{C_l^{21}((V1,V2,Q1),0)}{C_l^{21}(X,0)}\Big|_{f_{\rm NL}=1},
365: \end{equation}
366: the cumulant correlator power spectrum normalized according to
367: the theory to a arbitrary triplet $X=(V1,V2,Q1)$
368: \footnote{Different choices of X make no difference for our
369: results, so we will keep this normalization for the rest of the paper.}
370: at a fiducial value $f_{NL}=1$.
371: In this normalization
372: the window factors approximately cancel, therefore we can
373: obtain an inverse variance weighted
374: \begin{equation}
375: \bar{C}^{21}_l(s) = \frac{\sum_{X=1}^{168}w(X)\widetilde{C}_l^{21}(X,s)}{\sum_{X=1}^{168}w(X)},
376: \end{equation}
377: where $w(x)$ is proportional to the inverse variance measured
378: in the simulations. The advantage of the inverse variance weighting
379: over the noisy covariance matrix is that each weight is determined
380: with high accuracy $1/\sqrt{200} \simeq 0.07$, while, as we will
381: see, modes of the matrix are significantly affected by the noise.
382: Therefore, although our numerical method of the previous section
383: allows us to handle a matrix of very large size, we opted for
384: the inverse variance weighted estimators
385: to suppress the noise more effectively.
386:
387: \subsection{Random Matrix Theory}
388:
389: To assess the level of noise in our final covariance matrix,
390: we use some results from random matrix theory.
391: \citep[e.g.,][]{SenguptaMitra1999, LalouxEtal1999a}.
392: As before, let us assume that a CM $C$ is constructed as
393: $C = 1/n M M^T$, from $M$, an $m \times n$ rectangular matrix.
394: Let us further assume that $M$ is composed of independent,
395: identically distributed random variables with zero mean and unit variance.
396: In the limit $m \to \infty$, $n \to \infty$ while
397: $Q = n/m $ is kept fixed,
398: the eigenvalue spectrum will tend to:
399: \begin{eqnarray}
400: \rho_C(\lambda)&=& \frac{Q}{2\pi}\frac{\sqrt{(\lambda_{max}-\lambda)(\lambda-\lambda_{min})}}{\lambda},\\
401: \lambda_{min}^{max}&=&1+1/Q\pm2\sqrt{1/Q},
402: \end{eqnarray}
403: with $\lambda \in [\lambda_{min}, \lambda_{max}]$. The
404: eigenvalue density of $C$,
405: $\rho_C(\lambda)$ is defined as
406: \begin{equation}
407: \rho_C(\lambda)=\frac{1}{m}\frac{dn(\lambda)}{d\lambda},
408: \end{equation}
409: where $n(\lambda)$ is the number of eigenvalues of $C$ less than $\lambda$.
410:
411: In our numerical construction of the covariance matrix,
412: if \bCl were independent of each other, we would have a random
413: matrix. How significant are the correlations?
414: According to Figure~2, the density of eigenvalues of our CM
415: appears to be consistent with the random matrix theory with $Q = 999/200$,
416: with possibly a slight deviation for the largest
417: eigenvalues. Comparing with random matrix simulations, we find that
418: $Q=950/200$ would produce the same effect. While we keep
419: $Q = 999/200$ in our analysis, this might be a sign of
420: small correlations in the CM at the $5\%$ level; this
421: could effect our final $\chi^2$ and our final
422: error-bars only slightly.
423:
424: %
425: %
426: \begin{figure}[htb]
427: \epsscale{1.}
428: \plotone{f3.eps}
429: \caption{The eigenvalue spectrum for a set of
430: power mapped CMs from 200 WMAP2 simulations and
431: from the 200 random matrix simulations. The original matrix
432: corresponds to $q=1$. To display more detail,
433: we plot unbinned (sorted) eigenvalues of our CM
434: along with those obtained from random matrix simulations.
435: The spectacular agreement indicates that the random matrix
436: assumption is fairly accurate.
437: }
438: \label{fig:pm}
439: \end{figure}
440: %
441: %
442:
443: To further investigate the randomness of the covariance matrix,
444: we apply the technique of power mapping
445: to our CM and random matrix simulations for comparison.
446: The $q$th power mapping of a matrix $C$ is defined as\citep{GuhrKalber2003}:
447: \begin{equation}
448: C_{kl}^{(q)}=\mathrm{sign}(C_{kl})|C_{kl}|^q.
449: \end{equation}
450: \cite{GuhrKalber2003} show that the eigenvalue spectral density of
451: power mapped correlation matrices can detect correlations otherwise
452: buried in the noise. The variance of individual elements scales
453: as $1/n^{q/2}$, i.e. effective number of simulations increased
454: to $n^q$ by power mapping.
455: In our case, no significant deviation
456: from random matrix theory appears as a result
457: of power mapping (see Figure~2),
458: which shows that the covariance is dominated by random noise.
459:
460: \section{Results and Discussion}
461:
462: Given that the CM of our measurement is consistent with the random matrix
463: assumption at the 5\% level, and that from 200 Monte Carlo simulations
464: 7\% fluctuations are expected for each of its elements, we conclude
465: that it is consistent with our simulations to use a diagonal $\chi^2$
466: rather than weighting with the noisy off diagonal elements of CM.
467: We found that using diagonal $\chi^2$ is entirely robust when we
468: vary our binning scheme or apply no binning. On the contrary,
469: using the noisy eigenmodes of the CM produces
470: somewhat unstable results.
471:
472: Minimizing $\chi^2$ as function of $f_{NL}$
473: gives $f_{NL}=22\pm 52\, (1\sigma)$, which is the final result of
474: our paper.
475: The minimum reduced $\chi^2$ is about 1.1 for 998 degrees of freedom.
476: According to our discussion \S4.3 there might be an additional $5\%$
477: uncertainty on these results because we neglected
478: off diagonal correlations. Our results are entirely consistent with
479: \cite{SpergelEtal2006} despite that we did not weight with the theory.
480: The lack of optimal weighting is compensated by the
481: increased configuration dependence of our statistic.
482: Note that we did not attempt to correct for point source contamination,
483: but this should have a negligible effect on our results
484: \citep{SpergelEtal2006}.
485:
486: To test the robustness of our constraints, we divided the 200 simulations
487: to two sets of 100 simulations, then repeated the
488: full statistical analysis
489: with each set. We found consistent results:
490: $f_{NL}=24\pm54$ and $f_{NL}=21\pm49$, respectively.
491:
492: To test the degree to which noise correlations
493: might affect our
494: covariance, we also repeated our analysis of the CM with the WMAP1
495: simulations of \cite{ChenSzapudi2005}. where the correlated
496: noise were used. The eigenvalue spectrum is virtually identical to
497: what we get for WMAP2 simulations.
498:
499: Finally, we repeated our analysis using the less
500: conservative Kp2 mask and obtained $f_{NL}=-78\pm52$.
501: This shows that the statistical variance of our results
502: is already of the same order of magnitude as the possible effect
503: of foreground corrections
504: near the galactic plane \citep{SpergelEtal2006}, therefore it
505: would be difficult to improve on significantly with the present data set.
506:
507:
508: We acknowledge useful discussions with Adrian Pope and Mark Neyrinck.
509: Some of the results in this paper have been derived using
510: the HEALPix \citep{GorskiEtal2005} package.
511: We acknowledge the use of the Legacy Archive
512: for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA).
513: Support for LAMBDA is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science.
514: The authors gratefully acknowledge support
515: by NASA through AISR NAG5-11996, NNGO06GE71G
516: and ATP NASA NAG5-12101 as well as by
517: NSF grants AST02-06243, AST-0434413 and ITR 1120201-128440.
518:
519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
520: %%%%% References %%%%%
521:
522: % to use bibtex files
523: %\bibliography{C2l}
524: %\bibliographystyle{apj} %>>>> makes bibtex use spiebib.bst
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526:
527: %to include bibliography
528: \input ms.bbl
529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
530:
531:
532: \end{document}
533:
534:
535:
536:
537: