1: %\documentclass[letterpaper]{emulateapj}

2: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: %\usepackage{float}

5: %\usepackage{amsmath}

6: %\usepackage{epsfig,floatflt}

7: %\usepackage{subfigure}

8: %\usepackage[usenames]{color}

9: 

10: %%%%  Shorthand symbols

11: 

12: %  \newcommand{cmd}[args][opt]{def}

13: 

14: \newcommand{\bi}[1]{{\mathbf{#1}}}

15: \newcommand{\bs}[1]{{\mathbf{#1}}}

16: 

17: 

18: % \def\bi#1{\mathbf{#1}}

19: % \def\bs#1{\boldsymbol{#1}}

20: \def\D{\bi{D}}

21: \def\beps{\bs{w}}

22: \def\C{\bi{C}}

23: \def\bS{\bi{S}}

24: \def\Z{\bi{Z}}

25: \def\A{\bi{A}}

26: \def\B{\bi{B}}

27: \def\Sg{\bs{\Sigma}}

28: \def\Sgi{\Sg^{-1}}

29: \def\t{^{\dag}}

30: \def\like{\mathcal{L}}

31: \def\Nl{N_{\rm bin}}

32: \def\Nc{N_{\rm cross}}

33: \def\Nm{N_{\rm marg}}

34: \def\Ne{N_{\rm est}}

35: \def\a{\mathbf{a}}

36: \def\b{\mathbf{b}}

37: \def\c{\mathbf{c}}

38: \def\E{\mathbf{E}}

39: \def\X{\mathbf{X}}

40: \def\f{\mathbf{f}}

41: \def\g{\mathbf{g}}

42: \def\h{\mathbf{h}}

43: \def\F{\mathbf{F}}

44: \def\p{\mathbf{p}}

45: \def\q{\mathbf{q}}

46: \def\H{\bi{H}}

47: \def\J{\bi{J}}

48: \def\Sgc{\Sg^\C}

49: \def\SgB{\Sg^\B}

50: \def\in{^{-1}}

51: \def\I{\bi{1}}

52: 

53: 

54: 

55: 

56: \def\WMAP{\emph{WMAP}}

57: 

58: 

59: 

60: \begin{document}

61: 

62: %\newcommand{\hinshaw}{2006astro.ph..3451H}

63: %\newcommand{\page}{2006astro.ph..3450P}

64: %\newcommand{\spergel}{2006astro.ph..3449S}

65: %\newcommand{\jarosik}{2006astro.ph..3452J}

66: 

67: \newcommand{\hinshaw}{hinshaw:2006}

68: \newcommand{\page}{page:2006}

69: \newcommand{\spergel}{spergel:2006}

70: \newcommand{\jarosik}{jarosik:2006}

71: 

72: %\newcommand{\highlight}[1]{{\color{red} \bf #1}}

73: 

74: \title{Point source power in three-year \emph{Wilkinson Microwave

75:     Anisotropy Probe} data}

76: 

77: \author{

78: K. M. Huffenberger\altaffilmark{1,2,3}, 

79: H.\ K.\ Eriksen\altaffilmark{2,3,4,5}, 

80: F. K. Hansen\altaffilmark{4,5}%, \textit{et al.}

81: }

82: 

83: 

84: \altaffiltext{1}{email: huffenbe@jpl.nasa.gov}

85: \altaffiltext{2}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak  Grove Drive, Pasadena CA 91109} 

86: \altaffiltext{3}{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA  91125} 

87: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, P.O.\ Box 1029 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway}

88: \altaffiltext{5}{Centre of Mathematics for Applications, University of Oslo, P.O.\ Box 1053 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo}

89: 

90: \date{Received - / Accepted -}

91: 

92: \begin{abstract}

93: Using a set of multifrequency cross-spectra computed from the three

94: year \WMAP\ sky maps, we fit for the unresolved point source

95: contribution.  For a white noise power spectrum, we find a Q-band

96: amplitude of $A = 0.011 \pm 0.001$ $\mu$K$^2$ sr (antenna

97: temperature), significantly smaller than the value of $0.017 \pm

98: 0.002$ $\mu$K$^2$ sr used to correct the spectra in the \WMAP\

99: release.  Modifying the point source correction in this way largely

100: resolves the discrepancy \citet{eriksen:2006} found between the \WMAP\

101: V- and W-band power spectra.  Correcting the co-added \WMAP\ spectrum

102: for both the low-$\ell$ power excess due to a sub-optimal

103: likelihood approximation---also reported by \citet{eriksen:2006}---and 

104: the high-$\ell$ power deficit due to over-subtracted point 

105: sources---presented in this letter---we find that the net effect in terms of

106: cosmological parameters is a $\sim0.7\sigma$ shift in $n_{\textrm{s}}$

107: to larger values: For the combination of \emph{WMAP}, BOOMERanG and

108: Acbar data, we find $n_{\textrm{s}} = 0.969 \pm 0.016$, lowering the

109: significance of $n_{\textrm{s}} \ne 1$ from $\sim2.7\sigma$ to $\sim

110: 2.0\sigma$.

111: \end{abstract}

112: 

113: \keywords{cosmic microwave background --- cosmology: observations --- methods: numerical}

114: 

115: %\maketitle

116: 

117: \section{Introduction}

118: 

119: The results of \emph{Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe} have made

120: an inestimable impact on the science of cosmology, highlighted by the

121: very recent release of the three year data: maps, power spectra, and

122: consequent cosmological analysis

123: \citep{\jarosik,\page,\hinshaw,\spergel}.  Precisely because these

124: results play so prominent a role, it is important to check and recheck

125: their consistency.

126: 

127: %Following the data release, the \WMAP\ team has had a generous policy with their data.

128: %The recent release of the first three years of observation found that

129: %the microwave sky is well fit by six parameters 

130: %deviation Harrison-Zel'dovich $n_s=1$

131: 

132: Recently \cite{eriksen:2006} reanalyzed the \WMAP\ three year

133: temperature sky maps, and noted two discrepancies in the \WMAP\ power

134: spectrum analysis.  On large angular scales there is a small power

135: excess in the \emph{WMAP} spectrum (5--10\% at $\ell \lesssim 50$),

136: primarily due to a problem with the %MASTER-based

137:  likelihood

138: approximation used by the \emph{WMAP} team. On small angular scales,

139: an unexplained systematic difference between the V- and W-band spectra

140: (few percent at $\ell \gtrsim 300$) was found.  In this Letter, we

141: suggest this second discrepancy is at least partially due to an

142: excessive point source correction in the \WMAP\ power spectrum.

143: 

144: %In \S \ref{sec:data}, we list the data---multifrequency \WMAP\

145: %maps---we use in our analysis.  Then in \S \ref{sec:methods}, we

146: %explain how we process this data to get cross-spectra, and from those

147: %an estimate of the point source amplitude.  Next, in \S

148: %\ref{sec:results}, we present our estimate and the implications for

149: %the \WMAP\ power spectrum and cosmological parameters.  Finally, in \S

150: %\ref{sec:conclusions}, we draw our conclusions.

151: 

152: \section{Data}

153: \label{sec:data}

154: 

155: The \emph{WMAP} temperature data \citep{\hinshaw} are provided as ten sky maps 

156: observed at five frequencies between 23 and 94 GHz, pixelized using the

157: HEALPix\footnote{http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov} scheme with 3 million ($\sim$ 7\arcmin-size) 

158: pixels per map.

159: %resolution parameter

160: %$N_{\textrm{side}} = 512$, corresponding to a pixel size of $7\arcmin$

161: %and about 3 million pixels per map. 

162: Here we consider the

163: Q-band (41 GHz), V-band (61 GHz), and W-band (94 GHz) channels since

164: these have the least galactic foreground contamination, but only

165: V- and W-bands for the

166: cosmological parameter analysis.

167: 

168: We account for the (assumed circularly symmetric) beam profile

169: of each channel independently, adopting the Kp2 sky cut as our

170: mask. This excludes 15.3\% of the sky including all resolved point

171: sources.  To deal with contamination outside the mask, we simply use

172: the foreground template corrected maps provided on the LAMBDA

173: website\footnote{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/}.

174: %, from which a free-free

175: %template \citep{finkbeiner:2003}, a dust template

176: %\citep{finkbeiner:1999}, and the \emph{WMAP} K--Ka sky map have been

177: %fitted and subtracted.  

178: The noise is modeled as uncorrelated,

179: non-uniform, and Gaussian with an RMS given by $\sigma_{0,i} /

180: \sqrt{N_{\textrm{\scriptsize obs},i}(p)}$. Here $\sigma_{0,i}$ is the noise per

181: observation for channel $i$, and $N_{\textrm{\scriptsize obs},i}(p)$ is the number

182: of observations in pixel $p$.

183: 

184: 

185: \section{Methods}

186: \label{sec:methods}

187: 

188: \subsection{Power spectrum estimation}

189: 

190: We estimate power spectra with the pseudo-$C_{\ell}$ MASTER method

191: \citep{hivon:2002}, which decouples the mode correlations in a

192: noise-corrected raw quadratic estimate of the power spectrum computed

193: on the partial sky.

194: %1) compute the spherical harmonics expansion with partial sky data; 2)

195: %form a raw quadratic estimate of the power spectrum; 3) correct for

196: %noise (for auto-spectra); 4) finally decouple the mode correlations by

197: %means of an analytically computed coupling kernel.

198: %

199: %Such methods have proved to be very useful tools for CMB

200: %analysis, primarily due to their low computational cost, which again

201: %allows for massive Monte Carlo simulations.

202: Following \citet{hinshaw:2003}, we include only cross-correlations

203: between channels in our power spectrum estimates.

204: 

205: Considering each of three years, three bands, and the number of

206: differencing assemblies per band (two for Q-/V- and four for W-band),

207: 276 individual cross-spectra are available for analysis.  Each of

208: these is computed to ${\ell_{\rm max} = 1024}$.  The V- and W-band spectra

209: have been verified against spectra provided by the WMAP team, but the 

210: Q-band spectra (computed the same way) were not available for comparison.

211: %

212: For the point source amplitude analysis, we bin the power spectra into

213: ten bins ($\ell=2$--$101$, $102$--$201$,\dots, $902$--$1001$) in order

214: to increase the signal-to-noise ratio and decrease the number of bins

215: (and thus the computation time).  The corresponding error bars are

216: computed using a Fisher approximation and similarly binned. 

217: 

218: \subsection{Point source amplitude estimation}

219: 

220: For our main result, we marginalize over the CMB power and estimate a

221: single amplitude for the point source spectrum by the method we

222: discuss below.  We also compute the amplitude in $\ell$-bins, but for

223: brevity omit the details, which are similar.

224: %

225: We model the ensemble averaged cross-spectra as the sum of the two components,

226: %\begin{equation}

227: $\langle  C^\bi{i}_l \rangle = C^{\bi{i},\rm CMB}_l +  C^{\bi{i},\rm src}_l$,

228: %\end{equation}

229: showing explicitly the contribution from each part of the signal.

230: Here the multipole bin is denoted by $l$ and the cross-correlation

231: pair by $\bi{i} = {(i_1)(i_2)} = $ (W1yr1)(W2yr3), (Q1yr2)(V1yr2),

232: {\it etc.}  No auto-power spectra are included, so noise subtraction

233: is unnecessary.

234: %  

235: We marginalize over the CMB spectrum, which we denote by

236: $C_l^{\rm{CMB}}$.  The window functions for each differencing assembly

237: pair are $\beps = \{ w^\bi{i}_{ll'} \}$, which we later consider in

238: terms of a matrix.  The contribution to a cross-spectrum from the CMB

239: signal is thus

240: %\begin{equation}

241: $C^{\bi{i},\rm CMB}_l =  \sum_{l'} w^\bi{i}_{ll'} C^{\rm{CMB}}_{l'}$ (in thermodynamic temperature units).

242: %\end{equation}

243: The spectra in this application are already beam-deconvolved, so the window functions

244: $w^\bi{i}_{ll'} = \delta_{ll'}$ are trivial.

245: %

246: We denote the amplitude of the unresolved point source power spectrum

247: by $A$. This amplitude relates to the cross-spectra via the frequency

248: and shape dependence vector $\bS = \{ S^\bi{i}_{l} \}$,

249: %  Later we consider

250: %$\bS$ as a vector.  We assume the radio sources are spatially

251: %uncorrelated (and therefore have a white noise spectrum) and have a

252: %power law frequency dependence given by:

253: \begin{eqnarray}

254: \nonumber

255: C_l^{\bi{i},\rm src} &=& A S^\bi{i}_l  \\ 

256:  S^\bi{i}_{l} &=&  w^\bi{i}_{ll} \ \left( \frac{\nu_{i_1}}{ \nu_0} \right)^{\beta}\ 

257:  K\left( x(\nu_{i_1})\right) 

258:  \left( \frac{\nu_{i_2} }{ \nu_0} \right)^{\beta} \ 

259:  K\left( x(\nu_{i_2}) \right) \nonumber \\

260: K(x) &=& \frac{\left(\exp(x) - 1 \right)^2}{x^2 \exp(x)}.

261: \end{eqnarray}

262: Here the cross-spectrum $\bi{i}$ has channels at $\nu_{i_1}$ and

263: $\nu_{i_2}$, and $x(\nu) = {h \nu}/{ k_B T_{\rm CMB}}$.  The units of

264: $A$ are antenna temperature squared times solid angle and the function

265: $K(x)$ converts from antenna temperature to thermodynamic

266: temperature.  Thus, we assume that the radio sources are spatially

267: uncorrelated (and therefore have a white noise spectrum) and have a

268: power-law frequency dependence using antenna temperature units.

269: Note that well-resolved point sources have already been masked from

270: the maps before the evaluation of the cross-spectra, and $A$ therefore

271: represents unresolved sources only. However, we may only directly measure

272: the frequency dependence for the resolved sources.  For these,

273: \citet{bennett:2003} found $\beta=-2.0$, and  following

274: \citet{hinshaw:2003,\hinshaw} we take the same even for the unresolved

275: sources. We choose $\nu_0=40.7$ GHz (Q-band) as our reference

276: frequency.

277: 

278: We organize the binned cross-spectra $C^\bi{i}_l$ into a data vector

279: $\D = \{ C^\bi{i}_l \}$.  We use a Gaussian model for the likelihood

280: $\like$ of the power spectrum, appropriate at high $\ell$:

281: \begin{equation}

282: \like \propto \exp \left\{ -\frac{1}{2}

283: \left[ \D -  \langle \D \rangle\right]\t \Sgi \left[ \D -

284:  \langle \D \rangle \right]) \right\},

285: \end{equation}

286: where the covariance $\Sg = \langle (\D-\langle \D \rangle)(\D-\langle

287: \D \rangle)\t \rangle$ can be written as $\Sg = \{

288: \Sigma^{\bi{ii'}}_{ll'} \}$.  Here we assume the covariance is

289: diagonal both in multipole and cross-spectrum.  An appendix of

290: \cite{huffenberger:2004} derives an unbiased estimator for this type

291: of problem, generalizing the point source treatment of

292: \citet{hinshaw:2003}.  Here the estimators are equivalent, and  

293: result in a linear estimate for $A$,

294: denoted $\bar A$, and its covariance $\Sigma^A$:

295: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:est}\nonumber 

296: \bar A &\equiv& (\bS\t\F\bS)^{-1} \bS\t \F \D \\ 

297: \Sigma^A &\equiv& (\bS\t \F \bS)^{-1},

298: \end{eqnarray}

299: where we have defined the auxiliary matrix

300: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:estaux}\nonumber

301: \F &\equiv& \Sgi -  \Sgi \beps\left(\beps\t \Sgi \beps\right)^{-1} \beps\t \Sgi.

302: \end{eqnarray}

303: In this notation, we consider $\D$ and $\bS$ as column vectors with a

304: single index $\bi{i}l$, and $\beps$ as a matrix with indices $\bi{i}l$

305: and $l'$.  Matrices $\Sg$ and $\F$ have indices $\bi{i}l$ and

306: $\bi{i}'l'$. This estimator marginalizes out the CMB, a conservative treatment which assumes nothing but the 

307: frequency dependence.  

308: %Note that $\bar A$ is a linear combination of the

309: %cross-spectra $\D$, with weights $(\bS\t\F\bS)^{-1} \bS\t \F$. 

310: %

311: To compute the amplitude in bins, we redefine $A$ as $\A$, a vector of

312: the amplitudes, with $C^{\bi{i},\rm src}_l = ( \A \cdot \bS

313: )^{\bi{i}}_l$, modifying $\bS$ for each component to lend power only

314: to appropriate multipole bins.

315: 

316: 

317: \section{Results}

318: \label{sec:results}

319: 

320: \subsection{Point source spectrum amplitude}

321: 

322: Using the method described in the previous section, we find a point

323: source amplitude of $A = 0.011 \pm 0.001$ $\mu$K$^2$ sr, significantly

324: less than the \WMAP\ value of $A = 0.017 \pm 0.002$ $\mu$K$^2$ sr

325: \citep{\hinshaw}.  Computing the spectrum in bins (Figure

326: \ref{fig:source_powspec}), we see that the source power spectrum is

327: best measured at $100<\ell<600$.   To evaluate goodness-of-fit, 

328: we compute

329: $\chi^2 = \sum_{l\textrm{\scriptsize\ bin}}(A_l -

330: A)^2/\sigma^2_l  = 36.6$  for 9 degrees of freedom.  All of the

331: discrepancy in our fit arises from a single high bin at

332: $\ell=102$--$201$, which has $\Delta \chi^2 = 27.2$.  

333: This bin is so different that we suspect that it is not detecting point source

334: power alone, but perhaps some residual foreground.  

335: We leave a rigorous investigation of this anomalous bin to later work,

336:  leaving it in our analysis here.  If we were to exclude it, the other nine

337: bins are consistent with a flat power spectrum at $A = 0.011$

338: $\mu$K$^2$ sr---with $\chi^2 = 9.4$ for 8 remaining degrees of

339: freedom---though they would prefer a somewhat smaller value for

340: $A$.  For the \WMAP\ amplitude, we measure $\chi^2 = 86.5$ for 9 degrees of freedom.

341: This large discrepancy is puzzling because our method should be equivalent to the \WMAP\ method.

342: 

343: %To test the estimation code, we simulated cross spectra to match the

344: %data, with CMB, the WMAP point source spectrum, and Gaussian random

345: %errors corresponding to the error bars.  For the simulated data, the

346: %estimate of the source power spectrum is consistent with the input

347: %spectrum. 

348: 

349: 

350: \subsection{Angular CMB power spectrum}

351: 

352: The net effect of the lower unresolved point source amplitude on the

353: co-added \WMAP\ CMB power spectrum may be computed in terms of a

354: weighted average of corrections for individual cross-spectra

355: (V$\times$V, V$\times$W, and W$\times$W, respectively). Following the

356: construction of \WMAP's spectrum, for $\ell < 500$ the correction is

357: given by a uniform average over the 137 individual cross-spectrum

358: corrections; for $\ell \ge 500$ it is given as an inverse noise

359: weighted average \citep{\hinshaw}. In this Letter we approximate the

360: latter with the inverse variance of the power spectrum coefficients

361: computed from 2500 simulations for each cross-spectrum individually,

362: but do not account for correlations between different cross-spectra.

363: 

364: The net power spectrum correction is shown in Figure

365: \ref{fig:spec_corr}.  We show the Q-band spectra, corrected by each

366: point source amplitude, in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:powspec},

367: and compare the V- and W-band spectra in the bottom panel.

368: 

369: One of two issues pointed out by \citet{eriksen:2006} was a

370: discrepancy between the V- and W-bands at $\ell \gtrsim 250$

371: significant at about $3\sigma$. This is seen by comparing the two red

372: curves in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:powspec}. However,

373: applying the lower point source correction raises the V-band spectrum

374: by 10--$50\,\mu\textrm{K}^2$ in this range but the W-band by only a

375: few $\mu\textrm{K}^2$.  Effectively, about $20\,\mu\textrm{K}^2$ of

376: the previous $65\,\mu\textrm{K}^2$ average difference is thus removed,

377: reducing the significance of the difference from 3 to $2\sigma$,

378: compared to 2500 simulations. A small difference is still

379: present, and may warrant further investigation, but is no longer

380: striking.  This gives us confidence that our point source correction

381: is the more consistent than the \WMAP\ value.

382: 

383: \subsection{Cosmological parameters}

384: 

385: To assess the impact of this new high-$\ell$ correction on

386: cosmological parameters, we repeat the analysis described by

387: \citet{eriksen:2006} using the CosmoMC package \citep[][which also

388: gives the parameter definitions]{lewis:2002} and a modified version of

389: the \WMAP\ likelihood code \citep{\hinshaw}. First, at $\ell\le30$ the

390: \WMAP\ likelihood is replaced with a Blackwell-Rao Gibbs

391: sampling-based estimator

392: \citep{jewell:2004,wandelt:2004,eriksen:2004,chu:2005}, and second,

393: the bias correction shown in Figure \ref{fig:spec_corr} is added to

394: the co-added \WMAP\ spectrum. The results from these computations are

395: summarized in Table \ref{tab:parameters}.

396: 

397: As reported by \citet{eriksen:2006}, the most notable effect of the

398: low-$\ell$ estimator bias in the \WMAP\ data release was a

399: $\sim0.4\sigma$ shift in $n_{\textrm{s}}$ to lower values, increasing

400: the nominal significance of $n_{\textrm{s}} \ne 1$. In Table

401: \ref{tab:parameters} we see that the over-estimated point source

402: amplitude causes a similar effect by lowering the high-$\ell$ spectrum

403: too much.  Correcting for both of these effects, the spectral index is

404: $n_{\textrm{s}} = 0.969\pm0.016$ for the combination of \emph{WMAP},

405: BOOMERanG \citep{montroy:2005,piacentini:2005,jones:2005} and Acbar

406: \citep{kuo:2004} data, or different from unity by only

407: $\sim2\sigma$. The marginalized distributions both with and without

408: these corrections are shown in Figure \ref{fig:n_s}. The

409: other cosmological parameters change little.  For reference, the

410: best-fit (as opposed to marginalized) parameters for this case are

411: $\{\Omega_{\textrm{b}}h^2, \Omega_{\textrm{c}}h^2, h, \tau,

412: n_{\textrm{s}}, \log (10^{10} A_{\textrm{s}})\} = (0.0225, 0.108,

413: 0.732, 0.919, 0.967, 3.05)$.

414: 

415: \section{Conclusions}

416: \label{sec:conclusions}

417: 

418: Using a combination of cross-spectra of maps from the Q-, V-, and

419: W-bands of \WMAP\ three year data, we fit for the amplitude of the

420: power spectrum of unresolved point sources in Q-band, finding $A =

421: 0.011 \pm 0.001$ $\mu$K$^2$ sr.  This fit has significantly less power

422: than the fit used to correct the \WMAP\ final co-added power spectrum

423: used for cosmological analysis.

424: 

425: We compute and apply the proper point source correction, noting the

426: corrected V- and W-bands are more consistent than before.  The

427: improper point source correction conspires with a low-$\ell$ estimator

428:  bias to impart a spurious tilt to the \WMAP\ temperature

429: power spectrum.  With the revised corrections, we find evidence for

430: spectral index $n_\textrm{s} \neq 1$ at only $\sim 2\sigma$, while

431: other parameters remain largely unchanged.

432: 

433: \begin{acknowledgements}

434:   We thank Gary Hinshaw for useful discussions and comments. We

435:   acknowledge use of HEALPix software \citep{gorski:2005} for deriving some 

436: results in this paper. We

437:   acknowledge use of the Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data

438:   Analysis (LAMBDA). This work was partially performed at the Jet

439:   Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a

440:   contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. HKE

441:   acknowledges financial support from the Research Council of Norway.

442: \end{acknowledgements}

443: 

444: 

445: %\bibliography{reference.bib}

446: 

447: 

448: \begin{thebibliography}{}

449: 

450: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2003)]{bennett:2003} Bennett, C.~L., et al.\ 

451: 2003, \apjs, 148, 97 

452: 

453: \bibitem[Chu et al.(2005)]{chu:2005} Chu, M.,% Eriksen, H.~K., Knox,

454: %  L., G{\'o}rski, K.~M., Jewell, J.~B., Larson, D.~L., O'Dwyer, I.~J.,

455: %  \& Wandelt, B.~D.

456: et al.\ 2005, \prd, 71, 103002

457: 

458: \bibitem[Eriksen et al.(2004)]{eriksen:2004} Eriksen, H.~K., et al.\ 

459: 2004, \apjs, 155, 227 

460: 

461: \bibitem[Eriksen et al.(2006)]{eriksen:2006} 

462: Eriksen, H.~K., et al.\ 2006, \apj, submitted, [astro-ph/0606088]

463: 

464: \bibitem[Finkbeiner et al.(1999)]{finkbeiner:1999} % FDS models for thermal dust emission

465: Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., \& Schlegel D.J. 1999, ApJ, 524, 867

466: 

467: \bibitem[Finkbeiner(2003)]{finkbeiner:2003} 

468: Finkbeiner, D.~P.\ 2003, \apjs, 146, 407

469: 

470: \bibitem[G{\'o}rski et al.(2005)]{gorski:2005} 

471:   G{\' o}rski, K.~M., Hivon, E., Banday, A.~J., Wandelt, B.~D.,

472:   Hansen, F.\,K., Reinecke, M., \& Bartelmann, M. 2005, \apj, 622, 759

473: 

474: \bibitem[Hinshaw et al.(2003)]{hinshaw:2003} 

475:   Hinshaw, G., et al.\ 2003, \apjs, 148, 135

476: 

477: \bibitem[Hinshaw et al.(2006)]{hinshaw:2006} Hinshaw, G., et al.\ 

478: 2006, ApJ, submitted [astro-ph/0603451]

479: 

480: \bibitem[Hivon et al.(2002)]{hivon:2002} Hivon, E., G{\' o}rski,

481:   K.~M., Netterfield, C.~B., Crill, B.~P., Prunet, S., \& Hansen, F.\

482:   2002, \apj, 567, 2

483: 

484: \bibitem[Huffenberger et al.(2004)]{huffenberger:2004} Huffenberger, 

485: K.~M., Seljak, U., \& Makarov, A.\ 2004, \prd, 70, 063002 

486: 

487: \bibitem[Jarosik et al.(2006)]{jarosik:2006} Jarosik, N., et al.\ 

488: 2006, ApJ, submitted, [astro-ph/0603452]

489: 

490: \bibitem[Jewell et al.(2004)]{jewell:2004} 

491:   Jewell, J., Levin, S., \& Anderson, C.  H.  2004, \apj, 609, 1

492: 

493: \bibitem[Jones et al.(2005)]{jones:2005} Jones, W.~C., et al.\ 

494: 2005, ApJ, submitted, [astro-ph/0507494]

495: 

496: \bibitem[Kuo et al.(2004)]{kuo:2004} Kuo, C.~L., et al.\ 2004, \apj,

497: 600, 32

498: 

499: \bibitem[Lewis \& Bridle(2002)]{lewis:2002} 

500:   Lewis, A., \& Bridle, S.\ 2002, \prd, 66, 103511

501: 

502: \bibitem[Montroy et al.(2005)]{montroy:2005} Montroy, T.~E., et al.\ 

503: 2005, ApJ, submitted, [astro-ph/0507514]

504: 

505: \bibitem[Page et al.(2006)]{page:2006} Page, L., et al.\ 2006, 

506: ApJ, submitted, [astro-ph/0603450]

507: 

508: \bibitem[Piacentini et al.(2005)]{piacentini:2005} 

509: Piacentini, F, et al.\ 2005, ApJ, submitted [astro-ph/0507507]

510: 

511: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{spergel:2006} Spergel, D.~N., et al.\ 

512: 2006, ApJ, submitted, [astro-ph/0603449]

513:  

514: \bibitem[Wandelt et al.(2004)]{wandelt:2004} 

515:   Wandelt, B.~D., Larson, D.~L., \& Lakshminarayanan, A.\ 2004, \prd,

516:   70, 083511

517: 

518: 

519: \end{thebibliography}

520: 

521: \clearpage

522: 

523: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}

524: \tablewidth{0pt} 

525: \tabletypesize{\small} 

526: \tablecaption{Cosmological parameters\label{tab:parameters}}

527: \tablecolumns{3}

528: \tablehead{Parameter & \emph{WMAP} & Low-$\ell$ and PS corrected

529: }

530: 

531: \startdata

532: 

533: \cutinhead{\emph{WMAP} data only}

534:  $\Omega_{\textrm{b}}\,h^2$    & $0.0222 \pm 0.0007$ & $0.0223\pm0.0007$ \\ 

535:  $\Omega_{\textrm{m}}$    & $0.241 \pm 0.036$ & $0.244\pm 0.035$ \\ 

536:  $\log(10^{10}A_{\textrm{s}})$    & $3.019 \pm 0.067$ &

537:  $3.039\pm 0.068$ \\ 

538:  $h$    & $0.731 \pm 0.033$ & $0.730\pm 0.032$ \\ 

539:  $n_{\textrm{s}}$    & $0.954 \pm 0.016$ & $0.966\pm 0.016$ \\ 

540:  $\tau$    & $0.090 \pm 0.030$ & $0.090\pm 0.030$ \\

541: 

542: \cutinhead{\emph{WMAP} + Acbar + BOOMERanG}

543:  $\Omega_{\textrm{b}}\,h^2$    & $0.0225 \pm 0.0007$ & $0.0225\pm0.0007$ \\ 

544:  $\Omega_{\textrm{m}}$    & $0.239 \pm 0.031$ & $0.240\pm 0.031$\\ 

545:  $\log(10^{10}A_{\textrm{s}})$    & $3.030 \pm 0.064$ &

546:  $3.045\pm 0.065$ \\ 

547:  $h$    & $0.737 \pm 0.029$ & $0.738\pm 0.030$\\ 

548:  $n_{\textrm{s}}$    & $0.958 \pm 0.016$ & $0.969\pm 0.016$\\ 

549:  $\tau$    & $0.091 \pm 0.030$ & $0.091\pm 0.030$

550: \enddata

551: 

552: \tablecomments{Comparison of marginalized parameter results obtained

553:   from the \emph{WMAP} likelihood (second column) and from the

554:   \emph{WMAP} + Blackwell-Rao hybrid, applying the low-$\ell$

555:   estimator and high-$\ell$ point source corrections (third column).}

556: 

557: \end{deluxetable}

558: 

559: \clearpage

560: 

561: 

562: \begin{figure}

563: \plotone{f1.eps}

564: \caption{The point source power spectrum, fit from \WMAP\ Q-, V-, and

565: W- bands.  The lowest $\ell$ bin is not plotted, because the error

566: bars span the entire range of the plot, and it has little statistical

567: influence.  The 1-parameter fit for a flat spectral shape is also

568: shown, as well as the point source amplitude from \cite{\hinshaw}.}

569: \label{fig:source_powspec}

570: \end{figure}

571: 

572: \clearpage

573: 

574: \begin{figure}

575: \plotone{f2.eps}

576: \caption{The net difference [$(C_{\ell}^{\rm new} -

577: C_{\ell}^{\rm old})\ell(\ell+1)/2\pi$] in the final co-added \WMAP\ spectrum due

578: to the new and smaller point source amplitude. The sharp break at $\ell=500$ is

579: due to different weighting schemes, and the smaller fluctuations at

580: high $\ell$'s are due to a finite number of Monte Carlo simulations

581: for noise estimation. } \label{fig:spec_corr}

582: \end{figure}

583: 

584: \clearpage

585: 

586: \begin{figure}

587: \epsscale{0.7}

588: \plotone{f3.eps}

589: \caption{The impact on the Q-, V-, and W-band power spectra of the revised

590:   point source correction.  The top panel shows the Q-band power

591:   spectrum with the \WMAP\ point source correction (red) and the

592:   correction in this work (green dashed), plotted with the \WMAP\ best-fit

593:   $\Lambda$CDM spectrum.  Particularly at $\ell < 400$ where noise is lower, this highlights the point source over-subtraction using the \WMAP\ correction.  The bottom panel shows the V-band (solid) and W-band

594:   (dashed) power spectra minus the co-added \WMAP\ temperature

595:   spectrum \citep{\hinshaw}, computed with the \WMAP\ point source

596:   correction (red) and the correction in this work (green).  The V-

597:   and W- bands are internally more consistent with the revised source

598:   correction.}\label{fig:powspec}

599: \end{figure}

600: 

601: \clearpage

602: 

603: \begin{figure}

604: \plotone{f4.eps}

605: \caption{Marginalized posterior distributions for the spectral index

606:   $n_{\textrm{s}}$ computed with the combination of \emph{WMAP},

607:   BOOMERanG and Acbar data, both with the WMAP likelihood code as

608:   provided (dashed) and after applying a low-$\ell$ estimator

609:   correction and a high-$\ell$ point source correction (solid).}

610:   \label{fig:n_s}

611: \end{figure}

612: 

613: \end{document}