1: \documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{multicol}
3: \def\lsim {\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
4: \def\gsim {\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
5: \slugcomment{ }
6:
7: \shorttitle{ }
8: \shortauthors{ }
9: \newcommand{\fpr}[1]{\left( #1\right)}
10: \newcommand{\fbr}[1]{\left\{ #1\right\}}
11: \newcommand{\fsq}[1]{\left[ #1\right]}
12: \newcommand{\fang}[1]{\langle #1\rangle}
13: \newcommand{\fabs}[1]{\left| #1\right|}
14: \newcommand{\muK}{{\mu\mathrm{K}}}
15: \begin{document}
16: \title{The Validity of the Cosmic String Pattern Search with the Cosmic
17: Microwave Background \\}
18: \author{E. Jeong}
19: \affil{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720}
20: \email{ehjeong@berkeley.edu}
21: \author{G. F. Smoot}
22: \affil{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720}
23: \affil{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720}
24: \email{gfsmoot@lbl.gov}
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We introduce a new technique to detect the discrete temperature steps that
27: cosmic strings might have left in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
28: anisotropy map. The technique provides a validity test on the pattern search of
29: cosmic strings that could serve as the groundwork for future pattern searches.
30: The detecting power of the technique is only constrained by two unavoidable
31: features of CMB data: (1) the finite pixelization of the sky map and (2) the
32: Gaussian fluctuation from instrumental noise and primordial anisotropy. We set
33: the upper limit on the cosmic string parameter as
34: $G\mu\lesssim 3.7\times 10^{-6}$ at the 95\% confidence level (CL) and find
35: that the amplitude of the temperature step has to be greater than $44\mu K$ in
36: order to be detected for the {\it{Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)}}
37: 3 year data.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \keywords{CMB anisotropy, cosmic strings}
41:
42: \section{Introduction and Modeling}
43: Cosmic string is one of the relic structures that are predicted to be produced
44: in the course of symmetry breaking in the hot, early universe, whose discovery
45: will probably be an important landmark for the high energy physics. The quest
46: for cosmic strings has been conducted in two ways: statistical method and
47: direct search for individual cosmic string. On the statistical side, many
48: studies agreed that the contribution from cosmic strings to statistical
49: observables such as the power spectrum is at most $10\%$
50: \citep{pogosian.et.al,wu,fraisse,daviskibble,wyman.et.al}, reconfirming that
51: cosmic strings played a minor role, if any, in making the universe. Other
52: workers have set upper limits on the cosmic string parameter $G\mu$
53: \citep{hindmarsh1, perivolaropoulossimatos,jeongsmoot1,lowright,seljakslosar,
54: pogosian.et.al2,fraisse2}. In this Letter, we introduce a technique for
55: estimating how strong a signal from cosmic strings has to be in order to be
56: identified unequivocally.
57: The detecting power of this technique is calibrated by applying it to
58: simulated anisotropy maps based on reasonable modeling. In the last part of
59: this Letter, we apply this technique to the {\it{WMAP}} 3 year W-band data
60: set\footnote{See http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/} and analyze the
61: implication of the results.
62: A cosmic string can leave discrete temperature steps in a CMB anisotropy map
63: due to the Kaiser-Stebbins effect \citep{kaiserstebbins}, with the height of a
64: step $\delta T$ given by
65: \begin{equation}\label{1}
66: \delta T= 8\pi G\mu\gamma_s\beta_sT\hat{n}\cdot (\hat{v}\times\hat{s})
67: \end{equation}
68: where $T\simeq 2.725 K$ is the universal background temperature of CMB.
69: However, those step patterns are probably obscured by instrumental noises and
70: other physical structures of anisotropies.
71: \begin{figure}[t]
72: \begin{center}
73: \includegraphics[width=13cm,angle=0]{f1.eps}
74: \caption{\label{fig1}Decomposition of a CMB anisotropy sky map patch. A
75: square patch is decomposed into the uniform background temperature ($T_0$) +
76: Gaussian fluctuation ($\sigma_G$)+ discrete temperature step ($\pm\Delta$).
77: The number of pixels in a patch is $N^2$.}
78: \end{center}
79: \end{figure}
80: We consider a square patch of the CMB anisotropy sky map that extends to a
81: size of the horizon at the time of recombination so that the conic spacetime
82: formed by a cosmic string can be in effect within the region. Then another
83: square patch of the CMB anisotropy sky map that contains a segment of moving
84: cosmic string can be decomposed into three parts, as illustrated in Figure
85: \ref{fig1}: (1) the uniform background temperature ($T_0$), (2) the Gaussian
86: fluctuation (variance $\sigma_G^2$), and (3) the discrete temperature step
87: ($\pm\Delta$) from a moving cosmic string. The uniform background temperature
88: $T_0$ comes from superhorizon-scale primordial fluctuations. Since we pick a
89: horizon-sized region, the super-horizon fluctuations will appear to be a
90: constant temperature shift for the whole patch. Smaller scale (sub-horizon)
91: fluctuations and instrumental noise add up incoherently to form a Gaussian
92: fluctuation with the variance $\sigma_G^2=\sigma_{CMB}^2+\sigma_{noise}^2$,
93: where $\sigma_{CMB}^2$ and $\sigma_{noise}^2$ are variances for fluctuations
94: of primordial origin and instrumental noise, respectively. We introduce five
95: parameters that characterize a square patch of a string-embedded sky map,
96: $T_0$, $\sigma_G$, $\Delta$, $p$ (blueshifted pixels/total pixels), and
97: $\theta$ (orientation of step). We concoct a simulated patch of the CMB
98: anisotropy map by
99: assigning arbitrary legitimate values to the parameters and adding the three
100: components illustrated in Figure \ref{fig1}. To recover these parameters from
101: the CMB anisotropy map where the step pattern is intermixed, we employ five
102: observables $(p,\:\Delta,\:\theta,\:\sigma_G,\:T_0)$ that can be expressed in
103: terms of
104: \begin{eqnarray}
105: {\mathrm{mean}}&:&\tau=N^{-2}\sum_iT_i\label{2}\\
106: {\mathrm{dipole\: moment}}&:&{\bf{d}}=N^{-3}\sum_iT_i{\bf{r}}_i\label{3}\\
107: {\lambda -\mathrm{inertia}}&:&\lambda =4N^{-3}\sum_i
108: T_i\fabs{{\bf{d\cdot r}}_i}/\fabs{{\bf{d}}}\label{4}\\
109: {\mathrm{variance}}&:&\sigma^2=N^{-2}\sum_i\fpr{T_i-\tau}^2\label{5}
110: \end{eqnarray}
111: where $T_i$ represents the signal at the $i$th pixel and ${\bf{r}}_i$
112: is the two-dimensional gridded position vector for the $i$th pixel
113: defined in a square patch.
114: \begin{figure}[t]
115: \begin{center}
116: \includegraphics[width=13cm,angle=0]{f2.eps}
117: \caption{\label{fig2}Evolution of errors of characteristic parameters as
118: functions of $\Delta$ with input values of parameters
119: $\fpr{T_0=10.0\mu K,\: p=0.5,\:\theta =0,\:\sigma_G=116.0\mu K}$.
120: {\it{Left panels}}: $8\times 8$ pixels in a square. {\it{Middle panels}}:
121: $14\times 14$ pixels. {\it{Right panels}}: $28\times 28$ pixels. For each size
122: of patch, the number of simulations performed is 10,000. The shaded regions
123: indicate the ranges of $\Delta$ for which the step feature in a patch is not
124: obvious compared to its background fluctuation ($\sigma_G=116.0\;\muK$). The
125: result on $\Delta_{obs}$ is biased upward because the simulations with
126: erroneous values of $\Delta_{obs}$ ($\Delta_{obs} < 0$) were not included in
127: the statistics.}
128: \end{center}
129: \end{figure}
130: In the absence of the background fluctuation ($\sigma_G=0$), the following
131: analytic expressions for the characteristic parameters return the exact input
132: values:
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: p&=&\frac{2d -\frac{1}{2}\fpr{\fabs{\lambda-\tau}+\lambda-\tau}}
135: {4d -\fabs{\lambda-\tau}}\label{6}\\
136: \Delta &=&\frac{\fpr{\fabs{\lambda-\tau}-4d}^2}
137: {2\fpr{2d-\fabs{\lambda-\tau}}}\label{7}\\
138: \theta &=&\tan^{-1}\fpr{d_y/d_x}\label{8}\\
139: \sigma_G&=&\fpr{\sigma^2-4\Delta^2p\fpr{1-p}}^{1/2}\label{9}\\
140: T_0 &=&\tau-\Delta\fpr{2p-1}.\label{10}
141: \end{eqnarray}
142: With the background fluctuation turned on, an observed characteristic parameter
143: ${\mathcal{Q}}_{i,obs}$ is expressed as an unbiased estimate
144: ${\mathcal{Q}}_{i}$ plus a Gaussian error $\sigma_{{\mathcal{Q}}_{i}}$
145: $\fpr{{\mathcal{Q}}_{i}=p,\:\Delta,\:\theta,\:\sigma_G,\:T_0}$,
146: \begin{equation}\label{11}
147: {\mathcal{Q}}_{i,obs}={\mathcal{Q}}_{i}\pm \sigma_{{\mathcal{Q}}_{i}}.
148: \end{equation}
149: The errors ($\sigma_{p},\sigma_{\Delta},\sigma_{\theta},\sigma_{\sigma_G},
150: \sigma_{T_0}$) present in the equations (\ref{11}) are measures of how
151: precisely the information on a temperature step screened by background
152: fluctuation is recovered. Figure \ref{fig2} shows the behaviors of errors as
153: functions of $\Delta$ for three different pixel numbers for a patch. The
154: standard deviation of the background fluctuation chosen here is the mean
155: standard deviation of patches with angular radius $\theta_R=1.8^{\circ}$ (the
156: angular size of the horizon at the recombination for the $\Lambda$CDM model)
157: for the WMAP 3 year W-band data set with the Kp2 mask applied. The most
158: pronounced feature of the graphs is that the error bars are wildly undulating
159: for small $\Delta$ compared to $\sigma_G$, with attenuating envelopes as
160: $\Delta$ increases. The algorithm works poorly for low $\Delta$ compared to
161: $\sigma_G$, such as the $\pm 90^{\circ}$ error on the orientation estimate.
162: \begin{table}[th]
163: \begin{center}
164: \begin{tabular}{cr@{.}lr@{.}l@{ $\pm$ }r@{.}l}
165: \hline\hline
166: \hspace*{1cm}Parameter\hspace*{1cm}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Input}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{\hspace*{1cm}Output (1 $\sigma$)\hspace*{1cm}}\\
167: \hline
168: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Patch with $8\times 8$ pixels}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{ }\\
169: \hline
170: $p$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}0&5&\hspace*{1cm}0&5&0&1\\
171: $\Delta\:\fpr{\muK}$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}80&0&\hspace*{1cm}83&4&16&6\\
172: $\theta$ (deg)\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}0&0&\hspace*{1cm}-0&1&12&3\\
173: $\sigma_G (\muK )$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}116&0&\hspace*{1cm}113&0&12&0\\
174: $T_0 (\muK )$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}10&0&\hspace*{1cm}9&7&18&9\\
175: \hline
176: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Patch with $14\times 14$ pixels}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{ }\\
177: \hline
178: $p$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}0&5&\hspace*{1cm}0&5&0&1\\
179: $\Delta\:\fpr{\muK}$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}45&0&\hspace*{1cm}47&1&9&5\\
180: $\theta$ (deg)\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}0&0&\hspace*{1cm}-0&2&12&6\\
181: $\sigma_G (\muK )$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}116&0&\hspace*{1cm}115&0&6&2\\
182: $T_0 (\muK )$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}10&0&\hspace*{1cm}9&6&10&9\\
183: \hline
184: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Patch with $28\times 28$ pixels}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{ }\\
185: \hline
186: $p$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}0&5&\hspace*{1cm}0&5&0&1\\
187: $\Delta\:\fpr{\muK}$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}25&0&\hspace*{1cm}25&8&4&7\\
188: $\theta$ (deg)\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}0&0&\hspace*{1cm}0&2&11&2\\
189: $\sigma_G (\muK )$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}116&0&\hspace*{1cm}115&7&3&0\\
190: $T_0 (\muK )$\dotfill&\hspace*{1.5cm}10&0&\hspace*{1cm}9&9&5&3\\
191: \hline\hline
192: \end{tabular}
193: \end{center}
194: \caption{\label{table1}Simulation results at the critical values of
195: $\Delta$ above which $\sigma_{\Delta}$s are small enough and do not decrease
196: any more.}
197: \end{table}
198: Even the breakdowns of the algorithm do happen in the shaded region,
199: resulting in erroneous parameter values such as negative $\Delta$ or $p$ not
200: in the range between 0 and 1. Simulations with collapsed results are not
201: included in the statistics shown in Figure \ref{fig2} since those cases are
202: evidently the ones with insufficiently strong signals against background
203: fluctuation. As $\Delta$ increases, we begin obtaining the computed parameters
204: that are very close to the true values with acceptable errors (dubbed the
205: ``good'' results), and it allows us to recover the temperature step parameters
206: faithfully. We also find from Figure \ref{fig2} that a patch with more pixels
207: works better with a faster attenuation of uncertainties. Table \ref{table1}
208: displays the performances of the algorithm for the values of $\Delta$ at the
209: borders, above which errors for the temperature step ($\sigma_{\Delta}$) do not
210: get any better. We use circular patches for {\it{WMAP}} data analysis rather
211: than square patches because of the computational advantage. Algebraic
212: expressions for the observables given in equations (\ref{6})-(\ref{10}) work
213: very well for circular patches with negligible numerical differences for the
214: case of square patches. A square patch with $28\times 28$ pixels at the normal
215: resolution of {\it{WMAP}} W-band data covers nearly the same area as the
216: circular region with angular radius $\theta_R=1.8^{\circ}$. We performed a
217: further detecting power test with $28\times 28$ pixels patches and found
218: empirically that the relation between the critical value of $\Delta$,
219: $\Delta_c$, above which ``good'' results start to come out, and $\sigma_G$ is
220: \begin{equation}\label{12}
221: \Delta_c\simeq 0.25\sigma_G.
222: \end{equation}
223: The different choices of input values for the parameters $p$, $\theta$, or
224: $T_0$ showed no noticeable difference in the evolutions of errors.
225: \section{Application to {\it{WMAP}}}
226: An observed CMB anisotropy map is an aggregate of various independent modes of
227: perturbation ranging from tiny sub-horizon scales to super-horizon scales well
228: beyond the correlation length. As illustrated in Figure \ref{fig1},
229: fluctuations with larger or smaller scales compared to the size of a test
230: patch are neatly prescribed, but the intermediate scales whose wavelengths
231: are comparable to the size of a test patch will appear to be continuous
232: temperature tilts that also give plausible values of the step parameters. One
233: drawback of this algorithm is that it does not distinguish between a discrete
234: temperature step and a smooth temperature slope. However, this shortcoming can
235: be easily fixed: If an apparent temperature step is detected at a spot on the
236: map, we repeat the analysis with a half-sized patch at the same spot. If the
237: structure is a continuous slope, then it would return half the value of
238: $\Delta_{obs}$ than the previous result, while for the signal from a discrete
239: step, the returned $\Delta_{obs}$ should stay the same within the error. We
240: conducted the step signal search through the {\it{WMAP}} 3 year W-band data set
241: and found 193,160 unqualified signals against background fluctuation (the
242: constraint in eq. [\ref{12}] is not applied), 129,049 qualified steps+tilts
243: (signals that meet the constraint eq. [\ref{12}]; i.e.,
244: $\Delta_{obs}\ge 0.25\sigma_G$), and 12,330 qualified discriminated steps.
245: \begin{figure}[t]
246: \begin{center}
247: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0]{f3.eps}
248: \end{center}
249: \caption{\label{fig3}Distributions of $\Delta_{obs}$ detected in {\it{WMAP}}
250: 3 year W-band data set. The number of step signals found are 193,160
251: unqualified signals ({\it{dotted curve}}), 129,049 qualified steps+tilts
252: ({\it{dashed curve}}), and 12,330 qualified steps ({\it{solid curve}}).}
253: \end{figure}
254: The $\Delta_{obs}$ value of qualified steps is in the range
255: \begin{equation}\label{13}
256: (18.3\pm 3.0)\mu K< \Delta_{obs} < (115.4\pm 6.0)\mu K
257: \end{equation}
258: as the curves show in Figure \ref{fig3}.
259: Patches with radius $\theta_R=1.8^{\circ}$ in the {\it{WMAP}} 3 year W-band
260: have a background fluctuation $\sigma_G$ less than 176 $\muK$ in the
261: Kp2-mask-cleared region. This means, at the worst case, we can identify a step
262: signal as low as $176\;\muK /4=44\;\muK$ with moderate errors. Therefore, if
263: there are cosmic string signals with $\Delta \ge 115.4\;\muK$ and if they are
264: located in the available region (out of the Galactic plane or the Kp2 masked
265: region), they would not be missed. Thus, we can set an upper limit on the
266: cosmic string signal
267: \begin{equation}\label{14}
268: \Delta =4\pi G\mu\gamma_s\beta_sT|\cos\phi |<127.4\mu K,\quad 95\%
269: \:{\mathrm{CL}}
270: \end{equation}
271: where $\phi$ is arbitrary. Thus, with $\fang{\gamma_s\beta_s}\simeq 1$
272: \citep{vilenkinshellard:CS}, the upper limit of the cosmic string parameter
273: $G\mu$ can be estimated as
274: \begin{equation}\label{15}
275: G\mu\lesssim 3.7\times 10^{-6},\quad 95\%\: {\mathrm{CL}}.
276: \end{equation}
277: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
278: We have presented and tested a new technique to directly discover cosmic
279: strings via the patterns they would produce in a CMB anisotropy map. We found
280: that the minimum magnitude of the step signal that is required to be
281: unequivocally identified is $44\;\muK$ for the {\it{WMAP}} 3 year W-band data
282: set. This algorithm can be used to crop the reliable step signals from the CMB
283: anisotropy data, and it will serve as the valuable ground work for future
284: pattern searches with more refined data, such as further {\it{WMAP}} data
285: releases or {\it{PLANCK}} data.
286:
287: Computer simulations and data analysis with the {\it{WMAP}} data set were done
288: using HEALPix\footnote{See http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov} \citep{Gorski.et.al}.
289: This work was supported by LBNL and the Department of Physics at the
290: University of California, Berkeley.
291: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
292: \bibitem[Pogosian et al. 2003]{pogosian.et.al}Pogosian et al., 2003,
293: Phys.Rev.D, 68, 023506
294: \bibitem[Wu 2005]{wu}Wu, J-H., 2005, astro-ph/0501239
295: \bibitem[Fraisse 2005]{fraisse}Fraisse, A., 2005, astro-ph/0503402
296: \bibitem[Davis \& Kibble 2005]{daviskibble}Davis, A.-C. \& Kibble, T.W.B, 2005,
297: Contemp.Phys, 46, 313
298: \bibitem[Wyman et al. 2005]{wyman.et.al}Wyman, M., Pogosian,L., \&
299: Wasserman, I., 2005, Phys.Rev.D, 72, 023513
300: \bibitem[Hindmarsh 1994]{hindmarsh1}Hindmarsh, M., 1994, ApJ, 431, 534
301: \bibitem[Perivolaropoulos \& Simatos 1998]{perivolaropoulossimatos}
302: Perivolaropoulos, L. \& Simatos, N., 1998, astro-ph/9803321
303: \bibitem[Jeong \& Smoot 2005]{jeongsmoot1}Jeong, E. \& Smoot, G. F., 2005,
304: ApJ, 624, 21
305: \bibitem[Lo \& Wright 2005]{lowright}Lo, A. S. \& Wright, E. L., 2005,
306: astro-ph/0503120
307: \bibitem[Seljak \& Slosar 2006]{seljakslosar}Seljak, U. \& Slosar, A., 2006,
308: Phys.Rev.D, 74, 063523
309: \bibitem[Pogosian et al. 2006]{pogosian.et.al2}Pogosian, L., Wasserman, I.,
310: \& Wyman, M., 2006, astro-ph/0604141
311: \bibitem[Fraisse 2006]{fraisse2}Fraisse, A., 2006, astro-ph/0603589
312: \bibitem[Kaiser \& Stebbins 1984]{kaiserstebbins}Kaiser, N. \& Stebbins, A.,
313: 1984, Nature, 310, 391
314: \bibitem[Vilenkin \& Shellard 1994]{vilenkinshellard:CS}Vilenkin, A. \&
315: Shellard, E. P. S., 1994, Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects,
316: (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press)
317: \bibitem[G\'{o}rski et al. 2005]{Gorski.et.al}G\'{o}rski, K. M. et.al., 2005,
318: ApJ, 622, 759
319: \end{thebibliography}
320:
321: \end{document}
322: