Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 1 6 (001) Printed 4 Octoer 018 (MN LATEX style file v1.4) Analytic marginalization over CMB caliration and eam uncertainty S.L. Bridle 1, R. Crittenden, A. Melchiorri 3, M.P. Hoson 4, R. Kneissl 4, A.N. Laseny 4 1 Institute of Astronomy, University of Camridge, Madingley Road, Camridge CB3 0HA, UK DAMTP, Wilerforce Road, Camridge CB3 0HA, UK 3 Nuclear and Astrophysics Laoratory, 1 Kele Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK 4 Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laoratory, Madingley Road, Camridge CB3 0HE, UK arxiv:astro-ph/011114v 15 Oct 00 4 Octoer 018 1 INTRODUCTION Fluctuations in the cosmic microwave ackground (CMB) radiation on scales of fractions of a degree and larger are potentially a direct proe of the state of the universe 300,000 years after the ig ang, modified y the geometry of the universe. If the initial fluctuations were Gaussian and structure formed y gravitational collapse then the angular power spectrum of the CMB contains much cosmological information, and is also easy to calculate using codes CMB- FAST (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1999) and CAMB (Lewis, Challinor & Laseny 1999). Therefore many experiments have een carried out to estimate its form, and the results from the second generation of CMB telescopes are eclipsing previous results. Recent work involving parameter estimation from the CMB includes Wang, Tegmark & Zaldarriaga (001), Netterfield el (001), de Bernardis et al. (001), Pryke et al. (001), Stompor et al. (001), Jaffe et al. (001), Bridle et al. (001), Kinney, Melchiorri & Riotto (001), Le Dour et al. (000), Lahav et al. (000), Dodelson & Knox (000), Melchiorri et al. (000), Efstathiou (000), Gawiser & Silk (1998) and Lineweaver (1998). CMB power spectrum results have significant caliration uncertainties, due either to uncertainty in the flux of the caliration source (e.g. Jupiter) or difficulties in its measurement y the experiment in question (e.g. a scan synchronous noise in measurements of the CMB dipole) or oth. As a result the and power T or T estimates from any single experiment can e scaled up or down y ABSTRACT With the increased accuracy and angular scale coverage of the recent CMB experiments it has ecome important to include caliration and eam uncertainties when estimating cosmological parameters. This requires an integration over possile values of the caliration and eam size, which can e performed numerically ut greatly increases computation times. We present a fast and general method for marginalization over caliration-type errors y analytical integration. This is worked through for the specific example of CMB caliration and eam uncertainties and the resulting formulae are practical to implement. We show how cosmological parameter constraints from the latest CMB data are changed when caliration/eam uncertainties are taken into account: typically the est fit parameters are shifted and the errors ars are increased y up to fifty per cent for e.g. n s and Ω h ; although as expected there is no change for Ω K, ecause it is constrained y the positions of the peaks. Key words: cosmology:oservations cosmology:theory cosmic microwave ackground methods:statistical some unknown factor. This caliration uncertainty is now of greater significance ecause of the increased precision of experiments: it is now of a similar size to the quoted random errors. In addition, ecause of the correlations in errors that it introduces, the caliration uncertainty is not simple to take into consideration when extracting cosmological parameters from a CMB power spectrum. This contrasts with the case of a caliration uncertainty on a single data point, which can e approximately taken into account y adding the caliration uncertainty in quadrature with the random errors. A fast method in the literature for dealing with this uncertainty couples the marginalization over the caliration with that over the CMB power spectrum normalization (Ganga et al. 1997, Lange et al. 001). However, this is non-trivial to extend to the case where several CMB data sets have independent and significant caliration uncertainties ( 0 per cent in dt for BOOMERANG, Netterfield et al. 001, and 8 per cent for MAXIMA-1, Lee et al. 001, and DASI, Halverson et al 001). Wang et al. (001) account for the caliration uncertainty y using a method related to that presented here, however the derivation is not well documented in the literature. Frequently the marginalisation is carried out numerically, which is time consuming. Here we present the full derivation of a fast method, in which the caliration correction for a single data set is marginalised over analytically. This takes no more computation time than when the caliration uncertainty is ignored. In addition to a caliration uncertainty, the experiments such c 001 RAS
S.L. Bridle et al. as BOOMERANG and MAXIMA suffer from eam uncertainties. Many systematics can produce an uncertainty in the reconstruction of the instrumental eam. For example, in the case of the BOOMERANG experiment the main contriution to the eam uncertainty is due to the pointing uncertainty. Pointing uncertainty leads to eam type uncertainties ecause temperature measurements are not made continually, ut instead are averaged over some discrete time period. High frequency jitter in the pointing means that each discrete measurement includes pointings over a region of the sky. The effective eam of an experiment reflects the area of the sky eing sampled in a given time step, so the true eam must e convolved with the area sampled in a given time step. Thus, jitter translates into a larger effective eam and uncertainty in the amount of jitter can e treated as uncertainty in the effective eam size. The impact on the CMB power spectrum is to introduce an angular-scale-dependent error. For conciseness in the rest of this paper, we refer to the comined effects of pointing and eam uncertainties simply as eam uncertainty. To include oth caliration and eam uncertainties is computationally costly. In general the eam uncertainty is integrated over numerically, thus the computation time is increased y a factor equal to the numer of integration steps used. In this paper we show how an angular-scale-dependent uncertainty such as the eam error can e marginalised over analytically assuming a Gaussian prior on the size of the correction. The comined analytic caliration and eam marginalisation takes two to three times as long to calculate as when there are no such uncertainties, and has already een used in Lahav et al. (001) and Bean et al. (001). This method follows the general approach of marginalizing over nuisance parameters analytically discussed, for example, in Gull (1989), Sivia (1996) and Lahav et al. (000). As discussed in this introduction, this work is motivated y the recent CMB data sets. However, the fast marginalisation over a caliration type parameter should e much more widely applicale in astronomy. Therefore in Section we show the analytic marginalised result for the general case of a correlated eam uncertainty, reserving the mathematical derivation for the Appendix. Section 3 gives fast computational versions of the formulae for the special cases of CMB caliration alone and CMB caliration and eam uncertainties. In Section 4 we illustrate the effect of the marginalisation y applying them to the latest CMB data. ANALYTIC MARGINALIZATION.1 General approach Before addressing the specific prolems of marginalizing over caliration and eam uncertainties, let us examine the more general prolem of nuisance parameters. Quite often, oservational results will depend on parameters of the measurement which are not precisely known and whose value is not of great interest to us. In such cases, it is useful to determine a likelihood function which folds in the effects of the uncertainties in these nuisance parameters y marginalizing over their possile values. The resulting likelihood no longer directly depends on the nuisance parameter, ut its uncertainties ecome incorporated in the modified data and its correlation matrix. In many prolems, we can model the oservational data, x o, y the predictions from an underlying theory, x p, with a correction arising from some uninteresting (for the present purposes) nuisance parameter. Thus, the predictions are modified in some way which depends on how the nuisance parameter affects the oservations. As descried elow, we can model these corrections y a factor linear in the parameter times some template x, so the predictions for the full oservations are x p = x p + x. (1) Here, the vector x is assumed to e an aritrary function of the predictions, ut not to depend on the data or its noise correlation matrix. The parameter can e thought of as a measure of how far the nuisance parameter deviates from its expected mean value. As an example consider the caliration uncertainty on the CMB temperature angular power spectrum. In this case the x o and x p are the oserved and predicted T andpower measurements. The predictions could e scaled up and down y a factor around 1 therefore x = x p. If the oservations are suject to some noise drawn from a multivariate Gaussian distriution with correlation matrix N, then the proaility of the data given a model (the model s likelihood) is given y Pr(x o N,x p,a,) = N N exp 1 ( x o x p )T N 1( x o x p ) (). where N N =(π) n/ N 1/ and n is the numer of data points. (See the start of Section 3 for a discussion aout the validity of the Gaussian assumption for CMB and power measurements.) To otain the likelihood of the data independent of the caliration type errors, we must marginalise over Pr(x o N,x p,x, σ ) = Pr(x o, N, x p, x, σ )d (3) = Pr(x o N, x p, x, )Pr( σ )d, (4) using Bayes theorem and assuming P( N,x p, x, σ )=P( σ ). It is not always clear what form the prior on the caliration parameter should take. However, if this prior has a simple form, then this marginalisation can often e performed analytically. Here, we assume the prior is a Gaussian of width σ, P( σ )= 1 (π) 1/ σ exp /σ. (5) If we were to instead assume a top hat prior on then the analytic marginalisation can still e carried out, ut leads to error functions, and is thus more complicated to implement. Sustituting Eq. and Eq. 5 into Eq. 4, gathering up terms in powers of, completing the square and integrating over (see Appendix), one finds Pr(x o N,x p, x, σ ) = N M exp 1 (xo x p ) T M 1 (x o x p )(6) M 1 It is straightforward to show that = N 1 N 1 x x T N 1 x T N 1 x + σ. (7) M = N + σ x x T, (8) which is the Sherman-Morrison result (see e.g. Press et al. 199). Note that Eq. 6, 7 is an exact result, and does not, for example, rely on a Taylor expansion. This calculation looks almost the same as when the nuisance parameters are not taken into account (x p = x p Eq. ), except that the matrix N has een replaced y the matrix M, which could e a function of the predicted data x p. Note that,
Analytic marginalization over CMB caliration and eam uncertainty 3 even in the case where correlated errors etween data points are assumed to e negligile, i.e. N 1 is diagonal, the new matrix M 1 is not diagonal. The marginalization effectively introduces a correlated error etween the data points, adding error to the collective modes which are affected y the nuisance parameter. This technique has a road array of applications in the various stages of CMB analysis, from map making to foreground removal (see e.g. Bond & Crittenden, 001). For example, it is used to remove the effects of foreground contaminants from maps such as the galaxy. In previous applications, however, the templates removed were independent of the theory, so that the correction to the noise matrix must e done only once. However, in prolems such as caliration marginalization, the templates depend on the theoretical predictions, so the effective weight matrix must e re-evaluated for each theory. As we show elow, however, this does not significantly slow down the evaluation of the likelihoods. Nothing in the aove is specific to the CMB, so in fact it could also e used a variety of applications, such as the uncertain normalisation of the matter power spectrum resulting from Lyman α forest measurements (e.g. Croft et al. 001).. Marginalization over multiple parameters Often there are several nuisance parameters which must e marginalised over simultaneously. The aove process can e repeated several times, uilding up more complicated matrices M. As an example, the CMB andpower measurements are often suject to oth caliration and eam uncertainties which must e marginalised over. (The result for CMB caliration and eam uncertainties is given in the following Section.) This may also e occur where there are several experiments each with internal and correlated external caliration uncertainties, as discussed in Knox & Page (000), and Tegmark & Zaldarriaga (001). One can expand this set even further, including some simple cosmological parameters. In particular, the overall theory normalization can e performed in the same way. When applying this technique to the marginalization over many non-orthogonal parameters simultaneously, it can e useful to use the lock form of the aove result. The Woodury formula (also Press et al. 199) can e used (N + XX T ) 1 = N 1 N 1 X(1+X T N 1 X) 1 X T N 1, (9) where X is a m n matrix containing m templates of n elements each. Note that this requires only the inversion of a m m matrix, where m is the numer of parameters eing marginalised over. This formula can e much easier to implement than repeated application of the Sherman-Morrison result once the numer of parameters eing integrated over exceeds two. In the case where more than one variale is marginalised over, the corresponding normalization factor generalizes to, N M = N N det(1+x T N 1 X) 1/. (10) Again, this only requires the evaluation of the determinant of an m m matrix, which is computationally inexpensive especially given that this matrix must already e inverted. While sometimes this normalization factor can e ignored as an overall prefactor, it cannot e dropped when the the templates are theory dependent. These techniques have een used in the analysis of the COBE data, where there was the possiility that the data were contaminated y a quadrupole of unknown amplitude. This was accounted for y marginalisation over the possile amplitude of the quadrupoles, y modifying the noise correlation matrix using the Woodury formula (Bond, Jaffe & Knox 1998). 3 PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION In this Section, the aove equations are rewritten in a more computationally practical way for the specific case of CMB caliration and eam uncertainties in power spectrum measurements. The analytic technique descried aove assumes that the oserved data are Gaussianly distriuted. This is clearly only an approximation for and power measurements, as the power spectrum must e positive. When there are only a few modes in a and power measurement, a etter approximation is to assume a log-normal proaility distriution (Bond, Jaffe & Knox, 000). However, if there are sufficiently many modes and the error ars are significantly smaller than the measured and powers, then the Gaussian approximation should e reasonale and the techniques we descrie can e applied. 3.1 Caliration Uncertainty First we consider the case of a caliration uncertainty in the CMB temperature anisotropy angular power spectrum. The data x o are the CMB T andpower measurements and the x p are the predicted andpowers. In the case of a caliration uncertainty, the predictions are those expected from the underlying model, multiplied y some unknown factor, c which is the potentially incorrect experimental caliration, thus the predictions ecome x p = cx p. For example, BOOMERANG has a caliration uncertainty of 0 per cent in T and therefore c ranges from roughly 0.8 to 1.. The caliration marginalization is identical to the general case discussed aove if we take = c 1 and x = x p. For clarity in the following susections we will write the caliration uncertainty as σ c, ut it can e identified with σ, since and c have identical distriutions (though they are aout a different mean.) Therefore M = N + σ cx p x pt. (11) Note that since the the power spectrum measurements, and therefore c, are positive, we must have σ c 1 for the Gaussian prior for the caliration to e a reasonale approximation. Note that this is identical to the formulation used in Wang et al. (001) except that they use the approximation that the theory x p is nearly equal to the data x o to make a theory independent correction to the noise matrix. This is performed just once rather than for each theory, making it as fast as if the caliration uncertainty was ignored. Formally, this is almost equivalent to applying the caliration correction to the data, ut not their error ars. In practical terms we find that using x o instead of x p makes a shift of a few per cent in estimated parameter values. (The same remarks apply to the eam marginalisation in the following susections.) If we instead attempt to use the exact expression of Eq. 11 then, ecause the matrix M (or more importantly, its inverse) is a function of the predicted quantities, x p, it must e re-calculated for each underlying model and this can e very time consuming. (Not necessarily as time consuming as evaluating the predictions for a given theory, ut here we assume these are already known.) For the simple caliration uncertainty case, a fast computational implementation is to calculate in advance the quantities v o = N 1 x o (1) s oo = x ot N 1 x o. (13)
4 S.L. Bridle et al. Then, dropping terms which are independent of the model predictions, the effective chi-squared defined y Pr(x o N,x p ) exp χ c/ (14) is given y χ c = s oo s po + s pp (s po s pp ) /s c + log(s c σ c ) (15) s po = x pt v 1 (16) s pp = x pt N 1 x p (17) s c = s pp + 1 σ. (18) c If the covariance matrix is not diagonal, the matrix product, Eq. 17, scales as n and this dominates the time required to calculate χ. If the covariance matrix is diagonal, the matrix product and the vector products are oth linear in n and take comparale amounts of time. In either case however, the effects of marginalizing over the caliration (the last two terms in Eq. 15) use the same factors required to calculate the naive χ, so this process takes no more computation time. 3. Beam Uncertainty Measurements of the cosmic microwave ackground radiation angular power spectrum are often hampered y an uncertainty in the telescope eam. This leads to correlated errors in the estimates of power spectrum analogous to those of the caliration uncertainty, with the added complication that the corrections grow as the angular scale ecomes smaller. Marginalizing over these can e performed in the same way, ut now x = Ax p, where A is a diagonal matrix which increases for higher multipole and powers. The precise nature of this matrix depends on the nature of the eam shape and jitter uncertainties, and is est estimated y the experimental teams. For example, the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA teams give 1 σ eam uncertainties, dx o (for BOOMERANG see Fig. of Netterfield et al. 001; for MAXIMA-1 we add in quadrature the eam and pointing contriutions given in Tale 1 of Lee et al. 001). The matrix A is given y the percentage errors for each andpower, that is, A = diag(dx o i /xo i ) (19) where x o i are the derived andpowers and the normalization is such that σ = 1. The nature of the eam uncertainties, at least on scales larger than the eam, can e understood qualitatively y considering the case of a Gaussian eam whose angular size is not well known. For a eam of true size θ and which has een misestimated to e θ 0, the predicted andpower x p i at mean multipole l i must e is transformed y the relation x p i = x p i l exp i (θ 0 θ ) (0) x p i (1+l i (θ 0 θ )) (1) (assuming the estimate is not too far from the truth.) Thus if the eam is assumed to e too small, the inferred and power will e smaller than the true and power. The error in the measurement will increase for and powers at higher l. If the eam uncertainty is small compared to its mean size (σ θ << θ 0 ) and is Gaussianly distriuted, then(θ θ 0 ) will also e Gaussian distriuted, with a width of σ θ = σ θ θ 0. The marginalization then can e performed exactly as derived in Section, with σ = σ θ and A = diag(l i ), where l i is the mean multipole of the i th and. In practice, this is very close the scaling of eam uncertainties given y the experiments such as BOOMERANG and MAXIMA. Fast marginalization over the eam uncertainty alone may e carried out in a similar way to that over the caliration uncertainty. However, since the recent experiments with a eam uncertainty also carry a caliration uncertainty, we proceed straight to marginalization over oth the caliration and eam uncertainties simultaneously. 3.3 Caliration and Beam Uncertainty The equations for fast computation use the quantities already defined in Eq.s 13, 15 to 18 and 19. The calculation can e speeded up y advance calculation of v a = A T N 1 x o () Q a = A T N 1 (3) Q aa = A T N 1 A. (4) The effective chi-squared defined y Pr(x o N,x p, σ, A, σ c ) exp χ c / is given y χ c = χ c (s ao s ap (s po s pp )s ap /s c ) 1+s aa s ap /s c (5) + log(1+s aa s ap/s (6) c ) s ao = x pt v a (7) s ap = x pt Q a x p (8) s aa = x pt Q aa x p. (9) This takes two to three times as long to calculate as when there are no caliration or eam uncertainties, depending on whether N is diagonal (and assuming n is large). 4 APPLICATION TO DATA It has een made clear y the experimental teams that caliration and (where applicale) eam uncertainties must e included in any analysis of the data presented. However it is very tempting to save considerale computer time y ignoring these uncertainties. In this section we apply the formulae presented aove to CMB data, investigating how ig a difference the inclusion of caliration and eam uncertainties make to parameter estimation. We consider the latest BOOMERANG and COBE data alone, for simplicity and ecause this data set has the largest caliration and eam uncertainties. The power spectrum from this experiment was estimated in 19 ins spanning the range 75 l 1050. Since no information on the BOOMERANG window functions and full covariance matrix is pulicly availale yet, we assign a top-hat window function for the spectrum in each in and neglect correlations etween ins. This approach is a good approximation of the correct one (see de Bernardis et al. 001) and does not affect our conclusions. For our marginalisations over the eam uncertainties, we took the 1 σ error ars from Fig. of Netterfield et al. (001). We also include the COBE data using the RADPack packages (Dodelson & Knox 000). The theoretical models are computed using the pulicly availale CMBFAST code (Seljak & Zaldarriaga). The ranges of our dataase of models, or equivalently top hat priors, are 0.1<Ω m <
Analytic marginalization over CMB caliration and eam uncertainty 5 1.0, 0.015 < Ω < 0., 0.0<Ω Λ < 1.0 and 0.5<h<0.95. We define h=h 0 /(100 kms 1 Mpc 1 ) throughout. We vary the spectral index of the primordial density perturations within the range 0.5<n s < 1.5 and we re-scale the amplitude of fluctuations y a pre-factor C 10. We also assume an external Gaussian prior on the Hule parameter h=0.70±0.1 and limit the analysis to models with age t 0 > 10 Gyrs (see, e.g. Ferreras, Melchiorri, Silk 001). It is important to note that the constraints we will derive on the various parameters are heavily affected y the size of our dataase and y the priors assumed. Considering a ackground of gravitational waves or a different optical depth of the universe, for example, would change our constraints. Here we illustrate the effect of the CMB systematics on just the simplest models. We find that neglecting the caliration error the scalar spectral index n s = 0.91±0.04, while when including caliration n s = 0.89±0.06. Even though these numers are compatile, it is important to notice that a scale invariant n s = 1 power spectrum is excluded at σ in the first case, while is still inside two standard deviations when the caliration error is included. We consider the constraints on the physical aryon density parameter Ω h. The aryon density plays a crucial role in the determination of the relative amplitude of the peaks in the power spectrum and could therefore e significantly affected y eam uncertainty. This is particularly true if only the first two Doppler peaks are well constrained y the data. (The determination of a third peak would likely reak this degeneracy.) Neglecting eam uncertainty one otains the tight constraint Ω h = 0.0±0.004, excluding a low Ω h 0.010 region which is still compatile with some Big Bang Nucleosynthesis data at more than σ, while including the eam error one infers Ω h = 0.00±0.006. We find that the constraint on the universe curvature is insensitive to whether eam and caliration uncertainties are taken into account, which is perhaps to e expected since the curvature affects the acoustic peak positions, rather than their amplitudes. We also found that the constraints on the cold dark matter physical density remain at Ω c h = 0.13±0.05 whether or not caliration and/or eam uncertainties are taken into account. The fast method presented in this Paper is crucially important when comining multiple experiments, each of which may have independent caliration and eam uncertainties. These introduce new unknown parameters and current popular methods are severely affected y an increase in the numer of free parameters. However note that Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods (see Knox, Christensen & Skordis, 001) are much less affected y increases in the numer of free parameters. Using the formulae presented here, the χ c values for each experiment are simply added together. Thus the computational time is still only a few times longer than that when caliration and eam uncertainties are ignored completely. To illustrate this we comined the latest BOOMERANG, MAXIMA, DASI and COBE data to otain cosmological parameter constraints. We find that the results on the scalar spectral index are n s = 0.91±0.0 if we do no take in to account caliration and eam uncertainties, while we otain a similar value ut larger error ars n s = 0.91±0.04 when the aove systematics are considered. However, we found Ω h = 0.019 +0.003 0.00 independent of whether caliration and eam uncertainties are taken into account. This is mainly due to the asence of eam uncertainty for DASI. For the BOOMERANG plus COBE analysis we also compare with a numerical marginalization, in which the caliration error is maximised over and the eam error is marginalised over in seven integration steps. We find very consistent results, thus the analyses carried out y the experimental teams using this type of numerical approach can e relied on. However note that when comining more data sets each with independent caliration (and eam) uncertainties this numerical method is no longer practical. 5 CONCLUSION Our result for the analytic marginalization over caliration uncertainty is simple, easy to implement and fast. In general, a numerical marginalization (integration) over caliration and eam increases the computation time y a factor equal to the numer of integration steps squared. Inclusion of caliration uncertainties y analytical methods does not increase computation times, and adding in eam uncertainties leads to a further increase y a factor of only two or three. This is true irrespective of the numer of different data sets, each with their own independent caliration and eam uncertainties. We have shown that marginalization over the caliration and eam uncertainties can make a significant difference to parameter estimation, particularly in widening the error ars on some parameters as much as fifty per cent. We verify that the constraint on the universe curvature is unaffected y the inclusion of the caliration and/or eam uncertainty, ut that the physical density of aryons or the spectral index of primordial fluctuations n s can e significantly affected, allowing significantly lower values for Ω h and widening the error ars for n s. In summary, we show that caliration and eam uncertainties should e taken into account and we present a method which allows this to e done exactly and with little extra work. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Ofer Lahav, Keith Grainge, Adam Ritz, Daniel Eisenstein, Steve Gull and Lloyd Knox for helpful discussions. We thank the referee for comments which consideraly improved the readailty of the paper. SLB, RC and AM acknowledge support from the PPARC. RK acknowledges support from an EU Marie Curie Fellowship. REFERENCES Bean, R., & Melchiorri, A. 00, PRD, 65, 04130 (astro-ph/9911445) Bond, J. R. & Crittenden, R. G. in Structure Formation in the Universe, 001, eds. R. G. Crittenden and N. G. Turok, p. 41, Dordrecht: Kluwer Bond, J. R., Jaffe, A., & Knox, L. 1998, PRD, 57, 117 Bond, J. R., Jaffe, A., & Knox, L. 000, ApJ, 533, 19 Bridle, S.L., Zehavi, I., Dekel, A., Lahav, O., Hoson, M.P., & Laseny, A.N. 001, MNRAS, 31, 333 de Bernardis, P., et al. 001, ApJ, in press.(astro-ph/010596) Dodelson, S. & Knox, L. 000, Phys.Rev.Lett., 84, 353 Efstathiou, G. 000, MNRAS, 310, 84 Efstathiou, G. & Bond, R. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 75 Ferreras, I., Melchiorri, A. & Silk, J. 001, MNRAS sumitted (astroph/0105384) Ganga, K., Ratra, B., Gundersen, J., Sugiyama, N. 1997, ApJ, 484, 7 Gawiser E., & Silk J., 1998, Science, 80, 1405 Gull, S.F., 1989, in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, Camridge 1988, ed. J. Skilling, p. 53, Dordrecht: Kluwer Jaffe. A., et al., 001, PRL, 86, 3475 Halverson et al., 001, ApJ sumitted (astro-ph/0104489) Knox, L., Christensen, N., Skordis, C., ApJL sumitted (astro-ph/01093) Kinney, W., Melchiorri, A. & Riotto, A. 001, PRD, 63, 03505
6 S.L. Bridle et al. Lahav, O., Bridle, S.L, Hoson, M.P., Laseny, A.N., & Sodre Jr., L. 000, MNRAS, 315, L45 Lahav, O., et al. 00, MNRAS, sumitted (astro-ph/01116) Lange, A., et al. 001, PRD 53, 04001 Le Dour, M., Douspis, M., Bartlett, J.G., & Blanchard, A. 000, A&A, 364, 369 Lee, A.T., et al. 001, preprint (astro-ph/0104459) Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Laseny, A. 000, ApJ, 538, 473 Lineweaver, C. H. 1998, ApJ, 505, L69 Melchiorri, A., et al. 000, ApJ, 536, L63 Netterfield, C.B., et al. 001, ApJ sumitted (astro-ph/0104460) Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vettering, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 199, Numerical Recipies, Camridge Univ. Press Pryke C. et al, ApJ sumitted, 001 (astro-ph/0104490) Seljak, U., & Zaldarriaga, M. 1996, ApJ, 469, 437 Sivia, D. S. 1996, Data Analysis A Bayesian Tutorial, Oxford University Press Stompor, R., et al., 001, ApJL sumitted (astro-ph/010506) Wang, X., Tegmark, M., Zaldarriaga, M. 001, PRD sumitted (astroph/0105091) This paper has een produced using the Royal Astronomical Society/Blackwell Science LATEX style file. APPENDIX A We sustitute Eq. and 5 into Eq. 4 and collect up terms in, assuming N 1 is symmetric. We then complete the square and use the standard result for the integral over a Gaussian. P(x o N, x p, A, σ ) = where, = = N N πσ N N πσ dexp 1 (xo (x p + x )) T N 1 (x o (x p + x )) exp σ dexp 1 ( (x o x p ) T N 1 (x o x p ) (x o x p ) T N 1 x + N N exp 1 πσ (xo x p ) T N 1 (x o x p ) ( x T N 1 x + σ ) ) dexp 1 x T N 1 x + σ + (xo x p ) T N 1 x (( (x o x p ) T N 1 x ) ) x T N 1 x + σ x T N 1 x + σ ( = N M exp 1 ( (x (x o x p ) T N 1 (x o x p o x p ) T N 1 x ) ) ) x T N 1 x + σ, (30) N M (π) n/ M 1/ =(π) n/ N + σ x x T 1/ = N N (1+x T N 1 x σ ) 1/. (31) This result is equivalent to Eq. 6.
Analytic marginalization over CMB caliration and eam uncertainty 7 APPENDIX B Aove, we assumed a particular form of x p = x p +( )x, where for simplicity we defined such that = 0. Here we will try to justify this choice, show why it often arises and discuss some simple forms that x may take. In general, the data could e an aritrary function of the theoretical predictions and the nuisance parameter, i.e. x p = F (x p ). However, often the raw measurements, x o and N, are not reported directly. Instead, experimentalists give results which may e compared to the theoretical predictions y assuming the est estimate of the nuisance parameter, =. They solve then for the inferred oservations given that value to find x o F 1 (x o ), and solve for its noise correlation matrix in the same way. The likelihoods derived using this new variale are equivalent to those derived using the original variales. While the variales are rescaled, so are their inferred noise levels, leaving the likelihoods unchanged. The theoretical predictions for these new inferred oservales are F 1 F (x p ) = F 1 F (xp )+( ) F 1 F (x p ) +... = = x p +( ) F 1 F (x p ) +... (3) = where the first relation follows from a Taylor expansion. We can now see that the form of x p used aove arises naturally when we are considering the x o variales and we can associate x with a particular function of F. If the higher order terms ecome important for reasonale values of, then the analytic methods descried here will not e applicale. This will depend on how well the nuisance parameter is known. In addition, it often happens that F is linear in, where these higher order terms are identically zero. Let us consider some simple examples of transformations F and the form of the x vectors assoiated with them. If we take a simple displacement, F (x p ) = x p + x f, where x f is a fixed template independent of the predictions, then it is easy to show that F 1 F (x p ) = x p +( )x f, so x = x f. We can also consider a simple multiplicative factor F (x p )=x p, as might arise from simple caliration uncertainties. Then F 1 F (x p )=x p +( )x p /. We can asor the 1/ into the definition of, so that x = x p. Finally, consider the more complicated case where F (x p )= A()x p, where A() is an n n matrix. Such is the case for eam uncertainties, where what is measured are the and powers of the map smoothed y the eam and one is attempting to determine the and powers of the unsmoothed map. In this case, F 1 F (x p )=x p +( )A( ) 1 A ( )x p. Thus, x is some n n matrix times x p. In the eam example, if the eam is Gaussian, A()=diag(e l i ), so x = diag(l i )xp. In this example, we have ignored higher order terms in ( ), which may e important for and powers at high l, where the uncertainties caused y the poorly determined eam are of order the size of the measurements.