4.7 Article

Joint analysis of CMB temperature and lensing-reconstruction power spectra

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 88, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063012

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. STFC
  2. Large Facilities Capital Fund of BIS
  3. DAMTP Cambridge
  4. St John's College Cambridge
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I000976/1, ST/H008586/1, ST/K00333X/1, ST/F00723X/1, ST/J005673/1, ST/I002006/1, ST/J001538/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. UK Space Agency [ST/K003674/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. STFC [ST/I000976/1, ST/H008586/1, ST/J001538/1, ST/F00723X/1, ST/K00333X/1, ST/J005673/1, ST/I002006/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gravitational lensing provides a significant source of cosmological information in modern cosmic microwave background parameter analyses. It is measured in both the power spectrum and trispectrum of the temperature fluctuations. These observables are often treated as independent, although as they are both determined from the same map, this is impossible. In this paper, we perform a rigorous analysis of the covariance between lensing power spectrum and trispectrum analyses. We find two dominant contributions coming from (i) correlations between the disconnected noise bias in the trispectrum measurement and sample variance in the temperature power spectrum and (ii) sample variance of the lenses themselves. The former is naturally removed when the dominant N-(0) Gaussian bias in the reconstructed deflection spectrum is dealt with via a partially data-dependent correction, as advocated elsewhere for other reasons. The remaining lens-cosmic-variance contribution is easily modeled but can safely be ignored for a Planck-like experiment, justifying treating the two observable spectra as independent. We also test simple likelihood approximations for the deflection power spectrum, finding that a Gaussian with a parameter-independent covariance performs well.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available