4.7 Article

Map making in small field modulated CMB polarization experiments: approximating the maximum likelihood method

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14195.x

关键词

methods: data analysis; methods: statistical; cosmic microwave background

资金

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F003110/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. STFC [ST/F003110/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Map making presents a significant computational challenge to the next generation of kilopixel cosmic microwave background polarization experiments. Years worth of time ordered data (TOD) from thousands of detectors will need to be compressed into maps of the T, Q and U Stokes parameters. Fundamental to the science goal of these experiments, the observation of B modes, is the ability to control noise and systematics. In this paper, we consider an alternative to the maximum likelihood method, called destriping, where the noise is modelled as a set of discrete offset functions and then subtracted from the time stream. We compare our destriping code (Descart: the DEStriping CARTographer) to a full maximum likelihood mapmaker, applying them to 200 Monte Carlo simulations of TOD from a ground-based, partial-sky polarization modulation experiment. In these simulations, the noise is dominated by either detector or atmospheric 1/f noise. Using prior information of the power spectrum of this noise, we produce destriped maps of T, Q and U which are negligibly different from optimal. The method does not filter the signal or bias the E-or B-mode power spectra. Depending on the length of the destriping baseline, the method delivers between five and 22 times improvement in computation time over the maximum likelihood algorithm. We find that, for the specific case of single detector maps, it is essential to destripe the atmospheric 1/f in order to detect B modes, even though the Q and U signals are modulated by a half-wave plate spinning at 5 Hz.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据