1IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Interferometric Imaging & Analysis of the CMB

Steven T. Myers

National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Socorro, NM

2IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

dmdlvmuljemlIvuV ..2.),(),(

Interferometers

• Spatial coherence of radiation pattern contains information about source structure– Correlations along wavefronts

• Equivalent to masking parts of a telescope aperture– Sparse arrays = unfilled aperture– Resolution at cost of surface brightness sensitivity

• Correlate pairs of antennas– “visibility” = correlated fraction of total signal

• Fourier transform relationship with sky brightness– Van Cittert – Zernicke theorem

3IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Interferometers

• CMB issues:– Extremely low surface brightness fluctuations < 50 K– Polarization less than 10%– Large monopole signal 3K, dipole 3 mK– No compact features, approximately Gaussian random field– Foregrounds both galactic & extragalactic

• Traditional direct imaging– Differential horns or focal plane arrays

• Interferometry– Inherent differencing (fringe pattern), filtered images– Works in spatial Fourier domain– Element gain effect spread in image plane– Limited by need to correlate pairs of elements– Sensitivity requires compact arrays

IPAM – Jan 30, 2004 4

CMB Interferometers: DASI, VSA

• DASI @ South Pole

• VSA @ Tenerife

IPAM – Jan 30, 2004 5

CMB Interferometers: CBI

• CBI @ Chile

6IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Cosmic Background Imager

7IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Instrument

• 13 90-cm Cassegrain antennas– 78 baselines

• 6-meter platform– Baselines 1m – 5.51m

• 10 1 GHz channels 26-36 GHz– HEMT amplifiers (NRAO)

– Cryogenic 6K, Tsys 20 K

• Single polarization (R or L)– Polarizers from U. Chicago

• Analog correlators– 780 complex correlators

• Field-of-view 44 arcmin– Image noise 4 mJy/bm 900s

• Resolution 4.5 – 10 arcmin

8IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

3-Axis mount : rotatable platform

9IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Instrumentation

• Correlator– Multipliers 1 GHz bandwidth– 10 channels to cover total band 26-36 GHz (after filters and

downconversion)– 78 baselines (13 antennas x 12/2)– Real and Imaginary (with phase shift) correlations– 1560 total multipliers

10IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Operations• Observing in Chile since Nov 1999

– NSF proposal 1994, funding in 1995– Assembled and tested at Caltech in 1998– Shipped to Chile in August 1999– Continued NSF funding in 2002, to end of 2004– Chile Operations 2004-2005 pending proposal

• Telescope at high site in Andes– 16000 ft (~5000 m)– Located on Science Preserve, co-located with ALMA– Now also ATSE (Japan) and APEX (Germany), others– Controlled on-site, oxygenated quarters in containers

• Data reduction and archiving at “low” site– San Pedro de Atacama– 1 ½ hour driving time to site

11IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Site – Northern Chilean Andes

12IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

A Theoretical Digression

13IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Cosmic Microwave Background

• Discovered 1965 (Penzias & Wilson)– 2.7 K blackbody– Isotropic– Relic of hot “big bang”– 3 mK dipole (Doppler)

• COBE 1992– Blackbody 2.725 K– Anisotropies 10-5

14IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Thermal History of the Universe

Courtesy Wayne Hu – http://background.uchicago.edu

15IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Anisotropies

• Primary Anisotropies– Imprinted on photosphere of “last scattering”

• “recombination” of hydrogen z~1100

– Primordial (power-law?) spectrum of potential fluctuations• Collapse of dark matter potential wells inside horizon

• Photons coupled to baryons >> acoustic oscillations!

– Electron scattering density & velocity• Velocity produces quadrupole >> polarization!

– Transfer function maps P(k) >> Cl

• Depends on cosmological parameters >> predictive!

– Gaussian fluctuations + isotropy• Angular power spectrum contains all information

• Secondary Anisotropies– Due to processes after recombination

16IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Primary Anisotropies

Courtesy Wayne Hu – http://background.uchicago.edu

17IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Primary Anisotropies

Courtesy Wayne Hu – http://background.uchicago.edu

18IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Secondary Anisotropies

Courtesy Wayne Hu – http://background.uchicago.edu

19IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Images of the CMB

BOOMERANG

WMAP Satellite

ACBAR

20IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

WMAP Power Spectrum

Courtesy WMAP – http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov

21IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Polarization

• Due to quadrupolar intensity field at scattering• E & B modes

– E (gradient) from scalar density fluctuations predominant!– B (curl) from gravity wave tensor modes, or secondaries

• Detected by DASI and WMAP– EE and TE seen so far, BB null

• Next generation experiments needed for B modes– Science driver for Beyond Einstein mission– Lensing at sub-degree scales likely to detect– Tensor modes hard unless T/S~0.1 (high!)

Hu & Dodelson ARAA 2002

22IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Imaging/Analysis Problems

• Time Stream Processing (e.g. calibration)• Power Spectrum estimation for large datasets

– MLM, approximate methods, efficient methods– Extraction of different components– From PS to parameters (e.g. MCMC)

• Beyond the Power Spectrum– Non-Gaussianity– Bispectrum and beyond

• Other– Optimal image construction– “object” identification– Topology– Comparison of overlapping datasets

23IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Interferometry

24IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Fourier Relationship

• An interferometer “visibility” in the sky and Fourier planes:

• The aperture (antenna) size smears out the coherence function response– Lose ability to localize wavefront direction = field-of-view– Small apertures = wide field

25IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The uv plane and l space

• The sky can be uniquely described by spherical harmonics– CMB power spectra are described by multipole l ( the angular

scale in the spherical harmonic transform)

• For small (sub-radian) scales the spherical harmonics can be approximated by Fourier modes– The conjugate variables are (u,v) as in radio interferometry– The uv radius is given by l / 2

• The projected length of the interferometer baseline gives the angular scale – Multipole l = 2 B /

• An interferometer naturally measures the transform of the sky intensity in l space

26IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Beam and uv coverage

• 78 baselines and 10 frequency channels = 780 instantaneous visibilities– Frequency channels give radial spread in uv plane

• Baselines locked to platform in pointing direction– Baselines always perpendicular to source direction– Delay lines not needed– Very low fringe rates (susceptible to cross-talk and ground)

• Pointing platform rotatable to fill in uv coverage– Parallactic angle rotation gives azimuthal spread– Beam nearly circularly symmetric

• CBI uv plane is well-sampled– few gaps– inner hole (1.1D), outer limit dominates PSF

27IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Field of View and Resolution

• An interferometer “visibility” in the sky and Fourier planes:

• The primary beam and aperture are related by:

CBI:

CMB peaks smaller

than this !

28IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Mosaicing in the uv plane

offset & add

phase gradients

29IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Power Spectrum and Likelihood

• Statistics of CMB (Gaussian) described by power spectrum:

Break into bandpowers Construct covariance matrices and perform maximum Likelihood calculation:

30IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Power Spectrum Estimation

• Method described in CBI Paper 4– Myers et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 575 (astro-ph/0205385)

• The problem - large datasets– > 105 visibilities in 6 x 7 field mosaic– ~ 104 distinct per mosaic pointing!– But only ~ 103 independent Fourier plane patches

• More problems– Mosaic data must be processed together– Data also from 4 independent mosaics!– Polarization “data” x3 and covariances x6!– ML will be O(N3), need to reduce N!

31IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Covariance of Visibilities

• Write with operators

• Covariance

• But, need to consider conjugates

v = P t + e

< v v† > = P < t t † > P† + E E =< e e† > (~diagonal noise)

< v v t > = P < t t t> P t = P < t t † > P t

32IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Conjugate Covariances

• On short baselines, a visibility can correlate with both another visibility and its conjugate

33IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Gridded Visibilities

• Solution - convolve with “matched filter” kernel

• Kernel

• Normalization– Returns true t for infinite continuous mosaic

= Q v + Q v*

Deal with conjugate visibilities

34IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Digression: Another Approach

• Could also attempt reconstruction of Fourier plane– v = P t + e → v = M s + e

• e.g. ML solution over e = v – Ms – x = H v = s + n H = (MtN-1M)-1MtN-1 n = H e

• see Hobson & Maisinger 2002, MNRAS, 334, 569– applied to VSA data

35IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Covariance of Gridded Visibilities

• Or

• Covariances

• Equivalent to linear (dirty) mosaic image

= R t + n R = Q P + Q P n = Q e + Q e*

M = < † > = R < t t † > R† + NN = < n n† > = QEQ† + QEQ†

M = < t > = R < t t t > Rt + NN = < n n t > = QEQt + QEQt

36IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Complex to Real

• pack real and imaginary parts into real vector

• put into (real) likelihood equation

37IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Gridded uv-plane “estimators”

• Method practical & efficient– Convolution with aperture matched filter– Reduced to 103 to 104 grid cells– Not lossless, but information loss insignificant– Fast! (work spread between gridding & covariance)

• Construct covariance matrices for gridded points– Complicates covariance calculation

• Summary of Method– time series of calibrated visibilities V– grid onto D, accumulate R and N (scatter)– assemble covariances (gather)– pass to Likelihood or Imager– parallelizable! (gridding easy, ML harder)

38IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The Computational Problem

39IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Gridded “estimators” to Bandpowers

• Output of gridder– estimators on grid (ui,vi)

– covariances N, CT, Csrc, Cres, Cscan

• Maximum likelihood using BJK method– iterative approach to ML solution– Newton-Raphson– incorporates constraint matrices for projection– output bandpowers for parameter estimation– can also investigate Likelihood surface (MCMC?)

• Wiener filtered images constructed from estimators– can IFFT (u,v) to image T(x,y)– apply Wiener filters ‘= – tune filters for components (noise,CMB,srcs,SZ)

40IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Maximum Likelihood

• Method of Bond, Jaffe & Knox (1998)

41IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Differencing & Combination

• Differencing– 2000-2001 data taken in Lead-Trail mode

• Independent mosaics– 4 separate equatorial mosaics 02h, 08h, 14h, 20h

42IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Constraints & Projection

• Fit for CMB power spectrum bandpowers• Terms for “known” effects

– instrumental noise– residual source foreground– incorporate as “noise” matrices with known prefactors

• Terms for “unknown effects”– e.g. foreground sources with known positions– known structure in C– incorporate as “noise” matrices with large prefactors– equivalent to downweighting contaminated modes in data

noise projected fitted

43IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Window Functions

• Bandpowers as filtered integral over l

• Minimum variance (quadratic) estimator

• Window function:

44IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Tests with mock data

• The CBI pipeline has been extensively tested using mock data– Use real data files for template– Replace visibilties with simulated signal and noise– Run end-to-end through pipeline– Run many trials to build up statistics

45IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Wiener filtered images

• Covariance matrices can be applied as Wiener filter to gridded estimators

• Estimators can be Fourier transformed back into filtered images

• Filters CX can be tailored to pick out specific components– e.g. point sources, CMB, SZE– Just need to know the shape of the power spectrum

46IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Example – Mock deep field

Raw

CMB

Noise removed

Sources

47IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Results

48IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000 Results

• Observations– 3 Deep Fields (8h, 14h, 20h)– 3 Mosaics (14h, 20h, 02h)– Fields on celestial equator (Dec center –2d30’)

• Published in series of 5 papers (ApJ July 2003)– Mason et al. (deep fields)– Pearson et al. (mosaics)– Myers et al. (power spectrum method)– Sievers et al. (cosmological parameters)– Bond et al. (high-l anomaly and SZ) pending

49IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Calibration and Foreground Removal

• Calibration scale ~5%– Jupiter from OVRO 1.5m (Mason et al. 1999)– Agrees with BIMA (Welch) and WMAP

• Ground emission removal– Strong on short baselines, depends on orientation– Differencing between lead/trail field pairs (8m in RA=2deg)– Use scanning for 2002-2003 polarization observations

• Foreground radio sources– Predominant on long baselines – Located in NVSS at 1.4 GHz, VLA 8.4 GHz– Measured at 30 GHz with OVRO 40m– Projected out in power spectrum analysis

50IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Deep Fields 2000

Deep Field Observations: •3 fields totaling 4 deg^2•Fields at ~0 =8h, 14h, 20h

•~115 nights of observing•Data redundancy strong tests for systematics

51IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Mosaic Field Observations• 3 fields totaling 40 deg^2• Fields at ~0 =2h, 14h, 20h

• ~125 nights of observing• ~ 600,000 uv points covariance matrix 5000 x 5000

CBI 2000 Mosaic Power Spectrum

52IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000 Mosaic Power Spectrum

53IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Cosmological Parameters

wk-h: 0.45 < h < 0.9, t > 10 Gyr

HST-h: h = 0.71 ± 0.076

LSS: constraints on8 and from 2dF, SDSS, etc.

SN: constraints from Type 1a SNae

54IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

SZE Angular Power SpectrumSZE Angular Power Spectrum

•Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (5123) [Wadsley et al. 2002]

•Moving Mesh Hydrodynamics (5123) [Pen 1998]

•143 Mpc 8=1.0

•200 Mpc 8=1.0

•200 Mpc 8=0.9

•400 Mpc 8=0.9

[Bond et al. 2002]

Dawson et al. 2002

55IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

• Combine CBI & BIMA (Dawson et al.) 30 GHz with ACBAR 150 GHz (Goldstein et al.)

• Non-Gaussian scatter for SZE– increased sample variance (factor ~3))

• Uncertainty in primary spectrum– due to various parameters, marginalize

• Explained in Goldstein et al. (astro-ph/0212517)• Use updated BIMA (Carlo Contaldi)

Constraints on SZ “density”

Courtesy Carlo Contaldi (CITA)

56IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

New : Calibration from WMAP Jupiter

• Old uncertainty: 5%• 2.7% high vs. WMAP Jupiter• New uncertainty: 1.3%• Ultimate goal: 0.5%

57IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

49

Future plans

New: CBI 2000+2001 Results

58IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000+2001 Noise Power

59IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000+2001 and WMAP

60IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI 2000+2001, WMAP, ACBAR

61IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The CMB From NRAO HEMTs

62IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Example: Post-WMAP parameters

63IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Polarization

64IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Polarization

• CBI instrumentation– Use quarter-wave devices for linear to circular conversion– Single amplifier per receiver: either R or L only per element

• 2000 Observations– One antenna cross-polarized in 2000 (Cartwright thesis)– Only 12 cross-polarized baselines (cf. 66 parallel hand)– Original polarizers had 5%-15% leakage– Deep fields, upper limit ~8 K

• 2002 Upgrade– Upgrade in 2002 using DASI polarizers (switchable)– Observing with 7R + 6L starting Sep 2002– Raster scans for mosaicing and efficiency– New TRW InP HEMTs from NRAO

65IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Polarization Sensitivity

CBI is most sensitive at the peak of the polarization power spectrum

Theoretical sensitivity ± of CBI in 450 hours (90 nights) on each of 3 mosaic fields 5 deg sq (no differencing), close-packed configuration.

EETE The compact configuration

66IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Stokes parameters

• CBI receivers can observe either R or L circular polarization

• CBI correlators can cross-correlate R or L from a given pair of antennas

• Mapping of correlations (RR,LL,RL,LR) to Stokes parameters (I,Q,U,V)

• Intensity I plus linear polarization Q,U important– CMB not circularly polarized, ignore V (RR = LL = I)

67IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Polarization Interferometry

“Cross hands” sensitive to linear polarization (Stokes Q and U):

where the baseline parallactic angle is defined as:

68IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

E and B modes

• A useful decomposition of the polarization signal is into gradient and curl modes – E and B:

69IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI-Pol 2000 Cartwright thesis

70IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Pol 2003 – DASI & WMAP

Courtesy Wayne Hu – http://background.uchicago.edu

71IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Polarization Issues

• Low signal levels– High sensitivity and long integrations needed– Prone to systematics and foreground contamination– Use B modes a veto at E levels

• Instrumental polarization– Well-calibrated system necessary– Somewhat easier to control in interferometry– Constraint matrix approach possible (e.g. DASI)

• Stray radiation– Sky (atmosphere) ~unpolarized (good!)– Ground highly polarized (bad!)– Scan differencing or projection necessary

• Computationally intensive!

72IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Current Polarization Data

• Observing since Sep 2002• Four mosaics 02h, 08h, 14h, 20h

– 02h, 08h, 14h 6 x 6 fields, 45’ centers– 20h deep strip 6 fields

• Currently data to Mar 2003 processed– Preliminary data analysis available– Only 02h, 08h (partial), and 20h strip

73IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI Polarization Projections

• CBI funded for Chile ops until 2003 Dec 31– Projections using mock data available

• NSF proposal pending for ops through 2005– Projections using mock data available

74IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

Beyond Gaussianity

• Objects in CMB data– our galaxy: diffuse, structure, different spectral components

• see WMAP papers for example of template filtering

– discrete source foregrounds• known sources catalogued, can project out or fit

• faint sources merge into “Gaussian” foreground

– scattering of CMB from clusters of galaxies (SZE)

• The Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect– Compton upscattering of CMB photons by keV electrons– decrement in I below CMB thermal peak (increment above)– negative extended sources (absorption against 3K CMB)– massive clusters mK, but shallow profile θ-1 → exp(-v)

75IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

• Spectral distortion of CMB• Dominated by massive halos (galaxy clusters)• Low-z clusters: ~ 10’-30’• z=1: ~1’ expected dominant signal in CMB on small angular scales• Amplitude highly sensitive to 8

A. Cooray (astro-ph/0203048)

P. Zhang, U. Pen, & B. Wang (astro-ph/0201375)

2ndary SZE Anisotropies

76IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

SZE with CBI: z < 0.1 clusters

P. Udomprasert thesis (Caltech)

77IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CBI SZE visibility function

• dominated by shortest baselines

78IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CL 0016+16, z = 0.55 (Carlstrom et al.)

SZE: = 15 K, contours =2

X-Ray

79IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

CMB Interferometry Issues?• process issues

– more clever compression (e.g. S/N eigen., MC)– uv-plane exploration (e.g. Hobson & Maisinger)– incorporation of time-series (e.g. calibration)– beyond ML (MCMC?), also projection and marginalization– application to general radio interferometry (e.g. mosaicing)

• multi-components– spectral components (uv-coverage vs. frequency)– spatial components (CMB, SZE, point sources, diffuse fg)– non-Gaussianity (bispectrum etc., image-plane?)

• SZE issues– modelfitting or multiscale imaging?– removal of CMB– substructure

80IPAM – Jan 30, 2004

The CBI Collaboration

Caltech Team: Tony Readhead (Principal Investigator), John Cartwright, Alison Farmer, Russ Keeney, Brian Mason, Steve Miller, Steve Padin (Project Scientist), Tim Pearson, Walter Schaal, Martin Shepherd, Jonathan Sievers, Pat Udomprasert, John Yamasaki.Operations in Chile: Pablo Altamirano, Ricardo Bustos, Cristobal Achermann, Tomislav Vucina, Juan Pablo Jacob, José Cortes, Wilson Araya.Collaborators: Dick Bond (CITA), Leonardo Bronfman (University of Chile), John Carlstrom (University of Chicago), Simon Casassus (University of Chile), Carlo Contaldi (CITA), Nils Halverson (University of California, Berkeley), Bill Holzapfel (University of California, Berkeley), Marshall Joy (NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center), John Kovac (University of Chicago), Erik Leitch (University of Chicago), Jorge May (University of Chile), Steven Myers (National Radio Astronomy Observatory), Angel Otarola (European Southern Observatory), Ue-Li Pen (CITA), Dmitry Pogosyan (University of Alberta), Simon Prunet (Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris), Clem Pryke (University of Chicago).

The CBI Project is a collaboration between the California Institute of Technology, the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the University of Chicago, and the Universidad de Chile. The project has been supported by funds from the National Science Foundation, the California Institute of Technology, Maxine and Ronald Linde, Cecil and Sally Drinkward, Barbara and Stanley Rawn Jr., the Kavli Institute,and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

81IPAM – Jan 30, 2004