A Angular power spectrum, bias from N weighted events

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the angular power spectrum C_{l,N,ω} for N weighted events from a full sky map with a given distribution C_l. The mean and variance of C_{l,N,ω} are of particular interest, especially considering the bias introduced by observing only a limited number of events and the impact of energy-dependent weights. The initial findings suggest that for a pure isotropic sky map without weights, the mean and variance can be derived from Poisson noise principles. The challenge lies in adapting these expressions to account for varying weights ω_i for each event, as this affects the overall estimation of the CMB signal. The goal is to derive a general analytical expression for the case of a pure isotropic sky map with weighted events.
ChristianS
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
My general question is:
What is the angular power spectrum C_{l,N,ω} of N weighted (weight ω_i for event i) events from a full sky map with distribution C_l?

I'm interested in:
  • Mean of C_{l,N,ω}: <C_{l,N,ω}>
  • Variance of C_{l,N,ω}: Var(C_{l,N,ω})
The question is important, since we observe in reality only a certain number N of events of the true sky-distribution and this leads to a bias of the C_l s.
Due to energy dependent detector effects it is often important to weight each event i by the observed Energy ω_i(E). Maybe this problem is solved for the CMB-Powerspectrum, but I couldn't find anything :(.

For simplification I would like to start with the special case of a pure isotropic sky map. If we neglect the weights, we know from Poisson noise/shot noise (we observe N events at random positions):
  1. <C_{l,N}>=4π/N
  2. Var(C_{l,N})= (2/(2l+1)) (4π/N)^2
I would be very very thankful, if anybody could tell me, how this expression changes, if we weight each event i by the observed Energy ω_i(E)?
 
Space news on Phys.org
What are typically used are maximum-likelihood methods. See here, for example:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0201438

Getting an accurate estimate of the CMB signal with realistic errors is a very complex subject overall, unfortunately. Especially difficult are estimating the foreground signals that must be subtracted (especially important for polarization measurements).
 
Thank you for the paper. Nevertheless I think that for the pure isotropic sky map it should be possible to derive an analytical expression, if the N events have instead of all weights ω_i=1 (for this case the above expression is true) different weights ω_i for each event i.
If e.g. N/4 events have weigt ω_i=1 and N*3/4 events have weight weigt ω_i=0, it should be <C_{l,N}>=4π/(N/4) and Var(C_{l,N})= (2/(2l+1)) (4π/(N/4))^2, since events with ω_i=0 shouldn't contribute to mean and variance.

I hope anybody can help me to find a gerneral expression for the case of a pure isotropic sky map.
There is no window function of the detector ... needed.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top