CMB beam systematics: Impact on lensing parameter estimation

Abstract

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a rich source of cosmological information. Thanks to the simplicity and linearity of the theory of cosmological perturbations, observations of the CMB's polarization and temperature anisotropy can reveal the parameters which describe the contents, structure, and evolution of the cosmos. Temperature anisotropy is necessary but not sufficient to fully mine the CMB of its cosmological information as it is plagued with various parameter degeneracies. Fortunately, CMB polarization breaks many of these degeneracies and adds new information and increased precision. Of particular interest is the CMB's B-mode polarization which provides a handle on several cosmological parameters most notably the tensor-to-scalar ratio, r, and is sensitive to parameters which govern the growth of large scale structure (LSS) and evolution of the gravitational potential. These imprint CMB temperature anisotropy and cause E-to-B-mode polarization conversion via gravitational lensing. However, both primordial gravitational-wave-and secondary lensing-induced B-mode signals are very weak and therefore prone to various foregrounds and systematics. In this work we use Fisher-matrix-based estimations and apply, for the first time, Monte-Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) simulations to determine the effect of beam systematics on the inferred cosmological parameters from five upcoming experiments: PLANCK, POLARBEAR, SPIDER, QUIET+CLOVER and CMBPOL. We consider beam systematics which couple the beam substructure to the gradient of temperature anisotropy and polarization (differential beamwidth, pointing offsets and ellipticity) and beam systematics due to differential beam normalization (differential gain) and orientation (beam rotation) of the polarization-sensitive axes (the latter two effects are insensitive to the beam substructure). We determine allowable levels of beam systematics for given tolerances on the induced parameter errors and check for possible biases in the inferred parameters concomitant with potential increases in the statistical uncertainty. All our results are scaled to the 'worst case scenario'. In this case, and for our tolerance levels the beam rotation should not exceed the few-degree to sub-degree level, typical ellipticity is required to be 1%, the differential gain allowed level is few parts in 10 3 to 10 4 , differential beam width upper limits are of the sub-percent level and differential pointing should not exceed the few-to sub-arc sec level.PACS numbers: 98.70.Vc INTRODUCTIONThe standard cosmological model accounts for a multitude of phenomena occurring over orders of magnitude of length and angular scales throughout the entire history of cosmological evolution. Remarkably, doing so only requires about a dozen parameters. Perhaps one of the most useful cosmological probes is cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropy whose physics is well understood. Complementary cosmological probes can assist in breaking some of the degeneracies inherent in the CMB and further tighten...

Self-calibration of BICEP1 three-year data and constraints on astrophysical polarization rotation

“…Beam systematics affect the EB spectra in a different way than TB spectra [33,34]. As a result, the scale dependence of the beam systematic polarization will imply a different effective rotation angle in the TB spectrum versus the EB spectrum, for a fixed l−range.…”

“…The differential ellipticity and differential pointing are at the level of 0.2% and 1.3%, respectively, corresponding to the upper limits reported in [25]. In both cases, the systematic curves correspond to "worst-case" scenarios: the major axes of the ellipticities are separated by 45°and differential pointing assumes a poorly chosen scan strategy [34].…”

Precision tests of parity violation over cosmological distances

“…More importantly, CMB model uncertainties are relatively small and a robust detection is limited by the accuracy of the polarization angle calibration source 2 . Unfortunately, the calibration of CMB detector polarization angles is significantly more complicated than calibrating flux responses [7]. Whereas planets, the CMB dipole, and even the temperature power spectrum can be used to calibrate absolute temperature response [8, 9,10], there is no analogous standard for polarization angle calibration.…”

Bicep2/KECK ARRAY VIII: MEASUREMENT OF GRAVITATIONAL LENSING FROM LARGE-SCALE B-MODE POLARIZATION

“…Beam shape mismatch of each detector pair leads to a leakage from the bright temperature anisotropies into polarization (e.g., Hu et al 2003;Miller et al 2008;Su et al 2009). In our analysis, this leakage is mitigated by deprojecting (or for ellipticity, subtracting) several modes corresponding approximately to the difference of two elliptical Gaussians (see BK-III for details).…”