|COOKIES: By using this website you agree that we can place Google Analytics Cookies on your device for performance monitoring.|
Towards efficient CMB analysis on an incomplete sky
If you have a question about this talk, please contact Camille Bonvin.
In principle the statistics of the CMB are simple. The fluctuations are to a very good approximation an isotropic Gaussian random field and the distribution of their multipole coefficients is entirely characterised by the power spectrum. This means that, with access to the true multipoles, using the full information content of the CMB to study cosmology becomes a straightforward task. Unfortunately it is impossible to measure the actual multipole coefficients of the fluctuations. Foreground contamination of the data requires masking of the sky and introduces complicated correlations between the measured multipoles. This turns CMB analysis into a complicated and computationally demanding problem. Likelihood functions cannot be evaluated exactly any longer but feasible estimation methods like the popular pseudo-Cell estimation tend to lose information on cosmology.
I will talk about recent work that aims at avoiding information loss in the analysis of the CMB anisotropies on a masked sky. In particular I will present an approach that extends the standard pseudo-Cell method and gives rise to numerically tractable estimators that recover the lost information and produce estimates that are close to optimal.
This talk is part of the Cosmology lunch series.
This talk is included in these lists:
Note that ex-directory lists are not shown.
Other listsHumanitas Exit Seminar Series King's Review Salons
Other talksMicrobial Community Networks in the Human Microbiome Bayes & the Blame Game: How to ease the mutually felt frustration between law professionals and scientists. Lunchtime Talk: Helen's Bedroom Colour and colourants in manuscripts: The role of technical analyses Dr David Bending: A novel tool to visualize and manipulate the dynamics of T cell regulation in vivo Lay Understanding (and Misunderstanding) of Quantitative Statements about the Weight of Forensic Evidence