Difference between revisions of "PureB by Messenger Method"

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
''Michael Ray, Colin Bischoff, 2019-09-xx''
+
''Michael Ray, Colin Bischoff, 2019-09-16''
 
----
 
----
  
This posting describes an alternate pure-B estimator applied to the 95 GHz DC 04.00 maps. It uses the "messenger method" ([https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A%26A...549A.111E/abstract Elsner & Wandelt 2012]) to Wiener filter the maps. We treat the E-mode part of the signal covariance as if it was noise covariance ([https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..96d3523B/abstract Bunn & Wandelt 2017]), so filter equation becomes:
+
This posting describes an alternate pure-B estimator applied to the 95 GHz DC 04.00 maps with ''A<sub>L</sub>''=1. It uses the "messenger method" ([https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A%26A...549A.111E/abstract Elsner & Wandelt 2012]) to Wiener filter the maps. We treat the E-mode part of the signal covariance as if it was noise covariance ([https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..96d3523B/abstract Bunn & Wandelt 2017]), so filter equation becomes:
  
 
     map<sub>wf</sub> = (S<sub>B</sub>/(S<sub>B</sub>+S<sub>E</sub>+N)) * map,
 
     map<sub>wf</sub> = (S<sub>B</sub>/(S<sub>B</sub>+S<sub>E</sub>+N)) * map,
Line 10: Line 10:
 
For these simulations with unfiltered skies, the signal covariance is diagonal in the spherical harmonic basis. We treat the noise covariance as diagonal in the pixel basis (not strictly true because of the white + 1/&#x2113; noise spectrum in the data challenge maps). The messenger method iteratively solves fo the Wiener-filtered map by introducing a messenger field, <tt>t</tt>, with covariance matrix, <tt>T</tt>, that is proportional to the identity matrix, so it can be written easily in any basis. For each step of the algorithm, we transform back and forth between pixel space and spherical harmonic space, with the messenger field carrying information between the two bases.
 
For these simulations with unfiltered skies, the signal covariance is diagonal in the spherical harmonic basis. We treat the noise covariance as diagonal in the pixel basis (not strictly true because of the white + 1/&#x2113; noise spectrum in the data challenge maps). The messenger method iteratively solves fo the Wiener-filtered map by introducing a messenger field, <tt>t</tt>, with covariance matrix, <tt>T</tt>, that is proportional to the identity matrix, so it can be written easily in any basis. For each step of the algorithm, we transform back and forth between pixel space and spherical harmonic space, with the messenger field carrying information between the two bases.
  
As a first demonstration, we applied this technique to the 95 GHz DC 04.00 maps (Gaussian foregrounds, circular 3% fsky mask). The signal covariance matrices (in spherical harmonic space) are set to the standard lensed-LCDM E and B-mode spectra (purely diagonal). We did not include any foreground contribution to the signal covariance. The noise covariance is diagonal in pixel space, with values equal to 0.01 &mu;K<sup>2</sup> times the inverse of the mask (checked against a set of noise maps). For unobserved pixels, the noise covariance is set to a very large but finite value.
+
As a first demonstration, we applied this technique to the 95 GHz DC 04.00 maps (Gaussian foregrounds, circular 3% fsky mask). The signal covariance matrices (in spherical harmonic space) are set to lensed-LCDM EE and BB spectra (purely diagonal), multiplied by ''B<sub>&#x2113;</sub><sup>2</sup>'' and zeroed for &#x2113; &lt; 30 (this last choice appears to have consequences for the bandpower window functions). We did not include any foreground contribution to the signal covariance. The noise covariance is diagonal in pixel space, with values equal to 0.01 &mu;K<sup>2</sup> times the inverse of the mask (checked against a set of noise maps). For unobserved pixels, the noise covariance is set to a very large but finite value.
  
 
The messenger method includes parameter, &lambda;, which scales the covariance of the messenger field. Convergence proceeds more quickly for large values of &lambda;, but the final solution is obtained for &lambda; = 1. This means that we want to implement a "cooling schedule" for efficient filtering. In our implementation, &lambda; starts at a value of 1300, is decreased to 100 on the second iteration, and then is reduced by factor &eta; = 0.825 on each subsequent iteration. When &lambda; reaches 1, we iterate an additional 5 times. We have experimented fairly extensively with other cooling schedules and found that this method gives good convergence in a reasonable amount of time. (We are able to filter a single set of Q and U maps in 34 minutes on a single processor.)
 
The messenger method includes parameter, &lambda;, which scales the covariance of the messenger field. Convergence proceeds more quickly for large values of &lambda;, but the final solution is obtained for &lambda; = 1. This means that we want to implement a "cooling schedule" for efficient filtering. In our implementation, &lambda; starts at a value of 1300, is decreased to 100 on the second iteration, and then is reduced by factor &eta; = 0.825 on each subsequent iteration. When &lambda; reaches 1, we iterate an additional 5 times. We have experimented fairly extensively with other cooling schedules and found that this method gives good convergence in a reasonable amount of time. (We are able to filter a single set of Q and U maps in 34 minutes on a single processor.)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
[[File:Filtered specs mean vs expectation.png|frame|Figure 3: Band powers of 100 filtered signal plus noise simulations. These were filtered using the messenger method estimator. Also shown is the mean and the expectation value calculated using band power window functions and BB theory spectra.|center]]
 
[[File:Filtered specs mean vs expectation.png|frame|Figure 3: Band powers of 100 filtered signal plus noise simulations. These were filtered using the messenger method estimator. Also shown is the mean and the expectation value calculated using band power window functions and BB theory spectra.|center]]
  
 +
Figures 4 and 5 show bandpower window functions for input B modes >> output BB (left) and input E modes >> output BB (right). These were calculated by running just six simulations for each &#x2113; value, and could be made less noisy with additional computation. The purity of the estimator can be seen by comparing the absolute level of the two sets of functions; the first ell bin responds has response to B modes that is ~1000x greater than the response to E modes. Our initial reaction was that this is not an extremely impressive level of purity (though it is better than simply masking and running anafast). However, keep in mind that we are using a Wiener filter that knows about the noise level, so it might choose to keep modes that are slightly ambiguous if they result in a net decrease in bandpower variance.
  
As one can see, the expectation value for our estimator runs directly through the middle of our simulations and is very close to our mean. It is worth noting that there is definitely something out of the ordinary happening in our last bin. In this bin, we routinely get results that do not agree with the rest of the data. Because of this, we generally ignore results from the last bin given that we are not too worried with what is happening at that ell range anyway. Shown below are plots of BB to BB and EE to BB band power window functions for both the messenger method estimator and the S2hat estimator. Band power window functions for the messenger estimator were calculated with an input signal C_ell = 1 on the sky. This means that the actual input power for deriving band power window functions is 1 * B_ell squared, where B_ell squared contains the effect of the beam. We also ran 6 simulations at each ell with this input power and then took the mean of the output across these six simulations to get the final band power window functions. Summing the window functions across ell values gives us the total suppression factor.
+
The input B >> output BB window functions show a prominent bump for &#x21113; < 30. This is probably due to the choice we made to zero the E and B signal covariance matrices in that range (which does match the sim construction). Our naive expectation based on the Wiener filter equation was that the filter would kill that &#x2113; range because it contains no signal, but clearly this is not happening. We plan to investigate this by calculating window functions without zeroing that part of the covariance matrix.
  
Figures 4 and 5 show bandpower window functions for input B modes &rightarrow; output BB
+
The 10th &#x2113; bin shows odd behavior, with no upper end cutoff and very different normalization from other bins. This might just be a bug in the binning code. That bin also showed the largest bias in Figure 3, which might be related.
  
 
{|
 
{|
Line 37: Line 38:
 
|}
 
|}
  
Again, it is visually apparent that there is something odd going on in the last bin for the messenger method estimator.
+
Figure 6 shows the variance calculated from BB bandpowers of the first 100 signal + noise maps by pure-S2hat and by this estimator. The Wiener filter / messenger method estimator produces lower variance for all bins (but the last bin shouldn't be trusted, for reasons discussed above). We believe that at least part of this improvement is because the Wiener filter considers both signal and noise variance, so it could decide to keep more modes for a signal-dominated case. There results are from sims with ''A<sub>L</sub>'' = 1, which is a pretty large B-mode signal when compared to the CMB-S4 forecasted 95 GHz noise. We expect that the improvement would be much smaller for maps that have been delensed.
  
Below are plots the variance in each bin across the 100 realizations which were filtered. The exact same simulations were used as input to the two methods compared (signal plus noise simulations at 95 GHz using the 04.00 experiment configuration).
+
[[File:Variance comparison.png|frame|Figure 6: Comparison of messenger method and S2hat estimator when it comes to the variance in each bin.|center]]
  
 
+
There are several steps that are still needed before this estimator can be used as part of a full Data Challenge analysis:
[[File:Variance comparison.png|frame|Figure : Comparison of messenger method and S2hat estimator when it comes to the variance in each bin.|center]]
+
* Look into the effect of zeroing signal covariance for &#x2113; < 30. Is this responsible for the low-&#x2113; feature in the bandpower window functions?
 
+
* Figure out what is going on with the 10th &#x2113; bin.
As shown above, the messenger method beats the S2hat estimator in terms of variance per bin. We believe the main reason for this is that the S2hat estimator uses a simple weighting of 1/N to filter the maps. Since the signal plus noise simulations have a sizeable amount of BB lensing signal contained within them, the fact that we are doing a weiner filter (and thus taking into account the signal covariance) means that we would expect to get a large improvement over an estimator which only knows about noise covariance. For delensed simulations, we would expect to see less of an improvement from the messenger method over the S2hat filtering.
+
* Incorporate this filter into a pipeline infrastructure that can run on all maps, take cross-spectra, calculate TT, EE, TE, EB, TB, etc.

Latest revision as of 09:13, 16 September 2019

Michael Ray, Colin Bischoff, 2019-09-16


This posting describes an alternate pure-B estimator applied to the 95 GHz DC 04.00 maps with AL=1. It uses the "messenger method" (Elsner & Wandelt 2012) to Wiener filter the maps. We treat the E-mode part of the signal covariance as if it was noise covariance (Bunn & Wandelt 2017), so filter equation becomes:

    mapwf = (SB/(SB+SE+N)) * map,

where SE,B are the E-mode and B-mode parts of the signal covariance.

For these simulations with unfiltered skies, the signal covariance is diagonal in the spherical harmonic basis. We treat the noise covariance as diagonal in the pixel basis (not strictly true because of the white + 1/ℓ noise spectrum in the data challenge maps). The messenger method iteratively solves fo the Wiener-filtered map by introducing a messenger field, t, with covariance matrix, T, that is proportional to the identity matrix, so it can be written easily in any basis. For each step of the algorithm, we transform back and forth between pixel space and spherical harmonic space, with the messenger field carrying information between the two bases.

As a first demonstration, we applied this technique to the 95 GHz DC 04.00 maps (Gaussian foregrounds, circular 3% fsky mask). The signal covariance matrices (in spherical harmonic space) are set to lensed-LCDM EE and BB spectra (purely diagonal), multiplied by B2 and zeroed for ℓ < 30 (this last choice appears to have consequences for the bandpower window functions). We did not include any foreground contribution to the signal covariance. The noise covariance is diagonal in pixel space, with values equal to 0.01 μK2 times the inverse of the mask (checked against a set of noise maps). For unobserved pixels, the noise covariance is set to a very large but finite value.

The messenger method includes parameter, λ, which scales the covariance of the messenger field. Convergence proceeds more quickly for large values of λ, but the final solution is obtained for λ = 1. This means that we want to implement a "cooling schedule" for efficient filtering. In our implementation, λ starts at a value of 1300, is decreased to 100 on the second iteration, and then is reduced by factor η = 0.825 on each subsequent iteration. When λ reaches 1, we iterate an additional 5 times. We have experimented fairly extensively with other cooling schedules and found that this method gives good convergence in a reasonable amount of time. (We are able to filter a single set of Q and U maps in 34 minutes on a single processor.)

Figures 1 and 2 show a map before and after filtering. The input maps is dominated by LCDM E modes. The output map contains B modes from foregrounds and lensing. The output map color scale has been zoomed in so that we can see that the pure-B filtering operation has extended the map into the unobserved region.

Figure 1: Input Q signal plus noise map. This is zoomed in on the unmasked region of the map.
Figure 2: Output Q signal plus noise map. This has been filtered through our pure B estimator. This map is also zoomed in on the unmasked region although the algorithm extends the map into the unmasked region.

After applying the filter, we calculate the BB spectrum with anafast and bin with Δℓ=35, to match the pure-S2hat analysis. Noise bias is measured from 100 noise-only simulations. Bandpower window functions (Figures 4 and 5) and suppression factors are calculated by running ℓ-by-ℓ simulations (but only 6 realizations per ℓ value so far). Figure 3 shows noise-debiased and suppression-factor-corrected power spectra for 100 LCDM+foregrounds+noise simulations. The expectation value line is calculated by applying the bandpower window functions to a LCDM+foregrounds model that matches the sims.

There is some noticeable bias in the last bin especially. Something is clearly off with the calculations for this bin (see bandpower window functions) and needs to be investigated.

Figure 3: Band powers of 100 filtered signal plus noise simulations. These were filtered using the messenger method estimator. Also shown is the mean and the expectation value calculated using band power window functions and BB theory spectra.

Figures 4 and 5 show bandpower window functions for input B modes >> output BB (left) and input E modes >> output BB (right). These were calculated by running just six simulations for each ℓ value, and could be made less noisy with additional computation. The purity of the estimator can be seen by comparing the absolute level of the two sets of functions; the first ell bin responds has response to B modes that is ~1000x greater than the response to E modes. Our initial reaction was that this is not an extremely impressive level of purity (though it is better than simply masking and running anafast). However, keep in mind that we are using a Wiener filter that knows about the noise level, so it might choose to keep modes that are slightly ambiguous if they result in a net decrease in bandpower variance.

The input B >> output BB window functions show a prominent bump for 𡄓 < 30. This is probably due to the choice we made to zero the E and B signal covariance matrices in that range (which does match the sim construction). Our naive expectation based on the Wiener filter equation was that the filter would kill that ℓ range because it contains no signal, but clearly this is not happening. We plan to investigate this by calculating window functions without zeroing that part of the covariance matrix.

The 10th ℓ bin shows odd behavior, with no upper end cutoff and very different normalization from other bins. This might just be a bug in the binning code. That bin also showed the largest bias in Figure 3, which might be related.

Figure 4: BB to BB band power window functions using messenger method pure-B estimator.
Figure 5: EE to BB band power window functions using messenger method pure-B estimator.

Figure 6 shows the variance calculated from BB bandpowers of the first 100 signal + noise maps by pure-S2hat and by this estimator. The Wiener filter / messenger method estimator produces lower variance for all bins (but the last bin shouldn't be trusted, for reasons discussed above). We believe that at least part of this improvement is because the Wiener filter considers both signal and noise variance, so it could decide to keep more modes for a signal-dominated case. There results are from sims with AL = 1, which is a pretty large B-mode signal when compared to the CMB-S4 forecasted 95 GHz noise. We expect that the improvement would be much smaller for maps that have been delensed.

Figure 6: Comparison of messenger method and S2hat estimator when it comes to the variance in each bin.

There are several steps that are still needed before this estimator can be used as part of a full Data Challenge analysis:

  • Look into the effect of zeroing signal covariance for ℓ < 30. Is this responsible for the low-ℓ feature in the bandpower window functions?
  • Figure out what is going on with the 10th ℓ bin.
  • Incorporate this filter into a pipeline infrastructure that can run on all maps, take cross-spectra, calculate TT, EE, TE, EB, TB, etc.