Paper detail

Characterizing line-of-sight variability of polarized dust emission with future CMB experiments

Galactic dust emission is often accounted for in cosmic microwave background (CMB) analyses by fitting a simple two-parameter modified blackbody (MBB) model in each pixel, which nominally accounts for the temperature and opacity of the dust. While this may be a good approximation for individual dust clouds, typically a number of such clouds are found along each line of sight and within each angular pixel, resulting in a superposition of their spectra. In this paper, we study the effects of this superposition on pixel-based foreground fitting strategies by modelling the spectral energy distribution (SED) in each pixel as the integral of individual MBB spectra over various physically-motivated statistical distributions of dust cloud properties. We show that fitting these SEDs with the simple two-parameter MBB model generally results in unbiased estimates of the CMB Stokes Q and U amplitudes in each pixel, unless there are significant changes in both the dust SED and polarization angle along the line of sight, in which case significant ($ > 10σ$) biases are observed in an illustrative model. We also find that the best-fit values of the dust temperature, $T_d$, and spectral index, $β_d$, are significantly biased away from the mean/median of the corresponding statistical distributions when the distributions are broad, suggesting that MBB model fits can give an unrepresentative picture of the physical properties of the dust at microwave wavelengths if not interpreted carefully. Using a Fisher matrix analysis, we also determine the experimental sensitivity required to recover the parameters of the $T_d$ and $β_d$ distributions themselves by fitting a probabilistic MBB model, finding that only the parameters of broad distributions can be measured by SED fitting on a single line of sight.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.