Paper detail

Non-Gaussian Signatures in the five-year WMAP data as identified with isotropic scaling indices

We continue the analysis of non-Gaussianities in the CMB by means of the scaling index method (SIM, Raeth, Schuecker & Banday 2007) by applying this method on the 5-year WMAP data. We compare each of the results with 1000 Monte Carlo simulations mimicing the Gaussian properties of the best fit $ΛCDM$-model. Based on the scaling indices, scale-dependent empirical probability distributions, moments of these distributions and $χ^2$-combinations of them are calculated, obtaining similar results as in the former analysis of the 3-year data: We derive evidence for non-Gaussianity with a probability of up to 97.3% for the mean when regarding the KQ75-masked full sky and summing up over all considered length scales by means of a diagonal $χ^2$-statistics. Looking at only the northern or southern hemisphere, we obtain up to 98.5% or 96.6%, respectively. For the standard deviation, these results appear as 95.6% for the full sky (99.7% north, 89.4% south) and for a $χ^2$-combination of both measurements as 97.4% (99.1% north, 95.5% south). By performing an analysis of rotated hemispheres, we detect an obvious asymmetry in the data. In addition to these investigations, we present a method of filling the mask with Gaussian noise to eliminate boundary effects caused by the mask. With the help of this technique, we identify several local features on the map, of which the most significant one turns out to be the well-known cold spot. When excluding all these spots from the analysis, the deviation from Gaussianity increases, which shows that the discovered local anomalies are not the reason of the global detection of non-Gaussianity, but actually were damping the deviations on average. Our analyses per band and per year suggest, however, that it is very unlikely that the detected anomalies are due to foreground effects.

preprint2009arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.