Paper detail

Smoothing methods comparison for CMB E- and B-mode separation

The anisotropies of the B-mode polarization in the cosmic microwave background radiation play a crucial role for the study of the very early Universe. However, in the real observation, the mixture of the E-mode and B-mode can be caused by the partial sky surveys, which must be separated before applied to the cosmological explanation. The separation method developed by Smith (\citealt{PhysRevD.74.083002}) has been widely adopted, where the edge of the top-hat mask should be smoothed to avoid the numerical errors. In this paper, we compare three different smoothing methods, and investigate the leakage residuals of the E-B mixture. We find that, if the less information loss is needed and the smaller region is smoothed in the analysis, the \textit{sin}- and \textit{cos}-smoothing methods are better. However, if we need a clean constructed B-mode map, the larger region around the mask edge should be smoothed. In this case, the \textit{Gaussian}-smoothing method becomes much better. In addition, we find that the leakage caused by the numerical errors in the \textit{Gaussian}-smoothing method mostly concentrates on two bands, which is quite easy to be reduced for the further E-B separations.

preprint2015arXivOpen 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.