Beam profile sensitivity of the WMAP CMB power spectrum

TL;DR

This paper investigates how the shape of the WMAP beam affects the CMB power spectrum, presents new beam profile estimates from radio sources, and discusses implications for cosmological measurements.

Contribution

It provides new estimates of WMAP beam profiles based on radio sources and analyzes their impact on the CMB power spectrum, highlighting discrepancies with Jupiter-based measurements.

Findings

WMAP beam profile extends beyond the core, affecting measurements at high l.

Radio source-based beam profiles are broader than Jupiter-based profiles.

Differences in beam profiles could significantly alter the CMB acoustic peak measurements.

Abstract

Using the published WMAP 5-year data, we first show how sensitive the WMAP power spectra are to the form of the WMAP beam. It is well known that the beam profile derived from observations of Jupiter is non-Gaussian and indeed extends, in the W band for example, well beyond its 12.'6 FWHM core out to more than 1 degree in radius. This means that even though the core width corresponds to wavenumber l\approx1800, the form of the beam still significantly affects the WMAP results even at l\approx200 which is the scale of the first acoustic peak. The difference between the beam convolved C_l and the final C_l is \approx70% at the scale of the first peak, rising to \approx400% at the scale of the second. New estimates of the Q, V and W-band beam profiles are then presented, based on a stacking analysis of the WMAP5 radio source catalogue and temperature maps. The radio sources show a significantly (3-4\sigma) broader beam profile on scales of 10'-30' than that found by the WMAP team whose beam analysis is based on measurements of Jupiter. Beyond these scales the beam profiles from the radio sources are too noisy to give useful information. Furthermore, we find tentative evidence for a non-linear relation between WMAP and ATCA/IRAM 95 GHz source fluxes. We discuss whether the wide beam profiles could be caused either by radio source extension or clustering and find that neither explanation is likely. We also argue against the possibility that Eddington bias is affecting our results. The reasons for the difference between the radio source and the Jupiter beam profiles are therefore still unclear. If the radio source profiles were then used to define the WMAP beam, there could be a significant change in the amplitude and position of even the first acoustic peak. It is therefore important to identify the reasons for the differences between these two beam profile estimates.