unmodelled long-timescale thermally-driven gain changes willof course be calibrated along with the stochastic 1/ f component.At present there are no test data runs longer than a few hoursfor the LFI radiometers in which they operated at nominal conditions,so the outer cutoff for LFI will be established during theon-orbit calibration phase.Astronomical gain calibration is based on the CMB dipole,which appears as a fluctuation at the satellite spin frequency inthe time-ordered data, with Rayleigh-Jeans amplitude η ∆T (ν 0 )D;this varies through the year due to geometric effects, as discussedin Sect. 7.5. Iferrorsaredominatedbynoise,the1-σ error in γisσ(γ) =σ T√2τη∆T (ν 0 )D√1 +(fspinf knee) α(23)for an integration time τ and a 1-second white noise level of σ T .The last term allows for the effect of 1/ f noise (Meinhold et al.2009). For reference, taking the median value, D = 2.4 mK,and noise parameters from Meinhold et al. (2009), we get σ γ =0.56%, 0.41%, and 0.24% at 70, 44, and 30 GHz, respectivelyfor a 1-h integration. The impact of residual gain errors on themaps is discussed in Sect. 7.5.A&A 520, A8 (2010)5.2. Bandpass differencesOur formalism for describing the effect of finite bandwidthson differencing polarimetry was briefly described by Leahy &Foley (2006); a more detailed presentation is in preparation. Themost basic effect is to render ambiguous the operating frequencyquoted for a detector: it is helpful to distinguish the nominal frequencyused to label the band (30, 44 and 70 GHz for the LFI),the fiducial frequency for each band, ν 0 ,chosentominimisethephotometric errors to be described in this section, and the effectivefrequency for each detector, ν eff ,atwhichsucherrorsarezero for a reference spectrum.In an idealised model of gain calibration, a perfect measurementof the power due to the dipole, P dipole ,givesagainestimateof˜G =2P dipoleη ∆T (ν 0 )D = G ∫ ∞g(ν) η0 ∆T (ν)dν= G. (24)η ∆T (ν 0 )The corrected total intensity in Rayleigh-Jeans units for an unpolarisedsource with spectrum I(ν) willthenbeĨ = 2P˜G ∫ ∞= g(ν)I(ν)dν ≡ [ 1 + f (β, ν 0 ) ] I(ν 0 ). (25)0In general β must stand for a vector of parameters controlling thesource spectral shape, but in practice a single spectral index oftensuffices over the 20–30% frequency range of a <strong>Planck</strong> bandpass.The f factor is a contribution to the band-integrated gainerror γ; itisequivalenttoacolourterminopticalphotometry.For a given source spectrum and bandpass there is an effectivefrequency for which f will be zero (Fig. 4); by construction it isalso automatically zero when the source spectrum is η ∆T ,independentlyof ν 0 .Forthisreasonweconsiderf to be an error thataffects foreground emission only and writeĨ = η ∆T (ν 0 )∆T CMB + [1 + f (β, ν 0 )]I F (ν 0 ), (26)where I F is the foreground brightness. Then β refers to the foregroundemission only; we emphasise that it varies from pixel topixel and band to band.Fig. 4. Plots of effective frequency ν eff against spectral index β, definedby f (β, ν eff ) = 0, for a pure power-law sky spectrum, for each LFI detector.Solid lines are side-arm and dashed main-arm. The glitch nearβ CMB ≈ 0occursbecausespectratrackingtheCMBhavemultiplevaluesof ν eff ,sincebyconstructionthecolourterm f (β CMB ,ν)isnearlyzero for all frequencies.We apply this formalism to the current best estimates of theLFI bandpasses, namely the QUCS models from Zonca et al.(2009). To minimise the error in the total intensity maps, wedefine ν 0 for each LFI band to be the mean of the individualdetector ν eff values, when observing the dominant foregroundPage 8 of 26
J. P. Leahy et al.: <strong>Planck</strong> pre-launch status: Expected LFI polarisation capabilityTable 2. Worksheet for estimating the magnitude of polconversion due to bandpass mismatch in the <strong>Planck</strong> frequency bands, over the full sky(“4π”) and over pixels outside the WMAP KQ85 mask (“Mask”).CMB emission Foreground emission Polconversion M QI I FBand Region σ(I) a σ(Q, U) a 〈I F 〉 b 〈 √ Q 2 + U 2 〉 c 〈β〉 b ˜β b,d ν 0 σ(ν eff ) e rms f Abs Max f(µK) (µK) (µK) (µK) (GHz) (GHz) (µK) (µK)30 GHz4π410 13 −2.89 −2.6328.0 130085 0.9428.11 0.29Mask 110 10 −2.92 −2.87 1.7 2844 GHz4π130 4 −2.61 −2.364.6 21089 1.3143.81 0.21Mask 30 3 −2.64 −2.56 0.2 270 GHz4π60 3 −0.46 −0.601.9 14089 1.9169.54 1.35Mask 16 2 −0.46 −0.24 0.1 12Notes. 〈X〉 denotes area-weighted mean values. Zonca et al. (2009) bandpasseswereusedtocalculateν 0 , ν eff ,andM QI . (a) rms after convolutionwith the beam; (b) foreground temperature, I F ,andspectralindex,β, fromthe<strong>Planck</strong> sky model; (c) foreground polarisation, interpolated fromWMAP; (d) flux-weighted mean spectral index; (e) standard deviation of ν eff (¯β) overthedetectorsineachband; ( f ) rms and extreme value of thepolconversion signal (mean over RCAs in each band).spectral index in each band. The foreground properties werederived with the <strong>Planck</strong> sky model v1.5 7 .Thisisafourcomponentmodel containing spinning and thermal dust, free-freeand synchrotron emission. Results for mean spectral indices aregiven in Table 2. Forourchoiceofnominalspectralindexweuse the flux weighted values, ¯β,outsidetheWMAPKQ85mask,except at 70 GHz, where we choose a nominal index of −0.5 becausethe flux weighted value is too close to the CMB spectralindex, causing ambiguities in ν eff (cf. Fig. 4). These values of βyield ν 0 = 28.1, 43.8, and 69.5 GHz, which depend only weaklyon spectral index. The discrepancy in the 30 GHz band is due tothe non-nominal low-frequency extension of the band revealedby Zonca et al. (2009).The bandpasses for the main and side arms in a given RCAare determined by independent physical components (apart fromthe OMT itself). Moreover, due to the asymmetric design of theOMTs, the OMT contribution to the bandpass is different forthe two arms. Thus the bandpasses for the two arms of a givenRCA are no more similar than for any two detectors in a givenband. Hence there can be significant discrepancies between mainand side arm f factors, giving rise to forward polconversion, i.e.acontributiontotheM QI Mueller matrix element. Fortunatelythe dependence of f (β, ν 0 )onβ is very smooth, despite the considerablestructure in g(ν) (Zonca et al. 2009), because of thesmoothness of the source spectra. To a first approximation, thepolconversion term isM QI = f s − f m≈ (β − β CMB ) ν eff,s − ν eff,m, (27)22ν 0where β CMB is the local spectral index of η ∆T :β CMB = 2 − x −2xe x − 1 ≈−x2 6 ; with x = hν 0· (28)k B T 0Thus the artefact is dominated by the fractional difference in effectivefrequency between the two arms. Figure 5 shows the polconversionfor each feed for power-law spectra and illustrates thequality of the approximation in Eq. (27). The apparently worstfits, for LFI-26 and LFI-27, are cases with very low polconversion,which is why second-order effects become noticeable.Amorecompleteparametrisation, which is generally adequateto a fraction of a percent for the LFI bandpasses, isf (β, β run ,ν 0 ) = f 0 + f 1 β + f 2 β 2 + f run β run . (29)7 www.apc.univ-paris7.fr/<strong>APC</strong>_CS/Recherche/Adamis/PSM/psky-en.php; weusedthemamd_dickinson_4comp_pred Galacticmodel.where our spectral model now includes “running”:ln ( I F (ν)/I F (ν 0 ) ) = [ β + 0.5β run ln(ν/ν 0 ) ] ln(ν/ν 0 ), (30)to give a good representation of strongly curved spectra, for examplespinning dust (Draine & Lazarian 1998). The coefficientsin Eq. (29) dependonν 0 ,which,asnotedpreviously,ischosento minimise the typical correction 〈 f (¯β, ν 0 )〉.Polconversion due to bandpass mismatch is a particularlydifficult systematic to deal with, since its magnitude depends onthe local foreground spectral index. It is worth keeping in mindthe following relative magnitudes (cf. Table 2):– The foreground total intensity which drives bandpass errorsis weaker than the CMB fluctuations over much of the sky inall LFI bands, substantially so at 44 and 70 GHz.– The residual error, fI F ,istypicallyafewpercentoftheforegroundtotal intensity.– From WMAP the foregrounds are typically a few percentup to 30% polarised, with the lowest polarisation along theGalactic plane (Kogut et al. 2007). Hence the forward polconversionwill be between order unity and 10% of the foregroundpolarisation signal.– For M QI ,correctionstothesimpleEq.(27) are1–2ordersof magnitude smaller again (Fig. 5).We conclude that even uncorrected bandpass errors should notbe a limiting factor in the ability of the <strong>Planck</strong> mission to separateforegrounds from CMB fluctuations in total intensity, atleast to first-order accuracy in the foreground emission. To theextent that the bandpasses are known, this will allow evaluationand correction of bandpass artefacts by one or more ordersof magnitude, allowing LFI to make accurate measurements ofstrongly-polarised foregrounds (notably the high-latitude synchrotronemission), and clear detections of polarisation whereit is more than 1% of total intensity.At present, as discussed by Zonca et al. (2009), the accuracyof our preferred QUCS bandpass models is hard to quantify.Direct measurements of the radiometer bandpasses sufferedsubstantial errors and also had frequency ranges too restricted toclearly delineate the low-frequency cutoff of the 30 GHz bandor the high-frequency cutoff of the 44 GHz band (cf. Figs. 4 and5ofZoncaetal.).TheQUCSbandpassesaresimulationsbasedon component-level measurements; however in some cases thecomponent-level frequency range was as limited as at the radiometerlevel or even more so; thus the modelled 30 GHzPage 9 of 26
- Page 1 and 2:
A&A 520, E1 (2010)DOI: 10.1051/0004
- Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACTThe European Space Agency
- Page 5 and 6:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)Fig. 2. An artist
- Page 7 and 8:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)Fig. 4. Planck fo
- Page 9 and 10:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)Fig. 6. The Planc
- Page 11 and 12:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)Table 4. Summary
- Page 13 and 14:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)three frequency c
- Page 15 and 16:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)Fig. 12. The left
- Page 17 and 18:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)Fig. 14. Left pan
- Page 19 and 20:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)flux limit of the
- Page 21 and 22:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)- University of C
- Page 23 and 24:
A&A 520, A1 (2010)57 Instituto de A
- Page 25 and 26:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Fig. 1. (Left) Th
- Page 27 and 28:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Fig. 3. (Top)Twos
- Page 29 and 30:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Table 2. Predicte
- Page 31 and 32:
Table 3. Predicted in-flight main b
- Page 33 and 34:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)materials. Theref
- Page 35 and 36:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Fig. 11. Comparis
- Page 37 and 38:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Table 5. Inputs u
- Page 39 and 40:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Fig. 16. Three cu
- Page 41 and 42:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Table 7. Optical
- Page 43 and 44:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)Fig. A.1. Dimensi
- Page 45 and 46:
A&A 520, A2 (2010)5 Università deg
- Page 47 and 48:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Horizon 2000 medi
- Page 49 and 50:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Fig. 1. CMB tempe
- Page 51 and 52:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Ω ch 2τn s0.130
- Page 53 and 54:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Fig. 6. Integral
- Page 55 and 56:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Table 2. LFI opti
- Page 57 and 58:
3.3.1. SpecificationsThe main requi
- Page 59 and 60:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Fig. 11. Schemati
- Page 61 and 62:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)features of the r
- Page 63 and 64:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Fig. 13. Level 2
- Page 65 and 66:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)Fig. 15. Level 3
- Page 67 and 68:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)GUI = graphical u
- Page 69 and 70:
A&A 520, A3 (2010)23 Centre of Math
- Page 71 and 72:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)In addition, all
- Page 73 and 74:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Table 2. Sensitiv
- Page 75 and 76:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Fig. 2. Schematic
- Page 77 and 78:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Fig. 6. LFI recei
- Page 79 and 80:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Fig. 9. Schematic
- Page 81 and 82:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Table 4. Specific
- Page 83 and 84:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Fig. 15. DAE bias
- Page 85 and 86:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Fig. 19. Picture
- Page 87 and 88:
A&A 520, A4 (2010)Table 10. Main ch
- Page 89 and 90: Table 13. Principal requirements an
- Page 91 and 92: A&A 520, A5 (2010)DOI: 10.1051/0004
- Page 93 and 94: A. Mennella et al.: LFI calibration
- Page 95 and 96: A. Mennella et al.: LFI calibration
- Page 97 and 98: A. Mennella et al.: LFI calibration
- Page 99 and 100: A. Mennella et al.: LFI calibration
- Page 101 and 102: A. Mennella et al.: LFI calibration
- Page 103 and 104: A. Mennella et al.: LFI calibration
- Page 105 and 106: D.1. Step 1-extrapolate uncalibrate
- Page 107 and 108: A&A 520, A6 (2010)DOI: 10.1051/0004
- Page 109 and 110: F. Villa et al.: Calibration of LFI
- Page 111 and 112: F. Villa et al.: Calibration of LFI
- Page 113 and 114: F. Villa et al.: Calibration of LFI
- Page 115 and 116: F. Villa et al.: Calibration of LFI
- Page 117 and 118: F. Villa et al.: Calibration of LFI
- Page 119 and 120: F. Villa et al.: Calibration of LFI
- Page 121 and 122: A&A 520, A7 (2010)DOI: 10.1051/0004
- Page 123 and 124: M. Sandri et al.: Planck pre-launch
- Page 126 and 127: A&A 520, A7 (2010)Fig. 8. Footprint
- Page 128 and 129: -30-40-30-6-3-20A&A 520, A7 (2010)0
- Page 130 and 131: A&A 520, A7 (2010)Table 4. Galactic
- Page 132 and 133: A&A 520, A7 (2010)Fig. A.1. Polariz
- Page 134 and 135: A&A 520, A8 (2010)inflation, giving
- Page 136 and 137: A&A 520, A8 (2010)estimated from th
- Page 138 and 139: A&A 520, A8 (2010)ways the most str
- Page 142 and 143: A&A 520, A8 (2010)Fig. 5. Polarisat
- Page 144 and 145: A&A 520, A8 (2010)Table 3. Band-ave
- Page 146 and 147: A&A 520, A8 (2010)where S stands fo
- Page 148 and 149: A&A 520, A8 (2010)Fig. 11. Simulate
- Page 150 and 151: stored in the LFI instrument model,
- Page 152 and 153: A&A 520, A8 (2010)Table 5. Statisti
- Page 154 and 155: A&A 520, A8 (2010)comparable in siz
- Page 156 and 157: A&A 520, A8 (2010)Table B.1. Main b
- Page 158 and 159: A&A 520, A8 (2010)Bond, J. R., Jaff
- Page 160 and 161: A&A 520, A9 (2010)- (v) an optical
- Page 162 and 163: A&A 520, A9 (2010)Fig. 2. The Russi
- Page 164 and 165: A&A 520, A9 (2010)Table 3. Estimate
- Page 166 and 167: A&A 520, A9 (2010)Fig. 7. Picture o
- Page 168 and 169: A&A 520, A9 (2010)Fig. 9. Cosmic ra
- Page 170 and 171: A&A 520, A9 (2010)Fig. 13. Principl
- Page 172 and 173: A&A 520, A9 (2010)Fig. 16. Noise sp
- Page 174 and 175: A&A 520, A9 (2010)Table 6. Basic ch
- Page 176 and 177: A&A 520, A9 (2010)with warm preampl
- Page 178 and 179: A&A 520, A9 (2010)20 Laboratoire de
- Page 180 and 181: A&A 520, A10 (2010)Table 1. HFI des
- Page 182 and 183: A&A 520, A10 (2010)based on the the
- Page 184 and 185: A&A 520, A10 (2010)Fig. 6. The Satu
- Page 186 and 187: A&A 520, A10 (2010)5. Calibration a
- Page 188 and 189: A&A 520, A10 (2010)Fig. 16. Couplin
- Page 190 and 191:
A&A 520, A10 (2010)217-5a channel:
- Page 192 and 193:
A&A 520, A10 (2010)10 -310 -495-The
- Page 194 and 195:
A&A 520, A11 (2010)DOI: 10.1051/000
- Page 196 and 197:
P. A. R. Ade et al.: Planck pre-lau
- Page 198 and 199:
P. A. R. Ade et al.: Planck pre-lau
- Page 200 and 201:
P. A. R. Ade et al.: Planck pre-lau
- Page 202 and 203:
A&A 520, A12 (2010)Table 1. Summary
- Page 204 and 205:
arrangement was also constrained by
- Page 206 and 207:
A&A 520, A12 (2010)frequency cut-of
- Page 208 and 209:
A&A 520, A12 (2010)Fig. 9. Gaussian
- Page 210 and 211:
A&A 520, A12 (2010)the horn-to-horn
- Page 212 and 213:
A&A 520, A12 (2010)Fig. 15. Composi
- Page 214 and 215:
A&A 520, A12 (2010)Fig. 19. Broad-b
- Page 216 and 217:
A&A 520, A13 (2010)DOI: 10.1051/000
- Page 218 and 219:
C. Rosset et al.: Planck-HFI: polar
- Page 220 and 221:
C. Rosset et al.: Planck-HFI: polar
- Page 222 and 223:
of frequencies and shown to have po
- Page 224 and 225:
C. Rosset et al.: Planck-HFI: polar
- Page 226 and 227:
C. Rosset et al.: Planck-HFI: polar