mnras atex style le v3 - arxivmnras 000,1{12(2017) preprint 18 september 2017 compiled using mnras...

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017) Preprint 18 September 2017 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0

Alignments of parity even/odd-only multipoles in CMB

Pavan K. Aluri,1? John P. Ralston,2† Amanda Weltman1,3,4‡1Cosmology & Gravity Group, Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA3Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA4Center for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute, 162 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, USA

Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ

ABSTRACTWe compare the statistics of parity even and odd multipoles of the cosmic microwavebackground (CMB) sky from PLANCK full mission temperature measurements. Anexcess power in odd multipoles compared to even multipoles has previously been foundon large angular scales. Motivated by this apparent parity asymmetry, we evaluatedirectional statistics associated with even compared to odd multipoles, along with theirsignificances. Primary tools are the Power Tensor and Alignment Tensor statistics. Welimit our analysis to the first sixty multipoles i.e., l = [2, 61]. We find no evidence forstatistically unusual alignments of even parity multipoles. More than one independentstatistic finds evidence for alignments of anisotropy axes of odd multipoles, with asignificance equivalent to ∼ 2σ or more. The robustness of alignment axes is tested bymaking galactic cuts and varying the multipole range. Very interestingly, the regionspanned by the (a)symmetry axes is found to broadly contain other parity (a)symmetryaxes previously observed in the literature.

Key words: methods: data analysis - cosmic background radiation - submillimetre:diffuse background

1 INTRODUCTION

Many tests of symmetry of the cosmic microwave back-ground (CMB) sky have revealed unexplained anomalies onlarge angular scales, namely among low multipoles. Manylow multipoles are plagued with anomalous features, associ-ated with a breakdown of isotropy, with significances thatvaried between different data releases (de Oliveira-Costa etal. 2004; Ralston & Jain 2004; Copi, Huterer & Starkman2004; Schwarz et al. 2004; Eriksen et al. 2004; Akrami etal. 2014; Vielva et al. 2004; Land & Magueijo 2005a; Kim& Naselsky 2010; Finelli et al. 2012). In some cases theanomalies have been attributed to statistical flukes. How-ever, they have received significant interest from the cosmol-ogy community by way of alternate or independent analysestowards understanding these peculiarities (see for exampleHajian & Souradeep (2003); Slosar & Seljak (2005); Land& Magueijo (2005b); Bielewicz et al. (2005); de Oliveira-Costa & Tegmark (2006); Copi et al. (2006); Wiaux et al.(2006); Abramo et al. (2006); Bernui et al. (2007); Grup-puso & Burigana (2009); Sarkar et al. (2011); Cruz et al.(2011); Rassat & Starck (2013); Rassat et al. (2014); Polas-

? E-mail: [email protected]† Email: [email protected]‡ Email: [email protected]

tri, Gruppuso & Natoli (2015); Copi et al. (2015); Schwarzet al. (2016); Gruppuso et al. (2011); Hansen et al. (2011);Kim & Naselsky (2011); Maris et al. (2011); Aluri & Jain(2012); Naselsky et al. (2013); Eriksen et al. (2007); Bernui(2008); Lew (2008); Hansen et al. (2009); Bernui (2009); Paciet al. (2010); Santos, Villela & Wuensche (2012); Flender& Hotchkiss (2013); Rath & Jain (2013); Bernui, Oliveira& Pereira (2014); Quartin & Notari (2015); Aiola et al.(2015); Gurzadyan et al. (2009); Naselsky, Hansen & Kim(2011); Ben-David, Kovetz & Itzhaki (2012); Cruz et al.(2006, 2007); Nadathur et al. (2014)). Regardless of interpre-tation, the large scale anomalies have persisted from WMAPto PLANCK mission data, where the science teams pursuedthem with no final conclusion (Bennett et al. 2011, 2013;Planck Collaboration XXIII 2014; Planck Collaboration XVI2016).

In this paper we uncover yet another peculiarity associ-ated with low multipole CMB data. We compare the align-ments of parity-even and parity-odd multipoles separately toexplore any preferred directions associated with each. Thesignificances of these directions point to a particular paritypreference present in the data, and possible clues about theirrelation to other large angle CMB anomalies.

In Kim & Naselsky (2010), an anomalous point (inver-sion) parity asymmetry was reported to be present in CMBdata at low−l. Odd multipoles of the CMB were found to

c© 2017 The Authors

arX

iv:1

703.

0707

0v2

[as

tro-

ph.C

O]

15

Sep

2017

2 P. K. Aluri et al.

have significantly more power compared to the even multi-poles in the angular power spectrum from WMAP seven yeardata, following an earlier analysis that used WMAP firstyear data (Land & Magueijo 2005a). Let P+ = 〈Dl〉even−land P− = 〈Dl〉odd−l denote mean power in even and oddmultipoles, respectively, up to a chosen lmax in the mul-tipole range l = [2, lmax]. Here Dl = l(l + 1)Cl/2π, andCl is the CMB angular power spectrum. Since the powerl(l+1)Cl ∼ constant, at low multipoles, the ratio R(lmax) =P+/P− is expected to fluctuate about ‘1’. However it wasfound to be significantly lower than ‘1’ with a probability-to-exceed the observed value in data reaching a minimum of∼ 3σ at lmax = 22.

This was followed by other studies confirming theanomalous nature of this parity asymmetry (Gruppuso etal. 2011; Aluri & Jain 2012). In the PLANCK 2015 anal-ysis (Planck Collaboration XVI 2016), the p−value of thisasymmetry was evaluated to be 0.2−0.3% at lmax = 28, de-pending on the specific component separation method usedto extract the CMB signal.

The directionality of this parity asymmetry was probedby Zhao (2014), where the ratio R(lmax) and its variantswere computed in different sky directions to obtain a mapof the even-odd power asymmetry with a chosen lmax. Cu-riously, the minimum of the odd parity excess statistic,R(lmax), was found to occur in the direction of the CMBdipole.

Here we analyse the even and odd multipoles separatelyin a wider multipole range, to explore any preferred direc-tions associated with these point parity (a)symmetry modes.

2 POWER TENSOR, POWER ENTROPY, ANDALIGNMENT STATISTICS

The Power tensor is a robust diagnostic to test isotropy ofCMB data (Ralston & Jain 2004; Samal et al. 2008, 2009).The CMB temperature is conventionally expanded in termsof spherical harmonics Ylm(n̂):

∆T (n̂) =

∞∑l=2

+l∑m=−l

almYlm(n̂) . (1)

Here alm are the spherical harmonic coefficients, ∆T (n̂) de-notes the CMB temperature anisotropies after subtractingthe monopole and dipole, and n̂ is the position vector on thedome of the sky.

In Dirac notation, the coefficients of the spherical har-monic expansion are

alm = 〈l,m|a(l)〉 , (2)

where |l,m〉 represent eigenstates of the angular momen-tum operators J2 and Jz. Under a small rotation, the alm’schange to

|a(l)〉′ = |a(l)〉+ |δa(l)〉 , (3)

where the infinitesimal change is given by |δa(l)〉 = −iJ ·Θ|a(l)〉. Here Ji (i = 1 · · · 3) are the angular momentummatrices in spin−l representation, and Θi are the angles ofrotation. To find the axes along which the maximum changeis achieved, compute the Hessian, which is

∂

∂Θi∂Θj〈δa(l)|δa(l)〉 = 〈a(l)|J iJj |a(l)〉 ≡ Aij . (4)

The eigenvectors of Aij define the frame to which maxi-mal change is developed under rotations. The correspondingstatistic Aij that we call Power tensor, is defined as

Aij(l) =1

l(l + 1)(2l + 1)

∑mm′m′′

almJimm′J

jm′m′′a

∗lm′′ . (5)

Under the assumption of statistical isotropy, different spher-ical harmonic coefficients are uncorrelated i.e., 〈alma∗l′m′〉 =Clδll′δmm′ , and hence 〈Aij〉 = (Cl/3)δij . Thus, in an en-semble realizations of an uncorrelated, statistically isotropicCMB sky, the eigenvalues of the Power tensor are randomlydistributed about the mean value of Cl/3. The Power tensoreigenvectors are also distributed uniformly over the sky.

Thus, Power tensor maps the complicated pattern ofeach multipole on the sky onto an ellipsoid whose axeslengths are given by its eigenvalues, and the three ellip-soid axes by its eigenvectors. Hence, Power tensor can beused to characterise axiality, planarity, as well as consis-tency with isotropy of each multipole by comparing the ra-tio of its eigenvalues (ie., shape of the ellipsoid), with thecorresponding eigenvector denoting the direction of isotropybreakdown.

In any given realization, the eigenvalues of the Powertensor will not be equal. Let the eigenvalues and eigenvec-tors corresponding to a multipole be denoted Λα and e

iα,

where ‘α’ denotes the three eigen-indices and ‘i’ denotesthe components of each eigenvector eα. We also define theprincipal eigenvector (PEV) as the eigenvector associatedwith the largest eigenvalue. Each PEV is then taken as theanisotropy axis corresponding to a multipole l.

The significance of anisotropy/axiality represented by aPEV can be quantified using Power entropy, defined as

S = −3∑

α=1

λα ln(λα) , (6)

where λα = Λα/∑β Λβ are the normalized eigenvalues of

the Power tensor. In the limit that a multipole is highlyanisotropic, one normalized eigenvalue will tend to being‘1’. Correspondingly, the Power entropy S → 0. If statisti-cal isotropy holds, then each normalized eigenvalue is equalto 1/3, and S → ln(3) ≈ 1.0986, which is the maximumpossible value.

The PEV’s make it possible to compare the orientationsof different multipoles, which a priori contain information,that is independent of the power. A typical statistic is thedot-product-squared of PEV’s from two distinct multipoles land l′. Squaring the dot-product removes the arbitrary signconvention of eigenvectors.

To quantify correlations in a set of PEV’s from a rangelmin ≤ l ≤ lmax, we use the Alignment tensor X, which isdefined as

Xij(lmin, lmax) =

lmax∑l=lmin

ẽil ẽjl , (7)

where ẽl is the principal eigenvector of a multipole l. Let ζαand fα denote the normalized eigenvalues and eigenvectorsof this Alignment tensor. The eigenvalues are normalized toremove the trivial effect of the l-range. One then computesthe Alignment entropy, SX , which is a rotationally invariant

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

Parity wise alignments of CMB multipoles 3

summary of the ratios of ζα, that is given by

SX = −3∑

α=1

ζα ln(ζα) . (8)

When the PEV’s over the range are uncorrelated, Xij ∼δij and all ζα are equal. In the extreme opposite case whenthe PEV’s over the set of multipoles are all parallel to a sin-gle eigenvector, then all but one ζα → 0. That leads to themaximal range of Alignment entropy as 0 ≤ SX ≤ ln(3).The lower limit SX → 0 represents the maximum pos-sible correlation. The upper limit SX → ln(3) representsthe completely uncorrelated hypothesis of the standard BigBang. We define the collective alignment vector of a set ofmultipoles as the principal eigenvector of the correspond-ing Alignment tensor (f̃α). It’s significance is assessed us-ing Alignment entropy. The reader may refer to Ralston &Jain (2004); Samal et al. (2008) for more details about thePower tensor method, as well as it’s relation to axes inferredfrom other statistics viz. the angular momentum dispersionmaximization (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004) and Maxwell’smultipole vectors (Schwarz et al. 2004).

3 DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE ANDDATA SETS

3.1 Analysis procedure

The Power tensor and Alignment tensor allow us toprobe any underlying anisotropy axis associated with CMBanisotropies from a desired multipole range or a set of mul-tipoles.

Under point inversion, alm → (−1)lalm, and so theeven(odd) multipoles are symmetric(antisymmetric) undersuch operation. In the present work, we apply the Align-ment tensor statistic to even and odd multipoles separately.Thus we can explore any common preferred axes underlyingthese modes separately.

We first compute the principal eigenvector (PEV) cor-responding to each multipole in a chosen multipole rangel = [lmin, lmax]. The PEVs are separated between even andodd multipoles to construct the Alignment tensor for eachparity set separately. The PEV of the Alignment tensor willprovide the common anisotropy axis corresponding to eachset of parity even/odd multipoles under study. The signifi-cance of anisotropy represented by this axis is measured us-ing Alignment entropy. This is done by computing the lowertail probability deduced from simulations in comparison tothe observed entropy value from data. We also study align-ments in cumulative multipole bins, by varying the upperand lower end of the l−range being considered.

3.2 Real and mock data used

For this study we use the full sky Commander CMB map,derived from PLANCK 2015 data, that is made publiclyavailable1. It is a maximum likelihood estimate of the CMBmap, along with various astrophysical components such as

1 http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/

all-sky-maps/matrix_cmb.html

galactic synchrotron, thermal dust, their spectral indices,etc., that uses multi-frequency CMB observations and ex-ternal observations/templates for various galactic emissiontypes (Eriksen et al. 2004, 2008; Planck Collaboration IX2016; Planck Collaboration X 2016).

The Commander map is available at a resolution ofHEALPix2 Nside = 2048. However, we downgrade the mapto a lower resolution of Nside = 256, and smooth it to havea Gaussian beam FWHM = 1◦ (degrees). Since we areinterested in large angular scales, this is sufficient for ourpurposes.

We also prepare the mock data accordingly. ThePLANCK collaboration has also provided sets of CMB real-izations that have the appropriate instrument effects such asbeam smoothing, as well as noise realizations for public use3.These are referred to as Full Focal Plane (FFP) simulations.We use the FFP8 and FFP8.1 simulation sets for our pur-pose. The set FFP8 was an initial release that complementsthe PLANCK 2015 full mission data release. However dueto a slight mismatch in the theoretical power spectrum ofCMB used to generate these realizations, with the angularpower spectrum consistent with final PLANCK 2015 cos-mological parameters, the CMB realizations were updatedwith a new set denoted as FFP8.1 that match PLANCK2015 cosmology (Planck Collaboration XII 2016). Hence weuse simulated CMB skies from the set FFP8.1, but will usethe FFP8 realizations for noise.

The FFP simulations of CMB and noise that are pro-vided, correspond to a specific frequency channel, and arenot readily usable. These simulation sets do not constituteindividual component separated maps corresponding to var-ious cleaning algorithms used by PLANCK such as Comman-der, SMICA, etc., to obtain clean CMB maps from the rawsatellite data (Planck Collaboration IX 2016). Thus, to ob-tain a set of realistic CMB maps, we process this ensembleof multi-channel maps as follows.

We downgrade all the CMB and noise realizations toa common resolution of HEALPix Nside = 256, and smoothto have a uniform beam resolution of FWHM = 1◦ (de-grees) Gaussian beam. We apply the HEALPix facilitiesanafast, alteralm and synfast in that order to bring themto the afore mentioned common HEALPix resolution andbeam smoothing. We used the circularized beam transferfunctions corresponding to each PLANCK frequency chan-nel, that are provided with the second public release ofPLANCK data. We then compute the noise rms correspond-ing to each channel using these smoothed/downgraded re-alizations. These noise rms maps are used to combine thesmoothed/downgraded individual frequency specific CMBand noise realizations through inverse noise variance weight-ing. Thus we are considering only the diagonal part of thefull covariance matrix that results from beam smoothing.However since we are interested in studying large angularscales, the coadded CMB and effective noise maps thus ob-tained would sufficiently represent the observed sky.

A set of 1000 CMB and noise Monte Carlo realizationsare provided with appropriate instrument and noise char-acteristics through PLANCK public release 2. Correspond-

2 http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/3 http://crd.lbl.gov/cmb-data

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/all-sky-maps/matrix_cmb.htmlhttp://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/all-sky-maps/matrix_cmb.htmlhttp://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/http://crd.lbl.gov/cmb-data


l (`, b) (degrees)

2 (239.8◦,57.2◦)3 (244.3◦,63.0◦)

Table 1. The directions corresponding to the PEVs of l = 2, 3

modes obtained from Power tensor statistic are listed here. Theseaxes are headless and the quoted direction is from the upper galac-

tic hemisphere. These broadly point towards the CMB kineticdipole direction (`, b) = (264◦, 48◦) as shown in subsequent plots.They are aligned at a mere separation of ≈ 6.2◦.

ingly we generate 1000 co-added CMB maps with noise fromthe FFP realizations following this procedure.

4 RESULTS

We are interested in any preferred directional correlationsassociated with even versus odd multipoles correspondingto large angular scales of the CMB sky. We use the multi-pole range l = [2, 61] for this study. Before proceeding wediscuss the anomalous alignment of quadrupole and octopolemodes of the CMB seen in WMAP as well as PLANCK data,that have received considerable attention (see Bennett et al.(2013); Planck Collaboration XXIII (2014) for the assess-ment of the WMAP and PLANCK collaborations).

4.1 Quadrupole-Octopole alignment

The alignment of the quadrupole (l = 2) and octopole(l = 3) anisotropy axes as seen in the PLANCK full missionCommander map deserves comment. The directions inferredfrom the principal eigenvector (PEV) corresponding to l = 2and 3 multipoles are listed in Table 1. Since eigenvectors ofthe Power tensor are headless vectors, we report the direc-tion of these axes from only one of the hemispheres. We findthat these two modes are well aligned with a separation ofonly ≈ 6.2◦ (degrees). This corresponds to a random chanceoccurrence probability of 1 − cos(6.2◦) ≈ 0.0058, which isclose to a 3σ significance. Together with the CMB dipole,the quadrupole and octopole modes point towards the Virgocluster (Ralston & Jain 2004). These axes are shown in sub-sequent plots as some of the reference anisotropy directionsseen in the CMB sky. Note that the alignment of CMB tem-perature quadrupole and octopole modes was found to im-prove by appying any additional corrections such as resid-ual galactic bias correction (Aluri et al. 2011) or kineticquadrupole correction, frequency independent (Schwarz etal. 2004) or frequency dependent (Notari & Quartin 2015).The PLANCK 2015 foreground cleaned maps have the fre-quency independent kinetic Doppler boost contribution sub-tracted (Planck Collaboration IX 2016). Here we used thePLANCK’s Commander 2015 CMB map as provided.

4.2 Parity alignments

Using the PEVs computed for each ‘l’ from the multipolerange of our interest, we construct the Alignment tensordefined in Eq. [7] for even and odd multipoles separately.

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π

PLANCK15 Commander : lmin=2, lmax=[7,61]

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3

low-l Hemi. Power Asym.max(S-)

max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmax

Figure 1. Collective alignment vectors i.e., principal eigenvec-tors of the Alignment tensor X(lmin, lmax) (Eq. 7) for even and

odd multipoles, obtained from PLANCK 2015 Commander full sky

CMB map are shown here in Galactic co-ordinates. The +’s de-note even−l and and the •’s correspond to odd−l alignment axes.Other prominent anisotropy axes seen in the CMB sky are alsolabeled.

0.01

0.1

1

10 20 30 40 50 60

Fre

qu

ency

/PT

E

lmax

2σ CL

lmin=2, lmax=[7,61]

Even-l

Odd-l

Figure 2. Significances of the collective alignment axes, shownin Fig. [1], as measured using Alignment entropy, SX , are plot-

ted here as a function of lmax. The lower end of the multipolebin is fixed to lmin = 2. The upper end of the multipole bin is

varied as lmax = [7, 61]. The probability to exceed (PTE) the

observed value of SX from data in comparison to simulations isplotted in black and red solid curves for even and odd multipoles

respectively. We see that the odd multipole alignment axes are

significantly directional at ∼ 2σ level on large angular scales.

First we present results for the case of varying lmax,meaning, we fix lmin = 2 and vary lmax = [7, 61]. So, thesmallest range considered is l = 2 · · · 7, and the Alignmenttensor is computed separately for even and odd multipolesusing l = 2, 4, 6 and l = 3, 5, 7 PEVs respectively. Then wekeep increasing the multipole range up to lmax = 61 by twomultipoles each time (so that there are an equal numberof even and odd multipoles for computing the Alignmenttensor), and obtain the common anisotropy axis for the setof even/odd multipoles in the current range every time. Theresults are shown in Fig. [1].

There seems to be an apparent clustering of even mul-tipoles, denoted by +’s, broadly oriented along the CMB ki-netic dipole (l = 1) direction. By progressively adding moremultipoles to the Alignment tensor, the derived PEV movescloser to the CMB dipole direction. On the other hand, thecommon alignment axis of odd multipole PEVs, plotted in

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)


the same figure using • point types, steadily drifts from be-ing close to the southern galactic pole towards the galacticplane.

We assess the significance of these collective alignmentaxes of even/odd multipoles using the Alignment entropy(SX) defined in Eq. [8]. The value of the Alignment entropyobtained from the data is compared with the same quantitycomputed from simulations. The p−value plot for the ob-served value of SX as a function of lmax is shown in Fig. [2].We find that the apparent clustering indicated by the com-mon alignment axes of even multipoles (black curve) is notsignificant, as the p−value curve is always within 2σ in themultipole range considered. However, it could be an indica-tion of a remnant anisotropy (or a leakage) that is resultingin the apparent clustering of these axes towards CMB dipole.

In the same plot, Fig. [2], we also show the significancesof odd multipole alignment axes as a function of lmax (redcurve). We find that these axes are highly directional, despitethe change in their orientation steadily with the addition ofmore multipoles. The significance fluctuates about the 2σconfidence level up to lmax = 27, and becomes insignificantthereafter. So, by adding more multipoles, the directionalityof common alignment axis of odd multipoles seen at low−lis weakened.

For reference, we also plot other interesting anisotropydirections seen in the CMB data with different point typesin black. The quadrupole and octopole axes listed in Ta-ble 1 of the present analysis are denoted by up and invertedtriangles respectively. The CMB dipole direction, and thelow−l hemispherical power asymmetry axis - that is ob-tained from the analysis of PLANCK 2015 data using theBipoSH framework (Planck Collaboration XVI 2016), arehighlighted using a black circle and a cross respectively. Aset of interesting anisotropy axes corresponding to a mirrorparity (a)symmetry are also found in the CMB data (PlanckCollaboration XVI 2016). However, only the mirror asym-metry axis is found to be anomalous. The maximum mirrorsymmetry axis is labeled max(S+), and the maximum mir-ror asymmetry axis is labeled as max(S−). These two axesare highlighted using a black diamond and a square respec-tively in Fig. [2].

It is interesting to note that the even/odd multipoles’common axes span two broad regions of the sky in an appar-ently non-random/non-overlapping manner. One can readilysee that the common alignment axes of even multipole PEVsfound here and the (insignificant) even mirror parity direc-tion - max(S+), are broadly aligned with the CMB kineticdipole direction. The region spanned by the odd multipolecommon alignment axes contain the odd mirror parity axis -max(S−), and the odd parity low−l dipole modulation axis.

Aluri & Jain (2012) found that the significance ofthe even-odd multipole power asymmetry in CMB angularpower spectrum significantly decreases when the first fewmultipoles are omitted. We now test for low multipole con-tributions to the ∼ 2σ significance seen for the directionalityof odd multipole alignment axes. We repeat the calculations,while choosing different lmin values i.e., lmin = 4, 6 and 8.The results are shown in Fig. [3] in the left column. We findthat the distribution of common alignment axes still persistsfor different low−l cuts i.e., using different lmin, but varyingthe other end of the multipole window upto lmax = 61.

However, similar to what was observed by Aluri & Jain

(2012), we find that the significance of odd multipole PEValignments quickly disappears when lmin of the multipolewindow is varied. The p−value plots corresponding to choos-ing different lmin are shown in the right column of Fig. [3].The even-multipole alignments remain insignificant in thiscase as well.

To study the alignment preferences of high−l in themultipole range under consideration, we fix lmax and varylmin. In Fig. [4], we show the collective alignment axes ob-tained by varying lmin in the range l = [2, 56], with fixedlmax = 61. The significance of these axes as a function oflmin are plotted in Fig. [5]. This study suggests a possi-bility of two distinct populations for l . 30 compared to30 . l ≤ 61 when contrasted with varying lmax case. Wefind a ∼ 2σ significance upto lmax ∼ 30 in the varying lmaxcase. However in the varying lmin case, the significance keepsbuilding up upto lmin ∼ 30 which indicates two distinct pop-ulations of anisotropy axes.

We observe the alignment axis of even multipole PEVsdrifting towards the galactic plane as more and more low−lare discarded. In comparison, the odd multipole PEVs’alignment axis now seem to have settled at the galacticplane. The significance of the common alignment axis be-comes acute for lmin ∼ 28. A residual foreground bias mayexplain the clustering of these axes in the galactic plane,and also the corresponding anomalous significance. We pur-sue this aspect later in the paper.

Now we probe the observed clustering of common align-ment axes of even multipole PEVs further. The absolutescalar product of the common axes obtained from the small-est and largest subset of multipole bins of even/odd ‘l’ PEVsfrom the whole multipole range l = [2, 61] is computed. Thisproduct denoted by cos(α) is taken as representative of theseaxes being closer or scattered away from each other. The fre-quency plots of cos(α) corresponding to even and odd mul-tipoles, as obtained from simulations, are shown in Fig. [6].The two cases of varying lmax and lmin while fixing the otherend of the multipole window are shown in that figure, in theleft and right panels respectively. The observed value of theinner product of the same axes from the data are denotedby vertical dashed lines in respective colours. From the his-togram plot, we see that the clustering of even multipolecommon axes is not statistically significant in both casesof varying lmax and lmin. In contrast with this, the scalarproduct of odd multipoles’ common axes from the smallestand largest subsets is statistically significant in comparisonto simulations.

The simulations suggest that the collective alignmentaxes, computed using Alignment tensor, from the smallestand largest multipole bin windows, tend to be closer to eachother. This could be because the small multipole bin win-dow is a subset of the larger multipole window, and thuscorrelated, leading to this preference. Upon extending themultipole window range (lmax), we observe that the distri-butions tend towards being uniform, as expected.

We tested the stability of alignment axes by applyinggalactic masks with different sky fractions, and inpaintingthe masked CMB maps using iSAP software4 (Starck, Ras-sat & Fadili 2013). The publicly available PLANCK HFI

4 http://www.cosmostat.org/software/isap/

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

http://www.cosmostat.org/software/isap/


-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmax

0.01

0.1

1

10 20 30 40 50 60

Fre

qu

ency

/PT

E

lmax

2σ CL

lmin=4, lmax=[9,61]

Even-l

Odd-l

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmax

0.01

0.1

1

10 20 30 40 50 60

Fre

qu

ency

/PT

E

lmax

2σ CL

lmin=6, lmax=[11,61]

Even-l

Odd-l

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmax

0.01

0.1

1

10 20 30 40 50 60

Fre

qu

ency

/PT

E

lmax

2σ CL

lmin=8, lmax=[13,61]

Even-l

Odd-l

Figure 3. Same as Fig. [1] and [2], but for different lmin. Although the broad orientation of the axes persists by progressively excludingthe first few multipoles in these plots, we find that their significances however fall (below 2σ) as seen from the p−value plots shown inright column.

masks were used which exclude 1%, 3%, 10%, 20% and 30%of the sky fraction5. We find that the odd multipole align-ment axes are stable up to an exclusion of 10% of the skyin the galactic plane. However, the even multipole commonaxes are found to be sensitive to galactic cuts. They pro-gressively move towards or away from the galactic plane inthe varying lmax and lmin cases respectively, while remain-ing broadly clustered. Applying a galactic mask with 80% orless sky fraction is found to destroy the collective orientationof these axes. This analysis is presented in Appendix A.

We then tested the effect of including more multipolesby extending the multipole range to lmax = 71, 81, 91 and101. Any significant alignments seen in studying the multi-


ancillary-data/

pole window l = [2, 61] vanish. This is not unexpected, as itcould be a simple consequence of diluting the signal.

Finally, we analysed clean CMB maps obtained usingother cleaning procedures and data sets. We find a simi-lar behaviour for the even/odd multipole common axes inWMAP provided nine year Internal Linear Combination6

(ILC) map (Bennett et al. 2013), and the Local-generalizedMorphological Component Analysis (LGMCA) map thatwas produced using both the WMAP and PLANCK fullmission observations7 (Bobin, Sureau & Starck 2016).

We also checked collective alignment axes in multipoleblocks of ∆l = 6 from the same range l = [2, 61], with threeeven/odd multipoles in each block. The alignment axes thus

6 https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/7 http://www.cosmostat.org/product/lgmca_cmb/

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/ancillary-data/http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/ancillary-data/https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/http://www.cosmostat.org/product/lgmca_cmb/


-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π

PLANCK15 Commander : lmin=[2,56], lmax=61

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmin

Figure 4. The alignment axis of even and odd multipole PEVs(denoted by + and • respectively), in Galactic co-ordinates, forfixed lmax = 61 and varying lmin in the range l = [2, 56].

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

2 10 20 30 40 50 60

Fre

qu

ency

/PT

E

lmin

2σ CL

3σ CLlmin=[2,56], lmax=61

Even-l

Odd-l

Figure 5. The lower tail probabilities or the probability to ex-

ceed (PTE) the observed Alignment entropy, SX , of the collectivealignment axes from data in comparison to 1000 simulations as

a function of lmin = [2, 56], while fixing lmax = 61 are shown

here. The significances of observed SX of even and odd multipolecommon anisotropy axes are plotted in black and red solid curves

respectively.

inferred for even/odd multipoles accordingly span the sameregion, from lowest multipole bin to the highest, as seen invarying lmax and lmin cases. However the cumulative statis-tics are better suited for our purpose i.e., to probe the widestpossible correlations across (even/odd) multipoles.

4.3 Dissecting cumulative statistics

The cumulative statistics do not give much information onwhich regions of the data dominate the analysis. The Align-ment entropy is also just a single-number summary that can-not completely identify the source of this anomaly. To gleanmore information about the observed alignments, we lookinside the cumulative statistics in this section, while alsointroducing an independent statistic for testing isotropy.

To make a more informative statistic from PEVs |ẽl〉,we first observe that normalized eigenvectors are equivalentto rank-1 projection operators Πl = |ẽl〉〈ẽl|. We can then de-fine a Hilbert-Schmidt inner product (HSIP) (Reed & Simon1972) as

Bll′ = Tr{Π†lΠl′} = 〈ẽl|ẽl′〉2. (9)

For a set of ‘n’ unit vectors, there will be a total of‘n(n− 1)/2’ such independent inner products possible. Thedistribution of these independent HSIPs treated as a ran-dom variable, Bll′ → x (for all l, and l′ < l), has an analyticform given by f(x) = 1/(2

√x) for 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (see Appendix

B for details). Correspondingly, its cumulative distributionfunction is given by F (x) =

√x. We refer to the analytic

isotropic null distribution function as aPDF, and the corre-sponding cumulative distribution function as aCDF. Analo-gously, we refer to the empirical counterparts as ePDF andeCDF, respectively. The aPDF in this form is normalized tohave unit area under the curve.

Before proceeding further we first check that f(x) =1/(2√x) is the true PDF of Hilbert-Schmidt inner products

of isotropically distributed unit vectors. We generate 1000sets of n = 30 units vectors. All possible HSIPs among theseunit vectors are computed for each set of 30 normalized vec-tors which will be a total of 30 × 29/2 = 435. Then themean empirical distribution function is built by taking theaverage of individual ePDF histograms of 1000 sets of 30isotropic unit vectors to compare with the analytic distri-bution function. The mean and analytic PDFs are shownin Fig. [7]. The 435 independent HSIPs for each set of 30isotropic unit vectors are sorted into 50 bins to compare theaPDF and ePDF. We find excellent agreement between thetwo distribution functions.

Now we evaluate the ePDF and eCDF of HSIPs from thedata (PLANCK 2015 Commander map) and compare themwith their analytic forms. We illustrate the distributionsfor three representative multipole ranges l = [2, 25], [2, 61]and [26, 61]. There are a total of 12, 30 and 18 even or oddmultipole PEVs in these three sets. Thus 12 × 11/2 = 66,30×29/2 = 435 and 18×17/2 = 153 independent HSIPs arepossible, respectively, in each set of multipoles among evenor odd multipole PEVs. Recall that, in the cumulative statis-tics, we chose the multipole range such that there are equalnumber of even/odd multipoles available in the l−range be-ing considered. These are then sorted into 20 bins to buildthe ePDF and eCDF. The results are shown in Fig. [8] and[9], for the three multipole ranges mentioned above. In de-scribing these plots below, we only highlight a visual discrep-ancy. Later, we use Anderson-Darling (AD) test statistic tofind whether the data conforms with the isotropic null dis-tribution function or not, and also quantify it’s significanceusing simulations.

The eCDF plots highlight the peculiarity of odd multi-pole PEV alignments rather more dramatically than ePDFplots. One notices that there is a mild deficit at low HSIPbin values, and a mild excess at intermediate HSIP bin val-ues in the empirical PDF of odd multipole PEV alignmentsfor the range l = [2, 25] in Fig. [8]. The discrepancy withthe isotropic hypothesis is more striking in the empirical cu-mulative distribution function of odd multipole PEV HSIPsfor the same range compared to the analytic distribution inFig. [9]. With larger lmax = 61, the discrepancy nearly van-ishes. The diagonal dashed line is the reference curve aboutwhich the data statistic coming from the null distributionis expected to fluctuate. The empirical CDF of even multi-pole PEV HSIPs essentially criss-crosses this reference curvein Fig. [9], in agreement with our findings from previoussections. However, as noted above, the odd multipole align-ments deviate significantly. Our earlier observation on the

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)


0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

0.24

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Fra

cti

onal

counts

cos(α)

lmin=2, lmax=[7,61]

Even-l

Odd-l

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.2

0.24

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Fra

cti

onal

counts

cos(α)

lmin=[2,56], lmax=61

Even-l

Odd-l

Figure 6. Distribution of the observed clustering of even or odd multipole PEV common axes computed as dot products of collective

alignment axis from the smallest and largest multipole bin sets from the range l = [2, 61]. For the varying lmax case (left plot), the innerproduct is taken for the axes obtained from the multipole bins l = [2, 7] and l = [2, 61]. The varying lmin case (right plot), uses common

alignment axes obtained from the Alignment tensor for the bins l = [2, 61] and l = [56, 61]. The scalar product of collective alignment

axes corresponding to smallest and largest bins of even/odd multipoles are shown in black and red solid curves.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

PD

F

x = < e~

i | e~

j >2

Emperical Dist. Func.Analytic Dist. Func. = 1/(2*sqrt(x))

Figure 7. Test of agreement between empirical PDF of Hilbert-Schmidt inner product of isotropically distributed unit vectors on

a sphere, and their analytic distribution function. The simulationused 1000 random sets of 30 isotropically distributed unit vec-tors recording the ePDF histogram each time. The mean ePDF

obtained from averaging individual ePDFs is shown here in bars.

The analytic PDF is shown as a solid (blue) line.

presence of two populations of anisotropy axes is also cor-roborated by the eCDF curves for l = [2, 25] and l = [26, 61]that are non-overlapping in multipole range.

The Anderson-Darling (AD) test (Anderson & Dar-ling 1954; Bohm & Zech 2010) quantifies the agreement ofthe data with the isotropic null distribution. The Anderson-Darling statistic is defined as

AD = −N −N∑i=1

2i− 1N

[ln(F (xi))+

ln(1− F (xN−i+1))] , (10)

where ‘N ’ is the number of sample points, and F (xi) is theanalytic cumulative distribution function evaluated for thedata sample point xi. For our specific case of HSIPs, F (xi) =√xi, and for a set of ‘n’ even/odd multipole PEVs, there

are N = n(n − 1)/2 number of independent inner productspossible. Similar to the case of varying lmax discussed in theprevious section, the AD statistic is obtained as a functionof lmax from the multipole range l = [2, 61]. At each lmax,the AD statistic is computed from the even/odd multipolePEV sub sets of the current l−range separately. Likewise,we also show the results for varying lmin case.

The AD statistic values as a function of lmax are shownin the left panel of Fig. [10], and as a function of lmin inthe right panel in the same figure. The expected value ofthe AD statistic is denoted by a (blue) dashed line. It iscomputed from 1000 ILC-like noisy CMB maps obtainedfrom FFP simulations described in Sec. [3.2]. The mean ADstatistic from simulations is evaluated in both cases for evenand odd multipoles separately. Since the two curves are in-distinguishable, as expected, only one of them is shown toavoid redundancy. From Fig. [10], one can readily see thatthe AD statistic for lmax = 9, 19, 23 and 25 acquires veryhigh values, hinting at the origin of the 2σ level significanceseen for the common alignment axes of odd multipole PEVson large angular scales. From Fig. [4], we see that many ofthe collective alignment axes in the case of varying lmin set-tled in the galactic plane. Correspondingly, in the right-handpanel of Fig. [10], we see that the distribution of the HSIPsquantified by the AD statistic is very high compared to itsexpectation in the same multipole range, in the varying lmincase.

The p−values of the AD statistic for the PLANCK 2015Commander map derived HSIPs as a function of lmax areshown in the left-hand panel of Fig. [11]. The significancesof the AD statistic for even and odd multipole PEV HSIPs

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

No

rma

lize

d

PD

F

x = < e~

i | e~

j >2

Even-l

Emperical PDF : l=[2,25]l=[2,61]

l=[26,61]Analytic PDF = 1/(2*sqrt(x))

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

x = < e~

i | e~

j >2

Odd-l

Emperical PDF : l=[2,25]l=[2,61]

l=[26,61]Analytic PDF = 1/(2*sqrt(x))

Figure 8. The empirical distribution functions of Hilbert-Schmidt inner products (HSIPs) of PEVs from data computed separately foreven and odd multipoles, from three representative multipole ranges l = [2, 25], [2, 61] and [26, 61] are shown here. The even and odd

HSIP ePDFs are shown in left and right panels respectively. The analytic distribution function is shown by a dashed (blue) line.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Em

pir

ica

l C

DF

Analytic CDF

Even-l

l=[2,25]l=[2,61]

l=[26,61]

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Em

pir

ica

l C

DF

Analytic CDF

Odd-l

l=[2,25]l=[2,61]

l=[26,61]

Figure 9. Same as Fig. [8], but shown here are the empirical cumulative distribution functions built from data HSIPs. See text for

details.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2 10 20 30 40 50 60

An

der

son

-Da

rlin

g s

tati

stic

lmax

PLANCK15 Commander map

Even-lOdd-l

Expectation of AD

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2 10 20 30 40 50 60

An

der

son

-Da

rlin

g s

tati

stic

lmin

Figure 10. The Anderson-Darling statistic computed separately for even and odd multipole PEV HSIPs from PLANCK 2015 Commnadermap are shown here. The case of varying lmax(lmin) are shown in left(right) panel. The even and odd multipole statistic values are

shown in black and red solid lines with square and filled circle point types respectively. The dashed (blue) curve denotes the expected

statistic value, obtained from an ensemble of 1000 mock observed CMB maps, that is same for even or odd multipole PEVs.

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)


are computed separately, and are shown in black and redsolid lines with square and circle point types respectively.

The Anderson-Darling statistic gives independent con-firmation that the odd multipole PEV alignments areanomalous on large angular scales. Significance exceeding 2σconfidence level is found for lmax = 9, 19, 23 and 25 whichare found to have high values for AD statistic from the leftplot of Fig. [10]. The even multipole PEV HSIPs show nosignificant signal of differing from the isotropic null distri-bution in this analysis, consistent with the finding from pre-ceding section. Thus there are some anomalous alignmentsamong odd multipole anisotropy axes on large angular scalesrepresented by their principal eigenvectors that are result-ing in the high significance of our test statistic. Owing tothe highly deviant AD statistic in the varying lmin case, theAD statistic is found to be anomalous for the same rangeof multipoles. The p−value plot for the same is shown inright panel of Fig. [11], which follows a trend similar to thesignificances found in Fig. [5].

5 CONCLUSIONS

We have compared alignment statistics of parity even andodd multipoles with several independent methods. We usedthe clean CMB signal estimate from PLANCK 2015 dataobtained using the Commander algorithm. Analysis was re-stricted to the first sixty multipoles i.e., l = [2, 61]. Powertensor and Alignment tensor statistics were used to probethe alignments of even and odd parity multipoles, separately.

We studied the data in several ways. The collectivealignment axes of even and odd multipoles show different be-haviors. The anisotropy axes of even-parity multipoles fromlarge angular scales are broadly clustered near the directionof the CMB dipole. The anisotropy axes of odd multipolesare much less concentrated, but are significantly directionalas quantified by Alignment entropy.

We constructed cumulative statistical measures thatfixed the lower limit lmin = 2, while varying the upperlimit to reach lmax = 61. The Alignment entropy, SX , ofeven-parity multipoles was as expected from an uncorre-lated isotropic distribution. The odd–parity multipole SXwas unusually small on large angular scales with signifi-cance exceeding 2σ magnitude. As lmax was increased abovelmax ∼ 27 the significance disappeared, apparently by dilu-tion in the larger set. This significance nevertheless disap-pears by ignoring the first few multipoles. A similar effectwas seen in studying even-odd multipole power asymmetry,using the WMAP seven year temperature power spectrum(Aluri & Jain 2012). To understand the alignment prefer-ences of small angular scales in the range being studied, wefixed the upper limit at lmax = 61 while varying the lowerlimit lmin. A regime of multipoles with small SX at 2σ ormore significance for odd-parity multipoles was observed,with lowest p−value for SX occurring at lmin & 26. Thetwo different effects from varying lmin and lmax analysis ina single data set pose a puzzle. The resolution may involvestwo different populations separated by a middle range ofl ∼ 27, with each population diluting a distinctive signal ofthe other when populations are mixed. The observation thatthe axes of the l > 27 set settled at the galactic plane maybe an indication of a residual galactic bias in this subset.

These results are further tested against potential resid-ual contamination in the full sky map by excising differentfractions of the sky, and then inpainting the masked region.The odd multipoles’ common axes are stable against galac-tic cuts up to excluding (and then inpainting) 10% of thesky, whereas the even multipoles are found to be sensitiveto galactic cuts.

An independent statistic was used to dissect the cumu-lative statistical studies. The Hilbert-Schmidt inner prod-ucts (HSIP) are rotationally invariant statistics with an an-alytic isotropic null distribution. The distribution of the datacompared to the HSIP null was computed using Anderson-Darling (AD) test statistic. For the odd multipole PEVs, theAD statistic for the data HSIPs shows a significance simi-lar to that found using the Alignment entropy method. TheAD method pinpoints lmax = 9, 19, 23 and 25 as contain-ing unusual alignments that are rendering the AD statisticanomalous at a significance of 2σ or more.

Interestingly, we find that the even mirror parity axisfrom the PLANCK 2015 results, and the even multipoles’common axes from large angular scales computed here,broadly point in the CMB dipole direction. Likewise, theodd mirror parity axis from the PLANCK 2015 analysis,and the odd parity low−l hemispherical power asymmetryaxis fall in the region spanned by the odd multipole align-ment axes. From these observations, we speculate that theseanomalous axes may have a common origin in their peculiarparity (a)symmetry properties.

We plan to investigate these speculations more in a laterwork.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge the use of freely available HEALPix8 (Gorskiet al. 2005) package and iSAP software9 in this work. Partof the results presented here are based on observations ob-tained with PLANCK10, an ESA science mission with in-struments and contributions directly funded by ESA Mem-ber States, NASA, and Canada. We also acknowledge theuse of WMAP data made available from Legacy Archivefor Microwave Background Data Analysis11 (LAMBDA) sitethat is a part of NASA’s High Energy Astrophysics ScienceArchive Research Center (HEASARC). This research usedresources of the National Energy Research Scientific Com-puting (NERSC) Center, a DOE Office of Science User Fa-cility supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.PKA is funded by the post-doctoral fellowship program ofthe Claude Leon Foundation, South Africa at UCT. Thiswork is based on the research supported by the SouthAfrican Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Sci-ence and Technology and the National Research Foundationof South Africa as well as the Competitive Programme forRated Researchers (Grant Number 91552) (AW). Any opin-ion, finding and conclusion or recommendation expressed in

8 http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/9 http://www.cosmostat.org/software/isap/10 http://www.esa.int/Planck11 https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr5/

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/http://www.cosmostat.org/software/isap/http://www.esa.int/Planckhttps://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr5/


0.01

0.1

1

2 10 20 30 40 50 60

And

erso

n-D

arl

ing

sta

t. p

-va

lue

lmax

95% CL

Even-lOdd-l

0.01

0.1

1

2 10 20 30 40 50 60

And

erso

n-D

arl

ing

sta

t. p

-va

lue

lmin

95% CL

Figure 11. p−values of AD statistics of data shown in Fig. [10], are plotted here as a function of lmax and lmin. The significancesshow a similar trend for even or odd multipoles as seen with the Alignment tensor method in Fig. [2] and [5]. The 95% confidence level

is also shown for reference, as a dashed grey line in the plot. The statistic shows higher significances for lmax = 9, 19, 23, 25 indicating

the possible source of the ∼ 2σ significances seen earlier, with odd multipole PEV alignments on large angular scales, in the Alignmententropy analysis.

this material is that of the authors and the National Re-search Foundation (NRF) of South Africa does not acceptany liability in this regard.PKA also thanks Pankaj Jain for helpful exchanges on anearlier version of the paper. AW would like to thank DavidSpergel for helpful discussions on this work.We thank the anonymous referee for a careful reading andhelpful comments on our paper.

REFERENCES

Abramo L. R., Bernui A., Ferreira I. S., Villela T., and Wuensche

C. A., 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 063506

Aiola S., Wang B., Kosowsky A., Kahniashvili T., and FirouzjahiH., 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 063008

Akrami Y. et al., 2014, ApJ, 784, L42

Aluri P. K., Samal P. K., Jain P., and Ralston J. P., 2011, MNRAS414, 1032

Aluri P. K., and Jain, P, 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3378

Anderson T. W., and Darling D. A., 1954, Journal of the Ameri-can Statistical Association, 49, 765

Ben-David A., Kovetz E. D., Itzhaki N., 2012, ApJ, 748, 39

Bennett C. et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 17

Bennett C. L. et al., 2013, ApJS, 208, 20

Bernui A., Mota B., Reboucas M. J., and Tavakol R., 2007, A &A, 464, 479

Bernui A., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 063531

Bernui A., 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 123010

Bernui A., Oliveira A. F., and Pereira T. S., 2014, JCAP, 10, 041

Bielewicz P., Eriksen H. K., Banday A. J., Gorski K. M., and LiljeP. B., 2005, ApJ, 635, 750

Bobin J., Sureau F., and Starck J.-L., 2016, A & A, 591, A50

Bohm G. and Zech G., Introduction to Statistics and Data Analy-sis for Physicists (Verlag Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron,

Hamburg, Germany, 2010)

Copi C. J., Huterer D., and Starkman G. D., 2004, Phys. Rev. D,

70, 043515

Copi C. J., Huterer D., Schwarz D. J., and Starkman G. D., 2006,MNRAS, 367, 79

Copi C. J., Huterer D., Schwarz D. J., and Starkman G. D., 2015,MNRAS, 449, 3458

Cruz M., Tucci M., Martinez-Gonzalez E., and Vielva P., 2006,

MNRAS, 369, 57

Cruz M., Cayon L., Martinez-Gonzalez E., Vielva P., and Jin J.,

2007, ApJ, 655, 11

Cruz M., Vielva P., Martinez-Gonzalez E., and Barreiro R. B.,

2011, MNRAS, 412, 2383

de Oliveira-Costa A., Tegmark M., Zaldarriaga M., and Hamil-ton A., 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 063516

de Oliveira-Costa A., and Tegmark M., 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74,023005

Eriksen H. K., Hansen F. K., Banday A. J., Gorski K. M., and

Lilje P. B., 2004, ApJ, 609, 1198

Eriksen H. K. et al., 2004, ApJS, 155, 227

Eriksen H. K., Banday A. J., Gorski K. M., Hansen F. K., and

Lilje P. B., 2007, ApJ, 660, L81

Eriksen, H. K. et al., 2008, ApJ, 676, 10

Finelli F., Gruppuso A., Paci F., and Starobinsky A. A., 2012,

JCAP, 07, 049

Flender S., and Hotchkiss S., 2013, JCAP, 09, 033

Gorski K. M. et al., 2005, ApJ, 622, 759

Gruppuso A., and Burigana C., 2009, JCAP, 08, 004

Gruppuso A. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1445

Gurzadyan V. G. et al., 2009, A & A, 498, L1

Hajian A., and Souradeep T., 2003, ApJ, 597, L5

Hansen F. K., Banday A. J., Gorski K. M., Eriksen H. K., andLilje P. B., 2009, ApJ, 704, 1448

Hansen M., Frejsel A. M., Kim J., Naselsky P., and Nesti F., 2011,Phys. Rev. D, 83, 103508

Kim J., and Naselsky P., 2010, ApJL, 714, L265

Kim J., and Naselsky P., 2011, ApJ, 739, 79

Land K., and Magueijo, J., 2005a, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 101302(R)

Land K., and Magueijo J., 2005b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 071301

Lew B., 2008, JCAP, 09, 023

Maris M., Burigana C., Gruppuso A., Finelli F., and Diego J. M.,

2011, MNRAS, 415, 2546

Nadathur S., Lavinto M., Hotchkiss S., and Rasanen S., 2014,Phys. Rev. D, 90, 103510

Naselsky P., Hansen M., and Kim J., 2011, JCAP, 09, 012

Naselsky P., Zhao W., Kim J., and Chen S., 2012, ApJ, 749, 31

Notari A., and Quartin M., 2015, JCAP, 06, 047

Paci F. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 399

Planck Collaboration XXIII : P. A. R. Ade et al., 2014, A & A,

571, A23

Planck Collaboration XVI: P. A. R. Ade et al., 2016a, A & A,

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)


594, A16

Planck Collaboration IX: Adam R. et al., 2016a, A & A, 594, A9

Planck Collaboration X: Adam R. et al., 2016b, A & A, 594, A10

Planck Collaboration XII : Ade P. A. R. et al., 2016b, A & A 594,

A12

Polastri L., Gruppuso A., and Natoli P., 2015, JCAP, 04, 018

Quartin M., and Notari A., 2015, JCAP, 01, 008

Ralston J. P., and Jain P., 2004, IJMPD, 13, 1857

Rassat A., and Starck J.-L., 2013, A & A, 557, L1

Rassat A., Starck, J.-L., Paykari P., Sureau F., and Bobin J.,

2014, JCAP, 08, 006

Rath P. K., and Jain P., 2013, JCAP, 12, 014

Reed M., and Simon B., Methods of modern mathematical physics

- 1. Functional analysis, Acad. Press (1972)

Santos L., Villela T., and Wuensche C. A., 2012, A & A, 544,

A121

Samal P. K., Saha R., Jain P., and Ralston J. P., 2008, MNRAS,

385, 1718

Samal P. K., Saha R., Jain P., and Ralston J. P., 2009, MNRAS,396, 511

Sarkar D., Huterer D., Copi C. J., Starkman G. D., and SchwarzD. J., 2011, Astropart. Phys., 34, 591

Schwarz D. J., Starkman G. D., Huterer D., and Copi C. J., 2004,

Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 221301

Schwarz D. J., Copi C. J., Huterer D., and Starkman G. D., 2016,

CQG, 33, 184001

Slosar A., and Seljak U., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083002

Starck J.-L., Rassat A., and Fadili M. J., 2013, A & A, 550, A15

Vielva P., Martinez-Gonzalez E., Barreiro R. B., Sanz J. L., Cayon

L., 2004, ApJ, 609, 22

Wiaux Y., Vielva P., Martinez-Gonzalez E., and VandergheynstP., 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 151303

Zhao W., 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 023010

APPENDIX A: STABILITY OF ALIGNMENTAXES

Here we probe the stability of the even/odd multipole align-ment axes using different foreground exclusion masks. Weused PLANCK 2015 HFI masks with varying sky fractions,that are provided along with the second public release ofPLANCK data12. The respective sky fractions of the masksused are 1%, 3%, 10%, 20% and 30%. The excluded regionscorresponding to these masks are shown in Fig. [A1].

We used these masks at their native resolution ofHEALPix Nside = 2048 on the PLANCK 2015 CommanderCMB temperature map which is also made available at thesame resolution. The masked CMB map is then inpaintedusing the freely available iSAP software13 (see Starck, Ras-sat & Fadili (2013)). We used the default settings of themrs_alm_inpainting facility of iSAP to inpaint the CMBsky.

Following the same procedure as described in the mainanalysis, the inpainted CMB map is then downgraded toNside = 256 and simultaneously smoothed to have a beambeam resolution of FWHM = 1◦ (degree) Gaussian beam.

The common alignment axes of even and odd multipolePEVs from masking and inpainting 3%, 10% and 20% ofthe CMB sky are shown in Fig. [A2]. Here we performed a


ancillary-data/13 http://www.cosmostat.org/software/isap/

Figure A1. Foreground exclusion masks that are applied to testthe stability of the collective alignment axes. From red to deep

blue they progressive exclude 1%, 3%, 10%, 20% and 30% of the

sky. We used the freely available iSAP software to inpaint themasked region.

qualitative analysis only. By visual inspection we see thatthe odd multipole alignment axes are broadly stable up to10% of the sky being masked and inpainted. However theeven multipole PEV alignment axes steadily drift towardsgalactic plane in the varying lmax, and move towards thepoles in the case of varying lmin. Applying galactic cutswith 20% or more masking fraction (followed by inpaintingthe masked sky) is found to destroy the alignment patternsseen otherwise.

APPENDIX B: THE ISOTROPIC NULL HSIPDISTRIBUTION

Let |ẽl〉 be a random eigenvector from an isotropic distri-bution. Since eigenvectors have no magnitude and no sign,|ẽl〉 is equivalent to the rank-one projector Πl = |ẽl〉〈ẽl|.Consider the distribution of x = Tr{Π†lΠl′} = 〈ẽl|ẽl′〉

2

(for all l 6= l′). Choose coordinates where the first instance|ẽ1〉 is along the z axis, so that 〈ẽl|ẽ1〉 = cos θl. In anisotropic ensemble the distribution of cos θl is constant overthe range −1 ≤ cos θ ≤ 1 as shown by the solid angle mea-sure dΩl = d cos θldφl. Averaging over all cases we can dropthe index l. For each x = cos2 θ there are two signs of cos θ.The distribution of x over the range 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 is then

f(x) =dN

dx= 2

dN

d cos θ|d cos θdx

| = 22

d√x

dx=

1

2√x.

The same result comes from f(x) =(2π/4π)

∫ 1−1 d cos θ δ(cos

2 θ − x), accounting for twosolutions of the delta function.

This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by

the author.

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/ancillary-data/http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/ancillary-data/http://www.cosmostat.org/software/isap/


-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


- inpainted 3%

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmax

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


- inpainted 3%

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmin

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


- inpainted 10%

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmax

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


- inpainted 10%

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmin

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


- inpainted 20%

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmax

-π/2

-π/3

-π/6

0

π/6

π/3

π/2

π5π/43π/27π/40π/4π/23π/4π


- inpainted 20%

CMB dipole

PT-PEV l=2

l=3


max(S+)

even

odd

8

16

24

32

40

48

56

lmin

Figure A2. Common alignment axes obtained after applying galactic masks with different sky fraction and inpainting using iSAP. Thevarying lmax and lmin cases are shown in the left and right columns, respectively, for masking fractions of 3%, 10% and 20% of the sky.By excluding 20% or more sky fraction (and then inpainting), the broad orientations of the common alignment axes disappears.

MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2017)

1 Introduction2 Power tensor, Power entropy, and Alignment Statistics3 Description of procedure and data sets3.1 Analysis procedure3.2 Real and mock data used

4 Results4.1 Quadrupole-Octopole alignment4.2 Parity alignments4.3 Dissecting cumulative statistics

5 ConclusionsA Stability of alignment axesB The Isotropic Null HSIP Distribution

mnras atex style le v3 - arxivmnras 000,1{12(2017) preprint 18 september 2017 compiled using mnras...

Documents