BICEP/Keck XVIII: Measurement of BICEP3 polarization angles and consequences for constraining cosmic birefringence and inflation
Le résumé fourni par la source
We use a custom-made calibrator to measure individual detectors' polarization angles of BICEP3, a small aperture telescope observing the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at 95GHz from the South Pole. We describe our calibration strategy and the statistical and systematic uncertainties associated with the measurement. We reach an unprecedented precision for such measurement on a CMB experiment, with a repeatability for each detector pair of $0.02°$. We show that the relative angles measured using this method are in excellent agreement with those extracted from CMB data. Because the absolute measurement is currently limited by a systematic uncertainty, we do not derive cosmic birefringence constraints from BICEP3 data in this work. Rather, we forecast the sensitivity of BICEP3 sky maps for such analysis. We investigate the relative contributions of instrument noise, lensing, and dust, as well as astrophysical and instrumental systematics. We also explore the constraining power of different angle estimators, depending on analysis choices. We establish that the BICEP3 2-year dataset (2017--2018) has an on-sky sensitivity to the cosmic birefringence angle of $σ= 0.078°$, which could be improved to $σ= 0.055°$ by adding all of the existing BICEP3 data (through 2023). Furthermore, we emphasize the possibility of using the BICEP3 sky patch as a polarization calibration source for CMB experiments, which with the present data could reach a precision of $0.035°$. Finally, in the context of inflation searches, we investigate the impact of detector-to-detector variations in polarization angles as they may bias the tensor-to-scalar ratio r. We show that while the effect is expected to remain subdominant to other sources of systematic uncertainty, it can be reliably calibrated using polarization angle measurements such as the ones we present in this paper.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.