text:
# Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) First Year Observations: TE Polarization

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Linear polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) results from anisotropic Thomson scattering of CMB photons by free electrons. By symmetry, an isotropic radiation field can not generate a net polarization. Any net polarization results from the quadrupole moment of the CMB temperature distribution seen by each scatterer. Multiple scattering suppresses polarization by damping the temperature anisotropy; hence, CMB polarization originates primarily from epochs when the opacity was of order unity or less. Standard cosmological models predict two such epochs, corresponding to two characteristic angular scales. The first is the decoupling surface at redshift $`z1089`$, when the ionization fraction $`x_e`$ abruptly falls from near unity to near zero. The acoustic horizon at decoupling subtends an angle $`\theta 1\mathrm{°}`$; polarization on these scales reflects conditions in the photon-baryon fluid just prior to recombination. Polarization data from decoupling complement measurements of the temperature anisotropy. Astrophysical sources generate additional polarization as ionizing radiation from the first collapsed objects reionizes the intergalactic medium. For reionization at redshift $`z<50`$ the horizon is on large angular scales, $`\theta >5\mathrm{°}`$. Polarization on these scales directly probes the poorly-understood process of reionization.

Since CMB polarization originates at modest opacity, the underlying temperature anisotropy is not heavily damped and remains observable today. Precise predictions can be made of the average polarization pattern expected from a given power spectrum of temperature anisotropy (Rees (1968); Kaiser (1983); Bond & Efstathiou (1984); Coulson et al. (1994); Kamionkowski et al. (1997); Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997); Hu & White (1997); for recent reviews, see Kosowsky (1996); Hu & Dodelson (2002)). The pattern of polarization on the sky is a vector field with both an amplitude and direction at each point, and can be separated into two scalar fields, one giving the curl and the other the gradient component (called $`B`$ and $`E`$ modes in analogy with electromagnetic fields). The DASI collaboration has detected CMB polarization on angular scales $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ (Kovac et al., 2002). DASI reports an $`E`$ mode signal significant at 4.9$`\sigma `$ and a TE temperature-polarization correlation significant at 2$`\sigma `$. Both signals are consistent with the “concordance” cosmological model (spatially flat model dominated by a cosmological constant and cold dark matter; see, e.g., Hu & Dodelson (2002)) and support an adiabatic origin for the CMB temperature anisotropy.

The Microwave Anisotropy Probe has mapped the full sky in the Stokes $`I`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ parameters on angular scales $`\theta >0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$ in 5 frequency bands centered at 23, 33, 41, 61, and 94 GHz (Bennett et al., 2003a). WMAP was not designed solely as a polarimeter, in the sense that none of its detectors are sensitive only to polarization. Incident radiation in each differencing assembly (DA) is split by an orthomode transducer (OMT) into two orthogonal linear polarizations (Page et al., 2003b; Jarosik et al., 2003). Each OMT is oriented so that the electric field directions accepted in the output rectangular waveguides lie at $`\pm 45\mathrm{°}`$ with respect to the $`yz`$ symmetry plane of the satellite (see Bennett et al. (2003a) Fig. 2 for the definition of the satellite coordinate system). The two orthogonal polarizations from the OMT are measured by two independent radiometers. Each radiometer differences the signal in the accepted polarization between two positions on the sky (the A and B beams), separated by $`140\mathrm{°}`$.

The signal from the sky in each direction $`\widehat{n}`$ can be decomposed into the Stokes parameters

$$T(\widehat{n})=I(\widehat{n})+Q(\widehat{n})\mathrm{cos}2\gamma +U(\widehat{n})\mathrm{sin}2\gamma ,$$
(1)
where we define the angle $`\gamma `$ from a meridian through the Galactic poles to the projection on the sky of the E-plane of each output port of the OMT (Fig. 1). In principle, by tracking the orientation of the OMTs on the sky as the satellite scan pattern observes each sky pixel in different orientations, each radiometer could independently produce a map of the Stokes $`I`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ parameters. In practice, the non-uniform coverage of $`\gamma `$ at each pixel would generate significant correlations between the fitted Stokes parameters, allowing leakage of the dominant temperature anisotropy into the much fainter polarization maps. We avoid this problem by differencing the outputs of the two radiometers in each differencing assembly in the time-ordered data. Denoting the two radiometers by subscripts 1 and 2, the instantaneous outputs are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T_1`$ $`=`$ $`I(\widehat{n}_A)+Q(\widehat{n}_A)\mathrm{cos}2\gamma _A+U(\widehat{n}_A)\mathrm{sin}2\gamma _A`$ (2)
$``$ $`I(\widehat{n}_B)Q(\widehat{n}_B)\mathrm{cos}2\gamma _BU(\widehat{n}_B)\mathrm{sin}2\gamma _B`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T_2`$ $`=`$ $`I(\widehat{n}_A)Q(\widehat{n}_A)\mathrm{cos}2\gamma _AU(\widehat{n}_A)\mathrm{sin}2\gamma _A`$
$``$ $`I(\widehat{n}_B)+Q(\widehat{n}_B)\mathrm{cos}2\gamma _B+U(\widehat{n}_B)\mathrm{sin}2\gamma _B.`$
The sum

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_I\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }T_1+\mathrm{\Delta }T_2)=I(\widehat{n}_A)I(\widehat{n}_B)$$
(3)
is thus proportional to the unpolarized intensity, while the difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_P\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }T_1\mathrm{\Delta }T_2)=Q(\widehat{n}_A)\mathrm{cos}2\gamma _A+U(\widehat{n}_A)\mathrm{sin}2\gamma _AQ(\widehat{n}_B)\mathrm{cos}2\gamma _BU(\widehat{n}_B)\mathrm{sin}2\gamma _B.$$
(4)
is proportional only to the polarization. We produce full-sky maps of the Stokes $`I`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ parameters from the sum and difference time-ordered data using an iterative mapping algorithm. Since the polarization is faint, the $`Q`$ and $`U`$ maps are dominated by instrument noise and converge rapidly (Hinshaw et al., 2003a).

The Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$ components depend on a specific choice of coordinate system. For each pair of pixels, we define coordinate-independent quantities

$`Q^{}=Q\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )+U\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )`$
$`U^{}=U\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )Q\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ),`$ (5)
where the angle $`\varphi `$ rotates the coordinate system about the outward-directed normal vector to put the meridian along the great circle connecting the two positions on the sky (Kamionkowski et al., 1997; Zaldarriaga & Seljak, 1997). All of our analyses use these coordinate-independent linear combinations of the $`Q`$ and $`U`$ sky maps.

Simulations of the mapping algorithm demonstrate that WMAP can accurately recover the polarization pattern on the sky, even after allowing for residual calibration uncertainty in the individual radiometer channels. However, non-ideal instrumental signals affect the $`Q`$ and $`U`$ sky maps to a greater extent than the unpolarized $`I`$ maps. The spacecraft spin about its $`z`$ axis sweeps the beams across the sky in a direction $`45\mathrm{°}`$ from the OMT orientation, preferentially coupling signals not fixed on the sky into the $`U`$ map. Residual striping exists to a lesser extent in the $`I`$ and $`Q`$ maps. Systematic errors in the individual $`Q`$ and $`U`$ maps are not yet fully assessed; consequently, we defer detailed analysis of the $`Q`$ or $`U`$ maps to a later paper. Cross-correlations between maps are largely unaffected by striping or any other channel-specific signal, allowing much simpler analysis of the faint polarization signal than would be possible for the individual $`Q`$ or $`U`$ maps. This paper discusses the temperature-polarization (TE) correlation in the WMAP one-year sky maps.

We compute the temperature-polarization cross-correlation using three different techniques: the two-point correlation function, a quadratic estimator for the power spectrum, and a “template” comparison in pixel space between the polarization maps and the predicted polarization given the observed pattern of temperature anisotropy. All three methods yield similar results despite disparate treatments of the data.

## 2 CORRELATION FUNCTION

The simplest measure of temperature-polarization cross-correlation is the two-point angular correlation function

$$C^{IQ}(\theta )=\frac{_{ij}I_iQ_j^{}w_iw_j}{_{ij}w_iw_j},$$
(6)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are pixel indices and $`w`$ are the weights. To avoid possible effects of $`1/f`$ noise, we force the temperature map to come from a different frequency band than the polarization maps, and thus use the temperature map at 61 GHz (V band) for all correlations except the V-band polarization maps, which we correlate against the 41 GHz (Q band) temperature map. Since WMAP has a high signal-to-noise ratio measurement of the CMB temperature anisotropy, we use unit weight ($`w_i=1`$) for the temperature maps and noise weight ($`w_j=N_j/\sigma _0^2`$) for the polarization maps, where $`N_j`$ is the effective number of observations in each pixel $`j`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ is the standard deviation of the white noise in the time-ordered data (Table 1 of Bennett et al. (2003b)). We compare the correlation functions to Monte Carlo simulations of a null model, which simulates the temperature anisotropy using the best-fit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (Spergel et al., 2003) but forces the polarization signal to zero. Each realization generates a CMB sky in Stokes $`I`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ parameters, convolves this simulated sky with the beam pattern for each differencing assembly, then adds uncorrelated instrument noise to each pixel in each map. We then co-add the simulated skies in each frequency band and compute $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ using the same software for both the WMAP data and the simulations. All analysis uses only pixels outside the WMAP Kp0 foreground emission mask (Bennett et al., 2003c), approximately 76% of the full sky.

Figure 2 shows $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ derived by co-adding the individual correlation functions for the frequencies 41, 61, and 94 GHz (Q, V, and W bands) least likely to be affected by Galactic foregrounds. The grey band shows the 68% confidence interval for the null simulations. It is clear that WMAP detects a temperature-polarization signal at high statistical confidence, and that signals exist on both large and small angular scales. We define a goodness-of-fit statistic

$$\chi ^2=\underset{ab}{}[C_{\mathrm{MAP}}^{IQ}C_{\mathrm{sim}}^{IQ}]_a𝐌_{ab}^1[C_{\mathrm{MAP}}^{IQ}C_{\mathrm{sim}}^{IQ}]_b,$$
(7)
where $`C_{\mathrm{MAP}}^{IQ}`$ is the co-added correlation function from WMAP data, $`C_{\mathrm{sim}}^{IQ}`$ is the mean from the Monte Carlo simulations, and $`𝐌`$ is the covariance matrix between angular bins $`a`$ and $`b`$ derived from the simulations. We find $`\chi ^2=207`$ for 78 degrees of freedom when comparing WMAP to the null model: WMAP detects temperature-polarization correlations significant at more than 10 standard deviations.

### 2.1 Systematic Error Analysis

Having detected a significant signal in the data, we must determine whether this signal has a cosmological origin or results from systematic errors or foreground sources. We test the convergence of the mapping algorithm using end-to-end simulations, comparing maps derived from simulated time-ordered data to the input maps used to generate the simulated time series. The simulations include all major instrumental effects, including beam ellipticity, radiometer performance, and instrument noise (including $`1/f`$ component), and are processed using the same map-making software as the WMAP data (Hinshaw et al., 2003a). The $`Q`$ and $`U`$ maps converge rapidly, within the 30 iterations required to derive the calibration solution. Correlations in the time-ordered data introduce an anti-correlation in the $`U`$ map at angles corresponding to the beam separation, with amplitude 0.5% of the noise in the map. This effect is independent for each radiometer and does not affect temperature-polarization cross-correlations. Similarly, residual $`1/f`$ noise in the time series can create faint striping in the maps, but does not affect cross-correlations.

The largest potential systematic error in the temperature-polarization cross-correlation results from bandpass mismatches in the amplification/detection chains. We calibrate the WMAP data in thermodynamic temperature using the Doppler dipole from the satellite’s orbit about the Sun as a beam-filling calibration source (Hinshaw et al., 2003a). Astrophysical sources with a spectrum other than a 2.7 K blackbody are thus slightly mis-calibrated. The amplitude is dependent on the product of the source spectrum with the unique bandpass of each radiometer. If the bandpasses in each radiometer were identical, the effect would cancel for any frequency spectrum, but differences in the bandpasses between the two radiometers in each DA generate a non-zero residual in the difference signal used to generate polarization maps (Eq. 4). This signal is spatially correlated with the unpolarized foreground intensity but is independent of the orientation of the radiometers on the sky (polarization angle $`\gamma `$). In the limit of uniform sampling of $`\gamma `$ this term drops out of the sky map solution. However, the WMAP scan pattern does not view each pixel in all orientations; unpolarized emission with a non-CMB spectrum can thus be aliased into polarization if the bandpasses of the two radiometers in each DA are not identical. This is a significant problem only at 23 GHz (K band), where the foregrounds are brightest and the bandpass mismatch is largest.

We quantify the effect of bandpass mismatch using end-to-end simulations. For each time-ordered sample, we compute the signal in each radiometer using an unpolarized foreground model and the measured pass bands in each output channel (Jarosik et al., 2003). We then generate maps from the simulated data using the WMAP one-year sky coverage and compute $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ using the output $`I`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ maps from the simulation. Figure 3 shows the predicted signal at K band. We treat this as an angular template and compute the least-squares fit of the WMAP data to this bandpass template to determine the amplitude of the effect in the observed correlation functions. We correct the WMAP correlation functions $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ and $`C^{IU}(\theta )`$ at K and Ka bands by subtracting the best-fit template amplitudes. The fitted signal has peak amplitude of 8 $`\mu `$K2 at 23 GHz and 5 $`\mu `$K2 at 33 GHz. No other channel has a statistically significant detection of this effect.

Sidelobe pickup of polarized emission from the Galactic plane can also produce spurious polarization at high latitudes in the $`Q`$ and $`U`$ maps. We estimate this effect using the measured far-sidelobe response for each beam in each polarization (Barnes et al., 2003). The simplest approach would be to estimate the signal in each time-ordered sample, convolving the full sky sidelobe response with the Stokes $`I`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ maps given the instantaneous orientation of the beams for each sample. Such an approach is computationally expensive. We instead approximate the signal in each pixel by convolving the full sky sidelobe response with the one-year $`Q`$ and $`U`$ maps. For each pixel, we fix one beam on that pixel while sweeping the other beam through all orientations achieved in flight. The average from the convolution yields the sidelobe contribution for the pixel in question. Details of the sidelobe maps are presented in Barnes et al. (2003). We correlate the sidelobe maps with the temperature anisotropy maps in each channel to estimate the systematic error in the temperature-polarization correlation. Sidelobe pickup of polarized structure in the Galactic plane is less than 1 $`\mu `$K2 in $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ at 23 GHz and below 0.1 $`\mu `$K2 in all other bands. The effect of bandpass mismatch in the far sidelobes (as opposed to the main beam) is similarly weak, with limits 1.3 $`\mu `$K2 at 23 GHz and less than 0.05 $`\mu `$K2 in all other bands. We correct the polarization maps for the estimated sidelobe signal and propagate the associated systematic uncertainty throughout our analysis. Note that all of these systematic errors depend on the Galactic foregrounds, and have different frequency dependence than CMB polarization.

Other instrumental effects are negligible. We measure polarization by differencing the outputs of the two radiometers in each differencing assembly (Eq. 4). Calibration errors (as opposed to the bandpass effect discussed above) can alias temperature anisotropy into a spurious polarization signal. We have simulated the uncertainty in the calibration solution using both realistic gain drifts and drifts ten times larger than observed in flight (Hinshaw et al., 2003a). Gain drifts (either intrinsic or thermally-induced) contribute less than 1 $`\mu `$K2 to $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ in the worst band.

Null tests provide an additional check for systematic errors. Thomson scattering of scalar temperature anisotropy produces a curl-free polarization pattern. A non-zero cosmological signal is thus expected only for the IQ (TE) correlation, whereas systematic errors or foreground sources can affect both the IQ and IU (TB) correlations. We also test linear combinations of radiometer maps which cancel the polarization signal but which test for systematic effects. We compute the IQ and IU correlation functions by correlating the Stokes $`I`$ sum map from the Q- or V-band (as noted above) with the polarization difference maps $`(Q1Q2)/2`$, $`(V1V2)/2`$, $`(W1W2)/2`$, and $`(W3W4)/2`$. We then co-add the results with their noise weights, and compare the co-added result for the polarization difference maps to a similar computation for the polarization sum maps. The temperature (Stokes $`I`$) map in all cases is a sum map; the test is thus primarily sensitive to systematic errors in the polarization data.

Table 1 shows results of the null tests. We compare $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ and $`C^{IU}(\theta )`$ for the sum and difference maps to a null hypothesis that the data consist of Stokes $`I`$ and instrument noise, with no polarization in the Stokes $`Q`$ or $`U`$ maps. We break the data into 2 angular regimes to differentiate between signals at decoupling vs reionization. We find a clear signal detection for $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ in the sum map for both angular scales. All other tests are consistent with instrument noise – there is no evidence for additional systematic errors in the temperature-polarization cross-correlation.

### 2.2 Foregrounds

Galactic emission is not a strong contaminant for CMB temperature anisotropy, but could be significant in polarization. WMAP measurements of unpolarized foreground emission show synchrotron, free-free, and thermal dust emission all sharing significant spatial structure (Bennett et al., 2003c). Of these components, only synchrotron emission is expected to generate significant polarization; other sources such as spinning dust are limited to less than 5% of the total intensity at 33 GHz.

Synchrotron emission from electrons accelerated in the Galactic magnetic field is the dominant unpolarized foreground at frequencies below $``$50 GHz. Although it is known to be linearly polarized, previous radio surveys provide little guidance for the high-latitude polarization at mm wavelengths. Extrapolation of radio polarization maps (Brouw & Spoelstra, 1976) to millimeter wavelengths indicate a polarization fraction between 10% and 50% depending on Galactic latitude (Lubin & Smoot, 1981). The unpolarized component has angular power spectrum $`c_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^2`$, while the CMB power spectrum rises to a set of peaks on angular scales $`\theta 1\mathrm{°}`$ (cf Fig 10(b) of Bennett et al. (2003c)). The angular dependence of the polarized foreground component is expected to be even steeper (Baccigalupi et al., 2001; Bruscoli et al., 2002; Tucci et al., 2002), suggesting that foreground polarization is most likely to affect temperature-polarization correlations on large angular scales. Radio maps at low Galactic latitude, however, demonstrate that the polarization intensity is not necessarily well correlated with the unpolarized intensity, complicating template analysis for temperature-polarization cross-correlations (Uyanıker et al., 1998, 1999). We thus use the frequency dependence of the measured temperature-polarization cross-correlation to separate cosmic from foreground signals.

Foreground polarization above 40 GHz is faint: fitting the correlation functions at 41, 61, and 94 GHz (Q, V, and W bands) to a single power-law $`C^{IQ}(\theta ,\nu )=C_0^{IQ}(\theta )(\nu /\nu _0)^\beta `$ yields spectral index $`\beta =0.4\pm 0.4`$, consistent with a CMB signal ($`\beta =0`$) and inconsistent with the spectral indices expected for synchrotron ($`\beta 3`$), spinning dust ($`\beta 2`$), or thermal dust ($`\beta 2`$). The measured signal can not be produced solely by a single foreground emission component (unless the fractional polarization of the foreground emission has a compensating frequency dependence, which seems unlikely).

A two-component fit

$$C^{IQ}(\theta ,\nu )=C_{\mathrm{CMB}}^{IQ}(\theta )+C_{\mathrm{Gal}}^{IQ}(\theta )\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _0}\right)^\beta $$
(8)
tests for the superposition of a CMB component with a single foreground component. Figure 4 shows the resulting decomposition into CMB and foreground components. We obtain a marginal detection of foreground component with best-fit spectral index $`\beta =3.7\pm 0.8`$ consistent with synchrotron emission. We test for consistency or possible residual systematic errors by repeating the fit using different temperature maps and different combinations of WMAP polarization channels. The fitted CMB component (left panels of Fig. 4) is robust against all combinations of frequency channels and fitting techniques. Note the agreement in Fig. 4 between nearly independent data sets: the co-added QVW data (uncorrected for foreground emission) and the KKaQ data (corrected for foreground emission). We obtain additional confirmation by replacing the V-band temperature map in the cross-correlation (Eq. 6) with the “internal linear combination” temperature map designed to suppress foreground emission (Bennett et al., 2003c). The fitted CMB component does not change. We test for systematic errors by replacing the temperature map with the COBE-DMR map of the CMB temperature (Bennett et al., 1996), excluding any instrumental correlation between the temperature and polarization data. Again, the results are unchanged.

We further constrain foreground contributions by computing the cross-correlation between the WMAP polarization data and temperature maps dominated by foregrounds. We replace the temperature map in Eq. 6 with either the WMAP maximum-entropy foreground model (Bennett et al., 2003c) or a “residual” foreground map created by subtracting the internal linear combination CMB map from the individual WMAP temperature maps. We then correlate the foreground temperature map against the WMAP polarization data in each frequency band, and fit the resulting correlation functions to CMB and foreground components (Eq. 8). The two foreground maps provide nearly identical results. The fitted CMB component has nearly zero amplitude, consistent with the instrument noise. The fitted foreground has amplitude $`0.5\pm 0.1\mu `$K2 at $`\nu _0`$ = 41 GHz, with best-fit index $`\beta =3.4`$ consistent with synchrotron emission.

## 3 POLARIZATION CROSS-POWER SPECTRA

In a second analysis method, we compute the angular power spectrum of the temperature-polarization correlations using a quadratic estimator (Appendix A). The power spectrum is the Legendre transform of the two-point correlation function, and is more commonly encountered for theoretical predictions. We compute $`c_l^{TE}`$ and $`c_l^{TB}`$ individually for the each WMAP frequency band, using uniform weight for the temperature map and noise weight for the polarization maps. We then combine the angular power spectra, using noise-weighted QVW data for $`l>21`$ where foregrounds are insignificant, and a fit to CMB plus foregrounds using all 5 frequency bands for $`l21`$. Since foreground contamination is weak, we gain additional sensitivity in this analysis by using the Kp2 sky cut retaining 85% of the sky.

We estimate the uncertainty in each $`l`$ bin using the covariance matrix $`𝐌`$ for the polarization cross-power spectrum. Based on our analysis of the $`c_l^{TT}`$ covariance matrix (Hinshaw et al., 2003b), the $`c_l^{TE}`$ covariance matrix has the form along the diagonal of

$`𝐌_{ll}`$ $`=`$ $`<c_l^{TE}c_l^{TE}><c_l^{TE}>^2`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(c_l^{TT}+n_{TT}/w_l)(c_l^{EE}+n_{EE}/w_l)+(c_l^{TE})^2}{(2l+1)f_{sky}f_{sky}^{\mathrm{eff}}}}`$
where $`n_{TT}`$ and $`n_{EE}`$ are the TT and EE noise bias terms, $`w_l`$ is the effective window function for the combined maps (Page et al., 2003a), $`c_l^{TT}`$ and $`c_l^{EE}`$ are the temperature and polarization angular power spectra, $`f_{sky}=0.85`$ is the fractional sky coverage for the Kp2 mask, and $`f_{sky}^{\mathrm{eff}}=f_{sky}/1.14`$ for noise weighting. We take the $`c_l^{TT}`$ term from the measured temperature power spectra (Hinshaw et al., 2003b) and the $`c_l^{EE}`$ term predicted by the best-fit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (Spergel et al., 2003) (allowing $`c_l^{EE}`$ to vary as a function of optical depth in the likelihood analysis). Figure 5 compares the analytic expression for the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix to the mean derived from 7500 Monte Carlo simulations. The analytic form (Eq. 10) accurately describes the simulations. We approximate the off-diagonal terms using the geometric mean of the covariance matrix terms for uniform and noise weighting (Hinshaw et al., 2003b),111 Note that Hinshaw et al. (2003b) define off-diagonal elements in terms of the inverse covariance matrix, which differs from $`r_{\mathrm{\Delta }l}`$ by a sign.

$$𝐌_{ll^{}}(𝐌_{ll}𝐌_{l^{}l^{}})^{0.5}r_{\mathrm{\Delta }l}.$$
(11)
Figure 6 shows the off-diagonal terms $`r_{\mathrm{\Delta }l}`$ measured from Monte Carlo simulations. The largest contribution, $`2.8\%`$, is at $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=2`$ from the symmetry of our sky cut and noise coverage. The total anticorrelation is $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }l0}r_{\mathrm{\Delta }l}=0.124`$. Because of this anti-correlation, the error bars for the binned $`c_l^{TE}`$ are slightly smaller than the naive estimate. A second method of estimating the errors relies on end-to-end simulations derived from simulated time-ordered data consisting solely of instrument noise (including the estimated contribution from $`1/f`$ fluctuations). We have generated 11 “noise” sky maps each in Stokes $`I`$, $`Q`$, and $`U`$ and compute the variance in TE directly from the variance in the simulated signal. These two approaches yield errors that are consistent to better than 5%. Since there are $`2l+1`$ multipoles at each $`l`$ value, the fractional uncertainty expected in the Monte Carlo variance is $`[2/(11(2l+1)f_{sky})]^{0.5}`$, in agreement with this result.

Figure 7 shows the polarization cross-power spectra for the WMAP one-year data. The solid line shows the predicted signal for adiabatic CMB perturbations, based only on a fit to the measured temperature angular power spectrum $`c_l^{TT}`$ (Spergel et al., 2003; Hinshaw et al., 2003b). Two features are apparent. The TE data on degree angular scales ($`l>20`$) are in excellent agreement with a priori predictions of adiabatic models (Coulson et al., 1994). Other than the specification of adiabatic perturbations, there are no free parameters – the solid line is not a fit to $`c_l^{TE}`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ of 24.2 for 23 degrees of freedom indicates that the CMB anisotropy is dominated by adiabatic perturbations. On large angular scales ($`l<20`$) the data show excess power compared to adiabatic models, suggesting significant reionization.

The WMAP detection of the acoustic structure in the TE spectrum confirms several basic elements of the standard paradigm. The amplitudes of the peak and anti-peak are a measure of the thickness of the decoupling surface, while the shape confirms the assumption that the primordial fluctuations are adiabatic. Adiabatic fluctuations predict a temperature/polarization signal anticorrelated on large scales, with TE peaks and anti-peaks located midway between the temperature peaks Hu & Sugiyama (1994). The existence of TE correlations on degree angular scales also provides evidence for super-horizon temperature fluctuations at decoupling, as expected for inflationary models of cosmology (Peiris et al., 2003)

## 4 TEMPLATE POWER SPECTRA

Figure 7 demonstrates that the power spectrum of temperature-polarization correlations on degree angular scales can be predicted using the power spectrum of the temperature fluctuations alone. We use this for a third derivation of the TE cross-power spectrum, based on template matching in pixel space. For pixel sizes of a few degrees, the signal-to-noise ratio for the temperature maps is much larger than one per multipole, while the S/N ratio in the polarization maps is much less than one. The likelihood function for the polarization measurement then has the simple form

$$\mathrm{log}=(\widehat{P}\underset{l}{}\alpha _l\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{pred}}^l)^TN^1(\widehat{P}\underset{l}{}\alpha _l\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{pred}}^l),$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{P}`$ is the measured polarization signal (a 2 $`N_{\mathrm{pixel}}`$ vector), $`\alpha _l=c_l^{TE}/c_l^{TT}`$ is the polarization fraction at each $`l`$, $`N`$ is the pixel noise correlation matrix (a $`2N_{\mathrm{pixel}}\times 2N_{\mathrm{pixel}}`$ matrix) and

$`Q_{pred}^l(\widehat{n})={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}a_{lm}(_2Y_{lm}(\widehat{n})+_2Y_{lm}(\widehat{n}))`$
$`U_{pred}^l(\widehat{n})=i{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}a_{lm}(_2Y_{lm}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}(\widehat{n})).`$ (13)
Here $`{}_{\pm 2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})`$ are the spin harmonics, while $`a_{lm}`$ are the measured coefficients for an all-sky map of the CMB temperature. Imposing a cut to mask the Galactic plane introduces additional correlations; we avoid this by using the “internal” linear combination temperature map (Bennett et al., 2003c) without imposing a sky cut.

The maps $`Q_{pred}`$ and $`U_{pred}`$ represent the predicted polarization pattern based on the observed pattern of temperature anisotropy. We fit these template maps to the observed $`Q`$ and $`U`$ polarization maps to derive the polarization fraction $`\alpha _l`$ and thus the $`c_l^{TE}`$ polarization cross-power spectrum. Minimizing the likelihood function yields the normal equations

$$K_{ll^{}}\alpha _l^{}=y_l,$$
(14)
where

$$y_l=\widehat{P}N^1\widehat{P}_{pred}^l$$
(15)
and

$$K_{ll^{}}=\widehat{P}_{pred}^lN^1\widehat{P}_{pred}^l^{}.$$
(16)
These equations show the advantages of this approach. We compare the data with a template in pixel space, making it straightforward to include a spatially varying noise signal. We directly compare the measured polarization maps to a prediction based on the measured temperature maps, yielding a measurement of the TE polarization cross-power spectrum in the observed sky unaffected by cosmic variance. We can thus more easily compute the errors on the measured polarization fraction. The input temperature map (Stokes $`I`$) is already corrected for foreground emission (much simpler in pixel space where the unpolarized foregrounds are more easily measured), greatly reducing the foreground contribution to the cross-power spectra.

We thus compute the temperature-polarization cross-correlation using three disparate techniques: the two-point angular correlation function, a quadratic estimator for the power spectrum in Fourier space, and a template fit in pixel space. All methods are in good agreement despite their very dissimilar treatment of the data. All methods show a significant excess of power for $`l<10`$.

## 5 REIONIZATION

WMAP detects statistically significant correlations between the CMB temperature and polarization. The signal on degree angular scales ($`l>20`$) agrees with the signal expected in adiabatic models based solely on the temperature power spectrum, without any additional free parameters. We also detect power on large angular scales ($`l<10`$) well in excess of the signal predicted by the temperature power spectrum alone. This signal can not be explained by data processing, systematic errors, or foreground polarization, and has a frequency spectrum consistent with a cosmological origin.

The signal on large angular scales has a natural interpretation as the signature of early reionization.222 Although tensor modes can also generate TE correlations at large angular scales, tensor-to-scalar ratios $`r`$ large enough to fit the WMAP TE data are ruled out by the WMAP TT data (Spergel et al., 2003). Both the temperature and temperature-polarization power spectra can be related to the power spectrum of the radiation field during scattering (Zaldarriaga, 1997). Thomson scattering damps the temperature anisotropy and regenerates a polarized signal on scales comparable to the horizon. The existence of polarization on scales much larger than the acoustic horizon at decoupling implies significant scattering at more recent epochs.

### 5.1 Reionization in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM Universe

If we assume that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model is the best description of the physics of the early universe, we can fit the observed temperature-polarization cross-power spectrum to derive the optical depth $`\tau `$. We assume a step function for the ionization fraction $`x_e`$ and use the CMBFAST code (Seljak & Zaldarriaga, 1996) to predict the multipole moments as a function of optical depth. While this assumption is simplistic, our conclusions on optical depth are not very sensitive to details of the reionization history or the background cosmology.

Figure 8 compares the polarization cross-power spectrum $`c_l^{TE}`$ derived from the quadratic estimator to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models with and without reionization. The rise in power for $`l<10`$ is clearly inconsistent with no reionization. We quantify this using a maximum-likelihood analysis

$$\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\chi ^2)}{|𝐌|^{1/2}}.$$
(17)
Figure 9 shows the relative likelihood $`/\mathrm{Max}()`$ for the optical depth $`\tau `$ assuming a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, with all other parameters fixed at the values derived from the temperature power spectrum alone (Spergel et al., 2003). The likelihood for the 5-band data corrected for foreground emission peaks at $`\tau =0.17\pm 0.03`$ (statistical error only): WMAP detects the signal from reionization at high statistical confidence.

A full error analysis for $`\tau `$ must account for systematic errors and foreground uncertainties. We propagate these effects by repeating the maximum likelihood analysis using different combinations of WMAP frequency bands and different systematic error corrections. We correct $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$ in each frequency band not for the best estimate of the systematic error templates, but rather the best estimate plus or minus one standard deviation. We then fit the mis-corrected $`C^{IQ}(\theta ,\nu )`$ for a CMB piece plus a foreground piece (Eq. 8) and use the CMB piece in a maximum-likelihood analysis for $`\tau `$. The change in the best-fit value for $`\tau `$ as we vary the systematic error corrections propagates the uncertainties in these corrections. Systematic errors have a negligible effect on the fitted optical depth; altering the systematic error corrections changes the best-fit values of $`\tau `$ by less than 0.01.

The largest non-random uncertainty is the foreground separation. We assess the uncertainty in the foreground separation by repeating the entire systematic error analysis (using both standard and altered systematic error corrections) with the foreground spectral index $`\beta =3.7\pm 0.8`$ shifted one standard deviation up or down from the best-fit value. Table 2 shows the fitted optical depth $`\tau `$ and goodness-of-fit statistic $`\chi ^2`$ for different data combinations and foreground spectral indices derived from the analysis of the two-point correlation function $`C^{IQ}(\theta )`$. The first set of rows shows values derived by simply co-adding the WMAP frequency channels, without any correction for foregrounds. Data at 41, 61, and 94 GHz (Q, V, and W bands) where foregrounds are negligible show similar values for $`\tau `$; the $`\chi ^266`$ for 57 degrees of freedom indicates that the data are in agreement with reionized models. Adding additional low-frequency channels reduces the formal statistical uncertainty, but introduces non-zero foreground contamination as shown by the marked increase in $`\chi ^2`$. The next three sets of rows show the results when the data are separated into CMB and foreground components (Eq. 8). All data combinations are now in agreement; we obtain nearly identical values for $`\tau `$ when fitting either the highest-frequency data set QVW or the lowest-frequency set KKaQ. The fitted optical depth is insensitive to the spectral index: varying the spectral index from -2.9 to -4.5 changes the fitted values by 0.02 or less. We adopt $`\tau =0.17\pm 0.04`$ as the best estimate for the optical depth to reionization, where the error bar reflects a 68% confidence level interval including statistical, systematic, and foreground uncertainties.

Spergel et al. (2003) include the TE data in a maximum-likelihood analysis combining WMAP data with other astronomical measurements. The resulting value, $`\tau =0.17\pm 0.06`$, is consistent with the value derived from the TE data alone. The larger uncertainty reflects the effect of simultaneously fitting multiple parameters. The TE analysis propagates foreground uncertainties by re-evaluating the likelihood using different foreground spectral index. Since foreground affect only the lowest multipoles, the combined analysis propagates foreground uncertainty by doubling the statistical uncertainty in $`c_l^{TE}`$ for $`2l4`$ to account for this effect.

### 5.2 Model-Independent Estimate

An alternative approach avoids assuming any cosmological model and uses the measured temperature angular correlation function to determine the radiation power spectrum at recombination. This approach assumes that the best estimate of the three dimensional radiation power spectrum is the measured angular power spectrum rather than a model fit to the angular power spectrum. Given the observed temperature power spectrum $`c_l^{TT}`$, we derive the predicted polarization cross-power spectrum $`c_l^{TE}`$4), which we then fit to the observed TE spectrum as a function of optical depth $`\tau `$. We obtain $`\tau =0.16\pm 0.04`$, in excellent agreement with the value derived assuming a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology. We emphasize that the model-independent technique makes no assumptions about the cosmology. The fact that it agrees well with the best-fit model from the combined temperature and polarization data (Spergel et al., 2003) is an additional indication that the observed temperature-polarization correlations on large angular scales represent the imprint of physical conditions at reionization. The dependence on the underlying cosmology is small.

### 5.3 Early Star Formation

Reionization can also be expressed as a redshift $`z_r`$ assuming an ionization history. We consider two simple cases. For instantaneous reionization with ionization fraction $`x_e=1`$ at $`z<z_r`$, the measured optical depth corresponds to redshift $`z_r=17\pm 3`$. This conflicts with measurements of the Gunn-Peterson absorption trough in spectra of distant quasars, which show neutral hydrogen present at $`z6`$ (Becker, 2001; Djorgovski et al., 2001; Fan, 2002). Reionization clearly did not occur through a single rapid phase transition. However, since absorption spectra are sensitive to even small amounts of neutral hydrogen, models with partial ionization $`x_e1`$ can have enough neutral column density to produce the Gunn-Peterson trough while still providing free electrons to scatter CMB photons and produce large-scale polarization. Direct Gunn-Peterson observations only imply a neutral hydrogen fraction $``$ 1% (Fan, 2002). Accordingly, we modify the simplest model to add a second transition: a jump from $`x_e=0`$ to $`x_e=0.5`$ at redshift $`z_r`$, followed by a second transition from $`x_e=0.5`$ to $`x_e=1`$ at redshift $`z=7`$. Fitting this model to the measured optical depth yields $`z_r20`$. In reality, reionization is more complicated than simple step transitions. Allowing for model uncertainty, the measured optical depth is consistent with reionization at redshift $`11<z_r<30`$, corresponding to times $`100<t_r<400`$ Myr after the Big Bang (95% confidence).

Extrapolations of the observed ionizing flux to higher redshift lead to predicted CMB optical depth between $`0.040.08`$ (Miralda-Escude, 2002), lower than our best fit values. The measured optical depth thus implies additional sources of ionizing flux at high redshift. An early generation of very massive (Pop III) stars could provide the required additional heating. Tegmark (1997) estimate that $`10^3`$ of all baryons should be in collapsed objects by $`z=30`$. If these baryons form massive stars, they would reionize the universe. However, photons below the hydrogen ionization threshold will destroy molecular hydrogen (the principal vehicle for cooling in early stars), driving the effective mass threshold for star formation to $`10^8`$ solar masses and impeding subsequent star formation (Haiman et al., 1997; Gnedin & Ostriker, 1997; Tegmark, 1997). X-ray heating and ionization (Venkatesan et al., 2001; Oh, 2001) may provide a loophole to this argument by enhancing the formation of $`H_2`$ molecules (Haiman et al., 2000).

Cen (2003) provides a physically-motivated model of “double reionization” that resembles the two-step model above. A first generation of massive Pop III stars initially ionizes the intergalactic medium. The increased metallicity of the intergalactic medium then produces a transition to smaller Pop II stars, after which the reduced ionizing flux allows regeneration of a neutral hydrogen fraction. The ionization fraction remains at $`x_e0.6`$ until the global star formation rate surpasses the recombination rate at $`z=6`$, restoring $`x_e=1`$. The predicted value $`\tau =0.10\pm 0.03`$ should be increased somewhat to reflect the higher WMAP values for the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ and normalization $`\sigma _8`$ (Spergel et al., 2003). The contribution from ionized helium will also serve to increase $`\tau `$ (Venkatesan et al., 2003; Wyithe & Loeb, 2003). The WMAP determination of the optical depth indicates that ionization history must be more complicated than a simple instantaneous step function. While physically plausible models can reproduce the observed optical depth, reionization remains a complex process and can not be fully characterized by a single number. A more complete determination of the ionization history requires evaluation of the detailed $`TE`$ and $`EE`$ power spectra (Kaplinghat et al., 2003; Hu & Holder, 2003).

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

WMAP detects statistically significant correlations between the temperature and polarization maps. The correlations are inconsistent with instrument noise and are significantly larger than the upper limits established for potential systematic errors. The correlations are present in all WMAP frequency bands with similar amplitude from 23 to 94 GHz; fitting the data to a single power-law in frequency yields a spectral index $`\beta =0.4\pm 0.4`$, consistent with a CMB signal ($`\beta =0`$) and inconsistent with the measured spectral indices for Galactic foreground emission. A two-component fit to a superposition of CMB and Galactic foregrounds yields a positive foreground detection in both curl- and curl-free modes, with best-fit spectral index $`\beta =3.7\pm 0.8`$ consistent with synchrotron emission of amplitude $`0.5\pm 0.1\mu \mathrm{K}^2`$ antenna temperature at 41 GHz.

The fitted CMB component is robust against different data combinations and fitting techniques. On small angular scales $`(\theta <5\mathrm{°})`$, the WMAP data show the temperature-polarization expected from adiabatic perturbations in the temperature power spectrum. The data for $`\mathrm{}>20`$ agree well with the signal predicted solely from the temperature power spectra, with no additional free parameters.

The data show excess power on large angular scales ($`\theta >10\mathrm{°}`$) compared to the predictions based on the temperature power spectrum alone. The excess power is well described by early reionization at redshift $`z_r=20_9^{+10}`$, corresponding to times $`t_r=180_{80}^{+220}`$ Myr after the Big Bang (95% confidence). A model-independent fit to reionization optical depth yields results consistent with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. Our best estimate for the optical depth is $`\tau =0.17\pm 0.04`$ (68% confidence) where the error terms include statistical, systematic, and foreground uncertainties. This value is larger than expected given the detection of a Gunn-Peterson trough in the absorption spectra of distant quasars, and implies that the universe has a complex ionization history.

The WMAP detection of early reionization opens a new frontier to explore the universe at redshift $`6<z<30`$. WMAP’s sensitivity to reionization is currently limited by instrument noise, both as direct statistical uncertainty and in the ability to better model and remove faint polarized foregrounds. Instrumental effects do not limit analysis of temperature-polarization correlations. The TE power spectrum and covariance matrix are available at http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov. We are currently performing a more complete set of systematic error analyses in the individual $`Q`$ and $`U`$ maps. A future data release will include full-sky polarization maps and polarization power spectra.

The WMAP mission is made possible by the support of the Office of Space Sciences at NASA Headquarters and by the hard and capable work of scores of scientists, engineers, technicians, machinists, data analysts, budget analysts, managers, administrative staff, and reviewers.

## Appendix A Quadratic Estimator for Temperature-Polarization Power Spectrum

We estimate the temperature-polarization power spectrum from pixelized sky maps using the following formalism. We begin by expanding the temperature and polarization fluctuations in generalized spherical harmonics

$$T(\widehat{n})=\underset{lm}{}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\widehat{n})$$
(A1)
$$Q(\widehat{n})\pm iU(\widehat{n})=\underset{lm}{}a_{2,lm}{}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})$$
(A2)
We then decompose the polarization fluctuations into $`E`$ and $`B`$ like pieces

$$a_{\pm 2,lm}=E_{lm}\pm iB_{lm}.$$
(A3)
We can use the basic properties of the spherical harmonics

$`{}_{N}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)_N^NY_{lm}^{}`$ (A4)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{n}_NY_{lm}(\widehat{n})_NY_{l^{}m^{}}^{}(\widehat{n})}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _l^l^{}\delta _m^m^{}`$ (A5)
to derive

$`E_{lm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{n}}`$ $`[Q(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})+_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)`$
$`iU(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)]`$
$`B_{lm}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{n}}`$ $`[U(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})+_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)`$ (A6)
$`+iQ(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)].`$
We can now generalize the approach of Hivon et al. (2002) to estimate the coupling terms. We multiply the temperature and polarization maps by a weighting function

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{n}w^T(\widehat{n})T(\widehat{n})Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})}`$ (A7)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d\widehat{n}w^P(\widehat{n})[Q(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})+_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)`$ (A8)
$`iU(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d\widehat{n}w^P(\widehat{n})[U(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})+_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)`$ (A9)
$`+iQ(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)].`$
We expand the weighting function in spherical harmonics

$$w(\widehat{n})=\underset{lm}{}w_{lm}Y_{lm}(\widehat{n}),$$
(A10)
and combine with equations A1A3 to yield

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}{}}w_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}^TT_{l^{}m^{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{n}Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{n})Y_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{n})Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}{}}w_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}^P[E_{l^{}m^{}}{\displaystyle }d\widehat{n}Y_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})+_2Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)`$
$`+iB_{lm}{\displaystyle }d\widehat{n}Y_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}{}}w_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}^P[B_{l^{}m^{}}{\displaystyle }d\widehat{n}Y_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})+_2Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)`$ (A11)
$`iE_{lm}{\displaystyle }d\widehat{n}Y_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{n})\left({}_{2}{}^{}Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{n})_2Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})\right)].`$
We can then use

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{n}_NY_{lm}^{}(\widehat{n})_N^{}Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{n})_{N^{\prime \prime }}Y_{l^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime }}(\widehat{n})}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{N+m}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2l+1)(2l^{}+1)(2l^{\prime \prime }+1)}{4\pi }}\right]^{1/2}`$ (A16)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ N& N^{}& N^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ m& m^{}& m^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)`$
to compute

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}_l^{TT}\\ \stackrel{~}{c}_l^{TE}\\ \stackrel{~}{c}_l^{TB}\\ \stackrel{~}{c}_l^{EE}\\ \stackrel{~}{c}_l^{BB}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \\ & & M_{ll^{}}^{ab}& & \\ & & & & \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_l^{}^{TT}\\ c_l^{}^{TE}\\ c_l^{}^{TB}\\ c_l^{}^{EE}\\ c_l^{}^{BB}\end{array}\right).$$
(A17)
These expressions can be reduced using the symmetry and orthogonality properties of 3-$`j`$ symbols, as given in Eqs. 1.8 and 1.14 of Rotenberg et al. (1959). In particular, imaginary terms drop out, and summations over products of 3-$`j`$ symbols with $`m`$, $`m^{}`$ and $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ in the bottom row evaluate to $`1/(2l^{\prime \prime }+1)`$. After some algebra, the coupling terms reduce to

$`M_{ll^{}}^{TT,TT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2l^{}+1)}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{\prime \prime }}{}}𝒲_{l^{\prime \prime }}^{TT}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)^2`$ (A20)
$`M_{ll^{}}^{TE,TE}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{ll^{}}^{TB,TB}`$ (A28)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(2l^{}+1)}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{\prime \prime }}{}}𝒲_{l^{\prime \prime }}^{TP}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)\right]`$
$`M_{ll^{}}^{EE,EE}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{ll^{}}^{BB,BB}`$ (A39)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(2l^{}+1)}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{\prime \prime }}{}}𝒲_{l^{\prime \prime }}^{PP}\left[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)\right]`$
$`\times \left[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)\right]`$
$`M_{ll^{}}^{EE,BB}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{ll^{}}^{BB,EE}`$ (A50)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(2l^{}+1)}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{\prime \prime }}{}}𝒲_{l^{\prime \prime }}^{PP}\left[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)\right]`$
$`\times \left[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}l& l^{}& l^{\prime \prime }\\ 2& 2& 0\end{array}\right)\right]`$
where

$$𝒲_l^{ab}=\underset{m}{}w_{lm}^aw_{lm}^b,$$
(A51)
with $`a`$ and $`b`$ referring to either $`T`$ or $`P`$. All of the other coupling terms are zero. Note that if we use different weighting functions for $`T`$, $`Q`$ and $`U`$, we increase the coupling between $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes.

## Appendix B Uniform Temperature Weighting

If we use the full sky to compute the temperature spherical harmonic terms, then the cross-correlation term and its error matrix becomes particularly simple. For this case, $`w_{00}^T=1/\sqrt{4\pi }`$ and all other coupling terms are 0. In this limit, the measured $`c_l^{}^{TE}`$ is just a constant times the true $`c_l^{TE}`$

$$c_l^{TE}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}_l^{TE}}{f}$$
(B1)
where

$$f=w_E(\widehat{n})\frac{d\widehat{n}}{4\pi }$$
(B2)
The covariance matrix for these terms are diagonal.

$$𝐌_{ll}=\frac{c_l^{TT}\stackrel{~}{c}_l^{EE}}{(2l+1)f^2}$$
(B3)


format: text

text:
# Residual absorption at zero temperature in 𝑑-wave superconductors

## I Introduction

Recent measurementsturner  of the microwave conductivity up to $`21`$GHz at low temperatures in single crystal oxygen ordered ortho-II YBa2Cu3O6.5 (YBCO) have revealed that there remains significant absorption at $`T=0`$ in the superconducting state, while at the same time the inverse square of the penetration depth shows a linear in temperature behavior. In the regime where this happens, the real part of the optical conductivity $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ shows an unusual characteristic upward curvature very different from a Drude-like form. Anomalous residual absorption has also been seen in the past in THz work on thin films of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (Bi2212)corson  and in this case was interpreted as due to coupling to a collective mode, with the spectral weight of this mode tracking the temperature dependence of the superfluid density.

In a pure $`d`$-wave BCS superconductor all of the optical spectral weight will go into the condensate at $`T=0`$ providing a delta function to the real part of the conductivity at zero frequency. This follows from the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham sum ruleferrell ; tinkham  which holds when the kinetic energy change between normal and superconducting state is negligible. When elastic impurity scattering is introduced into the system, this no longer holds. Some optical spectral weight will remain at finite frequency under the real part of the conductivity at $`T=0`$ and correspondingly, the superfluid density will be reduced below its pure limit value. At the same time, however, in the unitary (strong) limit of impurity scattering which is the most studied case so far, a switch from linear to quadratic behavior in temperature is expected for the penetration depth. In this work we consider the case when the impurity scattering strength falls in the intermediate regime between Born (weak) and unitary (strong) limit. We find that for a range of impurity parameters, i.e.: concentration and strength of the potential measured in terms of the width of the electronic band, the residual, impurity induced absorption remains very significant, while at the same time the superfluid density obeys a quasilinear law over the entire low temperature range and, more importantly, $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ shows anomalous behavior in agreement with the experimental observation in ortho-II YBCO.

## II Formalism

The general expression for the optical conductivity at temperature $`T`$ and frequency $`\nu `$ is well known and has been given in many places.mars1 ; schur ; schach1 ; schach2 ; hirschf1  It can be written as:

$$\sigma (T,\nu )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2}{4\pi }\left[\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{2}\right)J_\theta (\omega ,\nu )+\underset{\nu }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta (\omega +\nu )}{2}\right)J_\theta (\omega \nu ,\nu )\right]_\theta ,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is the plasma frequency and the function $`J_\theta (\omega ,\nu )`$ takes on the form

$`2J_\theta (\omega ,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_1+E_2}}\left[1N(\theta ,\omega )N(\theta ,\omega +\nu )P(\theta ,\omega )P(\theta ,\omega +\nu )\right]`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_1^{}E_2}}\left[1+N^{}(\theta ,\omega )N(\theta ,\omega +\nu )+P^{}(\theta ,\omega )P(\theta ,\omega +\nu )\right].`$
In Eq. (1) $`\beta =1/k_BT`$, with $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann factor and $`T`$ the temperature. In Eq. (2)

$`E_1(\theta ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2(\omega +i0^+)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(\theta ,\omega )},`$
$`E_2(\theta ,\omega ,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`E_1(\theta ,\omega +\nu ),`$
and

$$N(\theta ,\omega )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega +i0^+)}{E_1(\theta ,\omega )},P(\theta ,\omega )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta ,\omega )}{E_1(\theta ,\omega )}.$$

Here $`\theta `$ is the angle giving the direction of momentum on the Fermi surface in the two dimensional CuO2 Brillouin zone. In BCS the gap does not depend on frequency $`\omega `$ and has the form $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\theta ,\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }(T)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ a temperature dependent amplitude. The angular bracket $`\mathrm{}_\theta `$ indicates an average over angle $`\theta `$.

The renormalized frequencies $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega )`$ do not depend on angle but are changed because of the elastic impurity scattering which is the only scattering processes accounted for. The equation for $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega +i0^+)`$ in a $`t`$-matrix approximation isschur ; schach1 ; schach2 ; hirschf1 ; hirschf2

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega +i0^+)=\omega +i\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^+\frac{N(\theta ,\omega )_\theta }{c^2+N(\theta ,\omega )_\theta ^2}.$$
(3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is proportional to the impurity concentration and $`c=1/\left(2\pi N(0)V_{imp}\right)`$ with $`N(0)`$ the normal band density of states at the Fermi surface and $`V_{imp}`$ the impurity potential. An important parameter is $`\gamma `$ defined as $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega +i0^+)`$ at $`\omega =0`$ which is shown in the bottom frame of Fig. 4. For small values of $`V_{imp}`$, Born’s approximation applies and $`c\mathrm{}`$ with $`t^+=\mathrm{\Gamma }^+/c^2`$ and the impurity term in Eq. (3) becomes proportional to $`N(\theta ,\omega )_\theta `$, its real part is the superconducting state density of states $`(N_s(\omega ))`$, while for large values of $`V_{imp}`$, $`(c0)`$ it is inversely proportional to $`N(\theta ,\omega )_\theta )`$ (unitary limit). Both Born and unitary limit are extreme and a finite $`c`$ is more realistic. As $`N(0)`$ is roughly inversely proportional to the electronic band width $`(W)`$, we have $`V_{imp}W/(2\pi c)`$. For $`c=0.2`$ the corresponding $`V_{imp}`$ is 1.3 times the band width.

## III Results and Discussion

The quasiparticle density of states $`N_s(\omega )`$ for a $`d`$-wave superconductor in the case of a finite value of $`c=0.2`$ is shown

in Fig. 1 (top frame). The gap amplitude was set at $`24\sqrt{2}`$meV and the impurity parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ was varied from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.01`$meV (solid), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.05`$meV (dashed), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.1`$meV (dotted), and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.15`$meV (dash-dotted). Clearly, impurities affect most strongly the low energy region near $`\omega =0`$ up to, say, $`10`$meV. The pure limit, a straight line through the origin is approached as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is reduced, but even for the smallest value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.01`$meV, changes in $`N_s(\omega )`$ persist up to $`\omega 4`$meV. It is the behavior of $`N_s(\omega )`$ in the low energy range which determines low temperature properties such as the specific heat. The behavior found for a finite $`c`$ could not be inferred from a knowledge of the unitary or Born limit. In the Born limit the deviation from linearity would only occur at an exponentially small value of $`\omega `$. Results for the unitary limit are shown in the middle frame and are seen to be very different from the top frame. The energy dependence of the quasiparticle lifetime of Eq. (3) $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega +i0^+)`$ is shown in the bottom frame of Fig. 1. For $`c=0`$, the scattering rate has its maximum at $`\omega =0`$ and then drops monotonically as $`\omega `$ increases. For the larger values of $`c`$ shown here this is no longer the case. A maximum in scattering rate occurs around $`\omega \stackrel{<}{}8`$meV which is much larger than its value at $`\omega =0`$ (denoted $`\gamma `$).

The real part of the optical conductivity for a $`d`$-wave BCS superconductor is shown in Fig. 2

in units of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2/8\pi `$. Five values of temperature are considered, namely $`T=0`$K (short dotted line) $`T=5`$K (solid), $`T=10`$K (dashed), $`T=15`$K (dotted), and $`T=20`$K (dash-dotted). The $`d`$-wave gap amplitude was set at $`24\sqrt{2}`$meV. The top frame applies to an intermediate scattering case with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.01`$meV and $`c=0.3`$. The bottom frame is for comparison and shows unitary limit results $`(c=0)`$. The real part of the optical conductivity $`\sigma _1(T,\omega )`$ vs $`\omega `$ up to $`1`$meV, is radically different in the two cases. For $`c=0.3`$ the finite $`T`$ curves are concave up and drop rapidly with increasing $`\omega `$ and show a very narrow half-width in qualitative agreement with the experiments by Turner et al.turner  and Hosseini et al.hoss  The concave upward nature of these curves is due to the energy dependence of the quasiparticle scattering rate obtained from Eq. (3). These curves all correspond to the temperature dominated regime $`T\gamma `$ (see Fig. 4, bottom frame). Their half width is not related to the value of $`\gamma `$ but rather to temperature which samples the important energy dependence in $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega +i0^+)`$. The $`T=0`$ curve is impurity dominated and, consequently, shows a qualitatively different behavior. It cannot be obtained from an extrapolation to $`T=0`$ of the finite $`T`$ curves shown. These conductivity curves are in qualitative agreement with the experimental findings.turner  In the unitary limit the curves show instead a concave downward behavior at small $`\omega `$ and a broad half-width. This can be traced to the fact that the zero frequency scattering rate $`\gamma `$, is a rapidly increasing function of decreasing $`c`$ as is seen in the bottom frame of Fig. 4. For the unitary limit $`\gamma `$ is greater than its normal state value $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and is given by the well known relation $`\gamma 0.63\sqrt{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}`$ while in the Born limit $`\gamma `$ is exponentially dependent on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ ($`\gamma (c\mathrm{})=4\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_N)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N=\mathrm{\Gamma }^+/c^2`$.)

The quantity of interest is the total spectral weight remaining under

the real part of the optical conductivity at temperature $`T`$, $`A(T)=_{0^+}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \sigma _1(T,\omega )`$. Numerical results are presented in Fig. 3 which consists of three frames. The top frame is for $`c=0.3`$ while the middle frame, included for comparison, is for the unitary limit. In both frames $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=24\sqrt{2}`$meV and the temperature range considered is up to $`20`$K $`(t=T/T_c0.11)`$. The solid squares are for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.15`$meV, solid circles $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.1`$meV, and solid triangles $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.05`$meV. The curves show a quasi linear temperature dependence over the entire temperature range considered. This is in sharp contrast to the results in the middle frame. The temperature dependence is now quadratic which is the behavior expected in the unitary limit. In the bottom frame we compare $`A(T)`$ vs $`T`$ with the corresponding results for the penetration depth $`\lambda ^2(0)\lambda ^2(T)`$ vs $`T`$. We see that the two curves are parallel and that the dotted curve goes through zero at the origin. This follows directly from the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham sum rule which is satisfied to within our numerical accuracy. In our computer units the sum rule is

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\omega \sigma _2(T,\omega )+\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{0^+}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \sigma _1(T,\omega )=2,$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _2`$ is the imaginary part of the conductivity. While we have not attempted a best fit to experiment, the results of the bottom frame of Fig. 3 are in qualitative agreement with the findings of Turner et al.turner

Zero temperature values for $`A(0)`$ are shown in the top frame of Fig. 4. The lines

are a guide to the eye through numerical results based on full conductivity calculations. The points are solid down-triangles for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.3`$meV, solid squares for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.15`$meV, solid circles for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.1`$meV, solid up-triangles for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.05`$meV, and solid diamonds for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.01`$meV. In all cases $`A(0)`$, which is entirely due to impurities, drops with increasing $`c`$. It is largest in the unitary limit but remains significant even when $`c`$ has increased to 0.4 provided $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is not too small. In the bottom frame we show $`\gamma (c)`$ vs $`c`$, and stress that it becomes small more rapidly than does $`A(0)`$ as $`c`$ increases; consequently, significant absorption can remain even with small $`\gamma `$. As can be seen in the top frame of Fig. 2, the value of $`A(0)`$, which gives the optical weight under $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$, samples importantly the quasiparticle scattering rate away from $`\omega =0`$ and, thus, $`A(0)`$ is not directly related to $`\gamma (c)`$. There is much more absorption than would be indicated by the value of $`\gamma (c)`$ at the larger values of $`c`$ considered here. This is emphasized by the solid gray line in the top frame of Fig. 4 which corresponds to the results of the approximate formula $`A(0)(\gamma /\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\mathrm{ln}(4\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\gamma )`$ obtained by approximating the $`\omega `$-dependent quasiparticle scattering rate in the exact expression by its $`\omega =0`$ value, i.e.: by $`\gamma (c)`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.15`$meV. Comparison with the full results (solid squares) reveals that the agreement is reasonable for $`c0.1`$, i.e.: the region for which the quasiparticle scattering rate has its maximum at $`\omega =0`$, but fails when its maximum falls instead at finite $`\omega `$ (see Fig. 1, bottom frame).

In their analysis of optical conductivity of thin films of Bi2212 Corson et al.corson  found a remaining spectral weight at $`T=0`$ of about 30% of the corresponding value of the superfluid density. In our language this corresponds to a value of $`A(0)\stackrel{>}{}0.5`$. Corson et al.corson  also found that the remaining optical weight was distributed over a width of order $`12`$K independent of temperature. Reference to the theoretical curves in Fig. 4 shows that this value of $`A(0)`$ (top frame) is rather high for the observed value of the width $`\gamma `$ (bottom frame); the data suggests $`c\stackrel{>}{}0.4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ of the same order as was requiredschach3  to fit the single crystal infrared optical data of Tu et al.tu  in Bi2212, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=0.61`$meV. While Corson et al. interpret their data in terms of extra absorption due to a collective mode, part if not all is due instead to the impurity induced absorption discussed in this paper.

We mention previous work on film of YBa2Cu3O7-δ by Hensen et al.hensen  in which the sizable surface resistance observed at low temperatures and attendant quasi linear temperature dependent superfluid density is seen to be consistent with $`d`$-wave and impurity scattering with a phase shift intermediate between Born and unitary limit. This work, however, is limited to the consideration of a single microwave frequency, namely $`87`$GHz, and thus remains silent on the unusual frequency dependence of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ vs $`\omega `$ found also to be the characteristic of this regime in our theoretical work and in the experimental data of Turner et al.turner

## IV Conclusion

For impurity scattering with a phase shift intermediate between 0 and $`\pi /2`$ we have found a regime in which considerable residual absorption can remain at zero temperature while at the same time the superfluid density is quasilinear in temperature. In addition, and more importantly, in this regime, the real part of the optical conductivity, $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$, exhibits a distinctly non-Drude dependence on frequency in the microwave region. At low, but finite, temperatures $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ vs $`\omega `$ has a cusp like dependence on $`\omega `$ out of $`\omega =0`$, followed by a rapid drop (concave upward curvature) as $`\omega `$ increases. The width at half maximum of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$, which can be very small, varies strongly with temperature. This behavior is traced to the strong energy dependence of quasiparticle lifetime which is sampled in the temperature dominated regime discussed in this work. All aspects of this work are in good qualitative agreement with recent data in ortho-II YBa2Cu3O6.5.

###### Acknowledgements.

Research supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR). J.P.C. thanks D.M. Broun for discussions.


text:
# Radio relics in a cosmological cluster merger simulation

## 1 Introduction

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) inject a large amount of magnetised, relativistic plasma into the intra-cluster medium (ICM). This radio plasma emits mainly synchrotron radiation. However, after a typical time of 108 years the plasma has cooled radiatively such that the remaining radio emission is difficult to detect (e.g. Jaffe (1977)). The remnants of radio lobes are called ‘radio ghosts’ or ‘fossil radio plasma’. Recently, substantial evidence for radio ghosts has come from the detection of cavities in X-ray surface brightness maps of clusters of galaxies (Boehringer et al., 1993; Churazov et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2000; McNamara et al., 2001; Blanton et al., 2001).

Diffuse, steep-spectrum radio sources with no optical identification have been observed in a growing number of galaxy clusters. These objects have complex morphologies that show diffuse and irregular emission in combination with point-like sources. They are usually subdivided into two classes: those that are located near the centre of a cluster, e.g. in Abell 520 and Abell 2254 (Giovannini et al., 1999), and those that are located in the periphery of a cluster, e.g. Abell 85, Abell 133, Abell 3667 (Rottgering et al., 1997; Slee et al., 2001), denoted as ‘radio halos’ and ‘radio relics’, respectively. Unlike halos, radio relics have a filamentary morphology and show a partial polarisation of the radio emission. This distinction, however, is not free of contradictions. The cluster Abell 520, e.g., shows knotty radio structures located in the centre of the cluster’s X-ray emission. The rough classification reflects the poor understanding of the origin of the radio sources and raises the question whether halos and relics are indeed produced by different processes. Radio halos and relics show a steep spectrum $`\alpha 11.8`$ (Kempner & Sarazin, 2001; Bacchi et al., 2003) and the cut-off at high frequencies indicates that the electron population has aged (Slee et al., 2001; Kaiser & Cotter, 2002). For more details on observations of diffuse cluster radio sources the reader is referred to (Kempner & Sarazin, 2001; Giovannini, 1999). The difficulty in explaining the radio emission lies in the lack of an evident source for the relativistic electrons, such as an AGN. The strongest hint for the formation of, both, halos and relics may come from the fact that both are observed in clusters that show signs of an ongoing merger, for instance significant substructures in the X-ray emission or the absence of a cooling flow (Bacchi et al., 2003; Kempner & Sarazin, 2001; Feretti, 1999; Schuecker & Böhringer, 1999; Venturi et al., 1999; Roettiger et al., 1999). In the rest of the paper we will be primarily concerned with radio relics because their formation is believed to be quite different from that of radio halos.

Shock waves that are produced by a merger between clusters of galaxies may provide the necessary acceleration of the electrons. Several processes for the formation of radio relics have been proposed, the two most important being: (i) in-situ diffusive shock acceleration by the Fermi I process (Ensslin et al., 1998; Roettiger et al., 1999; Miniati et al., 2001) and (ii) re-acceleration of electrons by compression of existing cocoons of radio plasma (Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna, 2001). In all the aforementioned scenarios the radio emission traces the shock-front. The fact that radio relics resemble individual objects and do not trace the entire shock front, may provide some indication in favour of the last scenario. Moreover, when a radio ghost is passed by a cluster merger shock wave with a typical velocity of a few 1000 km/s the ghost is compressed adiabatically and not shocked because of the much higher sound speed within it. Therefore, diffusive shock acceleration is unlikely to be the prime mechanism that re-energises the relativistic electron population. However, it has been shown that the energy gained during the adiabatic compression together with the increase in the magnetic fields strength can cause the fossil radio cocoon to emit radio waves again. Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna (2001) showed that the spectra thus produced are consistent with an old electron population that has been adiabatically compressed. With the aid of magneto-hydrodynamical simulations Enßlin & Brüggen (2002) demonstrated that the resulting relics possess a toroidal shape and are partially polarized - in good agreement with observations. One prerequisite for this mechanism to be effective is that the electron population is not older than 0.2 - 2 Gyr (Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna 2001). The time-scale depends on the conditions in the surroundings, mainly the external pressure. In high-pressure environments, such as in cluster cores, the synchrotron losses are expected to be higher than in regions of lower pressure because the magnetic fields in the pressure-confined radio plasma is higher. This leads to a shorter synchrotron cooling time for the fossil radio plasma and a reduced probability to flare up during the passage of a shock.

In this paper we use numerical simulations to study the ICM during a merger of galaxy clusters. Here we focus on the formation of radio relics and study, in particular, whether shock waves, that are associated with the merger, can revive the fossil plasma. The main issues that we would like to address are (i) if radio cocoons that have been produced before the onset of the merger can be revived by shocks, and (ii) where the revived radio plasma is most likely found. To produce radio relics, we apply the formalism suggested by Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna (2001) to high-resolution simulations of a major merger.

## 2 Simulations

We performed high-resolution simulations of mergers between clusters of galaxies using the Gadget (Springel et al., 2001) code, which is a smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code based on a tree-scheme to compute the gravitational interaction. We used the entropy conserving SPH-kernel as proposed by Springel & Hernquist (2002) who found that using the entropy as independent variable results in an improved representation of explosion shock waves.

Gadget provides the possibility to use particles with different masses. This allows us to simulate a cluster merger with a high mass-resolution following the scheme given by Klypin et al. (2001). The simulations are set up according to the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.039`$, and $`h=0.7`$, where the Hubble constant is given by $`100h\mathrm{km},\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. For redshift $`z=50`$ the initial particle positions and velocities are derived using a power spectrum normalised on the $`8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ scale to $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. Initially, a simulation in a computational box of $`80h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ with $`128^3`$ particles is performed. When the simulation arrives at $`z=0`$, a region with a suitable cluster is isolated. In a new simulation the mass-resolution is refined in this region by splitting the particles up into 64 sub-particles. Thus, we achieve a gas mass-resolution of $`3.6\times 10^7h^1M_{}`$ in the cluster region. Following Power et al. (2003) we choose a gravitational softening length for the refined region of $`2h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$. The final cluster is produced by a merger between two progenitors with similar mass, $`1.7\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ and $`1.6\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$, at redshift $`z0.6`$. The collision processes virtually central with a relative speed of $`2000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

We should note that effects of gas cooling, stellar feedback, thermal conduction, and magnetic fields are not included in this simulation. Our primary goal is to model the evolution of the merger shock waves in the ICM within a realistic cosmological setting. In order to calculate the radio emissivity of non-thermal plasma, we have to make assumptions about the strength of the magnetic field. Very little is known on the strength of the magnetic field in radio ghosts. Measurements of the large-sclae magnetic field in clusters indicate a field strength of few $`\mu `$Gauss (Carilli & Taylor, 2002). In the centre of the cluster the field strength is higher and approximately thermal, i.e. $`B^2/8\pi =P_BP_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, (Eilek, 1999). However, it seems unlikely that there is enough small-scale turbulence or that there are enough powerful radio galaxies to sustain a thermal magnetic field throughout the entire cluster volume. Moreover, these measurements rely on Faraday rotation measures, to which the dilute plasma in the radio ghosts does not contribute significantly. Therefore, these measurements can only serve as a very rough guide to the actual field strength in the bubbles. In our calculations we assume that the fraction between magnetic pressure and thermal pressure is fixed at a value which yields a mass-averaged field strength of a few $`\mu `$Gauss.

## 3 The fate of radio halos

Relativistic electrons in radio lobes lose energy via synchrotron radiation and inverse Compton scattering with photons of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). In addition, adiabatic compression of the cocoons is able to re-accelerate the electrons. On the basis of our simulation we investigate whether the compression that the radio plasma suffers in the course of the merger can compensate for its radiative losses and is thus able to revive the fossil radio plasma. In the following, we assume that each gas particle also carries a certain amount of non-thermal radio plasma with it, whose evolution is calculated as follows.

The momentum of a relativistic electron in a radio lobe is altered by synchrotron losses that are proportional to the magnetic energy density $`u_B`$, by inverse Compton losses proportional to the CMB field density $`u_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ and by adiabatic compression of the considered volume $`V`$

$$dp=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _\mathrm{T}\left\{u_B+u_{\mathrm{CMB}}\right\}\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{V}dV,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ denotes the Thomson cross section. Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna (2001) showed that the the electron distribution function $`f(p,t)dpdV`$ can be derived from the initial distribution $`f(p,t_0)`$, the compression ratio

$$C(t)=V(t_0)/V(t)=\left(P(t)/P(t_0)\right)^{1/\gamma },$$
(2)
where the volume $`V`$ of the radio ghosts is adiabatically compressed by the ambient pressure $`P`$ with an adiabatic exponent $`\gamma `$ for magnetized plasma, and the characteristic momentum

$$\frac{1}{p_{}}=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _\mathrm{T}_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}\left\{u_B(t^{})+u_{\mathrm{CMB}}(t^{})\right\}\left(\frac{C(t^{})}{C(t)}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(3)
If the initial distribution is a power-law $`f(p,t_0)=f_0(p/p_0)^\alpha `$ the spectrum at later times becomes

$$f(p,t)=f_0C(t)^{(2\alpha )/3}(p/p_0)^\alpha (1p/p_{})^{\alpha 2}.$$
(4)
The luminosity of a fossil radio plasma depends thus on the age of the radio plasma, the strength of the magnetic field, the CMB density and the pressure history of the ambient gas. To set a starting time $`t_0`$ of the pressure history we assume that the radio plasma has been released at an early stage of the merger, more precisely when the two progenitors are still separated by $`0.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. Those ghosts may result from the advection of the radio lobes by the merger, i.e. the merger may itself have generated the radio ghosts. The assumption that the radio plasma in the ghosts dates from the beginning of the merger yields a conservative estimate for the later occurrence of radio relics. As argued above, the magnetic field in the outer part of the cluster should be sub-thermal. We assume that the ratio $`P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ between the magnetic and thermal pressure is in the range of 1-10%. Furthermore, we assume that the fossil radio plasma moves with gas, i.e. the plasma does not feel any buoyancy forces. This should be a tolerable assumption during the merger itself where the motion of the radio ghosts is dominated by advection by the ambient gas.

In our simulation we store the position, pressure and density for all gas particles as a function of time. We assume that each particle consists, beside the gas, of a certain amount of non-thermal radio plasma. Thus each particle represents gas whose evolution is calculated by the simulation and radio plasma whose evolution is derived from the gas properties. For the starting time $`t_0`$ before the merger, we assign all particles, the same power-law electron momentum distribution. The local pressure defines the local magnetic field strength due to the fixed ratio $`P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and the compression ratio, see Eq. (2). We assume that the magnetic field within the rarefied plasma bubbles is tangled on small scales and can be approximated, together with the relativistic particles, by a $`\gamma =4/3`$ equation of state. From to the recorded pressure history of each particle alone, we can calculate the momentum distribution of electrons in the radio plasma, see Eq. (4). The luminosity of the radio plasma is computed for an observing frequency of $`\nu =100\mathrm{MHz}`$ and an initial spectral index of $`\alpha =2.5`$ using the standard integration kernel for synchrotron radiation (Rybicki & Lightman, 1979).

## 4 Results and Discussion

The merger produces shock waves that propagate in both directions along the line that connects the centres of the initial clusters. While the shock generates only a small jump in density, the temperature in the shocked regions is about one order of magnitude above that in regions in front of the shock (see Fig. 1). The effects of the merger on the radio plasma can be seen in Fig. 2 which shows the radio luminosity in a slice through the cluster. The slice was made along the plane which contains the both centres-of-mass of the initial two clusters. The most remarkable structure is the prominent ring-like feature with a diameter of about 1 Mpc (see Fig. 2) 1.13 Gyr after the release of the radio plasma. This structure corresponds to the outgoing shock waves seen in the temperature (see Fig. 1 lower panel). One can clearly see the flaring of radio plasma at the two outgoing merger shock waves. It is apparent that after about 1 Gyr the merger shock waves can still revive the fossil radio plasma. In contrast, it is striking that the cluster centre is virtually void of any luminous sources. Prerequisite for a reanimation of the plasma is a sufficiently low magnetic field strength. Only if the strength is as low $`P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}}1\%`$ revived structures can be seen. Higher magnetic field strengths result in too fast an ageing of the plasma, such that the shock waves cannot revive the plasma. Furthermore, in the early stage of the merger, when the shock waves pass through the centre of the cluster after about 0.5 Gyr, the even younger plasma does not flare up significantly.

The much higher occurrence of radio relics at peripheral locations in the cluster is a result of two factors: In the centre of the cluster, i.e. within a region a few hundred kpc in diameter, the radio plasma ages much faster because the pressure is much higher and, thus, also the (assumed) magnetic field. This causes considerably higher radiation losses. In the inner region of the cluster the luminosity of the plasma dies down after $`0.5\mathrm{Gyr}`$, whereas in the periphery the luminosity decreases much more slowly. The second reason is related to the shock compression. As the shocks sweep through the cluster, their strength varies with the ICM sound speed. The shock waves are relatively weak in the hotter cluster centre but steepen when they pass the cooler, outer regions of the cluster. Therefore, the compression factor of the shock increases and, thus, the ability to revive radio ghosts. Under the condition that the ratio $`P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is as low as $`1\%`$, the two shock waves can lighten up fossil radio plasma in the outer regions of the cluster which is about 1 Gyr old. In stronger fields, synchrotron losses are too severe and in weaker fields, higher energy electrons are required to emit at the observing frequency, which have more severe inverse-Compton losses. For $`P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}}1\%`$ the two losses roughly match. We should point out again that Fig. 2 and 3 are luminosity probability maps and not actual maps. Therefore, we do not expect radio relics over the entire shock surface.

We find additional bright spots in the periphery of the cluster which are not related to the shock fronts. These spots exist even if $`P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is as high as $`10\%`$. Following the evolution of merger, one can notice that these spots appear in regions where gas from the periphery is flowing into the cluster. Since the radio plasma from regions that lie further out has aged less than more centrally located plasma, a merely moderate compression may cause a noticeable increase in the luminosity. This provides an additional mechanism to generate radio relics, which again only takes place in clusters that are not in equilibrium. Both mechanisms, gas infall and merger shock compression, strongly favour radio ghosts that are located at least at a distances of a few hundred kpc from the cluster centre.

We now compute the radio surface brightness. For this purpose we convolve the luminosity of radio plasma with a hypothetical distribution of radio plasma. Here, we assume that the distribution of plasma follows the distribution of gas. This approach disregards the fact that there are – probably – only few individual plasma object in a cluster, but we interpret the distribution of the entire cluster as a probability that plasma is located at a certain position. We can now infer the radio luminosity of the cluster. Given that the distribution of plasma reflects the spatial probability distribution of radio ghosts, the luminosity corresponds to the probability to find radio relics at a certain position. We find that by far most of the luminosity projected onto a plane perpendicular to the shock fronts comes from the shock regions (see Fig. 3). Even the projection leaves the central region of the cluster virtually free of emission. This result indicates, that if the distribution of radio ghosts follows the distribution of the gas, i.e. if ghosts are most likely found in the centre, relics are expected to be observed almost exclusively at the location of the shock fronts.

Upcoming radio telescopes, such as GMRT, LOFAR and ALMA, will identify more radio relics and will measure their spatial distribution. They will be able to verify whether relics are predominantly found along outgoing merger shock waves at distances of a few hundred kpc from the centre of the cluster (Enßlin & Brüggen, 2002). Thus, in the near future, observations of a representative sample of radio relics will put our model to test.

In summary, on the basis of cosmological high-resolution simulations of a galaxy cluster merger with two progenitors of the mass $`1.6\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ we have been able to calculate, both, the fading of non-thermal radio plasma and its re-energisation by shock waves. It was found that cluster-wide shock fronts are capable of reviving $`1\mathrm{Gyr}`$ old radio ghosts if the ratio $`P_B/P_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is as low as $`1\%`$. Magnetic field strengths of this order are not unlikely in the cluster periphery. Finally, the vast majority of radio relics are expected to be located at typical distances of a few hundred kpc from the cluster centre.

Acknowledgement We thank Stefan Gottlöber for providing the initial conditions for the simulation and Volker Springel for providing the version of Gadget with the entropy kernel. MB thanks Torsten Enßlin for helpful discussions and valuable comments. The simulation were performed at CIEMAT (Spain) and at the Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik Berlin. GY and MH thanks for financial support from the Acciones Integradas Hispano-Alemanas.