Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Accurate and Unbiased Reconstruction of CMB B Mode using Deep Learning

Srikanta Pal srikanta18@iiserb.ac.in Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal, India    Sarvesh Kumar Yadav sarvesh@rrimail.rri.res.in Raman Research Institute, C. V. Raman Avenue, Bengaluru, India    Rajib Saha rajib@iiserb.ac.in Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal, India    Tarun Souradeep tarun@rri.res.in Raman Research Institute, C. V. Raman Avenue, Bengaluru, India
Abstract

An ingeniously designed autoencoder (PrimeNet) using simulated observations of future generation ECHO satellite mission recovers CMB B mode map, angular spectrum for multipoles 9less-than-or-similar-to9\ell\lesssim 9roman_ℓ ≲ 9 and tensor to scalar ratio r𝑟ritalic_r limited only by cosmic variance down to r=0.0001𝑟0.0001r=0.0001italic_r = 0.0001 and below. We use diverse, realistically complex and detailed foreground models. PrimeNet predicts accurate results even when data with r=0𝑟0r=0italic_r = 0 are tested which were not used in training, implying robust and efficient predictive power. The work eliminates a major bottleneck of weak CMB B mode reconstruction and takes a leap forward for understanding fundamental physics of the primordial Universe.

Introduction: The general theory of relativity predicts that the tiny ripples that occur due to the disturbances in the energy and momentum flow lead to propagating gravitational wave and further influence the events taking place inside the space-time manifold [1]. A relic of these waves is predicted to be generated  [2, 3] in a very early epoch of almost exponential expansion [4, 5] of spatial scales, for a very brief interval of time.

This primordial gravitational wave (PGW) is one of the founding pillars of the cosmological inflation theory and serves as a unique probe to the physics of the very early universe. The direct estimation of PGW propagating since the inflation has not been possible till date as the signal could be extremely weak. They however leave their imprint on cosmic microwave background (CMB) [6, 7, 8, 9]. The PGW redistributes the space time metric and hence influences the propagation of the electromagnetic radiation. The primordial B mode component of CMB polarization over the large angular scales of the sky uniquely encodes the PGW or tensor modes of the metric components and therefore serves as the unambiguous probe for detection of the signal [10, 11]. PGW is quantified by the variable r𝑟ritalic_r, the so called ratio of tensor to scalar mode power spectrum.

Measuring PGW through the CMB B mode constrains physics of energy scales which are many orders of magnitude beyond the reach of any modern day terrestrial accelerators. The tensor to scalar ratio constrains expansion rate of the universe at inflationary epoch when a scale of interest in density perturbations of the scalar field escapes the horizon and therefore directly constrains energy densities of such early times. A fundamental problem in the inflationary models is the numerical value of the net change of the scalar field [12]. If this value is larger than the Planck mass one can put major constraints on the theory of quantum gravity since one is then probing physics in an environment where manifestation of quantum gravitational effects becomes important.

Recent observations of Planck-BICEP [13] constrain only an upper limit r0.030less-than-or-similar-to𝑟0.030r\lesssim 0.030italic_r ≲ 0.030 at k=0.005𝑘0.005k=0.005italic_k = 0.005 Mpc1superscriptMpc1\textrm{Mpc}^{-1}Mpc start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In this work we focus on the fundamental problem of reconstruction of r𝑟ritalic_r. We develop a machine learning architecture (PrimeNet) for accurate and robust prediction of CMB B mode maps by training the network with simulations that contain realizations of CMB maps with discretely varying r𝑟ritalic_r in between 0.00010.00010.00010.0001 and 0.0550.0550.0550.055. Each training realization represents simulated full sky B mode maps of all 20202020 frequency channels of future generation satellite based CMB polarization mission ‘Exploring Cosmic Origin and History’ (ECHO) [14, 15] (to be placed at the L2subscriptL2\textrm{L}_{2}L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Lagrange point of Sun-Earth system by ‘Indian Space Research Organization’ (ISRO)) with realistically complex and diverse models of foregrounds and detector noise. After the learning phase PrimeNet produces accurate estimates of the full sky CMB B mode signal during testing in which r𝑟ritalic_r was set as low as a value of zero suggesting a robust understanding of the network to efficiently remove the contamination even in those cases in which only lensing signal was present without any primordial B mode signal. Besides ECHO a number of other polarization projects [16, 17, 18] are also in active consideration.

Reconstruction of CMB temperature anisotropies from observations has been extensively studied in the literature [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]. A major bottleneck to similarly disentangle CMB B mode and foreground components is the contamination by the strong diffused synchrotron and thermal dust foreground components apart from the thermal noise originating from the circuitry of the measuring detectors. Therefore, it is important to reduce the effects of foreground and detector noise using techniques of machine learning and estimate cleaned PGW signal. We show that an innovative machine learning technique can remove these non-cosmological contaminations and accurately estimate pristine CMB B mode map using detailed simulations of 20202020 frequency maps of upcoming ECHO satellite mission. Various other applications of machine learning technique in CMB context are also in place [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46].

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Figure showing accurate reconstruction results for CMB B mode maps. From top to bottom each row correspond to the case of rtest=0.03,0.003,0.0003subscript𝑟test0.030.0030.0003r_{\textrm{test}}=0.03,0.003,0.0003italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.03 , 0.003 , 0.0003 and 00 respectively. Unit for the first three columns is in μK𝜇𝐾\mu Kitalic_μ italic_K thermodynamic.

Methodology: Each training realization comprises of all 20202020 frequency maps of ECHO (at HEALPix [47] pixel resolution Nside=8subscript𝑁side8N_{\textrm{side}}=8italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT side end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 8) at the input of the PrimeNet. Focusing on a generic network model capable of predicting the pure CMB B mode signal for a sufficiently wide and physically motivated range of variations of r𝑟ritalic_r we generate 2000200020002000 random CMB B mode maps for each r𝑟ritalic_r taken from a set of total 16161616 different values equally spaced in log\logroman_log intervals between r=0.0001𝑟0.0001r=0.0001italic_r = 0.0001 and 0.0550.0550.0550.055. Other cosmological parameters are consistent with [48] with lensing amplitude A=1𝐴1A=1italic_A = 1 [49]. The foreground models for training, validation and testing realizations are created by PySM [50] which consists of all diffused polarized foregrounds – anomalous microwave [51, 52, 53], synchrotron and thermal dust emissions. For robust CMB prediction we diversify the samples with a suite of foreground models. The synchrotron models consisted of pixel varying spectral index (S1subscriptS1\textrm{S}_{1}S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) and with a frequency break model alongside the spectral index variation (S3subscriptS3\textrm{S}_{3}S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) of PySM. For thermal dust we use pixel varying dust temperature and spectral index model (D1subscriptD1\textrm{D}_{1}D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT[54] and another version of the two component thermal dust model (D4subscriptD4\textrm{D}_{4}D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT[55, 56]. Thus each input realization contains foregrounds identical to any one of the 4444 possible sets F1=(A2,S1,D1)subscriptF1subscriptA2subscriptS1subscriptD1\textrm{F}_{1}=\bigl{(}\textrm{A}_{2},\textrm{S}_{1},\textrm{D}_{1}\bigr{)}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), F2=(A2,S1,D4)subscriptF2subscriptA2subscriptS1subscriptD4\textrm{F}_{2}=\bigl{(}\textrm{A}_{2},\textrm{S}_{1},\textrm{D}_{4}\bigr{)}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), F3=(A2,S3,D1)subscriptF3subscriptA2subscriptS3subscriptD1\textrm{F}_{3}=\bigl{(}\textrm{A}_{2},\textrm{S}_{3},\textrm{D}_{1}\bigr{)}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and F4=(A2,S3,D4)subscriptF4subscriptA2subscriptS3subscriptD4\textrm{F}_{4}=\bigl{(}\textrm{A}_{2},\textrm{S}_{3},\textrm{D}_{4}\bigr{)}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), where A2subscriptA2\textrm{A}_{2}A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT represents anomalous microwave component. Each of these foreground model sets is infused with 500500500500 different CMB realizations for each training r𝑟ritalic_r value. For validation realizations we use a different set of 250250250250 CMB maps for each of the above foreground sets and for each r𝑟ritalic_r taken from the set r=(0.02,0.002,0.0002)𝑟0.020.0020.0002r=\bigl{(}0.02,0.002,0.0002\bigr{)}italic_r = ( 0.02 , 0.002 , 0.0002 ). We use a pixel uncorrelated white noise model consistent with ECHO polarized detectors and applicable to Nside=8subscript𝑁side8N_{\textrm{side}}=8italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT side end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 8. The CMB, foreground and noise maps at all frequencies of each training and validation realizations are smoothed by a polarized Gaussian window function of FWHM = 20superscript2020^{\circ}20 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This causes all angular scales with \ellroman_ℓ larger than max=180/20=9subscriptmaxsuperscript180superscript209\ell_{\textrm{max}}=180^{\circ}/20^{\circ}=9roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT max end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 180 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 20 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 9 to become beam limited. We chose max=9subscriptmax9\ell_{\textrm{max}}=9roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT max end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 9 for producing angular spectra. Training, validation and testing sets respectively contain 32000320003200032000, 3000300030003000 and 10000100001000010000 (for each r𝑟ritalic_r) independent realizations.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Comparison of angular spectra (top row), their standard deviations (middle) and fractional bias in prediction results of first two rows (bottom). Value of r𝑟ritalic_r is same for a given column.

The PrimeNet is an autoencoder containing a total of 7777 layers starting from the input through the bottleneck to the final output layers. Subsequent to the input layer the encoder contains three layers with 192192192192, 48484848 and 12121212 nodes corresponding to Nside=4,2subscript𝑁side42N_{\textrm{side}}=4,2italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT side end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 4 , 2 and 1111 respectively. After the bottleneck layer of least pixel resolution the decoder consists of two decoding layers of Nside=2subscript𝑁side2N_{\textrm{side}}=2italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT side end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 and 4444 respectively. The output layer produces a single map at the original resolution and contains 768768768768 nodes. Each layer contains 220220220220 filters. Both the kernel size and stride for all filters are set to 4444 since filters are designed to reduce sizes of the maps by the same factor as the pixel downgrading operation of HEALPix. We employ the sigmoid-weighted linear unit [57] activation function to learn the non-linearity in the hidden layers of the network. However, we apply linear activation in both the bottleneck and output layers. We use mean absolute error loss function [58] for prediction. Before feeding the ECHO realizations to the network we standardize them by first subtracting the mean and thereafter dividing by the standard deviation [59]. This approach facilitates the generalization of network training as well as expedites the deep learning process.

For the backward propagation [60, 61], we utilize the adaptive moment estimation [62] optimizer with learning rate 0.00010.00010.00010.0001 to update the weights and biases based upon the loss value calculated in the forward propagation. We utilize the mini-batch algorithm [63, 64] with batch size 64646464 and a total of 2000200020002000 epochs.

The performance of the training of the autoencoder can vary at some level due to the random initialization of realization of the weights in the network. This variation reflects as the epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of the autoencoder. We use model averaging ensemble [65] method to reduce this epistemic uncertainty in the prediction. Final B mode map is obtained by averaging predictions of 60606060 models each starting from independent points in the multidimensional weight and bias spaces.

Results: For testing case we chose realizations corresponding to rtest=0.03,0.003,0.0003subscript𝑟test0.030.0030.0003r_{\textrm{test}}=0.03,0.003,0.0003italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.03 , 0.003 , 0.0003 and 00. These r𝑟ritalic_r values were never used in training. Moreover the rtest=0subscript𝑟test0r_{\textrm{test}}=0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 denotes the lowest possible value and well below the minimum r𝑟ritalic_r (0.00010.00010.00010.0001) used in the training. For each rtestsubscript𝑟testr_{\textrm{test}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we use 60606060 ensemble averaged network predictions to evaluate performance for 10000100001000010000 test cases. Again, network inputs for tests contain completely different CMB and noise realizations from those used in training and validation cases.

From top to bottom each row of Fig. 1 summarizes the results for cleaned B map reconstruction for some randomly chosen test realizations with decreasing values of rtestsubscript𝑟testr_{\textrm{test}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. First and second column confirm the accurate reconstruction over the largest scales of the maps. The difference maps (third column) contain pixel values significantly less than the target and predictions for each rtestsubscript𝑟testr_{\textrm{test}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. An R2subscriptR2\textrm{R}_{2}R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT score statistic defined by one minus the ratio of mean squared residuals between the target and prediction and mean target variance computed at each map pixel over 10000100001000010000 test cases is used to quantify the prediction accuracy of cleaned maps. The statistic scores 99.8%,99.1%,96.1%greater-than-or-equivalent-toabsentpercent99.8percent99.1percent96.1\gtrsim 99.8\%,99.1\%,96.1\%≳ 99.8 % , 99.1 % , 96.1 % for rtest=0.03,0.003subscript𝑟test0.030.003r_{\textrm{test}}=0.03,0.003italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.03 , 0.003 and 0.00030.00030.00030.0003 respectively, indicating accurate reconstruction by PrimeNet. We emphasize the results of last row in which case the tensor mode was set to zero deliberately. Although, r=0𝑟0r=0italic_r = 0 value is well below the minimum r=0.0001𝑟0.0001r=0.0001italic_r = 0.0001 used in the training we see that PrimeNet predicts the lensed B mode signal accurately, preserving features over large scales (target and predicted maps) with R2subscriptR2\textrm{R}_{2}R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT score between 93.4%percent93.493.4\%93.4 % to 94.5%percent94.594.5\%94.5 %. Variation of R2subscriptR2\textrm{R}_{2}R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT score between 99.7%percent99.799.7\%99.7 % to 99.9%percent99.999.9\%99.9 % was obtained in test results with rtest=0.1subscript𝑟test0.1r_{\textrm{test}}=0.1italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.1. (This choice of r𝑟ritalic_r is well above the maximum r=0.055𝑟0.055r=0.055italic_r = 0.055 used in the training.) This indicates that PrimeNet effectively learned to remove the foreground and noise features from the input maps. This is an excellent feature to achieve since the predictions in this case are robust with respect to major unknowns on the real sky - variations of actual value of r𝑟ritalic_r and complex and realistic foreground models. Large R2subscriptR2\textrm{R}_{2}R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT score values represent reconstruction error between the target and predictions are minimal. The last column of Fig. 1 shows the correlation maps between the target and prediction B mode maps for various values of rtestsubscript𝑟testr_{\textrm{test}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The high correlation values for all cases demonstrate that the predictions accurately follow the target CMB B maps. We emphasize on the striking similarities between the patterns of the last two columns. This strengthens further that the predictions are free from any residual systematic (e.g, due to residual foregrounds).

Refer to caption
Figure 3: 1σ1𝜎1\sigma1 italic_σ and 2σ2𝜎2\sigma2 italic_σ confidence regions for A𝐴Aitalic_A and r𝑟ritalic_r from the mean likelihood function of all 400400400400 test predictions for rtest=0.03,0.003,0.0003,0subscript𝑟test0.030.0030.00030r_{\textrm{test}}=0.03,0.003,0.0003,0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.03 , 0.003 , 0.0003 , 0 from left to right. The stars denote best fit positions. Grey star represents the theoretical parameter values.

The direct predictions of PrimeNet are the CMB maps. How well the angular power spectra of the predicted maps agree the corresponding spectra of the target maps? Accurate production of these spectra is essential for the method to be useful in the estimation of r𝑟ritalic_r. We see that the spectra of the predicted maps agree excellently with those of the targets for angular scales above the beam resolution of the input maps (i.e, 9less-than-or-similar-to9\ell\lesssim 9roman_ℓ ≲ 9). This underscores high accuracy already achieved in map predictions on the relevant scales and overall consistency of the results. In the following we use the word ‘predicted (target) spectra’ to merely imply the angular spectra estimated from predicted (target) maps while remembering that the actual predictions of PrimeNet are only the cleaned maps.

We compute the mean spectra separately from the predicted and target maps from 10000100001000010000 test cases for rtest=0.03,0.003,0.0003,0.0subscript𝑟test0.030.0030.00030.0r_{\textrm{test}}=0.03,0.003,0.0003,0.0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.03 , 0.003 , 0.0003 , 0.0 respectively. In the top panel of Fig. 2 we show these mean spectra along with the theoretical CMB B mode spectra DB=(+1)CB/(2π)subscriptsuperscript𝐷𝐵1subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝐵2𝜋D^{B}_{\ell}=\ell\left(\ell+1\right)C^{B}_{\ell}/(2\pi)italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_ℓ ( roman_ℓ + 1 ) italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / ( 2 italic_π ). The target, predicted and theoretical spectra at each multipole coincide very closely with each other over the vertical scales, however, for visual clarity the spectral locations of these values at each \ellroman_ℓ are shifted slightly along the horizontal axis. This demonstrates unbiased reconstruction of angular spectra over the relevant angular scales. The error bars for predicted spectra agree well with the target (or theoretical cosmic variance). This indicates maximally possible accurate reconstruction limited only by cosmic variance. In the second panel we compare the standard deviations of spectra from predicted, target samples along with cosmic variance limit for all the rtestsubscript𝑟testr_{\textrm{test}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT values. All these error estimates agree well. The agreement between the angular spectra, their errors between the target and predictions appear even more remarkable noting that they are not direct predictions. This is a direct consequence of accurate learning by PrimeNet to remove non cosmological signals. The third row zooms in the fractional difference of the mean predicted spectra with respect to the mean target spectra. Also shown in this panel are the fractional differences of sample standard deviations of predicted compared to the target. For rtest=0.03,0.003,0.0003subscript𝑟test0.030.0030.0003r_{\textrm{test}}=0.03,0.003,0.0003italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.03 , 0.003 , 0.0003 cases this fractional difference lie within (2.63%,0.04%)percent2.63percent0.04\left(-2.63\%,0.04\%\right)( - 2.63 % , 0.04 % ), (2.53%,0.43%)percent2.53percent0.43\left(-2.53\%,0.43\%\right)( - 2.53 % , 0.43 % ) and (1.93%,1.56%)percent1.93percent1.56\left(-1.93\%,1.56\%\right)( - 1.93 % , 1.56 % ) respectively. For rtest=0subscript𝑟test0r_{\textrm{test}}=0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 the fractional bias lies between (1.52%,4.76%)percent1.52percent4.76\left(-1.52\%,4.76\%\right)( - 1.52 % , 4.76 % ). These fractional bias values are much less than the fractional cosmic variance induced errors, which are as large as 63.2%percent63.263.2\%63.2 % at =22\ell=2roman_ℓ = 2 and 32.4%percent32.432.4\%32.4 % at =99\ell=9roman_ℓ = 9. This clearly shows that the predicted spectra are highly unbiased and accurate at the same level. Spectral reconstructions are accurate even if rtestsubscript𝑟testr_{\textrm{test}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT values were not used in training and rtest=0subscript𝑟test0r_{\textrm{test}}=0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 is well below the minimum training r𝑟ritalic_r. This is a reconfirmation that the PrimeNet learned to remove non-CMB features efficiently and produces robust predictions.

How well can we measure the primordial r𝑟ritalic_r from the predicted B mode maps? The maximum likelihood values of r𝑟ritalic_r and A𝐴Aitalic_A is obtained by maximizing the likelihood function

P(r,A)exp(12=29(2+1)[C^BCB+ln(CBC^B)1])similar-to𝑃𝑟𝐴12superscriptsubscript2921delimited-[]subscriptsuperscript^𝐶𝐵subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝐵subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝐵subscriptsuperscript^𝐶𝐵1P(r,A)\sim\exp\biggl{(}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\ell=2}^{9}(2\ell+1)\biggl{[}\frac{% \hat{C}^{B}_{\ell}}{C^{B}_{\ell}}+\ln\biggl{(}\frac{C^{B}_{\ell}}{\hat{C}^{B}_% {\ell}}\biggr{)}-1\biggr{]}\biggr{)}\,italic_P ( italic_r , italic_A ) ∼ roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 roman_ℓ + 1 ) [ divide start_ARG over^ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + roman_ln ( divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG over^ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) - 1 ] ) (1)

where C^Bsubscriptsuperscript^𝐶𝐵\hat{C}^{B}_{\ell}over^ start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT represents prediction for a test case and CB=CB(r,A)subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝐵subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝐵𝑟𝐴C^{B}_{\ell}=C^{B}_{\ell}(r,A)italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_r , italic_A ) denotes the theoretical spectrum. To evaluate any possible bias and quantify the accuracy of estimation of r𝑟ritalic_r we estimate P(r,A)𝑃𝑟𝐴P(r,A)italic_P ( italic_r , italic_A ) for 400400400400 randomly chosen predictions for each rtestsubscript𝑟testr_{\textrm{test}}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The product of these 400400400400 (2-d) likelihood functions (after normalizing peak values to unity) represents the mean likelihood function. We show them in Fig. 3. The predicted best fit values for r𝑟ritalic_r are respectively 0.03025±0.00024,0.00296±3.42×105,0.0003±7.68×106,1.73×105±3.06×106plus-or-minus0.030250.00024plus-or-minus0.002963.42superscript105plus-or-minus0.00037.68superscript106plus-or-minus1.73superscript1053.06superscript1060.03025\pm 0.00024,0.00296\pm 3.42\times 10^{-5},0.0003\pm 7.68\times 10^{-6},% 1.73\times 10^{-5}\pm 3.06\times 10^{-6}0.03025 ± 0.00024 , 0.00296 ± 3.42 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 0.0003 ± 7.68 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 1.73 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± 3.06 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT compared with corresponding target values 0.03031±0.00024,0.00297±3.43×105,0.000295±7.42×106,9.17×106±2.85×106plus-or-minus0.030310.00024plus-or-minus0.002973.43superscript105plus-or-minus0.0002957.42superscript106plus-or-minus9.17superscript1062.85superscript1060.03031\pm 0.00024,0.00297\pm 3.43\times 10^{-5},0.000295\pm 7.42\times 10^{-6% },9.17\times 10^{-6}\pm 2.85\times 10^{-6}0.03031 ± 0.00024 , 0.00297 ± 3.43 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 0.000295 ± 7.42 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 9.17 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ± 2.85 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Ratio of the error estimates for prediction and target sets are close to unity except for r=0𝑟0r=0italic_r = 0 in which case we get 7%similar-toabsentpercent7\sim 7\%∼ 7 % larger error for predictions. The prediction and target r𝑟ritalic_r obtained from the respective mean likelihood functions differ by merely 0.25,0.39,1.25,2.50.250.391.252.50.25,0.39,1.25,2.50.25 , 0.39 , 1.25 , 2.5 times the predicted σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ. Both parameters and error limits agree excellently with those obtained from the mean target. This shows the residual bias in estimation of r𝑟ritalic_r are negligible and results are cosmic variance dominated.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Figure showing strong correlation between predicted and target CMB B mode maps for r(106,0.055)𝑟superscript1060.055r\in(10^{-6},0.055)italic_r ∈ ( 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 0.055 ) and for all foreground sets.

In addition to above we test performance by computing correlations between target and predictions, where input simulated ECHO maps to PrimeNet contain B mode realizations for 500500500500 discrete r𝑟ritalic_r values chosen to be equally spaced in log(r)𝑟\log(r)roman_log ( italic_r ) intervals between rmin=106subscript𝑟minsuperscript106r_{\textrm{min}}=10^{-6}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and rmax=0.055subscript𝑟max0.055r_{\textrm{max}}=0.055italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT max end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.055 for all foreground sets F1subscriptF1\textrm{F}_{1}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to F4subscriptF4\textrm{F}_{4}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each prediction correlation between the target and predicted maps are obtained which are shown in Fig. 4. The predictions possess a strong correlation (0.9360.9360.9360.936 to 0.9980.9980.9980.998) with the targets in all cases. Although the correlation values decreases somewhat when r0.003less-than-or-similar-to𝑟0.003r\lesssim 0.003italic_r ≲ 0.003 and tend to spread nominally for 106r0.0001less-than-or-similar-tosuperscript106𝑟less-than-or-similar-to0.000110^{-6}\lesssim r\lesssim 0.000110 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≲ italic_r ≲ 0.0001 we note that the estimated r𝑟ritalic_r values for these cases are still cosmic variance dominated, since in the test case with r=0𝑟0r=0italic_r = 0 we demonstrated that the prediction errors are determined only by cosmic variance. Therefore, the correlation values of Fig. 4 demonstrate efficient predictions of PrimeNet virtually at any r𝑟ritalic_r within interval [106,0.055]superscript1060.055\left[10^{-6},0.055\right][ 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 0.055 ] and even for r𝑟ritalic_r values well below the minimum r=0.0001𝑟0.0001r=0.0001italic_r = 0.0001 used in the training.

Summary: For the first time in literature we show that it is possible to extract weak unknown r𝑟ritalic_r value for the PGW from CMB B mode signal over large angular scales of the sky (20greater-than-or-equivalent-toabsentsuperscript20\gtrsim 20^{\circ}≳ 20 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) based upon training a convolutional neural network (PrimeNet) using all the 20202020 frequency maps of upcoming satellite based CMB polarization mission ECHO. The low resolution maps were chosen since one is primarily interested in primordial B mode signal containing unique signature from gravitational waves generated from inflation. Extensive tests on PrimeNet show that B mode CMB spectra and tensor to scalar ratio, r𝑟ritalic_r estimated from the predicted maps are limited only by the cosmic variance, the theoretically minimum uncertainty limit achievable since we have only one Universe to do all the cosmological experiments.

The input frequency maps for training were created using the most complex and diverse polarized foreground models produced by PySM which incorporate latest state of the art knowledge about the polarized synchrotron, thermal dust and anomalous microwave components enriched by the WMAP and Planck observations. Specifically, we include both S1subscriptS1\textrm{S}_{1}S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and S3subscriptS3\textrm{S}_{3}S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT models for synchrotron and D1subscriptD1\textrm{D}_{1}D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and D4subscriptD4\textrm{D}_{4}D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT models for thermal dust and A2subscriptA2\textrm{A}_{2}A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT model for anomalous microwave from PySM. The instrumental noise is assumed to be white with a level consistent with ECHO channels. Accurate reconstruction in presence of complex and diverse foreground models in the training configurations ensures robust predictions with model variations. Detailed and complex foreground modeling enables accurate description of realistic observations. Our network can also be deployed in analysis of other future generation full sky CMB polarization missions.

The complex foreground models were varied uniformly between sets F1subscriptF1\textrm{F}_{1}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to F4subscriptF4\textrm{F}_{4}F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in all the training and the testing phases. The detector noise varied with realizations of simulated ECHO experiments. PrimeNet predicts the B mode maps, angular spectra over large angular scales with 9less-than-or-similar-to9\ell\lesssim 9roman_ℓ ≲ 9 and hence r𝑟ritalic_r with errors given only by the cosmic variance, even in presence of noise. This is a major advantage since one is able to rid of noise (and foreground) effects significantly. Neural networks for denoising images have been employed by other groups [66, 67, 68].

The training samples contained realizations of CMB B mode with r𝑟ritalic_r varying between 0.00010.00010.00010.0001 to 0.0550.0550.0550.055 in 16161616 equal step in log(r)𝑟\log(r)roman_log ( italic_r ) interval and a lensing signal with amplitude parameter A=1𝐴1A=1italic_A = 1 in CAMB. During testing we find that PrimeNet can accurately predict B mode maps even for those r𝑟ritalic_r values which were never included in the training. This strongly suggests that learning of non CMB signals to be removed is achieved efficiently. Detailed testing with rtest=0.03,0.003,0.0003subscript𝑟test0.030.0030.0003r_{\textrm{test}}=0.03,0.003,0.0003italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT test end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.03 , 0.003 , 0.0003 and 0.00.00.00.0 shows that the maximal likelihood values of predicted r𝑟ritalic_r and their uncertainties closely agree with the pure target realizations. Hence our results are effectively only cosmic variance limited. The predicted maps for 500500500500 different r𝑟ritalic_r values in the interval 106superscript10610^{-6}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to 0.0550.0550.0550.055 show strong correlation with the target maps implying efficient reconstruction even for r0.0001less-than-or-similar-to𝑟0.0001r\lesssim 0.0001italic_r ≲ 0.0001 which were not used in training. Thus successful prediction across wide range of foreground models and unseen and lower r𝑟ritalic_r cases than used in training provides encouraging results and is a new method to efficient and robust prediction of r𝑟ritalic_r. This provides a new pathway leading to an open window to the primordial universe.

Acknowledgements.
SKY acknowledges support by SERB, Government of India, through the National Post Doctoral Fellowship grant (PDF/2022/002449/PMS). SKY acknowledge National Supercomputing Mission (NSM) for providing computing resources of ‘PARAM Porul’ at NIT Trichy, which is implemented by C-DAC and supported by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India.

References

  • Einstein and Rosen [1937] A. Einstein and N. Rosen, Journal of the Franklin Institute 223, 43 (1937), ISSN 0016-0032, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016003237905830.
  • Starobinskii [1996] A. A. Starobinskii, in 30 Years of the Landau Institute, edited by I. M. Khalatnikov and V. P. Mineev (1996), vol. 11, p. 767.
  • Rubakov et al. [1982] V. Rubakov, M. Sazhin, and A. Veryaskin, Physics Letters B 115, 189 (1982), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269382906414.
  • Guth [1981] A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347.
  • Linde [1982] A. D. Linde, Physics Letters B 108, 389 (1982).
  • Fabbri and Pollock [1983] R. Fabbri and M. Pollock, Physics Letters B 125, 445 (1983), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269383913229.
  • Abbott and Wise [1984] L. F. Abbott and M. B. Wise, Physics Letters B 135, 279 (1984).
  • Lyth [1984] D. H. Lyth, Physics Letters B 147, 403 (1984).
  • Krauss and White [1992] L. M. Krauss and M. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.  69, 869 (1992), eprint hep-ph/9205212.
  • Seljak and Zaldarriaga [1997] U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett.  78, 2054 (1997), eprint astro-ph/9609169.
  • Kamionkowski et al. [1997] M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and A. Stebbins, Phys. Rev. Lett.  78, 2058 (1997), eprint astro-ph/9609132.
  • Krauss et al. [2010] L. M. Krauss, S. Dodelson, and S. Meyer, Science 328, 989 (2010), eprint https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1179541, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1179541.
  • Paoletti et al. [2022] D. Paoletti, F. Finelli, J. Valiviita, and M. Hazumi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083528 (2022), eprint 2208.10482.
  • Adak et al. [2022] D. Adak, A. Sen, S. Basak, J. Delabrouille, T. Ghosh, A. Rotti, G. Martínez-Solaeche, and T. Souradeep, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.  514, 3002 (2022), eprint 2110.12362.
  • Sen et al. [2023] A. Sen, S. Basak, T. Ghosh, D. Adak, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083529 (2023), eprint 2212.02869.
  • LiteBIRD Collaboration et al. [2023] LiteBIRD Collaboration, E. Allys, K. Arnold, J. Aumont, R. Aurlien, S. Azzoni, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. Banerji, R. B. Barreiro, et al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2023, 042F01 (2023), eprint 2202.02773.
  • Abazajian et al. [2022] K. Abazajian, G. E. Addison, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, D. Akerib, A. Ali, S. W. Allen, D. Alonso, M. Alvarez, M. A. Amin, et al., Astrophys. J.  926, 54 (2022), eprint 2008.12619.
  • Namikawa et al. [2022] T. Namikawa, A. B. Lizancos, N. Robertson, B. D. Sherwin, A. Challinor, D. Alonso, S. Azzoni, C. Baccigalupi, E. Calabrese, J. Carron, et al., Phys. Rev. D 105, 023511 (2022), eprint 2110.09730.
  • Tegmark et al. [2003] M. Tegmark, A. de Oliveira-Costa, and A. J. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. D 68, 123523 (2003), eprint astro-ph/0302496.
  • Delabrouille et al. [2003] J. Delabrouille, J.-F. Cardoso, and G. Patanchon, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 346, 1089 (2003), ISSN 0035-8711, eprint https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/346/4/1089/18647087/346-4-1089.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07069.x.
  • Saha et al. [2006] R. Saha, P. Jain, and T. Souradeep, The Astrophysical Journal 645, L89 (2006), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/506321.
  • Hinshaw et al. [2007] G. Hinshaw, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, R. Bean, O. Doré, M. R. Greason, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 170, 288 (2007), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/513698.
  • Eriksen et al. [2007] H. K. Eriksen, G. Huey, R. Saha, F. K. Hansen, J. Dick, A. J. Banday, K. M. Górski, P. Jain, J. B. Jewell, L. Knox, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 656, 641 (2007), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/509911.
  • Saha et al. [2008] R. Saha, S. Prunet, P. Jain, and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D 78, 023003 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023003.
  • Eriksen et al. [2008] H. K. Eriksen, J. B. Jewell, C. Dickinson, A. J. Banday, K. M. Górski, and C. R. Lawrence, Astrophys. J.  676, 10 (2008), eprint 0709.1058.
  • Remazeilles et al. [2011] M. Remazeilles, J. Delabrouille, and J.-F. Cardoso, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.  418, 467 (2011), eprint 1103.1166.
  • Basak and Delabrouille [2013] S. Basak and J. Delabrouille, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.  435, 18 (2013), eprint 1204.0292.
  • Saha [2011] R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 739, L56 (2011), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L56.
  • Pietrobon et al. [2012] D. Pietrobon, K. M. Górski, J. Bartlett, A. J. Banday, G. Dobler, L. P. L. Colombo, S. R. Hildebrandt, J. B. Jewell, L. Pagano, G. Rocha, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 755, 69 (2012), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/69.
  • Fernández-Cobos et al. [2012] R. Fernández-Cobos, P. Vielva, R. B. Barreiro, and E. Martínez-González, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 420, 2162 (2012), ISSN 0035-8711, eprint https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/420/3/2162/3015247/mnras0420-2162.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20182.x.
  • Saha and Aluri [2016] R. Saha and P. K. Aluri, The Astrophysical Journal 829, 113 (2016), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/113.
  • Sudevan et al. [2017] V. Sudevan, P. K. Aluri, S. K. Yadav, R. Saha, and T. Souradeep, The Astrophysical Journal 842, 62 (2017), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa7334.
  • Sudevan and Saha [2018] V. Sudevan and R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal 867, 74 (2018), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aae439.
  • Sudevan and Saha [2020a] V. Sudevan and R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal 897, 30 (2020a), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab964e.
  • Sudevan and Saha [2020b] V. Sudevan and R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal 902, 69 (2020b), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb3d1.
  • Yadav and Saha [2021] S. K. Yadav and R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal 914, 119 (2021), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9b.
  • Sudevan et al. [2022] V. Sudevan, U. Purkayastha, and R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal 936, 106 (2022), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8105.
  • Khan and Saha [2023] M. I. Khan and R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal 947, 47 (2023), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acbfa9.
  • Pal et al. [2023] S. Pal, P. Chanda, and R. Saha, The Astrophysical Journal 945, 77 (2023), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acb4ee.
  • Chanda and Saha [2021] P. Chanda and R. Saha, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 508, 4600 (2021), ISSN 0035-8711, eprint https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/508/3/4600/40877480/stab2753.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2753.
  • Adams et al. [2023] J. Adams, S. Lu, K. M. Gorski, G. Rocha, and K. L. Wagstaff, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AAAI Press, 2023), AAAI’23/IAAI’23/EAAI’23, ISBN 978-1-57735-880-0, URL https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v37i13.26854.
  • Wang et al. [2022] G.-J. Wang, H.-L. Shi, Y.-P. Yan, J.-Q. Xia, Y.-Y. Zhao, S.-Y. Li, and J.-F. Li, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 260, 13 (2022), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ac5f4a.
  • Yan et al. [2023] Y.-P. Yan, G.-J. Wang, S.-Y. Li, and J.-Q. Xia, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 267, 2 (2023), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acd2ce.
  • Heinrich et al. [2024] C. Heinrich, T. Driskell, and C. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043518 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043518.
  • Caldeira et al. [2019] J. Caldeira, W. Wu, B. Nord, C. Avestruz, S. Trivedi, and K. Story, Astronomy and Computing 28, 100307 (2019), ISSN 2213-1337, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221313371830132X.
  • Petroff et al. [2020] M. A. Petroff, G. E. Addison, C. L. Bennett, and J. L. Weiland, Astrophys. J.  903, 104 (2020), eprint 2004.11507.
  • Górski et al. [2005] K. M. Górski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelmann, 622, 759 (2005), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/427976.
  • Planck Collaboration et al. [2020] Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Astron. Astrophys.  641, A6 (2020), eprint 1807.06209.
  • Lewis et al. [2000] A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.  538, 473 (2000), eprint astro-ph/9911177.
  • Thorne et al. [2017] B. Thorne, J. Dunkley, D. Alonso, and S. Næss, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.  469, 2821 (2017), eprint 1608.02841.
  • Draine and Lazarian [1998] B. T. Draine and A. Lazarian, The Astrophysical Journal 508, 157 (1998), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/306387.
  • Draine and Lazarian [1999] B. T. Draine and A. Lazarian, The Astrophysical Journal 512, 740 (1999), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/306809.
  • Génova-Santos et al. [2016] R. Génova-Santos, J. A. Rubiño-Martín, A. Peláez-Santos, F. Poidevin, R. Rebolo, R. Vignaga, E. Artal, S. Harper, R. Hoyland, A. Lasenby, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 464, 4107 (2016), ISSN 0035-8711, eprint https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/464/4/4107/8312033/stw2503.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2503.
  • Planck Collaboration et al. [2016] Planck Collaboration, R. Adam, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. I. R. Alves, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, et al., Astron. Astrophys.  594, A10 (2016), eprint 1502.01588.
  • Finkbeiner et al. [1999] D. P. Finkbeiner, M. Davis, and D. J. Schlegel, Astrophys. J.  524, 867 (1999), eprint astro-ph/9905128.
  • Meisner and Finkbeiner [2014] A. M. Meisner and D. P. Finkbeiner, Astrophys. J.  798, 88 (2014), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/88.
  • Elfwing et al. [2017] S. Elfwing, E. Uchibe, and K. Doya, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1702.03118 (2017), eprint 1702.03118.
  • Qi et al. [2020] J. Qi, J. Du, S. M. Siniscalchi, X. Ma, and C.-H. Lee, IEEE Signal Processing Letters 27, 1485 (2020).
  • Kotsiantis et al. [2018] S. B. Kotsiantis, D. Kanellopoulos, and P. E. Pintelas, Data preprocessing for supervised leaning (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1082415.
  • Hecht-Nielsen [1989] Hecht-Nielsen, in International 1989 Joint Conference on Neural Networks (1989), pp. 593–605 vol.1.
  • HECHT-NIELSEN [1992] R. HECHT-NIELSEN, in Neural Networks for Perception, edited by H. Wechsler (Academic Press, 1992), pp. 65–93, ISBN 978-0-12-741252-8, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780127412528500108.
  • Kingma and Ba [2014] D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1412.6980 (2014), eprint 1412.6980.
  • Ruder [2016] S. Ruder, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1609.04747 (2016), eprint 1609.04747.
  • Sun et al. [2020] S. Sun, Z. Cao, H. Zhu, and J. Zhao, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 50, 3668 (2020).
  • Lai et al. [2022] Y. Lai, Y. Shi, Y. Han, Y. Shao, M. Qi, and B. Li, Neurocomputing 481, 249 (2022), ISSN 0925-2312, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231222001102.
  • Sohl-Dickstein et al. [2015] J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by F. Bach and D. Blei (PMLR, Lille, France, 2015), vol. 37 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 2256–2265, URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/sohl-dickstein15.html.
  • Ho et al. [2020] J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin (Curran Associates, Inc., 2020), vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/4c5bcfec8584af0d967f1ab10179ca4b-Paper.pdf.
  • Nichol and Dhariwal [2021] A. Q. Nichol and P. Dhariwal, in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by M. Meila and T. Zhang (PMLR, 2021), vol. 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 8162–8171, URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/nichol21a.html.