arXiv:0806.3474v1 [astro-ph] 20 Jun 2008 abilities omto.Ti ro otisorkoldeaotthe about knowledge our contains prior This formation. il hsclraiisdfie eea ttso uha such of variable states state the as pos- by here The denoted defined adopted. model, is realities Universe physical the sible for model probabilistically, a relevant measurement provided all the describe in to involved permits processes It to framework problems. ideal such handle an offers the- uncertainty, knowledge probability probabilistic missing of as on interpretation Bayesian planet. based the our and is ory about which data theory, biological Information econom- and physi- geological, in sociological, of experiments ical, compilations many and for laboratories well cal as back- microwave (CMB), cosmic the ground struc- of interpretation large-scale for the cosmic true for the is ture, map This to surveys results. and galaxy our them using imperfect of on uncertainties based incomplete, conclusions the our quantify interpret draw to data, with noisy how and faced of are problem we observations the astronomical from verse noratmt oifrtepoete forUni- our of properties the infer to attempts our In P .Ifraino hsclfields physical on Information A. ( ψ hsipratmsegrfo h nainr pc.Final epoch. inflationary the from messenger important this iiaiiso nomto n ttsia edter an energ retrieval. theory information free field maximal Helmholtz statistical for the strategies and on information based of IFT similarities of measure information ntebsetu,wihi 3 is maps which sky 4 bispectrum, construct to the to even on up used uses be filter line can and the to signal, up our optimal is is inflati which filter non-lineariti Early-Universe This local some imperfections. desp from possible measurement predicted any estimator, are detect posteriori which to (CMB), a corresp filter maximum a the design the solving We calculate than expensive to equa less means flow obser much response-renormalisation and is a formation of numerically galaxy virtue and the to structure incomplete thanks of I non-linear, processes t strongly the resemble a surveys. as should with which galaxy observed signal, incomplete Universe, lar Gaussian in a cosmic counts that the numerically galaxy of recover discrete Reconstruction signal 1) from cosmological spac two harmonics IFT-formulation. here, spherical their However, and expanded, fields. Fourier-, diagrammatically many position-, be re in can IFT Free rules IFT we reality, Interacting terms. physical interaction a theory. and to considerat propagator, relation general field, their source from and Starting noise, framework. signals, implem IFT to di theories the A field within with fields. familiar not information scientists the enable signals, distributed spatially sindt hm h ocle ro in- prior so-called the them, to assigned ) edevelop We a-lnkIsiu ¨rAtohsk Karl-Schwarzschi f¨ur Astrophysik, Max-Planck-Institut .INTRODUCTION I. ose .Eßi,Mn rmet n rnic .Kitaura S. Francisco and Frommert, Mona Enßlin, A. Torsten nomto edtheory field information o omlgclprubto reconstruction perturbation cosmological for th re aacreainfntos hra urn non-lin current whereas functions, correlation data order ψ n o-iersga analysis signal non-linear and a aeprob- have can , rd nomto edtheory field Information re,isipeetto a ept mrv h detectabi the improve to help may implementation its order, Dtd ue2,2008) 20, June (Dated: IT samaso aein aabsdifrneon inference based data Bayesian, of means a as (IFT) oe hc enstes-aldlklho,teprob- the likelihood, so-called the ability defines which model h tt aibewl ngnrlcnanoeo several or coordinates one some over contain functions general are in which fields, will variable extended, spatially state evolu- is the subsequent Universe our the the Since determine completely. be tion which may Universe, conditio prior the initial taken. different of the is the data model, of distribution other cosmological probability any given before a it For model we as Universe naycs,tepoaiiydsrbto ucino the of function distribution probability data, the case, any In condition physical d Universe the of state complete sdtriitc nta case that In deterministic. Schr¨odingeris the equation even Universe since quantum-physical a determined, in uniquely be should measurement sgvni em fapt nerloe l osbere- possible all over integral path a of of alisations terms in given is 1). E I [ ψ lotemaueetpoesi ecie yadata a by described is process measurement the Also stefntoa eedneo h aao h state. the on data the of dependence functional the is ] ulnn o ootms observational optimise to how outlining d n n pl neec loihsderived algorithms inference apply and ent atcapoc satmtdi re to order in attempted is approach dactic dSr ,871Grhn,Germany Garching, 85741 1, ld-Str. eieteifrainHmloin the Hamiltonian, information the derive .Teter hudb plcbein applicable be should theory The e. si h omcmcoaebackground microwave cosmic the in es n osoinnieaetdresponse, affected Poissonian-noise and rodri h o-iert parameter, non-linearity the in order ar in upiigy ovn hsequation this solving Surprisingly, tion. P y epoieteBoltzmann-Shannon the provide we ly, rdcstewl nw Wiener-filter known well the produces esaesrcuemte distribution matter structure ge-scale eiiildniyprubtoso the of perturbations density initial he nigcasclfil qain which equation, field classical onding ain rvd,cnb reconstructed be can provide, vations rbesaedsusdi ealin detail in discussed are problems y ( nr cnro,adepce u to due expected and scenarios, onary oso h aueo measurements, of nature the on ions d o hc epoieteFeynman the provide we which for sdmntae nltclyand analytically demonstrated is t t h omrshge dlt.2) fidelity. higher former’s the ite | fnnlnaiisi h aa Since data. the in non-linearities of ,teeyhglgtn conceptual highlighting thereby y, ψ ψ ooti pcfi dataset specific a obtain to ) P ob endmr rcsl ae (Sect. later precisely more defined be to , ( d = ) ψ n ol ru htgvnthe given that argue could One . Z D P ψ aiyfitr rely filters earity P ( ( d d ψ | | ψ ψ ) h outcome the = ) P ( iyof lity ψ δ ( ) d , − d d [ ψ ie the given ) where ]), d x fthe of . (1) ns 2

A scientist is not actually interested in the total state and the underlying physical field ψ basically becomes in- of the Universe, but only in some specific aspects of it, visible at this stage in the formalism. The evidence plays which we call the signal s = s[ψ]. The signal is a very a central role in Bayes inference, since it is the likeli- reduced description of the physical reality, and can be hood of all the assumed model parameters. Combining any function of its state ψ, freely chosen according to this parameter-likelihood with parameter-priors one can the needs and interests of the scientist or the ability and start Bayesian inference on the model classes. capacity of the measurement and computational devices used. Since the signal does not contain the full phys- ical state, any physical degree of freedom which is not B. Signal response and noise present in the signal but influences the data will be re- ceived as probabilistic uncertainty, or shortly noise. The If signal and data depend on the same underlying phys- probability distribution function of the signal, its prior ical properties, there may be correlations between the two, which can be expressed in terms of signal response P (s)= Dψδ(s − s[ψ]) P (ψ), (2) R and noise n of the data as Z d = R[s]+ n . (9) is related to that of the data via the joined probability s We have chosen two different ways of denoting the de- P (d, s)= Dψδ(s − s[ψ]) P (d|ψ) P (ψ), (3) pendence of response and noise on the signal s, in order Z to highlight that the response should embrace most of from which the conditional signal likelihood the reaction of the data to the signal, whereas the noise should be as independent as possible. We ensure this by P (d|s)= P (d, s)/P (s) (4) putting the linear correlation of the data with the signal fully into the response. The response is therefore the part and signal posterior of the data which correlates with the signal P (s|d)= P (d, s)/P (d) (5) R[s] ≡ hdi(d|s) ≡ Dd d P (d|s), (10) can be derived. Z Before the data is available, the phase-space of interest and the noise is just defined as the remaining part which is spanned by the direct product of all possible signals s does not: and data d, and all regions with non-zero P (d, s) are of potential relevance. Once the actual data dobs have been ns ≡ d − R[s]= d − hdi(d|s). (11) taken, only a sub-manifold of this space, as fixed by the data, is of further relevance. The probability function Although the noise might depend on the signal, as it is over this sub-space is proportional to P (d = dobs,s), and well known for example for Poissonian processes, it is – needs just to be renormalised by dividing by per definition – linearly uncorrelated to it, † † † hns s i(d|s) = (hdi(d|s) − R[s]) s =0 s =0, (12) Ds P (dobs,s)= Ds Dψδ(s − s[ψ]) P (dobs|ψ) P (ψ) Z Z Z whereas higher order correlation might well exist and = Dψ P (dobs|ψ) P (ψ)= P (dobs), (6) may be further exploited for their information content. Z These definitions were chosen to be close to the usual which is the unconditioned probability (or evidence) of language in signal processing and data analysis. They that data. Thus, we find the resulting information of permit to define signal response and noise for an arbitrary the data to be the posterior distribution P (s|d ) = choice of the signal s[ψ]. No direct causal connection obs between signal and data is needed in order to have a P (dobs,s)/P (dobs). This posterior is the fundamental mathematical object from which all our deductions have non-trivial response, since both variables just need to to be made. It is related via Bayes’s theorem [1] to the exhibit some couplings to a common sub-aspect of ψ. usually better accessible signal likelihood, The above definition of response and noise is however not unique, even for a fixed signal definition, since any data ′ P (s|d)= P (d|s) P (s)/P (d), (7) transformation d = T [d] can lead to different definitions, as seen from which follows from Eqs. 4 and 5. ′ ′ The normalisation term in Bayes’s theorem, the evi- R [s] ≡ hd i(d|s) = hT [d]i(d|s) 6= T [hdi(d|s)], (13) dence P (d), is now also fully expressed in terms of the ′ joint probability of data and signal, except for linear transformations, d = T d, unique rela- tions between signal and state, P (ψ|s)= δ(ψ−ψ[s]), and maybe a few other very special cases. Thus, the concepts P (d)= Ds P (d, s), (8) of signal response and therewith defined noise depend on Z 3 the adopted coordinate system in the data space. This C. Signal design coordinate space can be changed via a data transforma- tion T , and the transformed data may exhibit better or For practical reasons one will usually choose s accord- worse response to the signal. Information theory aids in ing to a few guidelines, which should simplify the infor- designing a suitable data transformation, so that the sig- mation deduction process: nal response is maximal, and the signal noise is minimal, permitting the signal to be best recovered. Thus, we may 1. The functional form of s[ψ] should best be simple, aim for an optimal T , which yields steady, analytic, and if possible linear in ψ, permit- T [d]= hsi . (14) ting to use the signal s to reason about the state of (s|d) reality ψ with the help of the concept of a response We define md = hsi(s|d) to be the map of the signal given function. the data d and call T a map-making-algorithm if it fulfils Eq. 14 at least approximately. As a criterion for this one 2. The degrees of freedom of s should be related to may require that the signal response of a map-making- the ones of the data d in the sense that cross cor- algorithm, relations exist which permit to deduce properties of s from d. Signal degrees of freedoms, which are R [s] ≡ hT [d]i , (15) T (d|s) insensitive to the data, will only be constrained by is positive definite with respect to signal variations as the prior and therefore just contain a large amount stated by of uncertainty, which adds to the error budget, and should thus be avoided as far as possible. A good δR [s] T ≥ 0. (16) trade-off between signal response and noise on the δs one hand and signal uncertainty on the other hand This ensures that a map-making algorithm will respond should be considered. It should be noted, that with a non-negative correlation of the map to any signal dropping relatively unresponsive parts of the sig- feature, with respect to the noise ensemble. In general, nal, and thereby increasing the data noise, typically T will be a non-linear operation on the data, to be con- leads to an improved signal recoverability, assuming structed from information theory if it should be optimal an optimal information theoretical signal estimator in the sense of Eq. 14. In any case, the fidelity of a sig- is used. nal reconstruction can be characterised by the quadratic signal uncertainty, 3. The choice of s[ψ] should also be lead by math- ematical convenience and practicality. In the ex- σ2 = h(s − T [d]) (s − T [d])†i , (17) T (d,s) amples presented in this work, simple signals are averaged over typical realisations of signal and noise. Of chosen which permit to guess good approximations special interest is the trace of this for signal likelihood P (d|s) and prior P (s) without the need to develop the full physical theory starting 2 2 Tr(σT )= dx h|sx − Tx[d]| i(s|d), (18) with P (ψ). Z since it is the expectation value of the squared Lebesgue- To give a more specific example, we assume a cosmo- L2-space distance between a signal reconstruction and logical model in which the reality is thought to be solely the underlying signal. Requesting a map making algo- characterised by the dark matter density distribution rithm to be optimal with respect to Eq. 18, implies ψ(x), from which all observable cosmological phenomena T [d] = hsi(s|d) and therefore it to be optimal in an in- like galaxies derive in a deterministic way. The coordi- formation theoretical sense according to Eq. 14. nate x may refer to the comoving coordinates at some An illustrative example should be in order. Suppose early epoch of the Universe. Although the large-scale our data is an exact copy of a physical field, d = ψ, our structure of the matter distribution at a later time may signal the square of the latter, s = ψ2, and the physi- predominantly depend on the initial large-scale modes, cal field obeys an even statistics, P (ψ)= P (−ψ). Then, and is reflected in the galaxy distribution, the actual po- the signal response is exactly zero, R[s] = 0, and the sitions of the individual galaxies also depend in a non- data contains only noise with respect to the chosen sig- trivial way on the small-scale modes. Due to the discrete- nal, d = ns. Thus, we have chosen a bad representation ness of our observable, the galaxy positions, it may be im- of our data to reveal the signal. If we, however, introduce possible to reconstruct these small scale modes. There- the transformation d′ = T [d]= d2, we find a perfect re- fore it could be sensible to define s[ψ] = F ψ, with F ′ ′ sponse, R [s] = s, and zero noise, ns = 0. In this case, being a linear low-pass filter, which suppresses all small- finding the optimal map-making algorithm was trivial, scale structures. This signal may be reconstructible with but in more complicated situations, it can not be guessed high precision, whereas any attempt to reconstruct ψ di- that easily. Since the response and noise definitions de- rectly would be plagued by a larger error budget, since pend on the signal definition, some thoughts should be all the data-unconstrained small-scale modes represent given to how to choose the signal in a way that it can be uncertainties to a reconstruction of ψ, but not to one of well reconstructed. s being defined as a low pass filtered version of ψ. 4

D. Information field theory teractions of information fields of causally unconnected regions of space-time. This is for example possible in Why this “philosophical” introduction to a mostly case a cosmological principle is assumed to be valid in technical paper? The fact that the signal can be tailored the (model) Universe. This permits us to use conclu- to specific needs should also make us aware, that while sions derived from data received from one region of our interpreting data we are not reconstructing a physical Universe to understand properties of another part. If the reality, but only a condensed description of it, our cho- data were received as light from two opposite cosmic di- sen signal. We are gathering abstract information and rections, the two regions observed may never have been this information can be about spatially distributed phys- in causal contact during recent cosmic history. ical quantities in cosmological applications. Our signal Although our main motivation is the reconstruction of is therefore an information field which should conform cosmic density and gravitational fields, and inference on to the laws of information theory, or more specifically, to their statistical properties, and our examples are geared highlight the technical aspects of dealing with distributed towards such applications, it should be clear that the pre- quantities, to information field theory (IFT), which we sented theory has more general applications. Even the want to introduce here.1 presented concrete cosmological problems may be useful Physical fields and the information fields derived from in other contexts as well with little modifications. For them have a number of similarities, motivating the termi- example, the large-scale structure reconstruction method nology chosen here, but also exhibit a number of distinct based on galaxy counts of Sect. IV can be used for image differences, explaining why we insist on not to identify reconstruction with low-number photon statistics, e.g in an information field with its physical counterpart. low-dose X-ray imaging. The CMB non-Gaussianity es- Physical fields form the physical reality, whereas infor- timator of Sect. V may serve as a blueprint for statistical mation fields are only abstract and compressed descrip- monitoring of the linearity of a signal amplifier. tions of that physical reality. Physical reality should be The information of some data d on a signal s defined understood here as the state of our physical model, which over some set Ω, which in most applications will be a actually is a philosophical concept, and to some degree manifold like a sub-volume of the Rn, or the sphere in even subjective. Therefore, we can also state that in- case of a CMB signal, is completely contained in the formation fields form a knowledge reality, which is obvi- posterior P (s|d) of the signal given the data.3 The ex- ously and explicitly subjective due to its dependence on pectation value of s at some location x ∈ Ω, and higher the data available, and the data model used to construct correlation functions of s can all be obtained from the the field. Physical fields may interact among themselves, posterior by taking the appropriate average: whereas information fields are derived from the former 2 but do not influence them. hs(x1) · · · s(xn)id ≡ hs(x1) · · · s(xn)i(s|d) Nevertheless, also information fields interact among themselves, since two pieces of information can add up ≡ Dss(x1) · · · s(xn) P (s|d).(19) in a non-linear way and interaction terms in informa- Z tion Hamiltonians can have a similar structure to those of physical Hamiltonians. Physical signals travel at most The problem is that often neither the expectation val- ues nor even the posterior are easily calculated analyt- with the speed of light, and any interaction of physical fields should be local due to physical causality. Infor- ically, even for fairly simple data models. Fortunately, there is at least one class of data models for which the mation field theory, however, can contain non-local in- posterior and all its moments can be calculated exactly, namely in case the posterior turns out to be a multivari- ate Gaussian in s. In this case analytical formulae for all moments of the signal are known and are in principle 1 We prefer the term information field theory (IFT) versus the proposal of Bayesian field theory (BFT) by Lemm [2] since the computable. Technically, one is still often facing a huge, term IFT puts the emphasis on the relevant object, the informa- but linear inverse problem. However, in the last decades tion, whereas BFT refers to a method, Bayesian inference. The a couple of computational high-performance map-making Bayesian methods are unavoidably needed while dealing with in- techniques were developed to tackle such problems either formation, however, also other methods might be required. Fur- thermore, the term information field is rather self-explaining, on the sphere, for CMB research, or in flat spaces with whereas the meaning of a Bayesian field is not that obvious. one, two or three dimensions, for example for the re- 2 At least no significant influence of a knowledge state described construction of the cosmic large-scale structure (detailed by an information field is expected in usual physical and espe- references are given in Sect. IF). The purpose of this cially cosmological settings. However, if IFT is to be applied to sociological systems, information on the state of distributed hu- man motives might even change that state. This is well known e.g. in economics, where the information on a believe in an eco- nomical state of a company can have large influence on the same 3 We are mostly dealing with scalar fields, however, multi- state due to the induced decisions of the companie’s customers, component, vector or tensor fields can be treated analogously, especially if the company is a bank. However, such complications and many of the equations just have to be re-interpreted for should not be the topic here. such fields and stay valid. 5 work is to show how to expand other posterior distribu- E. Signal and data spaces tions around the Gaussian ones in a perturbative manner, which then permits to use the existing map-making codes 1. Discretisation and continuous limit for the computation of the resulting diagrammatic per- turbation series. Since the diagrammatic perturbation Both, the signal and the data space may be continu- series in Feynman-diagrams are well known and under- ous, however, in practice will most often be discrete since stood in quantum- and statistical field theory (QFT & digital data processing only permits to chose a discretised SFT), the most economical way is to reformulate the in- representation of the distributed information. The space formation theoretical problem in a language which is as in which the data and signal discretisation happens can close as possible to the former two theories. Thereby, be chosen freely, and of course can be as well a Fourier, many of the results and concepts become directly avail- wavelet or spherical harmonics space. Even if we would able for signal inference problems. Moreover, it seems like to analyse a continuous signal, the computationally that expressing the optimal signal estimator in terms of required discretisation will force an implicit redefinition Feynman diagrams immediately provides computation- of our actual signal to be the discretely sampled version of ally efficient algorithms, since the diagrams encode the that continuous signal, and this discretisation step should skeleton of the minimal necessary computational infor- also be part of the data model, if it has the potential to mation flow. significantly affect the analysis. Although discretisation implies some information loss it also has an advantage. Scientists, who are not Formally, IFT can be regarded as a statistical field the- so familiar with functional analysis and field theoret- ory. However, there is a philosophical difference. In SFT ical calculations, can assume discretisation and there- any estimator is an expectation for a fluctuating field, fore read all scalar and tensor products as being the and given a sufficient long observing period, the system usual, component-wise ones, now just in high-, but finite- will (usually) exhibit a time average identical to the esti- dimensional vector spaces. This may lower the threshold mator. In IFT, however, there exists presumably only a for a broader usage of algorithms derived from IFT. single realisation of the field. Its value is not known and To be concrete, let {xi}⊂ Ω be a discrete set of Npix therefore uncertainties exists, which are described proba- pixel positions, each of which has a volume-size Vi at- bilistically. Thus, an identical mathematical description tributed to it, then the scalar product of two discretised of the uncertainties in IFT and the fluctuations in the function-vectors f = (fi), and g = (gi) sampled at these SFT is used, but their meaning is conceptually different points via fi = f(xi), and gi = g(xi) could be defined by in that in one case it is missing knowledge on the system, Npix † and in the other case it is the description of a (rapidly) g f ≡ Vi g¯i fi. (20) changing state. The missing knowledge may be supple- i=1 mented by later observations, whereas the fluctuations X of a thermodynamical system persist even after precise The bar denotes complex conjugation. This scalar prod- measurements as long the system is coupled to a heat uct has the continuous limit bath. g†f −→ dx g¯(x) f(x). (21) Z In many cases the actual volume normalisation in Eq. Furthermore, adding constants to a QFT- or SFT- 20 does not matter for final results, since it usually can- Hamiltonian does not change the predictions of the the- cels out, and therefore Vi is often dropped completely for ory at all. In IFT, such constants are often meaning- equidistant sampling of signal and data spaces. The vol- ful in cases where parameters of the theory themselves ume terms also disappear for a scalar product involving have uncertainties and are to be estimated from the a function which is discretised via volume integration, fi = dx f(x), e.g. the number of counts within the data or marginalised over. This is a clear difference to Vi cell i. Anyhow, higher order tensor products are defined QFT, where, e.g., coupling constants and particle masses R are assumed to be fixed (at a given energy), and not analogously. attributed with quantum-mechanical probability ampli- The path integral of a functional F [f] ≡ tudes which are part of the dynamics. Such parameter F (f1,...,fNpix ) over all realisations of such a dis- uncertainties can lead, as we will show in a follow-up pa- cretised field f is then just a high-dimensional volume per, to non-local couplings in IFT. Inference based on integral, with as many dimensions as pixels: data from one region may be used in conjunction with Npix the cosmological principle to predict the properties of Df F [f] ≡ dfi F (f1,...,fN ). (22) another corner of the Universe, which is the cause of   pix Z i=1 Z such non-local information couplings. This is different Y   to QFT, where only local coupling are possible due to This definition of a finite-dimensional path integral is well the physical causality of space-time. normalised, since in case that we want to integrate over 6 a probability distribution over f, which is separable for realisations of this knowledge state field function via Npix all pixels, P (f) = i=1 Pi(fi), as e.g. white noise and Poissonian processes produce, one finds Q P [P(p|d)]= DP(p|d) δ P(p|d) − dq P (p, q|d) . (24) Z  Z  Npix

h1i(f) = Df P (f)= df Pi(f) =1. (23) In case that q is a field, the marginalisation integral in i=1 the delta functional also becomes a path-integral. Prob- Z Y Z =1 abilistic decision theory, based on knowledge state as ex- pressed by probability functions on parameters, has to The probabilities of the individual| pixels{z may} depend on deal with such complications. For inference directly on the pixel volume, especially if the signal is an integral p, and not on the knowledge state P(p|d), the marginalised quantity like the number of galaxies within a pixel vol- probability ume, or it might be independent of the volumes, e.g. if the signal is a physical field sampled only at the pixel P (p|d)= dq P (p, q|d) (25) positions. Although it is practically never required in real data- Z analysis applications to perform the continuous limit contains all relevant information, and that will be suffi- Npix → ∞ with Vi → 0 for all i, we stress that this limit cient for most inference applications, and especially for can formally be taken and is well defined even for the the ones in this work. path integral, as we argue in more detail in Sec. III B. The basic argument is that suitable signals could and should be defined in such a way that path-integral di- F. Previous works vergences, which plague sometimes QFT, can easily be avoided by sensible signal design. Practically, the ex- The work presented here tries to unify information the- istence of a well-defined continuous limit of a well-posed ory and statistical field theory in order to provide a con- IFT implies that two numerical implementations of a sig- ceptual framework in which optimal tools for cosmologi- nal reconstruction problem, which differ in their space cal signal analysis can be derived, as well as for inference discretisation on scales smaller than the structures of the problems in other disciplines. Below, we provide very signal, can be expected to provide identical results up brief introductions into each of the required fields (in- to a small discretisation difference, which vanishes with formation theory, image reconstruction, statistical field higher discretisation-resolution. theory, cosmological large-scale structure, and cosmic mi- crowave background), for the orientation of non-expert readers. An expert in any of these fields might decide to 2. Parameter spaces skip the corresponding sections. This work has tremendously benefitted in a direct and In many applications, the signal space is identified with indirect way from a large number of previous publica- the physical space or with the sphere of the sky. How- tions in those fields. We, the authors, have to apologise ever, IFT can also be done over parameter spaces. In for being unable to give full credit to all relevant former Sec. V, a field theory over the sphere will implicitly de- works in those fields for only concentrating on a brief fine the knowledge state for an unknown parameter of summary of the papers more or less directly influenc- that theory, which can be regarded again to define an ing this work. This collection is obviously highly biased information theory for that parameter. The latter is an towards the cosmological literature due to our main sci- IFT in case that the parameter has spatial variations. entific interests and expertise, and definitely incomplete. However, there are also functions defined over a param- eter space, Ωparameter = {p} for some parameter p, which one might want to obtain knowledge on from incomplete 1. Information theory and Bayesian inference data. A very import one is the probability distribution of the parameter given the observational data, P (p|d), The fundament of information theory was laid by the which defines our parameter-knowledge state. This func- work of Bayes [1] on probability theory, in which the tion may only be incompletely known and therefore re- celebrated Bayes theorem was presented. The theorem quire an IFT approach for its reconstruction and inter- itself, Eq. 7, is a simple rule for conditional probabilities. polation. Such incomplete knowledge on the function It only unfolds its power for inference problems if used could be due to incomplete numerical sampling of its with belief or knowledge states, described by conditional function values because of large computational costs and probabilities. the huge volumes of multi-dimensional parameter spaces. The advent of modern information theory is prob- Or, there might be another unknown nuisance parame- ably best dated by the work of Shannon [3, 4] on ter q in the problem, which induces an uncertainty in the concept of information measure, being the negative P(p|d) = P (p|d) and therefore an IFT over all possible Boltzmann-entropy, and the work of Jaynes, combining 7 the language of statistical mechanics and Bayes proba- A Gaussian-prior based regularisation was recently pro- bility theory and applying it to knowledge uncertainties posed by Kitaura and Enßlin [37], and the implementa- [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. The required numerical evaluation tion of a variant of this is presented here in Sect. IV D. of Bayesian probability integrals suffered often from the The maximum entropy method can be regarded again curse of high dimensionality. The standard recipe against as being fully Bayesian, however, for a slightly artificial this, still in massive use today, is importance sampling data model of some ensemble of image signal packages via Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo Methods, following the or “photons” trying to occupy that state of the image- ideas of Metropolis et al. [12], Hastings [13], and Geman phase space, which has least information according to and Geman [14], where the latter authors already had the Boltzmann-Shannon measure, but is still consistent image reconstruction applications in mind. With such with the data. The tradeoff between being data-conform tools, higher dimensional problems, as present in signal and having maximal entropy is set by an ad-hoc control restauration, could and can be tackled, however, for the variable. For a classical review on maximum entropy price of getting stochastic uncertainty into the computa- methods see [38]. Maximum entropy algorithms will not tional results. be the topic here, as well as not a number of other exist- The applications and extensions of these pioneering ing methods, which are partly within and partly outside works are too numerous to be listed here. Good mono- the Bayesian framework. They may be found in existing graphs exist and the necessary references can be found reviews on this topic [e.g. 39]. there [15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. A review of Bayesian infer- ence methods used for parameter estimation and model selection in cosmology is given by Trotta [20]. 3. Statistical and Bayesian field theory

2. Image reconstruction in astronomy and elsewhere The relation of signal reconstruction problems and field theory was discovered independently by several authors. The problem of image reconstruction from incomplete, In cosmology, the most prominent work in this directions noisy data is especially important in astronomy, where is probably by Bertschinger [40], in which the path inte- the experimental conditions are largely set by the nature gral approach was proposed to sample primordial density of distant objects, weather conditions, etc., all mainly perturbations with a Gaussian statistics under the con- out of the control of the observer, as well as in other straint of existing information on the large scale struc- disciplines like medicine and geology, with similar limita- ture. The work presented here can be regarded as a non- tions to arrange the object of observations for an optimal linear, non-Gaussian extension of this. measurement. Some of the most prominent methods of Simultaneously to Bertschinger’s work, Bialek and Zee image reconstruction, which are based on a Bayesian im- [41, 42] argued that visual perception can be modeled as a plementation of an assumed data model, are the Wiener- field theory for the true image, being distorted by noise filter [21], the Richardson-Lucy algorithm [22, 23], and and other data transformations, which are summarised the maximum-entropy image restauration [24].4 by a nuisance field. A probabilistic language was used, The Wiener filter can be regarded to be a full Bayesian but no direct reference to information theory was made, image inference method in case of Gaussian signal and since not the optimal information reconstruction was the noise statistics, as we will show in Sect. II C. It will be aim, but a model for the human visual reception system. the working horse of the IFT formalism, since the Wiener However, this work actually triggered our research. filter represents the algorithm to construct the exact field Bialek et al. [43] applied a field theoretical approach theoretical expectation value given the data for a non- to recover a probability distribution from data. Here, a linear interaction-free information Hamiltonian. The fil- Bayesian prior was used to regularise the solution, which ter can be decomposed into two essential information was set up ad-hoc to enforce smoothness of the recon- processing steps, first building the information source by struction, obtained from the classical (or saddlepoint, or response-over-noise weighting the data, and then propa- maximum a posteriori) solution of the problem. How- gating this information through the signal space, by ap- ever, an “optimal” value for the smoothness controlling plying the so called Wiener variance. parameter was derived from the data itself, a topic also The Richardson-Lucy algorithm is a maximum- addressed by Stoica et al. [44] and by a follow up pub- likelihood method to reconstruct from Poissonian data lication to ours. Bialek et al. [43] also recognised, as we and therefore is also of Bayesian origin. This method do, that an IFT can easily be non-local. has usually to be regularised by hand, by truncation of Finally, the work of Lemm and coworkers5 established the iterative calculations, against an over-fitting insta- a tight connection between statistical field theory and bility due to the missing (or implicitly flat) signal prior. Bayesian inference is established, and proposed the term

4 See also [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. 5 [2, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]. 8

Bayesian field theory for this. The applications concen- the latter probably providing us with the most detailed trate on the reconstruction of probability fields over pa- and accurate statistical data on the properties of the mat- rameter spaces and quantum mechanical potentials by ter density field. means of the maximum a posteriori equation. The ex- In recent years, it was recognised that the evolution of tensive book summarising the essential insights of these the cosmic density field and its statistical properties can papers, [2], clearly states the possibility of perturbative be addressed with field theoretical methods by virtue of expansions of the field theory. However, this is not fol- renormalisation flow equations. Detailed semi-analytical lowed up by these authors probably for reasons of the calculations for the density field time propagator, the computational complexity of the required algorithms. In two- and three- point correlation functions are now possi- contrast to many of the previous works on IFT, which ble due to this, which are expected to play an important deal with ad-hoc priors, the publication by Lemm [52] is role in future approaches to reconstruct the initial fluc- remarkable, since it provides explicit recipes of how to tuations from the observational data7 . implement a priori information in various circumstances It was recognised early on, that the primordial den- more rigorously. sity fluctuations can in principle be reconstructed from The field theoretical mathematical tools required to galaxy observations [40]. This has lead to a large devel- tackle IFT problems come from statistical and quantum opment of various numerical techniques for an optimal field theory, which have a vast literature. We have spe- reconstruction8. Many of them are based on a Bayesian cially made use of the books of Binney et al. [53], Peskin approach, since they are implementations and extension and Schroeder [54], and Zee [55]. of the Wiener filter. However, also other principles are used, like, e.g. the least action approach, or Voronoi tes- sellation techniques9 . A discussion and classification of 4. Cosmological large-scale structure the various methods can be found in [37]. Especially the Wiener filter methods were extensively applied to galaxy survey data10 and permitted partly Our first IFT example in Sec. IV is geared towards to extrapolate the matter distribution into the zone of improving galaxy-survey based cosmography, the recon- avoidance behind the galactic disk and to close the data- struction of the large-scale structure matter distribution. gap there, c.f. [152, 153, 154], a topic we also address in We provide here a short overview on the relevant back- Sect. IV. ground and works. Another cosmological relevant information field to be The large-scale structure of the matter distribution extracted from galaxy catalogues is the large-scale struc- of the Universe is traced by the spatial distribution of ture power spectrum11. This power is also measurable Galaxies, and therefore well observable. This structure in the CMB, and for a long time the CMB provided the is believed to have emerged from tiny, mostly Gaussian best spectrum normalisation [160, 161]. intitial density fluctuations of a relative strength of 10−5 via a self-gravitational instability, partly counteracted by the expansion of the Universe. The initial density fluc- 5. Cosmic Microwave Background tuations are believed to be produced during an early in- flationary epoch of the Universe, and to carry valuable Since our second example deals with the CMB, we give information about the inflaton in their N-point corre- a brief overview on it and on related inference methods. lation functions, to be extracted from the observational The CMB reveals the statistical properties of the mat- data. ter field at a time, when the Universe was about 1100 The onset of the structure formation process is well times smaller in linear size than it is today. The photon- described by linear perturbation theory and therefore to baryon fluid, which decouples at that epoch into neutral conserve Gaussianity, however, the later evolution, the Hydrogen and free streaming photons, has responded to structures on smaller scales, and especially the galaxy the gravitational pull of the then already forming dark formation require non-linear descriptions. The observa- matter structures. The photons from that epoch cooled tional situation is complicated by the fact that the most important galaxy distance indicator, their redshift, is also sensitive to the galaxy peculiar velocity, which causes the observational data on the three-dimensional large-scale 7 Relevant references are [71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, structure to be partially degenerated. There are analyti- 82, 83, 84, 85]. cal methods to describe these effects 6, and also extensive 8 Some of the main references are: [86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, work on N-body simulations of the structure formation, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126]. 9 E.g. [127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133]. 10 Survey based reconstructions of the cosmic matter fields can be 6 Of special interest in this context may be [56], which already found in [134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, applies path-integrals, and [57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151]. 67, 68, 69, 70] and the papers they refer to. 11 E.g. [155, 156, 157, 158, 159]. 9

due to the cosmic expansion since then into the CMB tion of the CMB data [e.g. 197, 198, 199, 200, 201] were radiation we observe today, and carry information on so far mostly negative, however not sensitive enough the physical properties of the photon-baryon fluid of that to seriously constrain the possible theoretical parame- time like density, temperature and velocity. To very high ter space of inflationary scenarios, see e.g. [202, 203]. accuracy, the spectrum of the photons from any direc- Recently, there has been the claim of detection of such tion is that of a blackbody, with a mean temperature of non-Gaussianities by Yadav and Wandelt [204], and a 2.7 Kelvin and fluctuations of the order of 10−5 Kelvin, confirmation of this with better data and improved al- imprinted by the primordial gravitational potentials at gorithms is therefore highly desirable. In Sect. V we decoupling. make a proposal for improving the algorithmic side of Therefore, mapping these temperature fluctuations this challenge. A recent review on the current status of precisely permits to study many cosmological parameters CMB-Gaussianity can be found in [205]. simultaneously, like the amount of dark matter produc- ing the gravitational potentials, the ratio of photons to baryons, balancing the pressure and weight of the fluid, G. Structure of the work and geometrical and dynamical parameters of space-time itself. The observations are technically challenging, and After the discussion of the basic concepts of IFT in- therefore require sophisticated algorithms to extract the cluding the free theory in Sec. II, interacting informa- tiny signal of temperature fluctuations against the instru- tion fields, their Hamiltonians and Feynman rules are ment noise, but also to separate it from other astrophys- introduced in Sec. III. The normalisability of sensibly ical foreground emission with the best possible accuracy. constructed IFTs is shown, as well the classical infor- 12 A number of such algorithms were developed , which mation field equation is presented there. Applications in many cases implement the Wiener filter. Thus, the of the theory are provided in the following two sections, required numerical tools for an IFT treatment of CMB which can be skipped by a reader interested only in the data are essentially available. general theoretical framework. In Sec. IV the problem The expected temperature fluctuations spectrum can of the reconstruction of the cosmic matter distribution be calculated from a linear perturbative treatment of from galaxy surveys is analysed in terms of a Poissonain the Boltzmann equations of all dynamical active parti- data model. In Sec. V we derive an optimal estimator cle species at this epoch, and fast computational imple- for non-Gaussianity in the CMB, and show how it can mentations exists permitting to predict it for a given set be generalised to map potential non-Gaussianities in the of cosmological parameters. Well known codes for this CMB sky. Finally, the Boltzmann-Shannon information task are publically available13 and permit to extract in- measure is introduced in Sec. VI and used to outline how formation on cosmological parameters from the measured survey strategies could be optimised. Our summary and CMB temperature fluctuation spectrum via comparison outlook can be found in Sec. VII. to their predictions for a given parameter set. It was recognised early on that this should happen in an infor- mation theoretically optimal way, and Bayesian methods II. BASICS CONCEPTS were therefore adapted in that area well before in other astrophysical disciplines [e.g. 183, 184, 185, 186]. A. Notation The initial metric and density fluctuations, from which the CMB fluctuations and the large-scale structure We briefly summarise our notation of functions in po- emerged, are believed to be initially seeded by quan- tum fluctuations of a hypothetical inflaton field, which sition and Fourier space. should have driven an inflationary expansion phase in the A here usually real, but in principle also complex func- very early Universe [187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192]. The tion f(x) over the n-dimensional space is regarded as a inflaton-induced fluctuations have a very Gaussian prob- vector f in a discrete and finite-dimensional, or contin- ability distribution, however, some non-Gaussian fea- uous and infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. f will de- tures seem to be unavoidable in most scenarios and can note this vector, independently of the momentarily cho- serve as a fingerprint to discriminate among them [e.g. sen function basis, be it the real space f(x) = hx|fi or 193, 194, 195, 196]. Observational tests on such non- the Fourier basis Gaussianities based on the three-point correlation func- f(k)= hk|fi = dx f(x) ei k·x. (26) Z Here, the volume integration usually is performed only 12 E.g.by [162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, over an finite domain with volume V . This leads to the 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179]. 13 E.g. cmbfast (http://cmbfast.org, convention for origin of the delta function in k-space, http://ascl.net/cmbfast.html, [180]), camb V (http://camb.info/, [181]), and cmbeasy δ(0) = , (27) (http://www.cmbeasy.org/, [182]). (2 π)n 10 and also to a Fourier transformation operator F = |kihx|, Furthermore, we usually suppress the dependency of ikx † † probabilities on the underlying model I and its param- with Fkx = e , and its inverse F = |xihk|, with Fxk = e−ikx. The dagger is used to denote transposed and eters θ in our notation. I.e. instead of P (s|θ, I) we † complex conjugated objects. We have (F F )xy =1xy as just write P (s) or P (s|θ) depending on our focus. Here † well as (F F )kk′ = 1kk′ for the following definition of θ = (S, N, R, ...) contains all the parameters of the model, the scalar product of two functions f and g in real and which are assumed to be known for the moment. Fourier space: dk B. Information Hamiltonian f †g = hf|gi = dx f(x) g(x)= f(k) g(k), (2 π)n Z Z (28) Although the posterior might not be easily accessible where the bar denotes complex conjugation. The sta- mathematically, we assume in the following that the prior tistical power-spectrum of f is denoted by Pf (k) = P (s) of the signal before the data is taken as well as the 2 h|f(k)| i(f)/V . likelihood of the data given a signal P (d|s) are known We also introduce for convenience the position-space or at least can be Taylor-Fr´echet-expanded around some component-wise product of two functions reference field configuration t. Then Bayes’s theorem per- mits to express the posterior as (fg)(x) ≡ f(x) g(x), (29) P (d|s) P (s) 1 which also permits compact notations like P (s|d)= ≡ e−H[s] . (37) P (d) Z (log f)(x) = log(f(x)), (f/g)(x)= f(x)/g(x), (30) Here, the Hamiltonian and alike. The component-wise product should not H[s] ≡ Hd[s] ≡− log [P (d, s)] = − log [P (d|s) P (s)] , be confused with the tensor product of two vectors (38) (fg†)(x, y)= f(x) g(y). the evidence of the data The diagonal components of a matrix M in position- space representation form a vector which we denote by P (d) ≡ Ds P (d|s) P (s)= Dse−H[s] ≡ Z, (39) Z Z M = diagxM, with Mx = Mxx. (31) and the partition function Z ≡ Zd were introduced. It Similarly, a diagonal matrix in position-space represen- is extremely convenient to include a moment generating c c tation, whose diagonal components are given by a vector function into the definition of the partition sum f, will be denoted by −H[s]+J†s Zd[J] ≡ Dse . (40) f = diag f with f = f 1 . (32) x xy x xy Z This means P (d) = Z = Z[0], but also permits to Thus, M = Mb if and only ifbM diagonal, and f = f calculate any moment of the signal field via Fr´echet- always. differentiation of Eq. 40 In ourc notation a multivariate Gaussian reads: bb n 1 δ Zd[J] 1 1 † −1 hs(x1) · · · s(xn)id = . (41) G(s,S)= 1 exp − s S s (33) Z δJ(x1) · · · δJ(xn) J=0 2 2 |2πS|   Of special importance are the so-called connected corre- † Here, S = hss i(s) denotes the covariance tensor of the lation functions Gaussian field s, which is drawn from P (s)= G(s,S). If δn log Z [J] s is statistically homogeneous, S is fully described by the hs(x ) · · · s(x )ic ≡ d , (42) 1 n d δJ(x ) · · · δJ(x ) power-spectrum Ps(k): 1 n J=0

n ′ which are corrected for the contribution of lower mo- Sk k′ = (2 π) δ(k − k ) Ps(k), −1 n ′ −1 ments to a correlator of order n. For example, the con- S ′ = (2 π) δ(k − k ) (P (k)) . (34) k k s nected mean and dispersion are expressed in terms of The Fourier representation of the trace of a Fourier- their unconnected counterparts as: diagonal operator, c hs(x)id = hs(x)id, dk hs(x) s(y)ic = hs(x) s(y)i − hs(x)i hs(y)i , (43) Tr(A)= dx A = V P (k), (35) d d d d xx (2 π)n A Z Z where the last term represents such a correction. For is very useful in combination with the following expres- Gaussian random fields all higher order connected corre- sion for the determinant of a Hermitian matrix, lators vanish:

c log |A| = Tr(log A). (36) hs(x1) · · · s(xn)id = 0 (44) 11 for n> 2. We assume, for the moment, but not in general, the The assumption that the Hamiltonian can be Taylor- noise to be signal-independent and Gaussian, and there- Fr´echet expanded in the signal field permits to write fore distributed as ∞ P (n|s)= G(n,N), (50) 1 † −1 † 1 (n) H[s]= s D s − j s + H0 + Λx ...x sx1 · · · sxn . 2 n! 1 n † n=3 where N = hnn i is the noise covariance matrix. Since X (45) the noise is just the difference of the data to the signal- Repeated coordinates are thought to be integrated over. response, n = d − Rs, the likelihood of the data is given Here the first three Taylor coefficients have special roles. by The constant H0 is fixed by the normalisation condition of the joined probability density of signal and data. If P (d|s)= P (n = d − Rs|s)= G(d − Rs,N), (51) ′ Hd[s] denotes some unnormalised Hamiltonian, its nor- and thus the Hamiltonian of the Gaussian theory is malisation constant is given by HG[s] = − log [P (d|s) P (s)] −H′ [s] H0 = log Ds Dde d . (46) = − log [G(d − Rs,N) G(s,S)] Z Z 1 † −1 † G = s D s − j s + H0 . (52) In many applications H0 is irrelevant, as long as no com- 2 parison between different models or hyperparameter sets Here are needed, however otherwise, the normalisation con- −1 † −1 −1 stant H0 is crucial. D = S + R N R (53) We call the linear coefficient j information source. This term is usually directly and linearly related to the data. is the propagator of the free theory. The information The quadratic coefficient, D−1, defines the information source, propagator D(x, y), which propagates information on the j = R†N −1d, (54) signal at y to location x, and thereby permits, e.g., to par- tially reconstruct the signal at locations where no data depends linearly on the data in a response-over-noise was taken. Finally, the anharmonic tensors Λ(n) create weighted fashion and reads interactions between the modes of the free, harmonic the- −1 ory. Since this free theory will be the basis for the full j(x)= Ri(x)Nij dj (55) (n) ij interaction theory, we first investigate the case Λ = 0. X in case of discrete data but continuous signal spaces. Fi- nally, C. Free theory G 1 † −1 1 H0 = d N d + log (|2 πS| |2 πN|) (56) 1. Gaussian data model 2 2 has absorbed all s-independent normalisation constants. For our simplest data model we assume a Gaussian The partition function of the free field theory, signal with prior † −HG[s]+J s ZG[J] = Dse (57) 1 1 † −1 P (s)= G(s,S) ≡ 1 exp − s S s , (47) Z |2πS| 2 2 1   = Ds exp − s†D−1s + (J + j)†s − HG , 2 0 where S = hss†i is the signal covariance. The signal is Z   processed by nature and our measurement device accord- is a Gaussian path integral, which can be calculated ex- ing to a linear data model actly, yielding 1 d = Rs + n. (48) Z [J]= |2πD| exp + (J + j)†D(J + j) − HG . G 2 0   Here, the response R[s] = Rs is linear in and the noise p (58) ns = n is independent of the signal s. The linear response The explicit partition function permits to calculate via matrix R of our instrument can contain window and se- Eq. 42 the expectation of the signal given the data, in lection functions, blurring effects, and even a Fourier- the following called the map md generated by the data transformation of the signal space, if our instrument is d: an interferometer. Typically, the data-space is discrete, δ log Z whereas the signal space may be continuous. In that case m = hsi = G = D j d d δJ the i-th data point is given by J=0 −1 = S−1 + R†N −1R R†N −1 d. (59)

di = dx Ri(x) s(x)+ ni. (49)  FWF  Z | {z } 12

The last expression shows that the map is given by maximum in which the Hamiltonian (or posterior) has a the data after applying a generalised Wiener filter, more complex structure, deviations between classical and md = FWF d. The propagator D(x, y) describes how field theory should become apparent. the information on the density field contained in the Extremising the Hamiltonian of the free theory (Eq. data at location x propagates to position y: m(y) = 52) dx D(y, x) j(x). δH The connected autocorrelation of the signal given the G = D−1m − j ≡ 0 (65) Rdata, δs s=m

† c −1 † −1 −1 we get the classical mapping equation m = Dj, which is hss id = D = S + R N R , (60) identical to the field theoretical result (Eq. 59). is the propagator itself. All higher connected correlation It is also possible to measure the sharpness of the max- functions are zero. Therefore, the signal given the data is imum of the posterior by calculating the Hessian curva- a Gaussian random field around the mean md and with ture matrix a variance of the residual error δ2 H[s] H [m]= = D−1. (66) G δs2 r = s − md (61) s=m

provided by the propagator itself, as a straightforward In the Gaussian approximation of the maximum of the calculation shows: posterior, the inverse of the Hessian is identical to the covariance of the residual † † † † c hrr id = hss id − hsidhs id = hss id = D. (62) hr r†i = H−1[m]= D, (67) Thus, the posterior should be simply a Gaussian given by which for the pure Gaussian model is of course identical to the exact result, as given by the field theory (Eq. 62). P (s|d)= G(s − md,D). (63)

As a test for the latter equation, we calculate the evidence III. INTERACTING INFORMATION FIELDS of the free theory via A. Interaction Hamiltonian P (d|s) P (s) G(d − Rs,N) G(s,S) P (d) = = P (s|d) G(s − Dj,D) 1. General Form 1 |D|/|S| 2 1 = exp (j†D j − d†N −1d) (64), |2πN| 2 The assumption that the Hamiltonian can be Taylor     expanded in the signal fields permits to write which is indeed independent of s and also identical to ∞ ZG[0], as it should be. 1 † −1 † G 1 (n) H[s]= s D s − j s + H + Λ sx · · · sx . All of these results of the free theory are well-known 2 0 n! x1...xn 1 n n=0 within the field of signal reconstruction, and therefore X HG[s] demonstrate how elegantly the information field theoret- Hint[s] ical approach can be used to reproduce them. | {z } (68) | {z } Repeated coordinates are thought to be integrated over. In contrast to Eq. 45 we have now included perturba- 2. Free classical theory tions which are constant, linear and quadratic in the sig- nal field, because we are summing from n = 0. This The Hamiltonian permits to ask for classical equations permits to treat certain non-ideal effects perturbatively. derived from an extremal principle. This is justified, on For example if a mostly position-independent propagator the one hand, as being just the result of a the saddle- gets a small position dependent contamination, it might point approximation of the exponential in the partition be more convenient to treat the latter perturbatively and function. On the other hand, the extrema principle is not to include it into the propagator used in the calcula- equivalent to the maximum a posteriori (MAP) estima- tion. Note further, that all coefficients can be assumed tor, which is quite commonly used for the construction to be symmetric with respect to their coordinate-indices: (n) (n) of signal-filters. An exhaustive introduction into and dis- Dxy = Dyx and Λxπ(1)...xπ(n) =Λx1...xn with π any per- cussion of the MAP approximation to Gaussian and non- mutation of {1,...,n}, since even non-symmetric coef- Gaussian signal fields is provided by Lemm [2]. ficients would automatically be symmetrised by the in- The classical theory is expected to capture essential tegration over all repeated coordinates. Therefore, we features of the field theory. However, if the field fluctua- assume in the following that such a symmetrisation op- tions are able to probe phase space regions away from the eration has been already done, or we impose it by hand 13 before we continue with any perturbative calculation by the partition sum in particular does not depend applying on any external coordinate, it is calculated only from summing up closed diagrams. However, (n) 1 (n) Λ 7−→ Λ . (69) the field expectation value m(x) = hs(x)i(s|d) = x1...xn n! xπ(1)...xπ(n) π∈Pn d log Z[J]/dJ(x)|J=0 and higher order correlation X functions depend on coordinates and therefore are This clearly leaves any symmetric tensor invariant if Pn calculated from diagrams with one or more open is the space of all permutations of {1,...,n}. ends, respectively. Often, it is more convenient to work with a shifted field φ = s − t, where some (e.g. background) field t is 2. A line with coordinates x′ and y′ at its end repre- removed from s. The Hamiltonian of φ reads sents the propagator Dx′ y′ connecting these loca- tions. ′ 1 † −1 ′† ′ H [φ] = φ D φ − j φ + H0 2 3. Vertices with one leg get an individual internal, ′ ′ HG[φ] integrated coordinate x and represent the term (1) ∞ ′ ′ jx + Jx − Λx′ . | 1 {z′(n) } + Λ x ...xn φx1 · · · φxn , with n! 1 (n) n=0 4. Vertices with n legs represent the term −Λ ′ ′ , X x1...xn ′ Hint[φ] where each individual leg is labeled by one of the in- ternal coordinates x′ ,..., x′ . This more complex ′ G| † 1 {z† −1 } 1 n H0 = H0 − j t + t D t, (70) vertex-structure, as compared to QFT vertices, is 2 a consequence of non-locality in IFT. j′ = j − D−1 t, and ∞ 1 5. All internal (and therefore repeatedly occurring) Λ′(m) = Λ(m+n) t · · · t . x1...xm n! x1...xm+n x1 xn coordinates are integrated over, whereas external n=0 X coordinates are not. 6. Every diagram is divided by its symmetry factor, 2. Feynman rules the number of permutations of vertex legs leaving the topology invariant, as described in any book on Since all the information on any correlation functions field theory. of the fields is contained in and can be extracted from the partition sum, only the latter needs to be calculated: The n-th moment of s is generated by taking the n-th derivative of log Z[J] with respect to J, and then set- † Z[J] = Dse−H[s]+J s ting J = 0. This correspond to removing n end-vertices from all diagrams. For example, the first four diagrams Z ∞ † contributing to a map (m = hsi ) are 1 (n) −HG[s]+J s (s|d) = Ds exp − Λ sx · · · sx e n! x1...xn 1 n " n=0 # Z = D j = Dxy jy ∞ X 1 δ δ = exp − Λ(n) · · · × ≡ dy D(x, y) j(y), n! x1...xn δJ δJ " n=0 x1 xn # X Z † 1 (3) 1 (3) −HG[s]+J s = − D Λ [·,D]= − D Λ D , Dse 2 2 xy yzu zu Z 1 δ ≡ − dy D dz du Λ(3) D = exp −H [ ] Z [J]. (71) 2 xy xyu zu int δJ G Z Z Z   1 = − D Λ(3) [·, D j, D j] There exist well known diagrammatic expansion tech- 2 niques for such expressions. The expansion terms of the 1 (3) = − D Λ D ′ j ′ D ′ j ′ (72) logarithm of the partition sum, from which any connected 2 xy yuz zz z uu u moments can be calculated, are represented by all pos- 1 (3) sible connected diagrams build out of lines ( ), ver- ≡ − dy Dxy dz du Λ × 2 yzu tices (with a number of legs connecting to lines, like , Z Z Z ′ ′ , , , ... and without any external line-ends (any dz Dzz′ jz′ du Duu′ ju′ , line ends in a vertex). These diagrams are interpreted ac- Z Z 1 cording to the following Feynman rules: = − D Λ(4)[·,D, Dj] 2 1. Open ends of lines in diagrams correspond to ex- 1 (4) = − D Λ D D ′ j ′ ternal coordinates and are labeled by such. Since 2 xy yzuv zu vv v 14

1 (4) 5. An internal end of a line has an internal (in- ≡ − dy Dxy dz du dv Λ Dzu × 2 yzuv tegrated) momentum coordinate k′. Integration Z Z Z Z ′ n ′ means a term dk /(2π) in front of the expres- dv Dvv′ jv′ , sion. Z R where we have assumed that any first and second order 6. The expression gets divided by the symmetry factor perturbation was absorbed into the data source and the of its diagram. propagator, thus Λ(1) = Λ(2) = 0. Repeated indices are Here, j(k) = (F j)(k) = dx j(x)eikx, assumed to be integrated (or summed) over. ′ ′ D(k, k′) =(F D F †)(k, k′)= dx dx′D(x, x′) ei (kx−k x ), R etc. are the Fourier-transformed information source, 3. Local interactions and Fourier space rules propagator, etc., respectivelyR R Note, that momentum directions have to be taken into In case of purely local interactions account. The momenta that go into a vertex, data source or open end get a positive sign in the delta-function of (n) momentum conservation, the ones that go out of a vertex Λx ...x = λn(x1) δ(x1 − x2) · · · δ(x1 − xn) (73) 1 n get a minus sign. the interaction Hamiltonian reads

∞ 1 4. Simplistic interaction Hamiltonians H = λ† sm (74) int m! m m=0 X In order to have a toy case, which permits analytic and the expressions of the Feynman diagrams simplify calculations, we introduce a simplistic Hamiltonian by considerably. The fourth Feynman rule can be replaced requiring the data model to be translational invariant by and all interaction terms to be local. This is the case whenever the signal and noise covariances are fully char- 4. Vertices with n lines connected to it are associated acterised by power spectra over the same spatial space, with a single internal coordinate x′ and represent ′ the term −λn(x ). n S(k, q) = (2π) δ(k − q) PS (k), (77) n For example, the last loop diagram in Eq 72 becomes N(k, q) = (2π) δ(k − q) PN (k), (78)

1 with P (k) = h|s(k)|2i/V , and P (k) = h|n(k)|2i/V , = − dy D λ (y) D dz D j . (75) s n 2 xy 4 yy yz z where V is the volume of the system. We assume further Z Z that the signal processing can be completely described In case of local interactions, it can be helpful to do by a convolution with an instrumental beam, the calculations in Fourier space, for which the Feynman rules can be obtained by inserting a real-space identity d(x)= dy R(x − y) s(y)+ n(x), (79) operator 1 = F †F in between any scalar product and assigning F † to the left and F to the right term, e.g. Z where response-convolution kernel has a Fourier power † † † ′ ′ 2 D j = F F D F F j = F D j . (76) spectrum PR(k) = |R(k)| (no factor 1/V ). In this case ′ D j′ D can be fully described by a power spectrum: | {z } n Note, that the Fourier space|{z} lines are directed since D(k, q) = (2π) δ(k − q) PD(k), (80) they carry momenta k: −1 −1 −1 with PD(k) = (PS (k)+ PR(k) PN (k)) . 1. An open end of a line has an external momentum The locality of the interaction terms requires λm = coordinate k, and gets an dk e− ikx/(2π)n applied const beside translational invariance and therefore the to it, if real space functions are to be evaluated. interaction Hamiltonian reads R 2. A line connecting momentum k with momentum k′ ∞ λ H [s] = m dx sm(x) (81) corresponds to a directed propagator between these int m! ′ m=1 momenta: Dkk′ = D(k, k ) Z X∞ m λ dk dk 3. A data source vertex is (j + J − λ )(k′′), where k′′ = m 1 s · · · m s (2π)nδ( k ) 1 m! (2π)n k1 (2π)n km i is the momentum at the data-end of the line. m=1 i=1 X Z Z X 4. A vertex with m lines (m bigger than In that case, the Feynman rules simplify considerably. 1) with momentum lables k1 ... km is For the interaction Hamiltonian of equation 81, the Feyn- n m −λm(k0)(2π) δ( i=0 ki) man rules are now P 15

1. unintegrated x-coordinate: exp(−i k x) (if real 4. A vertex with quantum number (l0,m0) with nin space functions are to be evaluated), incoming and nout outgoing lines (nin + nout > 1)

with momentum lables (l1,m1) . . . (lnin ,mnin ) and 2. propagator: PD(k), ′ ′ ′ ′ (l1,m1) . . . (lnout ,mnout ), respectively, is given by (l′ ,m′ )...(l′ ,m′ ) 1 1 nout nout 3. data source vertex: (j + J − λ1)(k), −λm(l0,m0) C , where C will be (l0,m0)...(lnin ,mnin ) 4. vertex with m lines (m bigger than 1): −λm, defined in Eq. 84. 5. imply momentum conservation at each vertex: 5. an internal vertex has internal (summed) angular- (2π)nδ( m k )), and integrate over every internal momentum quantum numbers (l′,m′). Summation i=1 i ′ dk ∞ l momentum: (2π)n , means a term l′=0 m=−l′ in front of the expres- P sion. 6. and divide byR the symmetry factor. P P 6. The expression gets divided by the symmetry factor of its diagram. 5. Feynman rules on the sphere The interaction structure in spherical harmonics-space is complicated due to the non-orthogonality of powers and For CMB reconstruction and analysis, but presumably product of the spherical harmonic functions, compared also for terrestrial applications, the Feynman rules on to the Fourier-space case, where any power or product the sphere Ω = S2 are needed and therefore provided of Fourier-basis functions is again a single Fourier-basis here. Actually, the real-space rules are identical to those function. of flat spaces, with just the scalar product replaced by The spherical structure is encapsulated in the coeffi- the integral over the sphere, etc. In case the problem cients at hand has an isotropic propagator, which only depends on the distance of two points on the sphere, but not on nin nout (l′ ,m′ )...(l′ ,m′ ) 1 1 nout nout ∗ their location or orientation, the propagator is diagonal if C ≡ dx Ylimi (x) Yl′ m′ (x) , (l0,m0)...(lnin ,mnin ) i i expressed in spherical harmonics Ylm(x). Thanks to the Z i=0 ! i=1 ! orthogonality relation of spherical harmonics, we have for Y Y (84) x, y ∈ S2 which can be expressed in terms of sums and products ∗ of Wigner coefficients, thanks to the relations Ylm(x) = † ∗ (Y Y )xy = Ylm(x) Ylm(y)= δ(x − y) = (1)xy (82) Yl,−m(x), Xlm (2 l + 1)(2 l + 1)(2 l + 1) and Y (x) Y (x) = 1 2 l1m1 l2 m2 4 π lm r † ∗ X (Y Y ) ′ ′ = dx Y (x) Y ′ ′ (x) (l,m)(l ,m ) lm l m l1 l2 l l1 l2 l × Ylm(x) , (85) Z m1 m2 m 0 00 = δll′ δmm′ = (1)(l,m)(l′,m′). (83)     Therefore, we can just insert real-space identity matrices and the orthogonality relation in Eq. 83, to be applied 1 = Y Y † in between any expression in real-space dia- successively in this order. Due to this complication, it grammatic expression and assign Y † to the right, and Y is probably most efficient to calculate propagation not to the left term of it. This way we find the spherical- in spherical harmonics space, but to change back to real harmonics Feynman rules, which are very similar to the space for any interaction vertex of high order. Fourier-space ones, in that they also require directed propagators-lines for proper angular-momentum conser- vation. For a theory with only local interactions, these B. Normalisability of the theory read: In contrast to quantum field theory and also to many 1. an open end of a line has external (not summed) applications in statistical field theory, IFT should be angular-momentum quantum numbers (l,m). properly normalised and not necessarily require any 2. A line connecting momentum (l,m) with momen- renormalisation procedure. The reason is that IFT is not tum (l′,m′) corresponds to a propagator between a low-energy limit of some unknown high-energy theory, but can be set up as the full (high-energy) theory. The these momenta: D ′ ′ = CD(l) δll′ δmm′ , (l,m)(l ,m ) Hamiltonian is just the logarithm of the joined probabil- where CD(l) is the angular power spectrum of the propagator. ity function of data and signal, Hd[s] ≡ − log [P (d, s)], and therefore well defined and properly normalised if the 3. A data source vertex is (j + J − λ1)(l,m), where latter is. Only if ad-hoc Hamiltonians are set up, or if (l,m) is the angular momentum at the data-end of approximations lead to ill-normalised theories, normali- the line. sation should be an issue. 16

However, since we are trying to do a perturbative ex- C. Expansion around the classical solution pansion of the theory, there is no guarantee that all in- dividual terms are providing finite results. For example 1. General case in QFT, simple loop diagrams are known to be diver- gent and require renormalisation. In the following we The classical solution of the Hamiltonian in Eq. 68 is investigate a simplistic, but representative case of IFT, provided by its minimum, which shows that such problems are generally not to be expected. ∞ δH −1 1 (m+1) = D sy − jx + Λ sx ...sx =0. δs xy m! x1...xmx 1 m Let us adopt the simplistic situation described in x m=1 III A 4. and estimate a simple loop diagram for which X (87) n ′ we assume for notational convenience λ3 = −2 (2π) λ This leads to the equation for the classical field (with λ′ > 0): ∞ 1 scl = D j − Λ(m+1) scl ...scl , (88) y yx x m! x1...xmx x1 xm m=1 ! 1 X = − D λ3 D 2 which one can try to solve iteratively. ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ikx = λ dk bdk δ(k + k − k ) PD(k) PD(k ) e Z Z 2. Local interactions ′ ′ ′ ′ 2 ≤ λ PD(0) dk PS(k )= λ V PD(0) hs (x)i(86), Z For simplicity, we concentrate for a moment on the case of purely local interactions, for which the equation where V is the volume of the system. Here and in the for the classical field scl is following, C denotes the diagonal of the matrix C. ∞ λ† s = D j − m+1 sm . (89) Thus, as long the signal field is of bounded variance, cl m! cl b m=1 ! the loop diagram is convergent due to PD(k) ≤ PS (k). X Even a signal of unbounded variance would not lead to Iterating this equation and rewriting the resulting terms a divergent loop diagram if dk PN (k)/PR(k) is finite, as Feynman diagrams shows that the classical solution since we also have PD(k) ≤ PN (k)/PR(k). The latter R contains the tree-diagrams. The loop diagrams can be scenario is not very natural, since the response might added by investigation of the non-classical uncertainty vanish for modes for which there is noise. However, a field φ = s − scl. bounded variance signal is very natural, especially in a A non-classical expansion of the information field cosmological setting. The cosmological signal of primary around the classical field is possible by inserting s = interest, the initial density fluctuations as revealed by scl + φ into the Hamiltonian (Eq. 74). Reordering terms the large-scale-structure and the CMB, is expected to ex- according to the powers of the field φ leads to its Hamil- hibit a suppression of small-scale power due to the free- tonian streaming of dark matter particles before they became ′ non-relativistic. Also the CMB temperature fluctuations H [φ] ≡ H[scl + φ] are damped on small scales, due to free streaming of pho- ∞ 1 1 tons around the time of recombination. = H′ + φ†D′−1 φ − j′†φ + λ′ †φm, 0 2 m! m m=3 Finally, since a signal as an information field can be X with chosen freely, we can define it to be the filtered version of ∞ λ the physical field (e.g. dark matter distribution or CMB λ′ ≡ n+m sm, (90) fluctuations), so that only modes of sufficiently bound n m! cl m=0 variance are present in it. Since we have the freedom to X ′ 1 † −1 ′ chose information fields, which are mathematically well H0 ≡ H[scl]= H0 + scl D scl + λ0, behaved, we can therefore ensure convergence of expres- 2 ′ ′ −1 ′ −1 ′ −1 sions. j ≡ j − λ1 − D scl, and D ≡ (D + λ2) .

Although this is not a general proof of normalisability In case scl is exactly the classical solution, Eqs.c 89 and of the theory, which is beyond the scope of this paper, it 90 imply that j′ = 0. Thus, there are no one-line inter- should provide confidence in the well-behavedness of the nal vertices in any Feynman-graphs of the φ-theory, and formalism in sensible applications. The price to be payed only loop-diagrams contribute uncertainty-corrections14 for this well-behavedness is the more complex structure of the propagator, which, in comparison to QFT, even in simplistic cases can be non-analytical and require nu- merical evaluation. 14 We propose the term uncertainty-corrections in order to describe 17 to any information theoretical estimator. For example, has an expected number of observed galaxies the uncertainty-corrections to the classical map estima- tor are given by µi ≈ κ (1 + bs(xi)) (92)

δm = md − scl = hφid (91) with κ =n ¯g ∆V being the cosmic average number of galaxies per cell and b being the bias of the galaxy over- density with respect to the dark matter overdensity s, = + + + + + . . . still assumed to be a Gaussian random field (Eq. 47). However, this data model has two shortcomings. First, However, in case scl is not (exactly) the classical solution, too negative fluctuations of the Gaussian random field, may this due to a truncation error of an iteration scheme with s < −1 lead to negative expectation values, for to solve for the classical field, or may scl be chosen for which the Poissonian statistics is not defined. Second, a completely different purpose, Eqs. 90-91 provide the the mean density of observable galaxies κ and their bias correct field theory for φ = s − scl independent of the parameter b are constant everywhere, whereas in reality nature of scl. In case of a truncation error, incorporating both exhibit spatial variations. Such variations are due diagrams with data-source terms j′ into any computation to the geometry of the observational survey sky cover- will permit to correct the inaccuracy of scl in a systematic age, due to a with distance from the observer decreasing way. galaxy selection function, and changing composition of the galaxy population. The latter distance-effects are caused by the cosmic evolution of galaxies and by the IV. COSMIC LARGE-SCALE STRUCTURE VIA changing observational detectability of the different types GALAXY SURVEYS with distance. We note, that an observed sample of galaxies, which was selected from a complete sample e.g. A. Poissonian data model and Hamiltonian by their luminosity due to instrumental sensitivity deter- ministically or stochastically, still possesses a Poissonian statistics, if the original distribution does. Although be- Many datasets suffer from Poissonian-noise, which is ing spatially inhomogeneous, we assume κ and b to be non-Gaussian, and therefore well suited to test IFT in known for the moment and to incorporate all above ob- the non-linear regime. For example, the cosmological servational effects. large-scale structure is traced by galaxies, which may To cure the above mentioned shortcomings we replace be assumed to be roughly generated by a Poissonian Eq. 92 by a non-linear and non-translational invariant process. On large-scales, the expectation value of the model: galaxy density follows that of the underlying (dark) mat- ter distribution. The aim of cosmic cartography is to µi = κ(xi) exp(b(xi) s(xi)), (93) recover the initial density field from the shot-noise con- taminated galaxy data. Currently, large galaxy surveys where κ and b may depend on position in a known way, are conducted in order to chart the cosmic matter distri- and the unknown Gaussian field s may exhibit unre- bution in three dimensions. Improving the galaxy based stricted negative fluctuations. Note that µ is the signal large-scale-structure reconstruction techniques and un- response, by our definition in Eq. 10, since µ[s]= hdi(d|s). derstanding their uncertainties better is therefore an im- We call κ the zero-response, since µ[0] = κ. It should be minent and important goal. However, optimal techniques stressed, that the data model in Eq. 93 is just a con- to reconstruct Poissonian-noise affected signals are also venient choice for illustration and proof-of-concept pur- crucial for other problems, since e.g. imaging with pho- poses, and is easily exchangeable with more realistic, and ton detectors plays an important role in astronomy and even non-local data models. This data model was origi- other fields. Here, we outline how such problems can be nally proposed by Coles and Jones [206] and investigated treated, by discussing a specific data model motivated by for constrained realisations by Sheth [120] and Vio et al. the problem of large-scale-structure reconstruction from [207]. galaxies. A more general discussions of models of galaxy Having chosen a Poissonian process to populate the and structure fromation and references to relevant works Universe and our observational data with galaxies ac- was given in Sect. I F 4. cording to the underlying density field s, the likelihood In order to treat the Poissonian case in a convenient is fashion, we subdivide the physical space into small cells di with volumes ∆V , and assume that a cell located at xi µ P (d|s)= i e−µi = exp [d log µ − µ − log(d !)] , d ! i i i i i i ( i ) Y X (94) the influence of the spread of the probability distribution func- where di is the actual number of galaxies observed in cell tion around its maximum. The uncertainty-corrections are the i. Since P (s)= G(s,S), the Hamiltonian is given by information field theoretical equivalent to quantum-corrections in quantum field theories. Hd[s] = − log P (d, s)= − log P (d|s) − log P (s) 18

1 † † ′ † −1 types’s spatial distributions via a L-dependent bias bL, = −d bs + κ exp(bs)+ H0 + s S s 2 and their detectability as encoded in κL. The data space ∞ 1 1 is now spanned by Ωdata =Ωspace × Ωtype, and also µ, κ = s†D−1s − j†s + H + λ† sn, with 2 0 n! n and b can be regarded as functions over this space. n=3 X Performing the same algebra as in the previous section, D−1 = S−1 + κb2, (95) just taking the larger data-space into account, we get j = b (d − κ), to exactly the same Hamiltonian, as in Eq. 95, if we 1 d interpret any term containing d, κ and b to be summed H = log(|2πS|) + (κ + log(d!))†1 − d† log κ, or integrated over the type variable L. Thus we read 0 2 and j(x)=(b (d − κ)) (x) ≡ dL b (x) (d (x) − κ (x)), n L L L λn = κb . Z −1 −1 2 −1 2 A few remarks should be in order. Comparing the prop- Dxy = S + κb ≡ Sxy +1xy dL κL(x)bL(x), xy agator to the one of our Gaussian theory one can read   Z † −1 2 n d n off an inverse noise term M = R N R = κb , where c λn(x)=(κb ) (x) ≡ dL κL(x) bL(x), and (96) denotes the diagonal matrix with cx in the diagonal at lo- Z cation x. Thus the effective (inversely responsed weighted)b µ[s](x)= κeb s (x) ≡ dL κ (x) ebL(x) s(x) = dL µ [s](x), noise decreases with increasing mean galaxy number and L L bias, and is infinite in regions without data (κ = 0). Z Z which all live
in Ω solely, so that the computa- The information source j increases with increasing re- spatial tional complexity of the matter distribution reconstruc- sponse (bias) of the data (galaxies) to the signal (density tion problem is not affected at all, and only a bit more fluctuations). However, it certainly vanishes for zero re- book-keeping is required in its setup. sponse (b = 0) or in case that the observed galaxy counts A few observations should be in order. In case of all match the expected mean at a given location exactly. galaxies having the same bias factor, Eq. 96 is simply Actually, the noise of our log-density signal is inversely a marginalisation of the type variable L, and any dif- proportional to the square root of the expected number ferentiation of the various galaxy types is not necessary. density of galaxies, as it should be for a Poissonian pro- Since all known galaxies seem to have b ∼ O(1), such a cess. Finally, the interaction terms λ are local in po- n marginalisation seems to be justified, and explains why sition space, and vanish with decreasing b and κ. The large-scale structure reconstructions, which applied this latter parameter is under the control of the data analyst, simplification, are relatively successful, although the dif- since it is proportional to the volume of the individual ferent galaxy types masses, luminosities, and frequencies pixel sizes, and therefore can be made arbitrarily small vary by orders of magnitude. However, as our numerical by choosing a more fine grained resolution in signal space. experiments below reveal, the data, and therefore the re- However, this would not change the convergence proper- constructability of the density field, both exhibit a sensi- ties of the series since any interaction vertex has then tive dependence on the bias for s-fluctuations with unity to be summed over a correspondingly larger number of variance.15 Such a variance is indeed observed on scales pixels within a coherence patch of the signal, which ex- below ∼ 10 Mpc in the galaxy distribution, and there- actly compensates for the smaller coefficient. The bias, fore the galaxy type-dependent bias variation does in- in contrast, is set by nature and can be regarded as a deed matter to a non-negligible amount. Larger galaxies, power counting parameter, which provides naturally a which have larger biases, therefore provide per galaxy a numerical hirarchy among the higher order vertices and slightly larger information source (j ∝ b), less shot noise diagrams for b2hs2i < 1). Note that j = O(b). (s) (R†N −1R ∝ b2), and increasingly larger higher-order n interaction terms (λn ∝ b ) in comparison to smaller B. Galaxy types and bias variations galaxies. However, smaller galaxies are much more nu- merous by orders of magnitude, and therefore provide the largest contribution to the information source, noise re- Real galaxies can be cast into different classes, which duction and most low-order interaction terms. Thus, the all differ in terms of their luminosities, bias factors, and latter will dominate and therefore permit a reasonable the frequencies with which they are found in the Uni- accurate matter reconstruction from an inhomogeneous verse. Although we are not going to investigate this galaxy survey using a single bias value. Nevertheless, im- complication in the following, it should be explained here provements are possible by applying the recipes described how all the formulae in this section can easily be reinter- here. preted, in order to incorporate also the different classes of galaxies. The galaxies can be characterised by a type-variable L ∈ Ωtype, which may be the intrinsic luminosity, the 15 This is found for our specific data model µ ∝ exp(bs), however, morphological galaxy type, or a multi-dimensional com- should also apply for more realistic models, which somehow have bination of all properties which determine the galaxy to keep µ ≥ 0 even for bs< −1 19

100

10

data d signal response µ zero response κ 1 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.6

1

0.5

0 -0.5 signal s -1 m0 m1 -1.5 classical field scl 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 ∆ = − 0.4 m0 s m0 ∆m1 = s − m1 ∆s = s − s 0.2 cl b1/2 cl ±D0 0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

− FIG. 1: Poissonian-reconstruction of a signal with unit variance and correlation length q 1 = 0.05, observed with slightly non-linear response (b = 0.5, resolution: 1025 pixels per unit length, zero-signal galaxy density: 2000 galaxies per unit length). Top: data d, signal response µ, and zero-response κ. Middle: signal s, linear Wiener-filter reconstruction m0 = D j, next order reconstruction m1 according to Eq. 97, and classical solution scl according to Eq. 99. Bottom: Deviations of m0, m1, 1/2 scl from the signal, and the naive, Hessian-based error estimate D .

b C. Non-linear map making first two correction terms are always negative, reflect- ing the fact that our non-linear data model has non- The map, the expectation of our information field s symmetric fluctuations in the data with respect to the given the data, is to the lowest order in interaction mean. Moderate positive fluctuations lead to large num- bers of observed galaxies, due to the exponential de- 6 pendence. Thus a large number of observed galaxies m1 = + + + + O(b ) at a position leads to an overestimate of s in the linear 1 3 1 3 2 map, which is corrected downwards by the first nonlinear = Dxy jy − Dxy b κy Dyy − Dxy b κy (Dyz jz) 2 y 2 y terms. For negative field strength the response gets sub- 1 − D b4 κ D D j + O(b6) (97) linear, so that a small number of observed galaxies (with 2 xy y y yy yz z respect to κ) leads to an underestimate of the magnitude or in compact notation of the (negative) fluctuation in the linear map. Thus also here a negative correction is required. The last correction 1 term is oppositely directed to the linear map, thereby m = D j − b3 κ D + (D j)2 + DbDj + O(b6). 1 2 producing some non-linear damping of the effect of the    (98) information source and correcting for the curvature in d d It is apparent, that theb non-linear mapb making formula the non-linear response of the data to the signal. contains corrections to the linear map m0 = D j. The A one-dimensional, numerical example is displayed 20 in Fig. 1. There, the signal was realised to have a which may be solved iteratively, while ensuring that power spectrum P (k) ∝ (k2 + q2)−1, with a correlation (i) s scl < S j at all iterations i. This form of the classical length q−1 = 0.05. The normalisation was chosen such field equation has some similarities to the naive inver- that the auto-correlation function is hs(x) s(x + r)i(s) = sion of the response formula, hdi(d|s) = κ exp(bs), which exp(−|q r|) and therefore the signal dispersion is unity, yields 2 hs i(s) = 1. The data are generated by a Poissonian process from κ = κ exp(bs) with b =0.5. All three dis- 1 d s s = log , (102) played reconstructions exhibit less power than the orig- naive b κ inal signal, as it is expected since the reconstruction is   conservative, and therefore biased towards zero. Also a formula one can only dare to use in regimes of large shown in the bottom panel of the figure are the residuals d. The classical solution is more conservative than this in comparison to the square root of the diagonal part of naive data inversion, in that there is a damping term, −1 the propagator D, as the Gaussian approximation of the S scl/(κb), compensating a bit the influence of too uncertainty level. It is apparent, that the residuals have a large data points. non-Gaussian statistics,b otherwise they should remain in Those equations permit to calculate the classical so- 68% of the cases within the indicated uncertainty region, lution if suitable numerical regularisation schemes are which they don’t. applied, since naive iterations can lead easily to numer- The non-linear correction to the naive map m0 should ical divergencies in the non-linear case. For example, a not be too large, otherwise higher order diagrams have to pseudo-time τ can be introduced by setting j(τ) = τ j. be included. In the case displayed in Fig. 1, b =0.5 en- This allows to set up a differential equation for scl(τ) by sured that the linear corrections were mostly going into taking the time derivative of Eq. 99, the right direction. However, in case b ≈ 1 there is no −1 2 −1 obvious ordering of the importance of the different inter- s˙cl = Dscl j with Dscl = S + κscl b , (103) action vertices, and numerical experiments reveal that
the first order corrections strongly overcorrect the linear which has to be solved for scl(1) starting from scl(0) = 0. This equation is very appealing, since it looks like map m0 = D j (not shown). In such a case interaction re-summation techniques should be used to incorporate Wiener-filtering an incoming information stream j and as many higher order interaction terms as possible. One accumulating the filtered data, while simultaneously tun- very powerful re-summation is provided by the classi- ing the filter to the accumulated knowledge on the signal cal solution, as developed below, which contains all tree- and thereby implied Poissonian-noise structure. Thus, it diagrams simultaneously. This solution, also show in Fig. is a nice example system for continous Bayesian learn- ing and also illustrates how different datasets can succes- 1, is very close to m1 in this case. sively be fused into a single knowledge basis. Alternatively, we can recognize that j is proportional D. Classical solution to the bias b, which is the essential signal response param- eter controlling non-linearities, and therefore can serve us as an expansion parameter. Thus, we set b → τb in Eq. The classical signal field or MAP solution is given by 99 and take the τ-derivative, yielding Eq. 89, which reads in this case

τ b scl ∞ s˙cl = D(τ scl) b d − κe (1 + τbscl) , (104) bm+1 s = D j − κsm cl m! cl which is numerically different from Eq. 103
due to the m=2 ! X with time growing effective bias factor τb occurring in b scl = Db d − κ e − bscl (99) κτ scl and Dτ scl(b). The initially lower effective response b s = Sb (d − κe cl ).

has to be compensated later by an extra term not present in Eq. 103, which is proportional to τb, and therefore be- κs cl coming important mostly at the later stages of the evo- The last expression motivates| {z to} introduce the expected lution. number of galaxies given the signal s: Numerical implementations of Eqs. 103 and 104 by discretisation correspond to different approximation b s κs = κe . (100) schemes, and therefore yield exactly identical results only in the continuous limit. Nevertheless, we can call all Also alternative forms of the MAP equation can be de- such implementations map-making algorithms, since we rived, for example one, which is especially suitable for required a data transformation only to approximately re- large j: produce the signal map given the data for this. It should become clear that higher-fidelity map-making algorithms −1 −1 1 j − S scl 1 d S scl are possible by not only investigating the maximum of s = log = log − 1 − , cl b κb b κ κb the posterior, but by averaging the signal s over the full    (101) support of P (s|d). 21

data d 100 signal response µ zero response κ

10

1

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 2

1

0

-1 signal s map m classical field scl -2 mask 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6

0.4

0.2

0 -0.2 ∆m = s − m b1/2 -0.4 ±Dm ∆scl = s − scl -0.6 b1/2 ±D0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

− FIG. 2: Poissonian-reconstruction of a signal with unit variance and correlation length q 1 = 0.03, observed with strongly non-linear response (b = 1.25, resolution: 1025 pixels per unit length, zero-signal galaxy density: 8000 galaxies per unit length) through a complicated mask. Top: data d, signal response µ, and zero-response κ. Middle: signal s, renormalisation-based reconstruction m, classical solution scl, and mask κ/(ng ∆V ). The linear Wiener-filter reconstruction m0 as well as its next order corrected version m1 are not displayed, since they are partly far outside the displayed area. Bottom: Deviations of m 1/2 1/2 and scl from the signal, and the naive, Hessian-based error estimates D0 and Dm . Note, that in the regions with many 1/2 1/2 observed galaxies, the high signal to noise ratio can be seen in the narrowness of Dm , which is significantly smaller than D0 at these locations. Also the residual statistics seems to follow well a Gaussianb statisticsb in these regions. b b Anyhow, we can assume that a good approximation E. Uncertainty-loop corrections t ≈ scl to the classical solution can be achieved. Figs. 1 and 2 display classical solutions for slightly and strongly Now, we see how the missing uncertainty loop cor- non-linear Poissonian inference problems. Especially the rections can be added to the classical solution. These second example shows that the classical solution is some- corrections can be derived from the Hamiltonian of the times missing some significant contributions (see region uncertainty-field φ = s − t, around x = 0.1), due to the missing uncertainty loop diagrams, which contain information about the non- 1 H [φ] = φ†D−1φ − j†φ + κ†g(b φ)+ H , where Gaussian structure of the posterior P (s|d) away from scl. t 2 t t t 0,t −1 −1 2 Dt = S + κt b , −1 jt = b (d − κt) − S t, (105) d ∞ 1 xm g(x) = ex − 1 − x − x2 = , 2 m! m=3 X 22

250

10 200 5 150 0 100 -5

50 -10 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 40 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 30

20

10

0 4 -10 2 0 -20 -2 -4 -30 0.05 0.1 0.15 -40 40 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 30

20

10

0 4 -10 2 0 -20 -2 -4 -30 0.05 0.1 0.15 -40 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 FIG. 3: Remaining information source before the reconstruction (top panel) after the classical reconstruction (middle panel) ′ and after the exact field theoretical mapping (bottom panel). Displayed is the remaining information source jt = b (d − κt) for the data of Fig. 2 and for t = 0, t = scl, and t = m in the top, middle and bottom panels, respectively. The inlets show an enlarged view on the region around x = 0.1, where the classical reconstruction was significantly worse than the field theoretical one, as can be seen from Fig. 2. This is due to the asymmetry of the Poissonian distribution with respect to its mean value, for which the classical map estimator is sub-optimal. This asymmetry is clearly visible in the region around x = 0.1 by the relatively rare, but stronger upwards spikes compared to downwards fluctuations. All the small scale fluctuations in the information source terms get erased by the smoothing operation of the information propagators, as shown in Fig. 4.

16 and H0,t is a momentarily irrelevant normalisation con- non-linear interactions. stant. Again, we have permitted for a non-zero jt, since Anyhow, we see that effective interaction terms arise t might not be exactly the classical solution. when relevant parts of the solution are absorbed in the background field t. A similar approach is desirable for the loop diagrams. Instead of drawing and calculating all possible loop diagrams, we want to absorb several of them simultaneously into effective coefficients. For each It is interesting to note that the interaction coefficients (m) m in this Hamiltonian, λt = κt b , all reflect the expected number of galaxies given the reference field t. Thus, the 16 Dropping this term, and repeating the operation which have led replacement κ0 → κt would provide us with the shifted to the classical solution iteratively, permits to reconstruct non- field Hamiltonian, as defined in Eq. 70, expect for the linearities better than classical. However, the price for this ad- −1 term −S t in jt. It turns out, that this term is some hoc improvement is a data-overfitting instability, as numerical sort of counter-term, which accumulates the effect of the experiments show. 23 vertex of the Poissonian Hamiltonian with m legs, there the classical case, and has the potential to suppress high exists diagrams in any Feynman-expansion, in which a order terms for small values of b. The bias is the main number of n simple loops are added to this vertex. Such parameter controlling the signal response, and therefore an n-loop enhanced vertex is given by we call our attempt response renormalisation, since the procedure developed below should be generic enough to serve as a blueprint for other data models with a non- −1 (m+2n) n −1 m+2n n linear response of the form µ = κf(bs), with f(x) being = λt D = κt b D . (106) 2n n! 2n n! a strictly positive function of its argument. Again we All these diagrams canb be re-summed into anb effective replace b → τb in the theory, and use τ as our response interaction vertex, via renormalisation parameter. For the response renormalisation we decompose the ∞ 1 singal into a known, fixed background field t and an un- λ(m) → λ′(m) = κ bm b2n Dn t t t 2n n! certainty field φ, both dependent on the renormaliation n=0 X parameter τ, so that sτ = tτ + φτ . We start with t0 =0 b2 b at τ = 0 and find that the uncertainties at that bias level = κ exp D bm (107) t 2 are distributed according to the trivial prior-Hamiltonian   m (m) = κ 2 b = λ . 1 t+ b D b b2 (τ=0) † −1 2 t+ 2 D H [φ0]= φ S φ0, (109) t0 2 0 Thus, this re-summation is effectively equivalent to a b where the subscript t0 indicates the value of the back- shift of the reference field b ground field around which the Hamiltonian is expanded. t → t′ = t + b2 D/2. (108) This Hamiltonian has a vanishing uncertainty field expec- tation value, hφ0i(s|d,τ=0) = 0, indicating that the initial background field t = 0 was well chosen. One might consider to use this uncertainty-loopb shifted 0 field as the reference field t′ in the Hamiltonian of Eq. We can therefore assume, that for some value of the 105, and to calculate with the corresponding propagator bias we know a background solution tτ , for which the Dt′ , information source term jt′ and interaction coeffi- corresponding uncertainty field φτ = sτ − tτ has zero ex- (n) pectation value under its induced Hamiltonian H(τ)[φ ], cients λt′ the first few Feynman diagrams contributing tτ τ to the map of φ′ = s − t′, like those diagrams in Eq. 97. since this is at least valid for τ = 0. Then the effective Although the interaction coefficients are by no means Hamiltonian for this field can be written as smaller than the original ones, the φ′-field amplitudes (τ) 1 † −1 (τ) should be much smaller than those of the original s-field, H [φτ ]= φ D φτ + V [φτ ], (110) tτ 2 τ τ int since most of the information is already condensed into ′ t , and therefore one might hope that the higher-order where the effective propagator Dτ collecting all effective diagrams should have smaller and smaller contributions. second order terms in φ, and the effective non-linear in- The with this recipe derived total signal map, m = (τ) teraction potential Vint [φτ ] have yet to be determined. t′ + hφ′i, contains many, however not all, contributing The latter collects all effective terms which are non- Feynman diagrams. The uncertainty corrections applied quadratic in φ. However, their individual impacts on at the end indeed seem to shift the map closer to the the uncertainty field expectation value must cancel each signal, as numerical experiments for situations as dis- other, otherwise the expectation value would not be zero. played in Fig. 2 reveal, however, only by a small margin. (0) For τ = 0 we have D0 = S and Vint [φ0]=0. Therefore, an inclusion of uncertainty corrections right If the renormalisation parameter is now increased by a from the beginning of the calculations is required. This small amount, τ → τ + ε, we can use Eq. 105 to obtain can be done via renormlisation techniques, and the cal- a modified Hamiltonian for the uncertainty φτ . To first culations above have paved the path for those. order in ε we find ∞ 1 † H(τ+ε)[φ ]= H(τ)[φ ]+ λ(τ+ε) φn + O(ε2), F. Response renormalisation tτ τ tτ τ n! n τ n=1 X ∞ (τ+ε) Since we are dealing with a φ -field theory, the zoo with λ1 = −εb (d − κtτ ) (111) of loop diagrams is quite complex, and forms something (τ+ε) n−1 n and λn = εκtτ n τ b for n> 1. like a Feynman foam. In order not to get stuck in the multitude of this foam, we urgently require a trick to The structure of this shifted Hamiltonian is that it (τ) keep either the maximal order of the diagrams low, or to decomposes into an old part Htτ [φτ ] with zero field- limit the number of vertices per diagram, or both. Since expectation value, and a small ε-perturbation. Thus for we have basically only two handels on any interaction very small perturbations, as provided by all the ε-terms, n term λn = κb , the bias b and the zero-response κ, we the old Hamiltonian can be regarded as being free of in- concentrate on the bias, since it has served us well in ternal interactions and information sources. 24

−1 2 −1 −1 2 −1 FIG. 4: IFT propagators D0 =(S +κ0 b ) (left) and Dm =(S +κm b ) (right) in logarithmic grey scaling for the data displayed in Fig. 2. m is here the solution of the response renormalisation flow equation (Eq. 117). The values of the diagonals show the local uncertainty variance (ind Gaussian approximation) before (dD0) and after (Dm) the data is analysed, respectively. The bottom left and top right corners exhibit non-vanishing propagator values due to the assumed periodic spatial coordinate, which puts these corners close to the two others on the matrix diagonal. c d

To first order in ε therefore only leaf diagrams with a which has the well defined continuous limit Dτ = S for single perturbative interaction vertex contribute to the ε → 0 since 0 ≤ τ ≤ 1. perturbed expectation value of φτ : Using the identity ∞ 2 n +1 xn = ex (1+2x), (115) n! hφτ i(s|d,τ+ε) = + + + + . . . n=0 n X ∞ 2 2 2 n +1 τ b D we can write the background increment dtτ+ε = tτ+ε −tτ =εD b d − κ τ , τ (τ tτ ) n! 2 as " n=0 ! # X c 2 2 dtτ+ε = εDτ b d − κ 2 (1 + τ b Dτ ) where the propagator to be used is that of the unper- τ tτ +τ b Dτ /2 turbed Hamiltonian. Note, that only odd interaction h (116)i c terms shift the expectation value. The even ones do not and convert this into a differentialc equation for the back- exert any net forces in the vicinity of φτ = 0 since they ground field by taking the limit ε → 0: represent a potential which is mirror symmetric about 2 2 τ b tτ +τ b S/2 2 2 this point. t˙τ = Sb d − κe (1 + τ b S) . (117) The induced field expectation value can be absorbed h i This is the required response renormalisation flow equa- into tτ+ε ≡ tτ + hφτ i(s|d,τ+ε), so that the then remaining b b tion, which has to be solved starting with t =0at τ =0 uncertainty field φτ+ε = sτ+ε −tτ+ε has zero expectation 0 value. Its effective Hamiltonian is therefore of the form until the required response bias is reached at τ = 1, so that m = t . 1 1 (τ+ε) † −1 (τ+ε) It is instructive to compare it to the classical response Htτ +ε [φτ+ε]= φτ+εDτ+εφτ+ε +Vint [φτ+ε], (112) 2 flow equation, Eq. 104, which is reproduced here for an and can again be regarded to be effectively free for small easier comparison: perturbations. The crucial step is to realise that τ b scl(τ) 2 s˙cl(τ)= Dscl(τ) b d − κe (1 + τbscl(τ)) , Dτ+ε = Dτ + O(ε ), (113) h i since all effects linear in ε were absorbed in the shift Although there is a structural similarity of the two equa- of the background field. Thus we conclude by iterating tions, there are also significant differences. N = τ/ε times that The first and most prominent difference is that the propagator to be applied to some sort of effective in- Dτ = S + O(ε τ), (114) formation source flow (b times the terms in the square 25 brackets) is the simple signal covariance matrix in case Since there are also instances, where the classical solu- of the renormalisaton flow equation. This is a substantial tion is closer to the underlying signal than the field the- computational simplification, since translation invariance oretical solution, a more detailed statistical comparison of Cosmology enforces a diagonal covariance matrix in between the two methods is required. This is provided in Fourier space. The classical flow equation requires the Fig. 5, where the mean variance of the residuals of the application of a much more numerically demanding prop- 2 classical and correct solutions are shown, the σT of Eq. agator, which is the inverse of the sum of two terms, of 17, averaged over 1000 signal realisations of the inference −1 which one is diagonal in Fourier space, S , and the other problems of Fig. 2. Both methods exhibit ac compara- 2 in position space, τ κscl . Thus, our effort to derive the ble ability to reconstruct missing data, and of course are exact information field expectation value is rewarded by unable to extrapolate into too large data-gaps. How- a numerically muchd simpler and faster recipe. ever, with increasing data availablility, the accuracy of The second difference between classical and field the- the field theoretical method becomes clearly superior to oretical renormalisation flow equations is that the effec- the classical one, and this for lower computational costs. tive background field, for which the response is compared It would be interesting to know something analytically 2 to the data in the renormalisation case, tτ + τ S/2, about the remaining uncertainties at the end of the renor- is actually shifted by loop corrections of the sort dis- malisation flow. The theory, as developed here, was only cussed in the previous subsection. These uncertaintiesb suited to follow the mean evolution of the background (or knowledge fluctuations) probe the phase-space vol- field tτ , which let to the map m = t1. One could also ask ume around the background field and feel the structure for the evolution of the two point correlation function, of the IFT-potential there. Since the potential is expo- however this is beyond the introductory scope of this nential (∼ exp(b φ))and therewith asymmetric, positive work. However, some insight on the final uncertainty- uncertainty fluctuations have a larger impact than nega- covariance structure can be read off from the Hessian tive ones, leading to a shift in the effective potential. matrix of the bare (non-renormalised) Hamiltonian of the And finally, the corrections provided by the last terms uncertainty field φ = s−m. This is simply Dm, which we in both flow equations, which compensate for the initially display in Fig. 4 in comparison to the zero information low value of the effective bias τb during the flow, are Hessian uncertainty-covariance matrix D0. The height solely due to uncertainty loops in the renormalisation and width of the propagator values defines the strength case, whereas they depend on the solution itself in the of the response to, and the distance of information propa- classical case. gation from an information sources as can be seen in this However, the most important difference is probably fugure. The structure of D0 is imprinted by the prior and the improved singal-recovery fidelity of the full IFT map the mask. At D0’s widest locations the mask blocks any making algorithm in comparison to the classical map, as information source and the structure of the signal prior S Fig. 2 shows for many positions, and we also witnessed in becomes visible. At locations where the mask is transpar- additional numerical experiments, not shown here. The ent, the reconstruction response per information source origin of this difference can be understood by inspection is lower, as plenty of the latter can be expected there, of Fig. 3, which shows the remaining information source due to the signal-response-to-noise weighting operation after a background solution t has been adopted, transforming the data into the source j. Also the indi- vidual informations do not need to be propagated that ′ jt = b (d − κt), (118) far, thanks to the rich information source density in such regions. It is interesting to see, how the propagator is for t = 0, t = scl, and t = m. The remaining information structured at the intersections of transparent and opaque ′ regions of the mask, such that information is propagated source jt differs from the shifted information source jt as provided by Eq. 105, by the omission of the counter term efficiently from the first to the second region, but any re- which compensates higher order interactions, −S−1t. It verse information flow is largely suppressed. This can be is apparent in Fig. 3, that both, the classical and the field read off the asymmetric vertical or horizontal profiles of theoretical maps have removed most of the information the propagator at such locations. Finally, the structure of Dm has imprinted the expected information source den- present in j0, however, jscl still exhibits some exploitable net information around x =0.1, whereas jm seems to be sity structure given the reconstruction m. The strongly free of any larger scale trend in this area. The better per- non-linear signal response has lead to regions with very formance of the field theoretical mapping algorithm lies high galaxy count rates, which have larger information in the fact, that it attempts the correct expectation value densities, and therefore lower and narrower information estimation by integrating over the full posterior distribu- propagators. tion P (s|d), whereas the classical solution only searches Obvious extensions to the presented Poissonian recon- the maximum of P (s|d). And the latter is known to be struction problems could involve treating more general or a biased mean estimator for any asymmetrical probabil- even non-local responses of the galaxy distribution to the ity density distribution like the Poissonian one we are dark-matter field, or incorporating knowledge beyond the dealing with, and especially in the limit of small number Poissonian approximation of the galaxy formation statis- counts. tics. However, these are left for future work, since our 26

1 mask 2 1/2 0.8 h(s − scl) i 2 (1s)/2 h(s − m) i(s) 0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

2 1/2 2 1/2 FIG. 5: Residual root-mean-square variance of the field theoretical (h(s−m) i(s) , solid) and the classical solution (h(s−scl) i(s) , dashed) from 1000 signal realisations. The data mask is also shown for comparison. The setup is very similar to the one of Fig. 2, just the resolution was set to 513 pixels per unit length, and the zero-signal galaxy density to 2000 galaxies per unit length, − in order to speed up the computations. The thin lines show a similar average for a doubled correlation length q 1 = 0.06. aim here was only to demonstrate the applicability of the we write theory to non-trivial problems and to outline the neces- {I,E,B} d ≡ δT /T = R φ + n, (119) sary calculations. obs CMB primordial where φprimordial is the 3-dimensional, primordial gravita- tional potential, and R is the response on it of an CMB- instrument, observing the induced CMB temperature V. NON-GAUSSIAN CMB FLUCTUATIONS fluctuations in intensity and polarisation. In case that the data of the instrument are forground-cleaned and de- VIA fnl-THEORY convolved all-sky maps (assuming the data processing to be part of the instrument) the response, which trans- A. Data model lates the 3-d gravitational field into temperature maps, is well known from CMB-theory and can be calculated As an IFT example on the sphere Ω = S2, involving with publically available codes like cmbfast, camb, and two interacting uncertainty fields, we investigate the so cmbeasy (see Sect. I F 5), which use them internally. The called fnl-theory of local non-Gaussianities in the CMB precise form of the response does not matter for a devel- temperature fluctuations. This is also an example for opment of the basic concept, and can be inserted later. an IFT problem with currently high scientific relevance Finally, the noise n subsummes all deviation of the due to the strongly increasing availability of high fidelity measurement from the signal response due to instrumen- CMB measurements, which permit to constrain the phys- tal and physical effects, which are not linearly correlated ical conditions at very early epochs of the Universe. The with the primordial gravitational potential, such are de- relevant references for this topic were provided in Sect. tector noise, remnants of foreground signals, but also I F 5. primordial gravitational wave contributions to the CMB fluctuations. On top of the very uniform CMB sky with a mean The small level of non-Gaussianity expected in the temperature TCMB, small temperature fluctuations on {I,E,B} −{5,6,7} CMB temperature fluctuations is a consequence of some the level of δTobs /TCMB ∼ 10 are observed non-Gaussianity in the primordial gravitational poten- or expected in total Intensity (Stokes I) and in polari- tial. Despite the lack of a generic non-Gaussian propabil- sation E- and B-modes, respectively. These CMB tem- ity function, many of the inflationary non-Gaussianities perature fluctuations are believed and observed to fol- seem to be well described by a local process, which taints (low mostly a Gaussian distribution. However, inflation an initially Gaussian random field, φ ←֓ P (φ)= G(φ, Φ predicts some level of non-Gaussianity, and also some of † (with the φ-covariance Φ = hφ φ i(φ)), with some level of the secondary anisotropies imprinted by the large-scale non-Gaussianity. A well controllable realisation of such a structure of the Universe via CMB lensing, the Integrated tarnishing operation is provided by a slightly non-linear Sachs-Wolfe and the Rees-Sciama effects should have im- transformation of φ into the primordial gravitational po- printed non-Gaussian signatures due to the non-linear 2 2 tential via φprimordial = φ(x)+fnl (φ (x)−hφ (x)i ) for matter structures which have evolved in the modern Uni- (φ) any x ∈ R3. The parameter f controls the level and na- verse [208, 209]. The primordial, as well as some of the nl ture of non-Gaussianity via its absolute value and sign, secondary CMB temperature fluctuations are a response respectively. This means that our data model reads to the gravitational potential initially seeded during infla- tion. Since we are interested in primordial fluctuations, d = R (φ + f (φ2 − Φ)) + n, (120)

b 27

3 where we dropped the subscript of fnl. In the following 2 † 2 ′ λ0 = 3 (Φ/σn) ( f Φ − f d), λ2 = −2 f j , we assume the noise n to be Gaussian with covariance 2 † † −1 λ = 54 f/σ2 , and λ = 108 f 2/σ2 . (122) N = hnn i(n) and define as usual M = R N R for 3 b n b4 n notational convenience. Non-Gaussian noise components are in fact expected, and would need to be included into The numerical coefficients of the last two terms may look the construction of an optimal fnl-reconstruction. How- large, and therefore question the applicability of pertur- ever, currently we aim only at outlining the principles and bative methods, however, these coefficients stand in front 3 −15 4 −20 we are furthermore not aware of an existing fnl-estimator of terms of typically φ ∼ 10 , and φ ∼ 10 , which constructed while taking such noise into account. And fi- ensures their well-behavedness in any diagrammatic ex- nally, we show at the end how to identify some of such pansion series. non-Gaussian noise sources by producing fnl-maps on the sphere, which can morphologically be compared to known foreground structures, like our Galaxy. C. fnl-evidence and map making

Since we are momentarily not interested in reconstruct- B. CMB-Hamiltonian ing the primordial fluctutations, but to extract knowl- edge on fnl, we marginalise the former by calculating the log-evidence log (P (d|f)) up to quadratic order in f: The CMB-Hamiltonian is therefore given by

2 Hf [d, φ] = − log(G(φ, Φ) G(d − φ + f (φ − Φ),N)) log Zf [d] = log Dφ P (φ, f|d) 4 Z 1 1 = φ†D−1φ + H − j†φ + Λ(bn)[φ,...,φ], = log Dφe−Hf [d,φ] 2 0 n! n=0 Z X with = −H0 − Λ0 + + + + + D−1 = Φ−1 + R†N −1R ≡ Φ−1 + M, j = R†N −1d, + + + + + + + 1 Λ(0) = j†(f Φ) + (f Φ)†M (f Φ), (121) 2 + + + + + + (1) † −1 ′ (1) 3 Λ = −R Nb (f Φ) andb j = bj − Λ , + + + + O(f ). (123) (2) ′ Λ = −2 fj , We have made use of the fact that the logarithm of the (3) b Λxyz = (δxy Myz fz + permutations), partition sum is provided by all connected diagrams, and c ′ 0 (2) (3) (4) 1 that j contains a term of the order O(f ), Λ and Λ Λ = (f δ M δ f + permutations), 1 (4) xyzu 2 x xy yz zu u contain terms of the order O(f ), and Λ one of the or- der O(f 2), so that they can appear an unrestricted num- and H0 collects all terms independent of φ and f. ber of times, twice and once in diagrams of order up to The last two tensors should be read without the Ein- O(f 2), respectively. Since only 4th order interactions are stein sum-convention, but to contain all possible index- involved, an implementation in spherical harmonics space permutations. Note, that this is a non-local theory for φ may be feasible, using the only 4th order C-coefficients in case that either the noise covariance or the response (Eq. 84), which can be calculated with computer alge- matrix is non-diagonal, yielding a non-local M and there- braic programs. Finally, we have defined fore non-local interactions Λ(3) and Λ(4). 1 1 In case that the noise as well as the response is di- = log |2πDβ−1| = Tr(log(2πDβ−1)). (124) agonal in position space, as it is often assumed for the 2 2 instrument response of properly cleaned CMB maps, Although f is not known, the expressions in Eq. 123 and also approximately valid on large angular scales, proportional to f and f 2 can be calculated separately, where the Sachs-Wolfe effect dominates, we have Nxy = 2 permitting to write down the Hamiltonian of f if a suit- σn(x) δ(x − y), R = −3 [209] for the total intensity fluc- −2 able prior P (f) is chosen, tuations, and thus Mxy =9 σn (x) δ(x−y), if we restrict the signal space to the last-scattering surface, which we 1 2 H [f] ≡− log(P (d|f) P (f)) = H˜ + f †D˜ −1f+˜j†f+O(f 3), identify with S . This permits to simplify the Hamilto- d 0 2 nian to (125) where we collected the linear and quadratic coefficients 4 1 1 into ˜j and D˜ −1. It is obvious that the optimal f- H [d, φ] = φ†D−1φ + H − j†φ + λ† φn, with f 2 0 n! n estimator to lowest order is therefore n=0 X −1 −1 2 ′ 2 ˜ ˜ D = Φ +9 σn, j = j − λ1 = −3 (d + Φ f)/σn, mf = hfi(s,f|d) = D j, (126)

c b 28 and its uncertainty variance is just uncertainties, and the information measure, as the nega- tive entropy, expresses therefore the constraintness of the † ˜ h(f − mf ) (f − mf ) i(s,f|d) = D. (127) remaining uncertainties. It turns then out that further thermodynamical concepts, like the Helmholtz free en- So far, we have assumed f to have a single universal ergy, carry over to information theory, and both theories value. However, we can also permit f to to vary spatially, can be treated within an identical formalism. or on the sphere of the sky. In the latter case one would The amount of available information on a signal is expand f as given by its negative entropy

lmax l f(x)= flm Ylm(x) (128) Id = Ds P (s|d) log P (s|d) l=0 m=−l Z X X 1 = − Ds e−H[s] (H[s]+log Z) up to some finite l . Then one would recalculate the Z max Z partition sum, now separately for terms proporional to = −hH[s]id − log Zd, (130) flm and flm fl′m′ , which are then sorted into the vector and matrix coefficients of ˜j and D˜ −1, respectively and the (negative of the) expectation value of the Hamilto- according to nian plus logarithmic partition function. Introducing

† dHd[f] Zβ[d, J] = Ds exp −β (H[s] − J s) , and(131) ˜j(lm) = , and (129) dlmf Z f=0 1  2 Fβ[d, J] = − log Zβ[d, J], (132) ˜ −1 d Hd[f ] β D(lm)(l′m′) = . df df ′ ′ lm l m f=0 the latter of which is the Helmholtz free energy as a func-

f-map making can then proceed as described above tion of the inverse temperature β, we can write in spherical harmonics space. Comparing the resulting ∂Fβ[d, J] map in angular space to known foreground sources, as Id = − log Z1[d, 0] − hH[s]id = − , ∂β our Galaxy, the level of non-Gaussian contamination due β=1,J=0 to their imperfect removal from the data may be assessed. (133) We conclude this chapter with a short comparison to as can be verified by a direct calculation. The second expression for Id in Eq. 133 actually holds even if the existing fnl-estimators. To our knowledge, the most de- veloped estimator in the literature is based on the CMB- Hamiltonian is improperly normalised, e.g. H0 can be bispectrum, which is the third order correlation functions chosen arbitrarily if Zβ[d, J] is calculated consistently with this choice. of the data [e.g. 199, and references in Sect. I F 5]. The −1 estimator presented here is fourth order in the data, and The Helmholtz free energy Fβ[J] = −β log Zβ[J] therefore of higher accuracy since both estimators are not only encodes the amount of signal information, supposed to be optimal within their order. It is not clear Id =−∂Fβ[d, J]/∂β|β=1,J=0, but is also the genera- at the moment, if the presented new estimator is signif- tor of all connected correlation functions of the sig- nal hs · · · s ic =−δnF [d, J]/δJ · · · δJ | . icantly more accurate, since the higher order corrections x1 xn (s|d) β x1 xn β=1,J=0 may be small due to the smallness of he perturbations. The Helmholtz free energy can be calculated as follows: However, its implementation would not be of larger com- G 1 Zβ [J] † putational complexity than the existing fnl-estimators, F = − log Dse−β Hint[s] e−β (HG[s]−J s) β β ZG[J] but would be rewarded by gaining a sensitive detector β Z ! for non-Gaussianities structures imprinted by imperfectly 1 G 1 −β Hint[s] subtracted foregrounds, or other data processing steps. = − log Zβ [J] − log e ,(134) β β (s|J+j,G) This should motivate further research in this direction. D E where the average in the last term is over the Gaussian G † probability function PJ,β[s] ∝ exp(−β (HG[s] − J s)). VI. BOLTZMANN-SHANNON INFORMATION This term can be calculated by using the well-known fact, that the logarithm of the sum of all possible connected A. Helmholtz free energy and unconnected diagrams with only internal coordinates (or without free ends), as generated by the exponential Information fields carry information on distributed function of the interaction terms, is given by the sum of physical quantities. The amount of signal-information all connected diagrams [53]. For example, a free theory, should be measurable in information units like bits and perturbed by small, up-to-fourth-order interaction terms bytes. This is possible by adopting the Boltzmann- (all being proportional to some small parameter γ), has Shannon information concept of information being neg- G (0) −1 ative entropy. The entropy of a signal probability func- Fβ[J] = H0 +Λ −β + + +  tion measures the phase-space volume available for signal H0 | {z } 29

H0 → β H0,. In both cases we find identically + + + + + + O(γ2), (135)  1 1 2 π F [J]=HG − (J + j)†D (J + j) − Tr log D , and β 0 2 2β β    (1) 1 where an information source vertex reads β (J +j −Λ ), Id =− Tr (1 + log (2 πD)) . (139) an internal vertex with n lines β Λ(n), and the propagator 2 β−1 D. Finally, we recall Very similarly, one can calculate the information prior to the data, which turns out to be 1 −1 1 −1 = log |2πDβ | = Tr(log(2πDβ )). 1 2 2 I = − Tr(1 + log(2 πS)) . (140) 0 2 Thus, we have Thus, the data-induced information gain is

1 −1 1 (2) 1 −1 Fβ[J] = H0 − Tr(log(2πDβ )) + Λ [D] ∆I = I − I = Tr log SD 2 β 2 β d d 0 2 1 1

+ (J + j − Λ(1))†(D +Λ(2)) (J + j − Λ(1)) = Tr log 1+ S R†N −1 R . (141) 2 2 1 (3) 1 (3)

+ Λ [D,mJ ]+ Λ [mJ ,mJ ,mJ ] The information gain depends on the signal-response- 2 β 3! to-noise ratio Q ≡ R S R†N −1, also shortly denoted by 1 1 the measurement fidelity or quality. The information in- + Λ(4)[D,D]+ Λ(4)[D,m ,m ] 8 β2 4 β J J creases linearly with this ratio for it having a small value, 1 but levels off to a logarithmic increase as soon the ratio + Λ(4)[m ,m ,m ,m ]+ O(γ2), (136) 4! J J J J exceeds one by large. In the case of a 4th-order interacting theory, where, where we introduced the zero-order map mJ = D (J + j) however, the prior was Gaussian, the data induced infor- for notational convenice. The power of β associated with mation gain is still given by Eq. 141 plus the nonlinear the different diagrams in Eq. 135 is given by the num- terms on the rhs of Eq. 137. ber of vertices minus the number of propagators minus one. Thus, all tree-diagrams are of order β0, the one-loop diagrams are of order β−1 and the two loop diagram of C. Optimal interferometric information yield order β−2, and only the latter two affect the information content: We want to show how IFT can be used to optimise the scientific return of investment of observational instru- ̺ ments. In order to keep the discussion as transparent as I = − + + + + + + O(γ2) d possible, we concentrate on an idealised case. More re- " 2 # alistic cases can be treated analogously, however, with a 1 (2) (3) = −Tr(1 + log(2πD))+Λ [D]+Λ [D,m0] higher mathematical complexity, which is unwanted for 2 the moment in order not to obscure our arguments. h 1 (4) † 2 An interferometer observing a Gaussian signal like the + Λ [D ⊗ (D + m0 m )] + O(γ ), (137) 2 0 CMB may be described by a free theory, since signal and  noise are Gaussian with high accuracy, the instrument where ̺ = Tr(1), β = 1, J = 0, and thus m0 = D j. signal response is linear, and non-Gaussian contaminat- Here, we introduced the symmetrised tensor product ⊗, ing signals may be sufficiently reduced by a proper choice which has the property of observational wavelength and field on the sky. Assum- ing for the moment that the observational field is suffi- 1 ciently small, so that the flat sky approximation holds, Ax ...x ⊗ Bx ...x = Ax ...x Bx ...x , 1 n n+1 m m! π(1) π(n) π(n+1) π(m) the instrument response is roughly independent of sky π∈PXn+m (138) position well within the primary beam of the instrument, which can be large for a phased array. A situation in with Pm being the set of permutations of {1,...,m}, while assuming m>n. which the signal and noise statistics, as well as the in- strumental response is position independent is described by our simplistic Hamiltonian17 (Sect. III A 4). In this B. Free theory

17 n n To obtain the information content of the free theory, S(k,q) = (2π) δ(k − q) PS(k), N(k,q) = (2π) δ(k − q) PN (k), 2 2 we can set γ = 0 in Eqs. 136 and 137 or use Eq. 58 with Ps(k) = h|s(k)| i/V , Pn(k) = h|n(k)| i/V . d(x) = dy R(x − −1 2 the replacements J → β J, j → β j, D → β D, and y) s(y)+ n(x)), PR(k)= |R(k)| . R 30

case we find done at wavenumbers for which the costs stay below an economical limit provided by the quality times the value: V dk ∆I = n log (1 + PQ(k)) , (142) 2 (2 π) V PQ(k) vk Z c < . (147) k 2 (2π)n where PQ(k) = PS(k) PR(k)/PN (k) is the quality spec- trum and V is the observed volume, or sky area in our The scientific value of some information at a given spatial example.18 Note that the integrand is zero for k-space wavenumber may be derived from its information content regions without response. If discrete samples were taken on yet unknown cosmological parameters. The price of in Fourier space the above integral should be replaced by such parameter information is actually set by indirect market mechanisms involving scientific funding agencies dk and the competition of scientific collaborations for fun- V → , (143) (2 π)n damental discoveries. However, providing the recipes to Z Xki assign concrete prices is beyond the scope of this paper. It should be added, that such a pricing without includ- where k are the observed k-vectors, where P (k) 6= 0, i R ing the discovery potential of an observation risks to bias which is also consistent with taking the trace in data- the scientific research direction towards being aligned to space. existing prejudices [210]. We want to model the addition of further data in Fourier space, e.g. by adding baselines to an interfer- ometric observation, which enhances the sensitivity for D. Poissonian information content signals at a wavevector k. We therefore introduce the Fourier space exposure function ̺(k), which just tells us for how many observing (or time) units a measurement at In case of a free theory, the amount of information de- a given k vector has been performed. The signal response pends on the experimental setup and on the prior, but adds up coherently and therefore quadratically with ad- is independent of the data obtained. This changes in ditional observations, whereas the noise adds up incoher- case that one wants to harvest information in a situa- ently and thus only linearly. This means that the replace- tion described by a non-linear IFT. There, the amount 2 of information can strongly depend on the actual data.19. ments PR(k) → PR(k) ̺ (k) and PN (k) → PN (k) ̺(k) lead to a functional of ̺ describing the information gain: Here, we want to investigate how much information on an underlying Gaussian signal can be obtained in a V dk non-linear case, and how it depends on the data. We ∆I[̺]= log (1 + P (k) ̺(k)) ≡ dk I . 2 (2 π)n Q k choose the Poissonian Hamiltonian of Sect. IV as our Z Z (144) reference case, and assume for our convenience that ei- Given that the differential information gain per observa- ther the bias-factor or the signal amplitude, which both tional unit ̺(k) control the strength of the non-linear interactions, are small compared to unity. The signal amplitude can, for

δI V PQ(k) example, be made small by defining the signal of interest = n (145) to be the cosmic density field, smoothed on a sufficiently δ̺(k) 2 (2 π) 1+ ̺(k) PQ(k) 2 large scale (> 10 Mpc) so that hs i(s) < 1. Then the information gain expanded to the first few levels off for ̺ > P −1, one can ask what the optimal ob- Q orders in b servation time is, from an information-economical point of view. 1 ∆I = Tr log 1+ S κb2 (148) Assuming simply that an observation unit at k costs 2 an amount of c(k), and that an information unit on the 1  †  1 + κb3D md+ b (D + m2) + O(b5), signal at k has a value of v(k), one finds by optimising 2 0 2 0 the benefit bk = Ik(̺k) vk − ̺k ck with respect to the     observing time ̺k that the optimum is given by clearly depends on theb actual realisationb of the data. The different fluctuations in the naive map m0 = D j, with V v P ̺ (k)= k − N (k) . (146) D = (S−1 + b2 κ)−1 and j = b (d − κ), contain positive opt 2 (2π)n c P P k  S R  or negative information. In general, the positive infor- mation fluctuationsd seem to dominate, since only in case This implies that – as far as our very simple information- economical model holds – observations should only be

19 This may be confirmed by any astronomical observer, who faced the problem of how to convert a technically perfect, but unsuc- 18 The volume-factor enters with the replacement of the delta func- cessful search for astronomical objects into an acceptable scien- tion in k-space δ(0) → V/(2π)n. tific publication. 31 that m0(x) ∈ [m−(x),m+(x)], with For an ongoing survey, it might be advantageous to invest more observing times on regions with a higher in- 1 2 formation content, once they are identified. However, the m±(x)= −1 ± 1 − bx Dxx ≤ 0, (149) bx future survey response function becomes then conditional  p  on the data already obtained, a complication which is not the information fluctuation is negative, otherwise it is yet fully understood how to be taken into account in a positive. statistical data analysis. Therefore, we do not recom- A bit more insight into the non-linear information con- mend such survey strategies for the moment, but like to tent can be obtained by analysing the special case of a encourage further theoretical research in this direction. homogeneous response b, expected number of counts κ and a translation-invariant signal statistics. All these condition may approximately be met by a volume lim- VII. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK ited sample of observed galaxies in the universe, tracing the large-scale structure of the dark matter distribution. A. Information Field Theory Note, that since a fundamental theory for translating our signal s, the logarithm of the cosmic matter density, into the expectation value of the observed number of galaxies The optimal extraction and restauration of informa- at some location is lacking, at least the absolute normal- tion on spatially distributed quantities like the cosmic isation for κ has to be deduced from the data itself. large-scale structure or the cosmic microwave background If we know the spatial shape of κ(x) = κ0 f(x), with (CMB) temperature fluctuations in cosmology, but also f(x) the known shape function (f = const in our fol- on many other signals in physics and related fields, is lowing example), and κ0 the unknown normalisation to essential for any quantitative, data-driven scientific in- be derived observationally, we could trade the informa- ference. The problem of how to design such methods tion of the zero Fourier mode for the κ0-determination possesses many technical and even conceptual difficulties, by requiring dx j(x) = 0, which yields which have led to a large number of recipes, methodolo- gies and schools. Here, we addressed such problems from R † † a strictly information theoretical point of view, with the κ0 = b d/b f, (150) aim of erasing any conceptual and practical ambiguity and is κ0 = dx d(x)/V in our translational invariant about the optimal method for a given problem. case. Starting with fundamental information theoretical con- R By calibrating our zero-signal expectation value κ0 we siderations about the nature of measurements, signals, have removed any zero-Fourier-mode information in the noise and their relation to a physical reality given a model signal field, and may have introduced a systematic error of the Universe or the system under consideration, we in our data model. We ignore the latter uncertainty for reformulated the inference problem in the language of the moment, it will be addressed in a subsequent work, information field theory (IFT). IFT is mathematically a but model the missing zero-mode by removing its con- statistical field theory (SFT), however, its probabilistic tribution completely from any Fourier space based infor- aspects are due to knowledge-uncertainties and not due mation estimate. Having said this, we find to thermal fluctuations. The information field is identi- fied with a spatially distributed signal, which can freely dk 2 be chosen by the scientist according to needs and tech- ∆I = V n log 1+ κb PS(k) k6=0 (2π) nical constraints. The mathematical apparatus of field Z theory permits to deal with the ensemble of all possible 4  ′
κb D dk ′ field configurations given the data and prior information + n m(k) m(k − k ) ,(151) 4 ′ (2π) in a consistent way. Zk 6=0 # b With this conceptual framework, we derived the −1 2 −1 with m(k) = PD(k) j(k), PD(k) = (PS (k) + κb ) , Hamiltonian of the theory, showed that the free theory PS(0) = PD(0) = 0, and reproduces the well known results of Wiener-filter theory, and presented the Feynman-rules for non-linear, interact- dk ing Hamiltonians in general, and in particular cases. The D = P (k). (152) (2π)n D latter are information fields over Fourier- and spherical Z harmonics-spaces for inference problems in Rn and S2, For Gaussian signalb and noise, one would expect respectively. Our “philosophical” considerations permit- ′ ′ hm(k) m(k − k )i(d,s) = 0 for k 6= 0 and due to trans- ted to argue why the resulting IFTs are usually well nor- lational invariance, however, the Poissonian statistics malised, but often non-local. Since the propagator of the should have introduced mode couplings, which can be ex- theory is closely related to the Wiener-filter, for which ploited for better signal reconstruction and therefore con- nowadays efficient numerical algorithms exist as image tain information. In real space these non-linear informa- reconstruction and map-making codes, and the informa- 4 2 tion fluctuations are κb Dmx/4 and therefore strictly tion source term is usually a noise weighted version of positive. the data, the necessary computational tools are at hand b 32 to convert the diagrammatic expressions into well per- • In case that too large interaction terms in the forming algorithms for a large variety of applications in Hamiltonian prevent a finite number of diagrams to Cosmology and elsewhere. form a well performing algorithm, a re-summation of high order terms is due. This can be achieved by the saddle point approximation (classical solution, B. IFT Recipe maximum a posteriori estimator), or even better by a detailed renormalisation-flow analysis along the A typical IFT application will aim at calculating a lines outlined in Sect. IV F. model evidence P (d), the expectation value of a signal given the data, the map m(x) = hs(x)i(s|d) of the sig- 2 C. IFT Examples nal, or its variance σs (x, y) = h(s(x) − m(x)) (s(y) − m(y))i(s|d) as a measure of the signal uncertainty. The general recipe for such applications can be summarised As examples of the IFT recipe, two concrete IFT prob- as following: lems with cosmological motivation were discussed. The first was targeting at the problem of reconstructing the • Specify the signal s and its prior probability distri- spatially continuous cosmic large-scale structure matter bution P (s). If the signal is derived from a physical distribution from discrete galaxy counts in incomplete field ψ, of which a prior statistic is known, the dis- galaxy surveys. It was demonstrated analytically and nu- tribution of s = s[ψ] is induced according to Eq. merically that a Gaussian signal, which should resemble 2. the initial density perturbations of the Universe, observed with a strongly non-linear, incomplete and Poissonian- • Specify the data model in terms of a likelihood noise affected response, as the processes of structure P (d|s) conditioned on s. Again, if the data are and galaxy formation and observations may provide, can related to an underlying physical field ψ, the like- well be reconstructed thanks to the virtue of a response- lihood is given by Eq. 4. renormalisation flow equation. Surprisingly, it turned out

• Calculate the Hamiltonian Hd[s] = − log(P (d, s)), that the exact information field expectation value can be where P (d, s)= P (d|s) P (s) is the joined probabil- calculated with much lower numerical costs as compared ity, and expand it in a Taylor-Fr´echet series for all to the classical maximum a posteriori estimator, despite degrees of freedom of s. Identify the coefficients of its higher fidelity. the constant, linear, quadratic, and nth-order terms The second example was the design of an optimal with the normalisation H0, information source j, method to measure or constrain any possible local non- inverse propagator D−1, and nth-order interaction linearities in the CMB temperature fluctuations, as it is term Λ(n), respectively, as shown in Eq. 45 or 68. predicted from some Early-Universe inflationary scenar- ios, and is also expected due to imperfections in the re- • Draw all diagrams, which contribute to the quan- moval of CMB-foregrounds during the experimental data tity of interest, consisting of vertices, lines, and processing. open-ends up to some order in complexity or some Finally, we provided the Boltzmann-Shannon informa- small ordering parameter. The log-evidence is tion measure of IFT based on the Helmholtz free energy, given by the sum of all connected diagrams without and thereby highlighting conceptual similarities of IFT open ends, the expectation value of the signal by and SFT, and demonstrated, how this can be used to all connected diagrams with one open end, and the optimise the information yield of observational and ex- signal-variance around this mean by all connected perimental setups. diagrams with two open ends.

• Read the diagrams as computational algorithms D. Outlook specified by the Feynman rules in Sect. III, and implement them by using linear algebra packages or existing map-making codes for the information We conclude here with a short outlook on some prob- propagator and vertices. The required discretisa- lems that are accessible to the presented theory. tion is outlined in Sect. I E 1. Information on how Many signal inference problems involve the reconstruc- to implement the required matrix inversions effi- tion of fields with not precisely known statistics. Some ciently can be found in the literature given in Secs. the coefficients in the IFT-Hamiltonians may only be IF2, IF4, and IF5 and especially in [37]. phenomenological in nature, and therefore have to be derived from the same data used for the reconstruction • If the resulting non-linear data transformation (or itself. This more intricate interplay of parameter and filter) has the required accuracy, e.g. to be verified information field can also be incorporated into the IFT via Monte-Carlo simulations using signal and data framework, as we will show with a subsequent work. realisations drawn from the prior and likelihood, For cosmological applications, along the lines started respectively, an IFT algorithm is established. in this work, clearly more realistic data models need to be 33 investigated. For example, to understand the response in Acknowledgements galaxy formation to the underlying dark matter distribu- tion in terms of a realistic, statistical model, to be used in constructing the corresponding IFT Hamiltonian for a dark-matter information field, detailed higher-order cor- relation coefficients have to be distilled from numerical It is a pleasure to thank the following people for help- simulations or semi-analytic descriptions. Also the CMB ful scientific discussions on various aspects of this work: Hamiltonian may benefit from the inclusion of remnants Simon White on the dangers of perturbation theory, Ben- from the CMB foreground subtraction process, permit- jamin Wandelt on the prospects of large-scale structure ting to gather more solid evidence on fundamental pa- reconstruction, Jens Jasche on the pleasures and pains rameters which are hidden in the CMB fluctuations, like of signal processing, J¨org Rachen on the philosophy of the amplitude of non-Gaussianities. science, and Andr´eWaelkens on the invariant, but ver- Finally, we are very curious to see whether and how tiginous theory of isotropic tensors. We gratefully ac- the presented framework may be suitable to inference knowledge helpful comments on the manuscript by Mar- problems in other scientific fields. cus Br¨uggen and Thomas Riller.

[1] T. Bayes, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 53, 370 (1763). [24] B. R. Frieden, Journal of the Optical Society of America [2] J. C. Lemm, ArXiv Physics e-prints (1999), (1917-1983) 62, 511 (1972). physics/9912005. [25] R. K. Bryan and J. Skilling, MNRAS 191, 69 (1980). [3] C. E. Shannon, Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 [26] R. K. Bryan and J. Skilling, Journal of Modern Optics (1948). 33, 287 (1986). [4] C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The mathematical the- [27] S. F. Burch, S. F. Gull, and J. Skilling, Computer Vision ory of communication (Urbana: University of Illinois Graphics and Image Processing 23, 113 (1983). Press, 1949, 1949). [28] S. F. Gull, in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Meth- [5] E. T. Jaynes, Physical Review 106, 620 (1957). ods, edited by J. Skilling (Kluwer Academic Publishers, [6] E. T. Jaynes, Physical Review 108, 171 (1957). Dordtrecht, 1989), pp. 53–71. [7] E. T. Jaynes, in Statistical Physics 3 (1963), p. 181. [29] S. F. Gull and G. J. Daniell, Nature (London) 272, 686 [8] E. T. Jaynes, American Journal of Physics 33, 391 (1978). (1965). [30] S. F. Gull and J. Skilling, in Indirect Imaging. Mea- [9] E. T. Jaynes, IEEE Trans. on Systems Science and Cy- surement and Processing for Indirect Imaging. Pro- bernetics SSC-4, 227 (1968). ceedings of an International Symposium held in Syd- [10] E. T. Jaynes, in Proc. IEEE, Volume 70, p. 939-952 ney, Australia, August 30-September 2, 1983. Editor, (1982), pp. 939–952. J.A. Roberts, Publisher, Cambridge University Press, [11] E. T. Jaynes and R. Baierlein, Physics Today 57, 76 Cambridge, England, New York, NY, 1984. LC # (2004). QB51.3.E43 I53 1984. ISBN # 0-521-26282-8. P.267, [12] N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, 1983 (1983), p. 267. A. H. Teller, and E. T. Teller, Journal of Chemical [31] S. F. Gull and J. Skilling, The MEMSYS5 User’s Man- Physics 21, 1087 (1953). ual (Maximum Entropy Data Consultants Ltd, Roys- [13] W. K. Hastings, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970). ton, 1990). [14] S. Geman and D. Geman, IEEE Transactions on Pat- [32] S. Sibisi, J. Skilling, R. G. Brereton, E. D. Laue, and tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 6, 721 (1984). J. Staunton, Nature (London) 311, 446 (1984). [15] R. A. Aster, B. Brochers, and C. H. Thurber, Parame- [33] J. Skilling, in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, ter estimation and inverse problems (Elsevier Academic edited by G. J. Erickson, J. T. Rychert, and C. R. Smith Press, London, 2005). (1998), p. 1. [16] A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. Rubin, [34] J. Skilling and R. K. Bryan, MNRAS 211, 111 (1984). Bayesian data analysis (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca [35] J. Skilling, A. W. Strong, and K. Bennett, MNRAS 187, Raton, Florida, 2004). 145 (1979). [17] R. M. Neal, in Technical Report CRG-TR-93-1 (Dept. [36] D. M. Titterington and J. Skilling, Nature (London) of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1993). 312, 381 (1984). [18] C. P. Robert, The Bayesian choice (Springer-Verlag, [37] F. S. Kitaura and T. A. Enßlin, ArXiv e-prints New York, 2001). 0705.0429 (2007), 0705.0429. [19] M. A. Tanner, Tools for statistical inference (Springer- [38] R. Narayan and R. Nityananda, ARAA 24, 127 (1986). Verlag, New York, 1996). [39] R. Molina, J. Nunez, F. J. Cortijo, and J. Mateos, Signal [20] R. Trotta, ArXiv e-prints 0803.4089 (2008), 0803.4089. Processing Magazine, IEEE 18, 11 (2001). [21] N. Wiener, Extrapolation, Interpolation, and Smoothing [40] E. Bertschinger, ApJL 323, L103 (1987). of Stationary Time Series (New York: Wiley, 1949). [41] W. Bialek and A. Zee, Physical Review Letters 58, 741 [22] L. B. Lucy, AJ 79, 745 (1974). (1987). [23] W. H. Richardson, Journal of the Optical Society of [42] W. Bialek and A. Zee, Physical Review Letters 61, 1512 America (1917-1983) 62, 55 (1972). (1988). 34

[43] W. Bialek, C. G. Callan, and S. P. Strong, Physical Re- [70] Y. B. Zel’dovich, A&A 5, 84 (1970). view Letters 77, 4693 (1996), arXiv:cond-mat/9607180. [71] M. Crocce and R. Scoccimarro, Physical Review D 73, [44] P. Stoica, E. G. Larsson, and J. Li, AJ 120, 2163 (2000). 063520 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509419. [45] J. C. Lemm, Physics Letters A 276, 19 (2000). [72] M. Crocce and R. Scoccimarro, Physical Review D 73, [46] J. C. Lemm, in Bayesian Inference and Maximum En- 063519 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509418. tropy Methods in Science and Engineering, edited by [73] J. Gaite and A. Dom´ınguez, Journal of Physics A A. Mohammad-Djafari (2001), vol. 568 of American In- Mathematical General 40, 6849 (2007), arXiv:astro- stitute of Physics Conference Series, pp. 425–436. ph/0610886. [47] J. C. Lemm and J. Uhlig, Few-Body Systems 29, 25 [74] D. Jeong and E. Komatsu, Astrophys. J. 651, 619 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0006027. (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604075. [48] J. C. Lemm and J. Uhlig, Physical Review Letters 84, [75] D. Jeong and E. Komatsu, ArXiv e-prints 0805.2632 4517 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9908056. (2008), 0805.2632. [49] J. C. Lemm, J. Uhlig, and A. Weiguny, Physical Review [76] S. Matarrese and M. Pietroni, Journal of Cosmology Letters 84, 2068 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/9907013. and Astro-Particle Physics 6, 26 (2007), arXiv:astro- [50] J. C. Lemm, J. Uhlig, and A. Weiguny, European Phys- ph/0703563. ical Journal B 20, 349 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0005122. [77] S. Matarrese and M. Pietroni, Modern Physics Letters [51] J. C. Lemm, J. Uhlig, and A. Weiguny, European Phys- A 23, 25 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0702653. ical Journal B 46, 41 (2005). [78] T. Matsubara, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063530 (2008), [52] J. C. Lemm, ArXiv Condensed Matter e-prints (1998), arXiv:0711.2521. cond-mat/9808039. [79] P. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103512 (2006), [53] J. Binney, N. Dowrick, A. Fisher, and M. Newman, The arXiv:astro-ph/0609413. theory of critical phenomena (Oxford University Press, [80] P. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 74, 129901(E) (2006). Oxford, UK: ISBN0-19-851394-1, 1992). [81] P. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043514 (2007), [54] M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to arXiv:astro-ph/0606028. Quantum Field Theory (Westview Press Boulder, Col- [82] M. Pietroni, ArXiv e-prints 0806.0971 (2008), orado: 1995, ISBN-13 978-0-201-50397-5., 1995). 0806.0971. [55] A. Zee, Quantum field theory in a nutshell (Quantum [83] P. Valageas, A&A 421, 23 (2004), arXiv:astro- field theory in a nutshell, by A. Zee. Princeton, NJ: ph/0307008. Princeton University Press, 2003, ISBN 0691010196., [84] P. Valageas, A&A 476, 31 (2007), arXiv:0706.2593. 2003). [85] P. Valageas, A&A 484, 79 (2008), arXiv:0711.3407. [56] S. Matarrese, F. Lucchin, and S. A. Bonometto, ApJL [86] S. Basilakos and M. Plionis, Astrophys. J. 550, 522 310, L21 (1986). (2001), astro-ph/0011265. [57] J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Szalay, [87] F. Bernardeau, A&A 291, 697 (1994), astro- Astrophys. J. 304, 15 (1986). ph/9403020. [58] F. Bernardeau, ApJL 390, L61 (1992). [88] E. Bertschinger and A. Dekel, ApJL 336, L5 (1989). [59] F. Bernardeau, M. J. Chodorowski, E. L.Lokas, [89] E. Bertschinger and A. Dekel, in ASP Conf. Ser. 15: R. Stompor, and A. Kudlicki, MNRAS 309, 543 (1999), Large-Scale Structures and Peculiar Motions in the Uni- astro-ph/9901057. verse, edited by D. W. Latham and L. A. N. da Costa [60] E. Branchini, L. Teodoro, C. S. Frenk, I. Schmoldt, (1991), p. 67. G. Efstathiou, S. D. M. White, W. Saunders, W. Suther- [90] V. Bistolas and Y. Hoffman, Astrophys. J. 492, 439 land, M. Rowan-Robinson, O. Keeble, et al., MNRAS (1998), astro-ph/9707243. 308, 1 (1999), astro-ph/9901366. [91] C. S. Botzler, J. Snigula, R. Bender, and U. Hopp, MN- [61] A. Dekel and O. Lahav, Astrophys. J. 520, 24 (1999), RAS 349, 425 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0312018. astro-ph/9806193. [92] Y. Brenier, U. Frisch, M. H´enon, G. Loeper, S. Matar- [62] A. J. S. Hamilton, in The Evolving Universe, edited by rese, R. Mohayaee, and A. Sobolevski˘i, MNRAS 346, D. Hamilton (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordtrecht, 501 (2003), astro-ph/0304214. 1998), vol. 231 of Astrophysics and Space Science Li- [93] R. A. C. Croft and E. Gaztanaga, MNRAS 285, 793 brary, p. 185. (1997), astro-ph/9602100. [63] N. Kaiser, MNRAS 227, 1 (1987). [94] A. Dekel, E. Bertschinger, and S. M. Faber, Astrophys. [64] P. J. E. Peebles, The large-scale structure of the universe J. 364, 349 (1990). (Research supported by the National Science Foun- [95] K. B. Fisher, O. Lahav, Y. Hoffman, D. Lynden- dation. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, Bell, and S. Zaroubi, MNRAS 272, 885 (1995), astro- 1980. 435 p., 1980). ph/9406009. [65] P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 362, 1 (1990). [96] U. Frisch, S. Matarrese, R. Mohayaee, and [66] R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083007 (2004), astro- A. Sobolevski, Nature (London) 417, 260 (2002), ph/0407214. arXiv:astro-ph/0109483. [67] R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, [97] G. Ganon and Y. Hoffman, ApJL 415, L5 (1993). C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, [98] D. M. Goldberg, Astrophys. J. 552, 413 (2001), astro- and H. M. P. Couchman, MNRAS 341, 1311 (2003), ph/0008266. arXiv:astro-ph/0207664. [99] D. M. Goldberg and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 544, [68] S. Zaroubi, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2002), astro- 21 (2000), astro-ph/9912408. ph/0206052. [100] D. M. Goldberg and D. N. Spergel, in ASP Conf. Ser. [69] S. Zaroubi and Y. Hoffman, Astrophys. J. 462, 25 201: Cosmic Flows Workshop, edited by S. Courteau (1996). 35

and J. Willick (2000), p. 282. physics 6, 387 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602431. [101] M. Gramann, Astrophys. J. 405, 449 (1993). [134] E. Bertschinger, A. Dekel, S. M. Faber, A. Dressler, and [102] Y. Hoffman and E. Ribak, ApJL 380, L5 (1991). D. Burstein, Astrophys. J. 364, 370 (1990). [103] N. Kaiser and A. Stebbins, in ASP Conf. Ser. 15: Large- [135] E. Branchini, M. Plionis, and D. W. Sciama, ApJL 461, Scale Structures and Peculiar Motions in the Universe, L17 (1996), astro-ph/9512055. edited by D. W. Latham and L. A. N. da Costa (1991), [136] P. Erdo˘gdu, O. Lahav, J. Huchra, and et al., MNRAS p. 111. 373, 45 (2006), astro-ph/0610005. [104] A. Kudlicki, M. Chodorowski, T. Plewa, and [137] P. Erdo˘gdu, O. Lahav, S. Zaroubi, and et al., MNRAS M. R´o˙zyczka, MNRAS 316, 464 (2000), astro- 352, 939 (2004), astro-ph/0312546. ph/9910018. [138] K. B. Fisher, C. A. Scharf, and O. Lahav, MNRAS 266, [105] O. Lahav, in ASP Conf. Ser. 67: Unveiling Large- 219 (1994), astro-ph/9309027. Scale Structures Behind the Milky Way, edited by [139] D. M. Goldberg, Astrophys. J. 550, 87 (2001), astro- C. Balkowski and R. C. Kraan-Korteweg (1994), p. 171. ph/0009046. [106] O. Lahav, K. B. Fisher, Y. Hoffman, C. A. Scharf, and [140] Y. Hoffman and S. Zaroubi, ApJL 535, L5 (2000), astro- S. Zaroubi, ApJL 423, L93 (1994), astro-ph/9311059. ph/0003306. [107] R. Mohayaee, U. Frisch, S. Matarrese, and [141] J. Huchra, T. Jarrett, M. Skrutskie, R. Cutri, S. Schnei- A. Sobolevskii, A&A 406, 393 (2003), arXiv:astro- der, L. Macri, R. Steining, J. Mader, N. Martimbeau, ph/0301641. and T. George, in ASP Conf. Ser. 329: Nearby Large- [108] R. Mohayaee, H. Mathis, S. Colombi, and J. Silk, MN- Scale Structures and the Zone of Avoidance, edited by RAS 365, 939 (2006), astro-ph/0501217. A. P. Fairall and P. A. Woudt (2005), p. 135. [109] R. Mohayaee, B. Tully, and U. Frisch, ArXiv Astro- [142] H. Mathis, G. Lemson, V. Springel, G. Kauffmann, physics e-prints (2004), astro-ph/0410063. S. D. M. White, A. Eldar, and A. Dekel, MNRAS 333, [110] R. Mohayaee and R. B. Tully, ApJL 635, L113 (2005), 739 (2002), astro-ph/0111099. astro-ph/0509313. [143] A. Nusser and M. Haehnelt, MNRAS 303, 179 (1999), [111] V. K. Narayanan and R. A. C. Croft, Astrophys. J. 515, astro-ph/9806109. 471 (1999), astro-ph/9806255. [144] W. J. Percival, MNRAS 356, 1168 (2005), astro- [112] V. K. Narayanan and D. H. Weinberg, Astrophys. J. ph/0410631. 508, 440 (1998), astro-ph/9806238. [145] I. M. Schmoldt, V. Saar, P. Saha, E. Branchini, G. P. Ef- [113] A. Nusser and M. Davis, ApJL 421, L1 (1994), astro- stathiou, C. S. Frenk, O. Keeble, S. Maddox, R. McMa- ph/9309009. hon, S. Oliver, et al., Astrophys. J. 118, 1146 (1999), [114] A. Nusser and A. Dekel, Astrophys. J. 391, 443 (1992). astro-ph/9906035. [115] P. J. E. Peebles, ApJL 344, L53 (1989). [146] E. J. Shaya, P. J. E. Peebles, and R. B. Tully, Astro- [116] U.-L. Pen, Astrophys. J. 504, 601 (1998), astro- phys. J. 454, 15 (1995), astro-ph/9506144. ph/9711180. [147] M. Tegmark and B. C. Bromley, The As- [117] G. B. Rybicki and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. 398, 169 trophysical Journal 518, L69 (1999), URL (1992). http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/9 [118] U. Seljak, Astrophys. J. 503, 492 (1998), astro- [148] M. S. Vogeley, F. Hoyle, R. R. Rojas, and D. M. Gold- ph/9710269. berg, in IAU Colloq. 195: Outskirts of Galaxy Clus- [119] U. Seljak, Astrophys. J. 506, 64 (1998), astro- ters: Intense Life in the Suburbs, edited by A. Diaferio ph/9711124. (2004), pp. 5–11. [120] R. K. Sheth, MNRAS 277, 933 (1995), astro- [149] M. Webster, O. Lahav, and K. Fisher, MNRAS 287, ph/9511096. 425 (1997), astro-ph/9608021. [121] A. Taylor and H. Valentine, MNRAS 306, 491 (1999), [150] A. Yahil, M. A. Strauss, M. Davis, and J. P. Huchra, astro-ph/9901171. Astrophys. J. 372, 380 (1991). [122] M. Tegmark and B. C. Bromley, Astrophys. J. 453, [151] C. Yess, S. F. Shandarin, and K. B. Fisher, Astrophys. 533 (1995), astro-ph/9409038. J. 474, 553 (1997), astro-ph/9605041. [123] D. H. Weinberg, MNRAS 254, 315 (1992). [152] Y. Hoffman, in ASP Conf. Ser. 67: Unveiling Large- [124] S. Zaroubi, MNRAS 331, 901 (2002), astro-ph/0010561. Scale Structures Behind the Milky Way, edited by [125] S. Zaroubi, Y. Hoffman, and A. Dekel, Astrophys. J. C. Balkowski and R. C. Kraan-Korteweg (1994), p. 185. 520, 413 (1999), astro-ph/9810279. [153] R. C. Kraan-Korteweg and O. Lahav, AAPR 10, 211 [126] S. Zaroubi, Y. Hoffman, K. B. Fisher, and O. Lahav, (2000), astro-ph/0005501. Astrophys. J. 449, 446 (1995), astro-ph/9410080. [154] S. Zaroubi, in ASP Conf. Ser. 218: Mapping the Hid- [127] F. Bernardeau and R. van de Weygaert, MNRAS 279, den Universe: The Universe behind the Mily Way - The 693 (1996). Universe in HI, edited by R. C. Kraan-Korteweg, P. A. [128] V. Icke and R. van de Weygaert, qras 32, 85 (1991). Henning, and H. Andernach (2000), p. 173. [129] S. Ikeuchi and E. L. Turner, MNRAS 250, 519 (1991). [155] D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 511, 5 [130] M. Ramella, W. Boschin, D. Fadda, and M. Nonino, (1999), astro-ph/9710252. A&A 368, 776 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101411. [156] J. A. Peacock and S. J. Dodds, MNRAS 267, 1020 [131] W. E. Schaap and R. van de Weygaert, A&A 363, L29 (1994), astro-ph/9311057. (2000), astro-ph/0011007. [157] M. Tegmark, Physical Review Letters 79, 3806 (1997), [132] R. van de Weygaert and W. Schaap, in Mining the Sky, astro-ph/9706198. edited by A. J. Banday, S. Zaroubi, and M. Bartelmann [158] M. S. Vogeley and A. S. Szalay, Astrophys. J. 465, 34 (2001), p. 268. (1996), astro-ph/9601185. [133] L. Zaninetti, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astro- [159] S. Zaroubi, I. Zehavi, A. Dekel, Y. Hoffman, and T. Ko- 36

latt, Astrophys. J. 486, 21 (1997), astro-ph/9610226. 0803.0593. [160] E. F. Bunn, D. Scott, and M. White, ApJL 441, L9 [185] M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5895 (1997), astro- (1995), astro-ph/9409003. ph/9611174. [161] G. Efstathiou, J. R. Bond, and S. D. M. White, MNRAS [186] M. Tegmark, A. N. Taylor, and A. F. Heavens, Astro- 258, 1P (1992). phys. J. 480, 22 (1997), astro-ph/9603021. [162] E. F. Bunn, K. B. Fisher, Y. Hoffman, O. Lahav, [187] A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Let- J. Silk, and S. Zaroubi, ApJL 432, L75 (1994), astro- ters 48, 1220 (1982). ph/9404007. [188] J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. [163] S. Dodelson, Astrophys. J. 482, 577 (1997), astro- Rev. D 28, 679 (1983). ph/9512021. [189] A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981). [164] O. Dor´e, R. Teyssier, F. R. Bouchet, D. Vibert, and [190] A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, Physical Review Letters 49, S. Prunet, A&A 374, 358 (2001), astro-ph/0101112. 1110 (1982). [165] H. K. Eriksen, I. J. O’Dwyer, J. B. Jewell, B. D. Wan- [191] A. D. Linde, Physics Letters B 108, 389 (1982). delt, D. L. Larson, K. M. G´orski, S. Levin, A. J. Ban- [192] A. A. Starobinsky, Physics Letters B 117, 175 (1982). day, and P. B. Lilje, ApJS 155, 227 (2004), astro- [193] D. Babich, P. Creminelli, and M. Zaldarriaga, Journal ph/0407028. of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics 8, 9 (2004), [166] G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), arXiv 0803.0732 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0405356. 0803.0732. [194] N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, [167] M. P. Hobson, A. W. Jones, A. N. Lasenby, and F. R. Phys. Rep. 402, 103 (2004), astro-ph/0406398. Bouchet, MNRAS 300, 1 (1998), astro-ph/9806387. [195] F. Bernardeau and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103506 [168] M. A. Janssen and S. Gulkis, in NATO ASIC Proc. 359: (2002), hep-ph/0207295. The Infrared and Submillimetre Sky after COBE, edited [196] W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 64, 083005 (2001), astro- by M. Signore and C. Dupraz (Kluwer Academic Pub- ph/0105117. lishers, Dordtrecht, 1992), pp. 391–408. [197] D. Babich and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083005 [169] J. Jewell, S. Levin, and C. H. Anderson, Astrophys. J. (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0408455. 609, 1 (2004), astro-ph/0209560. [198] E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, and B. D. Wandelt, Astro- [170] E. Keih¨anen, H. Kurki-Suonio, and T. Poutanen, MN- phys. J. 634, 14 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0305189. RAS 360, 390 (2005), astro-ph/0412517. [199] E. Komatsu, B. D. Wandelt, D. N. Spergel, A. J. Ban- [171] D. L. Larson, H. K. Eriksen, B. D. Wandelt, K. M. day, and K. M. G´orski, Astrophys. J. 566, 19 (2002), G´orski, G. Huey, J. B. Jewell, and I. J. O’Dwyer, As- arXiv:astro-ph/0107605. trophys. J. 656, 653 (2007), astro-ph/0608007. [200] A. P. S. Yadav, E. Komatsu, and B. D. Wandelt, As- [172] K. Maisinger, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, MN- trophys. J. 664, 680 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701921. RAS 290, 313 (1997). [201] A. P. S. Yadav, E. Komatsu, B. D. Wandelt, M. Liguori, [173] P. Natoli, G. de Gasperis, C. Gheller, and N. Vittorio, F. K. Hansen, and S. Matarrese, Astrophys. J. 678, 578 A&A 372, 346 (2001), astro-ph/0101252. (2008), arXiv:0711.4933. [174] R. Stompor, A. Balbi, J. D. Borrill, P. G. Ferreira, [202] A. Curto, J. F. Macias-Perez, E. Martinez-Gonzalez, S. Hanany, A. H. Jaffe, A. T. Lee, S. Oh, B. Rabii, R. B. Barreiro, D. Santos, F. K. Hansen, M. Liguori, P. L. Richards, G.F. Smoot, C.D. Winan, J.-H. P. Wu, and S. Matarrese, ArXiv e-prints 0804.0136 (2008), Phys. Rev. D 65, 022003 (2001), astro-ph/0106451. 0804.0136. [175] E. C. Sutton and B. D. Wandelt, ApJS 162, 401 (2006). [203] E. Komatsu, A. Kogut, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, [176] M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. D 56, 4514 (1997), astro- M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, M. Limon, S. S. ph/9705188. Meyer, L. Page, et al., ApJS 148, 119 (2003), astro- [177] M. Tegmark, ApJL 480, L87 (1997), astro-ph/9611130. ph/0302223. [178] B. D. Wandelt, D. L. Larson, and A. Lakshmi- [204] A. P. S. Yadav and B. D. Wandelt, Physical Review narayanan, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083511 (2004), astro- Letters 100, 181301 (2008). ph/0310080. [205] E. Martinez-Gonzalez, ArXiv e-prints 0805.4157 [179] D. Yvon and F. Mayet, A&A 436, 729 (2005), astro- (2008), 0805.4157. ph/0401505. [206] P. Coles and B. Jones, MNRAS 248, 1 (1991). [180] U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J. 469, 437 [207] R. Vio, P. Andreani, and W. Wamsteker, PASP 113, (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9603033. 1009 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105107. [181] A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. [208] M. J. Rees and D. W. Sciama, Nature (London) 217, 538, 473 (2000), astro-ph/9911177. 511 (1968). [182] M. Doran, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle [209] R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, Astrophys. J. 147, 73 Physics 10, 11 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0302138. (1967). [183] E. F. Bunn and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. 446, 49 [210] S. D. M. White, Reports of Progress in Physics 70, 883 (1995), astro-ph/9407069. (2007), arXiv:0704.2291. [184] M. R. Nolta et al. (WMAP), arXiv 0803.0593 (2008),