Cosmic Multipoles in Galaxy Surveys II: Comparing Different Methods in Assessing the Cosmic Dipole

We present a comparative analysis of estimators and Bayesian methods for determining the number count dipole from cosmological surveys. The increase in discordance between the number count dipole and the CMB’s kinematic dipole has presented a challenge to the assumption of an isotropic and homogeneous universe. The level of discordance has depended on the choice of method to determine the dipole; hence, there is a need to compare them to determine the better approach. We select the healpy fit_dipole algorithm as our estimator and show that it gives unbiased results regardless of the noise levels and sky coverage in the data. However, for low sky coverage, the estimator’s results have a large variance, which indicates that the estimator is not reliable in that regime. We then compare the estimator’s outputs with the Bayesian results. If the sky coverage is sufficient, the Bayesian posterior probabilities agree with both the estimator’s outcomes and the true parameter values. But if the sky coverage is low, Bayesian analysis is often inconclusive, which safeguards against incorrect conclusions. Both methods provide the ability to analyse multiple samples: on one hand, we need to select a different estimator, while in Bayesian inference, we need to extend our likelihood function to incorporate additional parameters. Our study emphasises the need to perform a principled statistical analysis of sky surveys for dipole determination.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Open Journal of Astrophysics
Published
2025-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33232/001c.144907
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Scientific Research and Discoveries
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cosmic Multipoles in Galaxy Surveys II: Comparing Different Methods in Assessing the Cosmic Dipole

Vasudev Mittal, Geraint F. Lewis, Oliver T Oayda
1 citations
The Open Journal of Astrophysics
Scientific Research and Discoveries
1.32
article

Cosmic Multipoles in Galaxy Surveys II: Comparing Different Methods in Assessing the Cosmic Dipole

Vasudev Mittal, Geraint F. Lewis, Oliver T Oayda
article en
1 citations

Abstract

We present a comparative analysis of estimators and Bayesian methods for determining the number count dipole from cosmological surveys. The increase in discordance between the number count dipole and the CMB’s kinematic dipole has presented a challenge to the assumption of an isotropic and homogeneous universe. The level of discordance has depended on the choice of method to determine the dipole; hence, there is a need to compare them to determine the better approach. We select the healpy fit_dipole algorithm as our estimator and show that it gives unbiased results regardless of the noise levels and sky coverage in the data. However, for low sky coverage, the estimator’s results have a large variance, which indicates that the estimator is not reliable in that regime. We then compare the estimator’s outputs with the Bayesian results. If the sky coverage is sufficient, the Bayesian posterior probabilities agree with both the estimator’s outcomes and the true parameter values. But if the sky coverage is low, Bayesian analysis is often inconclusive, which safeguards against incorrect conclusions. Both methods provide the ability to analyse multiple samples: on one hand, we need to select a different estimator, while in Bayesian inference, we need to extend our likelihood function to incorporate additional parameters. Our study emphasises the need to perform a principled statistical analysis of sky surveys for dipole determination.

The Open Journal of AstrophysicsVol. 8
The University of Sydney (AU), ORCID (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Scientific Research and Discoveries
1.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.