replying to R. Hills et al. Nature 564, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0796-5 (2018)
In our Letter1, the foreground models account for a combination of astronomical foregrounds, ionospheric effects and any residual calibration effects. We obtained best-fit parameters that absorb a degenerate combination of these effects from unconstrained fits to the models. In the accompanying Comment2, the concerns of Hills et al. arise primarily because they failed to recover physical values for two ionosphere parameters in a foreground model with three additional non-ionosphere parameters.
Ionosphere parameters are covariant with the amplitude and spectral index of the astronomical foreground. Small errors in these astronomical parameters, as well as residual effects from calibration, could bias the recovered ionosphere parameters. In ref. 3, we calculated an overall systematic uncertainty of ±0.02 on the spectral index measured by the high-band instrument, including beam correction uncertainty. We found a similar uncertainty for the low-band instrument. Errors of this level could yield deviations from the true spectrum with amplitudes and shapes comparable to those of the expected ionospheric contribution. For these reasons, we did not intend to extract ionospheric information from the measurements presented. In a previous study4, we extracted information about ionospheric variability from EDGES high-band data. We limited that analysis to differencing spectra acquired at the same local sidereal time on different nights in order to reduce the covariance with the astronomical foregrounds and mitigate any systematic effects, before fitting an ionosphere model to the differential spectra. Extracting absolute ionospheric information directly from the measured spectra would require a separate, in-depth study.
Measuring physical foreground properties requires the absolute temperature calibration of the spectrum, whereas identifying a 21-cm profile embedded in the foreground requires only relative calibration between channels in the spectrum. It is possible to recover a 21-cm feature without accurately measuring the physical foreground properties. Most global 21-cm constraints have come from this regime5,6,7,8,9. In EDGES we do aim to measure a fully absolutely calibrated spectrum. Although in our Methods section we acknowledged potential residual calibration effects, we reported tests to show that any such effects are not consistent with the reported profile. We therefore concluded that the signal is astronomical.
Hills et al.2 found that several alternative models for the foreground and signal can be fitted to the data. We broadly agree, but a general absorption profile remains the most justified a priori choice of signal model because we have disfavoured the instrument as the source of the structure and there is no known physical expectation for other shapes in either the foreground or 21-cm signal, whereas an absorption is expected. We have data that exclude some of the alternative signal models proposed by Hills et al.2 and plan to publish those results in the near future.
When using our polynomial foreground model over the full band (51–99 MHz), rather than over only the sub-band for which we used it (approximately 63–99 MHz), Hills et al.2 recovered best-fit profiles that are not consistent with our reported properties. We have shown using simulations10 that this outcome is consistent with the expected performance of that model. Therefore, their choice to use it over the full band was not justified. Other foreground models perform better than the polynomial model across the full band, including the linear physically motivated model that we used.
References
Bowman, J. D., Rogers, A. E. E., Monsalve, R. A., Mozdzen, T. J. & Mahesh, N. An absorption profile centred at 78 megahertz in the sky-averaged spectrum. Nature 555, 67–70 (2018).
Hills, R., Kulkarni, G., Meerburg, P. D. & Puchwein, E. Concerns about modelling of the EDGES data. Nature 564, http://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0797-4 (2018).
Mozdzen, T. J., Bowman, J. D., Monsalve, R. A. & Rogers, A. E. E. Improved measurement of the spectral index of the diffuse radio background between 90 and 190 MHz. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 464, 4995–5002 (2017).
Rogers, A. E. E., Bowman, J. D., Vierinen, J., Monsalve, R. & Mozdzen, T. Radiometric measurements of electron temperature and opacity of ionospheric perturbations. Radio Sci. 50, 130–137 (2015).
Bowman, J. D. & Rogers, A. E. E. Lower limit of Δz > 0.06 for the duration of the reionization epoch. Nature 468, 796–798 (2010).
Bernardi, G. et al. Bayesian constraints on the global 21-cm signal from the cosmic dawn. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461, 2847–2855 (2016).
Singh, S. et al. First results on the epoch of reionization from first light with SARAS 2. Astrophys. J. Lett. 845, L12 (2017)
Singh, S. et al. SARAS 2 constraints on global 21 cm signals from the epoch of reionization. Astrophys. J. Lett. 858, 54 (2018).
Price, D. C. et al. Design and characterization of the Large-aperture Experiment to Detect the Dark Age (LEDA) radiometer systems. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 4193–4213 (2018).
Bowman, J. Foreground model selection for signal parameter estimation. EDGES report 122, http://loco.lab.asu.edu/loco-memos/edges_reports/report122.pdf (2018).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.D.B., R.A.M. and A.E.E.R. contributed equally to this Reply. N.M. and T.J.M. provided input and approved the final response.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Declared none.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bowman, J.D., Rogers, A.E.E., Monsalve, R.A. et al. Reply to Hills et al.. Nature 564, E35 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0797-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0797-4
This article is cited by
-
Reply to Hills et al.
Nature (2018)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.