Wising up to CatWISE

Using simulation-based inference to measure the cosmic dipole

Oliver Oayda

PhD Candidate

Sydney Institute for Astronomy

The University of Sydney

September 15, 2026

Simulation-based inference resolves systematics.

The Kinematic Dipole

CMB temperature map (Planck satellite)

CMB as a sphere

CMB as a sphere (Earth inside)

We’re moving through the Universe!

Kinematic dipole as a sphere (Earth inside)

Counting Galaxies

\[ \require{color} \definecolor{secondarycolor}{RGB}{235,129,27} \newcommand{\alertmath}[1]{{\color{secondarycolor}{#1}}} N_{i} = \overline{N} (1 + \alertmath{\mathcal{D}} \cos \theta_i ) \]

Special Relativity

Doppler boosting

The Amplitude Excess

The cosmic dipole should be consistent with the CMB dipole.

All is well!

Wait…

Focus: Secrest+21/22, CatWISE2020

The CatWISE Sample

CatWISE quasar map from Secrest+21

CatWISE quasar map, no linear weighting

Correcting for the Bias

Linear fit to density vs. declination

Null hypothesis test for the dipole amplitude

Null hypothesis test for the dipole amplitude

Null hypothesis test for the dipole direction

Is it good enough to make an ad hoc correction after the fact?

WISE’s Scanning Law

Frames over 1 orbit

Frames over 2 orbits

Frames over 2 orbits 20 days apart

Obeys a scanning law over the survey’s lifetime

Photometric Errors

WISE coverage in W1 band for the Secrest+21 sample

Source photometric error (%) in W1 band for the Secrest+21 sample

CatWISE quasar map, no linear weighting

Eddington Bias

\[ \require{color} \definecolor{tomato}{RGB}{255,88,62} \definecolor{cornflowerblue}{RGB}{89,138,234} {\color{tomato}{\textsf{Sampled flux}}} = {\color{cornflowerblue}{\textsf{True flux}}} + \textsf{Noise} \]

What if the noise varies over the sky? 🤔

This is just something we can simulate!

Simulations

\[m'_{\nu } \to m'_{\nu} + \alertmath{\Delta m'_{\nu}} \]

Simulated quasar map

Actual quasar map

One Thing Left To Do…

\(\text{Posterior} = \dfrac{\text{Prior} \times \alertmath{\text{Likelihood}} }{\text{Evidence}}\)

  • Don't know \(\alertmath{\mathcal{L}}\)? No problem!
  • \(f_M\): parameters \(\to\) data.
  • Use a neural network to learn \(\alertmath{\mathcal{L}}\).
  • This is SBI.

Normalising Flows

Composing individual bijections, adapted from Papamakarios et al. (2019).

Composing individual bijections, adapted from Papamakarios et al. (2019).

The Nuts & Bolts

Algorithm: Sequential Neural Likelihood Estimator (SNLE)
Input: observation \(\boldsymbol{x}_0\), prior \( \pi\), simulator \(f_M\)
Output: posterior \( \mathcal{P}\), evidence \( \mathcal{Z}\)
\[ \definecolor{posteriorblue}{RGB}{0,181,235} \definecolor{evidencepurple}{RGB}{128,0,255} \definecolor{priorgreen}{RGB}{64,128,90} \definecolor{alertcolor}{RGB}{235,129,27} {\color{posteriorblue}\mathcal{P}(\boldsymbol{\theta}\mid\boldsymbol{x}_0)} = \frac{ {\color{priorgreen}\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})} \times {\color{alertcolor}\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{x}_0\mid\boldsymbol{\theta})} }{ {\color{evidencepurple}\mathcal{Z}(\boldsymbol{x}_0)} } = \frac{ \mathcal{J}(\boldsymbol{x}_0, \boldsymbol{\theta}) }{ {\color{evidencepurple}\mathcal{Z}} } \]
Let proposal \(=\) prior
for each training round:
for each simulation this round:
sample \(\boldsymbol{\theta} \hookleftarrow\) proposal
simulate \(\boldsymbol{x} = f_M (\boldsymbol{\theta})\)
append the \( (\boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x}) \) pair
learn approx. likelihood \( \mathcal{L}_{\phi} \) using all pairs
compute posterior \( \mathcal{P} \) and evidence \(\mathcal{Z} \)
set proposal \(=\) posterior
return final posterior & evidence estimate

Results

CatSIM Results

Confirms cosmic dipole tension.

Bayes Factors

Model \(\ln \mathcal{B}\)
Dipole from Secrest+21 \(2.8\) \(\pm\) \(0.9\)
Dipole from Dam+23 \(1.9\) \(\pm\) \(0.8\)
Dipole with free parameters \(0.0\) \(\pm\) \(0.0\)
CMB direction, free velocity \(-2.4\) \(\pm\) \(0.9\)
CMB velocity & direction \(-8.3\) \(\pm\) \(0.9\)
Free dipole but no extra error \(-113.6\) \(\pm\) \(6.4\)

Bayes factors with respect to the fiducial model.

  • We need an extra error term to explain the data.
  • CMB dipole is ruled out convincingly.

We’ve got to be careful of our instruments!

Cracking into RACS?

RACS observations get warmer as the day progresses…

… which leads to a systematic suppression of flux density…

… and impacts the cosmic dipole! (Oayda et al., in prep.)

  • Describe and account for ecliptic bias \(\checkmark\)
  • Measure cosmic dipole \(\checkmark\)
  • Leverage power of simulations and SBI \(\checkmark\)

Appendix

Validation

Consistency Check: Bayesian Evidence

  • SBI likelihood \(\approx\) analytic likelihood
  • \(N_{\mathrm{side}} = 4 \Longleftrightarrow N_{\mathrm{side}} = 64\)

Fiducial Model: SNLE vs. SNPE