I have completed the plan below. The result appears negative - adding enough
extra noise to elliminate the B2xB2-B2xRx1 discrepancy blows the Rx1xRx1 auto
spectra out of the water over the same range of angular scale as our nominal
detection.
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20131118_rp3
Clem
Subject: Re: [Bicep2-list] posting on B2xB1
From: John Kovac <John.Kovac.Guest(a)usap.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:18:29 +1300
To: Clem Pryke <pryke(a)physics.umn.edu>, jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu
Cc: Chao-Lin Kuo <clkuo(a)stanford.edu>, Walt Ogburn <ogburn(a)stanford.edu>,
bicep2-list <bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>
> I don't see anything since John's email on
> Friday morning - which I mostly agree with.
No, no one responded. Thank you for taking it on--your plan below
sounds good.
J
On 11/12/13, 5:26 PM, Clem Pryke wrote:
> I am just getting back to this - I don't see anything since John's email on
> Friday morning - which I mostly agree with.
>
> If the hypothesis is that there is a real signal plus a systematic in Rx1
> which cancels it then a concrete test plan is as follows:
>
> - Scale the r=0.1 sims to r=0.3 and add to the signal+noise for all receivers
> - In the Rx1 sig+noise sims scale the noise up until the B2xB2-B2xRx1 spectral
> jack is not unlikely (i.e. the systematic is being modelled as just extra
> noise).
> - Look if the Rx1xRx1 auto spectrum then shows a detection - which it very well may because it will be debiased with the *unscaled* noise which we believe to actually be present in Rx1.
>
> Walt/anyone: are you working on this or something similar? If not I will get on it tomorrow morning.
>
> Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi all,
We will have our usual BICEP2 / Keck CMB result telecon in 20 minutes:
Tues, 29 Oct 2013 - 12:00 Eastern, 11:00 Central, 9:00 am Pacific
1-866-890-3820 (toll: 1-334-323-7229) Passcode: 59702175#
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi all,
We will have our usual BICEP2 / Keck CMB result telecon in 20 minutes:
Tues, 29 Oct 2013 - 12:00 Eastern, 11:00 Central, 9:00 am Pacific
1-866-890-3820 (toll: 1-334-323-7229) Passcode: 59702175#
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Hi Walt,
I am pretty sure we decided not to make the sign flip signs align for
concurrent B2/Keck scansets. Given the weight balancing that is already done
this seemed one constraint too many. Stefan will remember more clearly.
The fraction of concurrent scansets is pretty small isn't it? 2012 only and
not all of those...
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
I've put up a brief posting here:
http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20131113_signfl…
pointing out that our sign-flip noise realizations are not assigning
the same sign to simultaneous BICEP2/Keck Array tags, and therefore are
not simulating noise correlations between the experiments. This was
surprising to me, as I thought the major benefit of sign-flipping noise
sims was the ability to account for correlated noise.
Our sims then have zero noise correlation between BICEP2 and Keck
Array, and we're not applying any noise debias to the cross-spectra.
Perhaps all of this is OK if we can prove that the noise correlations
are negligible, but I don't recall that having been demonstrated. Has
there been a deliberate decision not to match the sign-flip sequences,
or does it indicate something broken in the driver code?
- Walt
Hi Guys,
In today's telecon notes, Walt writes: "Should we be smoothing deproj
template to roll off ell that we don’t care about?"
I have written 9 deprojection files to be found in:
/input_maps/planck/planck_derivs_nopix_smoothed
Permissions OK and a README file. In summary they are:
Planck 143 GHz
Deconvolved from Planck official beam.
Deconvolved from pixel window function at N_SIDE=2048
Rotated from G to C coordinates
Downgraded to N_SIDE=512
Deconvolved from the pixel window function at N_SIDE=512
Convolved to a circular Gaussian of FWHM = 35 arcmin, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60,
65, 70 and 75 arcmin.
Sergi
Hi all,
We will have our usual BICEP2 / Keck CMB result telecon in 25 minutes:
Tues, 29 Oct 2013 - 12:00 Eastern, 11:00 Central, 9:00 am Pacific
1-866-890-3820 (toll: 1-334-323-7229) Passcode: 59702175#
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
I am just getting back to this - I don't see anything since John's email on
Friday morning - which I mostly agree with.
If the hypothesis is that there is a real signal plus a systematic in Rx1
which cancels it then a concrete test plan is as follows:
- Scale the r=0.1 sims to r=0.3 and add to the signal+noise for all receivers
- In the Rx1 sig+noise sims scale the noise up until the B2xB2-B2xRx1 spectral
jack is not unlikely (i.e. the systematic is being modelled as just extra
noise).
- Look if the Rx1xRx1 auto spectrum then shows a detection - which it very well may because it will be debiased with the *unscaled* noise which we believe to actually be present in Rx1.
Walt/anyone: are you working on this or something similar? If not I will get on it tomorrow morning.
Clem
--
**********************************************************************
Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics
University of Minnesota,
Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu
**********************************************************************
Preliminary Keck2013 maps are posted on the Keck logbook. Still need to
finish channel cuts and abscal before we can start sims/finalize maps.
Enjoy!
-Sarah
