Bicep2-list May 2013

bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu

9 participants
8 discussions

BICEP2 Team meeting today (30 Apr 2013) noon Eastern, followed by pipeline telecon

by John Kovac

Hi all, BICEP2 telecon today at the usual time, followed by CMB pipeline discussion: Tuesday, 30 Apr 2013 12:00 Eastern, 11:00 Central, 9:00 am Pacific Phone: 1-866-890-3820 (toll: 1-334-323-7229) Passcode: 59702175 # Our group-edited agenda is in the telecon notes http://goo.gl/LNvpx Thank you Walt for filling in much of it ahead of time. Clem and anyone else please continue to add appropriate items. Current snapshot is below. John Agenda: 1) General business panlfs downtime 4/29-5/3 (announced last week): impacts? collaboration meeting followups publication policy, talk postings, MOUs writing up instrument / systematics / observations topics 2) Review final report on mapmaking inputs [ Walt ] http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~bicep2/papers/final_reports/mapmaking/ 3) Other final report items and action item review - See Harvard meeting AI’s below 4) Preview of new postings 2013 Apr 23: Temperature Planck maps reobserved with BICEP2 (SRH) 2013 Apr 23: Field Outline (JET) 2013 Apr 23: Statistical precision of the polarization angle determination with the galactic field maps of BICEP2 (SRH) 2013 Apr 23: Fix Map Pager (CLP) 2013 Apr 24: Checking our pointing calculations (RWO) 2013 Apr 24: Feasibility of "traditional" noise sims for BICEP2+Keck (RWO) 2013 Apr 24: Fixing the parallactic angle calculation (RWO) 2013 Apr 25: Active Thermal Control (PID) test (UPDATED) (JPK) 2013 Apr 26: Sign Flip Noise in Comparison to Regular Noise Sims (updated) (STF) 2013 Apr 29: Cross vs. Auto Spectra, version 2 (STF) 2013 Apr 29: FTS: Attempting to Increase Repeatability With Illumination Cuts (UPDATED) (JPK) [ BICEP2 team meeting ends after one hour. ] [ Pipeline agenda to be filled in by Clem and previewed during the last stage of the main telecon ] -- ___________________________________________________________________ John Kovac jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu Assistant Professor, Astronomy and Physics, Harvard University 160 Concord Ave rm 310, Cambridge MA 02138, 617-496-0611

10 years, 9 months

Planck vs WMAP abscal, including slope parameter

by John Kovac

Hi Walt and Sergi, I'm expecting on tomorrow's telecon we will discuss Sergi's posting (deferred now twice): 2013 May 6: Planck 143 nominal maps versus BICEP2 revisited (SRH) http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130506_planck_… Sergi added "NOTE Added 20130514: Do not check out this posting..." Ignoring this warning, I see the posting claims a detection of the 2.2% calibration power scaling between Planck and WMAP, similar to the level Planck has reported at degree scales. In talking with Kris Gorski on Friday we reviewed the spectral shape of this discrepancy that Planck and WMAP have been fretting over--it appears roughly consistent with linear slope which ranges from 0 at low ell to 2-2.5% at ell=200, and roughly constant above that. I'm eager to see a side-by-side abscal analysis of B2 derived from WMAP vs from Planck, including the slope parameter introduced by Walt in this posting: http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121101_abscal_… Perhaps it would be worth running this slope specifically for our ell=30-200 bins (rather than our usual 100-300). I'd like to see the average difference in slope parameter for individual detectors on Planck vs WMAP, and the same for the coadded abscal as well. It is not clear to me whether our beam measurements can reach high enough precision to be able to say whether it is Planck or WMAP that has the "right" slope--that would be quite newsworthy--but as a first step it would be interesting to see whether we can detect this ell-dependent discrepancy between the two experiments. Walt, is this abscal analysis already in the works? thanks, John -- ___________________________________________________________________ John Kovac jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu Assistant Professor, Astronomy and Physics, Harvard University 160 Concord Ave rm 310, Cambridge MA 02138, 617-496-0611

10 years, 11 months

CMB2013 Talk Slides

by Immanuel Buder

I posted draft slides for my June 10 talk at CMB2013 (Okinawa) at http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/CMB_2013_06_buder.pdf The talk time is 35 minutes. Suggestions are appreciated, and I have some special requests for comment: Slide 2: I haven't decided whether to use this slide yet. I want something to underscore the importance of inflation B-mode experiments after Planck, but this may be too controversial. What do you think? Slide 6: Did I leave anyone out? Slide 19: I got this map from Angiola's recent posting http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130517_new_3yr… I think the map-making is mature enough to show, but this is a map we haven't shown in public before. If we don't feel ready to show it, I don't mind reverting to a previous analysis that has been shown before. For BICEP2 and Keck map noise I am using Clem's map depth/weighting scheme [ http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130513_map_dep… ] Slide 20: Are we ready to show a BICEP2 jackknife spectrum? I'd like to, especially to show the error bars compared to r=0.1. Slide 21: Do we have a recent posting showing how much improvement we get from the pureB estimator? The plot I have now is for Keck from a recent posting by Sarah. The most recent BICEP2 posting I could find was from early 2012 for the 0304 simset. Slide 22: The plots are from Jamie Tolan's presentation at the collaboration meeting. I don't think they've been shown in public before, but I think we're ready to show them as a demonstration of the matrix-based analysis we're working toward. Jamie especially, do you agree? Slide 24: I'd prefer to show a far-field A-B difference map here, but I can't find one that's public. From the main beams final report, I think http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121115_therm_… the archival beam maps. Are we okay if I pick a map from there as an example to show? Slide 29: I'd like to include something about the Keck sidelobes since it's something I've been working on, but I realize it's new and we don't have a guaranteed solution although there's good evidence for believing the new baffles will work. Immanuel Buder Postdoctoral Fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (office) 617 495 7567 (office) 160 Concord Ave., M-114C (mail) 60 Garden St. MS 42 Cambridge, MA 02138 ibuder(a)cfa.harvard.edu

10 years, 11 months

talks page

by Bischoff, Colin

hi all, Just a reminder that people should post slides for their talks on the project webpage, for review and to provide reference for others who might be working on talks. That particular directory was pretty disorganized, so I threw up an index.html to try to make it easier to use. It is obviously very incomplete right now, so people should upload their slides/posters and link them from the index page. http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/talks/ -colin

10 years, 11 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] [keckarray] proposal for new BICEP2/Keck simset

by John Kovac

On 5/7/13 11:49 AM, Clem Pryke wrote: >> I think we should include it in the input spectrum for EnoB > > I think it should be included explicitly in the map with non Gaussian > statistics as Stefan has shown us how to do. > > I *think* it should be included in EnoB (becoming EnocosB) but not in BnoE > which should be pure r=0.1. I think so too, as I said in my email--but I hope we can discuss this on today's telecon. I think we want both lensed and unlensed LCDM (a better name than EnocosB?), and we also want to know the phi map for each lensing realization. J -- ___________________________________________________________________ John Kovac jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu Assistant Professor, Astronomy and Physics, Harvard University 160 Concord Ave rm 310, Cambridge MA 02138, 617-496-0611

10 years, 12 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] [keckarray] foreground models and our observing region

by John Kovac

Hi Jamie, > On your cross-spectra pager, why do the B_f X B_B curves for > PSM_Dust, PSM_Dust_sim, and FDS_Dust all look nearly identical? > > If you look closely, you can tell that the plots are not numerically > identical, so I don't think I have a plotting error. That being said, > they are remarkably similar. I'll look into this more. Yes, I did look closely and that is what I saw. Thank you for checking it out. > - Aren't Planck's 353 GHz maps in uK_cmb? Did you convert to uK_RJ > before applying your nu^2 scaling? The Aumont ESLAB talk states: > "Dust polarization frequency dependence follows accurately a > modified blackbody with β = 1.6 and T = 19.6 K". We will need to > get this right for the real Planck 353 GHz data, so the scaling is > worth doing carefully. > > > It is true that I have not been as careful with the frequency scaling > as we might like. Equation 1 in this paper (arXiv:1303.5072v1) shows us > how to do this this, however, when I asked Sergi about this, he said > that what we needed to do this not publicly unavailable. I'm not sure what Sergi means, but my main question was whether you did the standard convertion from antenna (uK_RJ) to thermodynamic (uK_cmb) units before applying your nu^2 scaling. That is a very large factor (I get 7.4 for 353 vs 150), and it is suppressed in Eq 1 in the Planck component separation paper. You don't mention this. Could you confirm? cheers, John -- ___________________________________________________________________ John Kovac jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu Assistant Professor, Astronomy and Physics, Harvard University 160 Concord Ave rm 310, Cambridge MA 02138, 617-496-0611

10 years, 12 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] proposal for new BICEP2/Keck simset

by John Kovac

Hi Chris, On 5/6/13 11:15 PM, Chris Sheehy wrote: > We should decide on any additional signal only sims we want. I think we should consider including explicit sims for both lensing and foregrounds in our standard simsets. For lensing, we should have alternative EnoB sims which have lensed input maps--and the lensing potential phi should be saved as well. (I believe this may require Stefan to generate new lensed maps.) We are getting down to levels of sensitivity where it would be valuable to turn lensing on and off, if nothing else than to confirm it has negligible impact on mean and std of various bandpowers. For foregrounds, I advocate foreground-only signal sims constructed with a simple power law spectrum. We used E=B, C_l*l(l+1) ~ l^-0.8 for our proposal-era foreground projections, and what we've seen from Planck so far differs only slightly. Like for our B_tensor r=0.1 sims, we can pick a fiducial amplitude but regard it as a component to be scaled and added in. Having alt sim input spectra that are red at low ell (unlike EnoB and B_tensor) will also provide a robust check of our bandpower window functions and supfactor correction. > additional signal = some atmospheric model? What is the proposal? > BnoEnoT = r=0.1 only perhaps B_tensor is a better name? > We can perhaps run the BnoEnoT and additional signal sims as tag > subsets. I hesitate to run the EnoB sims as tag subsets, but with a > little investigation we might be able to conclude that this is okay. And > if we decide it's okay but it later turns out not to be, nothing is > stopping us from turning the tag subset sims into full up sims. Could signal-only tag subsets be made to more closely match full-season coadds by forcing weights at the pairmap coadd stage to match the effective pairmap weights for the full-season coadd? Seems like this could be made to work. It may be worth the effort, particularly if we consider further expanding the varieties of signal sims. -- ___________________________________________________________________ John Kovac jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu Assistant Professor, Astronomy and Physics, Harvard University 160 Concord Ave rm 310, Cambridge MA 02138, 617-496-0611

10 years, 12 months

Fwd: [Bispud-pipeline-list] proposal for new BICEP2/Keck simset

by John Kovac

Hi Chris, I am forwarding this to the bicep2 list--I'm not sure why you sent it to bispud (the joint B2/Keck pipeline list) and to keckarray, but not to bicep2. John -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Bispud-pipeline-list] proposal for new BICEP2/Keck simset Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 22:15:11 -0500 From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu> To: bispud-pipeline-list <bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>, Keckarray <keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu> Hi, We've come to the realization that we want to run a new, joint BICEP2 3-yr / Keck 2012 simset. This email is an attempt to start a discussion as to what this simset should include. Please look it over and make suggestions as needed. ----------------- BICEP2 3-yr: TODs = the latest ones currently on disk. Is there a need to re-run the low level reduction? I seem to remember someone saying last week there might be. tags = all 3 years (tags with the incorrect DSL GPS coordinates are now flagged as bad and will not be included) realizations = 50 at first, expanding to 100 later. (I bet Clem will want 100 right away.) ukpervolt = 3168? Walt? noise = normal noise model sim EnoB = Gaussian smoothed 2048 synfast maps, based on WMAP 5-yr param CAMB spectra (could update to WMAP 9-yr or, God forbid, Planck.) Current assumed B2 beam is 31.22'. Is this an okay beam size to use, or should we update it? I don't see any evidence that we need to change our sim input maps at all. BnoEnoT = r=0.1 only additional signal = some atmospheric model? beamcenters = from beams_cmb_3yr.csv (should we change this name?) diffpoint = from beams_cmb_3yr.csv polpar = leave ideal (?) deproj. template = simulated Planck 143 templates, using Planck beam window function and random realizations of white noise scaled by Planck noise maps. WMAP forced us to use nside 512 maps for deprojection. Planck allows us to use 2048 maps. However, after smoothing to the B2 beam this should not make a big difference, and in fact I've shown that the additional residuals after deprojection are very small when downgrading from 2048 to 512. Thus I propose we use a downgraded Planck deprojection template, and correspondingly use 512 synfast maps with Planck noise added in sim deprojection. I think things will slow down considerably if we start using 2048 maps as deprojection templates. We will accumulate the templates for the standard 6 Gaussian modes: 1 relgain, 2 A/B offsets, 1 beamwidth, 2 ellipticity. round1/round2 cuts = same as we've been using, though please speak up if there are any further tweaks that need to happen channel cuts = same as 1234 "b" and "c" coadds, described here: http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20121112_sim123…. Although these can be changed in daughter coadds, it's not 100% trivial with many realizations. The only difference between 1234 "b" and "c" is that "c" excludes some tags that "b" does not. The channel cuts are the same. We could look into these channel cuts more and try to relax them, but I don't know that it's necessary. These cuts also have a few binary cuts that I incorporated from Jamie's list of contaminated pairmaps in 2010 and 2011. The 2012 cut will default to the 2011 cut. (I believe the pairmap contamination cuts get all of "Randol's worst nine" plus some.) ------------ Keck 2012: TODs = should re-run low level reduction to get the elnod cut params tags = 2012 realizations = 50 at first, expanding to 100 later ukpervolt = 3400? Sarah? noise = sign flip noise (needs more investigation) simultaneously with BICEP2, so we get B2 sign flip as well. The sign flip noise will be the only model that captures the correlation between B2 2012 and Keck 2012 noise. EnoB = same input maps as B2 but smoothed to Keck beam. Have been using 29.5' up to now, but this will probably change. Comments? BnoEnoT = r=0.1 only additional signal = same as BICEP2, whatever we decide beamcenters = what should we use? Presumably CMB derived beam centers. aux_data/beams/beamcen.csv symlink points to the 4param model, which we don't want. diffpoint = presumably same CMB derived CSV file as for beamcenters polpar = leave ideal (is this our only option?) deproj template = same as B2, but smoothed to Keck beam round1/round2 cuts = okay for 2012? Jamie, Sarah? I think you guys concluded cuts were functioning well for 2012, if not 2013. channel cuts = need to work this out, but sims can start running before defining this -------------------- In both B2 and Keck, the EnoB sims will simulate only T->pol leakage from our observed differential pointing. We could also simulate BICEP2's (and probably Keck's) measured per-channel abscals if we wanted. In both, the BnoE sims will be BnoEnoT and will contain no T->pol or E->B leakage. We should decide on any additional signal only sims we want. We can perhaps run the BnoEnoT and additional signal sims as tag subsets. I hesitate to run the EnoB sims as tag subsets, but with a little investigation we might be able to conclude that this is okay. And if we decide it's okay but it later turns out not to be, nothing is stopping us from turning the tag subset sims into full up sims. It should be noted that only sign flip noise sims will model the correlation between B2 2012 and Keck 2012 noise. We should still run the 3-yr full up noise sims to (1) compare the B2 sign flip noise against and (2) give us the ability to produce B2 bandpowers with an analysis that is as minimally different from B1 and QUaD's. -Chris -- ********************************************************************** Christopher Sheehy - Ph.D. candidate - University of Chicago Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, Department of Physics Room 220 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-625-1802 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: csheehy(a)uchicago.edu <mailto:csheehy@uchicago.edu> **********************************************************************

10 years, 12 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Bicep2-list May 2013