Bicep2-list July 2013

bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu

12 participants
11 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

thesis whereabouts

by Clem Pryke

Where is Justus' thesis? On our websites there are two locations: http://bmode.caltech.edu/~spuder/papers/thesi/ which contains many and http://bicep.caltech.edu/~bicep2/papers/theses/ which contains only Randol's. Does anyone mind if I move this? 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 **********************************************************************

10 years, 9 months

CHIME job ad

by Mark Halpern

Sorry for the spam and the late notice. I have asked John if I could send a note about a CHIME job ad to the Keck and Bicep lists. We are looking for a Project manager for CHIME the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME), and John and I both believe that many people on this list have the skills we need. CHIME is a fully funded, novel, new radio telescope designed to trace the BAO signature across z=0.8 to 2.5 by measuring the 21 cm intensity fluctuations. The job add is posted at: http://careers.aps.org/jobs/5514832/chime-project-manager http://jobregister.aas.org/job_view?JobID=45195 https://mycareers.adm.ubc.ca/psc/erecruit/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.G…. where the last of these is the official application site, and the CHIME web site is http://chime.physics.ubc.ca We are open to candidates with a variety of backgrounds, including postdoc or higher level physicists/astronomers with demonstrated excellence in building experiments of this scale, engineers, and/or individuals with formal training in project management. If you have any questions, you may contact me or any of the CHIME members. Our intention is to begin reviewing applications on 1 August. If you intend to apply and find that deadline to be an impediment, please send me a note. Please forward this email to anyone you feel should know about this opportunity. Apologies if you receive an email about this position more than once. -- Mark Halpern Physics and Astronomy, UBC Vancouver, BC (604) 822 6709 skype: mlhalpern

10 years, 9 months

Snowmass community planning documents for CMB/LSS

by John Kovac

Dear BICEP and Keck collaborators, As many of you know, we have been putting together the case for a research program for investigating cosmic constraints on neutrinos and inflation, including a new "stage IV" CMB experiment that would deploy after what we refer to as stage III experiments, which include Keck+BICEP3 as well as SPT-3G, advanced Polarbear and advanced ACTpol. We have two documents (attached), one focused on investigating neutrinos using CMB and LSS measurements, and the other on Inflation using primarily CMB measurements. These documents have been written to feed into the Snowmass 2013 planning process for the HEP community, which is culminating in a review meeting which starts this week. Please take a look at them and decide whether or not you would like to be a co-signer (i.e., listed as an author) on one or both documents. Comments are also most welcome. Those of you who haven't independently been contacted on this, you can email your comments and your request to be a co-signer directly to me, and I will forward them on to co-conveners John Carlstrom and Adrian Lee. You can also forward your comments/request to Chao-Lin or to Clem who are both heavily engaged in this. This will help the conveners from being flooded as this call goes out to the broader CMB community. We have a week or so before the documents will be posted on arXiv. 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, 9 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] keck signal and deprojection files

by Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy

Hi Eric- Thanks for looking at the maps! We decided to use the BICEP2 b_l for the Keck maps for the upcoming sim run. In the most recent abscal, it doesn't seem to make a huge difference, other than a couple of percentage abscal offset. I've cc-ed the Keck/BICEP2 list in case I've misunderstood. -Sarah On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM, <bullock(a)physics.umn.edu> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I just noticed that your 1350 simulations were made with > input_maps/camb_planck2013_r0/map_unlens_n2048_rxxxx_sB2bbns_dNoNoi.fits > signal maps and > input_maps/camb_planck2013_r0/map_unlens_n0512_rxxxx_sB2bbns_dPl143.fits > deprojection maps. > > It looks like those are using the B2 beamsize. Should we be using the > s30p10 input maps for Keck, instead? > > -Eric > >

10 years, 9 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] bicep2 real maps pager

by Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy

Hi, The Keck 2012 real maps are also now posted. http://bicep.caltech.edu/~spuder/keck_analysis_logbook/analysis/20130722_se… These use: - rotated chi file to reflect the rotation of the fpu's as measured with beam centers - channel cuts - newest beam positions Let me know if anything looks amiss! Sarah On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Sergi R. Hildebrandt <srh(a)caltech.edu>wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Yes. That's great! Some personal comments, that I send to everyone, just > in case someone was thinking some of these. > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Fliescher < > fliesche(a)physics.umn.edu> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I just uploaded a new real maps pager for bicep2 that has everything >> fixed we know of: >> channel cuts >> measured cross polarization efficiency >> measured chi angles >> first/half second haft split by weight >> >> >> http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130718_sim145… >> >> Hui, this might be the final maps for Bicep2... >> > > That's good to know. I was keen to know when the pipe parameters were > stabilized for resuming reobservations and other B2/Keck work. I'd like to > know from Walt if 'this is it' to a good extent. > > Given the importance of these maps (or any 'final' map production for > all), what do you think about adding a link to an ASCII file (or just > posted) with the set of cuts/values and symlinks that correspond today to > 'obs', sigmapfile, ...? It can be helpful for future reference and quick > review, even during the telecon. Randol's thesis tables are a good example, > but perhaps too much now. Maybe, also, add the set of tags, so that it is > accessible from the logbook. (I know All is in the pairmap files and map > files, but for the record and easy review). 1450/real/ is where they are > with 17097 tags. Just linked my real pairmaps. > > Walt could perhaps take a look to the set of tags and cross-check with > his list(s) -Assuming get_tags' output is stabilized ;)- > >> >> Enjoy, >> > > Sure. First thing I'll do, for curiosity, is how they compare with Chris 3 > year maps. From Sarah's messages I understand something similar is > happening in Keck 2012 parameter inputs. More enjoyable analysis :to come > soon ) > > Danke sehr Stefan! > > Sergi > > Stefan > > -- > Stefan Fliescher - Research Associate > University of Minnesota, > Tate Lab Room 237, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 > Phone: 612-626-6581 > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bispud-pipeline-list mailing list >> Bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu >> https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bispud-pipeline-list >> >> > > > -- > Dr Sergi Hildebrandt Rafels > Jet Propulsion Laboratory ---------------- California Institute of > Technology > 169-217 Cahill-383 > 4800 Oak Grove Drive 1200, E. California Bvd > Pasadena, CA, 91109 Pasadena, CA, 91125 > MC/169-237 MC/367-17 > 1-818-354-0220 1-626-395-2147 > > _______________________________________________ > Bispud-pipeline-list mailing list > Bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu > https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bispud-pipeline-list > >

10 years, 9 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] [keckarray] coaddtype for keck sims -- Q for Chin Lin or Sarah

by John Kovac

Sounds like you are talking specifically about aboffset. I think this is likely to pass, but I strongly agree it would be powerful to be able to make conclusive statements, e.g. 1. "the amplitude of the observed signal does not correlate with the size of the ab offset," or 2. "the observed signal is common to the best and worst half of the data split by ab offset." It is true we have more diversity now in K2013, and I have asked Sarah to start preparing for 2013 Keck sims, motivated by the considerable statistical power we can expect from forming cross spectra with offset-fixed 2013 Rx4 x B2. But it seemed clear from our discussion last week that this is at least a few weeks out. And unlike the 2012 per receiver coadds which I think are already clearly within the scope of the current analysis, I think there may be a valid argument that we won't want to invoke 2013 data at least for what we aim to publish immediately. So, --> Chin Lin or Sarah: can either of you easily make plots by tomorrow showing (a) the 6 distributions and means of aboffset for each of the rx of K2012 and B2. And then (b) show the same thing but with each distribution split into a best half and worst half? (If you have estimates of per-pair weights in the final coadds, it would be preferable to form the means as weighted means, and to form the best/worst split assigning equal weight. I worry that simply splitting in half by number may yield significantly unequal weights.) The idea is that (a) will tell us how strong a statement of type 1 we could make just given the per-receiver coadds we are already planning, and (b) would inform the possibility of forming a new channel jack within the current dataset, allowing statements of both type 1 and 2. --> Can people suggest alternative specific lines of attack on this point? John p.s. Once again, I will remind people once again that cc'ing keckarray and bispud is On 7/22/13 12:47 AM, Jamie Bock wrote: > Hi John, > > I was thinking specifically this would be better to do across Keck and > BICEP2 to get more diversity in parameters (which is why I mentioned 2013). > The question is how we do this split exactly, by pixels, by tile, by > receiver. Might be good to look at e.g. dipole amplitude for choices of > grouping. I expect we will pass this test, and it would be nice to show > that. > > Jamie > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Kovac [mailto:jmkovac@cfa.harvard.edu] > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 4:04 PM > To: Jamie Bock > Cc: 'Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy'; 'bispud-pipeline-list'; 'keckarray' > Subject: Re: [Bispud-pipeline-list] [keckarray] coaddtype for keck sims > > > This "best/worst beam match" jack sounds like a good idea, Jamie, but a > challenge in forming it for BICEP2 is how to define these groups. > > Of the beam parameters we usually report, the pointing mismatch is the > dominant effect. We believe this specific effect deprojects nearly > perfectly, but if we doubted that, or wondered about other correlated > systematics, or just want to demonstrate control, the problem in forming a > jack is that its amplitude is actually fairly uniform across B2's focal > plane--unlike for Keck, there is no "low pointing offset" subset of B2 > pairs. I guess we could still try to define a split this way, but I bet the > median pointing offset in the two groups would not differ by much. > > More probing might be a split based on the amplitude of the undeprojected > residual for each pair, as characterized by the high S/N composite beam maps > Chin Lin is making right now. We will certainly not have this statistic in > time to form a jack for the current simset. > > Other ideas are welcome. > > John > > > > On 7/21/13 6:16 PM, Jamie Bock wrote: >> I think it would be good to do a jack test based on a sorting of >> beam-matching into best ~half vs. worst ~half of the detector pairs. >> This is the obvious systematic we're worried about and another way to >> demonstrate control. It could be done by receiver I suppose, though >> the differences in the 2013 season are where this is most pronounced >> by receiver, which we are not using right now. >> >> Jamie >> >> *From:*keckarray-bounces@mailman.stanford.edu >> [mailto:keckarray-bounces@mailman.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *Sarah >> Stokes Kernasovskiy >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 21, 2013 9:46 AM >> *To:* bispud-pipeline-list; keckarray >> *Subject:* [keckarray] coaddtype for keck sims >> >> Hi, >> >> Stefan and I were discussing which coaddtypes to use for the Keck sims. >> It seems like we probably want to coadd by receiver and well as >> overall. This does complicate the process a little though - that >> makes a lot of more maps/coadds. >> >> One option we discussed is to discussed is to just coadd over receiver >> - and then since we save the ac structure, we can further coadd that >> over the array. This should be alright with the signflip noise sims >> because the signs are flipped by scanset. >> >> Anyone have any opinions as to weather we need the by-rx coadds? >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Sarah >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bispud-pipeline-list mailing list >> Bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu >> https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bispud-pipeline-list >> > > > -- > ___________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- ___________________________________________________________________ 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

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] coaddtype for keck sims

by Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy

Hi Chris - Looking at one of my sims, it looks like an all-rx coadd is 5.4 Mb and a per-rx coadd is 14 Mb. Both of which are much smaller that what we predicted earlier due to getting rid of more diagnostic information. Sarah On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > One option we discussed is to discussed is to just coadd over receiver - >> and then since we save the ac structure, we can further coadd that over the >> array. This should be alright with the signflip noise sims because the >> signs are flipped by scanset. > > > This must be true. If we coadd everything per-rx then it's computationally > trivial to make all-rx maps from those. > > It must increase the size of the Keck simulation on disk, though. How big > is a simulated Keck per-rx coadded map vs. a map coadded over all > receivers? I think you said that the all-rx map was something like 5 MB > (after stripping out all the diagnostic information). Since an individual > Keck receiver will make a fully filled in map, I'm guessing .mat > compression won't help us and the per-rx maps will be something like 5x > bigger. So we should multiply the estimates for the size of the Keck simset > by 6 for coadding per-rx. What is that? > > -Chris > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy < > sstokes(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Stefan and I were discussing which coaddtypes to use for the Keck sims. >> It seems like we probably want to coadd by receiver and well as overall. >> This does complicate the process a little though - that makes a lot of more >> maps/coadds. >> >> One option we discussed is to discussed is to just coadd over receiver - >> and then since we save the ac structure, we can further coadd that over the >> array. This should be alright with the signflip noise sims because the >> signs are flipped by scanset. >> >> Anyone have any opinions as to weather we need the by-rx coadds? >> >> Thanks! >> -Sarah >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bispud-pipeline-list mailing list >> Bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu >> https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bispud-pipeline-list >> >> > > > -- > ********************************************************************** > 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 > ********************************************************************** >

10 years, 9 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [keckarray] [Bispud-pipeline-list] coaddtype for keck sims

by John Kovac

Hi Stefan/Sarah, I remain strongly in favor of per receiver coadds. I think we have seen that the cross-spectra of B2 x individual Keck receivers each have sufficient sensitivity to provide independent tests, and I think our initial publication effort may need those tests. It is a powerful thing that each receiver is observing with a very different set of orientation angles. > The fastest way to publication might hence be to > protect us from the discussion and just do the full Keck maps. I don't think I buy that. If you can make the case that we have a clear enough answer on B2/Keck consistency already and should therefore adopt a "don't look anymore" approach, please go ahead--we can certainly discuss. This Tuesday I want to review our list of critical-path tests again. But for now I absolutely want to preserve the ability to do proper B2 x RxN cross spectra which include sims--that is one of the things I've been looking forward to from this new simset. John On 7/21/13 1:23 PM, Stefan Fliescher wrote: > Hi, > > I think from the perspective of Keck there is interest in doing a per > receiver coadds. However, the primary goal of the simset is finalize the > Bicep2 analysis. The Keck part in this will be an additional > conformation for the existence of the B signal. > > My concerns about doing the per receiver coadds: > * should it work from a programming point of view: yes. Has this been > tested throughout: no. > * The per receiver maps will open up the possibility for a whole > additional layer of analysis and complexity. The latest status of the > cross spectral analysis for Bicep2 was, that we did not consider the per > receiver maps anymore. The fastest way to publication might hence be to > protect us from the discussion and just do the full Keck maps. > > Stefan > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy > <sstokes(a)stanford.edu <mailto:sstokes@stanford.edu>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Stefan and I were discussing which coaddtypes to use for the Keck > sims. It seems like we probably want to coadd by receiver and well > as overall. This does complicate the process a little though - that > makes a lot of more maps/coadds. > > One option we discussed is to discussed is to just coadd over > receiver - and then since we save the ac structure, we can further > coadd that over the array. This should be alright with the signflip > noise sims because the signs are flipped by scanset. > > Anyone have any opinions as to weather we need the by-rx coadds? > > Thanks! > -Sarah > > _______________________________________________ > Bispud-pipeline-list mailing list > Bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu > <mailto:Bispud-pipeline-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu> > https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bispud-pipeline-list > > > > > -- > Stefan Fliescher - Research Associate > University of Minnesota, > Tate Lab Room 237, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 > Phone: 612-626-6581 > > > _______________________________________________ > KeckArray mailing list > KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray > -- ___________________________________________________________________ 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

Possible changes to 1st/2nd half jack

by bullock＠physics.umn.edu

Hello Everyone, In this post: http://bicep.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130514_signfli… we see that the real BB bandpowers come down when going from 2yr to 3yr. However, the 1st/2nd half jack passes, which seemed strange. One thought for why this jack passes is that an even-splitting on tags puts less weight (25%?) in the 1st half. This can be seen in Chris's post: http://bicep.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130621_B23yr_w… I was tasked with seeing if the 1st/2nd half jack fails when switching to an even weight splitting, which is 20120212 for B2. But maybe this is not the best thing to do, as it could lead to biasing. So, without looking at the results, do we want to change this jack for our upcoming simset to have an even weight split (or even putting 2010/2011 in the first half and 2012 in the second)? -Eric

10 years, 9 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Bicep2-list July 2013