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

That sounds good. Do you think there may be coverage issues with the (weighted) best/worst channel split? It would be better to do that of course if we can. Not only will passing this test reinforce conclusions in the upcoming paper it will help guide fabrication priorities this summer. Jamie -----Original Message----- From: John Kovac [mailto:jmkovac@cfa.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 7:28 AM To: Jamie Bock; 'Sarah Stokes Kernasovskiy'; Chin Lin Wong Cc: bicep2-list; 'keckarray' Subject: Re: [Bispud-pipeline-list] [keckarray] coaddtype for keck sims -- Q for Chin Lin or Sarah 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: 2013). the maps in -- ___________________________________________________________________ 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