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