It sounds like signal only sims might be multiplying, so we should probably look into this, at least for use with the EnoB and perhaps tensor-BnoEnoT sims.

Hi, Immanuel, thanks for reminding us: we want lensing sims. I'd forgotten. As for those sims, John, it sounds like you advocate doing a separate suite of signal only lensed EnoB sims. (Immanuel, I think that given that B-mode power from lensing is inherently a distortion of E-modes in Q and U, I don't see how to include it as an additional signal in BnoE.) By "atmospheric model" I actually meant to write "galactic model." I was not advocating we try to come up with some, say, ice crystal model. It sounds like there is a concrete proposal on the table for separate, scalable galactic foreground maps we can add into our regular maps. One question: will there only be one such galactic input sky, or will there be one for each realization? Could signal-only tag subsets be made to more closely match full-season Likely. We have never really checked to see if it's fine as is. It sounds like signal only sims might be multiplying, so we should probably look into this, at least for use with the EnoB and perhaps tensor-BnoEnoT sims. -Chris -Chris On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:03 AM, John Kovac <jmkovac(a)cfa.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote: > > 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 > > > > -- > ______________________________**______________________________**_______ > 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 > -- ********************************************************************** 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 **********************************************************************