On May 14, 2015, at 9:16 PM, Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu> wrote: Hi Colin, Thanks. Lowercase is real space and upper case is fourier space. I think this is standard, but I did write immediately preceding the switch of case that the equation is "the difference of the auto spectra of these two maps." Perhaps I should make it more clear? I was thinking about this too, but I decided that anything like scan synchronous pickup is conceptually a systematic rather than correlated noise because it presumably does not average down over time. Correlated noise can lead to a noise bias, but does still average to zero as t_integration -> infinity. Without this distinction all systematics are types of correlated noise. Thoughts? > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Colin Bischoff <cbischoff(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > > These suggestions are separate from Clem's comments on whether to include this discussion in the paper vs referee report. > > -colin > > > > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Clem Pryke <pryke(a)physics.umn.edu> wrote: >> > I've added a longish section to the systematics paper, S2.3, that deals >> > with the referee's demands regarding noise model discussion. >> >> Well it's OK. It seems out of place inserted between sec2.2 and 2.4. Also it >> would be better if the equations explicitly included the averaging over many >> pseudo-realizations of noise. >> >> I say include this in ref response and not in the paper. Then include it in >> the next paper where it can be made to fit in better - this paper is basically >> about beam systematics. >> >> Clem >> >> -- >> ********************************************************************** >> Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics >> University of Minnesota >> Room 318 Physics and Nanotechnology Building >> 115 Union Street SE, Minneapolis MN 55455 >> Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu >> ********************************************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bicep2-list mailing list >> Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu >> https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list -- ********************************************************************** Christopher Sheehy KICP Fellow, University of Chicago 5640 S Ellis Ave LASR 122 Chicago, IL 60637 office: (773) 702-9751 **********************************************************************

Hi Colin, Thanks. Lowercase is real space and upper case is fourier space. I think this is standard, but I did write immediately preceding the switch of case that the equation is "the difference of the auto spectra of these two maps." Perhaps I should make it more clear? Also, I think that you need to address scan-synchronous / ground pickup in I was thinking about this too, but I decided that anything like scan synchronous pickup is conceptually a systematic rather than correlated noise because it presumably does not average down over time. Correlated noise can lead to a noise bias, but does still average to zero as t_integration -> infinity. Without this distinction all systematics are types of correlated noise. Thoughts? On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Colin Bischoff <cbischoff(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Also, I think that you need to address scan-synchronous / ground pickup > in the discussion about the possibility of noise that correlates from one > scanset to the next. I think it's probably enough to point out that this > type of contamination should be removed well by our ground subtraction > filter and then point to the az jack as evidence that this is working. > > These suggestions are separate from Clem's comments on whether to include > this discussion in the paper vs referee report. > > -colin > > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Clem Pryke <pryke(a)physics.umn.edu> > wrote: > >> > I've added a longish section to the systematics paper, S2.3, that deals >> > with the referee's demands regarding noise model discussion. >> >> Well it's OK. It seems out of place inserted between sec2.2 and 2.4. >> Also it >> would be better if the equations explicitly included the averaging over >> many >> pseudo-realizations of noise. >> >> I say include this in ref response and not in the paper. Then include it >> in >> the next paper where it can be made to fit in better - this paper is >> basically >> about beam systematics. >> >> Clem >> >> -- >> ********************************************************************** >> Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics >> University of Minnesota >> Room 318 Physics and Nanotechnology Building >> 115 Union Street SE, Minneapolis MN 55455 >> Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu >> ********************************************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bicep2-list mailing list >> Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu >> https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list >> > > -- ********************************************************************** Christopher Sheehy KICP Fellow, University of Chicago 5640 S Ellis Ave LASR 122 Chicago, IL 60637 office: (773) 702-9751 **********************************************************************