12 Jun
2013
12 Jun
'13
3:13 p.m.
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the beam maps
that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat sky to quantify T->P
leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a) the same
as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting? This would check that
I've gotten the simulation to run correctly. Start with 1 realization, and
if that goes easily, do 10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj coefficients
into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input beam maps w
uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to see at what
level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber chopper noise in the beam
maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make composite
uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4 different dk angles. I will
mask out the ground to make these maps, and hopefully, this will result in
nice, clean maps with no ground/MAPO contamination in them. The uber
chopper maps are our least noisy maps, and it would be interesting to see
in test (3) how well we can quantify the T->P leakage in the presence of
noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
12 Jun
12 Jun
6:13 p.m.
New subject: [Bispud-pipeline-list] First steps forward for beam map convolution with flat sky
Hi Chin-Lin,
Your plan sounds good. A couple comments:
- Your 1) and 2) are the same thing except for deprojection being on/off.
That's fine, but I just want to point out that doing deprojection is just a
matter of running reduc_coaddpairmaps multiple times per realization (to do
dp=0000, dp=0100, dp=0111, etc.) as opposed to just once (dp=0000). Once
you've done the simulation and have your pairmaps, as long as you set
mapopt.deproj=true, you pretty much get dprojected and undeprojected maps
for free.
- We talked about this on the telecon, but unless we have a way to turn off
A/B offsets, what we're going to see is leakage from A/B offsets and
nothing more. After deprojection we will see residual leakage from A/B
offsets and nothing more. It will still be interesting to add noise to the
beam maps and see what happens, and once you proceed to real beam maps, it
is possible we will see more than just residual A/B offsets, which would
imply an undeprojected residual that is strong enough to affect us. If we
don't see anything, we can be glad that undeprojected residuals are below
what we care about.
And it might be interesting to be able to see beamwidth / ellipticity
deprojection do something when you simulate real beam maps.
I'm in favor doing one more sim, which is with beam maps that have no A/B
centroid mismatch, and running with simopt.diffpoint='ideal'. I don't see
the downside to doing this and I think it gives is more information about
our beams. Without doing it, even if there are weak undeprojected residuals
in our beams that we have a shot at seeing via these sims, we'd make
ourselves blind to them by always including A/B offsets. Yes, the fact that
we'd be blind to them would mean that they're so weak we don't care about
them, but if they're there it'd be nice to know.
What do people think? It seemed to me like you guys were opposed.
-Chris
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Chin Lin Wong
<clwong(a)physics.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the beam maps
that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat sky to quantify T->P
leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a) the same
as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting? This would check that
I've gotten the simulation to run correctly. Start with 1 realization, and
if that goes easily, do 10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj
coefficients into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input beam maps w
uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to see at what
level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber chopper noise in the beam
maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make
composite uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4 different dk
angles. I will mask out the ground to make these maps, and hopefully, this
will result in nice, clean maps with no ground/MAPO contamination in them.
The uber chopper maps are our least noisy maps, and it would be interesting
to see in test (3) how well we can quantify the T->P leakage in the
presence of noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
_______________________________________________
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
**********************************************************************
7:57 p.m.
New subject: First steps forward for beam map convolution with flat sky
Hi Chin Lin
I think there's an issue with using TnoPol for the input here. The issue
is TE. If there is T->P leakage, the leaked P can correlate with the
real E. For QUIET this effect was the same order as the auto spectrum of
the leaked P (although that was for a relgain-like effect). To capture
this effect in simulations, we need to put TE in the input. I think we
can do that and compare the spectra between ideal beams and real beams.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:13:53 -0400
From: Chin Lin Wong <clwong(a)physics.harvard.edu>
To: keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu <keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>du>,
bispud-pipeline-list <bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>du>,
bicep2-list <bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: [Bicep2-list] First steps forward for beam map convolution with
flat sky
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the beam
maps that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat sky to
quantify T->P leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a) the
same as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting? This would
check that I've gotten the simulation to run correctly. Start with 1
realization, and if that goes easily, do 10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj
coefficients into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input beam
maps w uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to see at
what level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber chopper noise in
the beam maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make
composite uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4 different dk
angles. I will mask out the ground to make these maps, and hopefully,
this will result in nice, clean maps with no ground/MAPO contamination
in them. The uber chopper maps are our least noisy maps, and it would
be interesting to see in test (3) how well we can quantify the T->P
leakage in the presence of noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
13 Jun
13 Jun
8:54 a.m.
New subject: [keckarray] First steps forward for beam map convolution with flat sky
Hi Immanuel,
Assessing T->P levels with TnoPol is our standard procedure. Is your
comment specific to Chin Lin's beammap sims, or general to all the many
T->P systematics sims we've run?
It is certainly true that T->P leakage can give rise to TE (and TB)
correlations. Cosmological TE means that there will be some degree of
correlation between leaked and real polarization. We've explored this,
e.g., in previous sims that have looked at the impact of deprojection on
actual E and TE signals (it is small). All the operations are linear in
the polarization input maps, so map level additions can add back in
cosmological E and TE and assess the net impact of the T->P.
John
On 6/12/13 7:57 PM, Immanuel Buder wrote:
Hi Chin Lin
I think there's an issue with using TnoPol for the input here. The issue
is TE. If there is T->P leakage, the leaked P can correlate with the
real E. For QUIET this effect was the same order as the auto spectrum of
the leaked P (although that was for a relgain-like effect). To capture
this effect in simulations, we need to put TE in the input. I think we
can do that and compare the spectra between ideal beams and real beams.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:13:53 -0400
From: Chin Lin Wong <clwong(a)physics.harvard.edu>
To: keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu <keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>du>,
bispud-pipeline-list <bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>du>,
bicep2-list <bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: [Bicep2-list] First steps forward for beam map convolution with
flat sky
--
___________________________________________________________________
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
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the beam
maps that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat sky to
quantify T->P leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a) the
same as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting? This would
check that I've gotten the simulation to run correctly. Start with 1
realization, and if that goes easily, do 10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj
coefficients into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input beam
maps w uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to see at
what level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber chopper noise in
the beam maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make
composite uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4 different dk
angles. I will mask out the ground to make these maps, and hopefully,
this will result in nice, clean maps with no ground/MAPO contamination
in them. The uber chopper maps are our least noisy maps, and it would
be interesting to see in test (3) how well we can quantify the T->P
leakage in the presence of noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
_______________________________________________
KeckArray mailing list
KeckArray(a)lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/keckarray
10:27 a.m.
New subject: First steps forward for beam map convolution with flat sky
Hi Immanuel,
I agree with John.
Maybe you're thinking we do our TnoPol sims in a different way than we do.
When we simulate T->pol we don't set T=0 and TE=0 in the spectra that
correspond to the synfast maps themselves. We just use our normal input
maps that have T, E, and TE, and zero out the Q and U maps within
reduc_makesim (simopt.sigtype='nopol'). So when we investigate T->pol
leakage by doing T-only sims, the leaked T->E or T->B is a systematic that
*does* correlate with the intrinsic E, it's just that we've zeroed out the
intrinsic E for the purposes of the sim. We can then add the regular Q and
U maps to the T->pol leakage Q and U maps (they are from the same sky
realization), and any correlations between the leaked E and the
cosmological E ought to be preserved.
-Chris
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Chin Lin
I think there's an issue with using TnoPol for the input here. The issue
is TE. If there is T->P leakage, the leaked P can correlate with the real
E. For QUIET this effect was the same order as the auto spectrum of the
leaked P (although that was for a relgain-like effect). To capture this
effect in simulations, we need to put TE in the input. I think we can do
that and compare the spectra between ideal beams and real beams.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:13:53 -0400
From: Chin Lin Wong <clwong@physics.harvard.edu><clwong@physics.harvard.edu>
To: keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu
<keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu><keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu>,
bispud-pipeline-list
<bispud-pipeline-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu><bispud-pipeline-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>,
bicep2-list
<bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu><bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: [Bicep2-list] First steps forward for beam map convolution with
flat sky
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the beam maps
that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat sky to quantify T->P
leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a) the same
as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting? This would check that
I've gotten the simulation to run correctly. Start with 1 realization, and
if that goes easily, do 10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj
coefficients into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input beam maps w
uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to see at
what level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber chopper noise in the
beam maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make
composite uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4 different dk
angles. I will mask out the ground to make these maps, and hopefully, this
will result in nice, clean maps with no ground/MAPO contamination in them.
The uber chopper maps are our least noisy maps, and it would be interesting
to see in test (3) how well we can quantify the T->P leakage in the
presence of noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing
listBicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.eduhttps://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-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
**********************************************************************
14 Jun
14 Jun
1:36 a.m.
New subject: First steps forward for beam map convolution with flat sky
Chin Lin, John, Chris, Clem
In principle my comment was general, but I misunderstood the meaning of
"TnoPol" here. If we add E back in later then I think what Chin Lin
proposes (and what we have done in the past) is fine.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:27:39 -0500
From: Chris Sheehy <csheehy(a)uchicago.edu>
To: Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Chin Lin Wong <clwong(a)physics.harvard.edu>du>,
keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu <keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>du>,
bicep2-list <bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Bicep2-list] First steps forward for beam map convolution
with flat sky
Hi Immanuel,
I agree with John.
Maybe you're thinking we do our TnoPol sims in a different way than we
do. When we simulate T->pol we don't set T=0 and TE=0 in the spectra
that correspond to the synfast maps themselves. We just use our normal
input maps that have T, E, and TE, and zero out the Q and U maps
within reduc_makesim (simopt.sigtype='nopol'). So when we investigate
T->pol leakage by doing T-only sims, the leaked T->E or T->B is a
systematic that *does* correlate with the intrinsic E, it's just that
we've zeroed out the intrinsic E for the purposes of the sim. We can
then add the regular Q and U maps to the T->pol leakage Q and U maps
(they are from the same sky realization), and any correlations between
the leaked E and the cosmological E ought to be preserved.
-Chris
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Immanuel Buder <ibuder(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ibuder@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Chin Lin
I think there's an issue with using TnoPol for the input here. The
issue is TE. If there is T->P leakage, the leaked P can correlate
with the real E. For QUIET this effect was the same order as the
auto spectrum of the leaked P (although that was for a
relgain-like effect). To capture this effect in simulations, we
need to put TE in the input. I think we can do that and compare
the spectra between ideal beams and real beams.
Immanuel
----- Original Message -----
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:13:53 -0400
From: Chin Lin Wong <clwong(a)physics.harvard.edu>
<mailto:clwong@physics.harvard.edu>
To: keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu
<mailto:keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu>
<keckarray(a)mailman.stanford.edu>
<mailto:keckarray@mailman.stanford.edu>, bispud-pipeline-list
<bispud-pipeline-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>
<mailto:bispud-pipeline-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>, bicep2-list
<bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu>
<mailto:bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: [Bicep2-list] First steps forward for beam map
convolution with flat sky
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the
beam maps that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat
sky to quantify T->P leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the
beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a)
the same as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting?
This would check that I've gotten the simulation to run
correctly. Start with 1 realization, and if that goes easily, do
10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the
beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj
coefficients into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input
beam maps w uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to
see at what level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber
chopper noise in the beam maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make
composite uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4
different dk angles. I will mask out the ground to make these
maps, and hopefully, this will result in nice, clean maps with no
ground/MAPO contamination in them. The uber chopper maps are our
least noisy maps, and it would be interesting to see in test (3)
how well we can quantify the T->P leakage in the presence of noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu <mailto:Bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
<mailto:Bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu>
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-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
<mailto:csheehy@uchicago.edu>
********************************************************************** 
3:50 p.m.
New subject: First steps forward for beam map convolution with flat sky
Hi Chin-Lin,
most of the input maps pf the new library are now available on odyssey.
I guess unsmoothed maps is what you are looking for. For the forward sim
that is:
input_maps/camb_planck2013_r0/map_unlens_n2048_r****_s00p00_dNoNoi.fits
the matching deprojection template map in this case is:
input_maps/camb_planck2013_r0/map_unlens_n0512_r****_sB2bbns_dNoNoi.fits
Both also there with lensing switched on.
Please have a look at the selection and let me know if you need more
options.
Stefan
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Chin Lin Wong
<clwong(a)physics.harvard.edu>wrote;wrote:
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the beam maps
that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat sky to quantify T->P
leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a) the same
as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting? This would check that
I've gotten the simulation to run correctly. Start with 1 realization, and
if that goes easily, do 10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj
coefficients into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input beam maps w
uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to see at what
level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber chopper noise in the beam
maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make
composite uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4 different dk
angles. I will mask out the ground to make these maps, and hopefully, this
will result in nice, clean maps with no ground/MAPO contamination in them.
The uber chopper maps are our least noisy maps, and it would be interesting
to see in test (3) how well we can quantify the T->P leakage in the
presence of noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
--
Stefan Fliescher - Research Associate
University of Minnesota,
Tate Lab Room 237, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Phone: 612-626-6581
7:52 p.m.
New subject: First steps forward for beam map convolution with flat sky
Hi
Thanks for all the feedback. Stefan, thanks for pointing me to the new
input maps. It looks like these should be good to start with. I'm getting
up to speed on running sims, and hopefully will have something done in time
to show on Tuesday.
Chin Lin
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Stefan Fliescher
<fliesche(a)physics.umn.edu>wrote;wrote:
Hi Chin-Lin,
most of the input maps pf the new library are now available on odyssey.
I guess unsmoothed maps is what you are looking for. For the forward sim
that is:
input_maps/camb_planck2013_r0/map_unlens_n2048_r****_s00p00_dNoNoi.fits
the matching deprojection template map in this case is:
input_maps/camb_planck2013_r0/map_unlens_n0512_r****_sB2bbns_dNoNoi.fits
Both also there with lensing switched on.
Please have a look at the selection and let me know if you need more
options.
Stefan
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Chin Lin Wong <clwong(a)physics.harvard.edu
wrote:
Hi
I was tasked to propose the immediate next steps for using the beam maps
that I've constructed and convolving it with the flat sky to quantify T->P
leakage.
Immediate plan of work:
1. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj off for
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with AB offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum, compare T->P leakage. Is (a) the same
as (b) and the same as what Chris has in his posting? This would check that
I've gotten the simulation to run correctly. Start with 1 realization, and
if that goes easily, do 10 realizations.
2. Tag subset, TnoPol, timestream deproj on for:
(a) set of noiseless input beam maps with Ab offsets in the beam map
(b) Stefan's multigauss implementation
Did I use the deproj correctly? Translate the recovered deproj
coefficients into beam parameters and compare vs input.
3. Tag subset TnoPol, timestream deproj on for a set of input beam maps w
uber-chopper noise levels.
Make T,Q,U maps and power spectrum. It would be informative to see at
what level we can quantify the T->P leakage with uber chopper noise in the
beam maps.
Next, I think we want to use real beam maps. I plan to first make
composite uber-chopper maps, using uber chopper maps at 4 different dk
angles. I will mask out the ground to make these maps, and hopefully, this
will result in nice, clean maps with no ground/MAPO contamination in them.
The uber chopper maps are our least noisy maps, and it would be interesting
to see in test (3) how well we can quantify the T->P leakage in the
presence of noise.
Feedback will be really welcome.
Thanks!
Chin Lin
_______________________________________________
Bicep2-list mailing list
Bicep2-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
https://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/bicep2-list
--
Stefan Fliescher - Research Associate
University of Minnesota,
Tate Lab Room 237, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455
Phone: 612-626-6581
3991
days inactive
3993
days old
bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chin Lin Wong -
Chris Sheehy -
Immanuel Buder -
John Kovac -
Stefan Fliescher