====== Telecon Notes Oct. 31, 2018 ====== Attendance: Nick B., Colin H., Charles L., Shaul, Raphael F., Jim B. \\ Notes by: Karl Young \\ === Agenda === * Status of report * JPL (Instrument) * UMN (Science) * new landscape figure * Cluster science? * CIB science (for 12/31) * Anything else? (for 12/31) * Key concerns: r * well defined target; Feeney forecasts sigma(r)=1e-4; 5e-4 is 5sigma * foregrounds: * State of Forecasts; Baseline plan for Nov. 1 * [[https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/foregroundstelecon20180830|Soumen analysis]] and {{:private:soumen_nilc_foregrounds.png?50|Figure}} * [[https://www.dropbox.com/s/engghfxhidoe67q/Remazeilles_gnilc_pico.pdf?dl=0|GNILC]] and {{:private:mathieu_gnilc_foregrounds.png?50|Figure}} * [[https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/_media/remazeilles_commander_pico_psm.pdf|PSM]] and {{:private:commander_foregrounds_bb.png?50|Figure}} * need reviewers === Notes === Status of report JPL (Instrument) * 1 chapter released. Amy says remainder (2-3) possible tomorrow. UMN (Science) * Very close. * NB: a few sentences to add in fundamental physics. running new cluster count constraints (dN/dz) now for PICO only case. Done in minutes, need to check results and would need some text added to explain. * NB: dN/dz gives a nuetrino mass constraint. comparable precision to 15 meV (given model uncertainties) from lensing and tau. * SH: what about dark energy? Breadth is useful. * NB: Just updated forecast calculation. not confident enough to say if PICO constraints at all comparable to LSST and similar. * JB: suggest we at least say something. total absence might catch people's attention in the negative. Even just a simple 'this is doable via cluster counts . . .' Something completely vanilla, non-quantitative is enough. * NB: maybe can say something about high-z clusters can constrain sigma_8 across z. just 1 sentence. * SH: agree with JB. even something small now, to be increased/deleted later is good. * **NB to add a couple sentences on this** * SH: currently nothing about CIB. Recruited Olivier Dore to write 1/2 page (won't exist by Nov. 1 deadline). Olivier has PICO specs. Asked to do forecasts. * **CL will call Olivier and apply pressure** -- Success. **Olivier will write something by tonight** * Olivier said it will be similar to Planck. (NB: why? CL: didn't ask. We'll see from his text.) * Anything else? (for 12/31 or later) * All: silence. So we must have it all. Key concerns: r SH: target not well defined in text and STM. Should refine. * well defined target; Feeney forecasts sigma(r)=1e-4; 5e-4 is 5sigma * RF: possible differences, lensing residual? Our noise levels agree very closely. so we should understand what the differences are. * RF: also cross checked my number with Alex. Stephen's is different, should understand why. Mostly larger lensing residual by Stephen. Should iron out what makes most sense. * SH: for now propose quote: sigma(r) 1e-4, 5 sigma at r=5e-4. Does this clearly reject a specific class of models? * RF: problem is some of the models are open ended. so not a clear target that rejects an entire class of models. * SH: to be clear. so 1e-3 also doesn't reject entire class? * RF: 1e-3 is nice because that is where Planck scale is characteristic scale (1e-3 rejects planck scale at 3sigma. sigma(r) is 5e-4. current S4 target). But models exist below that as well. Looking to see if there is a similar line at 1e-4. Going to 1e-4 is still interesting. thinking about the field range is a likely angle. * **RF will think to see if there is another argument to draw a line at our limits.** * foregrounds: (SH: least mature section, only one that isn't complete.) * State of Forecasts; Baseline plan for Nov. 1 * [[https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/foregroundstelecon20180830|Soumen analysis]] and {{:private:soumen_nilc_foregrounds.png?50|Figure}} * [[https://www.dropbox.com/s/engghfxhidoe67q/Remazeilles_gnilc_pico.pdf?dl=0|GNILC]] and {{:private:mathieu_gnilc_foregrounds.png?50|Figure}} * [[https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/_media/remazeilles_commander_pico_psm.pdf|PSM]] and {{:private:commander_foregrounds_bb.png?50|Figure}} * Current status: * Soumen has results. 85% delensed. NILC procedure. has the 6 maps from Clem. 5/6 have residuals below 3e-3. * Mathieu results. GNILC. 4 maps done. * Planning to add those plots to report. Say results are encouraging. beginning of a long path. * RF: Why 3e-3? not r=0 or lower r? * SH: history. Clem started with 3e-3 and r=0 because that was from S4. Soumen, Mathieu haven't got to r=0 case. Asked Clem to do a lower r case. Clem reluctant to put in more time when the current maps haven't all been used yet. * RF: r=0 case also good. since that is sigma(r) case. This is higher priority than r=1e-4 to me. * AK: who are these plots aimed at? CMB experts? General science folks? Current plots take a large amount of explaining for a small amount of confidence that PICO can do this. Could consider text that paints a broader picture and 1 plot with reasonable complexity model. Showing the failure case seems like a bad idea. * SH: True. Other possible risk is we paint a picture that is to optimistic. Since haven't shown we can do this on full sky. * AK: Showing negative results from a work in progress doesn't seem worthwhile. * AK: foregrounds should focus on what access to high frequencies buys you. more positive statement. Not excessively detailed/complicated plots. (SH: see third plot) * Frequency breadth (3rd plot) * SH: for 1 PySM model. 20-800 GHz fully reconstructs. smaller range fails. * AK: yes. This is better argument. the frequency coverage is the strongest point to make. * SH: Bottom line? showing the state of study and challenges is less useful than showing what works and state of complexity. * AK: would phrase as 'show problems and show how they will be dealt with' * need reviewers besides external team. rapid feedback. * **AK will give comments at least. SH will ping when done.** Send full draft out in ~ 2 days.