====== Telecon Notes Feb. 6, 2019  ======

Attendance:  Amy T., Shaul H., Tim P., Jacques D., Alex vE., Dan G. \\

Notes by:  Karl \\

=== Agenda ===

  * {{:private:picoreport.pdf|brief update on report/astro-ph posting}}
    * Good progress. ~one week to finish
    * {{:private:fom_plot_pico.pdf|Figure from Eleonora}}; {{:private:table_fom_data.pdf|FOM Data}}
  * Talk + posters at [[https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/landscape2019/|USRA conference]] - Authorship?
    * First Author + "PICO Collaboration"? 
    * First + All? 
    * First + EC?

=== Notes ===

Report status
  * SH: Good progress implementing various comments and condensing text. ~one week to finish
  * {{:private:fom_plot_pico.pdf|Figure from Eleonora}}; {{:private:table_fom_data.pdf|FOM Data}}
    * SH: shows figure of merit proportional to 1/(vol of uncertainty in parameter space) for various LCDM plus extension models.  COBE = 1 and scaled from there.  Jump from Planck to PICO ~ 10^9
    * SH: Is this worth including? Difficult to decided because I haven't said what would be removed, probably ~1/2 page of some other section that isn't one of the key SOs. Some of the DM section for example, but no decision yet.
    * AT: neat and interesting, especially from CMB history viewpoint. Doesn't seem to be better than what we already have though. Doesn't answer what science is gained for $1B, or how we gain that science, or why we should pursue that science.  Also needs some explanatory text, adding length.  And we are fighting length limits.
      * SH: A text section explaining this calculation and argument exists. It's ~3/4 of a page.  So additional text would only be 1-2 sentences.  AT: that helps.
    * AT: plot shows PICO improves on past, also seems to suggest CMB work will continue forever!
    * TP: y-axis parameter needs explanation. not clear to me what it is so large, 10^20s
    * AT: there is a nice message of COBE-->Planck jump is ~ Planck-->PICO jump.
    * JD: there are people (at least in Europe, SH:and elsewhere!) that think Planck cleaned up everything so there is nothing left to do. This counters that sentiment.
    * AE: surprising that LCDM improves from Planck-->PICO.  TP: I also don't understand this.
      * SH/JD: Because planck is cosmic variance (CV) limited in TT, but PICO is CV limited in TT, EE, BB.
      * SH: we'll **add LCDM (6 parameters) to plot legend** so it's clear that it is plain LCDM.
    * TP: slope is emphasized by lines, but really is a step function.
    * TP: where do ground experiments fall on this plot?  Change it?
      * SH: a good (and natural) question.  answering is tricky.  ferreting out what assumption ground experiments have made is hard.  and the discussion is more political.
      * JD: agree it is difficult. it's hard to say when / if ground experiments are CV limited on these parameters. due to foregrounds, systematics.  Of course PICO may be limited by those as well, but it is likely to be less so.
      * SH: worth extending Tim's question to CMB ground + other experiments like LSST, Euclid, DESI, . . .
    * JD: response to 'CMB forever' comment.  We can try to add some CV limited points. Since PICO is CV limited on TT, EE, BB (AE: but not lensing).  example parameters: 0.1 uK arcmin and infinitely small beam.
      * SH: this would be very good. concerned about an infinitely small beam since that isn't feasible. 
      * JD: the noise level is more important as noise + the CMB damping tail sets an l_max that isn't much less than arcmin scales. CORE calculations show beam size stops mattering for small beams.  What noise level to choose is an open question.
      * AT: Being able to say "PICO is the final CMB mission" with supporting numbers would be valuable.
      * TP: This could also justify the current instrument choices for PICO. Showing that $1B gets X amount of science while $10B doesn't get even close to 10X science.
    * **SH + JD + Eleonora to talk offline** about how to add some CV limits.
    * JD: minor note, chose WMAP at 2013 which makes a big jump for Planck.  Could choose an earlier WMAP and make the curve smoother.  SH: true, but not too important. this is fine.  

Talk + posters at [[https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/landscape2019/|USRA conference]] - Authorship?
  * SH: posters at USRA in few months, abstracts due tomorrow.  Also APS conference approaching.  What authorship makes sense?
  * AT: for USRA author list is part of abstract and counts against length. So list all ~60 authors is just not practical.
  * SH: EC + first author doesn't make much sense anymore because the full EC doesn't well reflect who put significant work into the report.
  * TP: could do, Present + PICO collab. Then put full author list on bottom of poster is small font.
  * AT: citing the arxiv version of the report gives a route to people finding the full author list.
  * JD: Some funding to support PICO came from Europe.  Agencies like to see peoples' names.  Even in tiny font on a poster is good.
    * SH: Also are funding acknowledgements in report.  **JD to send text to Shaul**
  * SH: For abstracts we'll do "first author, PICO collaboration".  Actual text on posters still TBD.
    * All: no objections.