Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| foregroundstelecon20200917 [2020/09/17 12:50] – created hanany | foregroundstelecon20200917 [2020/11/02 08:03] (current) – hanany | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes Sept. 17 2020 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes Sept. 17 2020 ====== | ||
| - | [[https:// | + | [[https://spa-zzz-01.spa.umn.edu/!ipsig/ |
| [[https:// | [[https:// | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Notes: Shaul \\ | Notes: Shaul \\ | ||
| - | * | + | * {{ : |
| + | * slide 1: starts with 90.91, not fitting for synchrotron curvature (because it isn't in the sky; more on that later) | ||
| + | * 2,3: Finds the best fit model; residual in many bands look very reasonable. | ||
| + | * Applies the same model to 90.92. Finds worse chi^2 and more residuals. Residuals in 21 and 25 GHz are opposite in intensity. Similar behavior in other bands. Key point: in real data, such residuals and poor chi^2 would indicate that the model is incomplete. | ||
| + | * Discussion: what would happen if you don't have that broad of a frequency range? Suggestion: start with 90.91 with a smaller frequency range. See what you get. Then apply that (with smaller frequency range to 90.92. See what you get. | ||
| + | * Blackwell Rao estimator gives biased results even for input CMB - not clear what's going on. Need to debug. | ||
| * [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * MR shows results with NILC and CMILC with three realization r=0. So far result looks good. There is reduction of foreground residuals as one projects out foreground modes. The increase in noise is not significant yet. | ||