foregroundstelecon20220714 [Probe Mission Study Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Telecon Notes July 14, 2022 ======

[[https://spa-zzz-01.spa.umn.edu/!ipsig/foregrounds|Link to main foregrounds telecons page]] \\
[[https://spa-zzz-01.spa.umn.edu/!ipsig/logbook|Link to logbook]]

Attendance:  Shaul, Sebastian, Mathieu, Kris \\

Regrets: 

=== Agenda + Notes: ===

  * MR didn't have a chance to make changes for his Figures. Delayed for next week. 
  * Discussed a bunch of Sebastian's Figures
  * Waiting for Mathew to fix the likelihood and his plots - Shaul will write to them again. 

e-mail from HK

Hi Shaul and all,

I'm looking at the equations in the appendix now, and I'm not entirely 
sure what you're referring to as "not consistent". Equation A4 defines 
the Gaussian likeliood, and in this case the free parameters are r and 
A_l. Equations A2 and A3 defines the GBR estimator, and in this case the 
free parameters are (at this stage) C_l's, rather than r and A_l. Are 
you proposing that we should replace C_l in Eq. A2-A3 with the full 
expression? If so, it's important to note that we are *not* using the 
(r,A_l) model in the GBR approach, but rather have a grid of models with 
different r's (and A_l = 1) computed directly with CAMB, so the C_l 
models aren't the same. In effect, for the Gaussian likelihood analysis 
one assumes that the BB spectra scale linearly with r all the way from 
r=1 to 0, and that's obviously not exactly true. That's why we use preer 
to use a precomputed CAMB grid instead, in which case the non-linearity 
is taken into account.

If this is what you're referring to, I think it's better to describe 
this in words, than actually change the equations. Alternatively, it 
might be cleaner to just replace the big C_l model in Eq. A4 with a 
general C_l(r,A_l), and then specify in the text that these differ 
between the two approaches.

Whatever you prefer, I'm leaving for vacation this afternoon, so Mathew 
should implement this when he gets back. Alternatively, I can clarify 
this in early August. Irrespective of when it happens, I don't really 
think that this is a major hold-up to finishing the paper. Rather, what 
is needed, is *one* person getting full editorial rights for the entire 
paper, and simply writes it up end-to-end. That can probably be done in 
a matter of two or three days with continuous writing time. Having 
individual people write separate section will take very long to 
converge, I think...

Thanks, and have a nice summer :-)
User Tools

Page Tools
