Intro: SH pushing intro into matching rest of report and improving flow.
SH: comments in capitals. Text has been general, which is okay. But need specific quantitative values of current status and lay out what needs to be improved. Allow for comparison and connections with specifics in following sections.
This is work for SH, RF, DG, CH, NB.
CH: just added a paragraph on tau to intro.
NB/CH have added text on thermal history and secondary anisotropies. SH will discuss with CH offline
DG has added some lensing and nuetrino mass and Neff. SH will discuss with DG offline
TP: Should have definition of what PICO is in intro, in addition to science. So readers have context.
SH: Current intro (as far as I got) is general to science, so the PICO definition is not critical. Current approach is to lay out science goals and then describe the experiment to meet those goals.
TP: Some sort of abstract to introduce people to the science goals and PICO's role is valuable. Give people context early on.
SH: Yes. Need a pico intro early on. Few lines in intro and/or executive summary.
RF to check first paragraph and introduce E/B modes.
CL: general comment. Say someplace that making contributions to meet science goals has to include how these contributions are beyond what can be done from ground. Or unique from.
SH: Should highlight PICO unique abilities, but not everything has to exceed S4. CL/TP: but much of it does need to surpass S4. SH: yes
CL: so describe science potential beyond Planck/BICEP/'other current experiments' and beyond S4.
CL: discuss progression of current (S2) r=10^-2, LITEBird r=5×10^-3, S4 r=10^-4, PICO r=10^-4.
RF: Agree, this should be in intro. SH: Agree, sounds good.
RF: should intro focus on only where PICO is better? Or mention all science even if PICO does less well.
SH: Mention all science, but focus on places where PICO is best.
Science objectives:
RF to update Figure 1
SH: also produce forecasts ?
RF: if they aren't map based I don't believe them.
SH: even these Fischer forecasts are a measure of horsepower. So still valuable.
RF: should do at least what was done for S4. lowest level of assuming delensing and subtracting foregrounds. have r=0 and r=10^-4 and see if recoverable.
SH: current status. work is on r=3×10^-3 and r=0. analyzers are working hard, but it may not converge. then fischers are useful.
RF: let's wait until they don't converge, otherwise is just a waste of time. (although they are fairly quick)
SH: did S4 fischer forecasts agree with map based? to some extent?
RF: on 3% of sky for S4 yes. But extrapolating to 40% of sky is too optimistic, ignores foregrounds.
SH: For S4 does foregrounds increase error on r significantly above what simple noise gives?
RF: Yes. See S4 science book.
SH: Key question is what to do if map based doesn't converge. We'll wait 1 week to see those results.
Light relics / neutrino mass, SH reviewing
RF to ping Vera for her text input
2.2.2,
CH: status of error on tau? SH: all noise cases reach cosmic variance limit. From talking with Stephen F. SH will forward email of details to RFRF will compare with his numbers
RF ran some sims in real time. saw 0.002 with ~60% of sky. Stephen used 100% of sky to get 0.0015. Will use 60-70% of sky in final numbers.
CH will ask Stephen to write 2 sentences about exactly what he assumed.
CH: reionization section is pretty good.
CH: checking a kSZ statistic to see if PICO gives useful constraints.
Lensing added by van Engle. Have results from Jim Barttlet, but not in text. CH emailing Jim to ask to add text.
CH talking to Mattieu to re-run tSZ with final PICO noise numbers