Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Probe Mission Study Wiki

User Tools

Trace:
private:teleconsnotes20181010

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
private:teleconsnotes20181010 [2018/10/10 14:53] – hananyprivate:teleconsnotes20181010 [2018/10/10 16:02] (current) – kyoung
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Telecon Notes Oct. 10, 2018  ====== ====== Telecon Notes Oct. 10, 2018  ======
  
-Attendance:    \\+Attendance: Jacques, Alex, Colin H., Shaul, Amy T.,  Tim P., Dan G., Nick B.  \\
  
 Notes by: Karl Young \\ Notes by: Karl Young \\
Line 7: Line 7:
 === Agenda === === Agenda ===
   * JPL Final TeamX   * JPL Final TeamX
-  * Schedule: +  * SH gives a talk in Tenerife next week - may need help with any new slides  
 +  * Report Schedule: 
     * Deadline for nearly-final version is Nov. 1     * Deadline for nearly-final version is Nov. 1
     * 'nearly-final' = all figures, all text, 50 pages; a version that 15 reviewers (current tally, likely more by Nov. 1) can read through a give constructive comments      * 'nearly-final' = all figures, all text, 50 pages; a version that 15 reviewers (current tally, likely more by Nov. 1) can read through a give constructive comments 
Line 15: Line 16:
  
 === Notes === === Notes ===
 +JPL Final TeamX (Amy)
 +  * **Karl late, missed some of Amy's report** 
 +  * Everyone said they could respond on technical comments.
 +  * Will be couple weeks (2-3) before we get feedback.  Amy will go over details when those reports come back.
 +  * Costs will go up slightly for reserves and with I&T costs.
 +  * Power contingency down, saves some costs.
 +  * Still under cap, with margin.
 +  * SH: slides released?
 +  * AT: Original plan is slides not to decadal. Only costing team gets slides, and now that is done internally.
 +
 +SH gives a talk in Tenerife next week - may need help with any new slides.  Be prepared for asks.
 +
 +Report Schedule: 
 +  * Deadline for nearly-final version is Nov. 1
 +    * Reviewers will give comments in 2-3 weeks after Nov. 1.
 +    * 'nearly-final' = all figures, all text, 50 pages; a version that 15 reviewers (current tally, likely more by Nov. 1) can read through a give constructive comments 
 +    * So need **all text/figures by mid October.**  1 more telecon.
 +  * SH: Technical section released by Nov. 1?
 +    * AT: That is the priority.  It may be released in sections.
 +  * [[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TiQWJWegYsw-z_QUuB8OJ6DZqlDRL3CV?usp=sharing|Appendices on a google drive]]
 +    * Additional/supplemental material that is supportive can go here.
 +    * This repo will be referenced in the report, just like any citation.
 +      * Examples: Systematics and foregrounds. The 50 page report states conclusions. The work and details supporting those conclusions goes in appendices in this google drive.
 +      * NB: Feels like cheating. Is it allowed cheating?
 +      * SH: Not sure, not planning to ask.
 +      * Jacques: Seems fair. Just like links to other papers. As long as the appendices are on arxiv.
 +      * NB: Proposals often say 'no hyperlinks' specifically.
 +      * SH: Not a proposal. S4 CDT report had detailed appendices (although they weren't page limited) and the appendices where particularly appreciated.  Even though they probably didn't read the appendices in detail.
 +      * SH: We need some reference.  Either arxiv or google drive is needed.  Not sure we can do arxiv by November 1st, and maybe not by December 31st.  The google drive is quicker/easier.  Could start with drive and move to arxiv later in the year.
 +      * NB: Still feels like cheating to have our own repo.  Why not just cite CDT report or Simons Observatory or S4 or similar?  A google drive is also a live, changing document which may be edited after submission. Which doesn't seem appropriate.
 +      * SH: An example is foregrounds. Multiple input maps, multiple sims and types of sims. All this doesn't fit in the 50 pages.  We would like to put it somewhere for community/reviewers to see, so people can review it. Then they don't need to just trust the numbers we quote.
 +        * It's also fine if reviewers don't check the detailed appendices. JD: but those who are curious can check.
 +  * {{:private:pages_from_epic-im-report.pdf|EPIC Cosmological Parameter Constraints}}
 +    * Shows cosmic variance limits reached by EPIC. From 2010 report.
 +    * We aren't currently including this.  Should we? or something similar?
 +    * JD: Would be more compelling for lambda-CDM extenstions, nuetrino mass, w_1, w_0, r, running index, curvature, etc. Then the improvement Planck --> PICO is more substantial.  We don't know about 95% of the universe. PICO can argue that it will constrain much of what we don't know. Instead of assuming various parameters are 0 or 1 or similar. That is all Planck does.  
 +      * SH: That would require forecasts on various lambda-CDM extensions.
 +    * NB: Not sure what the ask is.  Just compare to Planck with certain extensions? We are doing nuetrino mass. What work would be required?
 +    * SH: current report doesn't discuss refutation/confirmation of current 6 parameter model.  Or of other broader models.  This would be an additional science goal / section in the report.
 +    * JD: not just show a 6 parameter model works, but show 6 parameters (or whatever is found) is the best model. Fit for all parameters, not just assuming values based on theory. Did some of this for CORE in cosmological parameter paper. for a 13 parameter model error box down by 10^7 vs Planck.
 +    * SH: Is this broader argument reasonable/useful to include?  Jacques to you have ability to run?
 +      * JD: Elenora Valentino, Francios Buchett, and others where in charge of this.
 +      * NB: Seems like this is a too short of a time crunch. Doesn't seem like it's compelling enough to do on this short notice. 
 +        * SH: If this can be in parallel then there is less issue. NB: will create some work to integrate it with current constraints in the report. And need to compare PICO to S3+Planck or S4+Planck. The time for that isn't really available.
 +      * SH: Key question -- "Is this arguement compelling? Compelling to reviewers? Worth the space?"
 +      * **Jacques to inquire of CORE team** if they could run PICO sensitivity through their machinery. 
 +        * SH: US teams are (likely) saturated with other work. **Will check with Martin White**
 +  * {{:private:picoreport.pdf|Report Review}}
 +    * SH: has gone through and made comments.  Comments in orange.  Done with intro and fundamental physics. Starting galactic.
 +    * SH: anything new?
 +    * Alex: sensitivity to lensing was ignored. Now this has been included with foregrounds.  Alex will include this in his plot. Effects figure 4  **Alex adding new noise curves in next few days**
 +    * Alex: Fig 4, do people like the S4 curves? Was considering removal.  SH: haven't reviewed yet. **SH: will give opinion this week**
 +      * JD: seems odd to have S4 if we don't discuss them. discussion takes space.
 +      * Alex will remove for now.
 +    * Galactic structure section: currently being cut down by galactic team.  They are writing a white paper with all the material that doesn't fit.
 +    * Legacy -- SH reviewing and communicating with leaders.
 +    * Foregrounds -- Jacques / Shaul will meed in Tenerife **next week** and decide what to cut.
 +    * Complementarity -- SH pruned. Charles not here to complain, so it is fine.
 +
 +**SH traveling next week.  Will email regarding telecon**
 +
 +
private/teleconsnotes20181010.1539201180.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/10/10 14:53 by hanany

Page Tools