Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20181024 [2018/10/24 14:24] – hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20181024 [2018/10/24 16:06] (current) – kyoung
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes Oct. 24, 2018  ======
-Attendance:   \\
+Attendance:  Nick B., Rafael F., Amy T., Alex v., Colin H., Tim P., Charles L., Jim B.  \\
-Notes by:  Karl Young\\
+Notes by:  Karl Young \\
 === Agenda ===
-  * Quoting r constraints
+  * Schedule: 50 pg draft complete by next telecon; distribute to reviewers by Nov. 1
-  * Systematics Table
+  * {{:private:picoreport.pdf|Current Version of Report}}
+  * [[https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/picomission/home|PICO Mission Website]] for additional report related documents
+  * Quoting r constraints (see some relevant material in notes)
+    * r< ?? (95%)
+    * large angular scale constraints vs \ell=80 using several smaller cleaner areas of the sky
   * Report
     * Inflation
-      * Several orange comments
-      * Currently almost no citations; is that OK?
       * Figures (Label lensing? show noise? remove data point labels, change prediction level to 5e-4? show Goncharov type models?)
       * Connection to lensing and Alex's part
@@ Line 17: / Line 19: @@
     * SH Added 'Fundamental Fields' (PMF and birefringence) anyone wants to review?
     * Relics
-      * Orange comments in DM, neutrinos
-      * citations missing
     * Extragalactic
-      * orange comments
-      * citations missing
-      * clusters
     * Galactic
-      * Visual + shrink
     * Legacy
       * SH received new text from Gianfranco. Need to implement
     * Complementarity
+    * Foregrounds
+    * Systematics
+      * Table?
 === Notes ===
-Stephen's Forecast
+Raphael's earlier forecast gave sigma(r) = 2e-5; we made it 2.5 times larger and used 1e-4 (2σ)
+Stephen's Forecast:
     components: sync+dust
     delensing option: iterative delensing CMBxCMB
@@ Line 47: / Line 48: @@
 These forecasts were run using the CMB4cast Fisher matrix code (http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html, Errard & Feeney et al.), assuming access to T, E, B and d information, with the deflection estimated using the iterative EB estimator. The code assumes Planck-2015-level synchrotron and dust foregrounds, forecasting the experiment's ability to clean these foregrounds using a parametric maximum-likelihood approach, assuming the foreground spectral indices are constant on patches of size ~15 degrees across (N_side = 4). This is all probably a little out-of-date, being based on the Planck 2015 results and cosmology, but it doesn't seem to give a significantly different answer to Raphael's code (and I can rerun with a different tau if you'd like).
+{{::pico_v1_noextra.pptx|SH Tenerife 2018 Presentation}}
+=== Current Roster of Reviewers ===
+Mike Shull, Kathy Romer, Jonathan Feng, Michael Strauss, Wick Haxton, Keith Olive, Larry Rudnick, Liliya Williams, Martin White, Lyman Page, Masashi Hazumi, Adrian Lee, Scott Dodelson, Chuck Bennett, Ed Wollack, Paolo deBernardis, Bruce Draine
+----
+=== Minutes / Notes during telecon ===
+{{:private:picoreport.pdf|Current Version of Report}}  **Draft ready by next telecon!**
+New site for other supporting material.  [[https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/picomission/home|PICO Mission Website]]
+  * Place for supporting material. Report still needs to stand alone.
+Quoting r constraints (see some relevant material in notes, above)
+  * r < ?? (95%)
+    * Used RF prediction times 2.5 that didn't include spectral index variation. 1x10^-4
+    * Have Stephen Feeney predictions. Also Fischer. Does account for some more foregrounds. spatial variation on nside=4 scales.  used v4.1 noise. got r 10^-4.
+    * SH: What do we put in report?
+      * CL: can't say this is finalized. emphasize the need for more foreground and systematics work.
+      * CL: 10^-4 is good goal. science is written around this.  Then be candid that this hasn't yet been demonstrated, but we believe it is achievable.  More work needs to be supported.  This is another tech development area.  We aren't ready to get 10^-4 now, but will be ready at time Probe would be happening in ~2023 or so.
+      * RF: That makes sense. all the current numbers come with caveats.
+      * SH: Other path: at small areas of sky (few %) S4 demonstrated r 10^-3.  PICO has many such areas.
+        * RF: but most not as clean as S4. so can't just scale to 60%.
+        * SH: Yes, but some patches are as good as S4's. 3-10?  RF: could make a scaling arguement, but wouldn't get order of magnitude.
+      * RF: like Stephen's forecasts.  Although S4 didn't clean in map domain to that level.  We know PICO can do order of magnitude 10^-4, but don't know if 1x10^-4 or 5x10^-4.
+      * SH: Setting a goal makes sense.  But also needs to be some statement about what we know now. May know more about map based by December. What other definitive things can we say now?
+        * RF: that sounds fine as long as our current level of uncertainty in current predictions is explicitly included.
+        * SH: scaling from S4 by # clean patches (increase in number of modes) makes sense.  Other places we can quantify in next few weeks?  **SH, RF will follow up on this scaling**
+Report
+  * Inflation
+    * Figures (Label lensing? show noise? remove data point labels, change prediction level to 5e-4? show Goncharov type models?)
+      * Fig 1. Use 5x10^-4 in right hand plot.  Fig 1. Add noise curve. Add reference to lensing **RF to update this**
+        * SH: Should we add models in RH plot? Further models that have r 10^-4.
+          * RF: Yes. Should extend this plot.  Show other models, but how many? SH: yes show more models. not coming through clearly in text why 10^-4 is useful. Show what is excluded at these low levels.
+          * AT: General rule, like to see beginning of caption contain a strong take away statement about PICO. Punchy messages in captions help significantly.
+            * CL: Statement of importance is good. But also need captions that describe the figure.  If that isn't there the the figures are confusing.  Preference against punchy messages, but ok as long as figure still explained.
+    * Connection to lensing and Alex's part? SH: nothing in this section now?
+      * RF: can move Alex's section up here. SH: great, will put some of this
+    * Non-Gaussianity forecasts by Marcel.  In page 13. SH: should this be highlighted here?
+      * RF: Yes.  That make sense. Prominence depends on how strong the forecasts are.
+        * CL: I'd be cautious because need 3D data. So need CMB + LSST or similar.  SphereX is trying to do this. Will be selected/not selected in next few months.  Claiming something that SphereX did isn't so strong. (even though SphereX might not do it).  Don't oversell, CMB + LSST isn't the only way to get f_nl.
+      * Alex: Could also point out direct measurement in 3-point function.
+    * **RF will add text on the above points to text**
+  * Fundamental particles. DG has added material. Section has DM, nuetrinons, . .. Needs references fixed and section trimmed. Has plots from Alex to add. Also plots from Vera deciding to keep or not. **DG cleaning up now**
+    * RF: probably both can be summarized in words.  DG: yeah, signature isn't needed.
+    * SH: worth pointing out that this is on the only constraints at low DM masses.  Could add direct detection constraints to this figure. Show that PICO is unique.
+      * DG: have to think if there really are no other constraints. Landscape is complicated. May be other limits depending on dark matter models.
+      * SH: key point is that if we include this figure the comparison to direct detection is illuminating.  DG: yeah, this is a relevant connection. and would be reason to have this plot. Still not sure if the figure is needed.  **DG will talk with Vera and decide on figure. SH/DG talk offline**
+  * SH Added 'Fundamental Fields' (PMF and birefringence) anyone wants to review?
+    * New section here.
+  * Extragalactic
+    * SH: everything there except clusters?  NB: Yes. Clusters + Owe a few sentences on neutrinos to DG/RF section.
+      * NB: Clusters quick. Will do so shortly.
+      * CH: Do you and Jim agree on cluster counts? NB: using different sigma_8. That should solve it.
+      * JB: What final number do we want to use?  NB: Fairest to match values used by S4, SO, etc.  Using the less conservative approach now.  JB: Ok
+      * **NB done this weekend at the latest, will start tonight.**
+  * Galactic -- Dave Laura have new text. only a bit too long. nearly final.
+  * Legacy
+    * SH received new text from Gianfranco. **Need to implement and review**
+  * Complementarity
+    * SH+CL need to look again and coordinate with Marcel.
+    * CL: saw a few tweaks. **Will talk offline.**
+  * Foregrounds
+    * SH: Biggest outstanding item.
+  * Systematics
+    * Table 4 is pruned version of Table 5.  Table 4 has last 2 columns removed. (state of art and mitigation)
+      * realized that detailed requirements don't exist for PICO (beyond scope of what we have done) so remove 'state of the art'
+      * No opinions.  Default to Table 4.  Acknowledge the further work to set requirements and mitigation needed in text.
+** Quick email turnaround and phone conversations appreciated! **

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools