Attendance: Nick B., Colin H., Charles L., Shaul, Raphael F., Jim B.

Notes by: Karl Young

• Status of report
  • JPL (Instrument)
  • UMN (Science)
    • new landscape figure
    • Cluster science?
    • CIB science (for 12/31)
    • Anything else? (for 12/31)
• Key concerns: r
  • well defined target; Feeney forecasts sigma®=1e-4; 5e-4 is 5sigma
  • foregrounds:
    • State of Forecasts; Baseline plan for Nov. 1
      • Soumen analysis and
      • GNILC and
      • PSM and
    • need reviewers

Status of report JPL (Instrument)

• 1 chapter released. Amy says remainder (2-3) possible tomorrow.

UMN (Science)

• Very close.
• NB: a few sentences to add in fundamental physics. running new cluster count constraints (dN/dz) now for PICO only case. Done in minutes, need to check results and would need some text added to explain.
• NB: dN/dz gives a nuetrino mass constraint. comparable precision to 15 meV (given model uncertainties) from lensing and tau.
• SH: what about dark energy? Breadth is useful.
  • NB: Just updated forecast calculation. not confident enough to say if PICO constraints at all comparable to LSST and similar.
  • JB: suggest we at least say something. total absence might catch people's attention in the negative. Even just a simple 'this is doable via cluster counts . . .' Something completely vanilla, non-quantitative is enough.
  • NB: maybe can say something about high-z clusters can constrain sigma_8 across z. just 1 sentence.
  • SH: agree with JB. even something small now, to be increased/deleted later is good.
  • NB to add a couple sentences on this
• SH: currently nothing about CIB. Recruited Olivier Dore to write 1/2 page (won't exist by Nov. 1 deadline). Olivier has PICO specs. Asked to do forecasts.
• CL will call Olivier and apply pressure – Success. Olivier will write something by tonight
  • Olivier said it will be similar to Planck. (NB: why? CL: didn't ask. We'll see from his text.)
• Anything else? (for 12/31 or later)
• All: silence. So we must have it all.

Key concerns: r SH: target not well defined in text and STM. Should refine.

• well defined target; Feeney forecasts sigma®=1e-4; 5e-4 is 5sigma
  • RF: possible differences, lensing residual? Our noise levels agree very closely. so we should understand what the differences are.
  • RF: also cross checked my number with Alex. Stephen's is different, should understand why. Mostly larger lensing residual by Stephen. Should iron out what makes most sense.
• SH: for now propose quote: sigma® 1e-4, 5 sigma at r=5e-4. Does this clearly reject a specific class of models?
  • RF: problem is some of the models are open ended. so not a clear target that rejects an entire class of models.
  • SH: to be clear. so 1e-3 also doesn't reject entire class?
    • RF: 1e-3 is nice because that is where Planck scale is characteristic scale (1e-3 rejects planck scale at 3sigma. sigma® is 5e-4. current S4 target). But models exist below that as well. Looking to see if there is a similar line at 1e-4. Going to 1e-4 is still interesting. thinking about the field range is a likely angle.
    • RF will think to see if there is another argument to draw a line at our limits.
• foregrounds: (SH: least mature section, only one that isn't complete.)
  • State of Forecasts; Baseline plan for Nov. 1
    • Soumen analysis and
    • GNILC and
    • PSM and
  • Current status:
    • Soumen has results. 85% delensed. NILC procedure. has the 6 maps from Clem. 5/6 have residuals below 3e-3.
    • Mathieu results. GNILC. 4 maps done.
    • Planning to add those plots to report. Say results are encouraging. beginning of a long path.
    • RF: Why 3e-3? not r=0 or lower r?
      • SH: history. Clem started with 3e-3 and r=0 because that was from S4. Soumen, Mathieu haven't got to r=0 case. Asked Clem to do a lower r case. Clem reluctant to put in more time when the current maps haven't all been used yet.
      • RF: r=0 case also good. since that is sigma® case. This is higher priority than r=1e-4 to me.
    • AK: who are these plots aimed at? CMB experts? General science folks? Current plots take a large amount of explaining for a small amount of confidence that PICO can do this. Could consider text that paints a broader picture and 1 plot with reasonable complexity model. Showing the failure case seems like a bad idea.
      • SH: True. Other possible risk is we paint a picture that is to optimistic. Since haven't shown we can do this on full sky.
      • AK: Showing negative results from a work in progress doesn't seem worthwhile.
      • AK: foregrounds should focus on what access to high frequencies buys you. more positive statement. Not excessively detailed/complicated plots. (SH: see third plot)
  • Frequency breadth (3rd plot)
    • SH: for 1 PySM model. 20-800 GHz fully reconstructs. smaller range fails.
    • AK: yes. This is better argument. the frequency coverage is the strongest point to make.
  • SH: Bottom line? showing the state of study and challenges is less useful than showing what works and state of complexity.
    • AK: would phrase as 'show problems and show how they will be dealt with'
  • need reviewers besides external team. rapid feedback.
    • AK will give comments at least. SH will ping when done.

Send full draft out in ~ 2 days.