Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20190220 [2019/02/20 14:31] – created hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20190220 [2019/02/20 15:46] (current) – kyoung
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes Feb. 20, 2019  ======
-Attendance: \\
+Attendance: Amy T., Shaul H., Charles L., Tim P., Alex VE., Raphael F., \\
 Notes by:  Karl \\
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
     * Blue Sky Discoveries?
+=== Notes ===
+Plan to post report to arxiv early next week and submit to NASA 1-2 days after.
+{{:private:picoreport.pdf|Status of report}}
+  * SH: Many small language polish comments from Douglas Scott.  This is in progress.
+  * Recent Changes significant to ask for comments.
+    * ES
+      * SH: tweaks to foreground language. Goal is less ominous of language.
+      * CL: I understand the concern to be too ominous.  And what is said is true.  But the statements about 'simulations show PICO will succeed' and 'we recommend further simulation development' don't quite follow.  The recommendation isn't strongly supported by need.  TP: same for systematics.
+        * RF: true that 'gain further confidence' too weak.  Don't really know a sigma(r).  SH: Not true anymore.  Significant progress on foregrounds has been made.  see report page 26, Fig. 2.14.
+        * RF: really an issue of models aren't good enough. stronger issue than just 'gain further confidence'  CL: an example of the more work is that S4 had factor (Karl: not sure what, decorrelation?) that isn't in these simulations.
+          * CL/RF: reason to be optimistic, but the simulation work is far from complete.
+        * SH: Agree the language currently is softer than it used to be.  I'm open to adjusting to find the right tone.  We may be near optimal as we corrected to optimistic last time and now we're talking small corrections.
+        * RF: work done has been good.  There just needs to be more, and more types of foregrounds models.  Selling the point that we **do** need more work is important. Current language doesn't sell this.
+        * SH: Agree.  Question is how to craft the language and really need without too much pessimism. **Will send a varient around**  **ALL: edit that and/or send your own**.
+        * RF: In Mathieu's summary.  Model 90.96 (Model C) with a2d7f1s3 isn't correct.  Labels are wrong somewhere, shouldn't be d7.  Probably d8 or d9.  **SH will check with Mathieu**
+      *
+    * Complementarity
+      * SH: revised to meet discussion of timeliness of PICO ala discussion in EC few weeks ago.
+      * CL: 1 sentence to change. Where foregrounds and systematics are limiting factor 'r < 0.001' should be a different number.  Should be higher than this as we are currently foreground/systematic limit. Had to run, **will talk directly with Shaul later**
+        * Various (RF/TP/): main point is foregrounds matter much before r = 0.001. systematics may be closer to this level.
+        * RF: could ask how low you can go ignoring foregrounds. and where the foreground residuals are now.  But really think CL has 0.01 in mind. Been shown that r ~ 0.01 is where foregrounds are buried.  Systematics probably lower, but same sentence with r ~ 0.01 works for me.
+          * SH: **change to r = 0.01** for now.
+      * RF: 'these advances can only be achieved by space based'  Do we want to claim this? We aren't too specific about 'these advances'.  Should be more specific?  Things like Neff, neutrino mass, are similar for S4.  r and galactic science is much better for PICO.  Maybe this only applies to a subset.
+        * SH: may be too broad / sweeping of a statement?  RF: yes, that's what I'm asking. TP: point is PICO can deliver advances that no ground based mission can.  RF: like that phrasing more.
+          * SH: 2 points. some advances are noise / frequency coverage based.  Some need low ells and are more space only.
+          * SH: makes sense **will edit and pass around versions**
+      * SH: other comments in section 2.9? page 30?
+Blue Sky Discoveries?
+  * SH: Nowhere to we mention that completely new or unexpected things may/will be discovered.  Not at all clear how to write this in 1-2 sentences. Everything seems just completely obvious.  Can include if this is wanted.
+    * TP: don't think it's necessary. can always add platitudes that new parameter space will add new discoveries.
+    * SH: should it go in EC?  TP: don't think so, tend to think it is obvious.
+    * AT: lower probability of these for PICO than other probes. Probably don't need to mention this.
+    * SH: a passing mention of this is in LCDM paragraph.
+  * No strong calls for this, will leave out for now. Unless someone volunteers a sentence.
+Will schedule telecon next week, should be last telecon.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools