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

User Tools

Trace:
private:teleconsnotes20190626

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:teleconsnotes20190626 [2019/06/26 14:58] – kyoungprivate:teleconsnotes20190626 [2019/06/26 15:54] (current) – kyoung
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Telecon Notes June 26, 2019  ====== ====== Telecon Notes June 26, 2019  ======
  
-Attendance: +Attendance: Shaul H., Colin Hill, Alex van Engelen, Raphael Flauger, 
  
  
Line 15: Line 15:
     * What are the thoughts regarding 'complementarity'? How explicit do we refer to other efforts?      * What are the thoughts regarding 'complementarity'? How explicit do we refer to other efforts? 
     * need help with instrument part of the report     * need help with instrument part of the report
 +
 +==FAQs from Decadal Panel==
 +
 +10.  How do APC white papers differ from Probe reports that teams deliver to NASA?
 +
 +The probe study reports are intended for NASA, while the APC white papers are condensed version of the probe studies that are intended to be input to the survey committees.
 +
 +
 +11. If 10 pages is not enough for the white paper, can we cite the NASA study?
 +
 +No, white papers should be self-contained and not require having read the NASA study to be understood. In general, pages for references to other white papers and citations do not count towards the maximum 10 pages for APC white papers. For further instructions and information on how to submit a white paper, please visit: https:sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/documents/webpage/deps_193571.pdf
 +
 +
 +-----------------------------------
 +
 +=== Notes ===
 +
 +
 +Status of APC paper {{:private:picoapc.pdf|Current Version of APC paper}}
 +  * news from Decadal about Probe Reports. 
 +    * See questions 10, 11 above.  
 +      * Should not assume that Panel will read the Probe reports. (can't even reference the report ...??)
 +      * SH: surprising that the Panel seems to be distancing itself from the NASA reports. No guarantee the panel will read the reports.  Background discussion suggests that they want to give all instrument ideas equal emphasis.
 +      * SH: don't buy the "don't cite" answer.  white paper must be self contained, but still cite the large report.
 +    * RF: Is citing it crucial? Because most panelists won't read full 50 pg version anyway.  And the one who would know about the 50 pg report.
 +    * SH: basic goal of citing is to add information, but nothing critical would be cited.  Example is 'a' footnote on Table 1.2 of current APC version.
 +
 +
 +Paper Review
 +  * Do we need an ES? Currently it is there, please read and comment
 +    * SH: please give comments. especially if this version is useful or not? how to change it? How to shorten? Any messages missing?  Currently 2 pages. Goal was 1 which is difficult if tables 1.1, 1.2 remain.
 +    * Paradigm: trying to state uniqueness. part of PICO uniqueness is breadth
 +  * What are the key messages? 
 +    * SH: Section 2, shrunken versions of 2.1, 2.2 are there (inflation and fundamental particles/fields). 2.3 and below is untouched.
 +    * SH: Should be shortened more. Suggestions?  Currently haven't removed any science goals. Just removed explanation.
 +      * RF: keeping all goals seems reasonable. Depth is a good thing to emphasize.
 +      * SH: Happy to have the debate on presenting depth vs focusing on fewer items to save space. Suggestions/ideas welcome.
 +    * RF: what is plan to get to 10 pages? 
 +      * SH: science goals + exec summary (5 pg). technical summary (3 pg) tech drivers (1/2), organization and status (1/4), schedule (1/2), cost (1/2)
 +    * SH: ? for Colin/Nick. white paper comment was feedback is done better by other probes.  Should we eliminate that section?
 +      * CH: Should definitely mention SZ related science.  It's a target where resolution matters.  Doesn't have to be a headline point.
 +        * RF: But likely something people are more interested in? vs cosmic birefringence or something more speculative such as that.
 +          * CH: I would be more excited about SZ and feedback, but biased.
 +          * SH: right approach. balance targeting large fractions of the community and emphasizing PICO abilities.
 +        * CH: The tSZ science from PICO would be very powerful. And high res, high frequency maps from PICO would complement ground.  kSZ is tougher as it is so resolution dependent.
 +          * SH: So focus on tSZ leave more kSZ in report.
 +            * CH: yes. and the complementarity at high frequency, 270 and above.
 +    * SH: other science cases to think about. tau, lensing, cluster counts, (sigma 8),
 +      * RF: tau is an interesting case, but LiteBIRD may do it. people can argue this.
 +        * SH: yes, PICO not unique in that case. will spend less space on this.
 +      * SH: sigma 8 thoughts?
 +        * CH: ground based compete on sigma 8. but LiteBIRD can't. So moderately unique.  
 +        * SH: are there other ways to get sigma 8 to this precision? Beyond S4.
 +          * CH: Not sure, would need to dig into details.  Lensing map is slightly better than S4? (SH: yes, up to ell = 1000)
 +          * AvE: what about Euclid and LSST?
 +            * CH: those approaches have different systematics. different redshift range.
 +            * RF: I think their claimed precision is similar.
 +            * SH: Alex - Can you check this more carefully? 
 +              * AvE: **Yes, I can check this**. Think precision is similar, but systematics different. CMB maybe is cleaner method. I thought we had language about that in the report.  Maybe was never included? 
 +                * SH: will add text about this.
 +    * SH: testing LCDM section. hard to explain what factor of billion in parameter space means.
 +      * RF: seems like we're just adding factor of ~7 per parameter.
 +        * SH: so maybe a simpler way to say this?
 +        * RF: could be, but it sounds less impressive than a billion.  
 + 
 +
 +  * What are the thoughts regarding 'complementarity'? How explicit do we refer to other efforts? 
 +    * SH: Currently no discussion of S4 and LiteBIRD for example. Can't do quantitative comparisons (don't have all numbers for apples-apples).  Could just use phrases like "resolution x times higher than LiteBIRD".
 +      * CH: should be some compact general statements. like "depth under discussion is 0.5 - 1 uK arcmin, similar to S4 deep but on full sky"
 +      * RF: should we make direct comparisons? Or just give our numbers. Or say "deepest maps of all proposed experiments"
 +        * CH: I think for those without all the numbers in their head phrases as above would be helpful.
 +        * SH: Think direct comparisons are useful is for someone outside the CMB. But calling out experiments can be somewhat sensitive.
 +        * RF/CH: qualitative comparisons to other surveys most useful. other people don't have uK arcmin in their head.
 +        * SH: other specific statements?  
 +          * RF: compare resolution to LiteBIRD. So clear the 2 satellites are different.
 +
 +need help with instrument part of the report
 +    * SH: Amy is busy and can't help much.  **Will write to people not on the telecon**
 +
 +Anyone available to read first few pages and give comments?
 +  * RF: ** Will review first few pages**
 +  * CH: **Can review SZ sections when ready**  SH: will send when ready.
 +
 +
 +
  
  
private/teleconsnotes20190626.1561579139.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/06/26 14:58 by kyoung

Page Tools