Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
systematics_wg_july_19_2017 [2017/07/18 11:37] – bcrill | systematics_wg_july_19_2017 [2017/07/19 11:47] (current) – bcrill | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Agenda/ | Agenda/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | on the call: Brendan, Paolo, Colin, Julian, Shaul, Maurizio, Joy | ||
- S4 tools (Colin) | - S4 tools (Colin) | ||
- | | + | * S4 doesn' |
- | - Systematics | + | * A generic noise-like systematic (not rolled off by beam) is considered |
- | - CORE systematics paper [[https:// | + | * Looked at an " |
+ | * Also looked at a correlated systematic which can bias cross-spectra, | ||
+ | * Going back to Fischer forecast, including foreground separation in frequency space: can write down what level of systematic corresponds to as a bias in " | ||
+ | * Colin is now applying this to the S4 data challenge. | ||
+ | * Longer term this is meant to provide a benchmark to judge systematics against as a real instrument design takes shape. | ||
+ | * What do we need in order to perform this type of analysis for the CMB probe Imager, given our set of bands and noise levels? | ||
+ | * Can be done just with map noise and frequency bands: though of course it assumes an analysis method | ||
+ | * Also noise shape for a full-sky mission is likely to be quite different. | ||
+ | * Simple parameterization for foreground estimation: probably fine for ~3% sky, but for Probe would use a full-sky template fit. | ||
+ | * Julian points out that there will be a map-based analysis within S4 that will perhaps test this applicability. | ||
+ | | ||
+ | * Summary plots | ||
+ | * Fig 17: estimates of HFI systematic errors in EE auto-spectra vs. projected noise | ||
+ | * Fig 18: null tests of HFI detectors | ||
+ | * Fig 23: LFI systematic errors | ||
+ | * Specific plots | ||
+ | * Fig 2: noise PSDs and CSDs: correlated cosmic ray hits; Fig A.1 shows this propagated to TT/EE/BB residuals. | ||
+ | * Fig 4: HFI far sidelobe pickup: propagated physical optics models. | ||
+ | * Fig 9: residual ADC nonlinearity with gain correction leaves low ell polarization residuals: see Fig B.13 for what it looks like on the sky | ||
+ | * Fig 10: " | ||
+ | * Fig 13: relative (detector to detector) gain measured from dipole to better than 1e-5 level | ||
+ | * Fig 14: ground-based vs. sky-based bandpass leakage correction | ||
+ | * Fig 30: estimated foreground residuals in HFI | ||
+ | * Fig A.2: HFI warm readout drifts propagated to residual power spectra | ||
+ | * | ||
+ | - | ||
+ | - CORE systematics paper [[https:// | ||
- Any other business | - Any other business |