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 [2017/07/19 11:23] – bcrill | systematics_wg_july_19_2017 [2017/07/19 11:47] (current) – bcrill | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * Also looked at a correlated systematic which can bias cross-spectra, | * 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 " | * 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 | + | * 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. | * 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? | * 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 based on BICEP/Kick which may or may not be applicable to a full-sky analysis. | + | * 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. | + | * Also noise shape for a full-sky mission is likely to be quite different. Atmosphere enters in as an ell_knee |
| + | * 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. | ||
| - Planck low ell polarization paper [[https:// | - Planck low ell polarization paper [[https:// | ||
| * Summary plots | * Summary plots | ||
| Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
| * Specific plots | * Specific plots | ||
| * Fig 2: noise PSDs and CSDs: correlated cosmic ray hits; Fig A.1 shows this propagated to TT/EE/BB residuals. | * Fig 2: noise PSDs and CSDs: correlated cosmic ray hits; Fig A.1 shows this propagated to TT/EE/BB residuals. | ||
| - | * Fig 4: far sidelobe pickup: propagated physical optics models. | + | * 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 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 10: " | ||