https://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Dunkley&feedformat=atomCMB-S4 wiki - User contributions [en]2022-01-29T13:42:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.2https://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:SO_plans.pdf&diff=7473File:SO plans.pdf2018-09-07T04:43:31Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Princeton-2018:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4&diff=7472Princeton-2018: Cosmology with CMB-S42018-09-07T04:43:03Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Workshop overview ==<br />
<br />
The Princeton workshop continues a successful series of meetings bringing together the CMB experimental and theoretical community to plan a coordinated, stage-4 ground-based CMB experiment.<br />
The workshop is supported by Princeton University with a generous contribution from the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics.<br />
<br />
This meeting will focus on moving us towards the Decadal Survey and project formation. Each day will have a different flavor:<br />
* Thursday - Collaboration, Project and Decadal Survey Report updates and discussion<br />
* Friday - Broader community building ahead of the Decadal Process<br />
* Saturday - Parallel Science & Technical Council sessions<br />
<br />
== Meeting Info & Registration ==<br />
<br />
[http://phyindico.princeton.edu/indico/event/12/page/0 Official Workshop Website: Registration, Participants, Hotels, Logistics].<br />
<br />
[[File:workshop-map-venue.png]] <br /><br />
Registration begins outside McDonnell A02 at 8 am on Thursday, 6 Sept 2018. <br />
Parking is in lot 21 (see map). <br />
<br />
'''Remote Connection Information:'''<br />
<br />
https://bluejeans.com/ <br /><br />
Meeting ID: 211 655 218<br /><br />
*1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free)<br />
*1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) <br />
*1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) <br /><br />
*Global Numbers: https://www.bluejeans.com/numbers<br />
<br />
Slack channel #princeton2018 on the CMB-S4 workspace, or use https://cmb-s4.slack.com/messages/CCMNTUDC1<br />
<br />
== About This Wiki==<br />
<br />
As for previous workshops, we will use this wiki to organize the sessions, to capture the input from them, and to develop next steps. Participants are encouraged to edit the wiki directly, including uploading plots or a few slides.<br />
<br />
Hints for formatting this wiki can be found [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting here]<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Thursday September 6th ===<br />
<br />
'''08:00''' ''Breakfast'' <br />
<br />
'''08:30''' Welcome & Logistics (Suzanne Staggs Herman Verlinde, chair of the Physics Department) [[File:Logistics-pton-20180906.pdf]]<br />
<br />
''' Status & Context'''<br /><br />
'''08:45''' Introduction & Collaboration Update (Julian Borrill) [[File:Cmbs4_collaboration.pdf]]<br /> <br />
'''09:05''' DSR Update (John Carlstrom) [[File:DSR-Carlstrom.pdf]]<br /><br />
'''09:25''' Project Update (Jim Yeck) [[File:S4 Princeton Workshop Yeck.pdf]]<br /><br />
'''09:45''' Q&A<br />
<br />
'''DSR - Science Council''' <br /><br />
'''10:00''' Introduction (Lloyd Knox) [[File:DSR_ScienceCouncil_Princeton2018.pdf]]<br /> <br />
'''10:15''' Gravitational Waves & Inflation (Raphael Flauger) [[File: GWPrinceton.pdf]]<br /><br />
<br />
'''10:30''' ''Coffee Break''<br />
<br />
'''11:00''' Light Relics (Daniel Green & Joel Meyers) [[File:LightRelics_Meyers_Princeton_S4.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''11:15''' Neutrino Mass (Marilena Loverde & Blake Sherwin) [[File:S4WGNeutrinoMassReport.pdf]]<br /><br />
'''11:30''' Dark Energy & Dark Matter (Vera Gluscevic & Nick Battaglia) [[File:DMDE CMBS4 Princeton2018.pdf]]<br /><br />
'''11:45''' Galaxy Formation & Evolution (Marcelo Alvarez & Colin Hill) [[File:CMB-S4 Galaxy Formation and Evolution (Princeton).pdf]] <br /><br />
'''12:00''' Legacy Catalogs (Lindsey Bleem) [[https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/images/Legacy_catalog_update_princeton_9_6_18.pdf here]]<br /><br />
'''12:15''' Q&A<br />
<br />
'''12:30''' ''Lunch & JSAC Event''<br />
<br />
'''DSR - Technical Council'''<br /><br />
'''13:30''' Introduction (McMahon/Vieregg) [[File:TechCouncilPrinceton2018.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''13:45''' Sites & Infrastructure (Kam Arnold, Brad Benson) [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XB3Kt80dbh9qoyvvnppN6RYispp_XFrB/view?usp=sharing Site Presentation PDF]<br /><br />
'''14:00''' Large Telescopes (Mike Niemack, Steve Padin) [[File:LargeTelescopesLargeCryostatsStatusPrincetonV2.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''14:15''' Small Telescopes (John Kovac, Chao-Lin Kuo, Aikito Kusaka) [[File:SmallTelescopes_Princeton_Thursday_slides.pdf]]<br /><br />
'''14:30''' Detectors & Readout (Clarence Chang, Kent Irwin, Adrian Lee) [[File:DetectorsReadout.pdf]]<br /><br />
'''14:45''' Data Acquisition & Control (Laura Newburgh, Nathan Whitehorn) [[File:S4_DAQ.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''15:00''' Data Management (Matthew Hasselfield) [[File:Data_management_20180906_v1.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''15:15''' Integration & Commissioning (Kam Arnold, Bradford Benson) [[File:IntegrationCommissioningPrinceton2018.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''15:30''' Options (Steve Padin) [[File:OptionsPrincetonV1.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''15:45''' Q&A<br />
<br />
'''16:00''' Fireslides 1 [[File:FireSlides_Thursday_post.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''16:30''' Poster Session, Cocktails & Light Dinner<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
=== Friday September 7th ===<br />
<br />
'''08:00''' ''Breakfast''<br />
<br />
'''The CMB Circa September 2018'''<br />
<br />
'''08:30''' Harmonic Overtones (Marc Kamionkowski) <br /><br />
'''08:55''' On-sky performance of the CLASS Q-band telescope (John Appel) <br /><br />
'''09:05''' SPIDER: an update, with foregrounds. Lots of them. (Bill Jones) <br /><br />
'''09:15''' Current state of the BICEP/Keck instrument, data and analysis (Clem Pryke) <br /><br />
'''09:25''' Planck 2018 and setting the stage for Stage-4 (Marius Millea) <br /><br />
'''09:35''' Ground, Balloon, Space Complementarity (Shaul Hanany) <br /><br />
'''09:50''' BK-SPT3G forward plans (John Kovac) <br /><br />
'''10:05''' Simons Observatory forward plans (Jo Dunkley) [[File:SO_plans.pdf]] <br /><br />
'''10:20''' The Big Step Up to CMB-S4 (Gil Holder)<br />
<br />
'''10:35''' ''Coffee Break''<br />
<br />
'''Adjacent Science & Emerging Ideas'''<br />
<br />
'''11:15''' Millimeter/Submillimeter Large Telescopes and Instruments (Phil Mauskopf) <br /><br />
'''11:30''' Intensity mapping meets the CMB: Complementary Cosmology across the radio spectrum (Laura Newburgh) <br /><br />
'''11:45''' SPHERE-X (Jamie Bock) <br /><br />
'''12:00''' Weak Lensing (Elisabeth Krause)<br />
<br />
'''12:15''' '' Group Photo & Lunch''<br />
<br />
'''13:15''' Reionization Studies in the CMB-S4 Era (Adam Lidz) <br /><br />
'''13:30''' A biased view of open questions in galaxy formation (Norm Murray) <br /><br />
'''13:45''' Polarized dust foreground models from HI data (Susan Clark) <br /><br />
'''14:00''' Properties of the magnetized dusty interstellar medium with Planck (Jonathan Aumont)<br />
<br />
'''Talks From Collaboration Members'''<br />
<br />
'''14:15''' Inflationary vs. Reionization Features from Current and Future Data (Cora Dvorkin) <br /><br />
'''14:25''' Stress-testing nonstandard neutrino physics with CMB-S4 (Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine) <br /><br />
'''14:35''' Searching for Dark Matter Interactions in the CMB (Kimberly Boddy) <br /><br />
'''14:45''' Foreground immune CMB lensing with shear-only reconstruction (Emmanuel Schaan) <br /><br />
'''14:55''' Cosmology from cross correlating S4 lensing with photometric galaxy counts (Blake Sherwin) <br /><br />
'''15:05''' Higher order corrections to CMB lensing cross correlations (Vanessa Boehm) <br /><br />
'''15:15''' CMB lensing on small scales (Simone Ferraro) <br /><br />
'''15:25''' kSZ cosmology without the optical depth degeneracy (Mathew Madhavacheril) <br /><br />
'''15:35''' Q&A<br />
<br />
'''15:50''' ''Coffee Break''<br />
<br />
'''16:05''' Fireslides 2<br />
<br />
'''16:30''' Wrap-Up Panel - Roger Blandford, Chris Carilli, Bonnie Fleming, George Fuller, Risa Wechsler, Matias Zaldarriaga<br />
<br />
'''17:45''' Next Steps & Action Items<br />
<br />
'''Parallel Afternoon Session for Project Team'''<br />
<br />
'''15:00''' Charge for Decadal Survey Report Review on 12/11-13 in DC <br /><br />
'''15:30''' Possible DSR Review Committee and Planning Details <br /><br />
'''16:00''' Review of Overall Timeline and Boundary Conditions <br /><br />
'''16:30''' Critical Issues Identified in Project Planning <br /><br />
'''17:00''' Preparations/Guidance for Saturday Sessions <br /><br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
=== Saturday September 8th ===<br />
<br />
'''08:30''' ''Breakfast''<br />
<br />
'''09:00''' Parallel Sessions<br />
* Science Council:<br />
** Noise & Forecasting (60 min)<br />
** White Paper Organization (45 min)<br />
* Technical Council:<br />
** Project Planning<br />
<br />
'''10:45''' ''Coffee Break''<br />
<br />
'''11:15''' Parallel Sessions<br />
*Science Council<br />
** AWG Working Meetings<br />
* Technical Council<br />
** Project Planning (continued)<br />
<br />
'''12:45''' ''Lunch (on your own)''<br />
<br />
'''13:45 onwards''' Rooms available for breakout sessions as required</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing-DE&diff=4343Lensing-DE2017-04-21T19:20:49Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Jo writing''<br />
<br />
-----<br />
(4/5/17)<br />
Here is a possible path to establishing how well CMB lensing will help us with DE, in the era of LSST and DESI measurements.<br />
Let's assume that we will have LSST measurements of galaxy clustering Cl(z), LSST measurements of shear Cl(z), and DESI measurements of BAO rs/DV(z).<br />
<br />
We have a Fisher forecasting code available to use - David Alonso's GoFish code, that includes all of these measurements, including correlations with CMB lensing. The nuisance parameters it includes are galaxy biases for the clustering, and multiplicative biases for the shear. It also includes photo-z uncertainty, some intrinsic alignment uncertainty, and some accounting for baryonic effects. <br />
<br />
Currently it spits our 'standard' DE parameters w0-wa, as well as curvature, neutrino mass etc. Here is a plan:<br />
<br />
1. Jo's student Siddharth will use GoFish code to compare w0-wa errors for Planck+DESI-BAO+LSST-clustering versus Planck+S4+DESI-BAO + LSST-clustering (including all the cross-correlations and free galaxy bias parameters), and Planck+DESI-BAO + LSST-shear versus S4+DESI-BAO LSST-shear. These two tests will demonstrate the impact of adding S4 to the currently-funded experiments. The impact of S4 is expected to be a better handle on the bias parameters, and an extra higher-redshift slice.<br />
<br />
2. Mat Madhavacheril will adapt that code to spit out sigma8(z) like for clusters, instead of w0-wa, as we expect to see a stronger effect of the contribution of CMB lensing at high redshift.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note - aware that many others in the S4 lensing and DE groups have similar codes and alternative routes to doing this. Other contributions on this front welcome!<br />
<br />
-----<br />
(4/21/17)<br />
Update with preliminary results on (1) (part of Mishra-Sharma et al in prep), using David Alonso's GoFish code:<br />
<br />
* Constraints on w0-wa with Planck+LSST-shear + LSST-clustering + DESI-BAO: sigma(w0) = 0.03; sigma(wa)= 0.12<br />
* Constraints on w0-wa with Planck+S4+LSST-shear + LSST-clustering + DESI-BAO: sigma(w0)=0.02; sigma(wa)=0.08<br />
<br />
I.e. adding S4 has non-negligible effect.<br />
<br />
This includes 9 z-bins for LSST-shear, 15 z-bins for LSST-clustering split into red and blue galaxies, CMB lensing, and all the cross-correlations. Plus Planck at low-ell and DESI-BAO.<br />
Also includes free m(z), b(z), photo-z uncertainty, conservative ell-max.<br />
Marginalizes over LCDM parameters, plus mnu and omegak.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next steps: check against other results; determine how much of the wa improvement comes from improved bias constraints versus adding a high redshift bin; proceed with step (2) above.<br />
<br />
----</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=R_Forecasting_Logbook&diff=4342R Forecasting Logbook2017-04-21T19:18:46Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is an index page for logbook-style postings that cover the interconnected topics of sky modeling, simulations, and forecasting for CMB-S4. <br />
<br />
Some guidelines for use:<br />
* '''Postings should include enough context''' so that a reader can jump in and figure out what is going on. It is ''not'' necessary to write an extensive introduction to every posting -- context can be in the form of links to older postings, paper citations, etc.<br />
* Postings should represent a snapshot of work in progress. It's ok to post incomplete results, but recommended that you include notes about what is missing, what you are still planning to work on, etc. <br />
* If you have work that extends or improves an old posting, you should add it as a new posting (that includes links back to the old work as appropriate). Don't update old postings, as they should provide a chronological record of progress.<br />
* On this index page, add a link to your posting with the date, a descriptive posting title, and your full name. This logbook covers a wide range of topics, so titles will be really important to keep it useful. Don't name your posting something like "Forecasting for S4"!<br />
* Links should be added in reverse-chronological order (newest at the top). Your posting can either be written up on another wiki page or it can be a link to some externally hosted webpage (useful if you want to include a javascript plots pager).<br />
<br />
== Logbook Entries (reverse chronological) ==<br />
* '''2017 April 21 ''': [[lensing-DE|Update on a lensing-based DE forecast]] (Jo, Siddharth)<br />
* '''2017 April 18 ''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170411_bkfinal_01.00/ BK-style power spectra for 1000 realizations of v01.00–02 CMB-S4 simulation maps] (Justin Willmert)<br />
* '''2017 April 18 ''': [[S4-Lensing|S4 measurement requirements for neutrino mass and delensing - first pass]] (Neelima/Blake)<br />
* '''2017 April 17 ''': [[HiDPol|HI-based dust polarization model for r forecasts]] (Tuhin)<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[lensing-DE|Notes on one path to lensing-based DE forecasts]] (Jo)<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[Notes from April 5 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 April 05''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/images/Sigma8_z_prep.pdf Sigma8(z) SPT clusters (placeholder) ] (S Bocquet)<br />
* '''2017 April 04''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170404_s4opt/ Updated Performance-based Fisher optimization for CMB-S4 (using bands v1.99)] (Victor Buza, Updated 2017.04.21)<br />
* '''2017 March 31 ''': [[Data Challenge analysis - DC1.0, DC1.1, DC1.2]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2017 March 30 ''': [[Notes from March 28 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 29''': [[CMB-S4 frequency bands v1.99]] (John Kovac, Band-definition working group)<br />
* '''2017 March 28''': [[Adding higher res delensing "band"]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 27''': [[01.01 sim input maps - first try]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 23''': [[01.00 sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 20''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170221_S4_NET_forecasts/ S4 Band sensitivity comparison follow-up] (Denis Barkats, John Kovac)<br />
* '''2017 March 17''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20170317_s4dc1/ S4 DC1.0 analysis] (Victor Buza, Colin Bischoff, Justin Willmert)<br />
* '''2017 March 17 ''': [[Media:Telecon_03172017_optimization_for_CMBS4.pdf]]: Optimization methodology for SO (Josquin)<br />
* '''2017 March 16 ''': [[ P_k_science_case| P(k) science case]] (Colin, Simone, Nick, David)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[Notes from March 15 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[CMB halo lensing sensitivity as a function of map sensitivity and resolution]] (Jim & Jean-Baptiste)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[w and gamma | w and Delta gamma constraints from sigma_8 (z)]] (Mat & Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 10 ''': [[Notes from March 8 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[reionization_requirements| Reionization science]] (Simone & Marcelo)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[High ell topics | High ell topics ]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZ_s8_z | sigma 8 of z constraints ]] (Mat, Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[Szcounts | Number counts update for 1.0', 1.5', 2.0']] (Nick, Mat)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZastro | SZ astrophysics with DESI ]](Nick, Simone, Emanuel, David)<br />
* '''2017 February 24''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170224_cmbs4_dc1_final/ BK-style processing of DC1.0 maps to spectra] (Justin Willmert, Colin Bischoff)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Extragalactic lensing sims| Update on extragalactic phase-2 lensing sims]] (Marcelo, George, Dick, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Plan for next Galactic Phase-2sims| Plan for next Galactic phase-2 sims]] (Jo, Ben)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Resolution of foreground-cleaned map]] (Mat, Neelima, Blake, Alex, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Nongaussian dust in lensing]] (Alex, Mat, Neelima, Blake, others)<br />
* '''2017 January 30''': [[Aliased power in noise maps]] (Bischoff, Updated 2017-02-02)<br />
* '''2017 January 23''': [[CMBS4 Band Sensitivity Comparison]] (Charlie Hill)<br />
* '''2017 January 12''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/cbischoff/20170112_data_challenge_1/ Maps for CMB-S4 data challenge 1] (Bischoff, Pryke, Buza)<br />
* '''2016 December 21''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4/ N_ell spectra for the CMB-S4 data challenge, and updated &sigma;(r) checkpoints] (Victor Buza, Updated 2017.02.01)<br />
* '''2016 November 30''': [[First steps to sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2016 November 4''': [[Tophat bands for Data Challenge]] (Bischoff)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[fsky|Dependence of foregrounds on sky fraction]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[SciBookPowspecTheoryFig|Three choices for Science Book Figure 5 (theory power spectrum & current BB points)]] (Tom C.)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160707_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 July 6''': [[w_cosntraint|Preliminary w constraint]] (Alessandro)<br />
* '''2016 June 24''': [[nsr|Preliminary ns-r plot for discussion]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [[DelensingImpact| Impact Of Delensing On sigma(r)]] (Neelima/Mat)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160616_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 10''': [[MapBasedRb| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts V2]] (David/Jo/Ben)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160531_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [[ BTTfixedeffort | Forecasts for fnl BTT beam/fixed effort]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 31''': [[ForecastPatchyReion| Forecasts for patchy reionization]] (Vera, Alex, Nick)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[Forecasting | Forecasts on neutrino mass]] (Nam, Mat, Neelima)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ KSZ| Forecasts on kSZ S/N]] (Simone, Emmanuel, Colin)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ Forecastfiso_planck| Forecast on correlated and anti-correlated CDM isocurvature f_iso]] (Kimmy, Cora, updated with plots 20160602)<br />
* '''2016 May 24''': [[ BTTNoiseBeam | Forecasts on fnl BTT beam/FWHM]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 22''': [[ ForecastAxions| Update on the axion isocurvature constraints for changing sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 21''': [[ Forecastpann| Forecast on dark matter annihilation parameter p_ann]] (Kimmy, Cora)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[NeffNoiseBeam| Forecasts on Neff and Yp]] (Joel, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastEDE| Forecasts on Early Dark Energy]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastCompIsocurv| Forecasts on compensated isocurvature varying sensitivity, resolution and sky coverage]] (Julian, Ely)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastBirefring| Forecasts on birefringence varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Vera, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastStrings| Forecasts on string tension varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[RobustForecast| Cosmological forecasts including component separation and iterative delensing]] (Stephen Feeney and Josquin Errard)<br />
* '''2016 May 19''': [[MapBasedR| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts]] (David A.)<br />
* '''2016 May 18''': [[Shear_calibration_LSST|LSST shear calibration with CMB S4]] (Emmanuel Schaan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[NonGaussianitiesTTT| CMBS-4 forecasts local and equilateral scalar Ngs using TTT]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[ForecastingSims|Simulations for r forecasts]] (Jo/Ben/David)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[DMInteractionsComplementarity|DM interactions: complementarity]] (Vera)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[Scenarios| Scenarios]] (Scott, Vera)<br />
* ''' 2016 May 3''': [[ForecastAxions |Effect of S4 specs on axion density parameters]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 April 30''': [[ForecastNu| Effect of S4 specs on neutrino parameters]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [http://web.stanford.edu/~wlwu/posting/20160421_lensres/ Delensing residuals with low-ell foregrounds] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [[NonGaussianities| CMBS-4 forecast for tensor NGs]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 April 19''': [[ForecastingStep1| Checking basic parameters for nominal case]] (Jo + multiple authors)<br />
* '''2016 April 5''': [[Forecasting|Setting up non-r Fisher-based parameter forecasts]] (Jo + others)<br />
* '''2016 March 31''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150331_fisher/ Fisher projections for &sigma;(r) based on achieved performance] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 January 27''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/File:sptpol_ptsrc_polfrac_500d.pdf Quick estimate of mean-squared polarization fraction for SPTpol sources] (Tom Crawford)</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing-DE&diff=4341Lensing-DE2017-04-21T19:17:51Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Jo writing''<br />
<br />
-----<br />
(4/5/17)<br />
Here is a possible path to establishing how well CMB lensing will help us with DE, in the era of LSST and DESI measurements.<br />
Let's assume that we will have LSST measurements of galaxy clustering Cl(z), LSST measurements of shear Cl(z), and DESI measurements of BAO rs/DV(z).<br />
<br />
We have a Fisher forecasting code available to use - David Alonso's GoFish code, that includes all of these measurements, including correlations with CMB lensing. The nuisance parameters it includes are galaxy biases for the clustering, and multiplicative biases for the shear. It also includes photo-z uncertainty, some intrinsic alignment uncertainty, and some accounting for baryonic effects. <br />
<br />
Currently it spits our 'standard' DE parameters w0-wa, as well as curvature, neutrino mass etc. Here is a plan:<br />
<br />
1. Jo's student Siddharth will use GoFish code to compare w0-wa errors for Planck+DESI-BAO+LSST-clustering versus Planck+S4+DESI-BAO + LSST-clustering (including all the cross-correlations and free galaxy bias parameters), and Planck+DESI-BAO + LSST-shear versus S4+DESI-BAO LSST-shear. These two tests will demonstrate the impact of adding S4 to the currently-funded experiments. The impact of S4 is expected to be a better handle on the bias parameters, and an extra higher-redshift slice.<br />
<br />
2. Mat Madhavacheril will adapt that code to spit out sigma8(z) like for clusters, instead of w0-wa, as we expect to see a stronger effect of the contribution of CMB lensing at high redshift.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note - aware that many others in the S4 lensing and DE groups have similar codes and alternative routes to doing this. Other contributions on this front welcome!<br />
<br />
-----<br />
(4/21/17)<br />
Update with preliminary results on (1) (part of Mishra-Sharma et al in prep):<br />
<br />
* Constraints on w0-wa with Planck+LSST-shear + LSST-clustering + DESI-BAO: sigma(w0) = 0.03; sigma(wa)= 0.12<br />
* Constraints on w0-wa with Planck+S4+LSST-shear + LSST-clustering + DESI-BAO: sigma(w0)=0.02; sigma(wa)=0.08<br />
<br />
I.e. adding S4 has non-negligible effect.<br />
<br />
This includes 9 z-bins for LSST-shear, 15 z-bins for LSST-clustering split into red and blue galaxies, CMB lensing, and all the cross-correlations. Plus Planck at low-ell and DESI-BAO.<br />
Also includes free m(z), b(z), photo-z uncertainty, conservative ell-max.<br />
Marginalizes over LCDM parameters, plus mnu and omegak.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next steps: check against other results; determine how much of the wa improvement comes from improved bias constraints versus adding a high redshift bin; proceed with step (2) above.<br />
<br />
----</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing-DE&diff=4340Lensing-DE2017-04-21T19:16:11Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Jo writing''<br />
<br />
-----<br />
(4/5/17)<br />
Here is a possible path to establishing how well CMB lensing will help us with DE, in the era of LSST and DESI measurements.<br />
Let's assume that we will have LSST measurements of galaxy clustering Cl(z), LSST measurements of shear Cl(z), and DESI measurements of BAO rs/DV(z).<br />
<br />
We have a Fisher forecasting code available to use - David Alonso's GoFish code, that includes all of these measurements, including correlations with CMB lensing. The nuisance parameters it includes are galaxy biases for the clustering, and multiplicative biases for the shear. It also includes photo-z uncertainty, some intrinsic alignment uncertainty, and some accounting for baryonic effects. <br />
<br />
Currently it spits our 'standard' DE parameters w0-wa, as well as curvature, neutrino mass etc. Here is a plan:<br />
<br />
1. Jo's student Siddharth will use GoFish code to compare w0-wa errors for Planck+DESI-BAO+LSST-clustering versus Planck+S4+DESI-BAO + LSST-clustering (including all the cross-correlations and free galaxy bias parameters), and Planck+DESI-BAO + LSST-shear versus S4+DESI-BAO LSST-shear. These two tests will demonstrate the impact of adding S4 to the currently-funded experiments. The impact of S4 is expected to be a better handle on the bias parameters, and an extra higher-redshift slice.<br />
<br />
2. Mat Madhavacheril will adapt that code to spit out sigma8(z) like for clusters, instead of w0-wa, as we expect to see a stronger effect of the contribution of CMB lensing at high redshift.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note - aware that many others in the S4 lensing and DE groups have similar codes and alternative routes to doing this. Other contributions on this front welcome!<br />
<br />
-----<br />
(4/21/17)<br />
Update with preliminary results on (1) (part of Mishra-Sharma et al in prep):<br />
<br />
* Constraints on w0-wa with Planck+LSST-shear + LSST-clustering + DESI-BAO: sigma(w0) = 0.03; sigma(wa)= 0.12<br />
* Constraints on w0-wa with Planck+S4+LSST-shear + LSST: sigma(w0)=0.02; sigma(wa)=0.08<br />
<br />
I.e. adding S4 has non-negligible effect.<br />
<br />
This includes 9 z-bins for LSST-shear, 15 z-bins for LSST-clustering split into red and blue galaxies, CMB lensing, and all the cross-correlations. Plus Planck at low-ell and DESI-BAO.<br />
Also includes free m(z), b(z), photo-z uncertainty, conservative ell-max.<br />
Marginalizes over LCDM parameters, plus mnu and omegak.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next steps: check against other results; determine how much of the wa improvement comes from improved bias constraints versus adding a high redshift bin; proceed with step (2) above.<br />
<br />
----</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=R_Forecasting_Logbook&diff=4153R Forecasting Logbook2017-04-13T18:20:11Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is an index page for logbook-style postings that cover the interconnected topics of sky modeling, simulations, and forecasting for CMB-S4. <br />
<br />
Some guidelines for use:<br />
* '''Postings should include enough context''' so that a reader can jump in and figure out what is going on. It is ''not'' necessary to write an extensive introduction to every posting -- context can be in the form of links to older postings, paper citations, etc.<br />
* Postings should represent a snapshot of work in progress. It's ok to post incomplete results, but recommended that you include notes about what is missing, what you are still planning to work on, etc. <br />
* If you have work that extends or improves an old posting, you should add it as a new posting (that includes links back to the old work as appropriate). Don't update old postings, as they should provide a chronological record of progress.<br />
* On this index page, add a link to your posting with the date, a descriptive posting title, and your full name. This logbook covers a wide range of topics, so titles will be really important to keep it useful. Don't name your posting something like "Forecasting for S4"!<br />
* Links should be added in reverse-chronological order (newest at the top). Your posting can either be written up on another wiki page or it can be a link to some externally hosted webpage (useful if you want to include a javascript plots pager).<br />
<br />
== Logbook Entries (reverse chronological) ==<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[lensing-DE|Notes on one path to lensing-based DE forecasts]] (Jo)<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[Notes from April 5 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 April 05''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/images/Sigma8_z_prep.pdf Sigma8(z) SPT clusters (placeholder) ] (S Bocquet)<br />
* '''2017 April 04''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170404_s4opt/ Updated Performance-based Fisher optimization for CMB-S4 (using bands v1.99)] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2017 March 31 ''': [[Data Challenge analysis - DC1.0, DC1.1, DC1.2]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2017 March 30 ''': [[Notes from March 28 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 29''': [[CMB-S4 frequency bands v1.99]] (John Kovac, Band-definition working group)<br />
* '''2017 March 28''': [[Adding higher res delensing "band"]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 27''': [[01.01 sim input maps - first try]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 23''': [[01.00 sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 20''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170221_S4_NET_forecasts/ S4 Band sensitivity comparison follow-up] (Denis Barkats, John Kovac)<br />
* '''2017 March 17''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20170317_s4dc1/ S4 DC1.0 analysis] (Victor Buza, Colin Bischoff, Justin Willmert)<br />
* '''2017 March 17 ''': [[Media:Telecon_03172017_optimization_for_CMBS4.pdf]]: Optimization methodology for SO (Josquin)<br />
* '''2017 March 16 ''': [[ P_k_science_case| P(k) science case]] (Colin, Simone, Nick, David)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[Notes from March 15 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[CMB halo lensing sensitivity as a function of map sensitivity and resolution]] (Jim & Jean-Baptiste)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[w and gamma | w and Delta gamma constraints from sigma_8 (z)]] (Mat & Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 10 ''': [[Notes from March 8 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[reionization_requirements| Reionization science]] (Simone & Marcelo)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[High ell topics | High ell topics ]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZ_s8_z | sigma 8 of z constraints ]] (Mat, Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[Szcounts | Number counts update for 1.0', 1.5', 2.0']] (Nick, Mat)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZastro | SZ astrophysics with DESI ]](Nick, Simone, Emanuel, David)<br />
* '''2017 February 24''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170224_cmbs4_dc1_final/ BK-style processing of DC1.0 maps to spectra] (Justin Willmert, Colin Bischoff)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Extragalactic lensing sims| Update on extragalactic phase-2 lensing sims]] (Marcelo, George, Dick, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Plan for next Galactic Phase-2sims| Plan for next Galactic phase-2 sims]] (Jo, Ben)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Resolution of foreground-cleaned map]] (Mat, Neelima, Blake, Alex, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Nongaussian dust in lensing]] (Alex, Mat, Neelima, Blake, others)<br />
* '''2017 January 30''': [[Aliased power in noise maps]] (Bischoff, Updated 2017-02-02)<br />
* '''2017 January 23''': [[CMBS4 Band Sensitivity Comparison]] (Charlie Hill)<br />
* '''2017 January 12''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/cbischoff/20170112_data_challenge_1/ Maps for CMB-S4 data challenge 1] (Bischoff, Pryke, Buza)<br />
* '''2016 December 21''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4/ N_ell spectra for the CMB-S4 data challenge, and updated &sigma;(r) checkpoints] (Victor Buza, Updated 2017.02.01)<br />
* '''2016 November 30''': [[First steps to sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2016 November 4''': [[Tophat bands for Data Challenge]] (Bischoff)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[fsky|Dependence of foregrounds on sky fraction]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[SciBookPowspecTheoryFig|Three choices for Science Book Figure 5 (theory power spectrum & current BB points)]] (Tom C.)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160707_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 July 6''': [[w_cosntraint|Preliminary w constraint]] (Alessandro)<br />
* '''2016 June 24''': [[nsr|Preliminary ns-r plot for discussion]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [[DelensingImpact| Impact Of Delensing On sigma(r)]] (Neelima/Mat)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160616_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 10''': [[MapBasedRb| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts V2]] (David/Jo/Ben)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160531_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [[ BTTfixedeffort | Forecasts for fnl BTT beam/fixed effort]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 31''': [[ForecastPatchyReion| Forecasts for patchy reionization]] (Vera, Alex, Nick)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[Forecasting | Forecasts on neutrino mass]] (Nam, Mat, Neelima)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ KSZ| Forecasts on kSZ S/N]] (Simone, Emmanuel, Colin)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ Forecastfiso_planck| Forecast on correlated and anti-correlated CDM isocurvature f_iso]] (Kimmy, Cora, updated with plots 20160602)<br />
* '''2016 May 24''': [[ BTTNoiseBeam | Forecasts on fnl BTT beam/FWHM]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 22''': [[ ForecastAxions| Update on the axion isocurvature constraints for changing sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 21''': [[ Forecastpann| Forecast on dark matter annihilation parameter p_ann]] (Kimmy, Cora)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[NeffNoiseBeam| Forecasts on Neff and Yp]] (Joel, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastEDE| Forecasts on Early Dark Energy]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastCompIsocurv| Forecasts on compensated isocurvature varying sensitivity, resolution and sky coverage]] (Julian, Ely)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastBirefring| Forecasts on birefringence varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Vera, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastStrings| Forecasts on string tension varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[RobustForecast| Cosmological forecasts including component separation and iterative delensing]] (Stephen Feeney and Josquin Errard)<br />
* '''2016 May 19''': [[MapBasedR| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts]] (David A.)<br />
* '''2016 May 18''': [[Shear_calibration_LSST|LSST shear calibration with CMB S4]] (Emmanuel Schaan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[NonGaussianitiesTTT| CMBS-4 forecasts local and equilateral scalar Ngs using TTT]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[ForecastingSims|Simulations for r forecasts]] (Jo/Ben/David)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[DMInteractionsComplementarity|DM interactions: complementarity]] (Vera)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[Scenarios| Scenarios]] (Scott, Vera)<br />
* ''' 2016 May 3''': [[ForecastAxions |Effect of S4 specs on axion density parameters]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 April 30''': [[ForecastNu| Effect of S4 specs on neutrino parameters]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [http://web.stanford.edu/~wlwu/posting/20160421_lensres/ Delensing residuals with low-ell foregrounds] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [[NonGaussianities| CMBS-4 forecast for tensor NGs]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 April 19''': [[ForecastingStep1| Checking basic parameters for nominal case]] (Jo + multiple authors)<br />
* '''2016 April 5''': [[Forecasting|Setting up non-r Fisher-based parameter forecasts]] (Jo + others)<br />
* '''2016 March 31''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150331_fisher/ Fisher projections for &sigma;(r) based on achieved performance] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 January 27''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/File:sptpol_ptsrc_polfrac_500d.pdf Quick estimate of mean-squared polarization fraction for SPTpol sources] (Tom Crawford)</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing-DE&diff=4150Lensing-DE2017-04-12T14:18:16Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Jo writing''<br />
<br />
Here is a possible path to establishing how well CMB lensing will help us with DE, in the era of LSST and DESI measurements.<br />
Let's assume that we will have LSST measurements of galaxy clustering Cl(z), LSST measurements of shear Cl(z), and DESI measurements of BAO rs/DV(z).<br />
<br />
We have a Fisher forecasting code available to use - David Alonso's GoFish code, that includes all of these measurements, including correlations with CMB lensing. The nuisance parameters it includes are galaxy biases for the clustering, and multiplicative biases for the shear. It also includes photo-z uncertainty, some intrinsic alignment uncertainty, and some accounting for baryonic effects. <br />
<br />
Currently it spits our 'standard' DE parameters w0-wa, as well as curvature, neutrino mass etc. Here is a plan:<br />
<br />
1. Jo's student Siddharth will use GoFish code to compare w0-wa errors for Planck+DESI-BAO+LSST-clustering versus Planck+S4+DESI-BAO + LSST-clustering (including all the cross-correlations and free galaxy bias parameters), and Planck+DESI-BAO + LSST-shear versus S4+DESI-BAO LSST-shear. These two tests will demonstrate the impact of adding S4 to the currently-funded experiments. The impact of S4 is expected to be a better handle on the bias parameters, and an extra higher-redshift slice.<br />
<br />
2. Mat Madhavacheril will adapt that code to spit out sigma8(z) like for clusters, instead of w0-wa, as we expect to see a stronger effect of the contribution of CMB lensing at high redshift.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note - aware that many others in the S4 lensing and DE groups have similar codes and alternative routes to doing this. Other contributions on this front welcome!</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing-DE&diff=4149Lensing-DE2017-04-12T14:12:44Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Jo writing''<br />
<br />
Here is a possible path to establishing how well CMB lensing will help us with DE, in the era of LSST and DESI measurements.<br />
Let's assume that we will have LSST measurements of galaxy clustering Cl(z), LSST measurements of shear Cl(z), and DESI measurements of rs/DV.<br />
<br />
We have a Fisher forecasting code available to use - David Alonso's GoFish code, that includes all of these measurements, including correlations with CMB lensing. The nuisance parameters it includes are galaxy biases for the clustering, and multiplicative biases for the shear. It also includes photo-z uncertainty, some intrinsic alignment uncertainty, and some accounting for baryonic effects. <br />
<br />
Currently it spits our 'standard' DE parameters w0-wa, as well as curvature, neutrino mass etc. Here is a plan:<br />
<br />
1. Jo's student Siddharth will use GoFish code to compare w0-wa errors for Planck+DESI-BAO+LSST-clustering versus Planck+S4+DESI-BAO + LSST-clustering (including all the cross-correlations and free galaxy bias parameters), and Planck+DESI-BAO + LSST-shear versus S4+DESI-BAO LSST-shear. These two tests will demonstrate the impact of adding S4 to the currently-funded experiments. The impact of S4 is expected to be a better handle on the bias parameters, and an extra higher-redshift slice.<br />
<br />
2. Mat Madhavacheril will adapt that code to spit out sigma8(z) like for clusters, instead of w0-wa, as we expect to see a stronger effect of the contribution of CMB lensing at high redshift.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note - aware that many others in the S4 lensing and DE groups have similar codes and alternative routes to doing this. Other contributions on this front welcome!</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing-DE&diff=4148Lensing-DE2017-04-12T14:11:48Z<p>Dunkley: Created page with "''Jo writing'' Here is a possible path to establishing how well CMB lensing will help us with DE, in the era of LSST and DESI measurements. Let's assume that we will have LSS..."</p>
<hr />
<div>''Jo writing''<br />
<br />
Here is a possible path to establishing how well CMB lensing will help us with DE, in the era of LSST and DESI measurements.<br />
Let's assume that we will have LSST measurements of galaxy clustering Cl(z), LSST measurements of shear Cl(z), and DESI measurements of rs/DV.<br />
<br />
We have a code available to use - David Alonso's GoFish code, that includes all of these measurements, including correlations with CMB lensing. The nuisance parameters it includes are galaxy biases for the clustering, and multiplicative biases for the shear. It also includes photo-z uncertainty, some intrinsic alignment uncertainty, and some accounting for baryonic effects. <br />
<br />
Currently it spits our 'standard' DE parameters w0-wa, as well as curvature, neutrino mass etc. Here is a plan:<br />
<br />
1. Jo's student Siddharth will use GoFish code to compare w0-wa errors for Planck+DESI-BAO+LSST-clustering versus Planck+S4+DESI-BAO + LSST-clustering (including all the cross-correlations and free galaxy bias parameters), and Planck+DESI-BAO + LSST-shear versus S4+DESI-BAO LSST-shear. These two tests will demonstrate the impact of adding S4 to the currently-funded experiments. The impact of S4 is expected to be a better handle on the bias parameters, and an extra higher-redshift slice.<br />
<br />
2. Mat Madhavacheril will adapt that code to spit out sigma8(z) like for clusters, instead of w0-wa, as we expect to see a stronger effect of the contribution of CMB lensing at high redshift.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note - aware that many others in the S4 lensing and DE groups have similar codes and alternative routes to doing this. Other contributions on this front welcome!</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=R_Forecasting_Logbook&diff=4147R Forecasting Logbook2017-04-12T14:00:14Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is an index page for logbook-style postings that cover the interconnected topics of sky modeling, simulations, and forecasting for CMB-S4. <br />
<br />
Some guidelines for use:<br />
* '''Postings should include enough context''' so that a reader can jump in and figure out what is going on. It is ''not'' necessary to write an extensive introduction to every posting -- context can be in the form of links to older postings, paper citations, etc.<br />
* Postings should represent a snapshot of work in progress. It's ok to post incomplete results, but recommended that you include notes about what is missing, what you are still planning to work on, etc. <br />
* If you have work that extends or improves an old posting, you should add it as a new posting (that includes links back to the old work as appropriate). Don't update old postings, as they should provide a chronological record of progress.<br />
* On this index page, add a link to your posting with the date, a descriptive posting title, and your full name. This logbook covers a wide range of topics, so titles will be really important to keep it useful. Don't name your posting something like "Forecasting for S4"!<br />
* Links should be added in reverse-chronological order (newest at the top). Your posting can either be written up on another wiki page or it can be a link to some externally hosted webpage (useful if you want to include a javascript plots pager).<br />
<br />
== Logbook Entries (reverse chronological) ==<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[lensing-DE|Notes on path to lensing-based DE forecasts]] (Jo)<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[Notes from April 5 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 April 05''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/images/Sigma8_z_prep.pdf Sigma8(z) SPT clusters (placeholder) ] (S Bocquet)<br />
* '''2017 April 04''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170404_s4opt/ Updated Performance-based Fisher optimization for CMB-S4 (using bands v1.99)] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2017 March 31 ''': [[Data Challenge analysis - DC1.0, DC1.1, DC1.2]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2017 March 30 ''': [[Notes from March 28 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 29''': [[CMB-S4 frequency bands v1.99]] (John Kovac, Band-definition working group)<br />
* '''2017 March 28''': [[Adding higher res delensing "band"]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 27''': [[01.01 sim input maps - first try]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 23''': [[01.00 sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 20''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170221_S4_NET_forecasts/ S4 Band sensitivity comparison follow-up] (Denis Barkats, John Kovac)<br />
* '''2017 March 17''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20170317_s4dc1/ S4 DC1.0 analysis] (Victor Buza, Colin Bischoff, Justin Willmert)<br />
* '''2017 March 17 ''': [[Media:Telecon_03172017_optimization_for_CMBS4.pdf]]: Optimization methodology for SO (Josquin)<br />
* '''2017 March 16 ''': [[ P_k_science_case| P(k) science case]] (Colin, Simone, Nick, David)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[Notes from March 15 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[CMB halo lensing sensitivity as a function of map sensitivity and resolution]] (Jim & Jean-Baptiste)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[w and gamma | w and Delta gamma constraints from sigma_8 (z)]] (Mat & Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 10 ''': [[Notes from March 8 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[reionization_requirements| Reionization science]] (Simone & Marcelo)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[High ell topics | High ell topics ]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZ_s8_z | sigma 8 of z constraints ]] (Mat, Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[Szcounts | Number counts update for 1.0', 1.5', 2.0']] (Nick, Mat)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZastro | SZ astrophysics with DESI ]](Nick, Simone, Emanuel, David)<br />
* '''2017 February 24''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170224_cmbs4_dc1_final/ BK-style processing of DC1.0 maps to spectra] (Justin Willmert, Colin Bischoff)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Extragalactic lensing sims| Update on extragalactic phase-2 lensing sims]] (Marcelo, George, Dick, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Plan for next Galactic Phase-2sims| Plan for next Galactic phase-2 sims]] (Jo, Ben)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Resolution of foreground-cleaned map]] (Mat, Neelima, Blake, Alex, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Nongaussian dust in lensing]] (Alex, Mat, Neelima, Blake, others)<br />
* '''2017 January 30''': [[Aliased power in noise maps]] (Bischoff, Updated 2017-02-02)<br />
* '''2017 January 23''': [[CMBS4 Band Sensitivity Comparison]] (Charlie Hill)<br />
* '''2017 January 12''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/cbischoff/20170112_data_challenge_1/ Maps for CMB-S4 data challenge 1] (Bischoff, Pryke, Buza)<br />
* '''2016 December 21''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4/ N_ell spectra for the CMB-S4 data challenge, and updated &sigma;(r) checkpoints] (Victor Buza, Updated 2017.02.01)<br />
* '''2016 November 30''': [[First steps to sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2016 November 4''': [[Tophat bands for Data Challenge]] (Bischoff)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[fsky|Dependence of foregrounds on sky fraction]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[SciBookPowspecTheoryFig|Three choices for Science Book Figure 5 (theory power spectrum & current BB points)]] (Tom C.)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160707_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 July 6''': [[w_cosntraint|Preliminary w constraint]] (Alessandro)<br />
* '''2016 June 24''': [[nsr|Preliminary ns-r plot for discussion]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [[DelensingImpact| Impact Of Delensing On sigma(r)]] (Neelima/Mat)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160616_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 10''': [[MapBasedRb| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts V2]] (David/Jo/Ben)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160531_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [[ BTTfixedeffort | Forecasts for fnl BTT beam/fixed effort]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 31''': [[ForecastPatchyReion| Forecasts for patchy reionization]] (Vera, Alex, Nick)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[Forecasting | Forecasts on neutrino mass]] (Nam, Mat, Neelima)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ KSZ| Forecasts on kSZ S/N]] (Simone, Emmanuel, Colin)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ Forecastfiso_planck| Forecast on correlated and anti-correlated CDM isocurvature f_iso]] (Kimmy, Cora, updated with plots 20160602)<br />
* '''2016 May 24''': [[ BTTNoiseBeam | Forecasts on fnl BTT beam/FWHM]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 22''': [[ ForecastAxions| Update on the axion isocurvature constraints for changing sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 21''': [[ Forecastpann| Forecast on dark matter annihilation parameter p_ann]] (Kimmy, Cora)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[NeffNoiseBeam| Forecasts on Neff and Yp]] (Joel, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastEDE| Forecasts on Early Dark Energy]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastCompIsocurv| Forecasts on compensated isocurvature varying sensitivity, resolution and sky coverage]] (Julian, Ely)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastBirefring| Forecasts on birefringence varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Vera, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastStrings| Forecasts on string tension varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[RobustForecast| Cosmological forecasts including component separation and iterative delensing]] (Stephen Feeney and Josquin Errard)<br />
* '''2016 May 19''': [[MapBasedR| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts]] (David A.)<br />
* '''2016 May 18''': [[Shear_calibration_LSST|LSST shear calibration with CMB S4]] (Emmanuel Schaan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[NonGaussianitiesTTT| CMBS-4 forecasts local and equilateral scalar Ngs using TTT]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[ForecastingSims|Simulations for r forecasts]] (Jo/Ben/David)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[DMInteractionsComplementarity|DM interactions: complementarity]] (Vera)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[Scenarios| Scenarios]] (Scott, Vera)<br />
* ''' 2016 May 3''': [[ForecastAxions |Effect of S4 specs on axion density parameters]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 April 30''': [[ForecastNu| Effect of S4 specs on neutrino parameters]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [http://web.stanford.edu/~wlwu/posting/20160421_lensres/ Delensing residuals with low-ell foregrounds] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [[NonGaussianities| CMBS-4 forecast for tensor NGs]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 April 19''': [[ForecastingStep1| Checking basic parameters for nominal case]] (Jo + multiple authors)<br />
* '''2016 April 5''': [[Forecasting|Setting up non-r Fisher-based parameter forecasts]] (Jo + others)<br />
* '''2016 March 31''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150331_fisher/ Fisher projections for &sigma;(r) based on achieved performance] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 January 27''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/File:sptpol_ptsrc_polfrac_500d.pdf Quick estimate of mean-squared polarization fraction for SPTpol sources] (Tom Crawford)</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=R_Forecasting_Logbook&diff=4146R Forecasting Logbook2017-04-12T13:59:25Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is an index page for logbook-style postings that cover the interconnected topics of sky modeling, simulations, and forecasting for CMB-S4. <br />
<br />
Some guidelines for use:<br />
* '''Postings should include enough context''' so that a reader can jump in and figure out what is going on. It is ''not'' necessary to write an extensive introduction to every posting -- context can be in the form of links to older postings, paper citations, etc.<br />
* Postings should represent a snapshot of work in progress. It's ok to post incomplete results, but recommended that you include notes about what is missing, what you are still planning to work on, etc. <br />
* If you have work that extends or improves an old posting, you should add it as a new posting (that includes links back to the old work as appropriate). Don't update old postings, as they should provide a chronological record of progress.<br />
* On this index page, add a link to your posting with the date, a descriptive posting title, and your full name. This logbook covers a wide range of topics, so titles will be really important to keep it useful. Don't name your posting something like "Forecasting for S4"!<br />
* Links should be added in reverse-chronological order (newest at the top). Your posting can either be written up on another wiki page or it can be a link to some externally hosted webpage (useful if you want to include a javascript plots pager).<br />
<br />
== Logbook Entries (reverse chronological) ==<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[Notes on path to lensing-based DE forecasts/lensing-DE]] (Jo)<br />
* '''2017 April 05 ''': [[Notes from April 5 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 April 05''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/images/Sigma8_z_prep.pdf Sigma8(z) SPT clusters (placeholder) ] (S Bocquet)<br />
* '''2017 April 04''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170404_s4opt/ Updated Performance-based Fisher optimization for CMB-S4 (using bands v1.99)] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2017 March 31 ''': [[Data Challenge analysis - DC1.0, DC1.1, DC1.2]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2017 March 30 ''': [[Notes from March 28 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 29''': [[CMB-S4 frequency bands v1.99]] (John Kovac, Band-definition working group)<br />
* '''2017 March 28''': [[Adding higher res delensing "band"]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 27''': [[01.01 sim input maps - first try]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 23''': [[01.00 sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2017 March 20''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170221_S4_NET_forecasts/ S4 Band sensitivity comparison follow-up] (Denis Barkats, John Kovac)<br />
* '''2017 March 17''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20170317_s4dc1/ S4 DC1.0 analysis] (Victor Buza, Colin Bischoff, Justin Willmert)<br />
* '''2017 March 17 ''': [[Media:Telecon_03172017_optimization_for_CMBS4.pdf]]: Optimization methodology for SO (Josquin)<br />
* '''2017 March 16 ''': [[ P_k_science_case| P(k) science case]] (Colin, Simone, Nick, David)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[Notes from March 15 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[CMB halo lensing sensitivity as a function of map sensitivity and resolution]] (Jim & Jean-Baptiste)<br />
* '''2017 March 15 ''': [[w and gamma | w and Delta gamma constraints from sigma_8 (z)]] (Mat & Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 10 ''': [[Notes from March 8 telecon on science requirements for clusters/high-ell]] (Jim & Steve)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[reionization_requirements| Reionization science]] (Simone & Marcelo)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[High ell topics | High ell topics ]] (Jim)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZ_s8_z | sigma 8 of z constraints ]] (Mat, Nick)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[Szcounts | Number counts update for 1.0', 1.5', 2.0']] (Nick, Mat)<br />
* '''2017 March 8 ''': [[SZastro | SZ astrophysics with DESI ]](Nick, Simone, Emanuel, David)<br />
* '''2017 February 24''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170224_cmbs4_dc1_final/ BK-style processing of DC1.0 maps to spectra] (Justin Willmert, Colin Bischoff)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Extragalactic lensing sims| Update on extragalactic phase-2 lensing sims]] (Marcelo, George, Dick, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 15 ''': [[Plan for next Galactic Phase-2sims| Plan for next Galactic phase-2 sims]] (Jo, Ben)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Resolution of foreground-cleaned map]] (Mat, Neelima, Blake, Alex, others)<br />
* '''2017 February 10 ''': [[Nongaussian dust in lensing]] (Alex, Mat, Neelima, Blake, others)<br />
* '''2017 January 30''': [[Aliased power in noise maps]] (Bischoff, Updated 2017-02-02)<br />
* '''2017 January 23''': [[CMBS4 Band Sensitivity Comparison]] (Charlie Hill)<br />
* '''2017 January 12''': [http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/cbischoff/20170112_data_challenge_1/ Maps for CMB-S4 data challenge 1] (Bischoff, Pryke, Buza)<br />
* '''2016 December 21''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4/ N_ell spectra for the CMB-S4 data challenge, and updated &sigma;(r) checkpoints] (Victor Buza, Updated 2017.02.01)<br />
* '''2016 November 30''': [[First steps to sim input maps]] (Clem P.)<br />
* '''2016 November 4''': [[Tophat bands for Data Challenge]] (Bischoff)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[fsky|Dependence of foregrounds on sky fraction]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [[SciBookPowspecTheoryFig|Three choices for Science Book Figure 5 (theory power spectrum & current BB points)]] (Tom C.)<br />
* '''2016 July 8''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160707_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 July 6''': [[w_cosntraint|Preliminary w constraint]] (Alessandro)<br />
* '''2016 June 24''': [[nsr|Preliminary ns-r plot for discussion]] (Raphael)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [[DelensingImpact| Impact Of Delensing On sigma(r)]] (Neelima/Mat)<br />
* '''2016 June 16''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160616_s4plots/ S4 Inflation Chapter Plot Suggestions] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 10''': [[MapBasedRb| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts V2]] (David/Jo/Ben)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20160531_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints, V2] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 June 3''': [[ BTTfixedeffort | Forecasts for fnl BTT beam/fixed effort]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 31''': [[ForecastPatchyReion| Forecasts for patchy reionization]] (Vera, Alex, Nick)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[Forecasting | Forecasts on neutrino mass]] (Nam, Mat, Neelima)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ KSZ| Forecasts on kSZ S/N]] (Simone, Emmanuel, Colin)<br />
* '''2016 May 26''': [[ Forecastfiso_planck| Forecast on correlated and anti-correlated CDM isocurvature f_iso]] (Kimmy, Cora, updated with plots 20160602)<br />
* '''2016 May 24''': [[ BTTNoiseBeam | Forecasts on fnl BTT beam/FWHM]] (Daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 22''': [[ ForecastAxions| Update on the axion isocurvature constraints for changing sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 21''': [[ Forecastpann| Forecast on dark matter annihilation parameter p_ann]] (Kimmy, Cora)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[NeffNoiseBeam| Forecasts on Neff and Yp]] (Joel, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastEDE| Forecasts on Early Dark Energy]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastCompIsocurv| Forecasts on compensated isocurvature varying sensitivity, resolution and sky coverage]] (Julian, Ely)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastBirefring| Forecasts on birefringence varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Vera, Alex)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[ForecastStrings| Forecasts on string tension varying sensitivity and resolution]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[RobustForecast| Cosmological forecasts including component separation and iterative delensing]] (Stephen Feeney and Josquin Errard)<br />
* '''2016 May 19''': [[MapBasedR| Map-based &sigma;(r) forecasts]] (David A.)<br />
* '''2016 May 18''': [[Shear_calibration_LSST|LSST shear calibration with CMB S4]] (Emmanuel Schaan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ &sigma;(r) forecasting checkpoints] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[NonGaussianitiesTTT| CMBS-4 forecasts local and equilateral scalar Ngs using TTT]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 May 13''': [[ForecastingSims|Simulations for r forecasts]] (Jo/Ben/David)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[DMInteractionsComplementarity|DM interactions: complementarity]] (Vera)<br />
* '''2016 May 6''': [[Scenarios| Scenarios]] (Scott, Vera)<br />
* ''' 2016 May 3''': [[ForecastAxions |Effect of S4 specs on axion density parameters]] (Renee)<br />
* '''2016 April 30''': [[ForecastNu| Effect of S4 specs on neutrino parameters]] (Erminia)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [http://web.stanford.edu/~wlwu/posting/20160421_lensres/ Delensing residuals with low-ell foregrounds] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* '''2016 April 28''': [[NonGaussianities| CMBS-4 forecast for tensor NGs]] (daan)<br />
* '''2016 April 19''': [[ForecastingStep1| Checking basic parameters for nominal case]] (Jo + multiple authors)<br />
* '''2016 April 5''': [[Forecasting|Setting up non-r Fisher-based parameter forecasts]] (Jo + others)<br />
* '''2016 March 31''': [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150331_fisher/ Fisher projections for &sigma;(r) based on achieved performance] (Victor Buza)<br />
* '''2016 January 27''': [https://cmb-s4.org/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/File:sptpol_ptsrc_polfrac_500d.pdf Quick estimate of mean-squared polarization fraction for SPTpol sources] (Tom Crawford)</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3716SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-28T22:22:16Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
*Neff discussion [[Media:Green_Neff_SLAC.pdf|slides]]<br />
*Lensing discussion [[Media:Lensing_allslides.pdf|slides]]<br />
*Clusters discussion [[Media:Clusters_allslides.pdf|slides]]<br />
*Atmosphere [[Media:S4_noise_model_170228.pdf|slides]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions'''<br />
To be addressed for each small-scale science ‘probe’ (TT/TE/EE, lensing, tSZ/kSZ) towards defining measurement requirements - to start discussion/for context<br />
<br />
<br />
'''How large do the large telescopes need to be?'''<br />
(NB - size of telescope is not a measurement requirement, but it is a simple proxy for resolution that varies with frequency in a realistic way)<br />
* Current status: studies indicate 5m (1.8' at 150 GHz) is sufficient for lensing (mnu and delensing) and high-ell TE/EE science (Neff), but may not be enough for cluster-derived science. Extra resolution doesn’t seem needed for cleaning TE/EE and lensing.<br />
* To-do—push forward cluster forecasts (see lunchtime discussion).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Can we achieve science requirements given realistic atmospheric noise?'''<br />
* Current status: realistic atmospheric noise consistent with Chilean observations without HWP has now been modeled and included in fisher forecasts for high-ell and lensing science. Neff/mnu parameters are not degraded.<br />
* To-do: include multi-freq realistic atmospheric noise in tSZ/kSZ forecasts, include South Pole noise curves. Establish agreement on atmospheric noise model being used by everyone.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''How many/which wavelengths do we need in the large telescopes?'''<br />
<br />
(1) for TE/EE 2-pt for Neff<br />
* Current status: indicates that three is sufficient, based on new power spectrum simulations. <br />
* To-do: check impact of Galactic contamination<br />
<br />
(2) for lensing (mnu/delensing) to avoid EB lensing bias <br />
* Current status: perhaps only 90/150/220 needed, but work underway to test effect on lensing of expected non-Gaussian dust foregrounds. Might need synchrotron channels.<br />
* To-do: continue this work, test other sims.<br />
<br />
(3) for tSZ/kSZ (mnu/w/patchy-tau/growth/feedback)<br />
* Current status: at least 90, 150, 220 for tSZ. Suspect 270 GHz will be beneficial but assess expected noise levels. More frequencies would help separate kSZ, especially in power spectrum for reionization.<br />
* To-do: run cluster forecasts (for counts, tSZ power spectrum, y-maps, kSZ signal) on extragalactic sims<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What are our systematic requirements for the 2pt and 4pt functions?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Some people who have things to say on these topics:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Matthew Hasselfield - atmospheric noise model for large telescopes<br />
<br />
''Neff (TE/EE)-Discussion of Systematics and Foregrounds''<br />
*Dan Green - Overview + Beams/Pointing - [[Media:Green_Neff_SLAC.pdf|slides]]<br />
<br />
''Lensing-related''<br />
<br />
* Alex van Engelen - Impact of polarized dust on lensing<br />
* Mat M. / Colin H. - Multigrequency cleaning and extra spatial filtering<br />
* Yuuki Omori - Biases from extragalatic sources in temperature lensing<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger (remote, 5 min) - Foregrounds and Atm noise for tSZ science [[Media:huffenberger_src_atm_sz.pdf|slides]]<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ [[Media:Foregrounds_ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* Lindsey Bleem - more on sims [[:File:Bleem_small_scale_session_clusters.pdf |slides]]<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3715SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-28T22:21:14Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
*Neff discussion [[Media:Green_Neff_SLAC.pdf|slides]]<br />
*Lensing discussion [[Media:Lensing_allslides.pdf|slides]]<br />
*Clusters discussion [[Media:Clusters_allslides.pdf|slides]]<br />
*Atmosphere [[Media:S4_noise_model_170228.pdf|slides]]<br />
<br />
'''Questions'''<br />
To be addressed for each small-scale science ‘probe’ (TT/TE/EE, lensing, tSZ/kSZ) towards defining measurement requirements - to start discussion/for context<br />
<br />
<br />
'''How large do the large telescopes need to be?'''<br />
(NB - size of telescope is not a measurement requirement, but it is a simple proxy for resolution that varies with frequency in a realistic way)<br />
* Current status: studies indicate 5m is sufficient for lensing (mnu and delensing) and high-ell TE/EE science (Neff), but may not be enough for cluster-derived science. Extra resolution doesn’t seem needed for cleaning TE/EE and lensing.<br />
* To-do—push forward cluster forecasts (see lunchtime discussion).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Can we achieve science requirements given realistic atmospheric noise?'''<br />
* Current status: realistic atmospheric noise consistent with Chilean observations without HWP has now been modeled and included in fisher forecasts for high-ell and lensing science. Neff/mnu parameters are not degraded.<br />
* To-do: include multi-freq realistic atmospheric noise in tSZ/kSZ forecasts, include South Pole noise curves. Establish agreement on atmospheric noise model being used by everyone.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''How many/which wavelengths do we need in the large telescopes?'''<br />
<br />
(1) for TE/EE 2-pt for Neff<br />
* Current status: indicates that three is sufficient, based on new power spectrum simulations. <br />
* To-do: check impact of Galactic contamination<br />
<br />
(2) for lensing (mnu/delensing) to avoid EB lensing bias <br />
* Current status: perhaps only 90/150/220 needed, but work underway to test effect on lensing of expected non-Gaussian dust foregrounds. Might need synchrotron channels.<br />
* To-do: continue this work, test other sims.<br />
<br />
(3) for tSZ/kSZ (mnu/w/patchy-tau/growth/feedback)<br />
* Current status: at least 90, 150, 220 for tSZ. Suspect 270 GHz will be beneficial but assess expected noise levels. More frequencies would help separate kSZ, especially in power spectrum for reionization.<br />
* To-do: run cluster forecasts (for counts, tSZ power spectrum, y-maps, kSZ signal) on extragalactic sims<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What are our systematic requirements for the 2pt and 4pt functions?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Some people who have things to say on these topics:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Matthew Hasselfield - atmospheric noise model for large telescopes<br />
<br />
''Neff (TE/EE)-Discussion of Systematics and Foregrounds''<br />
*Dan Green - Overview + Beams/Pointing - [[Media:Green_Neff_SLAC.pdf|slides]]<br />
<br />
''Lensing-related''<br />
<br />
* Alex van Engelen - Impact of polarized dust on lensing<br />
* Mat M. / Colin H. - Multigrequency cleaning and extra spatial filtering<br />
* Yuuki Omori - Biases from extragalatic sources in temperature lensing<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger (remote, 5 min) - Foregrounds and Atm noise for tSZ science [[Media:huffenberger_src_atm_sz.pdf|slides]]<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ [[Media:Foregrounds_ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* Lindsey Bleem - more on sims [[:File:Bleem_small_scale_session_clusters.pdf |slides]]<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3662SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-28T18:12:53Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Questions'''<br />
To be addressed for each small-scale science ‘probe’ (TT/TE/EE, lensing, tSZ/kSZ) towards defining measurement requirements - to start discussion/for context<br />
<br />
<br />
'''How large do the large telescopes need to be?'''<br />
* Current status: studies indicate 5m is sufficient for lensing (mnu and delensing) and high-ell TE/EE science (Neff), but may not be enough for cluster-derived science. Extra resolution doesn’t seem needed for cleaning TE/EE and lensing.<br />
* To-do—push forward cluster forecasts (see lunchtime discussion).<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Can we achieve science requirements given realistic atmospheric noise?'''<br />
* Current status: realistic atmospheric noise consistent with Chilean observations without HWP has now been modeled and included in fisher forecasts for high-ell and lensing science. Neff/mnu parameters are not degraded.<br />
* To-do: include multi-freq realistic atmospheric noise in tSZ/kSZ forecasts, include South Pole noise curves. Establish agreement on atmospheric noise model being used by everyone.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''How many/which wavelengths do we need in the large telescopes?'''<br />
<br />
(1) for TE/EE 2-pt for Neff<br />
* Current status: indicates that three is sufficient, based on new power spectrum simulations. <br />
* To-do: check impact of Galactic contamination<br />
<br />
(2) for lensing (mnu/delensing) to avoid EB lensing bias <br />
* Current status: perhaps only 90/150/220 needed, but work underway to test effect on lensing of expected non-Gaussian dust foregrounds. Might need synchrotron channels.<br />
* To-do: continue this work, test other sims.<br />
<br />
(3) for tSZ/kSZ (mnu/w/patchy-tau/growth/feedback)<br />
* Current status: at least 90, 150, 220 for tSZ. Suspect 270 GHz will be beneficial but assess expected noise levels. More frequencies would help separate kSZ, especially in power spectrum for reionization.<br />
* To-do: run cluster forecasts (for counts, tSZ power spectrum, y-maps, kSZ signal) on extragalactic sims<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What are our systematic requirements for the 2pt and 4pt functions?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Some people who have things to say on these topics:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Matthew Hasselfield - atmospheric noise model for large telescopes<br />
<br />
''Neff (TE/EE)-Discussion of Systematics and Foregrounds''<br />
*Dan Green - Overview + Beams/Pointing<br />
<br />
''Lensing-related''<br />
<br />
* Alex van Engelen - Impact of polarized dust on lensing<br />
* Mat M. / Colin H. - Multigrequency cleaning and extra spatial filtering<br />
* Yuuki Omori - Biases from extragalatic sources in temperature lensing<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger (remote, 5 min) - Foregrounds and Atm noise for tSZ science [[Media:huffenberger_src_atm_sz.pdf|slides]]<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ<br />
* Lindsay Bleem - more on sims<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3578SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-28T02:57:06Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
* Matthew Hasselfield - atmospheric noise model for large telescopes<br />
<br />
''Neff (TE/EE)-Discussion of Systematics and Foregrounds''<br />
*Dan Green - Overview + Beams/Pointing<br />
<br />
''Lensing-related''<br />
<br />
* Alex van Engelen - Impact of polarized dust on lensing<br />
* Mat M. / Colin H. - Multigrequency cleaning and extra spatial filtering<br />
* Yuuki Omori - Biases from extragalatic sources in temperature lensing<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger (remote, 5 min) - Atmospheric noise and foregrounds for tSZ science<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ<br />
* Lindsay Bleem - more on sims<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3577SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:50:04Z<p>Dunkley: /* Action items/Next steps */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
'''Hill'''<br />
* Looking at information in the tSZ power spectrum. There is also wealth of info in the full pdf, but only showing spectrum forecasts today.<br />
* Includes tSZ trispectrum. <br />
* Can get down to 25 meV on neutrino mass with CVL tau. If marginalize over gas physics get e.g. 50 meV. Does a lot better than Planck.<br />
* Includes atmospheric noise and foregrounds - has post-component-separation noise, of which CIB is the main one. <br />
* To improve forecasts, should include Planck low-ell and include non-Gaussian pdf. Target is to combine with cluster counts. <br />
* Promising additional probe of mnu and w, and similar measurement requirements to cluster counts.<br />
* Suzanne: how orthogonal are these constraints. Colin - complementary, so should add together.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alonso'''<br />
* Forecasting measurement of growth of structure from kSZ. There are hints of problems in current data so this could be useful. <br />
* Constraints depend on the quality of the overlapping spectro survey (e.g. DESI better than BOSS). <br />
* Strength of kSZ compared to other data: you can measure growth at low-z where RSD is limited. Beats DESI and at low-z Euclid.<br />
* But need to know details about how you make the measurement, as there are many uncertainties about extracting the signal and e.g. measuring tau (v and tau are degenerate).<br />
* Pros: This is an alternative measurement with different systematics. Cons: Drawbacks are systematics in y-tau relation and wrong kSZ profile model.<br />
* Conclusion: growth from kSZ may not be main science driver of S4 but adds important information that has different systematics. <br />
* Spergel – can get more information at higher-z if you include extra statistics<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ferraro'''<br />
* Showing forecasts on patchy reionization<br />
* We would like to be able to tell different models apart<br />
* kSZ demands more frequencies if you want to do it in power spectrum.<br />
* Can get 10% constraints on duration of reionization. <br />
* Can also use higher order statistics - trispectrum. Lets you separate the reionization part from the late-time kSZ. <br />
* Going from 3’ to 2’ improves by factor 4. Prefer deep narrow patch.<br />
* kSZ gets different scales to 21cm – CMB can do bubble power spectrum.<br />
* Dunkley – clarify scales that kSZ can do that 21cm can’t, to help science case. Ferraro - yes, and should compare to e.g. HERA kSZ can see smaller scales.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* What are the astrophysics things we want to know? Feedback and non-thermal pressure support. These things are not well known. In galaxy evolution these parameters are thrown into simulations.<br />
* Particular parameters of interest are global feedback efficiency and fraction of non-thermal pressure support.<br />
* 4m to 5m sees big improvement on these, but less so for 6m. Targeting percent level precision on these things as science requirements. <br />
* Need spectro surveys to get redshifts but could use other estimators.<br />
* Staggs: why do we care? Spergel: Astronomers care about AGN feedback and galaxy formation. Big question is the amplitude of feedback. Would like to know how it evolves with redshift for different galaxies. Also for cosmology, if we want to use small-scale data in WL surveys, we need to know the role of feedback.<br />
* Allen – would be good to be clearer on synergies with Athena satellite. Show complementarity to that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bartlett'''<br />
* SZ can have big impact on biggest question in galaxy formation. Galaxy formation is very inefficient. Less than 10% of baryons make stars. We don’t know why. We can find out why.<br />
* Bulk of baryons is in the CGM (circumgalactic medium). Keeping it there requires efficient feedback.<br />
* So, need to observe CGM, rather than galaxies. SZ is unbeatable way to do this. Need higher redshifts – push out to z=2. Study CGM versus mass and z, and by galaxy type and property to high z.<br />
* Need halo masses of objects which we use CMB lensing for. S4 can get to much lower halo masses, where star formation is taking place. <br />
* Dust is an issue though. Contaminates signal and needs to be separated from SZ. Example has 220 GHz as highest frequency. <br />
* Dust from the halos dominates – will need multiple frequencies. Might need channels not available from ground.<br />
* Community who want to answer these galaxy formation questions don’t know that we have this great machine, should make clear.<br />
* Spergel – can we use CCAT’ to measure some of them to address the dust? Maybe, will hear more tomorrow. Or Herschel? Jim: you want big samples so need wide area.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Spergel wrap-up'''<br />
* cluster science is so rich. We can’t lose it so need to determine what size telescope we need. It is unique science that other data cannot be do. Majority of papers from S4 will be from this IF we have high enough resolution.<br />
* Need to explain our case to our astrophysics colleagues, to convey what we can tell them about galaxy formation. Need to articulate it more broadly to astrophysics community.<br />
* Keating – is this really what we should be doing with polarimeter? Spergel - Remember CMB lensing relies on polarimetry. We are limited by calibration, and CMB lensing will let us calibrate the maps.<br />
* Comment: Having neutrino mass from two probes is huge benefit and cross-check is significant value (in particular to persuade particle physicists).<br />
* Bond – can we split into delta nu<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range for calibrated cluster count forecasts<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation for cluster counts<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm<br />
* ...</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3576SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:49:18Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
'''Hill'''<br />
* Looking at information in the tSZ power spectrum. There is also wealth of info in the full pdf, but only showing spectrum forecasts today.<br />
* Includes tSZ trispectrum. <br />
* Can get down to 25 meV on neutrino mass with CVL tau. If marginalize over gas physics get e.g. 50 meV. Does a lot better than Planck.<br />
* Includes atmospheric noise and foregrounds - has post-component-separation noise, of which CIB is the main one. <br />
* To improve forecasts, should include Planck low-ell and include non-Gaussian pdf. Target is to combine with cluster counts. <br />
* Promising additional probe of mnu and w, and similar measurement requirements to cluster counts.<br />
* Suzanne: how orthogonal are these constraints. Colin - complementary, so should add together.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alonso'''<br />
* Forecasting measurement of growth of structure from kSZ. There are hints of problems in current data so this could be useful. <br />
* Constraints depend on the quality of the overlapping spectro survey (e.g. DESI better than BOSS). <br />
* Strength of kSZ compared to other data: you can measure growth at low-z where RSD is limited. Beats DESI and at low-z Euclid.<br />
* But need to know details about how you make the measurement, as there are many uncertainties about extracting the signal and e.g. measuring tau (v and tau are degenerate).<br />
* Pros: This is an alternative measurement with different systematics. Cons: Drawbacks are systematics in y-tau relation and wrong kSZ profile model.<br />
* Conclusion: growth from kSZ may not be main science driver of S4 but adds important information that has different systematics. <br />
* Spergel – can get more information at higher-z if you include extra statistics<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ferraro'''<br />
* Showing forecasts on patchy reionization<br />
* We would like to be able to tell different models apart<br />
* kSZ demands more frequencies if you want to do it in power spectrum.<br />
* Can get 10% constraints on duration of reionization. <br />
* Can also use higher order statistics - trispectrum. Lets you separate the reionization part from the late-time kSZ. <br />
* Going from 3’ to 2’ improves by factor 4. Prefer deep narrow patch.<br />
* kSZ gets different scales to 21cm – CMB can do bubble power spectrum.<br />
* Dunkley – clarify scales that kSZ can do that 21cm can’t, to help science case. Ferraro - yes, and should compare to e.g. HERA kSZ can see smaller scales.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* What are the astrophysics things we want to know? Feedback and non-thermal pressure support. These things are not well known. In galaxy evolution these parameters are thrown into simulations.<br />
* Particular parameters of interest are global feedback efficiency and fraction of non-thermal pressure support.<br />
* 4m to 5m sees big improvement on these, but less so for 6m. Targeting percent level precision on these things as science requirements. <br />
* Need spectro surveys to get redshifts but could use other estimators.<br />
* Staggs: why do we care? Spergel: Astronomers care about AGN feedback and galaxy formation. Big question is the amplitude of feedback. Would like to know how it evolves with redshift for different galaxies. Also for cosmology, if we want to use small-scale data in WL surveys, we need to know the role of feedback.<br />
* Allen – would be good to be clearer on synergies with Athena satellite. Show complementarity to that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bartlett'''<br />
* SZ can have big impact on biggest question in galaxy formation. Galaxy formation is very inefficient. Less than 10% of baryons make stars. We don’t know why. We can find out why.<br />
* Bulk of baryons is in the CGM (circumgalactic medium). Keeping it there requires efficient feedback.<br />
* So, need to observe CGM, rather than galaxies. SZ is unbeatable way to do this. Need higher redshifts – push out to z=2. Study CGM versus mass and z, and by galaxy type and property to high z.<br />
* Need halo masses of objects which we use CMB lensing for. S4 can get to much lower halo masses, where star formation is taking place. <br />
* Dust is an issue though. Contaminates signal and needs to be separated from SZ. Example has 220 GHz as highest frequency. <br />
* Dust from the halos dominates – will need multiple frequencies. Might need channels not available from ground.<br />
* Community who want to answer these galaxy formation questions don’t know that we have this great machine, should make clear.<br />
* Spergel – can we use CCAT’ to measure some of them to address the dust? Maybe, will hear more tomorrow. Or Herschel? Jim: you want big samples so need wide area.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Spergel wrap-up'''<br />
* cluster science is so rich. We can’t lose it so need to determine what size telescope we need. It is unique science that other data cannot be do. Majority of papers from S4 will be from this IF we have high enough resolution.<br />
* Need to explain our case to our astrophysics colleagues, to convey what we can tell them about galaxy formation. Need to articulate it more broadly to astrophysics community.<br />
* Keating – is this really what we should be doing with polarimeter? Spergel - Remember CMB lensing relies on polarimetry. We are limited by calibration, and CMB lensing will let us calibrate the maps.<br />
* Comment: Having neutrino mass from two probes is huge benefit and cross-check is significant value (in particular to persuade particle physicists).<br />
* Bond – can we split into delta nu<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3575SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:46:41Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
'''Hill'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alonso'''<br />
* Forecasting measurement of growth of structure from kSZ. There are hints of problems in current data so this could be useful. <br />
* Constraints depend on the quality of the overlapping spectro survey (e.g. DESI better than BOSS). <br />
* Strength of kSZ compared to other data: you can measure growth at low-z where RSD is limited. Beats DESI and at low-z Euclid.<br />
* But need to know details about how you make the measurement, as there are many uncertainties about extracting the signal and e.g. measuring tau (v and tau are degenerate).<br />
* Pros: This is an alternative measurement with different systematics. Cons: Drawbacks are systematics in y-tau relation and wrong kSZ profile model.<br />
* Conclusion: growth from kSZ may not be main science driver of S4 but adds important information that has different systematics. <br />
* Spergel – can get more information at higher-z if you include extra statistics<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ferraro'''<br />
* Showing forecasts on patchy reionization<br />
* We would like to be able to tell different models apart<br />
* kSZ demands more frequencies if you want to do it in power spectrum.<br />
* Can get 10% constraints on duration of reionization. <br />
* Can also use higher order statistics - trispectrum. Lets you separate the reionization part from the late-time kSZ. <br />
* Going from 3’ to 2’ improves by factor 4. Prefer deep narrow patch.<br />
* kSZ gets different scales to 21cm – CMB can do bubble power spectrum.<br />
* Dunkley – clarify scales that kSZ can do that 21cm can’t, to help science case. Ferraro - yes, and should compare to e.g. HERA kSZ can see smaller scales.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* What are the astrophysics things we want to know? Feedback and non-thermal pressure support. These things are not well known. In galaxy evolution these parameters are thrown into simulations.<br />
* Particular parameters of interest are global feedback efficiency and fraction of non-thermal pressure support.<br />
* 4m to 5m sees big improvement on these, but less so for 6m. Targeting percent level precision on these things as science requirements. <br />
* Need spectro surveys to get redshifts but could use other estimators.<br />
* Staggs: why do we care? Spergel: Astronomers care about AGN feedback and galaxy formation. Big question is the amplitude of feedback. Would like to know how it evolves with redshift for different galaxies. Also for cosmology, if we want to use small-scale data in WL surveys, we need to know the role of feedback.<br />
* Allen – would be good to be clearer on synergies with Athena satellite. Show complementarity to that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bartlett'''<br />
* SZ can have big impact on biggest question in galaxy formation. Galaxy formation is very inefficient. Less than 10% of baryons make stars. We don’t know why. We can find out why.<br />
* Bulk of baryons is in the CGM (circumgalactic medium). Keeping it there requires efficient feedback.<br />
* So, need to observe CGM, rather than galaxies. SZ is unbeatable way to do this. Need higher redshifts – push out to z=2. Study CGM versus mass and z, and by galaxy type and property to high z.<br />
* Need halo masses of objects which we use CMB lensing for. S4 can get to much lower halo masses, where star formation is taking place. <br />
* Dust is an issue though. Contaminates signal and needs to be separated from SZ. Example has 220 GHz as highest frequency. <br />
* Dust from the halos dominates – will need multiple frequencies. Might need channels not available from ground.<br />
* Community who want to answer these galaxy formation questions don’t know that we have this great machine, should make clear.<br />
* Spergel – can we use CCAT’ to measure some of them to address the dust? Maybe, will hear more tomorrow. Or Herschel? Jim: you want big samples so need wide area.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Spergel wrap-up'''<br />
* cluster science is so rich. We can’t lose it so need to determine what size telescope we need. It is unique science that other data cannot be do. Majority of papers from S4 will be from this IF we have high enough resolution.<br />
* Need to explain our case to our astrophysics colleagues, to convey what we can tell them about galaxy formation. Need to articulate it more broadly to astrophysics community.<br />
* Keating – is this really what we should be doing with polarimeter? Spergel - Remember CMB lensing relies on polarimetry. We are limited by calibration, and CMB lensing will let us calibrate the maps.<br />
* Comment: Having neutrino mass from two probes is huge benefit and cross-check is significant value (in particular to persuade particle physicists).<br />
* Bond – can we split into delta nu <br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3574SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:44:18Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
'''Hill'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alonso'''<br />
* Forecasting measurement of growth of structure from kSZ. There are hints of problems in current data so this could be useful. <br />
* Constraints depend on the quality of the overlapping spectro survey (e.g. DESI better than BOSS). <br />
* Strength of kSZ compared to other data: you can measure growth at low-z where RSD is limited. Beats DESI and at low-z Euclid.<br />
* But need to know details about how you make the measurement, as there are many uncertainties about extracting the signal and e.g. measuring tau (v and tau are degenerate).<br />
* Pros: This is an alternative measurement with different systematics. Cons: Drawbacks are systematics in y-tau relation and wrong kSZ profile model.<br />
* Conclusion: growth from kSZ may not be main science driver of S4 but adds important information that has different systematics. <br />
* Spergel – can get more information at higher-z if you include extra statistics<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ferraro'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* What are the astrophysics things we want to know? Feedback and non-thermal pressure support. These things are not well known. In galaxy evolution these parameters are thrown into simulations.<br />
* Particular parameters of interest are global feedback efficiency and fraction of non-thermal pressure support.<br />
* 4m to 5m sees big improvement on these, but less so for 6m. Targeting percent level precision on these things as science requirements. <br />
* Need spectro surveys to get redshifts but could use other estimators.<br />
* Staggs: why do we care? Spergel: Astronomers care about AGN feedback and galaxy formation. Big question is the amplitude of feedback. Would like to know how it evolves with redshift for different galaxies. Also for cosmology, if we want to use small-scale data in WL surveys, we need to know the role of feedback.<br />
* Allen – would be good to be clearer on synergies with Athena satellite. Show complementarity to that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bartlett'''<br />
* SZ can have big impact on biggest question in galaxy formation. Galaxy formation is very inefficient. Less than 10% of baryons make stars. We don’t know why. We can find out why.<br />
* Bulk of baryons is in the CGM (circumgalactic medium). Keeping it there requires efficient feedback.<br />
* So, need to observe CGM, rather than galaxies. SZ is unbeatable way to do this. Need higher redshifts – push out to z=2. Study CGM versus mass and z, and by galaxy type and property to high z.<br />
* Need halo masses of objects which we use CMB lensing for. S4 can get to much lower halo masses, where star formation is taking place. <br />
* Dust is an issue though. Contaminates signal and needs to be separated from SZ. Example has 220 GHz as highest frequency. <br />
* Dust from the halos dominates – will need multiple frequencies. Might need channels not available from ground.<br />
* Community who want to answer these galaxy formation questions don’t know that we have this great machine, should make clear.<br />
* Spergel – can we use CCAT’ to measure some of them to address the dust? Maybe, will hear more tomorrow. Or Herschel? Jim: you want big samples so need wide area.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Spergel wrap-up'''<br />
* cluster science is so rich. We can’t lose it so need to determine what size telescope we need. It is unique science that other data cannot be do. Majority of papers from S4 will be from this IF we have high enough resolution.<br />
* Need to explain our case to our astrophysics colleagues, to convey what we can tell them about galaxy formation. Need to articulate it more broadly to astrophysics community.<br />
* Keating – is this really what we should be doing with polarimeter? Spergel - Remember CMB lensing relies on polarimetry. We are limited by calibration, and CMB lensing will let us calibrate the maps.<br />
* Comment: Having neutrino mass from two probes is huge benefit and cross-check is significant value (in particular to persuade particle physicists).<br />
* Bond – can we split into delta nu <br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3573SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:42:17Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
'''Hill'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alonso'''<br />
* Forecasting measurement of growth of structure from kSZ. There are hints of problems in current data so this could be useful. <br />
* Constraints depend on the quality of the overlapping spectro survey (e.g. DESI better than BOSS). <br />
* Strength of kSZ compared to other data: you can measure growth at low-z where RSD is limited. Beats DESI and at low-z Euclid.<br />
* But need to know details about how you make the measurement, as there are many uncertainties about extracting the signal and e.g. measuring tau (v and tau are degenerate).<br />
* Pros: This is an alternative measurement with different systematics. Cons: Drawbacks are systematics in y-tau relation and wrong kSZ profile model.<br />
* Conclusion: growth from kSZ may not be main science driver of S4 but adds important information that has different systematics. <br />
* Spergel – can get more information at higher-z if you include extra statistics<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ferraro'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bartlett'''<br />
* SZ can have big impact on biggest question in galaxy formation. Galaxy formation is very inefficient. Less than 10% of baryons make stars. We don’t know why. We can find out why.<br />
* Bulk of baryons is in the CGM (circumgalactic medium). Keeping it there requires efficient feedback.<br />
* So, need to observe CGM, rather than galaxies. SZ is unbeatable way to do this. Need higher redshifts – push out to z=2. Study CGM versus mass and z, and by galaxy type and property to high z.<br />
* Need halo masses of objects which we use CMB lensing for. S4 can get to much lower halo masses, where star formation is taking place. <br />
* Dust is an issue though. Contaminates signal and needs to be separated from SZ. Example has 220 GHz as highest frequency. <br />
* Dust from the halos dominates – will need multiple frequencies. Might need channels not available from ground.<br />
* Community who want to answer these galaxy formation questions don’t know that we have this great machine, should make clear.<br />
* Spergel – can we use CCAT’ to measure some of them to address the dust? Maybe, will hear more tomorrow. Or Herschel? Jim: you want big samples so need wide area.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Spergel wrap-up'''<br />
* cluster science is so rich. We can’t lose it so need to determine what size telescope we need. It is unique science that other data cannot be do. Majority of papers from S4 will be from this IF we have high enough resolution.<br />
* Need to explain our case to our astrophysics colleagues, to convey what we can tell them about galaxy formation. Need to articulate it more broadly to astrophysics community.<br />
* Keating – is this really what we should be doing with polarimeter? Spergel - Remember CMB lensing relies on polarimetry. We are limited by calibration, and CMB lensing will let us calibrate the maps.<br />
* Comment: Having neutrino mass from two probes is huge benefit and cross-check is significant value (in particular to persuade particle physicists).<br />
* Bond – can we split into delta nu <br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3572SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:39:39Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
'''Hill'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alonso'''<br />
* Forecasting measurement of growth of structure from kSZ. There are hints of problems in current data so this could be useful. <br />
* Constraints depend on the quality of the overlapping spectro survey (e.g. DESI better than BOSS). <br />
* Strength of kSZ compared to other data: you can measure growth at low-z where RSD is limited. Beats DESI and at low-z Euclid.<br />
* But need to know details about how you make the measurement, as there are many uncertainties about extracting the signal and e.g. measuring tau (v and tau are degenerate).<br />
* Pros: This is an alternative measurement with different systematics. Cons: Drawbacks are systematics in y-tau relation and wrong kSZ profile model.<br />
* Conclusion: growth from kSZ may not be main science driver of S4 but adds important information that has different systematics. <br />
* Spergel – can get more information at higher-z if you include extra statistics<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ferraro'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bartlett'''<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
'''Spergel wrap-up'''<br />
* cluster science is so rich. We can’t lose it so need to determine what size telescope we need. It is unique science that other data cannot be do. Majority of papers from S4 will be from this IF we have high enough resolution.<br />
* Need to explain our case to our astrophysics colleagues, to convey what we can tell them about galaxy formation. Need to articulate it more broadly to astrophysics community.<br />
* Keating – is this really what we should be doing with polarimeter? Spergel - Remember CMB lensing relies on polarimetry. We are limited by calibration, and CMB lensing will let us calibrate the maps.<br />
* Comment: Having neutrino mass from two probes is huge benefit and cross-check is significant value (in particular to persuade particle physicists).<br />
* Bond – can we split into delta nu <br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3571SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:36:42Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alonso'''<br />
* Forecasting measurement of growth of structure from kSZ. There are hints of problems in current data so this could be useful. <br />
* Constraints depend on the quality of the overlapping spectro survey (e.g. DESI better than BOSS). <br />
* Strength of kSZ compared to other data: you can measure growth at low-z where RSD is limited. Beats DESI and at low-z Euclid.<br />
* But need to know details about how you make the measurement, as there are many uncertainties about extracting the signal and e.g. measuring tau (v and tau are degenerate).<br />
* Pros: This is an alternative measurement with different systematics. Cons: Drawbacks are systematics in y-tau relation and wrong kSZ profile model.<br />
* Conclusion: growth from kSZ may not be main science driver of S4 but adds important information that has different systematics. <br />
* Spergel – can get more information at higher-z if you include extra statistics<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3570SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:33:23Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reichardt'''<br />
* Polarization wins for cluster lensing below 2 uK/amin, good as foregrounds are simpler. Most biases considered, e.g. offset centres, are sub-percent.<br />
* S/N increases by 1.7 going from 3’ to 2’. This is consistent with findings of Mat/Nick.<br />
* CMB lensing systematics much easier to deal with than optical WL calibration.<br />
* Promise of kSZ with southern spectro survey 4MOST, first light in 2021.<br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3569SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:29:32Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bleem'''<br />
<br />
* Describes simulations from HACC code at Argonne: N-body simulations. Building emulator to get 1% halo mass function. Getting ready to do realistic cluster work.<br />
* Bartlett– really need to calibrate mass function. This is a big challenge. Bleem – yes, these sims will be important for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3568SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:28:01Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
'''Madhavacheril'''<br />
<br />
* Showing forecasts with new code using CMB-lensing-calibrated masses. CMB lensing takes over at high z. <br />
* You can do better on w if you use internal CMB lensing mass calibration, compared to WL-calibration.<br />
* Find same scaling with size as for WL-calibration: want to be >= 5m.<br />
* Science targets: roughly 35 meV for mnu, 2.5% on w. This is without DESI, just with Planck.<br />
* Atmosphere and tau-limit means the improvement going from 5-7m is only 5%. CVL on tau gives more improvement going from 5m to 7m (40%). <br />
* If you use 5m with internal P only, do nearly as well as with T+P, which mitigates worries about temperature contamination.<br />
* Two calibration methods to get competitive neutrino mass, and interesting w limits.<br />
* Request from Charles to talk about resolution not size. Jo/others: the resolutions are now posted.<br />
* Allen – looking at w(z) could push to larger telescope.<br />
* Bond – what do we need to get ‘gold sample’? Might be higher resolution. Nick agrees. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3567SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:03:50Z<p>Dunkley: /* Action items/Next steps */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define sigma(w(z)) requirement from counts, and growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3566SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:03:19Z<p>Dunkley: /* Action items/Next steps */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
High level:<br />
* Define neutrino mass requirement from cluster counts<br />
* Define DE/growth function requirement from kSZ<br />
* Define reionization requirement<br />
* Define astrophysics requirements (e.g. on feedback parameters)<br />
* Then define measurement requirements for these things<br />
<br />
Details that came up in talks include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together<br />
* Compare patchy reionization constraints clearly to 21cm</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3565SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T02:01:23Z<p>Dunkley: /* Action items/Next steps */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here<br />
<br />
<br />
These include:<br />
* Extend cluster forecasts to extended w models, check resolution requirements<br />
* Look at 4m-5m range<br />
* Include scatter in scaling relation<br />
* Combine cluster counts and SZ pdf together</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3564SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T01:59:10Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Battaglia'''<br />
* Forecasting constraining power of mass-calibrated SZ cluster counts<br />
* Summary of code: non-white-noise, 1.5 uK’ at 90 and 150, includes extragalactic foregrounds, marginalizes over scaling relation. Planck tau prior 0.01.<br />
* Need to calibrate SZ masses, here use optical WL to get mass errors as function of mass. Assume HSC-like coverage and use optical WL out to z=1 or z=2.<br />
* Going from 5m to 6m to 7m does not affect counts and forecasts, but 3m is much worse<br />
* Main conclusion: neutrino mass is well constrained by clusters +Planck (as good as CMB lensing +DESI), using both z=1 and z=2<br />
* Completely independent and complementary to lensing and DESI. Forecast a better w than DESI BAO.<br />
* Going from 5m to 7m gets about 2x more clusters.<br />
* Optical surveys are required to obtain redshifts. <br />
* Requirements: couple percent on w, and 2.5-3 sigma on mnu minimal mass.<br />
* Allen: likely can do even better, and may want higher res, if look at w model that varies at high z.<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3563SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-28T01:53:52Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ [[:File:NB_SZ_Astro.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Allen'''<br />
* Can do extraordinary things in cluster astro and cluster cosmology with sufficiently small beam.<br />
* Current leading catalogs are X-ray, optical, SZ. Need a well-defined selection function, and mass-observable relation. This used to be a problem. But, now we split into two parts: relative mass (x-rays) and absolute mass (lensing).<br />
* Current best constraints are Mantz et al from 220 ROSAT clusters, z<0.5, with Chandra follow-up and WtG WL masses. Similar results come from from Planck clusters. Currently have 15% on DE w from clusters. <br />
* Radical change coming. Optical: DES/HSC, Euclid, LSST. Mm: SPT-3G, ACT, S4. End of 2017 eROSITA for X-ray.<br />
* Strengths for optical: cluster finding, photo-z, WL mass calibration. Strengths for mm: high-z clusters, CMB-WL mass calibration. Strengths for X-rays: cluster-finding, low-scatter mass proxies.<br />
* Target: 100k clusters; far stronger in combination.<br />
* Optical clusters are limited to z=1.2. X-ray eROSITA find all clusters at low-z, some up to 1.5. Unique discovery space for CMB is at z=1.5 and above, up to z=3. A beam of 3’ loses much of the science. <br />
* On galaxy cluster astrophysics: we can find virialized haloes out to where they first formed. Things to study: Impact of environment on triggering and quenching of star formation and AGN activity. Evolution of feedback process. Integrated history of star formation. <br />
* The majority of SPT papers came from cluster astrophysics/cosmology and galaxy astrophysics. (Spergel - ACT too)<br />
* Conclusion: with 1’ we can be transformative. <br />
* Douglas Scott: dubious about cluster cosmology. Allen: results have held up.<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3472SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-27T22:49:29Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
* Matthew Hasselfield - atmospheric noise model for large telescopes<br />
<br />
''Neff (TE/EE)-Discussion of Systematics and Foregrounds''<br />
*Dan Green - Overview + Beams/Pointing<br />
<br />
''Lensing-related''<br />
<br />
* Alex van Engelen - Impact of polarized dust on lensing<br />
* Mat M. / Colin H. - Multigrequency cleaning and extra spatial filtering<br />
* Yuuki Omori - Biases from extragalatic sources in temperature lensing<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger (remote, 5 min) - Atmospheric noise and foregrounds for tSZ science<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ<br />
* (Perhaps Lindsay Bleem)<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3452SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T19:53:05Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (provided by Darcy Barron/Mike Niemack). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3447SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T19:48:26Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (from Darcy/Mike). Just a strawman. Ignore the noise column.<br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Tel_size.png&diff=3446File:Tel size.png2017-02-27T19:47:35Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3445SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T19:46:41Z<p>Dunkley: /* Notes from session */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (from Darcy/Mike). Just a strawman. <br />
[[File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3443SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T19:45:50Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (from Darcy/Mike). Just a strawman. <br />
[[:File:tel_size.png | 400px]]<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3442SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T19:44:23Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (from Darcy/Mike). Just a strawman. <br />
[[:File:tel_size.png | ]]<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3441SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T19:43:42Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics) [[File:SteveAllenCMBS4_Feb2017.pdf ]]<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters [[:File:NB_SZ_Cosmo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters [[:File:MM_SZ_CMBhalo.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum [[:File:JCH_tSZ_PS_v2.pdf | slides ]]<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsey Bleem - Cluster Simulation tools at ANL [[:File:Bleem_S4_short.pdf |here ]]<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST [[File:20170227_cmbs4.pdf]]<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ [[:File:S4_Reionization_Ferraro.pdf | slides]]<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - Probing the Circumgalactic Medium [[File:Bartlett.pdf]]<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Notes from Steve Allen's talk: <br />
* 1 arcminute resolution provides an enormous increase in cluster discovery potential relative to 3 arcminutes<br />
* 1 arcminute would greatly increase galaxy science, and the size of the community served.<br />
<br />
Here is the strawman conversion between size of telescope and FWHM as a function of channel that Mat and Nick were looking at (from Darcy/Mike). Just a strawman. <br />
Attach: tel_size.png<br />
<br />
(Jo is also taking notes, will paste after session!)<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3340SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-27T05:46:00Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
* Atmospheric noise model for large telescopes<br />
<br />
''Neff (TE/EE)-related''<br />
* <br />
<br />
''Lensing-related''<br />
<br />
* Alex van Engelen - Impact of polarized dust on lensing<br />
* Mat M. / Colin H. - Multigrequency cleaning and extra spatial filtering<br />
* Yuuki Omori - Biases from extragalatic sources in temperature lensing<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger (5 min) - foregrounds for cluster science<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ<br />
* (Perhaps Lindsay Bleem)<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3339SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T05:11:25Z<p>Dunkley: /* Clusters and High ell science */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics)<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsay Bleem - slide on their tSZ cosmology forecast pipeline<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - cluster astro case<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3338SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T05:10:30Z<p>Dunkley: /* Clusters and High ell science */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics)<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.20 - 11.30 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.32 - 11.42 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsay Bleem - slide on their tSZ cosmology forecast pipeline<br />
* 11.51 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST<br />
* 12.02 - 12.12 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.14 - 12.24 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ<br />
* 12.26 - 12.36 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.38 - 12.48 Jim Bartlett - cluster astro case<br />
<br />
* David Spergel - few minute wrap-up<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3337SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T04:00:56Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics)<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.08 - 11.18 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.21 - 11.31 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.34 - 11.44 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum<br />
* 11.47 - 11.52 Lindsay Bleem - slide on their tSZ cosmology forecast pipeline<br />
* 11.54 - 12.04 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST<br />
* 12.06 - 12.16 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.20 - 12.30 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ<br />
* 12.33 - 12.43 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.46 - 12.56 Jim Bartlett - cluster astro case<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3336SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-27T03:36:02Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
''Lensing-related''<br />
<br />
* Alex van Engelen - Impact of polarized dust on lensing<br />
* Mat M. / Colin H. - Multigrequency cleaning and extra spatial filtering<br />
* Yuuki Omori - Biases from extragalatic sources in temperature lensing<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger (5 min) - foregrounds for cluster science<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ<br />
* (Perhaps Lindsay Bleem)<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3335SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-27T01:57:05Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
Chairing: David Spergel<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.00 Steve Allen - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics)<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.05 - 11.15 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.18 - 11.28 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.31 - 11.41 Colin Hill - mnu and w from tSZ power spectrum<br />
* 11.44 - 11.49 Lindsay Bleem - slide on their tSZ cosmology forecast pipeline<br />
* 11.50 - 12.03 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST<br />
* 12.06 - 12.16 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid [[File:KSZgrowth.pdf]]<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.20 - 12.30 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ<br />
* 12.33 - 12.43 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.46 - 12.56 Jim Bartlett - cluster astro case<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3306SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-24T21:09:56Z<p>Dunkley: /* Clusters and High ell science */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.10 Adam Mantz - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics)<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.10 - 11.20 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.22 - 11.32 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.35 - 11.45 Colin Hill - mnu from tSZ power spectrum<br />
* 11.48 - 11.53 Lindsay Bleem - slide on their tSZ cosmology forecast pipeline<br />
* 11.55 - 12.05 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST<br />
* 12.05 - 12.15 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.20 - 12.30 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ<br />
* 12.35 - 12.45 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.50 - 13.00 Jim Bartlett - cluster astro case<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:FSM_Small_angular_scales&diff=3305SLAC-2017:FSM Small angular scales2017-02-24T20:55:23Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Foregrounds, Systematics and Modeling: Small Angular Scales ==<br />
Post session talks here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''Cluster-related''<br />
* Marcelo Alvarez - extragalactic sims<br />
* Kevin Huffenberger - foregrounds for cluster science<br />
* Simone Ferraro - foregrounds for kSZ<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3304SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-24T20:51:30Z<p>Dunkley: /* Clusters and High ell science */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.10 Steve Allen/ Adam Mantz - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics)<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.10 - 11.20 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.22 - 11.32 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.35 - 11.45 Colin Hill - mnu from tSZ power spectrum<br />
* 11.48 - 11.53 Lindsay Bleem - slide on their tSZ cosmology forecast pipeline<br />
* 11.55 - 12.05 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST<br />
* 12.05 - 12.15 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.20 - 12.30 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ<br />
* 12.35 - 12.45 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.50 - 13.00 Jim Bartlett - cluster astro case<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=SLAC-2017:Clusters&diff=3278SLAC-2017:Clusters2017-02-23T19:58:17Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to [[SLAC-2017:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4| SLAC-2017 main page]]<br />
== Clusters and High ell science ==<br />
<br />
'''General context'''<br />
*10.45-11.05 Adam Mantz - overview of multi-wavelength cluster science (both cosmology and astrophysics)<br />
<br />
'''Cosmology focused part - mnu and w'''<br />
<br />
* 11.05 - 11.15 Nick Battaglia - mnu and w from lensing-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.18 - 11.28 Mat Madhavacheril - mnu and w from CMB-calibrated clusters<br />
* 11.30 - 11.40 Colin Hill - mnu from tSZ power spectrum<br />
* 11.45 - 11.50 Lindsay Bleem - slide on their tSZ cosmology forecast pipeline<br />
* 11.50 - 12.00 Christian Reichardt - forecasting cosmology from cluster lensing, and kSZ with 4MOST<br />
* 12.05 - 12.15 David Alonso - growth function from kSZ, comparison to DESI/Euclid<br />
<br />
'''Astrophysics focused part - reionization and cluster astrophysics'''<br />
<br />
* 12.20 - 12.30 Simone Ferraro - reionization case from kSZ<br />
* 12.35 - 12.45 Nick Battaglia - cluster astro case from tSZ+kSZ<br />
* 12.50 - 13.00 Jim Bartlett - cluster astro case<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Notes from session ==<br />
<br />
Take notes here.<br />
<br />
== Action items/Next steps ==<br />
<br />
Summarize action items here</div>Dunkleyhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Plan_for_next_Galactic_Phase-2sims&diff=3155Plan for next Galactic Phase-2sims2017-02-15T17:25:50Z<p>Dunkley: </p>
<hr />
<div>(Jo Dunkley writing)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Phase 2: Foreground modeling update ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Will generate second set of PySM maps using:<br />
https://github.com/bthorne93/PySM_public<br />
<br />
Phase-1 model = s1d1a1<br />
<br />
Model planned to be used = s3d4a2<br />
<br />
<br />
This has the following components:<br />
* Synchrotron, model = synchrotron3 (same MAMD spatial variation as ‘nominal’, but globally curved power law)<br />
* ThermalDust, model = dust4 (two components, using Finkbeiner/Meisner model)<br />
* AME/SpinningDust, model = spdust2 (2% polarized AME)<br />
<br />
The details are all described further in Thorne et al, https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02841. The effects on the global spectrum are shown in this figure:<br />
<br />
[[File:Pysm_freq.png|800px]]<br />
<br />
Next step underway is implementing Brandon Hensley’s new dust model into PySM code; Brandon and Ben are working on this.</div>Dunkley