https://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Jerrard&feedformat=atomCMB-S4 wiki - User contributions [en]2022-08-20T02:00:11ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.2https://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=LBNL-2020:_Low-ell_BB&diff=10941LBNL-2020: Low-ell BB2020-03-31T16:01:14Z<p>Jerrard: /* Agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Connection details ==<br />
<br />
Parallel 1, session D. Tuesday March 31, 9:00 to 11:00 am pacific.<br />
<br />
https://lbnl.zoom.us/j/676588242<br />
<br />
Monitor: Kimmy Wu<br />
<br />
Scribe: Colin Bischoff, [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FN8A8Yb6AGY7eGVLSxXdkXcB-WIEG4oANisLcuv8ty0/edit# google doc for notes] (to be transferred to wiki)<br />
<br />
== Charge ==<br />
<br />
The primary focus of this meeting will be technical and scientific progress towards the baseline design in general and the summer agency review in particular.<br />
<br />
* Present results from or statuses of data challenge 6 with real delensing incorporated<br />
* Foreground models / sims<br />
** Impact of foregrounds on delensing.<br />
** Foregrounds at low-ell <br />
* Sketch path(s) forward for data challenges:<br />
** What questions need answering by the summer’s agency review that need results from data challenges?<br />
* Outline trade studies that need to be done (or present results of trade studies) for the delensing LAT<br />
** Sensitivity vs resolution<br />
** Frequency allocation<br />
* Outline trade studies that need to be done (or present results of trade studies) for SATs<br />
** Do we need 20GHz?<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
* Results from data challenge 06 [45 min]<br />
** Parametrized likelihood + lensing template [Bischoff, 15 min] [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bI90NApMEv4W_suqxp9a89wMH_KEdfu0qRKs9S1GmLY/edit#slide=id.g726e0d289c_0_65 slides]<br />
** Bayesian optimal analysis [Millea, 15 min]<br />
** SO XForecast pipeline [Errard, 15 min] [https://www.dropbox.com/s/u3gq105bm86k2rp/CMBS4_lowellBB_LBNL_March2020.pdf?dl=0 slides]<br />
* Next steps for data challenges [45 min]<br />
** ILC maps to study impacts on foregrounds [Umilt&agrave;, 10 min][[:File: LBNL-Lowell_BB-ILC.pdf | slides]]<br />
** Exact curve-sky iterative lensing estimation [Carron, 10 min] [[:File: Cmbs4_iterativelensing.pdf | slides]]<br />
** Low ell foregrounds [[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zywbOcyp579rUUOi0BzsQB308Fab5weHx254FhDwqH8/edit?usp=sharing Hensley], 15 min]<br />
** Interface with Data Management sims [Borrill/Crawford, 10 min]<br />
** What other questions do we need to address using data challenges? [all]<br />
* Inputs for summer agency review [20 min]<br />
** Forecasting tool for Flowdown group [McMahon, 10 min] [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nvKwzamazJmfpInylkX1JIgCbG9AnlYi5nRjb8MdOV8/edit?usp=sharing slides]<br />
** Design justification studies [Wu, 10 min] [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FrartvnO9tZtD26hHonQqK1AeoLMzPXZOutqw3BezxE/edit?usp=sharing slides ] <br />
*** Sensitivity vs resolution for delensing LAT<br />
*** Frequency allocation for delensing LAT<br />
*** Justification for split-bands on SATs<br />
*** Justification for 20 GHz on delensing LAT<br />
<br />
== Notes ==</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Telecon_03172017_optimization_for_CMBS4.pdf&diff=3966File:Telecon 03172017 optimization for CMBS4.pdf2017-03-17T15:51:59Z<p>Jerrard: Jerrard uploaded a new version of File:Telecon 03172017 optimization for CMBS4.pdf</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=R_Forecasting_Logbook&diff=3965R Forecasting Logbook2017-03-17T15:44:17Z<p>Jerrard: </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 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 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)</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Telecon_03172017_optimization_for_CMBS4.pdf&diff=3964File:Telecon 03172017 optimization for CMBS4.pdf2017-03-17T15:43:13Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=R_Forecasting_Logbook&diff=3963R Forecasting Logbook2017-03-17T15:42:17Z<p>Jerrard: </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 March 17 ''': 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 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)</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2403RobustForecast2016-05-27T12:34:46Z<p>Jerrard: /* II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s) & \sigma( \Omega_K) */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
'''UPDATED RESULTS:'''<br />
<br />
Using polarisation noise values, but restricting the delensing channel to delensing only I get the following results.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
'''5/27/2016 update''': use the same assumptions for Planck as described in this page: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastingStep1<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.png|750px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.png&diff=2402File:Neff Mnu vs uK arcmin updated planck v05272016.png2016-05-27T12:34:30Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.png&diff=2401File:Neff Mnu vs uK FWHM updated planck v05272016.png2016-05-27T12:34:16Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.png&diff=2400File:OmK alphas vs uK arcmin updated planck v05272016.png2016-05-27T12:34:02Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.png&diff=2399File:OmK alphas vs FWHM updated planck v05272016.png2016-05-27T12:33:48Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2397RobustForecast2016-05-27T12:30:20Z<p>Jerrard: /* II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s) & \sigma( \Omega_K) */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
'''5/27/2016 update''': use the same assumptions for Planck as described in this page: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastingStep1<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf|750px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2396RobustForecast2016-05-27T12:29:45Z<p>Jerrard: /* II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s) & \sigma( \Omega_K) */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
'''5/27/2016 update''': use the same assumptions for Planck as described in this page: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastingStep1<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM_updated_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM_updated_v05272016.pdf|750px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2395RobustForecast2016-05-27T12:28:02Z<p>Jerrard: /* II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s) & \sigma( \Omega_K) */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
'''5/27/2016 update''': use the same assumptions for Planck as described in this page: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastingStep1<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin_v05272016.pdf|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM_v05272016.pdf|750px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf&diff=2394File:Neff Mnu vs uK FWHM updated planck v05272016.pdf2016-05-27T12:25:33Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf&diff=2393File:Neff Mnu vs uK arcmin updated planck v05272016.pdf2016-05-27T12:25:12Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf&diff=2392File:OmK alphas vs FWHM updated planck v05272016.pdf2016-05-27T12:24:52Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin_updated_planck_v05272016.pdf&diff=2391File:OmK alphas vs uK arcmin updated planck v05272016.pdf2016-05-27T12:24:32Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2281RobustForecast2016-05-20T13:04:10Z<p>Jerrard: /* IIb. Curvature & Running */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM.png|750px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2280RobustForecast2016-05-20T13:02:55Z<p>Jerrard: /* IIa. Neutrinos */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM.png|750px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2279RobustForecast2016-05-20T13:01:45Z<p>Jerrard: /* IIa. Neutrinos */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin.png|1000px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM.png|1000px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2278RobustForecast2016-05-20T12:57:20Z<p>Jerrard: /* IIa. Neutrinos */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2277RobustForecast2016-05-20T12:53:56Z<p>Jerrard: /* IIb. Curvature & Running */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2276RobustForecast2016-05-20T12:53:13Z<p>Jerrard: /* IIa. Neutrinos */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature '''[updated numbers now assume temperature noise values were quoted]'''; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. As a result, the level of the foregrounds changes with <math>f_{\rm sky}</math>. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Neff_Mnu_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Results_curve_run_vs_uKarcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Results_curve_run_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_arcmin.png&diff=2275File:Neff Mnu vs uK arcmin.png2016-05-20T12:51:12Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Neff_Mnu_vs_uK_FWHM.png&diff=2274File:Neff Mnu vs uK FWHM.png2016-05-20T12:44:07Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:OmK_alphas_vs_FWHM.png&diff=2273File:OmK alphas vs FWHM.png2016-05-20T12:43:22Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:OmK_alphas_vs_uK_arcmin.png&diff=2272File:OmK alphas vs uK arcmin.png2016-05-20T12:42:34Z<p>Jerrard: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2240RobustForecast2016-05-19T14:36:14Z<p>Jerrard: /* I. Forecast on inflation: \sigma(r) */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the framework developed in http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770. This formalism first performs a Fisher estimate of a given experimental configuration (sky fraction, frequencies, bandwidths, white noise levels and beams) to clean foregrounds (one- or two-component dust and synchrotron) from the CMB using a parametric maximum-likelihood method. Here, we take cleaning foregrounds to constitute estimating their spectral indices. The residual foregrounds and increased CMB noise level are propagated self-consistently to a delensing forecast (EBEB [iterative or otherwise], CMBxCIB or CMBxLSS); the resulting delensing residuals and lensing deflection noise are propagated to a standard CMB parameter Fisher code in which we marginalize over the amplitude and multipole dependence of any remaining foreground residuals. This formalism can combine pairs of experiments with different sky coverage, and can constrain numerous extensions to the standard model, namely <math>M_\nu</math>, <math>N_{\rm eff}</math>, <math>\Omega_k</math>, <math>r</math>, <math>n_t</math>, <math>\alpha_s</math>, <math>Y_{\rm He}</math>, <math>w_0</math> and <math>w_a</math>. A schematic of the formalism is plotted below.<br />
<br />
[[File:schematic_forecast.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
A web interface to the code is available on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html. The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints, and many other options. A NERSC account tied to the mp107 user group is needed, but is [http://www.nersc.gov/users/accounts/user-accounts/get-a-nersc-account/ simple to obtain].<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|5.50<br />
|6.65<br />
|6.81<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.73<br />
|1.24<br />
|1.12<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. A further possibility is that we are using different foreground inputs: our foreground templates are extrapolated from [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2016A%26A...586A.133P&link_type=EJOURNAL Planck results], which specify the amplitude of the dust power in the cleanest 24, 33, 42, 53, 63 and 72% of the sky. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu)</math>, <math>\sigma( N_{eff})</math>, <math>\sigma( \alpha_s)</math> & <math>\sigma( \Omega_K)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this figures below, which can also be downloaded as the following presentation https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf.<br />
<br />
=== IIa. Neutrinos ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Results_nu_params_vs_uKarcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Results_nu_params_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
=== IIb. Curvature & Running ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Results_curve_run_vs_uKarcmin.png|500px]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Results_curve_run_vs_FWHM.png|500px]]</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2223RobustForecast2016-05-19T08:46:11Z<p>Jerrard: /* Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Study based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770<br />
<br />
A web interface of the code is accessible on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html<br />
The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== ''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|3.67<br />
|4.48<br />
|4.59<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.48<br />
|1.00<br />
|0.880<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== '''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s), \sigma( \Omega_K) </math> ''' ==<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.<br />
Results are summarized in this presentation: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/images/Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Results_cosmo_params_vs_uKarcmin_FWHM.pdf&diff=2222File:Results cosmo params vs uKarcmin FWHM.pdf2016-05-19T08:45:04Z<p>Jerrard: We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.</p>
<hr />
<div>We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2221RobustForecast2016-05-19T08:35:15Z<p>Jerrard: /* Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Study based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770<br />
<br />
A web interface of the code is accessible on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html<br />
The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
''' I. Forecast on inflation: <math>\sigma(r)</math> '''<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|3.67<br />
|4.48<br />
|4.59<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.48<br />
|1.00<br />
|0.880<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''II. Forecast on other cosmological parameters <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s), \sigma( \Omega_K) </math> '''<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2220RobustForecast2016-05-19T08:33:14Z<p>Jerrard: /* Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Study based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770<br />
<br />
A web interface of the code is accessible on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html<br />
The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints. <br />
<br />
<br />
''' I. <math>\sigma(r)</math> '''<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|3.67<br />
|4.48<br />
|4.59<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.48<br />
|1.00<br />
|0.880<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
<br />
'''II. <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s), \sigma( \Omega_K) </math> '''<br />
<br />
We derive here results which aim at being compared to Erminia’s forecasts: https://cosmo.uchicago.edu/CMB-S4workshops/index.php/ForecastNu<br />
Some discrepancies might appear due to different assumptions, priors, polarized vs. total intensity sensitivity, etc.<br />
<br />
We look at the variation of cosmological constraints (neutrino mass, Neff, running and curvature) as a function of polarized sensitivity or resolution. <br />
We combine the one-channel CMB-S4 with Planck and/or DESI BAO measurements.</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2219RobustForecast2016-05-19T08:31:52Z<p>Jerrard: /* Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Study based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770<br />
<br />
A web interface of the code is accessible on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html<br />
The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints. <br />
<br />
<br />
I. ''' <math>\sigma(r)</math> '''<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|3.67<br />
|4.48<br />
|4.59<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.48<br />
|1.00<br />
|0.880<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
II. '''[[ <math> \sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s), \sigma( \Omega_K)]] </math> '''</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2218RobustForecast2016-05-19T08:31:08Z<p>Jerrard: /* Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Study based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770<br />
<br />
A web interface of the code is accessible on NERSC: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html<br />
The tool allows you to look at specific instrumental configurations (sensitivities, frequencies, bandpasses, FWHM), choose dust and synchrotron spectral indices, sky components, delensing options (CMBxCMB, CMBxCIB), marginalization for cosmological constraints. <br />
<br />
<br />
I. ''' <math>\sigma(r)</math> '''<br />
<br />
<br />
These forecasts are based on the optimized experimental configurations provided by Victor Buza [http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20150505_fisher/ here]. In summary, there are six configurations, assuming three values of <math>f_{\rm sky}</math> (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1) and two values of <math>r</math> (0 and 0.01). The experiment is broken down into a multi-frequency "degree-scale" effort aimed at cleaning foregrounds and a single-frequency (assumed 145 GHz, 1' FHWM) "arcmin-scale" effort aimed at delensing; both efforts are assumed to have access to a multipole range of <math>30 \le \ell \le 4000</math>. We combine all of these bands together and pass to our component-separation, delensing and Fisher formalism, assuming dust and synchrotron are present and using iterative CMB EBEB delensing (we can also provide constraints for no/CIB/LSS delensing). We perform the same procedure for Planck (we don't use the WMAP channels), and combine the two Fisher matrices together. We assume a simple <math>\Lambda</math>CDM+<math>r</math> model, and constrain it using <math>T</math>, <math>E</math>, <math>B</math> and <math>d</math> information.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.01</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.05</math><br />
|<math>f_{\rm sky} = 0.1</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0) \times 10^{-4}</math><br />
|3.67<br />
|4.48<br />
|4.59<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\sigma(r=0.01) \times 10^{-3}</math><br />
|1.48<br />
|1.00<br />
|0.880<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Clearly we have more optimistic results than Victor. This may be because we're using polarization noise levels rather than temperature; we also consider fewer foreground parameters than Victor does. There could also be differences in the way we're delensing. Essentially, we should discuss!<br />
<br />
II. '''[[\sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s), \sigma( \Omega_K)]]'''</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=RobustForecast&diff=2212RobustForecast2016-05-19T07:52:47Z<p>Jerrard: Created page with " == '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' == Study based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770 I. '..."</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization''' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Study based on http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06770<br />
<br />
<br />
I. '''[[\sigma(r)]]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
II. '''[[\sigma( \Sigma m_\nu), \sigma( N_{eff}), \sigma( \alpha_s), \sigma( \Omega_K)]]'''</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=R_Forecasting_Logbook&diff=2211R Forecasting Logbook2016-05-19T07:48:26Z<p>Jerrard: /* Logbook Entries (reverse chronological) */</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 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 />
* 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 />
* 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 />
<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[RobustForecast| cosmological forecasts including component separation and iterative delensing]] (Stephen Feeney and Josquin Errard)<br />
* '''2016 May 20''': [[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 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)</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Forecasting&diff=2063Forecasting2016-04-29T15:29:23Z<p>Jerrard: /* Fisher codes */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Forecasting non-r parameters===<br />
<br />
<br />
The expectation is that these forecasts will be done mainly using Fisher forecasts for the Science Book, with prudent use of frequencies and ell-range to avoid being over-optimistic about the impact of Galactic and extragalactic foregrounds and noise from the ground.<br />
<br />
----<br />
====Parameters ====<br />
Names of people responsible for generating forecasts in brackets. Sign yourself up and we can divide up tasks when we speak if there are multiple people.<br />
<br />
*LCDM 6-parameters (all)<br />
<br />
<br />
Inflation section<br />
*curvature (Stephen/Josquin) - also Danielle/Jo<br />
*running (Stephen/Josquin)<br />
*birefringence (Vera)<br />
*correlated isocurvature amplitude (Cora/Kimmy)<br />
*uncorrelated isocurvature amplitude (Cora/Kimmy)<br />
*axion isocurvature (Renee/Doddy/Dan)<br />
*cosmic string tension (Renee)<br />
*primordial magnetic field (TBD)<br />
<br />
<br />
Neutrino section<br />
*neutrino mass sum (Mat/Neelima/Nam) - also Alessandro<br />
*Neff (with delensing of TT & EE (Joel/Alex/Dan) - also Mat/Neelima/Nam and Erminia<br />
*Yp (with delensing of TT & EE (Joel/Alex/Dan) - also Erminia<br />
*neutrino sound speed (Erminia)<br />
<br />
<br />
Dark matter and dark energy section<br />
*dark matter annihilation (Cora)<br />
*dark matter interactions (Cora)<br />
*utralight-axion density (Renee/Doddy/Dan G)<br />
*w (Alessandro) - also Stephen/Josquin<br />
*w0,wa (Alessandro) - also Stephen/Josquin<br />
*early dark energy (Erminia)<br />
*gamma (TBD)<br />
<br />
*kSZ S/N from S4 x photo-z (Simone)<br />
*shear bias calibration from S4 x LSST (Emmanuel)<br />
<br />
<br />
Here is place-holder for some suggested fiducial parameters and step-sizes, can be different though.[[File:params_steps.pdf|500px]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
====Fisher codes ====<br />
With info on what data they can handle and who is available to run them during next two months<br />
<br />
*Errard/Feeney code -unlensed TT, EE, TE and BB, plus deflection dd. Can do iterative EBEB, CIB or LSS delensing, and foreground removal on a statistical level. Current white noise, but simple to extend (Stephen,Josquin) -- web interface accessible at : http://portal.nersc.gov/project/mp107/index.html<br />
*Allison et al code - lensed TT/TE/EE plus kk plus BAO, can take in non-white N_ell but no explicit FG handling (Erminia Calabrese, Danielle Leonard, Jo Dunkley)<br />
*Extension of Allison et al code for axions (Renee Hlozek)<br />
*Stony Brook code - TT/TE/EE/kk with iterative delensing plus BAO, can take in non-white N_ell but no explicit FG handling, being expanded to include LSST shear and cluster counts with halo lensing (Mat Madhavacheril, Neelima Sehgal, Nam Nguyen)<br />
*de Bernardis code - includes kSZ likelihood (Francesco de Bernardis)<br />
*Manzotti code- similar to Allison et al and already partially checked against that code; used for http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02654 (Alessandro Manzotti)<br />
*CITA code - includes delensing of spectra to all orders; forecasts of delensed covariances are in progress (Joel Meyers, Alex van Engelen, Dan Green)<br />
*who has a tSZ likelihood? (David Alonso can do N(M,z) and tSZ fluxes. Who has code to push through to parameters?)<br />
*other codes and people?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====Settings====<br />
<br />
Nominal:<br />
*S4 TT/TE/EE/kk over 40% of sky, 30<ell < lmax<br />
*Planck TT/TE/EE from 30<l<2500 over additional 20% of sky. Use these 'Planck-pol' specs for noise:[[File:planck_pol.pdf|500px]]<br />
*Planck TT at l<30 over 80% of sky<br />
*Tau prior 0.06+-0.01<br />
<br />
<br />
*lmax(TT)=3000 unless explicit foreground cleaning is done in code for kSZ etc<br />
*lmax(TE,EE)=5000 unless explicit foreground cleaning done in code<br />
*kk reconstructed from 30<l<lmax using MV estimate<br />
<br />
<br />
*quadratic estimator for lensing, ideally with iterative delensing<br />
*Gaussian likelihood neglecting T/E/k covariance is ok, but non-Gaussian better (do any codes have full lensed T/E/B/k covariance?)<br />
*non-linear power spectrum for kk, e.g. ok to use halofit in CAMB<br />
<br />
Extensions:<br />
*option to add DESI BAO. These are placeholder for forecast rs/DVs.[[File:bao_desi_v2.pdf|500px]]<br />
<br />
*cluster masses calibrated with LSST lensing or CMB halo lensing (need to refine what that means)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
====Specs====<br />
<br />
''Nominal test case''<br />
*Single channel (e.g. 150 GHz) at 1 uK/amin in T and 1.4uK/amin in P, 3 arcmin resolution.<br />
*White noise, no FG inflation<br />
*Useful if your code can spit out errors as function of noise level in 1-10 uK/arcmin range and resolution in range 1-10 arcmin.<br />
<br />
''Next steps''<br />
<br />
*Define multiple frequencies of the survey<br />
*Decide if an N_ell that captures non-white-noise is necessary <br />
*Define residual FG level if any</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=ForecastingStep1&diff=2021ForecastingStep12016-04-27T10:39:13Z<p>Jerrard: /* Checking forecasting outputs */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Checking forecasting outputs===<br />
<br />
This should be run for the test case for S4+Planck. This is T/E/B/kappa. No clusters or BAO at this point (can be posted in other entries though).<br />
Settings described [[Forecasting|here]] and here:<br />
<br />
*S4 = single channel (e.g. 150 GHz) at 1 uK/amin in T and 1.4uK/amin in P, 3 arcmin resolution.<br />
*White noise, no FG inflation<br />
<br />
*S4 T/E/B/k over 40% of sky, 30<ell < lmax<br />
*Planck TT/TE/EE from 30<l<2500 over additional 20% of sky. Can use these 'Planck-pol' specs for noise:[[File:planck_pol.pdf|500px]]<br />
*Planck TT at l<30 over 80% of sky<br />
*Tau prior 0.06+-0.01<br />
<br />
*lmax(TT)=3000 unless explicit foreground cleaning is done in code for kSZ etc<br />
*lmax(TE,EE)=5000 unless explicit foreground cleaning done in code<br />
*kk reconstructed from 30<l<lmax using MV estimate<br />
<br />
*quadratic estimator for lensing, ideally with iterative delensing<br />
*Gaussian likelihood neglecting T/E/k covariance is ok, but non-Gaussian better <br />
*non-linear power spectrum for kk, e.g. ok to use halofit in CAMB<br />
*if easy to do, use pivot k=0.05<br />
<br />
*don't need to use same fiducial, but useful to note what you have used.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Forecast parameters for LCDM (add columns if your code spits out different parameters e.g. h, sigma8)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|obh2<br />
|och2<br />
|100 theta<br />
|10^9 As<br />
|ns<br />
|tau<br />
|hubble<br />
|-<br />
|Stephen/Josquin<br />
|0.0222± 0.000026<br />
|0.1197±0.00057<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.021<br />
|0.9655±0.0018<br />
|0.06±0.0055<br />
|67.74±0.21<br />
|-<br />
|Alex/Joel/Dan<br />
|0.022200±0.000029<br />
|0.1197±0.00059<br />
| --<br />
|2.196±0.021<br />
|0.9655±0.0019<br />
|0.0600±0.0056<br />
|67.50±0.22<br />
|-<br />
|Mat/Neelima/Nam<br />
|0.0222±0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00058<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.021<br />
|0.9655±0.0019<br />
|0.06±0.0056<br />
|67.31±0.22<br />
|-<br />
|Erminia/Jo/Danielle<br />
|0.0222±0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00062<br />
|1.0459±0.00009<br />
|2.20±0.021<br />
|0.9655±0.0020<br />
|0.06±0.0052<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Cora/Kimmy<br />
|0.02225±0.00003<br />
|0.1198±0.00055<br />
| -- <br />
|2.207±0.019<br />
|0.9645±0.0018<br />
|0.06±0.0052<br />
|67.27±0.17<br />
|-<br />
|Renee/Doddy/Dan<br />
|0.02222±0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00064<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.021<br />
|0.9655±0.0020<br />
|0.06±0.0058<br />
|69.0±0.25<br />
|-<br />
|Alessandro <br />
|0.02222±0.000028<br />
|0.1197±0.00057<br />
| --<br />
|2.196±0.020<br />
|0.9655±0.0018<br />
|0.06±0.0055<br />
|67.5±0.21<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Forecast parameters for LCDM+mnu (add columns if your code spits out different parameters e.g. h, sigma8)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|obh2<br />
|och2<br />
|100 theta<br />
|10^9 As<br />
|ns<br />
|tau<br />
|mnu (meV)<br />
|hubble<br />
|-<br />
|Stephen/Josquin<br />
|0.0222± 0.000026<br />
|0.1197±0.00066<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.036<br />
|0.9655±0.0020<br />
|0.06±0.0086<br />
|60±66<br />
|67.74±0.77<br />
|-<br />
|Alex/Joel/Dan<br />
|0.022200±0.000030<br />
|0.1197±0.00071<br />
| --<br />
|2.196±0.039<br />
|0.9655±0.0022<br />
|0.0600±0.0089<br />
|60±75<br />
|67.50±0.88<br />
|-<br />
|Mat/Neelima/Nam<br />
|0.0222±0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00071<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.039<br />
|0.9655±0.0020<br />
|0.06±0.0089<br />
|60±70<br />
|67.31±0.84<br />
|-<br />
|Erminia/Jo/Danielle<br />
|0.0222± 0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00077<br />
|1.046±0.00011<br />
|2.20±0.036<br />
|0.9655±0.0022<br />
|0.06±0.0084<br />
|60±68<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Cora/Kimmy<br />
|0.02225±0.00003<br />
|0.1198±0.00065<br />
| -- <br />
|2.207±0.037<br />
|0.9645±0.0019<br />
|0.06±0.0086<br />
|58±64<br />
|67.27±0.73<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|Renee/Doddy/Dan<br />
|0.0222± 0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00077<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.037<br />
|0.9655±0.0022<br />
|0.06±0.0086<br />
|60±71<br />
|69.0±0.85<br />
<br />
|-<br />
|Alessandro<br />
|0.0222± 0.000029<br />
|0.1197±0.0007<br />
| --<br />
|2.196±0.036<br />
|0.9655±0.002<br />
|0.06±0.0086<br />
|60±64<br />
|67.5±0.78<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Notes===<br />
<br />
*From Jo: got these errors for Planck-alone for LCDM: 0.00017, 0.0014, 0.00047, 0.039, 0.004, 0.01.<br />
*From Alessandro: I can reproduce the scatter in our results by slightly changing my parameter steps or going from a 5 point to a 3 points formula for the derivatives. It seems intrinsic in the Fisher technique, At least for me the matrix inversion is very sensitive to small changes in its parameters in particular for those with strong degeneracies.<br />
*From Mat/Neelima: The choice of fiducials also seems to matter a bit. For example, a small shift in fiducials gives about a ~10-15% change in the mnu error.<br />
*From Joel & Alex: Is it appropriate to do lmax(TE) = 5000 if we have lmax(TT) = 3000? We have done this, but weren't sure of the reasoning here. (Answer from Jo: we expect TT to be contaminated by extragalactic FG above about 3000, but TE doesn't have those foregrounds.)</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=ForecastingStep1&diff=1975ForecastingStep12016-04-25T06:51:59Z<p>Jerrard: /* Checking forecasting outputs */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Checking forecasting outputs===<br />
<br />
This should be run for the test case for S4+Planck. This is T/E/B/kappa. No clusters or BAO at this point (can be posted in other entries though).<br />
Settings described [[Forecasting|here]] and here:<br />
<br />
*S4 = single channel (e.g. 150 GHz) at 1 uK/amin in T and 1.4uK/amin in P, 3 arcmin resolution.<br />
*White noise, no FG inflation<br />
<br />
*S4 T/E/B/k over 40% of sky, 30<ell < lmax<br />
*Planck TT/TE/EE from 30<l<2500 over additional 20% of sky. Can use these 'Planck-pol' specs for noise:[[File:planck_pol.pdf|500px]]<br />
*Planck TT at l<30 over 80% of sky<br />
*Tau prior 0.06+-0.01<br />
<br />
*lmax(TT)=3000 unless explicit foreground cleaning is done in code for kSZ etc<br />
*lmax(TE,EE)=5000 unless explicit foreground cleaning done in code<br />
*kk reconstructed from 30<l<lmax using MV estimate<br />
<br />
*quadratic estimator for lensing, ideally with iterative delensing<br />
*Gaussian likelihood neglecting T/E/k covariance is ok, but non-Gaussian better <br />
*non-linear power spectrum for kk, e.g. ok to use halofit in CAMB<br />
*if easy to do, use pivot k=0.05<br />
<br />
*don't need to use same fiducial, but useful to note what you have used.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Forecast parameters for LCDM (add columns if your code spits out different parameters e.g. h, sigma8)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|obh2<br />
|och2<br />
|theta<br />
|10^9 As<br />
|ns<br />
|tau<br />
|hubble<br />
|-<br />
|Stephen/Josquin<br />
|0.0222± 0.000022<br />
|0.1197±0.00053<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.020<br />
|0.9655±0.0017<br />
|0.06±0.0052<br />
|67.74±0.20<br />
|-<br />
|Alex/Joel/Dan<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Mat/Neelima/Nam<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Erminia/Jo/Danielle<br />
|0.0222± 0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00062<br />
|1.0459±0.00009<br />
|2.20±0.021<br />
|0.9655±0.0020<br />
|0.06±0.0052<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Cora/Kimmy<br />
|0.02225±0.00003<br />
|0.1198±0.00055<br />
| -- <br />
|2.207±0.019<br />
|0.9645±0.0018<br />
|0.06±0.0052<br />
|67.27±0.17<br />
|-<br />
|Add your name here<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Forecast parameters for LCDM+mnu (add columns if your code spits out different parameters e.g. h, sigma8)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|obh2<br />
|och2<br />
|theta<br />
|10^9 As<br />
|ns<br />
|tau<br />
|mnu (meV)<br />
|hubble<br />
|-<br />
|Stephen/Josquin<br />
|0.0222± 0.000022<br />
|0.1197±0.00060<br />
| --<br />
|2.20±0.035<br />
|0.9655±0.0019<br />
|0.06±0.0083<br />
|60±62<br />
|67.74±0.71<br />
|-<br />
|Alex/Joel/Dan<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Mat/Neelima/Nam<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Erminia/Jo/Danielle<br />
|0.0222± 0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00077<br />
|1.046±0.00011<br />
|2.20±0.036<br />
|0.9655±0.0022<br />
|0.06±0.0084<br />
|60±68<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Cora/Kimmy<br />
|0.02225±0.00003<br />
|0.1198±0.00065<br />
| -- <br />
|2.207±0.037<br />
|0.9645±0.0019<br />
|0.06±0.0086<br />
|58±64<br />
|67.27±0.73<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|Add your name here<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Notes===<br />
<br />
*From Jo: got these errors for Planck-alone for LCDM: 0.00017, 0.0014, 0.00047, 0.039, 0.004, 0.01.</div>Jerrardhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=ForecastingStep1&diff=1972ForecastingStep12016-04-22T16:13:15Z<p>Jerrard: /* Checking forecasting outputs */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Checking forecasting outputs===<br />
<br />
This should be run for the test case for S4+Planck. This is T/E/B/kappa. No clusters or BAO at this point (can be posted in other entries though).<br />
Settings described [[Forecasting|here]] and here:<br />
<br />
*S4 = single channel (e.g. 150 GHz) at 1 uK/amin in T and 1.4uK/amin in P, 3 arcmin resolution.<br />
*White noise, no FG inflation<br />
<br />
*S4 T/E/B/k over 40% of sky, 30<ell < lmax<br />
*Planck TT/TE/EE from 30<l<2500 over additional 20% of sky. Can use these 'Planck-pol' specs for noise:[[File:planck_pol.pdf|500px]]<br />
*Planck TT at l<30 over 80% of sky<br />
*Tau prior 0.06+-0.01<br />
<br />
*lmax(TT)=3000 unless explicit foreground cleaning is done in code for kSZ etc<br />
*lmax(TE,EE)=5000 unless explicit foreground cleaning done in code<br />
*kk reconstructed from 30<l<lmax using MV estimate<br />
<br />
*quadratic estimator for lensing, ideally with iterative delensing<br />
*Gaussian likelihood neglecting T/E/k covariance is ok, but non-Gaussian better <br />
*non-linear power spectrum for kk, e.g. ok to use halofit in CAMB<br />
*if easy to do, use pivot k=0.05<br />
<br />
*don't need to use same fiducial, but useful to note what you have used.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Forecast parameters for LCDM (add columns if your code spits out different parameters e.g. h, sigma8)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|obh2<br />
|och2<br />
|theta<br />
|10^9 As<br />
|ns<br />
|tau<br />
|-<br />
|Stephen/Josquin<br />
|0.0222± 0.000022<br />
|0.1197±0.00053<br />
|67.74±0.20<br />
|2.20±0.020<br />
|0.9655±0.0017<br />
|0.06±0.0052<br />
|-<br />
|Alex/Joel/Dan<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Mat/Neelima/Nam<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Jo/Erminia/Danielle<br />
|0.0222± 0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00062<br />
|1.0459±0.00009<br />
|2.20±0.021<br />
|0.9655±0.0020<br />
|0.06±0.0052<br />
|-<br />
|Add your name here<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Forecast parameters for LCDM+mnu (add columns if your code spits out different parameters e.g. h, sigma8)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
|obh2<br />
|och2<br />
|theta<br />
|10^9 As<br />
|ns<br />
|tau<br />
|mnu (meV)<br />
|-<br />
|Stephen/Josquin<br />
|0.0222± 0.000022<br />
|0.1197±0.00060<br />
|67.74±0.71<br />
|2.20±0.035<br />
|0.9655±0.0019<br />
|0.06±0.0083<br />
|60±62<br />
|-<br />
|Alex/Joel/Dan<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Mat/Neelima/Nam<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Jo/Erminia/Danielle<br />
|0.0222± 0.00003<br />
|0.1197±0.00077<br />
|1.046±0.00011<br />
|2.20±0.036<br />
|0.9655±0.0022<br />
|0.06±0.0084<br />
|60±68<br />
|-<br />
|Add your name here<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Notes===<br />
<br />
*From Jo: got these errors for Planck-alone for LCDM: 0.00017, 0.0014, 0.00047, 0.039, 0.004, 0.01.</div>Jerrard