https://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Toshiyan&feedformat=atomCMB-S4 wiki - User contributions [en]2022-05-29T02:59:18ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.2https://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=UCSD-2019:_Cross-Cut:_Delensing&diff=10060UCSD-2019: Cross-Cut: Delensing2019-10-18T19:25:32Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>[https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/UCSD-2019:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4#Agenda Link back to agenda]<br />
<br />
== Charge ==<br />
General charge to all parallels:<br />
<br />
We need to use the October collaboration meeting to advance our preparations for CD-1. Right away, we need to:<br />
* Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1,<br />
* Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions, <br />
* Lay out a timeline and process for making each decision, consistent with the post-decision work and internal reviews that will be needed to complete preparations for CD-1,<br />
* Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.<br />
<br />
Specific charge to this '''delensing cross-cut session''':<br />
* For the de-lensing LAT, what are the benefits and costs of variation in angular resolution (dish size) for legacy survey science goals? <br />
* What is minimum dish size / throughput needed for delensing? Would multiple smaller telescopes be better than one bigger one? (both r + Neff)<br />
* What are the effects of foregrounds on delensing (both for r and Neff)<br />
<br />
== Remote Attendance ==<br />
<br />
[https://ucsd.zoom.us/j/462241746 Zoom link]<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
1) On-going work related to delensing (50 min - 1hr): <br />
* f_NL<br />
** Will Coulton on delensing for f_NL<br />
* Foregrounds<br />
** Anton Baleato Lizancos on biases to delensing from CIB and EB estimator [[File: AntonBL_S4meeting.pdf]]<br />
** Marius Millea on incorporating foregrounds in Bayesian delensing <br />
<!-- ** Alex van Engelen on Galactic foreground impacts --><br />
<!-- ** Kimmy Wu on CIB non-Gaussianity impacts on delensed bandpower covariances --><br />
* N_eff<br />
** Selim Hotinli on delensing for N_eff<br />
<br />
<br />
2) What are some of the questions that need answering for moving CMB-S4 to CD-1 readiness in delensing (1hr): <br />
* How map non-idealities impact delensing efficiency [[File: File.pdf]] (Toshiya Namikawa)<br />
* Discussion on instrumental systematics: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19IHIesZkqBL7GajtV4NTVoIh1XBBCqXZnPXSkdwflTA/edit?usp=sharing need inputs from all!] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* What inputs are needed in order to address session charges<br />
<br />
== Notes ==</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=UCSD-2019:_Cross-Cut:_Delensing&diff=10057UCSD-2019: Cross-Cut: Delensing2019-10-18T19:24:26Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>[https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/UCSD-2019:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4#Agenda Link back to agenda]<br />
<br />
== Charge ==<br />
General charge to all parallels:<br />
<br />
We need to use the October collaboration meeting to advance our preparations for CD-1. Right away, we need to:<br />
* Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1,<br />
* Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions, <br />
* Lay out a timeline and process for making each decision, consistent with the post-decision work and internal reviews that will be needed to complete preparations for CD-1,<br />
* Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.<br />
<br />
Specific charge to this '''delensing cross-cut session''':<br />
* For the de-lensing LAT, what are the benefits and costs of variation in angular resolution (dish size) for legacy survey science goals? <br />
* What is minimum dish size / throughput needed for delensing? Would multiple smaller telescopes be better than one bigger one? (both r + Neff)<br />
* What are the effects of foregrounds on delensing (both for r and Neff)<br />
<br />
== Remote Attendance ==<br />
<br />
[https://ucsd.zoom.us/j/462241746 Zoom link]<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
1) On-going work related to delensing (50 min - 1hr): <br />
* f_NL<br />
** Will Coulton on delensing for f_NL<br />
* Foregrounds<br />
** Anton Baleato Lizancos on biases to delensing from CIB and EB estimator [[File: AntonBL_S4meeting.pdf]]<br />
** Marius Millea on incorporating foregrounds in Bayesian delensing <br />
<!-- ** Alex van Engelen on Galactic foreground impacts --><br />
<!-- ** Kimmy Wu on CIB non-Gaussianity impacts on delensed bandpower covariances --><br />
* N_eff<br />
** Selim Hotinli on delensing for N_eff<br />
<br />
<br />
2) What are some of the questions that need answering for moving CMB-S4 to CD-1 readiness in delensing (1hr): <br />
* How map non-idealities impact delensing efficiency [[File: namikawa.pdf]] (Toshiya Namikawa)<br />
* Discussion on instrumental systematics: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19IHIesZkqBL7GajtV4NTVoIh1XBBCqXZnPXSkdwflTA/edit?usp=sharing need inputs from all!] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* What inputs are needed in order to address session charges<br />
<br />
== Notes ==</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=UCSD-2019:_Cross-Cut:_Delensing&diff=10056UCSD-2019: Cross-Cut: Delensing2019-10-18T19:23:55Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>[https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/UCSD-2019:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4#Agenda Link back to agenda]<br />
<br />
== Charge ==<br />
General charge to all parallels:<br />
<br />
We need to use the October collaboration meeting to advance our preparations for CD-1. Right away, we need to:<br />
* Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1,<br />
* Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions, <br />
* Lay out a timeline and process for making each decision, consistent with the post-decision work and internal reviews that will be needed to complete preparations for CD-1,<br />
* Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.<br />
<br />
Specific charge to this '''delensing cross-cut session''':<br />
* For the de-lensing LAT, what are the benefits and costs of variation in angular resolution (dish size) for legacy survey science goals? <br />
* What is minimum dish size / throughput needed for delensing? Would multiple smaller telescopes be better than one bigger one? (both r + Neff)<br />
* What are the effects of foregrounds on delensing (both for r and Neff)<br />
<br />
== Remote Attendance ==<br />
<br />
[https://ucsd.zoom.us/j/462241746 Zoom link]<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
1) On-going work related to delensing (50 min - 1hr): <br />
* f_NL<br />
** Will Coulton on delensing for f_NL<br />
* Foregrounds<br />
** Anton Baleato Lizancos on biases to delensing from CIB and EB estimator [[File: AntonBL_S4meeting.pdf]]<br />
** Marius Millea on incorporating foregrounds in Bayesian delensing <br />
<!-- ** Alex van Engelen on Galactic foreground impacts --><br />
<!-- ** Kimmy Wu on CIB non-Gaussianity impacts on delensed bandpower covariances --><br />
* N_eff<br />
** Selim Hotinli on delensing for N_eff<br />
<br />
<br />
2) What are some of the questions that need answering for moving CMB-S4 to CD-1 readiness in delensing (1hr): <br />
* How map non-idealities impact delensing efficiency [[file.pdf]] (Toshiya Namikawa)<br />
* Discussion on instrumental systematics: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19IHIesZkqBL7GajtV4NTVoIh1XBBCqXZnPXSkdwflTA/edit?usp=sharing need inputs from all!] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* What inputs are needed in order to address session charges<br />
<br />
== Notes ==</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:File.pdf&diff=10055File:File.pdf2019-10-18T19:22:41Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=UCSD-2019:_Cross-Cut:_Delensing&diff=10054UCSD-2019: Cross-Cut: Delensing2019-10-18T19:22:28Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>[https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/UCSD-2019:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4#Agenda Link back to agenda]<br />
<br />
== Charge ==<br />
General charge to all parallels:<br />
<br />
We need to use the October collaboration meeting to advance our preparations for CD-1. Right away, we need to:<br />
* Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1,<br />
* Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions, <br />
* Lay out a timeline and process for making each decision, consistent with the post-decision work and internal reviews that will be needed to complete preparations for CD-1,<br />
* Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.<br />
<br />
Specific charge to this '''delensing cross-cut session''':<br />
* For the de-lensing LAT, what are the benefits and costs of variation in angular resolution (dish size) for legacy survey science goals? <br />
* What is minimum dish size / throughput needed for delensing? Would multiple smaller telescopes be better than one bigger one? (both r + Neff)<br />
* What are the effects of foregrounds on delensing (both for r and Neff)<br />
<br />
== Remote Attendance ==<br />
<br />
[https://ucsd.zoom.us/j/462241746 Zoom link]<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
1) On-going work related to delensing (50 min - 1hr): <br />
* f_NL<br />
** Will Coulton on delensing for f_NL<br />
* Foregrounds<br />
** Anton Baleato Lizancos on biases to delensing from CIB and EB estimator [[File: AntonBL_S4meeting.pdf]]<br />
** Marius Millea on incorporating foregrounds in Bayesian delensing <br />
<!-- ** Alex van Engelen on Galactic foreground impacts --><br />
<!-- ** Kimmy Wu on CIB non-Gaussianity impacts on delensed bandpower covariances --><br />
* N_eff<br />
** Selim Hotinli on delensing for N_eff<br />
<br />
<br />
2) What are some of the questions that need answering for moving CMB-S4 to CD-1 readiness in delensing (1hr): <br />
* How map non-idealities impact delensing efficiency [[File: file.pdf]] (Toshiya Namikawa)<br />
* Discussion on instrumental systematics: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19IHIesZkqBL7GajtV4NTVoIh1XBBCqXZnPXSkdwflTA/edit?usp=sharing need inputs from all!] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* What inputs are needed in order to address session charges<br />
<br />
== Notes ==</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=UCSD-2019:_Cross-Cut:_Delensing&diff=10053UCSD-2019: Cross-Cut: Delensing2019-10-18T19:22:10Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>[https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/UCSD-2019:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4#Agenda Link back to agenda]<br />
<br />
== Charge ==<br />
General charge to all parallels:<br />
<br />
We need to use the October collaboration meeting to advance our preparations for CD-1. Right away, we need to:<br />
* Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1,<br />
* Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions, <br />
* Lay out a timeline and process for making each decision, consistent with the post-decision work and internal reviews that will be needed to complete preparations for CD-1,<br />
* Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.<br />
<br />
Specific charge to this '''delensing cross-cut session''':<br />
* For the de-lensing LAT, what are the benefits and costs of variation in angular resolution (dish size) for legacy survey science goals? <br />
* What is minimum dish size / throughput needed for delensing? Would multiple smaller telescopes be better than one bigger one? (both r + Neff)<br />
* What are the effects of foregrounds on delensing (both for r and Neff)<br />
<br />
== Remote Attendance ==<br />
<br />
[https://ucsd.zoom.us/j/462241746 Zoom link]<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
1) On-going work related to delensing (50 min - 1hr): <br />
* f_NL<br />
** Will Coulton on delensing for f_NL<br />
* Foregrounds<br />
** Anton Baleato Lizancos on biases to delensing from CIB and EB estimator [[File: AntonBL_S4meeting.pdf]]<br />
** Marius Millea on incorporating foregrounds in Bayesian delensing <br />
<!-- ** Alex van Engelen on Galactic foreground impacts --><br />
<!-- ** Kimmy Wu on CIB non-Gaussianity impacts on delensed bandpower covariances --><br />
* N_eff<br />
** Selim Hotinli on delensing for N_eff<br />
<br />
<br />
2) What are some of the questions that need answering for moving CMB-S4 to CD-1 readiness in delensing (1hr): <br />
* How map non-idealities impact delensing efficiency [[File: Link]] (Toshiya Namikawa)<br />
* Discussion on instrumental systematics: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19IHIesZkqBL7GajtV4NTVoIh1XBBCqXZnPXSkdwflTA/edit?usp=sharing need inputs from all!] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* What inputs are needed in order to address session charges<br />
<br />
== Notes ==</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=UCSD-2019:_Cross-Cut:_Delensing&diff=10052UCSD-2019: Cross-Cut: Delensing2019-10-18T19:20:15Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Agenda */</p>
<hr />
<div>[https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/UCSD-2019:_Cosmology_with_CMB-S4#Agenda Link back to agenda]<br />
<br />
== Charge ==<br />
General charge to all parallels:<br />
<br />
We need to use the October collaboration meeting to advance our preparations for CD-1. Right away, we need to:<br />
* Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1,<br />
* Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions, <br />
* Lay out a timeline and process for making each decision, consistent with the post-decision work and internal reviews that will be needed to complete preparations for CD-1,<br />
* Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.<br />
<br />
Specific charge to this '''delensing cross-cut session''':<br />
* For the de-lensing LAT, what are the benefits and costs of variation in angular resolution (dish size) for legacy survey science goals? <br />
* What is minimum dish size / throughput needed for delensing? Would multiple smaller telescopes be better than one bigger one? (both r + Neff)<br />
* What are the effects of foregrounds on delensing (both for r and Neff)<br />
<br />
== Remote Attendance ==<br />
<br />
[https://ucsd.zoom.us/j/462241746 Zoom link]<br />
<br />
== Agenda ==<br />
<br />
1) On-going work related to delensing (50 min - 1hr): <br />
* f_NL<br />
** Will Coulton on delensing for f_NL<br />
* Foregrounds<br />
** Anton Baleato Lizancos on biases to delensing from CIB and EB estimator [[File: AntonBL_S4meeting.pdf]]<br />
** Marius Millea on incorporating foregrounds in Bayesian delensing <br />
<!-- ** Alex van Engelen on Galactic foreground impacts --><br />
<!-- ** Kimmy Wu on CIB non-Gaussianity impacts on delensed bandpower covariances --><br />
* N_eff<br />
** Selim Hotinli on delensing for N_eff<br />
<br />
<br />
2) What are some of the questions that need answering for moving CMB-S4 to CD-1 readiness in delensing (1hr): <br />
* [[File: How map non-idealities impact delensing efficiency]] (Toshiya Namikawa)<br />
* Discussion on instrumental systematics: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19IHIesZkqBL7GajtV4NTVoIh1XBBCqXZnPXSkdwflTA/edit?usp=sharing need inputs from all!] (Kimmy Wu)<br />
* What inputs are needed in order to address session charges<br />
<br />
== Notes ==</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9048Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-21T14:32:34Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Lensing reconstruction noise curve */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The kappa lensing reconstruction noise is available at https://github.com/toshiyan/cmblensplus/blob/master/example/data/kappa_noise.tar where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, EE+EB, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), EE+EB (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction.<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9047Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-21T14:31:48Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Lensing reconstruction noise curve */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The kappa lensing reconstruction noise is available at <br />
<br />
[[https://github.com/toshiyan/cmblensplus/blob/master/example/data/kappa_noise.tar]] <br />
<br />
where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, EE+EB, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), EE+EB (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction.<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Kappa_deproj3_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt&diff=9046File:Kappa deproj3 sens0 16000 lT300-3000 lP300-4000.txt2019-06-21T12:59:20Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Kappa_deproj2_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt&diff=9045File:Kappa deproj2 sens0 16000 lT300-3000 lP300-4000.txt2019-06-21T12:59:07Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Kappa_deproj1_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt&diff=9044File:Kappa deproj1 sens0 16000 lT300-3000 lP300-4000.txt2019-06-21T12:58:55Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Kappa_deproj0_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt&diff=9043File:Kappa deproj0 sens0 16000 lT300-3000 lP300-4000.txt2019-06-21T12:58:37Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9042Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-21T12:58:21Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Lensing reconstruction noise curve */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The kappa lensing reconstruction noise is available at <br />
<br />
[[File:kappa_deproj0_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
<br />
[[File:kappa_deproj1_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
<br />
[[File:kappa_deproj2_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
<br />
[[File:kappa_deproj3_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
<br />
where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, EE+EB, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), EE+EB (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction.<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9041Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-21T12:58:05Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Lensing reconstruction noise curve */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The kappa lensing reconstruction noise is available at <br />
[[File:kappa_deproj0_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
[[File:kappa_deproj1_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
[[File:kappa_deproj2_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
[[File:kappa_deproj3_sens0_16000_lT300-3000_lP300-4000.txt]] <br />
where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, EE+EB, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), EE+EB (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction.<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9040Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-21T12:55:33Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Lensing reconstruction noise curve */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The kappa lensing reconstruction noise is available at [[File:kappa_noise_20190621.tar]] where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, EE+EB, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), EE+EB (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction.<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Al_S4_deproj0.txt&diff=9039File:Al S4 deproj0.txt2019-06-20T17:14:58Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9038Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-20T17:14:48Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Lensing reconstruction noise curve */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The phi lensing reconstruction noise is available at [[File:al_S4_deproj0.txt]] where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, TT+TE+EE, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), TT+TE+EE (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction. <br />
* The correlation at the Gaussian level between TT, TE and EE are included when computing TT+TE+EE estimator. <br />
* Please multiply [ell(ell+1)/2]^2 to the noise curve if you need kappa noise curve. <br />
* Pol-only noise curve (EE+EB) is given by EE*EB/(EE+EB).<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9037Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-20T17:14:00Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The phi lensing reconstruction noise is available at [[File:al_S4_deproj0.dat]] where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, TT+TE+EE, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), TT+TE+EE (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction. <br />
* The correlation at the Gaussian level between TT, TE and EE are included when computing TT+TE+EE estimator. <br />
* Please multiply [ell(ell+1)/2]^2 to the noise curve if you need kappa noise curve. <br />
* Pol-only noise curve (EE+EB) is given by EE*EB/(EE+EB). <br />
<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Survey_Performance_Expectations&diff=9036Survey Performance Expectations2019-06-20T17:10:29Z<p>Toshiyan: /* Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01 */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page summarizes the various survey performance expectations (previously called "experiment definitions.")<br />
The data products referred to are located on the NERSC system under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx'''<br />
<br />
===Large-area Survey Performance Expectation 01===<br />
The NTT should fill in here what they can, with input from large-area forecasters where needed. <br />
Ideally there would be separate specifications of instrument capabilities, and assumed sky coverage, rather than<br />
having these lumped together.<br />
<br />
The numbers below are based on the Noise Tiger Team code lat-noise-181002.py (but 181016 yields the same numbers), run assuming the default settings and fsky=0.4. The default settings include 2 LATs, each equipped with 1 ULF tube, 2 LF tubes, 12 MF tubes, and 4 UHF tubes. Note that the EE and BB noise levels are sqrt(2) higher than the TT noise levels and are omitted from the table below for brevity. The atmospheric treatment and other details are described in the code and in the lat-noise-*.pdf document linked below.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a || n/a<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 1 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 45.9 || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 4.8|| 11.5<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Full noise model:<br />
* 190311 (latest): [[File:lat-noise-190311-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-190311.pdf]]<br />
** Significant change to white noise dependence on elevation. (Still no change to elev=50 results.)<br />
* 181121: [[File:lat-noise-181121-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181121.pdf]]<br />
** This should be almost identical to 181016, if elevation=50 deg (the default) is used.<br />
* 181016: [[File:lat-noise-181016-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181016.pdf]]<br />
* 181002: [[File:lat-noise-181002-py.txt]], [[File:lat-noise-181002.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Updated post-component-separation noise curves from Colin H. (190604d LAT noise model):<br />
http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_190604d_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz<br />
N.B. if you use these in a S/N or Fisher calculation, the effective fsky values to use are fsky_signal = 0.42 and fsky_noise = 0.45.<br />
File name conventions are described in detail below.<br />
<br />
(Out of date: Post-component-separation (harmonic-space ILC) noise curves from Colin H.: http://sns.ias.edu/~jch/S4_2LAT_Tpol_default_noisecurves.tgz )<br />
<br />
The file name conventions are very similar to those from the Simons Observatory noise files located at https://simonsobservatory.org/assets/supplements/20180822_SO_Noise_Public.tgz . In the S4 case, there is only one sensitivity option (labeled "SENS0", but this doesn't mean anything, it's just the default S4 setup). There is also only one fsky option (16000 deg^2, i.e., 40%). <br />
<br />
I include results for both temperature and polarization observables. Each temperature file contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^TT in uK^2] [N(ell)^yy]<br />
<br />
Each polarization file also contains three columns:<br />
[ell] [N(ell)^EE in uK^2] [N(ell)^BB in uK^2]<br />
<br />
The "deproj" conventions are identical to what is described in the SO science paper (deproj0 = standard ILC, deproj1 = tSZ or CMB deprojected for CMB or tSZ reconstruction, etc) -- see Sec. 2 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07445 . Contact jch 'at' ias.edu if anything is unclear, and/or please refer to Sec. 2 of the SO paper.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT: these noise curves should not necessarily be used naively down to the lowest multipoles. They do not include the effects of ground pickup or other systematics that generate significant additional large-scale noise. A reasonable lower limit (which matches the SO forecasting) is to use ell_min = 30. Planck data can be used on larger scales. See Sec. 2.6 of the SO paper for details on how this was done in that work.<br />
<br />
I also include pure inverse-covariance-weighted noise curves for both TT and EE/BB (i.e., with zero foregrounds).<br />
<br />
I also include the CMB lensing reconstruction noise for the TT and EB estimators (for each of the deproj options), but people should probably re-compute this using their codes (I just used the standard QE, which is of course sub-optimal here, and I also only went down to L ~ 40).<br />
<br />
=====Lensing reconstruction noise curve=====<br />
<br />
The phi lensing reconstruction noise is available at where the 190604d LAT noise model is used for the CMB noise. <br />
<br />
The file contains the noise curve for the "lensing potential" and curl mode. <br />
ell, TT, TE, EE, TB, EB, TT+TE+EE, TT+TE+EE+EB, TT (curl), TE (curl), EE (curl), TB (curl), EB (curl), TT+TE+EE (curl), TT+TE+EE+EB (curl)<br />
* The EB noise assumes the iterative reconstruction. <br />
* The correlation at the Gaussian level between TT, TE and EE are included when computing TT+TE+EE estimator. <br />
* Please multiply [ell(ell+1)/2]^2 to the noise curve if you need kappa noise curve. <br />
* Pol-only noise curve (EE+EB) is given by EE*EB/(EE+EB). <br />
<br />
<br />
====Alternative Large-area Survey Performance Expectations====<br />
Scaling from the the Expectation 01 table above, other frequency combinations (including 350 GHz) are explored by Mike Niemack and Steve Choi below. <br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 02=====<br />
with emphasis on foreground channels<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 4 || colspan="2"| 9 || colspan="2"| 4|| 2<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 11.0 || 6.2 || 1.73 || 1.73 || 4.8 || 11.5 || 58.9<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 03=====<br />
with emphasis on 350 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 12 || colspan="2"| 2 || 3<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.50 || 1.50 || 6.8 || 16.3 || 48.1<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 04=====<br />
with minor shift towards higher frequencies compared to nominal configuration 01<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 13 || colspan="2"| 3 || 1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.44 || 1.44 || 5.5 || 13.3 || 83.2<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 05=====<br />
with emphasis on 90/150 GHz<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 0 || colspan="2"| 2 || colspan="2"| 15 || colspan="2"| 2 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || n/a || 15.5 || 8.7 || 1.34 || 1.34 || 6.8 || 16.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=====Large-area Survey 06=====<br />
with emphasis on low frequencies<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 27 !! 39 !! 93 !! 145 !! 225 !! 280 !! 350<br />
|-<br />
| # of optics tubes || 2 || colspan="2"| 3 || colspan="2"| 11 || colspan="2"| 3 || 0<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 10. || 7.4 || 5.1 || 2.2 || 1.4 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.7 <br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 32.5 || 12.7 || 7.1 || 1.57 || 1.57 || 5.5 || 13.3 || n/a<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Small-area Survey Performance Expectation 05===<br />
<br />
Victor provided the tables below 11/27/18 scaled from BK14 published bandpower covariance matrix.<br />
They are designed to be apples-to-apples comparable<br />
to the 04 tables below.<br />
They assume 3% nominal sky coverage, as did the previous table, even though the Chile coverage<br />
will of course be much larger.<br />
When we run map based sim using the numbers below the scaling to Pole and Chile coverage will be done in the same way as to was for 04 sets (04b and 04c)<br />
(see [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks]]) to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.<br />
<br />
The appropriate delensing factors to use for 7 years are apparently 0.081 and 0.27 for Pole/Chile taken from<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_GU6hZKhxmBb64vhgr4rkRrERvl8Lz5YaZO0-dWjn0 this spreadsheet]<br />
<br />
S4 Pole — 7 years with 12 tubes of Config 5 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 25.5 || 25.5 || 22.7 || 22.7 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 9.36 || 11.85 || 2.02 || 1.78 || 3.89 || 4.16 || 10.15 || 17.40<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 6.20 || 7.85 || 1.34 || 1.18 || 1.80 || 1.93 || 4.71 || 8.08 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 5.85 || 7.40 || 1.27 || 1.12 || 1.76 || 1.89 || 4.60 || 7.89<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
S4 Chile — 7 years with 6 tubes of Config 9 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9A5-IYr1wAbOUgFDcnYv7q0_WXgXNU7EhlfBRqavm Link] over nominal 3% sky and assuming same<br />
observing efficiency as Pole.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 72.8 || 72.8 || 31.9 || 31.9 || 28.4 || 28.4 || 13.0 || 13.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.55 || 7.44 || 9.42 || 3.08 || 2.72 || 5.92 || 6.34 || 17.58 || 30.14<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 150 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -4.4 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.87 || 4.93 || 6.24 || 2.04 || 1.80 || 2.74 || 2.94 || 8.16 || 14.00 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -2.2 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1 || -3.1<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.23 || 4.65 || 5.88 || 1.93 || 1.71 || 2.68 || 2.88 || 7.97 || 13.67<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -1.7 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The effort at 20 GHz is constant and assumes 135 det per year for 7 years regardless of site<br />
<br />
The numbers in the second table were determined using the following scaling of the first table: <br />
<br />
- det counts at pole (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [2016,2016,98784,98784,98784,98784,177282,177282] at [30,40,85,95,145,155,220,270]GHz<br />
<br />
x1 = 7.*[1,1,4,4,4,4,3,3].*[288, 288, 3528, 3528, 3528, 3528, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- det counts in chile (7 years * nr_tubes * nr of det per tube) = [3192,3192,42588,42588,42588,42588,59094,59094]<br />
<br />
x2 = 7.*[1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1].*[456, 456, 3042, 3042, 3042, 3042, 8442, 8442]<br />
<br />
- sqrt of det count ratios to scale the Pole numbers by<br />
<br />
sqrt(x1./x2) = 0.7947 0.7947 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.5230 1.7321 1.7321<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 04 ===<br />
This is very similar to 02 but with the noise levels tweaked down by sqrt(7/6) to try and get sigma(r)=1e-4 as per science requirement.<br />
(The noise map generator has also been tweaked such that the level quoted in the params.dat table will be reproduced exactly when the power spectra of the maps is taken with the provided mask - i.e. the actual noise level will slightly lower in the center of the mask.)<br />
A 20GHz band has been added which is assumed to be on a large aperture telescope (and hence has higher resolution and ell knee).<br />
Below is the contents of the params.dat file. The noise levels and resolutions are copied from the [https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/cmb_s4/report/CMBS4_final_report_NL.pdf CDT report] "Science Traceability Matrix".<br />
Specs for the high res bands exist but have not been added yet. <br />
<br />
Set 04 is the same idealized circular 3% sky patch as set 02.<br />
We also add 04b which is a for a nominal Chile realistic mask<br />
and 04c which is a realistic Pole mask (actually the BICEP3 2017 as observed mask). See [[Sims_with_nominal_Chile_and_Pole_masks | this logbook posting]] for details.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 20 !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 5.0 || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 11.0 || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 16.66 || 10.62 || 10.07 || 2.01 || 1.59 || 4.53 || 4.53 || 11.61 || 15.84<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 500 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 13.94 || 8.88 || 8.42 || 1.67 || 1.32 || 2.12 || 2.12 || 5.43 || 7.42 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 13.6 || 8.67 || 8.22 || 1.64 || 1.30 || 2.03 || 2.03 || 5.19 || 7.08<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 200 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 <br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 03, 03b, 03c ===<br />
These sims are nearly identical to experiment definition 02, 02b, 02c, and even use the same noise realizations. The one change is the inclusion of additive systematics, following the prescription described in this [[Additive_systematics_for_data_challenge_03|2017-07-10 posting]]. Blocks of realizations contain different versions of the additive systematic, as shown below. For all cases, the level of the systematic is chosen to yield bias on ''r'' of 1e-4 (by the analysis of the 2017-07-10 posting). The first block of realizations, 0000&ndash;0124, contains no systematic and should be completely identical to the 02/02b/02c realizations.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! realizations !! A<sub>uncorr</sub> !! B<sub>uncorr</sub> !! A<sub>corr</sub> !! B<sub>corr</sub> !! Description<br />
|-<br />
| 0000&ndash;0124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || No systematics<br />
|-<br />
| 0125&ndash;0249 || 0.0328 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0250&ndash;0374 || 0 || 0.0689 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0375&ndash;0499 || 0 || 0 || 0.0584 || 0 || Correlated systematic with white spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0500&ndash;0624 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.1049 || Correlated systematic with 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0625&ndash;0749 || 0.0164 || 0.0345 || 0 || 0 || Uncorrelated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0750&ndash;0874 || 0 || 0 || 0.0292 || 0.0525 || Correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|-<br />
| 0875&ndash;0999 || 0.0082 || 0.0172 || 0.0146 || 0.0262 || Uncorrelated + correlated systematic with white + 1/ell spectrum<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Combined maps for analysis can be found on NERSC in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/03''' etc.<br />
<br />
Parameters and ingredients for the combined maps can be found in '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/03''' etc. Note that noise, rhits, and wfunc are actually symlinks to those directories under experiment configs 02, 02b, 02c.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 02, 02b, 02c ===<br />
This is an update from 01 which differs in the following ways:<br />
<br />
1) Addition of 20GHz band and (slight) changes to the band/detector optimization as per<br />
[[http://bicep.rc.fas.harvard.edu/CMB-S4/analysis_logbook/20170515_chkS4 Victor's May 15 posting in the logbook]].<br />
<br />
2) Addition of 3 delensing bands 95/145/220GHz with same number of detectors as the low res equivalent bands<br />
but beam size 4x higher. This adds up to approximately the same number of detectors but clearly one should reoptimize<br />
once they are not all at the same freq. Since we are still quite far from having real lensing reconstruction and realistic<br />
(non-Gaussian) high ell foregrounds this probably is OK for this round.<br />
<br />
3) Addition of tensors - even number realizations have r=0.003, odd number have r=0.<br />
<br />
4) Set 02 is the same nominal 3% sky patch as set 01. We now add 02b which is 1% round patch with center<br />
the same as the BICEP/Keck patch (RA=0, Dec=-57.5), and 02c which is 10% round patch centered on RA=15deg, Dec=-35.<br />
<br />
These products appear on NERSC under '''/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02''' etc.<br />
<br />
=== Experiment Definition 01 ===<br />
This is intended to be basically the same as the assumptions made for the Fisher calculations done for the Science Book.<br />
The parameters come from [[http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~buza/20161220_chkS4 Victor's Dec 21 posting in the logbook]] with the addition of bandwidths from<br />
[[Tophat_bands_for_Data_Challenge|Colin's Nov 4 posting]] and are summarized in the following table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right; margin-left: 51px;"<br />
! Frequency (GHz) !! 30 !! 40 !! 85 !! 95 !! 145 !! 155 !! 220 !! 270 !! 155 HR<br />
|-<br />
| Bandwidth (GHz) || 9.0 || 12.0 || 20.4 || 22.8 || 31.9 || 34.1 || 48.4 || 59.4 || 34.1<br />
|-<br />
| Beam FWHM (arcmin) || 76.6 || 57.5 || 27.0 || 24.2 || 15.9 || 14.8 || 10.7 || 8.5 || 4.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level TT (uK-arcmin) || 12.97 || 13.22 || 2.30 || 1.89 || 5.31 || 5.48 || 11.86 || 17.72 || 5.48<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee TT || 175 || 175 || 175 || 175 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 230 || 500<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent TT || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -4.1 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8 || -3.8<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level EE (uK-arcmin) || 10.85 || 11.06 || 1.93 || 1.58 || 2.49 || 2.56 || 5.55 || 8.30 || 2.56 <br />
|-<br />
| ell knee EE || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 65 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent EE || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| white noise level BB (uK-arcmin) || 10.59 || 10.79 || 1.88 || 1.54 || 2.38 || 2.45 || 5.30 || 7.93 || 2.45<br />
|-<br />
| ell knee BB || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 60 || 200<br />
|-<br />
| 1/f exponent BB || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -2.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0 || -3.0<br />
|-<br />
| ell min || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 30 || 100<br />
|-<br />
| nside || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 512 || 2048<br />
|}<br />
<br />
These parameters are in the file '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' and give rise to the window functions in '''expt_xx/01/wfunc''' and the noise spectra in '''expt_xx/01/noise/cls'''.<br />
The intent of the low ell cutoff is to approximate the effect of the timestream filtering which is commonly done in ground based experiments (and as some kind of acknowledgement that<br />
the largest angular scales may anyway be corrupted by systematic effects).<br />
<br />
Additionally '''expt_xx/01/rhits/fsky03bk_n0512.fits''' is supposed to represent the "relative hits" with which the sky has been observed.<br />
This is a circular pattern centred at RA=0, Dec=-45 (a bit below the BICEP/Keck patch) which is flat at one out to r=12deg and then rolls down to zero as cosine squared over an<br />
additional 15 deg.<br />
This is some kind of approximation as to what small apertures might deliver (given their large instantaneous field of view).<br />
<br />
From the noise spectra sets of alms are generated (with nlmax=4096) with names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/alm/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_alm_mc_0000.fits''' where 155 is the frequency, 15 is the beam size (in arcmin), and 0000 is the realization number. <br />
<br />
From these full sky maps are rendered at nside=512 and nlmax=1024. No beam smoothing is applied as is appropriate for noise.<br />
The maps have names like '''expt_xx/01/noise/map/noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
<br />
The full sky noise is then divided by the square-root of the rhits mask and the result stored in files like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01_noise_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits''' - these are the noise realizations that one would have access to in a real experiment - the noise blows up around the edge.<br />
<br />
These masked noise realizations are then added to the sky model (LCDM+dust+sync+) and stored in names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
As a crude simulation of delensing these combined maps are also provided with the lensing effect reduced to 30, 10 and 3% of reality by combining lensed and unlensed LCDM - look for files<br />
with names like '''data_xx.yy/01.YY/cmbs4_01pYY_comb_AL0p3_f155_b15_ellmin30_map_0512_mc_0000.fits'''.<br />
Maps with partial lensing are constructed by the following combination: partially_lensed_map = sqrt(A_L) * lensed_map + (1 - sqrt(A_L)) * unlensed_map.<br />
<br />
To analyze these maps one should use only the '''expt_xx/01/params.dat''' file and the maps under '''data_xx.yy/01.YY'''.<br />
A thousand realizations are present.<br />
We can see these maps [[01.00 sim input maps | in this posting]]<br />
<br />
The last column of the table above shows one additional tweak - a second 155GHz band with a higher 1/f knee and smaller beam size - this is supposed to<br />
represent the maps made by higher resolution telescopes running in concert with small apertures in a hybrid approach.<br />
These maps can in principle be used to reconstruct the lensing potential and delens explicitly - instead of cheating by using<br />
the AL0p3 files etc.<br />
At the moment the noise spectrum in these maps is provisional.<br />
Additionally we may wish to add additional frequency bands at higher resolution so foreground cleaning<br />
before delensing can be done.<br />
We can see these maps [[Adding higher res delensing "band" | in this posting]].<br />
<br />
(The filtered LLCDM realizations are also copied in '''data_xx.yy/01.YY''' as these are needed to build the bandpower covariance matrix in the multi-component cross spectrum approach used by the BK group.<br />
It seems reasonable that one would always have realizations of a known spectrum signal passed through an experimental simulation.)</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7781Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-29T00:33:01Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
<br />
Fig.1 shows the angular power spectra of the CMB alms. <br />
<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_TT.jpg|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_EE.jpg|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_BB.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fgi.1: The CMB temperature, EE, and BB power spectra from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The mean field is then subtracted. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. The wiener-filtered phi is also computed. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
The right panel is the same as the left panel but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kk_TT.png|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_kk_EB.png|400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Fig.3: The cross spectrum between input and reconstructed kappa (TT or EB estimator). <br />
<br />
[[File:fig_vkk_TT.png|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_vkk_EB.png|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.4: The 1 sigma error of the reconstructed kappa auto spectrum (TT or EB estimator).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py. For delensing study, I also put the wiener-filtered phi alms at<br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/wphi/<br />
<br />
They are saved as fits files.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7755Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T02:44:56Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
<br />
Fig.1 shows the angular power spectra of the CMB alms. <br />
<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_TT.jpg|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_EE.jpg|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_BB.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fgi.1: The CMB temperature, EE, and BB power spectra from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
The right panel is the same as the left panel but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kk_TT.png|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_kk_EB.png|400px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Fig.3: The cross spectrum between input and reconstructed kappa (TT or EB estimator). <br />
<br />
[[File:fig_vkk_TT.png|400px]]<br />
[[File:fig_vkk_EB.png|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.4: The 1 sigma error of the reconstructed kappa auto spectrum (TT or EB estimator).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_vkk_EB.png&diff=7754File:Fig vkk EB.png2018-09-27T02:36:14Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_vkk_TT.png&diff=7753File:Fig vkk TT.png2018-09-27T02:35:50Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7752Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T02:35:06Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_TT.jpg|400px|The CMB temperature power spectrum from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_EE.jpg|400px|The CMB EE power spectrum from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_BB.jpg|400px|The CMB BB power spectrum from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|400px|Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.]]<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg|400px|Same as the above but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kk_TT.png|400px|The cross spectrum between input and reconstructed kappa (TT estimator).]]<br />
[[File:fig_kk_EB.png|400px|The cross spectrum between input and reconstructed kappa (EB estimator).]]<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_vkk_TT.png|400px|The 1sigma error of the reconstructed kappa auto spectrum (TT estimator).]]<br />
[[File:fig_vkk_EB.png|400px|The 1sigma error of the reconstructed kappa auto spectrum (EB estimator).]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_kk_EB.png&diff=7751File:Fig kk EB.png2018-09-27T02:34:02Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_kk_TT.png&diff=7750File:Fig kk TT.png2018-09-27T02:33:30Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_cmbcl_BB.jpg&diff=7749File:Fig cmbcl BB.jpg2018-09-27T02:32:18Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_cmbcl_EE.jpg&diff=7748File:Fig cmbcl EE.jpg2018-09-27T02:31:31Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_cmbcl_TT.jpg&diff=7747File:Fig cmbcl TT.jpg2018-09-27T02:31:03Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7746Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T02:30:32Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_TT.jpg|400px|The CMB temperature power spectrum from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_EE.jpg|400px|The CMB EE power spectrum from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims]]<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_BB.jpg|400px|The CMB BB power spectrum from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground sims]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|400px|Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.]]<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg|400px|Same as the above but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation.]]<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kk_TT.png|400px|The cross spectrum between input and reconstructed kappa (TT estimator).]]<br />
[[File:fig_kk_EB.png|400px|The cross spectrum between input and reconstructed kappa (EB estimator).]]<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kk_TT.png|400px|The 1sigma error of the reconstructed kappa auto spectrum (TT estimator).]]<br />
[[File:fig_kk_EB.png|400px|The 1sigma error of the reconstructed kappa auto spectrum (EB estimator).]]<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7745Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T02:19:31Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_cmbcl_TT.jpg|400px]][[File:fig_cmbcl_EE.jpg|400px]][[File:fig_cmbcl_BB.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.0: The CMB angular power spectra, with beam, noise and foreground. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7744Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T01:45:50Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg|400px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7743Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T01:45:17Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|500px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg|500px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7742Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T01:44:39Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg|200px]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7741Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-27T01:44:07Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]|200px]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_kmap_input.jpg&diff=7740File:Fig kmap input.jpg2018-09-27T01:25:57Z<p>Toshiyan: Toshiyan uploaded a new version of File:Fig kmap input.jpg</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_kmap_recon.jpg&diff=7739File:Fig kmap recon.jpg2018-09-27T01:24:39Z<p>Toshiyan: Toshiyan uploaded a new version of File:Fig kmap recon.jpg</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7734Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T13:05:10Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
- The input lensed-LCDM angular power spectra (TT,TE,EE,BB)<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/cls/ffp10_lensedCls.dat<br />
<br />
(Note that what I actually use is the mirror of the above data at Odyssey.) <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Method'''<br />
<br />
The method of the lensing reconstruction is very similar to that of BICEP2/Keck Array Results Paper VIII [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01968]] (hereafter BKVIII), except the curved sky analysis. <br />
<br />
I first compute the diagonal filtering to be applied to the CMB harmonic coefficients (see text around Eq.(17) of BKVIII). The T, E and B at 500<L<3000 are used for the reconstruction. The unnormalized kappa estimator is then computed (e.g., for EB, fullsky counterpart of Eq.(19) of BKVIII). The analytic fullsky normalization is computed and multiplied to the unnormalized estimator. The reconstructed kappa map is finally cross-correlated with the input kappa map. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7733Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T12:50:46Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7732Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T12:46:06Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output/Usage'''<br />
<br />
The input/reconstructed kappa map is currently located at <br />
<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_inp/<br />
/n/holylfs02/LABS/kovac_lab/cmbs4/nersc_mirror/cmbs4dat/reanalysis/phi_recons/02.00_namikawa_180920/kmap_rec/<br />
<br />
The file format is the fortran binary file. An example of reading the files (and showing the kappa map) is written in showkmap.py.</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7731Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T12:15:02Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map using EB estimator from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output'''</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7730Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T12:13:53Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.1: Example of the input kappa map after applying the mask. The kappa multipole at 50<L<200 is included in the fluctuations.<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Fig.2: Same as Fig.1 but for the reconstructed kappa map from signal+noise+foreground simulation. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output'''</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7729Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T12:10:50Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output'''</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7728Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T12:10:00Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:Example.jpg]]<br />
[[fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
[[fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output'''</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_kmap_recon.jpg&diff=7727File:Fig kmap recon.jpg2018-09-26T12:07:00Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=File:Fig_kmap_input.jpg&diff=7726File:Fig kmap input.jpg2018-09-26T12:06:12Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7725Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T12:05:18Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)], I use the following simulation data set: <br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- The high res masked lensed-LCDM + noise + foreground single frequency map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02.00_comb_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
- Relative hits mask<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
- The true input phi map<br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits (4th binary table)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_input.jpg]]<br />
[[File:fig_kmap_recon.jpg]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Output'''</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7724Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T11:56:52Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
Following [this posting][https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Sim_map_sets_to_demonstrate_%22real_delensing%22_(02.00_and_02.09)]<br />
<br />
The high res masked lensed-LCDM single frequency map: <br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/data_xx.yy/02.00/cmbs4_02_llcdm_f145_b04_ellmin30_map_2048_mc_0000.fits<br />
<br />
Relative hits mask: <br />
/project/projectdirs/cmbs4/expt_xx/02/rhits/n2048.fits.<br />
<br />
The true input phi map: the fourth binary table of <br />
/project/projectdirs/cmb/data/generic/cmb/ffp10/mc/scalar/ffp10_unlensed_scl_cmb_000_tebplm_mc_0000.fits etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Results'''</div>Toshiyanhttps://cmb-s4.uchicago.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Lensing_map_reconstruction_from_02.00_sims_w/_and_w/o_foreground%2Binhomogeneous_noise&diff=7723Lensing map reconstruction from 02.00 sims w/ and w/o foreground+inhomogeneous noise2018-09-26T11:53:30Z<p>Toshiyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Septemper 26, 2018 (Toshiya Namikawa posted)<br />
<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
In this posting, I show some results of the reconstruction of the CMB lensing kappa map from the signal only or signal+noise+foreground simulations. I used two quadratic estimators, TT and EB, and show that the reconstructed kappa map looks agree with the input kappa map even after including the noise and foreground. However, the reconstruction noise becomes larger at smaller scales of the reconstructed kappa. This could affect the delensing efficiency. <br />
<br />
'''Data'''<br />
<br />
'''Results'''</div>Toshiyan