Difference between revisions of "ILC noise for large apertures at CDT noise levels"

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 5: Line 5:
 
"To check things, I've run component separation on the 04 data challenge high resolution simulations to generate a noise curve for an ILC high resolution map. (The philosophy here is that I would clean the high resolution maps and derive a kappa map from the resulting cleaned map.) I'm attaching the noise curve here with white noise of 1uK arcmin shown for comparison. So over the relevant range it's roughly 1uKarcmin as expected (as one could also see without much effort from the noise models). I then ran iterative delensing for this noise curve (at the power spectrum level). I find a residual AL=0.123. It's 20% higher that what we used (and I can check what that does to r), but in any case, it's reasonably close."
 
"To check things, I've run component separation on the 04 data challenge high resolution simulations to generate a noise curve for an ILC high resolution map. (The philosophy here is that I would clean the high resolution maps and derive a kappa map from the resulting cleaned map.) I'm attaching the noise curve here with white noise of 1uK arcmin shown for comparison. So over the relevant range it's roughly 1uKarcmin as expected (as one could also see without much effort from the noise models). I then ran iterative delensing for this noise curve (at the power spectrum level). I find a residual AL=0.123. It's 20% higher that what we used (and I can check what that does to r), but in any case, it's reasonably close."
  
Clarification from Clem: I believe that the plot below is not from "04 data challenge high resolution simulations". Rather it just uses the nominal noise levels from the CDT STM table.
+
[[File:180316b_f1.png|border]]
It turns out that this table is slightly wrong - the 220 and 270 GHz noise levels are too low.
+
 
 +
Clarification from Raphael: The analysis is based on simulations that rely on the 04 params.dat file, which is based on the numbers in the CDT report. The 220 and 270 GHz noise levels may be too low. Updated noise levels sent by Tom lead to a slightly worse delensing efficiency with lensing residual of AL=0.13, but significantly higher noise levels on large scales, warranting more detailed study.
 +
 
  
[[File:180316b_f1.png|border]]
+
[[File:noise_HR_ILC.png|border]]

Revision as of 12:34, 19 March 2018

Mar 16 2018, Raphael Flauger (posted by Clem Pryke)

This is from en email from Raphael to Clem and Tom dated 7 March 2018 with subject "Delensing survey".

"To check things, I've run component separation on the 04 data challenge high resolution simulations to generate a noise curve for an ILC high resolution map. (The philosophy here is that I would clean the high resolution maps and derive a kappa map from the resulting cleaned map.) I'm attaching the noise curve here with white noise of 1uK arcmin shown for comparison. So over the relevant range it's roughly 1uKarcmin as expected (as one could also see without much effort from the noise models). I then ran iterative delensing for this noise curve (at the power spectrum level). I find a residual AL=0.123. It's 20% higher that what we used (and I can check what that does to r), but in any case, it's reasonably close."

180316b f1.png

Clarification from Raphael: The analysis is based on simulations that rely on the 04 params.dat file, which is based on the numbers in the CDT report. The 220 and 270 GHz noise levels may be too low. Updated noise levels sent by Tom lead to a slightly worse delensing efficiency with lensing residual of AL=0.13, but significantly higher noise levels on large scales, warranting more detailed study.


Noise HR ILC.png