Difference between revisions of "LBNL-2016: Time-Ordered Data Processing"

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
== Time-Ordered Data Processing Birds-of-a-Feather Session: Wednesday, March 9, 9 AM ==  
+
= Time-Ordered Data Processing Birds-of-a-Feather Session: Wednesday, March 9, 9 AM =
  
 
'''Attending''': Julian Borrill, Tom Crawford, Ted Kisner, Kris Gorski, Graca Rocha, Clem Pryke, Nick Harrington, Jesse Treu, Kyle Story, Nathan Whitehorn, Olivier Perdereau, Reijo Keskitalo
 
'''Attending''': Julian Borrill, Tom Crawford, Ted Kisner, Kris Gorski, Graca Rocha, Clem Pryke, Nick Harrington, Jesse Treu, Kyle Story, Nathan Whitehorn, Olivier Perdereau, Reijo Keskitalo
  
'''Notes'''
+
== Notes ==
  
'''Discussion of TOD scanning simulations with full 4-pi beam'''
+
'''Discussion of TOD scanning simulations'''
* do we really get the 4-pi beam at high fidelity?
+
*  Scanning with full 4-pi beam: do we really get the 4-pi beam at high fidelity?
 
** at some level, not the data folks' problem.
 
** at some level, not the data folks' problem.
 
* Are we really going to simulate full TODs, including data that we will eventually cut in the real TOD?
 
* Are we really going to simulate full TODs, including data that we will eventually cut in the real TOD?

Revision as of 13:25, 9 March 2016

Time-Ordered Data Processing Birds-of-a-Feather Session: Wednesday, March 9, 9 AM

Attending: Julian Borrill, Tom Crawford, Ted Kisner, Kris Gorski, Graca Rocha, Clem Pryke, Nick Harrington, Jesse Treu, Kyle Story, Nathan Whitehorn, Olivier Perdereau, Reijo Keskitalo

Notes

Discussion of TOD scanning simulations

  • Scanning with full 4-pi beam: do we really get the 4-pi beam at high fidelity?
    • at some level, not the data folks' problem.
  • Are we really going to simulate full TODs, including data that we will eventually cut in the real TOD?
    • yes, at least to test automated data cuts.
    • who is going to take on the task of creating this model?
    • we pretty much know how to do it now, unless the fundamental detector and/or readout architecture changes.
  • Do we need to simulate TES & electronics response?
    • Not a high priority. Assume detectors/electronics with funky response will not pass CD.
  • RFI pickup?
    • Impossible to implement in sims without model of pickup.
  • Time-dependent focal plane / optics distortion?
    • Real-world examples to go on from ACT & PB
  • We need scan strategy to be defined to do sims.
    • Is anyone considering using anything but azimuth scans as fast and wide as you can go?

Digression into computing plan

  • Are we really going to use grid computing (rather than parallel processing on large clusters)?
    • Certainly not for anything for which we have to send around real TOD. (I.e., just for sims.)
  • What about data management / delivery from sites?
    • Pole bandwidth barely accommodates SPT-3G and will be unlikely to increase enough to handle S4. Similar issues exist in Atacama.

Return to TOD sims

  • Will there be half-wave plates on S4?
    • Can't rule it out. How do you make a model of non-ideality for a HWP?
  • Are we aiming to have a perfect set of TOD sims by summer or 10 years from now?
    • There will be a profile of what we can simulate. Could in theory have some level of TOD sims by summer.
  • What about atmosphere?
    • Moving slab prototypes exist.

Gotcha scorecard

TIme Deliverer Receiver
9:59 Ted Nathan