Difference between revisions of "Map-based simulations for split and full bands"

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
= Summary =
 
= Summary =
  
This posting summarizes the results from map-based simulations for the DSR configuration with split bands and the closely related configuration with full bands. All simulations assume AL=0.082, and were run with the circular "3%" mask. The noise levels can be obtained from the DSR configuration summarized [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Expected_Survey_Performance_for_Science_Forecasting|here] by scaling to the circular mask. The noise levels for the full band configuration can be obtained from Victor Buza's [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_zATUnhYm03M9PW_Cer_s5EsX59txKvaBSdOVbyqxfU/edit#gid=0|spreadheet.] In practice, the 85/145 GHz tubes were traded for 95/155 GHz tubes and their sensitivities were converted to full-band 90/150 GHz using the NET ratios in the spreadsheet.
+
This posting summarizes the results from map-based simulations for the DSR configuration with split bands and the closely related configuration with full bands. All simulations assume AL=0.082, and were run with the circular "3%" mask. The noise levels can be obtained from the DSR configuration summarized [https://cmb-s4.org/wiki/index.php/Expected_Survey_Performance_for_Science_Forecasting here] by scaling to the circular mask. The noise levels for the full band configuration can be obtained from Victor Buza's [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_zATUnhYm03M9PW_Cer_s5EsX59txKvaBSdOVbyqxfU/edit#gid=0 spreadheet.] In practice, the 85/145 GHz tubes were traded for 95/155 GHz tubes and their sensitivities were converted to full-band 90/150 GHz using the NET ratios in the spreadsheet.
  
 
In comparing the numerical values of these simulations with the Fisher forecasts, it should be kept in mind that the map-based simulations at present do not include filtering whereas the results reported for the Fisher forecasts do. According to Fisher forecasts, the effect of filtering degrades the constraints on r by approximately 35% for the DSR configuration, and one would expect a similar hit for map-based simulations that account for filtering.
 
In comparing the numerical values of these simulations with the Fisher forecasts, it should be kept in mind that the map-based simulations at present do not include filtering whereas the results reported for the Fisher forecasts do. According to Fisher forecasts, the effect of filtering degrades the constraints on r by approximately 35% for the DSR configuration, and one would expect a similar hit for map-based simulations that account for filtering.

Revision as of 02:20, 12 June 2020

Summary

This posting summarizes the results from map-based simulations for the DSR configuration with split bands and the closely related configuration with full bands. All simulations assume AL=0.082, and were run with the circular "3%" mask. The noise levels can be obtained from the DSR configuration summarized here by scaling to the circular mask. The noise levels for the full band configuration can be obtained from Victor Buza's spreadheet. In practice, the 85/145 GHz tubes were traded for 95/155 GHz tubes and their sensitivities were converted to full-band 90/150 GHz using the NET ratios in the spreadsheet.

In comparing the numerical values of these simulations with the Fisher forecasts, it should be kept in mind that the map-based simulations at present do not include filtering whereas the results reported for the Fisher forecasts do. According to Fisher forecasts, the effect of filtering degrades the constraints on r by approximately 35% for the DSR configuration, and one would expect a similar hit for map-based simulations that account for filtering.

Foreground model 02

sigma(r) (before marginalization) sigma(r) (after marginalization) bias(r) (before marginalization) bias(r) (after marginalization)
split bands 3.5e-4 TBD 1.6e-4 TBD
full bands 3.6e-4 TBD 2.0e-4 TBD


Foreground model 03

sigma(r) (before marginalization) sigma(r) (after marginalization) bias(r) (before marginalization) bias(r) (after marginalization)
split bands 3.5e-4 3.4e-4 1.5e-4 1.3e-4
full bands 3.6e-4 3.4e-4 1.9e-4 1.5e-4

Split band configuration

Frequency (GHz) 20 30 40 85 95 145 155 220 270
Beam FWHM (arcmin) 11.0 72.8 72.8 25.5 22.7 25.5 22.7 13.0 13.0
noise T (uK-arcmin) 13.33 6.30 7.97 1.57 1.38 3.03 3.24 8.37 14.35
l_knee T 700 150 150 150 150 230 230 230 230
exponent T -4.4 -4.4 -4.4 -4.4 -4.4 -3.8 -3.8 -3.8 -3.8
noise E (uK-arcmin) 9.42 4.18 5.28 1.04 0.92 1.40 1.50 3.89 9.02
l_knee E 200 60 60 60 60 65 65 65 65
exponent E -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -3.1 -3.1 -3.1 -3.1
noise B (uK-arcmin) 9.42 3.94 4.98 0.98 0.87 1.37 1.50 3.89 6.67
l_knee B 200 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
exponent B -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0

Full band configuration

Frequency (GHz) 20 30 40 90 150 220 270
Beam FWHM (arcmin) 11.0 72.8 72.8 24.1 24.1 13.0 13.0
noise T (uK-arcmin) 13.33 6.30 7.97 0.89 1.97 8.37 14.35
l_knee T 700 150 150 200 200 230 230
exponent T -4.4 -4.4 -4.4 -4.4 -3.8 -3.8 -3.8
noise E (uK-arcmin) 9.42 4.18 5.28 0.59 0.90 3.89 9.02
l_knee E 200 60 60 60 65 65 65
exponent E -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -3.1 -3.1 -3.1
noise B (uK-arcmin) 9.42 3.94 4.98 0.56 0.90 3.89 6.67
l_knee B 200 60 60 60 60 60 60
exponent B -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0