Difference between revisions of "UCSD-2019: Analysis/Pipeline Working Group: Maps to C ell"

From CMB-S4 wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 22: Line 22:
 
== Agenda ==
 
== Agenda ==
  
'''Reminder: What are the science targets, and what was previously identified as important decisions / questions?'''
+
 
 +
'''Reminder: What are the science targets, and what was previously identified as important decisions / questions by the forecasters? (30 minutes total)'''
  
 
''1. Light relics summary'' (Ben Wallisch, on behalf of Dan Green and Joel Meyers and others) [https://dummylink slides]
 
''1. Light relics summary'' (Ben Wallisch, on behalf of Dan Green and Joel Meyers and others) [https://dummylink slides]
Line 30: Line 31:
 
''3. Isocurvature summary?'' (Dan Grin?)
 
''3. Isocurvature summary?'' (Dan Grin?)
  
'''General charge:'''
+
 
 +
'''General charge (45 minutes total)'''
  
 
''1. Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1'' (open discussion with some structure and example questions from organizers)
 
''1. Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1'' (open discussion with some structure and example questions from organizers)
  
Some possible questions:
+
Background/clarifying questions:
  
 
* What does “by CD-1” mean, and what are the implications for when tools need to be in place and working?
 
* What does “by CD-1” mean, and what are the implications for when tools need to be in place and working?
** According to APC white paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01062), CD-1 (or "CD-1/3a") is in Q3 of FY2021 (so June 2021?).
+
** According to APC white paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01062), CD-1 is in Q3 of FY2021 (so June 2021?).
 
** Working backward from there, any tool that could reasonably influence a CD-1 decision needs to be in place and working by ... ?
 
** Working backward from there, any tool that could reasonably influence a CD-1 decision needs to be in place and working by ... ?
Give an example timeline for an example decision?
+
** Give an example timeline for an example decision?
Start with known high-priority things
 
Which instrumental effects are important, what requirements can we put on them, and are they relevant for decisions being made on the timescale of CD-1?
 
Beams
 
T -> P leakage
 
What limits how much sky we can observe?
 
What science goals beyond Neff potentially drive measurement and instrument requirements for non-BB power spectra? Are we missing something by concentrating on Neff?
 
What level of sims to maps to Cell to parameters pipeline do we need for CD-1? Should a tool be developed to be used by the whole collaboration?
 
Should Maps to Cell and low-ell BB groups have a common set of simulations and analysis tools to be addressing “non-idealities” by CD-1?
 
This is happening in DM / Simulations, though other groups will have input on the nature of these tools.
 
  
 +
Some possible key decisions/questions:
  
 
+
* Start with known high-priority things
Some possible questions:
+
** Which instrumental effects are important, what requirements can we put on them, and are they relevant for decisions being made on the timescale of CD-1?
 
+
*** Beams
* What level of sims to maps to Cell to parameters pipeline do we need for CD-1? Should a tool be developed to be used by the whole collaboration?
+
*** T -> P leakage
 
+
*** Time constants
* Should Maps to Cell and low-ell BB groups have a common set of simulations and analysis tools to be addressing “non-idealities” by CD-1?
+
*** Gain / gain drift / elevation-dependent gain
 
+
** What limits how much sky we can observe?
* What instrumental effects are important (eg time constants, ell-dependent gains, etc) and what limits need to be put on this for the science goals.
+
** What science goals beyond Neff potentially drive measurement and instrument requirements for non-BB power spectra? Are we missing something by concentrating on Neff?
** But also, what instrumental systematics can we put requirements on that will actually influence near-term design decisions?
+
** What level of sims to maps to Cell to parameters pipeline do we need for CD-1? Should a tool be developed to be used by the whole collaboration?
** Get a list of effects the low-ell BB group are limiting, to be able to make a statement about Neff needs for same issues?
+
** Should Maps to Cell and low-ell BB groups have a common set of simulations and analysis tools to be addressing “non-idealities” by CD-1?
 
+
*** This is happening in DM / Simulations, though other groups will have input on the nature of these tools.
* Should we be setting up data challenges (e.g., make a CMB sky with beam properties varying across the field and have people analyze it and get unbiased Neff)?
+
** Should we be setting up data challenges (e.g., make a CMB sky with beam properties varying across the field and have people analyze it and get unbiased Neff)?
  
 
''2. Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions''
 
''2. Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions''
 
Presumably this is done collectively by all session attendees.
 
  
 
''3. 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''
 
''3. 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''
  
I imagine this will not be done in real time.  
+
* Summary of decisions identified as most important, possible tasking and timelines.
  
 
''4. Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.''
 
''4. Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.''
  
We can talk in the session about the best ways to ensure this.  
+
* We can talk in the session about the best ways to ensure this.  
 +
 
  
'''Individual charge questions:'''
+
'''Individual charge questions (45 minutes total)'''
  
 
''0. First an overview of N_eff forecasting from the Dark Universe session.'' (Ben Wallisch, on behalf of Dan Green and Joel Meyers and others) [https://dummylink slides]
 
''0. First an overview of N_eff forecasting from the Dark Universe session.'' (Ben Wallisch, on behalf of Dan Green and Joel Meyers and others) [https://dummylink slides]
 
* Most of the individual charge questions deal with N_eff goals and requirements, so it's useful to remind ourselves what matters for N_eff and why we are pushing on the particular things we're pushing on.
 
* Most of the individual charge questions deal with N_eff goals and requirements, so it's useful to remind ourselves what matters for N_eff and why we are pushing on the particular things we're pushing on.
  
'''Questions regarding systematics:'''
+
''Questions regarding systematics:''
  
 
''1. How are we calibrating beams to meet high-ell science requirements? Can we use high S/N point sources alone?''
 
''1. How are we calibrating beams to meet high-ell science requirements? Can we use high S/N point sources alone?''
Line 87: Line 80:
 
* What about T -> P leakage for Neff? (incl higher-order terms)
 
* What about T -> P leakage for Neff? (incl higher-order terms)
  
'''Questions regarding how much sky we could possibly observe without hitting some systematic or noise floor? (what is limiting fsky?)'''
+
''Questions regarding how much sky we could possibly observe without hitting some systematic or noise floor? (what is limiting fsky?)''
  
 
''2. How does the galaxy impact Neff inference and does this drive frequency coverage?'' (Colin Hill) [https://dummylink slides]
 
''2. How does the galaxy impact Neff inference and does this drive frequency coverage?'' (Colin Hill) [https://dummylink slides]

Revision as of 12:10, 16 October 2019

Link back to agenda

Charge

Note that "Maps to Cl" is actually shorthand for "Maps to Cl to Parameters" or "Maps to Parameters from (non-low-ell-BB) Power Spectra." This is important for understanding the charge and defining the responsibilities of this group.

The charge from the meeting SOC is twofold (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KtRif7_BPi3gACMkIA7__AWK63iUJiljN6UlKI41MS0/edit for the exact charge). One part is a set of general instructions for all analysis working groups:

  • Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1,
  • Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions,
  • 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,
  • Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.

The other part is a set of specific questions to support other working groups / WBSs as we move to the next level of design. Our questions are:

  • How are we calibrating beams to meet high-ell science requirements? Can we use high S/N point sources alone?
  • How does the galaxy impact Neff inference?
  • Does this drive frequency coverage?
  • Is there a path to realistically achieve both the necessary cadence for transients and the necessary sky coverage for light relics goals?
  • What are the necessary analysis tools to answer these questions?

Agenda

Reminder: What are the science targets, and what was previously identified as important decisions / questions by the forecasters? (30 minutes total)

1. Light relics summary (Ben Wallisch, on behalf of Dan Green and Joel Meyers and others) slides

2. Dark matter science summary (Vera Gluscevic or Cora Dvorkin) slides

3. Isocurvature summary? (Dan Grin?)


General charge (45 minutes total)

1. Identify key decisions that must be made (and justified) prior to CD-1 (open discussion with some structure and example questions from organizers)

Background/clarifying questions:

  • What does “by CD-1” mean, and what are the implications for when tools need to be in place and working?
    • According to APC white paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01062), CD-1 is in Q3 of FY2021 (so June 2021?).
    • Working backward from there, any tool that could reasonably influence a CD-1 decision needs to be in place and working by ... ?
    • Give an example timeline for an example decision?

Some possible key decisions/questions:

  • Start with known high-priority things
    • Which instrumental effects are important, what requirements can we put on them, and are they relevant for decisions being made on the timescale of CD-1?
      • Beams
      • T -> P leakage
      • Time constants
      • Gain / gain drift / elevation-dependent gain
    • What limits how much sky we can observe?
    • What science goals beyond Neff potentially drive measurement and instrument requirements for non-BB power spectra? Are we missing something by concentrating on Neff?
    • What level of sims to maps to Cell to parameters pipeline do we need for CD-1? Should a tool be developed to be used by the whole collaboration?
    • Should Maps to Cell and low-ell BB groups have a common set of simulations and analysis tools to be addressing “non-idealities” by CD-1?
      • This is happening in DM / Simulations, though other groups will have input on the nature of these tools.
    • Should we be setting up data challenges (e.g., make a CMB sky with beam properties varying across the field and have people analyze it and get unbiased Neff)?

2. Make progress on (or actually make) those decisions

3. 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

  • Summary of decisions identified as most important, possible tasking and timelines.

4. Ensure that those timelines and processes are understood and supported by the collaboration, and that we (together) believe we can follow them.

  • We can talk in the session about the best ways to ensure this.


Individual charge questions (45 minutes total)

0. First an overview of N_eff forecasting from the Dark Universe session. (Ben Wallisch, on behalf of Dan Green and Joel Meyers and others) slides

  • Most of the individual charge questions deal with N_eff goals and requirements, so it's useful to remind ourselves what matters for N_eff and why we are pushing on the particular things we're pushing on.

Questions regarding systematics:

1. How are we calibrating beams to meet high-ell science requirements? Can we use high S/N point sources alone?

  • TC (I did an early study on this and can resurrect it for discussion) slides
  • What about T -> P leakage for Neff? (incl higher-order terms)

Questions regarding how much sky we could possibly observe without hitting some systematic or noise floor? (what is limiting fsky?)

2. How does the galaxy impact Neff inference and does this drive frequency coverage? (Colin Hill) slides

  • also think about ground pickup?

3. Is there a path to realistically achieve both the necessary cadence for transients and the necessary sky coverage for light relics goals? (Reijo Keskitalo) slides

4. What are the necessary analysis tools to answer these questions? (all, discussion)

Remote attendance

Zoom link


Notes

Early notes on planning/agenda are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uxn1AedOzWAObeG59aS7WPfctV_GC6kDbDw0KgdR_Ow/edit#