Update on Neff Forecasts

From CMB-S4 wiki
Revision as of 18:49, 27 April 2017 by Drgreen (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Dan writing (input from Erminia, Joel and Alex)

I will present updates on the forecasting for Neff and how it will impact the target of σ(Neff) = 0.027.

Unless otherwise stated, our forecasts use lensed spectra on 40 percent of the sky with leff=30 and lmax=5000. Yp is varied with Neff to be consistent with BBN for the same value of Neff. We have also included the lensing power spectrum using iterative delensing. Planck has been included on 20 percent of the sky and at low l in TT +tau prior.

Temperature versus Polarization

As shown in the figure below, TE drives the constraints for Neff. Reaching the target is particularly sensitive to TE with l > 2000.

Low ell TE.png

A consequence of this statement is that our Neff is not particularly sensitive to component separation. Specifically, we can use Planck TT for l < 1500 and foregrounds in EE are sufficiently low to recover these constraint. Detailed studies of component separation will be presented in a separate post, but this severs only to motivate why we have ignored it here.

Point Sources and Atmosphere

Point sources act much like an additional source of noise (modulo the correction from the beam). Point sources in TT therefore affect the information we can recover from both TT and TE at high-l. We take the TT point source contribution to be

DTT,ps(l=3000) = 6 ( μK)²

DEE,ps(l=3000) = 0.003× 6 ( μK)²

where we use the few percent polarization fraction of the point sources to estimate DEE,ps(l=3000). In practice, the polarization fraction would have to be order 1 to have any effect on our forecasts.

We will determine that atmospheric noise from the model presented at the SLAC meeting:

NlTT= N0TT(1+ (l /3400)-4.7)

NlEE= N0EE(1+ (l /340)-4.7)

where the factor of 10 reduction in lkneeEE was estimated from the polarization fraction.

S4 all.png S4 atm.png

The impact of the point sources is more important at low noise, as the point sources at like an irreducible noise source in TT. At higher noise, the atmosphere is more important as it scales with the white noise amplitude. We notice that these effects are generally small. We have used lensed spectra because it was shown in Green, Meyers and van Engelen (2016) that the forecasts with delensed spectra are well approximated by the lensed spectra when Yp does not vary independently. Further improvements in delensing, particularly at high-l are possible but can at most reach the Green curve (in the absence of point sources or atmospheric noise).

We can also consider the impact of the atmosphere in polarization by changing the model to

NlEE= N0EE(1+ (l /lknee)α=-4.7, -4)

Ell knee Neff.png Ell knee ns.png

We noise that the atmosphere has a relatively small impact on Neff, presumably because the information is coming from smaller angular scales. However, this is not a universal property of the cosmological parameters, as we can see from ns.

Summary: Reasonable expectations for point sources and atmosphere have a relatively small impact on our ability to reach the Neff target. 10 percent changes do occur, but this likely lies within the accuracy of the forecasts themselves.

Beam / Pointing Calibration

Our ability to calibrate the power spectra at high-l is important for Neff. A bias in the damping tail of the spectra would look like a bias in Neff. Furthermore, marginalizing over these uncertainties reduces the sensitivity to Neff. We will give a simple model of the beam uncertainty to as

Bl = exp[θ1 arcmin² l(l +1) /(2 log 8) (b_1 + b_2 (l/3000) + b_3 (l /3000)^2 ) ]

where the bi are in units of arcmin² and b1 is the uncertainty in the width of a Gaussian beam. We have added the additional terms to model more complicated beam shapes. This parametrization can be expanded to include many other teams, but with little change. At the level of Fisher matrices, this parameterization is equivalent to many others.

S4 beam.png

With no external prior, we see that there our constraints weaken significantly. We recover the case without the beam uncertainties when we take the 1σ prior to be less that 0.003 arcmin². The beam uncertainty for these various priors in shown below. Since Neff is driven by l > 2000, we should interpret this as the statement that we need 0.1 percent calibration. This is not a surprising requirement, as cosmic variance is order 0.1 percent on those scales. Therefore, we are requiring that the error in the power spectra from the beam uncertainties are below cosmic variance. This requirement is compared to the performance of ACT as reported in Hasselfield et al. (2013).

Beam shape.png ACT beam.png