Simulation Plans Paolo Natoli Università di Ferrara and INFN Mark Ashdown University of Cambridge.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The second LDB flight of BOOMERanG was devoted to CMB polarization measurements Was motivated by the desire to measure polarization : –at 145 GHz (higher.
Advertisements

CMB Power spectrum likelihood approximations
Advanced GAmma Tracking Array
First results from QUIET Osamu Tajima (KEK) The QUIET Collaboration 1.
Simulations with ‘Realistic’ Photon Spectra Mike Jenkins Lancaster University and The Cockcroft Institute.
Wed. 17th Sept Hamburg LOFAR Workshop.  Extract a cosmological signal from a datacube, the three axes of which are x and y positions, and frequency.
N. Ponthieu March 30th, A few thoughts on scanning strategy F. R. Bouchet, M. Bucher, F. X. Désert, N. Ponthieu, M. Piat.
Update on Tools FTK Meeting 06/06/06 Erik Brubaker U of Chicago.
Status of  b Scan Jianchun Wang Syracuse University Representing L b scanners CLEO Meeting 05/11/02.
Noise Floor Non-stationarity Monitor Roberto Grosso*, Soma Mukherjee + + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernburg, Germany Detector.
Separating Cosmological B-Modes with FastICA Stivoli F. Baccigalupi C. Maino D. Stompor R. Orsay – 15/09/2005.
Muon alignment with Cosmics: Real and Monte Carlo data S.Vecchi, S.Pozzi INFN Ferrara 37th Software Week CERN June 2009.
CMB & Foreground Polarisation CMB 2003 Workshop, Minneapolis Carlo Baccigalupi, SISSA/ISAS.
US Planck Data Analysis Review 1 Peter MeinholdUS Planck Data Analysis Review 9–10 May 2006 Where we need to be 2 months before launch- Instrument view.
PACS NHSC SPIRE Point Source Spectroscopy Webinar 21 March 2012 David Shupe, Bernhard Schulz, Kevin Xu on behalf of the SPIRE ICC Extracting Photometry.
QUIET Q/U Imaging ExperimenT. QUIET Project Miami Physics Conference 2009 December 16 Raul Monsalve for the QUIET Collaboration University of Miami QUIET.
Mock Data Production, Characteristics, and Confusion Background WG4 f2f – Nice 09/01/10 Tania Regimbau.
US Planck Data Analysis Review 1 Christopher CantalupoUS Planck Data Analysis Review 9–10 May 2006 CTP Working Group Presented by Christopher Cantalupo.
Workshop on B/Tau Physics, Helsinki V. Karim ä ki, HIP 1 Software Alignment of the CMS Tracker V. Karimäki / HIP V. Karimäki / HIP Workshop.
Hard X and Gamma-ray Polarization: the ultimate dimension (ESA Cosmic Vision ) or the Compton Scattering polarimetery challenges Ezio Caroli,
Cosmic Microwave Background Carlo Baccigalupi, SISSA CMB lectures at TRR33, see the complete program at darkuniverse.uni-hd.de/view/Main/WinterSchoolLecture5.
Planck Science Team – UniMi-Milano – 02 – 04 November 2005 Andrea Zacchei / Davide Maino Planck ST #25 – UniMi, November 2005 Inputs from: SISSA,
Congresso del Dipartimento di Fisica Highlights in Physics –14 October 2005, Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano The Planck satellite:
August 26, 2003P. Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting1 Paul Nilsson, SPD Group Meeting, August 26, 2003 Test Beam 2002 Analysis Techniques for Estimating Intrinsic.
EBEx foregrounds and band optimization Carlo Baccigalupi, Radek Stompor.
1 The Planck view of CMB Contamination from Diffuse Foregrounds Carlo Baccigalupi On Behalf of the Planck Collaboration KITP Conference, April 2013.
Page 1 PACS NHSC Webinar: New SPIRE Features in HIPE th Nov 2012, Pasadena Update on SPIRE Photometer Pipeline Kevin Xu NHSC/IPAC on behalf of the.
Adventures in Parameter Estimation Jason Dick University of California, Davis.
Results from particle beam tests of the ATLAS liquid argon endcap calorimeters Beam test setup Signal reconstruction Response to electrons  Electromagnetic.
Planck Report on the status of the mission Carlo Baccigalupi, SISSA.
Estimation of wave spectra with SWIM on CFOSAT – illustration on a real case C. Tison (1), C. Manent (2), T. Amiot (1), V. Enjolras (3), D. Hauser (2),
Blind Component Separation for Polarized Obseravations of the CMB Jonathan Aumont, Juan-Francisco Macias-Perez Rencontres de Moriond 2006 La.
On the detection of the tensor-to-scalar ratio r using the CMB B-modes
WG2 Meeting, Paris, 28-11/ WG2 and LFI-DPC Davide Maino, Carlo Baccigalupi.
Elliptic flow of D mesons Francesco Prino for the D2H physics analysis group PWG3, April 12 th 2010.
Giuseppe Ruggiero CERN Straw Chamber WG meeting 07/02/2011 Spectrometer Reconstruction: Pattern recognition and Efficiency 07/02/ G.Ruggiero - Spectrometer.
CMOS Pixels Sensor Simulation Preliminary Results and Plans M. Battaglia UC Berkeley and LBNL Thanks to A. Raspereza, D. Contarato, F. Gaede, A. Besson,
A Measurement of the Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Spectrum with the HiRes FADC Detector (HiRes-2) Andreas Zech (for the HiRes Collaboration) Rutgers University.
Planck working group 2.1 diffuse component separation review Paris november 2005.
PACS Hitchhiker’s Guide to Herschel Archive Workshop – Pasadena 6 th – 10 th Oct 2014 Overview of SPIRE Photometer Data Reduction Pipeline Kevin Xu NHSC/IPAC.
The Planck view of CMB Contamination from Diffuse Foregrounds
Overview Modern chip designs have multiple IP components with different process, voltage, temperature sensitivities Optimizing mix to different customer.
Nithyanandan Thyagarajan1, Aaron R. Parsons2,
Paper under review for JGR-Atmospheres …
Cosmological computing within InDark
Some input to the discussion for the design requirements of the GridPixel Tracker and L1thack trigger. Here are some thoughts about possible detector layout.
reduction data treatment for ARCS
Overview of GERDA simulation activities with MaGe
Searching for pulsars using the Hough transform
M. Kuhn, P. Hopchev, M. Ferro-Luzzi
DPG Activities DPG Session, ALICE Monthly Mini Week
Jean-Baptiste Melin U.C. Davis J. Bartlett J. Delabrouille
Data Taking and Samples
(for the Algorithm Development Group of the US Planck Team)
Integration and alignment of ATLAS SCT
SBS Magnet, Optics, and Spin Transport
Beam Deconvolution Map-Making
Estimating the SuperB experimental reach on (g-2)t
A polarimetric approach for constraining the dynamic foreground spectrum for global 21-cm measurements (with applications for DARE) Bang D. Nhan University.
Data Issues Julian Borrill
12th Marcel Grossman Meeting,
Robert Johnson W. Atwood, M. Ziegler, B. Baughman U.C. Santa Cruz and
Nithyanandan Thyagarajan (Arizona State University) HERA+, MWA+
Surrounding effects and sensitivity of the CODALEMA experiment
Bayesian Estimation of the isotropy violation in the CMB sky
Measuring plane efficiencies
Apex scanning strategy & map-making
Systematics session: Gain stability
Separating E and B types of CMB polarization on an incomplete sky Wen Zhao Based on: WZ and D.Baskaran, Phys.Rev.D (2010) 2019/9/3.
LFI systematics and impact on science
Presentation transcript:

Simulation Plans Paolo Natoli Università di Ferrara and INFN Mark Ashdown University of Cambridge

Context Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May At this level, simulations are useful to: a.Provide science forecasting activities with (more) realistic synthetic data, in terms of analysis tools and content (e.g., systematics b.Provide an assessment of the goodness of a configuration assuming a model of the instrument and a model of the sky. This information could feed the proposal or (perhaps) be set forth in a devoted ECO paper. 1.At a broader level, simulations are essential to support data analysis, in providing biases and covariances for estimators, for error budged of all sorts (statistical and systematic). a.These are end-to-end simulations. There is plenty of expertise for this approach in Planck and other CMB experiments

The CoRE++ simulation group 1.About 60 people in the list (join if you wish!). Coordinated by P.N. and Mark Ashdown 2.Holds regular telecons (weekly-ish, Thursday at 16 CET). On wiki: coresat.planck.fr/index.php?n=E2ESims.E2ESims Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

The CoRE++ simulation group 1.About 60 people in the list (join if you wish!). Coordinated by P.N. and Mark Ashdown 2.Holds regular telecons (weekly-ish, Thursday at 16 CET). 3.We held a dedicated meeting in Bologna on April (jointly with foreground group). Presentations are on wiki: Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

The CoRE++ simulation group 1.About 60 people in the list (join if you wish!). Coordinated by P.N. and Mark Ashdown 2.Holds regular telecons (weekly-ish, Thursday at 16 CET). 3.We held a dedicated meeting in Bologna on April (jointly with foreground group). Presentations are on wiki. 4.One output of the meeting was to agree on a common simulation framework and a simulation plan. Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

Common infrastructure for simulations 1.First thing was to agree on a shared simulation level. This is provided by C 3 (Berkeley). See Julian Borrill’s morning talk. a.Provides a scripting interface (python) to generate products b.Provides explicit interface to call libraries from within other codes c.Provides a robust, customizable destriper (madam) to generate maps d.Does not provide at the moment explicit timeline/pointing information to disk. e.Provides Monte Carlo capabilities (CMB signal, noise) f.Documented and “available” from github (at least for us) Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

Sky model 1.Sky model is based on Planck sky model, which is an improving project 2.See Jacques Delabrouille’s talk tomorrow. Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

The work plan 1.Map making validation a.How effectively can we reconstruct polarization without HWP? b.Aim at single-detector maps c.Assess noise performance for various strategy via MC analysis 2.Cross-correlated noise (cross-talks) a.Evaluate impact for toy-model. Assess improvement with dedicated treatment (devoted GLS map-maker) 3.Band-pass mismatch a.Assess vulnerability to multi-detector map making 4.Non symmetric beams a.Correct for leakage both at map harmonic (power spectrum) level 5.Correct for toy model of “timeline” systematic (e.g. thermal in origin) 6.Other issues to consider: pointing error (second error), glitches Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

Map making validation 1.Two configuration studied for LiteCOrE (at 120 cm aperture, 0.5 and 1 rpm spin), plus one for LiteBird (with HWP) 2.Single detector at boresight (for the moment) Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

Precession period = 4 days Spin rate = 1rpm 4 hits per beam: samplerate = Hz Common: 200 Hz 1/f knee, slope = 1, precession angle = 50°, spin angle = 45°, NET = 52.3 µK ·√ s, 5.79’ FWHM (150 cm aperture), LiteCOrE slow LiteCoRE fast Precession period = 8 days Spin rate = 0.5rpm 4 hits per beam: samplerate = Hz LiteBird NET = 60 µK ·√ s Knee frequency = 50 mHz Slope = 1 Sample rate = 23 Hz HWP rotating at 88 rpm Precession opening angle = 65° Spin opening angle = 30° Precession period = 93 minutes Spin period = 10 minutes Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

3x3 pixel condition numbers Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016 FastSlow LiteBird Optimal condition r is ½ here No significant difference between slow and fast scans Both achieve very reasonable condition numbers L. Polastri

Another example (similar setup) Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016 Ranajoy Banerji

3x3 pixel covariance matrices Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016 L. Polastri

Noise power spectra Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

1.See Linda Polastri’s talk tomorrow 2.Still to do: a.Non boresight detectors (“edge” of focal plane) b.Montecarlo over noise (100 maps for each case) Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

= = A [ 1 + (f/f0)^(-1)] = A [(f/f1)^(-2) + c] n_a = n1 + n3 n_b = n2 + n3 Planck-ish values for f0 = 110 mHz, f1= 21 mHz A. Buazzelli, G. De Gasperis Model by G. Patanchon

The work plan 1.Map making validation (Linda Polastri’s talk) a.How effectively can we reconstruct polarization without HWP? b.Aim at single-detector maps c.Assess noise performance for various strategy via MC analysis 2.Cross-correlated noise (cross-talks) a.Evaluate impact for toy-model. Assess improvement with dedicated treatment (devoted GLS map-maker) 3.Band-pass mismatch (Guillaume Patanchon’s talk) a.Assess vulnerability to multi-detector map making 4.Non symmetric beams (talks by Ranojoy Banjeri and Eric Hivon) a.Correct for leakage both at map harmonic (power spectrum) level 5.Correct for toy model of “timeline” systematic (e.g. thermal in origin) 6.Other issues to consider: pointing error, glitches Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016

Conclusions We have agreed on and started to setup a minimal work plan to produce and analyze simulations aimed at systematic effects. The plan is evolving. Some activities well defined and on track, others need better characterization Join the group if you feel you can contribute! ( me or Mark) There is still a (slim) margin to serve other paper needs. Anyone interested: act fast! Paolo Natoli – Simulation plans - CERN 16 May 2016