Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dust spectral index and temperature based on GNILC #69

Closed
zonca opened this issue Nov 14, 2020 · 9 comments
Closed

Dust spectral index and temperature based on GNILC #69

zonca opened this issue Nov 14, 2020 · 9 comments
Assignees

Comments

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Nov 14, 2020

See comparison between GNILC and PySM 2 here:
https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/gist/zonca/c6aa3e83f0151666e33a28cc84c0ba20

Suggestion by Hans Kristian (referring to the PySM 2 templates) was:

  1. threshold beta_dust between 1.4 and 1.7, and smooth to ~2 degrees
    FWHM, to suppress the worst CO, point source and CIB effects
  2. Smooth T_dust also to ~2 degrees, to reduce the worst Planck noise
    sensitivity

However no idea how to proceed. @brandonshensley @NicolettaK?

@zonca zonca self-assigned this Nov 14, 2020
@NicolettaK
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @zonca.
I have the new templates for thermal dust beta and temperature that we are currently using for LiteBIRD.
They are obtained by smoothing the Commander maps at 2°. No need to reduce the beta range as it is already ok after smoothing. Shall I share them with you?

@zonca
Copy link
Member Author

zonca commented Nov 16, 2020

no @NicolettaK thanks, I think it would be better to use the GNILC products for templates / spectral indices / dust temperature

@giuspugl
Copy link
Contributor

giuspugl commented Oct 6, 2021

I've finalized a procedure to inject smaller angular scales to the spectral parameters.

  • we use the Planck GNILC maps of Bd and Td.
  • fit a power law in the range $\ell \in [100,400]$ which corresponds to the range we fit the Intensity GNILC 2015 map
  • for the whole analysis we evaluate fullsky power spectra with ANAFAST
  • Modulate by total intensity map both Bd and Td (?)

image
image

image

@zonca
Copy link
Member Author

zonca commented Jan 13, 2022

@giuspugl the notebook for spectral index and T dust is at https://github.com/galsci/pysm/blob/f3b79810d22805cf5b0904eb13f65df6c6b6dbed/docs/preprocess-templates/gnilc_dust_spectral_index_T_dust.ipynb
Do you have an executed version of that notebook for reference? (in a gist)
I checked in this Gist (https://gist.github.com/giuspugl/d36a0e529a3b4a89c19bce5b58c9494a) but the cells related to spectral index and T_dust are not executed.

Instead of recomputing the modulation factor in that notebook, can I load the modulation map for T that I have created in the notebook which creates the templates? Or do they differ somehow?

@zonca
Copy link
Member Author

zonca commented Jan 13, 2022

I am referring to the modulation alms saved in cell 44 of https://nbviewer.org/gist/zonca/b0ec6cc14fa4c22ded497cc445a7ea46#Define-Modulation-maps

@giuspugl
Copy link
Contributor

giuspugl commented Jan 13, 2022

Sorry about that ! Here you can find an updated notebook
https://gist.github.com/giuspugl/d36a0e529a3b4a89c19bce5b58c9494a
i made sure it is compiled also for the spectral parameters too .

Instead of recomputing the modulation factor in that notebook, can I load the modulation map for T that I have created in the notebook which creates the templates? Or do they differ somehow?

Yes! the modulation for Td and Beta_dust is the same as the intensity one.

@zonca
Copy link
Member Author

zonca commented Jan 14, 2022 via email

@brandonshensley
Copy link
Contributor

What do you think about the reusing the same modulation map?

Reusing the modulation map seems fine to me as long as the fluctuations themselves are different. Physically it is sensible for the amplitude of fluctuations to be related to the total intensity.

@zonca
Copy link
Member Author

zonca commented Jan 25, 2022

Implemented in #104

@zonca zonca closed this as completed Feb 27, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants