MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105978793 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912855

<i>Planck</i>   pre-launch status: Expected LFI polarisation capability

2010· article· en· W2105978793 on OpenAlexafffund
J. P. Leahy, M. Bersanelli, O. D’Arcangelo, K. Ganga, S. Leach, A. Moss, E. Keihänen, R. Keskitalo, H. Kurki‐Suonio, T. Poutanen, M. Sandri, D. Scott, J. A. Tauber, L. Valenziano, F. Villa, A. Wilkinson, A. Zonca, C. Baccigalupi, J. Borrill, R. C. Butler, F. Cuttaia, R. J. Davis, M. Frailis, E. Francheschi, S. Galeotta, A. Gregorio, R. Leonardi, N. Mandolesi, M. Maris, P. R. Meinhold, L. Mendes, A. Mennella, G. Morgante, G. Prézeau, G. Rocha, L. Stringhetti, L. Terenzi, M. Tomasi

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCanadian Space AgencyTekesAcademy of FinlandNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundPlanckPolarimeterCosmic background radiationPolarimetryTelescopeOpticsAstrophysicsZenithScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a system-level description of the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) considered as a differencing polarimeter, and evaluate its expected performance. The LFI is one of the two instruments on board the ESA Planck mission to study the cosmic microwave background. It consists of a set of 22 radiometers sensitive to linear polarisation, arranged in orthogonally-oriented pairs connected to 11 feed horns operating at 30, 44 and 70 GHz. In our analysis, the generic Jones and Mueller-matrix formulations for polarimetry are adapted to the special case of the LFI. Laboratory measurements of flight components are combined with optical simulations of the telescope to investigate the values and uncertainties in the system parameters affecting polarisation response. Methods of correcting residual systematic errors are also briefly discussed. The LFI has beam-integrated polarisation efficiency >99% for all detectors, with uncertainties below 0.1%. Indirect assessment of polarisation position angles suggests that uncertainties are generally less than 05, and this will be checked in flight using observations of the Crab nebula. Leakage of total intensity into the polarisation signal is generally well below the thermal noise level except for bright Galactic emission, where the dominant effect is likely to be spectral-dependent terms due to bandpass mismatch between the two detectors behind each feed, contributing typically 1–3% leakage of foreground total intensity. Comparable leakage from compact features occurs due to beam mismatch, but this averages to < 5 × 10-4 for large-scale emission. An inevitable feature of the LFI design is that the two components of the linear polarisation are recovered from elliptical beams which differ substantially in orientation. This distorts the recovered polarisation and its angular power spectrum, and several methods are being developed to correct the effect, both in the power spectrum and in the sky maps. The LFI will return a high-quality measurement of the CMB polarisation, limited mainly by thermal noise. To meet our aspiration of measuring polarisation at the 1% level, further analysis of flight and ground data is required. We are still researching the most effective techniques for correcting subtle artefacts in polarisation; in particular the correction of bandpass mismatch effects is a formidable challenge, as it requires multi-band analysis to estimate the spectral indices that control the leakage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207