Polarization angle requirements for CMB B-mode experiments. Application to the LiteBIRD satellite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A methodology to provide the polarization angle requirements for different sets of detectors, at a given frequency of a CMB polarization experiment, is presented. The uncertainties in the polarization angle of each detector set are related to a given bias on the tensor-to-scalar ratio r parameter. The approach is grounded in using a linear combination of the detector sets to obtain the CMB polarization signal. In addition, assuming that the uncertainties on the polarization angle are in the small angle limit (lower than a few degrees), it is possible to derive analytic expressions to establish the requirements. The methodology also accounts for possible correlations among detectors, that may originate from the optics, wafers, etc. The approach is applied to the LiteBIRD space mission. We show that, for the most restrictive case (i.e., full correlation of the polarization angle systematics among detector sets), the requirements on the polarization angle uncertainties are of around 1 arcmin at the most sensitive frequency bands (i.e., ≈ 150 GHz) and of few tens of arcmin at the lowest (i.e., ≈ 40 GHz) and highest (i.e., ≈ 400 GHz) observational bands. Conversely, for the least restrictive case (i.e., no correlation of the polarization angle systematics among detector sets), the requirements are ≈ 5 times less restrictive than for the previous scenario. At the global and the telescope levels, polarization angle knowledge of a few arcmins is sufficient for correlated global systematic errors and can be relaxed by a factor of two for fully uncorrelated errors in detector polarization angle. The reported uncertainty levels are needed in order to have the bias on r due to systematics below the limit established by the LiteBIRD collaboration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".