lsstdesc / overview_paper Goto Github PK

I'm working on a branch mandelbaum_mods, which I made directly off of 2017-DESC-update. This issue is just for me to track what changes I want to make (and then I can point to the list when I make the PR). I'll be regularly updating this top issue as I find things to change.

• 2.1.1 in system.tex
  • reference more up-to-date review, like Weinberg, for DE
  • reference more recent WL reviews
  • typo "marginlization"
  • check source numbers
  • WFIRST, not WFIRST-AFTA, and more recent citation
  • no multi-parens in PFS ref
  • add Simons Observatory ref?
  • no nested parens in 21cm refs
• 4.1 in science.tex
  • standard sirens?
  • figure 22-24 provenance and assumptions
  • careful about numbers paragraph
  • request check on photo-z accuracy
  • missing words in 3x2pt paragraph, mention systematics marginalization potential
  • second bullet duplicates previous?
  • higher order stats para needs more up-to-date refs, and should say shear peaks
  • fix "weak lens magnification"
  • SN bullet style is different from all others, with a one-word "Supernovae" - inconsistent
  • put a paper ref for galaxy clusters, mention cluster clustering to constrain mass-obs relation
  • remove specific bullet for shear peaks (we do not think it is more calibratable than galaxy clusters)
• bbl for new refs
• my name on author list
• fix issue with Alonso affiliation on author list
• ask how claims in 2.1.1, 3.3 etc. re: multi-fitting will be handled

Note minimal referencing updates.

Over in the base repo of the LSST overview paper Zeljko @ivezic has been working through the ApJ referee report. He needs DESC's help with two weak lensing issues. We'll prepare an improved paper in the apj-v1 branch - and then submit it in a PR against the base repo apj-v1 branch including proposed response text in the PR comment.

• lsst-pst#45 Weak lensing background comparison

Referee:
How does the effective number density of weak lensing background galaxies compare with Euclid and WFIRST? Euclid is observing a similarly large area with a better PSF, no seeing, no weather, no Moon, no daytime, and a darker sky.

This refers to a sentence on line 79 in science.tex, which says "The sample to $i=25.3$ will include several billion galaxies. At a slightly brighter cut, there will be around 30 galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$ with shapes measured well enough for weak lensing measurements \citep{2013MNRAS.434.2121C,2015MNRAS.447.1746C}, with the number realized in practice being dependent on the performance of the deblending and shape measurement algorithms."
What we need is an additional sentence that gives the corresponding number for the Euclid Gold Sample. Can you please provide such a sentence, @timeifler @chihway @rmandelb?

• lsst-pst#46 Update Figure 22 on weak lensing

Referee:
The weak lensing results will be competing with Euclid which has a similar start date. There are several surveys that have been "skimming the cream on weak lensing science", including CFHTLenS, PanSTARRS and DES. So far the cream has not produced spectacular results. Figure 22 seems frozen in the DETF days. Figure 22 should acknowledge the surveys in the can, and show an "All" that include Euclid WL and then "All minus LSST WL". So you should include a fair assessment of how much the LSST will advance the field over where it will be given current and under construction surveys.

I believe the Figure 22 that the referee is referring to is now Fig 23 in the current version:

We have new figures from the DESC SRD that we could include. I am inclined to argue that the LSST overview paper should not include Euclid contours - that's for the Euclid team to present. But, we can include the appropriate Y1 and Y10 contours from the v1 DESC SRD, no problem. I'll insert this and see what it looks like.

Zeljko is asking the science collaboration chairs for help updating the LSST overview paper:

We need to update our LSST overview paper (arXiv:0805.2366) again. There are a number of reasons for doing so:

• last posting was over 3 years ago (v3.1, Aug 29, 2014) and ~3 years was the cadence for the first 3 versions (2008, 2011, 2014)
• not only that it’s rather stale, but there are some errors, e.g. fig. 4 showing bandpasses, there is a typo in the m5 table, etc
• there are system design updates and policy updates and coauthor updates

Your task is to read your sections carefully, identify all the necessary changes, implement them, and issue a pull request.. Our strategy for this version is to minimize changes - that is, let’s change only what must be changed. Of course, if you have a strong case for significant changes of text, or adding major new sections, please let me know. If you want to enlist help from other members of your Collaborations, please go ahead.

Our hard deadline is Nov 15. We aim to have a more or less complete revised version by the end of November, have a few proof-readers read it back-to-back before the end of December, and then upload it to arXiv before the winter AAS meeting in D.C.

I started a PR from the dev branch, 2017-DESC-update at lsst-pst#1 - I'll work on the DESC update, and request help from the collaboration as needed.