2016
DOI: 10.1117/12.2231995
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

LiteBIRD: lite satellite for the study of B-mode polarization and inflation from cosmic microwave background radiation detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
28
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The baseline foreground-cleaning results have been obtained based on an eight-dimensional parameterization of the foregrounds, including synchrotron power-law spectral index plus curvature and effective temperature of dust, plus power-law index of dust emissivity for Q and U Stokes parameters, each of which is allowed to vary across the sky. Systematic uncertainties have also been studied [33], including beam systematics [14], instrumental polarization and HWP harmonics, polarization efficiency, relative and absolute gain, pointing, polarization angle, time-correlated noise, cosmic ray glitches, bandpass mismatch [34], transfer function, nonlinearity, and non-uniformity in HWP, with realistic ground/in-flight calibration methods taken into account [e.g., 15,35]. Through all these studies, it has been shown that the Journal of Low Temperature Physics (2020) 199:1107-1117 updated focal-plane designs satisfy LiteBIRD's full success of the total uncertainty in the tensor-to-scalar ratio of less than 0.001, with its uncertainty budgets distributed comparably into a statistical part (including foreground residual and lensing B-mode), a systematic part, and a margin.…”
Section: Foreground-cleaning and Systematic Uncertainty Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The baseline foreground-cleaning results have been obtained based on an eight-dimensional parameterization of the foregrounds, including synchrotron power-law spectral index plus curvature and effective temperature of dust, plus power-law index of dust emissivity for Q and U Stokes parameters, each of which is allowed to vary across the sky. Systematic uncertainties have also been studied [33], including beam systematics [14], instrumental polarization and HWP harmonics, polarization efficiency, relative and absolute gain, pointing, polarization angle, time-correlated noise, cosmic ray glitches, bandpass mismatch [34], transfer function, nonlinearity, and non-uniformity in HWP, with realistic ground/in-flight calibration methods taken into account [e.g., 15,35]. Through all these studies, it has been shown that the Journal of Low Temperature Physics (2020) 199:1107-1117 updated focal-plane designs satisfy LiteBIRD's full success of the total uncertainty in the tensor-to-scalar ratio of less than 0.001, with its uncertainty budgets distributed comparably into a statistical part (including foreground residual and lensing B-mode), a systematic part, and a margin.…”
Section: Foreground-cleaning and Systematic Uncertainty Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10]. Therefore, the CRHWP has the potential to be one of the essential tools for the next-generation CMB experiments, such as CMB-S4 [11], a nextgeneration ground-based experiment, and LiteBIRD, a proposed space mission for full-sky CMB polarization measurements [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method can be applied to optical systems in which all the optical elements between the CRHWP and the sky are reflective 12. We assume that the contribution from the non-ideality of the HWP on n = 4 HWPSS, A(4)0 ⟨I in ⟩ , is small compared to that from the instrumental polarization, here.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As of now, combined observations from the BICEP2 and Keck Array experiments and from the Planck mission yield an upper limit of r < 0.06 at 95% confidence [7,10]. Proposed future CMB space missions such as the consecutive versions of CORE [11,12], LiteBIRD [13][14][15], PICO [16,17], PIXIE [18], PRISM [19] or ground-based experiments such as CMB-S4 [20,21] target a sensitivity σ(r) of 10 −3 or better, requiring instrumental sensitivity and control of instrumental systematic effects four orders of magnitude better than for observing CMB temperature anisotropies on large scales.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%