Hi All, Yesterday I received a very manageable referee report for the IQUV wedge paper. I've already made all the changes requested except for the first one, which calls for a further discussion of the Asad+'15 results in relation to ours. There are a few directions I could go in here. Happy to talk about this on the datacon later today.
Saul Aryeh Kohn PhD student University of Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------- 4N7 Center for Particle Cosmology David Rittenhouse Laboratory 209 South 33rd Street Philadelphia PA, 19104 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:34 AM Subject: Your ApJ Submission MS#ApJ102103 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected] March 8, 2016 Mr. Saul Aryeh Kohn University of Pennsylvania Department of Physics and Astronomy David Rittenhouse Laboratories 209 South 33rd Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Title: Constraining Polarized Foregrounds for EOR Experiments I: 2D Power Spectra from the Paper-32 Imaging Array Dear Mr. Kohn, I have received the referee's report on your above submission to The Astrophysical Journal, and appended it below. As you will see, the referee thinks that your article is interesting and that it will merit publication once you have addressed the issues raised in the report. The Astrophysical Journal has a Statistics Editor who provides comments on a subset of submissions. Comments on your paper are attached below, after the referee's report. These comments are meant purely for consideration by the authors and the referee. If you find them useful, excellent. If you do not, you can let me know. When you resubmit the manuscript, please include a detailed cover letter containing the (mandatory) listing of the changes you've made to the text and your responses to the report. Click the link below to upload your revised manuscript; https://apj.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A5Ew7WN7A4CMhd5J7A9ftdIiyuRrsxD7Pi3Erj8i21gZ Alternatively, you may also log into your account at the EJ Press web site, http://apj.msubmit.net. Please use your user's login name: saul.aryeh.kohn. You can then ask for a new password via the Unknown/Forgotten Password link if you have forgotten your password. Reviewers find it helpful if the changes in the text of the manuscript are easily distinguishable from the rest of the text. Therefore we ask you to print changes in bold face. The highlighting can be removed easily after the review. The Astrophysical Journal has adopted a new policy that manuscript files become inactive, and are considered to have been withdrawn, six months after the most recent referee's report goes to the authors, provided a revised version has not been received by that time. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, Ethan T. Vishniac AAS Editor-in-Chief Johns Hopkins University ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Referee Report Reviewer's Comments: The authors are constraining the polarized foregrounds by analysing PAPER-32 imaging array data in full Stokes. They conclude that with even modest polarisation calibration they do not see evidence that polarisation calibration errors move power outside the wedge in any Stokes visibilities, to the noise level attained. Before recommending publication of this paper a few points should be clarified. A major conclusion of the paper differs from a recent study by Asad et al. 2015 that showed on the LOFAR data that there is the polarization leakage in the cylindrical power spectrum above the point spread function (PSF)-induced wedge relevant for the EoR experiments. Please clarify this in the text (Sec 1 and 4) and discuss differences between the two studies. Section 1: Please note that foreground avoidance has its limitations. Combining it with foreground removal one can recover significantly more EoR signal at small k for both current and future experiments. Please clarify this in Introduction and cite e.g. Chapman et al. 2016 MNRAS. Section 2.2.3: "Standard full polarisation calibration involves correcting for leakage of Stokes I into the V^xy and Vyx visibilities....". Please clarify in the text that one should also correct for leakage from polarized to the total intensity. Section 2.2.3: Based on ionospheric RM please calcule ate how much of depolarization, incoherent averaging, do you expect. Section 3: "...since we expect Stokes I to be approximately 3 orders go magnitude stronger than the other polarisation products ...." This is true only for specific scales and specific regions in the sky. Please clarify this in the text. Report from Statistics Editor: In eqn 3, I recommend that the designation of the left-hand variable change and not be called "the \chi^2 statistic". The function of visibilities specified here is not a standard statistic. One might call the procedure `minimizing a sum of squared weighted residuals' or something like this. But it has no formal relation to the statisticians chi-squared test (invented by Pearson c1900 for entirely different purposes, and subject to debate by Neyman and others). And there is no guarantee that the distribution of the function around its minimum value will follow a chi-squared distribution. Thus, unless mathematical proofs are presented or bootstrap-type resampling is performed, one cannot associate values of this function with probabilities using tables of the chi-squared distribution.
