IPP Software Navigation Tools IPP Links Communication Pan-STARRS Links

Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 15, 2016, 3:48:40 PM (10 years ago)
Author:
eugene
Message:

make makefile system a little more flexible; make tarballs automatically

Location:
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

  • trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/Makefile

    r39841 r39868  
    11# $Id: Makefile,v 1.16 2006-01-16 01:11:40 eugene Exp $
     2
     3DO_PDFLATEX = 0
     4DO_BIBTEX = 1
    25
    36help:
    … …  
    58        @echo "  targets:  all calibration"
    69
    7 all: calibration.pdf
    8 calibration: calibration.pdf
     10all: pdf tgz
     11pdf: calibration.pdf
     12tgz: calibration.tgz
    913
    10 CALIBRATION = calibration.tex
     14FILES = \
     15../inputs/astro.sty \
     16../inputs/code.sty \
     17../inputs/apj.bst \
     18../inputs/lib.bib \
     19calibration.tex \
     20calibration.bbl
    1121
    12 #       pics/Metadata.ps
    13 #       pics/earthrot.ps
    14 
    15 calibration.pdf: $(CALIBRATION)
    16 
    17 calibration.ps: $(CALIBRATION)
     22calibration.pdf: $(FILES)
     23calibration.tgz: $(FILES)
    1824
    1925include ../Makefile.Common

  • trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/calibration.tex

    r39865 r39868  
    1 % \documentclass[iop,floatfix]{emulateapj}
     1\documentclass[iop,floatfix]{emulateapj}
    22% \pdfoutput=1
    33
    44% see latex.readme.txt for notes on using the PS1 template
    5 \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
     5%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
    66%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
    77%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
    … …  
    3232% list and (2) re-order the list at the bottom (and comment-out as needed)
    3333\def\IfA{1}
    34 \def\CfA{2}
    35 \def\MPIA{3}
    36 \def\Princeton{3}
    37 \def\USNO{4}
    38 \def\JHU{1}
     34\def\LBL{2}
     35\def\Hubble{3}
     36\def\ITC{4}
     37\def\Harvard{5}
     38\def\MPIA{6}
     39\def\ARI{7}
     40\def\Princeton{8}
     41\def\DUR{9}
     42\def\CfA{10}
    3943
    4044% This example has a first author from UH:
    4145\author{
    42 Eugene A. Magnier,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    43 IPP Team,
    44 %PS Builder List
     46Eugene. A. Magnier,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     47Edward. F. Schlafly,\altaffilmark{\LBL,\Hubble}
     48Douglas P. Finkbeiner,\altaffilmark{\ITC,\Harvard}
     49J.~L. Tonry,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     50B. Goldman,\altaffilmark{\MPIA}
     51S. R\"oser,\altaffilmark{\ARI}
     52E. Schilbach,\altaffilmark{\ARI}
     53K.~C. Chambers,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     54H.~A. Flewelling,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     55M. E. Huber,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     56P.~A. Price,\altaffilmark{\Princeton}
     57W.~E. Sweeney,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     58C. Z. Waters,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     59% PS1 Builders
     60L. Denneau,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     61P. Draper,\altaffilmark{\DUR}
     62K. W. Hodapp,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     63R. Jedicke,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     64R.-P. Kudritzki,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
     65N. Metcalfe,\altaffilmark{\DUR}
     66C.~W. Stubbs,\altaffilmark{\CfA}
    4567% W.~S. Burgett,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    46 % K.~C. Chambers,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    4768% T. Grav,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    4869% J. N. Heasley,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    49 % K. W. Hodapp,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    50 % R. Jedicke,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    51 % H.~A. Flewelling,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    5270% N. Kaiser,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    53 % R.-P. Kudritzki,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    5471% G. A. Luppino,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    5572% R. H. Lupton,\altaffilmark{\Princeton}
    … …  
    5774% J.~S. Morgan,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    5875% P. M. Onaka,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    59 % P.~A. Price,\altaffilmark{\Princeton}
    60 % W.~E. Sweeney,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    61 % C.~W. Stubbs,\altaffilmark{\CfA}
    62 % J.~L. Tonry, \altaffilmark{\IfA}
    63 % R. J. Wainscoat,\altaffilmark{\IfA} and
     76R. J. Wainscoat\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    6477% M. F. Waterson,\altaffilmark{\IfA}
    6578} % this bracket terminates author list
    6679
     80\altaffiltext{\IfA}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu HI 96822}
     81\altaffiltext{\LBL}{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
     82\altaffiltext{\Hubble}{Hubble Fellow}
     83\altaffiltext{\ITC}{Institute for Theory and Computation, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS-51, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA}
     84\altaffiltext{\Harvard}{Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA}
     85\altaffiltext{\MPIA}{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"onigstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
     86\altaffiltext{\ARI}{Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum f\"ur Astronomie der Universit\"at Heidelberg, M\"ochhofstrasse 12-14, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany}
     87\altaffiltext{\Princeton}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA}
     88\altaffiltext{\DUR}{Department of Physics, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK}
     89\altaffiltext{\CfA}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
     90
    6791% The ordering here should be sequential, matching the sequence in the list of authors:
    68 \altaffiltext{\IfA}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu HI 96822}
    69 % \altaffiltext{\CfA}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
    70 % \altaffiltext{\Princeton}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA}
    7192% \altaffiltext{\USNO}{US Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA}
    7293% \altaffiltext{\JHU}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}
    73 % \altaffiltext{\MPIA}{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"onigstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
     94
     95% \altaffiltext{\Strassborg}{
     96
    7497\begin{abstract}
    7598
    76 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum
    77 bibendum nisi id tristique posuere. Duis eu mollis nulla. Maecenas est
    78 turpis, mattis tempor urna vitae, placerat rhoncus sem. Lorem ipsum
    79 dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed quis velit
    80 nisl. Aliquam erat volutpat. Cras lacinia, nisl tristique auctor
    81 molestie, dolor nulla rhoncus purus, ac accumsan nunc nunc ac
    82 nibh. Maecenas vitae mollis mauris. Ut sollicitudin pulvinar purus,
    83 eget luctus lorem tincidunt vitae. Vestibulum eu mattis neque. Nulla
    84 in tortor id urna dapibus gravida a vel leo.
     99The Pan-STARRS\,1 $3\pi$ survey has produced photometry and astrometry
     100covering the \approx 30,000 square degrees $\delta > -30$\degrees. 
     101This article describes the photometric and astrometric calibration of this survey.
    85102
    86103\end{abstract}
    87104
    88105% insert additional keywords as appropriate:
    89 %\keywords{Surveys:\PSONE }
     106\keywords{Surveys:\PSONE }
    90107
    91108\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
     109
     110This is the fifth in a series of seven papers describing the
     111Pan-STARRS1 Surveys, the data reduction techiques and the resulting
     112data products.  This paper (Paper V) describes the final calibration
     113process, and the resulting photometric and astrometric quality.
     114
     115%Chambers et al. 2017 (Paper I)
     116%The Pan-STARRS\,1 Surveys
     117\citet[][Paper I]{chambers2017}
     118provides an overview of the Pan-STARRS System, the design and
     119execution of the Surveys, the resulting image and catalog data
     120products, a discussion of the overall data quality and basic
     121characteristics, and a brief summary of important results.
     122
     123%Magnier et al. 2017 (Paper II)
     124%Pan-STARRS Data Processing Stages
     125\citet[][Paper II]{magnier2017c}
     126describes how the various data processing stages are organised and implemented
     127in the Imaging Processing Pipeline (IPP), including details of the
     128the processing database which is a critical element in the IPP infrastructure .
     129
     130%Waters et al. 2017 (Paper III)
     131%Pan-STARRS Pixel Processing : Detrending, Warping, Stacking
     132\citet[][Paper III]{waters2017}
     133describes the details of the pixel processing algorithms, including detrending, warping, and adding (to create stacked images) and subtracting (to create difference images) and resulting image products and their properties.
     134
     135
     136%Magnier et al. 2017 (Paper IV)
     137%Pan-STARRS Pixel Analysis : Source Detection
     138\citet[][Paper IV]{magnier2017a}
     139describes the details of the source detection and photometry, including point-spread-function and extended source fitting models, and the techniques for ``forced" photometry measurements.
     140
     141%Magnier et al. 2017 (Paper V)
     142%Pan-STARRS Photometric and Astrometric Calibration
     143%\citet[][Paper V]{magnier2017b}
     144%describes the final calibration process, and the resulting photometric and astrometric quality. 
     145
     146
     147%Flewelling et al. 2017 (Paper VI)
     148%Pan-STARRS 1 Database and Data Products
     149\citet[][Paper VI]{flewelling2017}
     150describes  the details of the resulting catalog data and its organization in the Pan-STARRS database.
     151%
     152%
     153\citet[][Paper VII]{huber2017}
     154%Huber et al. 2017 (Paper VII)
     155describes the Medium Deep Survey in detail, including the unique issues and data products specific to that survey. The Medium Deep Survey is not part of Data Release 1. (DR1)
     156
     157%
     158The Pan-STARRS1 filters and photometric system have already been
     159described in detail in \cite{2012ApJ...750...99T}.
     160
     161{\color{red} {\em Note: These papers are being placed on arXiv.org to
     162    provide crucial support information at the time of the public
     163    release of Data Release 1 (DR1). We expect the arXiv versions to
     164    be updated prior to submission to the Astrophysical Journal in
     165    January 2017. Feedback and suggestions for additional information
     166    from early users of the data products are welcome during the
     167    submission and refereeing process.}}
    92168
    93169\section{Pan-STARRS\,1}
    … …  
    103179The wide-field \PSONE\ telescope consists of a 1.8~meter diameter
    104180$f$/4.4 primary mirror with an 0.9~m secondary, producing a 3.3 degree
    105 field of view \citep{PS1.optics}.  The optical design yields low
     181field of view \citep{2004SPIE.5489..667H}.  The optical design yields low
    106182distortion and minimal vignetting even at the edges of the illuminated
    107183region.  The optics, in combination with the natural seeing, result in
    108 generally good image quality: 75\% of the images have full-width
    109 half-max values less than \note{(1.X, 1.X, 1.X, 1.X, 1.X), update}
    110 arcseconds for (\grizy), with a floor of $\sim 0.7$ \note{update}
    111 arcseconds.  The \PSONE\ camera \citep{PS1.GPCA} is a mosaic of 60
    112 edge-abutted $4800\times4800$ pixel back-illuminated \note{name} CCDs
    113 manufactured by Lincoln Laboratory.  The CCDs have 10~$\mu$m pixels
    114 subtending 0.258~arcsec and are \note{70um} thick.  The detectors are
    115 read out using a StarGrasp CCD controller, with a readout time of 7
    116 seconds for a full unbinned image \citep{PS1.GPCB}.  The active,
    117 usable pixels cover $\sim 80$\% of the FOV.
     184generally good image quality: the median image quality for the 3$\pi$
     185survey is FWHM = (1.31, 1.19, 1.11, 1.07, 1.02) arcseconds for
     186(\grizy), with a floor of $\sim0.7$ arcseconds.  The \PSONE\ camera
     187\citep{PS1.GPCA} is a mosaic of 60 edge-abutted $4800\times4800$ pixel
     188back-illuminated CCID58 Orthogonal Transfer Arrays manufactured by
     189Lincoln Laboratory \citep{2006amos.confE..47T,2008SPIE.7021E..05T}.
     190The CCDs have 10~$\mu$m pixels subtending 0.258~arcsec and are
     19170$\mu$m thick.  The detectors are read out using a StarGrasp CCD
     192controller, with a readout time of 7 seconds for a full unbinned image
     193\citep{2008SPIE.7014E..0DO}.  The active, usable pixels cover $\sim
     19480$\% of the FOV.
    118195
    119196Nightly observations are conducted remotely from the Advanced
    … …  
    127204
    128205Images obtained by \PSONE\ are automatically processed in real time by
    129 the \PSONE\ Image Processing Pipeline \citep[IPP,][]{PS1.IPP}.
     206the \PSONE\ Image Processing Pipeline \citep[IPP,][]{magnier2017a}.
    130207Real-time analysis goals are aimed at feeding the discovery pipelines
    131208of the asteroid search and supernova search teams.  The data obtained
    … …  
    196273\section{Astrometric Models}
    197274
     275% \note{include projection math?} 
     276% \note{reference discussion somewhere on cell vs chip}
     277
    198278Three somewhat distinct astrometric models are employed within the IPP
    199279at different stages.  The simplest model is defined independently for
    200280each chip: a simple TAN projection (Calabretta \& Griesen REF) is used
    201281to relate sky coordinates to a cartesian tangent-plane coordinate
    202 system.  \note{include projection math?}  A pair of low-order
     282system.  A pair of low-order
    203283polynomials are used to relate the chip pixel coordinates to this
    204284tangent-plane coordinate system.  The transforming polynomials are of
    … …  
    209289\end{eqnarray}
    210290where $P,Q$ are the tangent plane coordinates, $X_{\rm chip}, Y_{\rm
    211   chip}$ are the coordinates on the 60 GPC1 chips (\note{see
    212   discussion somewhere on cell vs chip}), and $C^P_{i,j}, C^Q_{i,j}$
     291  chip}$ are the coordinates on the 60 GPC1 chips, and $C^P_{i,j}, C^Q_{i,j}$
    213292are the polynomial coefficients for each order.  In the \code{psastro}
    214293analysis, $i + j <= N_{\rm order}$ where the order of the fit, $N_{\rm
    215294  order}$, may be 1 to 3, under the restriction that sufficient stars
    216 are needed to constraint the order \note{describe a bit better: this
    217   is automatically selected based on the number of stars}. 
     295are needed to constrain the order. 
     296
     297% \note{describe a bit better: this is automatically selected based on the number of stars}
    218298
    219299A second form of astrometry model which yields somewhat higher
    … …  
    234314code restricts the exponents with the rule $i + j <= N_{\rm order}$
    235315where the order of the fit, $N_{\rm order}$, may be 1 to 3, under the
    236 restriction that sufficient stars are needed to constraint the order
    237 \note{describe a bit better: this is automatically selected based on
    238   the number of stars}.
     316restriction that sufficient stars are needed to constrain the order
    239317For each chip, a second set of polynomials describes the
    240318transformation from the chip coordinate systems to the focal
    … …  
    270348  Q & = & \sum_{i,j} C^Q_{i,j} (X_{\rm chip} - X_0)^i (Y_{\rm chip} - Y_0)^j
    271349\end{eqnarray}
    272 \note{need to complete this discussion of the WCS keywords, both
    273   standard and non-standard, used to represent these polynomial
    274   transformations}
    275 
    276 \begin{verbatim}
    277 Here is a table of the keywords and the related terms from Eqns above:
    278 CTYPE1,2 : RA---WRP, DEC--WRP & RA---DIS, DEC--DIS
    279 CRVAL1,2 : C^{L,M}_{0,0}
    280 CRPIX1,2 : X_0, Y_0
    281 PC001001 : C^{L}_{1,0}
    282 PC001002 : C^{L}_{0,1}
    283 PC002001 : C^{M}_{1,0}
    284 PC002002 : C^{M}_{0,1}
    285 PCA1XiYj : C^{L}_{i,j}
    286 PCA2XiYj : C^{M}_{i,j}
    287 \end{verbatim}
     350
     351%% \note{need to complete this discussion of the WCS keywords, both
     352%%   standard and non-standard, used to represent these polynomial
     353%%   transformations}
     354
     355%% \begin{verbatim}
     356%% Here is a list of the keywords
     357%% and the related terms from Eqns above:
     358%% CTYPE1,2 : RA---WRP, DEC--WRP
     359%% CTYPE1,2 : RA---DIS, DEC--DIS
     360%% CRVAL1,2 : C^{L,M}_{0,0}
     361%% CRPIX1,2 : X_0, Y_0
     362%% PC001001 : C^{L}_{1,0}
     363%% PC001002 : C^{L}_{0,1}
     364%% PC002001 : C^{M}_{1,0}
     365%% PC002002 : C^{M}_{0,1}
     366%% PCA1XiYj : C^{L}_{i,j}
     367%% PCA2XiYj : C^{M}_{i,j}
     368%% \end{verbatim}
    288369
    289370\section{Real-time Calibration}
    … …  
    318399reference catalog generated from internal re-calibration of the PV0
    319400analysis of PS1 photometry and astrometry was used for the reference
    320 catalog.  \note{discuss history of the different refcats?} 
     401catalog. 
     402
     403% \note{discuss history of the different refcats?} 
    321404
    322405Coordinates and calibrated magnitudes of stars from the reference
    … …  
    326409position angle reported by the header.  Reference stars are selected
    327410from the full field of view of the GPC1 camera, padded by an
    328 additional \note{25\%} to ensure a match can be determined even in the
     411additional 25\% to ensure a match can be determined even in the
    329412presence of substantial errors in the boresite coordinates.  It is
    330413important to choose an appropriate set of reference stars: if too few
    … …  
    366449\end{eqnarray}
    367450are generated.  The collection of $\Delta X, \Delta Y$ values are
    368 collected in a 2D histogram with sampling of \note{XXX} pixels and the
     451collected in a 2D histogram with sampling of 50 pixels and the
    369452peak pixel is identified.  If the astrometry guess were perfect, this
    370453peak pixel would be expected to lie at (0,0) and contain all of the
    … …  
    391474astrometry guess for the chip.
    392475
    393 \note{option to downweight based on photometric inconsistency : not
    394   used in PS1 analysis}
     476%% \note{option to downweight based on photometric inconsistency : not used in PS1 analysis}
    395477
    396478\subsection{Chip Polynomial Fits}
    … …  
    435517desired for the distortion fit.  The coefficients of the gradient fit
    436518are then used to determine the coefficients for the polynomials
    437 representing the distortion.  \note{write out the math of the gradients}
     519representing the distortion. 
     520
     521%% \note{write out the math of the gradients}
    438522
    439523Once the common distortion coming from the optics and atmosphere have
    440524been modeled, \code{psastro} determines polynomial transformations
    441525from the 60 chips to the focal plane coordinate system.  In this
    442 stage, \note{NN} iterations of the chip fits are performed.  Before
    443 each iteration, the reference stars and detected objects are matched
    444 using the current best set of transformations.  These fits start with
    445 low order (1) and large matching radius (\note{XX}).  As the
    446 iterations proceed, the radius is reduced and the order is allowed to
    447 increaes, up to 3rd order for the final iterations.  \note{quality of
    448   the fits as a result of this stage}.
     526stage, 5 iterations of the chip fits are performed.  Before each
     527iteration, the reference stars and detected objects are matched using
     528the current best set of transformations.  These fits start with low
     529order (1) and large matching radius.  As the iterations proceed, the
     530radius is reduced and the order is allowed to increaes, up to 3rd
     531order for the final iterations. 
     532
     533%% \note{quality of the fits as a result of this stage}.
    449534
    450535\subsection{Real-time Photometric Calibration}
     536
     537%% \note{define / describe the robust median}
    451538
    452539After the astrometric calibration has finished, the photometric
    453540calibration is performed by \code{psastro}.  When the reference stars
    454541are loaded, the apparent magnitude in the filter of interest is also
    455 loaded.   Stars for which the reference magnitude is brighter than
     542loaded.  Stars for which the reference magnitude is brighter than
    456543(\grizy) = (19, 19, 18.5, 18.5, 17.5) are used to determine the zero
    457544points by comparison with the instrumental magnitudes.  For the PV3
    458 analysis, the robust median \note{defined where?} is used to measure
    459 the zero point. For early versions of the analysis, when the reference
    460 catalog used synthetic magnitudes, it was necessary to search for the
    461 blue edge of the distribution: the synthetic magnitude poorly
    462 predicted the magnitudes of stars in the presence of significant
    463 extinction or for the very red stars, making the blue edge somewhat
    464 more reliable.  Note that we do not include an airmass correction in
    465 this zero point analysis: the airmass correction is folded into the
    466 observed zero point.  The zero point may be measured separately for
    467 each chip or as a single value for the entire exposure; the latter
    468 option was used for the PV3 analysis.
     545analysis, an outlier-rejecting median is used to measure the zero
     546point. For early versions of the analysis, when the reference catalog
     547used synthetic magnitudes, it was necessary to search for the blue
     548edge of the distribution: the synthetic magnitude poorly predicted the
     549magnitudes of stars in the presence of significant extinction or for
     550the very red stars, making the blue edge somewhat more reliable.  Note
     551that we do not include an airmass correction in this zero point
     552analysis: the airmass correction is folded into the observed zero
     553point.  The zero point may be measured separately for each chip or as
     554a single value for the entire exposure; the latter option was used for
     555the PV3 analysis.
    469556
    470557\subsection{Real-time outputs}
    … …  
    483570chip-level keywords (e.g., \code{DATE-OBS}).  The astrometric
    484571transformation information for each chip is saved in the corresponding
    485 header using standard (and some non-standard) WCS keywords.
    486 \note{combine this discussion with the above?}.  For the two-level
    487 astrometric model, the PHU header carries the astrometric
     572header using standard (and some non-standard) WCS keywords.  For the
     573two-level astrometric model, the PHU header carries the astrometric
    488574transformation related to the projection and the camera-wide
    489575distortions.  Photometric calibrations are written as a set of
    … …  
    507593\subsection{Ubercal Analysis}
    508594
    509 \note{clean up and re-word the pieces below}
     595% \note{clean up and re-word the pieces below}
    510596
    511597The photometric calibration of the DVO database starts with the
    512 ``ubercal'' analysis technique as described by \cite{PS1.ubercal}.
     598``ubercal'' analysis technique as described by \cite{2012ApJ...756..158S}.
    513599This analysis is performed by the group at Harvard, loading data from
    514600the \code{smf} files into their instance of the Large Scale Database
    … …  
    517603
    518604Photometric nights are selected and all other exposures are ignored.
    519 Each night \note{shorter time?} is allowed to have a single fitted
    520 zero point and a single fitted value for the airmass extinction
    521 coefficient per filter.  The zero points and extinction terms are
    522 determined as a least squares minimization process using the repeated
    523 measurements of the same stars from different nights to tie nights
    524 together.  Flat-field corrections are also determined as part of the
    525 minimization process.  In the original (PV1) ubercal analysis,
    526 \cite{PS1.ubercal} determined flat-field corrections for $2\times 2$
    527 sub-regions of each chip in the camera and four distinct time periods
    528 (``seasons'').  Later analysis (PV2) used an $8\times8$ grid of
    529 flat-field corrections to good effect.
     605Each night is allowed to have a single fitted zero point and a single
     606fitted value for the airmass extinction coefficient per filter.  The
     607zero points and extinction terms are determined as a least squares
     608minimization process using the repeated measurements of the same stars
     609from different nights to tie nights together.  Flat-field corrections
     610are also determined as part of the minimization process.  In the
     611original (PV1) ubercal analysis, \cite{2012ApJ...756..158S} determined
     612flat-field corrections for $2\times 2$ sub-regions of each chip in the
     613camera and four distinct time periods (``seasons'').  Later analysis
     614(PV2) used an $8\times8$ grid of flat-field corrections to good
     615effect.
    530616
    531617The ubercal analysis was re-run for PV3 by the Harvard group.  For the
    … …  
    536622was also included for PV3.  In retrospect, as we show below, the data
    537623from the latter part of the survey would probably benefit from
    538 additional flat-field seasons.  \note{something for PV4}.
     624additional flat-field seasons.
     625
     626%% \note{something for PV4}.
    539627
    540628By excluding non-photometric data and only fitting 2 parameters for
    … …  
    545633every night, helping to tie down overall variations of the system
    546634throughput and acting as internal standard star fields.  The resulting
    547 photometric system is shown by \cite{PS1.ubercal} to have reliability
     635photometric system is shown by \cite{2012ApJ...756..158S} to have reliability
    548636across the survey region at the level of (8.0, 7.0, 9.0, 10.7, 12.4)
    549637millimags in (\grizy).  As we discuss below, this conclusion is
    550 reinforced by our external comparison.  \note{do I have a measurement
    551   of the bright end stability in PV3?  basically, what is the scatter
    552   per star as a function of position in the camera and magnitude?}
     638reinforced by our external comparison. 
     639
     640%% \note{do I have a measurement
     641%% of the bright end stability in PV3?  basically, what is the scatter
     642%% per star as a function of position in the camera and magnitude?}
    553643
    554644The overall zero point for each filter is not naturally determined by
    555645the Ubercal analysis; an external constraint on the overall
    556 photometric system is required for each filter.  \cite{PS1.ubercal}
    557 used photometry of the MD09 Medium Deep field to match the photometry
    558 measured by \cite{JTphoto} on the reference photometric night of MJD
    559 55744 (UT 02 July 2011).  \note{Scolnic et al REF} have re-examined
    560 the photometry of Calspec standards as observed by PS1.  They reject 2
    561 of the \note{XX} stars used by \cite{JTphoto} and add photometry of
    562 \note{XX} additional stars.  The calspec spectrophotometry values have
    563 also been re-examined by XX; using these new measurements, Scolnic et
    564 al determine new zero points for the PS1 system, which we have applied
    565 (see below).
     646photometric system is required for each filter.
     647\cite{2012ApJ...756..158S} used photometry of the MD09 Medium Deep
     648field to match the photometry measured by \cite{2012ApJ...750...99T}
     649on the reference photometric night of MJD 55744 (UT 02 July 2011).
     650\cite{2015ApJ...815..117S} have re-examined the photometry of Calspec
     651standards as observed by PS1.  They reject 2 of the 5 stars used by
     652\cite{2012ApJ...750...99T} and add photometry of 2 additional stars.
     653
     654%% \note{The calspec spectrophotometry values have also been re-examined
     655%%   by REF; using these new measurements, \cite{2015ApJ...815..117S}
     656%%   determine new zero points for the PS1 system, which we have applied
     657%%   (see below).}
    566658
    567659\subsection{Applying the Ubercal Zero Points : Setphot}
    … …  
    585677each filter representing respectively the nominal zero point and the
    586678slope of the trend with respect to the airmass ($\zeta$) for each
    587 filter.  \note{the image zero point does not incorporate the airmass,
    588   only the measurement zero point}.  These static values are listed in
    589 Table~\ref{tab:zpts}.  When \code{setphot} was run, these static zero
    590 points have been adjusted by the calspec offsets listed in
    591 Table~\ref{tab:zpts} based on the analysis of CALSPEC standards by
    592 Scolnic et al REF.  These offsets bring the photometric system defined
    593 by the ubercal analysis into alignment with the Scolnic analysis of
    594 the PS1 observations of XXX calspec standard stars.  The value
    595 $M_{cal}$ is the offset needed by each exposure to match the ubercal
    596 value, or to bring the non-ubercal exposures into agreement with the
    597 rest of the exposures, as discussed below.  The flat-field information
    598 is encoded in a table of flat-field offsets as a function of time,
    599 filter, and camera position.  Each image which is part of the ubercal
    600 subset is marked with a bit in the field \code{Image.flags}:
    601 \code{ID_IMAGE_PHOTOM_UBERCAL = 0x00000200}
     679filter.  These static values are listed in Table~\ref{tab:zpts}.  When
     680\code{setphot} was run, these static zero points have been adjusted by
     681the calspec offsets listed in Table~\ref{tab:zpts} based on the
     682analysis of CALSPEC standards by Scolnic et al REF.  These offsets
     683bring the photometric system defined by the ubercal analysis into
     684alignment with the Scolnic analysis of the PS1 observations of XXX
     685calspec standard stars.  The value $M_{cal}$ is the offset needed by
     686each exposure to match the ubercal value, or to bring the non-ubercal
     687exposures into agreement with the rest of the exposures, as discussed
     688below.  The flat-field information is encoded in a table of flat-field
     689offsets as a function of time, filter, and camera position.  Each
     690image which is part of the ubercal subset is marked with a bit in the
     691field \code{Image.flags}: \code{ID_IMAGE_PHOTOM_UBERCAL = 0x00000200}
     692
     693%% \note{give airmass formula for completeness?}.
    602694
    603695When \code{setphot} applies the ubercal information to the image
    … …  
    611703with the airmass for the measurement, calculated using the altitude of
    612704the individual detection as determined from the Right Ascension,
    613 Declination, the observatory latitude, and the sidereal time.
    614 \note{give formula for completeness?}.  For a camera with the field of
    615 view of the PS1 GPC1, the airmass may vary significantly within the
    616 field of view, especially at low elevations.  In the worst cases, at
    617 the celestial pole, the airmass range within a single exposure is XXX
    618 - XXX.  The complete calibrated (`relative') magnitude is determined
    619 from the stored database values as:
     705Declination, the observatory latitude, and the sidereal time.  For a
     706camera with the field of view of the PS1 GPC1, the airmass may vary
     707significantly within the field of view, especially at low elevations.
     708In the worst cases, at the celestial pole, the airmass range within a
     709single exposure is XXX - XXX.  The complete calibrated (`relative')
     710magnitude is determined from the stored database values as:
    620711\[
    621712M_{\rm rel} = M_{\rm inst} - 25.0 + zp_{\rm ref} + M_{\rm cal} + M_{\rm flat} + K_\lambda (sec \zeta - 1).
    … …  
    643734\subsection{Relphot Analysis}
    644735
     736%% \note{how many exposures are not in ubercal?}
     737
    645738Relative photometry is used to determine the zero points of the
    646 exposures which were not included in the ubercal analysis \note{how
    647   many?}.  The relative photometry analysis has been desribed in the
     739exposures which were not included in the ubercal analysis.  The relative photometry analysis has been desribed in the
    648740past in Magnier et al 2013 REF.  We review that analysis here, along
    649741with specific updates for PV3. 
    … …  
    660752\[ M_{ave} = \frac{\sum_i M_{rel,i} w_i}{\sum_i w_i} \]
    661753We find that the color difference of the different chips can be
    662 ignored \note{level of this effect?}, and set the value of $A$ to 0.0.
     754ignored, and set the value of $A$ to 0.0.
    663755Note that we only use a single mean airmass extinction term for all
    664756exposures -- the difference between the mean and the specific value
    665757for a given night is taken up as an additional element of the
    666758atmospheric attenuation.
     759
     760%% \note{color-color terms between chips?}
    667761
    668762We write a global $\chi^2$ equation which we attempt to minimize by
    … …  
    681775Only brighter, high quality measurements are used in the relative
    682776photometry analysis of the exposure zero points.  We use only the
    683 brighter objects \note{mag limit}, limiting the density to a maximum
    684 of \note{actual max density?} 2500 or 3000 objects per square degree
    685 (lower in areas where we have more observations).  When limiting the
    686 density, we prefer objects which are brighter (but not saturated), and
    687 those with the most measurements (to ensure better coverage over the
    688 available images).
     777brighter objects, limiting the density to a maximum of 4000 objects
     778per square degree (lower in areas where we have more observations).
     779When limiting the density, we prefer objects which are brighter (but
     780not saturated), and those with the most measurements (to ensure better
     781coverage over the available images).
    689782
    690783There are a few classes of outliers which we need to be careful to
    … …  
    694787We attempt to exclude these poor measurements in advance by rejecting
    695788measurements which the photometric analysis has flagged the result as
    696 suspcious.  \note{bad and poor psphot bits?}  We reject detections
    697 which are excessively masked ({\tt PSF\_QF} $<$ 0.85, see Magnier et
    698 al PSPHOT REF); these include detections which are too close to other
    699 bright objects, diffraction spikes, ghost images, or the detector
    700 edges.  However, these rejections do not catch all cases of bad
    701 measurements. 
     789suspcious.  We reject detections which are excessively masked; these include
     790detections which are too close to other bright objects, diffraction
     791spikes, ghost images, or the detector edges.  However, these
     792rejections do not catch all cases of bad measurements.
     793
     794%% \citep[\code{PSF_QF} $< 0.85$, see][]{magnier2017b};
     795%% \note{refer to the PSPHOT bad and poor psphot bits?} 
    702796
    703797After the initial iterations, we also perform outlier rejections based
    … …  
    713807with reduced $\chi^2$ values more than 20.0, or more than 2$\times$
    714808the median, whichever is larger.  We also exclude stars with standard
    715 deviation (of the measurements used for the mean) greater than
    716 \note{is this true?} 0.005 mags or 2$\times$ the median standard
    717 deviation, whichever is greater. 
     809deviation (of the measurements used for the mean) greater than 0.005
     810mags or 2$\times$ the median standard deviation, whichever is greater.
     811
     812%% \note{is this true?}
    718813
    719814Similarly for images, we exclude those with more than 2 magnitudes of
    … …  
    734829calculation of the formal error on the mean magnitudes propagates this
    735830additional weight, so that the errors on the Ubercal observations
    736 dominates where they are present. \note{do we drop this when
    737   calculating the final mean mags?}
     831dominates where they are present.
     832
     833% \note{do we drop this when calculating the final mean mags?}
    738834% \note{do I need to present the math?}
    739835\[ \mu = \frac{\sum m_i w_i \sigma_i^{-2}}{\sum w_i \sigma_i^{-2}} \]
    … …  
    802898analysis.
    803899
    804 \note{need to discuss the process of setting the final mean magnitudes}
     900%% \note{need to discuss the process of setting the final mean magnitudes}
    805901
    806902For PV3, the relphot analysis was performed two times.  The first
    … …  
    812908data in DVO after the initial relphot calibration to measure the
    813909flat-field residual with much finer resolution: 124 x 124 flat-field
    814 values for each GPC1 chip (40x40 pixels per point).  \note{show the
    815   flat-field residual images, discuss the features?}.  We then used
     910values for each GPC1 chip (40x40 pixels per point).  We then used
    816911\code{setphot} to apply this new flat-field correction, as well as the
    817912ubercal flat-field corrections, to the data in the database.  At this
    818913point, we re-ran the entire relphot analysis to determine zero points
    819914and to set the average magnitudes.
     915
     916%% \note{show the flat-field residual images, discuss the features?}. 
    820917
    821918For stacks and warps, the image calibrations were determined after the
    … …  
    831928appropriate for a given warp.  This latter effect is one of several
    832929which degrade the warp photometry compared to the chip photometry at
    833 the bright end.  \note{recommendation}
     930the bright end. 
     931
     932%% \note{recommendation}
    834933
    835934\subsection{Calculation of Object Photometry}
    … …  
    859958the master DVO database.
    860959
    861 \note{need to describe the assignment of flags, etc, for the external
    862   data sources}.
     960%% \note{need to describe the assignment of flags, etc, for the external data sources}.
    863961
    864962\section{Astrometry Analysis}
    … …  
    9151013contaminated by the effect. 
    9161014
     1015% \note{was there is significant difference using a surface brightness version?} 
     1016
    9171017We measured the Koppenh\"offer Effect by accumulating the residual
    918 astrometry statistics for \note{how many} stars.  For each chip, we
     1018astrometry statistics for stars in the database.  For each chip, we
    9191019measured the mean X and Y displacements of the astrometric residuals
    9201020as function of the instrumental magnitude of the star divided by the
    921 FWHM$^2$.  \note{was there is significant difference using a surface
    922   brightness version?}  We measured the trend for all chips in a
     1021FWHM$^2$.  We measured the trend for all chips in a
    9231022number of different time ranges and found the effect to be quite
    9241023stable, in the period where it was present.  The effect only appeared
    … …  
    9641063DCR trend for the 5 filters \grizy, as well as the measured
    9651064displacement in the direction perpendicular to the parallactic angle.
    966 We represent the trend with a spline fitted to this dataset.  The DCR
    967 trend has an amplitude of \note{XXX - XXX} in the five filters. 
    968 
    969 \note{write down the DCR formalae for reference}.
     1065We represent the trend with a spline fitted to this dataset. 
     1066
     1067%% The DCR trend has an amplitude of \note{XXX - XXX} in the five filters. 
     1068%% \note{write down the DCR formalae for reference}.
    9701069
    9711070\subsubsection{Astrometric Flat-field}
    … …  
    10171116similar to the ``tree rings'' reported by the DES team and others
    10181117(G. Berstein REF \& REFS).  We explore these tree rings in detail in
    1019 \note{SECTION or REF?}.
     1118
     1119% \note{SECTION or REF?}.
    10201120
    10211121After the initial analysis to measure the KE corrections, DCR
    … …  
    10911191performed SED fitting for 800M stars in the 3$\pi$ region using PV2
    10921192data.  The goal of this work was to determine the 3D structure of the
    1093 dust in the galaxy.  By fitting model SEDs to \note{all?} stars
    1094 meeting a basic data quality cut \note{(describe)}, they determined
    1095 the best spectral type, and thus $T_{\rm eff}$, absolute $r$-band
    1096 magnitude, distance modulus, and extinction $A_V$ (the desired output
    1097 and used to determine the dust extinction as a function of distance
    1098 throughout the galaxy).  We use the distance modulus determined in
    1099 this analysis to predict the proper motions. 
     1193dust in the galaxy.  By fitting model SEDs to stars meeting a basic
     1194data quality cut, they determined the best spectral type, and thus
     1195$T_{\rm eff}$, absolute $r$-band magnitude, distance modulus, and
     1196extinction $A_V$ (the desired output and used to determine the dust
     1197extinction as a function of distance throughout the galaxy).  We use
     1198the distance modulus determined in this analysis to predict the proper
     1199motions.
    11001200
    11011201To convert the distances to proper motions, we use the Galactic
    … …  
    11121212\end{eqnarray}
    11131213where $d$ is the distance and $l,b$ are the Galactic coordintes of the
    1114 star. \note{some reference?}  Note that the proper motion induced by
     1214star. Note that the proper motion induced by
     1215%% \note{some reference for this?} 
    11151216the Galactic rotation is independent of distance while the reflex
    11161217motion induced by the solar motion decreases with increasing
    … …  
    11261227value of 500pc. 
    11271228
    1128 \note{plots to show how well this worked for PV3 pre Gaia}
     1229%% \note{plots to show how well this worked for PV3 pre Gaia}
    11291230
    11301231\subsection{Gaia Constraint}
    … …  
    11361237motion and parallax solutions are in general saturated in the PS1
    11371238observations.  Thus, we are limited to using the Gaia mean positions
    1138 reported for the fainter stars.  We extracted all Gaia sources
    1139 \note{not marked as a duplicate} from \note{where?} and generated a
    1140 DVO database from this dataset.  We then merged the Gaia DVO into the
    1141 PV3 master DVO database.  We re-ran the complete relative astrometry
     1239reported for the fainter stars.  We extracted all Gaia sources not
     1240marked as a duplicate from the Gaia archive and generated a DVO
     1241database from this dataset.  We then merged the Gaia DVO into the PV3
     1242master DVO database.  We re-ran the complete relative astrometry
    11421243analysis using Gaia as an additional measurement.  We applied the
    11431244analysis described above, applying the estimated distances to
    … …  
    11541255even at a lower weight, helps to tile over those gaps.
    11551256
    1156 \note{Figures showing the Gaia residuals}
     1257%% \note{Figures showing the Gaia residuals}
    11571258
    11581259\subsection{Calculation of Object Astrometry}
    … …  
    11651266
    11661267\section{Conclusion}
     1268
     1269\acknowledgments
     1270
     1271The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys (PS1) have been made possible through
     1272contributions of the Institute for Astronomy, the University of
     1273Hawaii, the Pan-STARRS Project Office, the Max-Planck Society and its
     1274participating institutes, the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy,
     1275Heidelberg and the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics,
     1276Garching, The Johns Hopkins University, Durham University, the
     1277University of Edinburgh, Queen's University Belfast, the
     1278Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the Las Cumbres
     1279Observatory Global Telescope Network Incorporated, the National
     1280Central University of Taiwan, the Space Telescope Science Institute,
     1281the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grant
     1282No. NNX08AR22G issued through the Planetary Science Division of the
     1283NASA Science Mission Directorate, the National Science Foundation
     1284under Grant No. AST-1238877, the University of Maryland, and Eotvos
     1285Lorand University (ELTE) and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
     1286
     1287\bibliographystyle{apj}
     1288%\bibliography{lib}{}
     1289\input{calibration.bbl}
     1290
     1291\end{document}
    11671292
    11681293\begin{verbatim}
    … …  
    11841309\end{verbatim}
    11851310
    1186 \end{document}
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.