IPP Software Navigation Tools IPP Links Communication Pan-STARRS Links

Changeset 40304


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 26, 2017, 3:50:42 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
eugene
Message:

add radial plots for r-band, some text updates

Location:
trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411
Files:
3 added
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

  • trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411/Makefile

    r40299 r40304  
    44#
    55DO_PDFLATEX = 1
    6 DO_BIBTEX = 0
     6DO_BIBTEX = 1
    77
    88help:
    … …  
    1616# if you have PDF pics, they may need to be converted to EPS
    1717PDFPICS = \
     18pics/dmag.pdf \
     19pics/dapmag.pdf \
     20pics/all_effects_r.pdf \
     21pics/radial_p1_r.pdf \
     22pics/radial_p2_r.pdf \
     23pics/radial_p3_r.pdf
     24
     25OLD_PDFPICS = \
    1826pics/all_effects_r.pdf \
    1927pics/astrom_trends.pdf \

  • trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411/diffusion.tex

    r40303 r40304  
    1515% \RequirePackage{pbox}
    1616\input{astro.sty}
     17
     18%\newcommand\oldtext[1]{\color{red}#1}
     19%\newcommand\newtext[1]{\textbf{\color{blue}#1}}
     20
     21\newcommand\oldtext[1]{\textbf{\color{lightgray}#1}
     22\newcommand\newtext[1]{\textbf{\color{blue}#1}
     23\newcommand\fixtext[1]{\textbf{\color{red}#1}
    1724
    1825\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}% (2) specify encoding
    … …  
    414421illustrate the effects in detail, but a similar set of effects are
    415422seen in many, if not all, of the GPC1 detectors with varying
    416 strengths.  First, we show the residual PSF photometry.  Second, we
     423strengths.  \fixtext{First, we show the residual PSF photometry.  Second, we
    417424show the residual aperture photometry.  Third, we show the astrometric
    418425residual patterns.  Fourth, we show the patterns observed in the
    419426flat-field images.  Finally, we show measurements derived from the
    420 second-moments of the stars.
     427second-moments of the stars.}
    421428
    422429For all effects discussed below, we are measuring the mean value of
    … …  
    509516\subsection{Astrometric Residuals}
    510517
    511 % astrometry radial term
    512 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    513 \begin{center}
    514 \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/drad.\plotext}}
    515 \hspace{\jumpleft}
    516 \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
    517 \caption{Astrometric residuals of the displacement in the radial
    518   direction, relative to the chip coordinate -5,4960 (upper left
    519   corner), by filter (\grizy).  White boxes are GPC1 cells which have
    520   been masked due to poor response.  Superpixels representing regions
    521   of $10\times10$ pixels are used to determine the median deviation
    522   for measurements at the given chip pixel location compared with the
    523   average astrometry for the given
    524   object. } \label{fig:astrom.by.filter}}
    525 \end{center}
    526 \end{figure*}
     518%% % astrometry radial term
     519%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     520%% \begin{center}
     521%% \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/drad.\plotext}}
     522%% \hspace{\jumpleft}
     523%% \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
     524%% \caption{Astrometric residuals of the displacement in the radial
     525%%   direction, relative to the chip coordinate -5,4960 (upper left
     526%%   corner), by filter (\grizy).  White boxes are GPC1 cells which have
     527%%   been masked due to poor response.  Superpixels representing regions
     528%%   of $10\times10$ pixels are used to determine the median deviation
     529%%   for measurements at the given chip pixel location compared with the
     530%%   average astrometry for the given
     531%%   object. } \label{fig:astrom.by.filter}}
     532%% \end{center}
     533%% \end{figure*}
    527534
    528535Figure~\ref{fig:astrom.by.filter} shows a similar type of measurement
    … …  
    557564
    558565% flat-field residual
    559 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    560 \begin{center}
    561 \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/dflat.\plotext}}
    562 \hspace{\jumpleft}
    563 \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
    564 \caption{Flat-field high-frequency structues, by filter (\grizy).
    565   White boxes are GPC1 cells which have been masked due to poor
    566   response.  Flat-field images generated using a tunable laser have
    567   been combined (see text); a smoothed version has been subtracted to
    568   high-pass the response.  Flat-field pixels are averaged for
    569   $10\times10$ superpixels. } \label{fig:flats.by.filter}}
    570 \end{center}
    571 \end{figure*}
     566%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     567%% \begin{center}
     568%% \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/dflat.\plotext}}
     569%% \hspace{\jumpleft}
     570%% \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
     571%% \caption{Flat-field high-frequency structues, by filter (\grizy).
     572%%   White boxes are GPC1 cells which have been masked due to poor
     573%%   response.  Flat-field images generated using a tunable laser have
     574%%   been combined (see text); a smoothed version has been subtracted to
     575%%   high-pass the response.  Flat-field pixels are averaged for
     576%%   $10\times10$ superpixels. } \label{fig:flats.by.filter}}
     577%% \end{center}
     578%% \end{figure*}
    572579
    573580% 2012ApJ...750...99T = Tonry et al PS1 phot system
    … …  
    621628
    622629% Smear Images
    623 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    624 \begin{center}
    625 \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/smear.\plotext}}
    626 \hspace{\jumpleft}
    627 \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
    628 \caption{Average residual smear variations, by filter (\grizy).  White
    629   boxes are GPC1 cells which have been masked due to poor response.
    630   The residual smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) has been
    631   determined after the after PSF second moments have been subtracted
    632   for each image; these values are averaged for each $10\times10$
    633   superpixels.  } \label{fig:smear.by.filter}}
    634 \end{center}
    635 \end{figure*}
     630%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     631%% \begin{center}
     632%% \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/smear.\plotext}}
     633%% \hspace{\jumpleft}
     634%% \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
     635%% \caption{Average residual smear variations, by filter (\grizy).  White
     636%%   boxes are GPC1 cells which have been masked due to poor response.
     637%%   The residual smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) has been
     638%%   determined after the after PSF second moments have been subtracted
     639%%   for each image; these values are averaged for each $10\times10$
     640%%   superpixels.  } \label{fig:smear.by.filter}}
     641%% \end{center}
     642%% \end{figure*}
    636643
    637644% Shear Images
    638 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    639 \begin{center}
    640 \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/shear.\plotext}}
    641 \hspace{\jumpleft}
    642 \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
    643 \caption{Average residual shear variations, by filter (\grizy).  White
    644   boxes are GPC1 cells which have been masked due to poor response.
    645   The residual shear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} - \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) has been
    646   determined after the after PSF second moments have been subtracted
    647   for each image; these values are averaged for each $10\times10$
    648   superpixels.  } \label{fig:shear.by.filter}}
    649 \end{center}
    650 \end{figure*}
     645%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     646%% \begin{center}
     647%% \parbox[b]{\figwidth}{\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/shear.\plotext}}
     648%% \hspace{\jumpleft}
     649%% \parbox[b]{\capwidth}{
     650%% \caption{Average residual shear variations, by filter (\grizy).  White
     651%%   boxes are GPC1 cells which have been masked due to poor response.
     652%%   The residual shear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} - \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) has been
     653%%   determined after the after PSF second moments have been subtracted
     654%%   for each image; these values are averaged for each $10\times10$
     655%%   superpixels.  } \label{fig:shear.by.filter}}
     656%% \end{center}
     657%% \end{figure*}
    651658
    652659During the image analysis, the second moments are measured for all
    … …  
    793800
    794801% smear trends by filter
    795 \def\figwidth{6.5in}
    796 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    797 \begin{center}
    798 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/smear_trends.\plotext}
    799 \caption{Correlation of the smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} +
    800   \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) signal in \gps\ with the other 4 bands:
    801   \rps\ (upper-left),  \ips\ (upper-right), \zps\ (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).
    802 } \label{fig:smear.trends}
    803 \end{center}
    804 \end{figure*}
     802%% \def\figwidth{6.5in}
     803%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     804%% \begin{center}
     805%% \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/smear_trends.\plotext}
     806%% \caption{Correlation of the smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} +
     807%%   \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) signal in \gps\ with the other 4 bands:
     808%%   \rps\ (upper-left),  \ips\ (upper-right), \zps\ (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).
     809%% } \label{fig:smear.trends}
     810%% \end{center}
     811%% \end{figure*}
    805812
    806813% psfmag trends by filter
    807 \def\figwidth{6.5in}
    808 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    809 \begin{center}
    810 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/psfmag_trends.\plotext}
    811 \caption{Correlation of the PSF magnitude residuals ($\delta m_{psf}$)
    812   in \gps\ with the other 4 bands: \rps\ (upper-left), \ips\
    813   (upper-right), \zps\ (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).
    814 } \label{fig:psfmag.trends}
    815 \end{center}
    816 \end{figure*}
     814%% \def\figwidth{6.5in}
     815%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     816%% \begin{center}
     817%% \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/psfmag_trends.\plotext}
     818%% \caption{Correlation of the PSF magnitude residuals ($\delta m_{psf}$)
     819%%   in \gps\ with the other 4 bands: \rps\ (upper-left), \ips\
     820%%   (upper-right), \zps\ (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).
     821%% } \label{fig:psfmag.trends}
     822%% \end{center}
     823%% \end{figure*}
    817824
    818825% astrom trends by filter
    819 \def\figwidth{6.5in}
    820 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    821 \begin{center}
    822 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/astrom_trends.\plotext}
    823 \caption{Correlation of the radial astrometric residual displacement ($\delta R$)
    824   in \gps\ with the other 4 bands: \rps\ (upper-left), \ips\
    825   (upper-right), \zps\ (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).
    826 } \label{fig:astrom.trends}
    827 \end{center}
    828 \end{figure*}
     826%% \def\figwidth{6.5in}
     827%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     828%% \begin{center}
     829%% \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/astrom_trends.\plotext}
     830%% \caption{Correlation of the radial astrometric residual displacement ($\delta R$)
     831%%   in \gps\ with the other 4 bands: \rps\ (upper-left), \ips\
     832%%   (upper-right), \zps\ (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).
     833%% } \label{fig:astrom.trends}
     834%% \end{center}
     835%% \end{figure*}
    829836
    830837% flat trends by filter
    831 \def\figwidth{6.5in}
    832 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    833 \begin{center}
    834 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/flat_trends.\plotext}
    835 \caption{Correlation of the flat-field tree-ring structures in \gps\
    836   with the other 4 bands: \rps\ (upper-left), \ips\ (upper-right), \zps\
    837   (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).  } \label{fig:flat.trends}
    838 \end{center}
    839 \end{figure*}
     838%% \def\figwidth{6.5in}
     839%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     840%% \begin{center}
     841%% \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/flat_trends.\plotext}
     842%% \caption{Correlation of the flat-field tree-ring structures in \gps\
     843%%   with the other 4 bands: \rps\ (upper-left), \ips\ (upper-right), \zps\
     844%%   (lower-left), \yps\ (lower-right).  } \label{fig:flat.trends}
     845%% \end{center}
     846%% \end{figure*}
    840847
    841848An important question is the relationship of the tree-ring
    … …  
    846853filter: the radial variations do not all follow the same patterns.
    847854Instead, we find the following relationships hold:
     855
     856% tangentially-averaged patterns vs  radial position
     857\def\figwidth{6.5in}
     858\begin{figure*}[htbp]
     859\begin{center}
     860\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/radial_p1_r.\plotext}
     861\caption{Correlation of the PSF magnitude residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$)
     862  with the smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$)
     863  signal for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\ (upper-right), \ips\ (lower-left),
     864  \zps\ (lower-right).
     865} \label{fig:smear.vs.psfmag}
     866\end{center}
     867\end{figure*}
     868
     869% tangentially-averaged patterns vs  radial position
     870\def\figwidth{6.5in}
     871\begin{figure*}[htbp]
     872\begin{center}
     873\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/radial_p2_r.\plotext}
     874\caption{Correlation of the PSF magnitude residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$)
     875  with the smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$)
     876  signal for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\ (upper-right), \ips\ (lower-left),
     877  \zps\ (lower-right).
     878} \label{fig:smear.vs.psfmag}
     879\end{center}
     880\end{figure*}
     881
     882% tangentially-averaged patterns vs  radial position
     883\def\figwidth{6.5in}
     884\begin{figure*}[htbp]
     885\begin{center}
     886\includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/radial_p3_r.\plotext}
     887\caption{Correlation of the PSF magnitude residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$)
     888  with the smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$)
     889  signal for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\ (upper-right), \ips\ (lower-left),
     890  \zps\ (lower-right).
     891} \label{fig:smear.vs.psfmag}
     892\end{center}
     893\end{figure*}
    848894
    849895First, the PSF magnitude residuals and the second-moment smear trends
    … …  
    893939
    894940% smear vs psfmag
    895 \def\figwidth{6.5in}
    896 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    897 \begin{center}
    898 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/smear_vs_psfmag.\plotext}
    899 \caption{Correlation of the PSF magnitude residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$)
    900   with the smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$)
    901   signal for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\ (upper-right), \ips\ (lower-left),
    902   \zps\ (lower-right).
    903 } \label{fig:smear.vs.psfmag}
    904 \end{center}
    905 \end{figure*}
     941%% \def\figwidth{6.5in}
     942%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     943%% \begin{center}
     944%% \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/smear_vs_psfmag.\plotext}
     945%% \caption{Correlation of the PSF magnitude residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$)
     946%%   with the smear ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$)
     947%%   signal for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\ (upper-right), \ips\ (lower-left),
     948%%   \zps\ (lower-right).
     949%% } \label{fig:smear.vs.psfmag}
     950%% \end{center}
     951%% \end{figure*}
    906952
    907953% dsmear vs astrom
    908 \def\figwidth{6.5in}
    909 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    910 \begin{center}
    911 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/dsmear_vs_astrom.\plotext}
    912 \caption{
    913 Correlation of the radial astrometric residual displacement ($\delta
    914 R$) with the derivative of the smear ($\partial
    915 \sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) signal with
    916 respect to the radial postion for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\
    917 (upper-right), \ips\ (lower-left), \zps\ (lower-right).
    918 } \label{fig:dsmear.vs.astrom}
    919 \end{center}
    920 \end{figure*}
     954%% \def\figwidth{6.5in}
     955%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     956%% \begin{center}
     957%% \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/dsmear_vs_astrom.\plotext}
     958%% \caption{
     959%% Correlation of the radial astrometric residual displacement ($\delta
     960%% R$) with the derivative of the smear ($\partial
     961%% \sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$) signal with
     962%% respect to the radial postion for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\
     963%% (upper-right), \ips\ (lower-left), \zps\ (lower-right).
     964%% } \label{fig:dsmear.vs.astrom}
     965%% \end{center}
     966%% \end{figure*}
    921967
    922968% dastrom vs flat
    923 \def\figwidth{6.5in}
    924 \begin{figure*}[htbp]
    925 \begin{center}
    926 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/dastrom_vs_flat.\plotext}
    927 \caption{
    928 Correlation of the derivative of the radial astrometric residual
    929 displacement ($\delta R$) with respect to the radial position with the
    930 flat-field tree-ring signal for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\ (upper-right),
    931 \ips\ (lower-left), \zps\ (lower-right).
    932 } \label{fig:dastrom.vs.flat}
    933 \end{center}
    934 \end{figure*}
     969%% \def\figwidth{6.5in}
     970%% \begin{figure*}[htbp]
     971%% \begin{center}
     972%% \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/dastrom_vs_flat.\plotext}
     973%% \caption{
     974%% Correlation of the derivative of the radial astrometric residual
     975%% displacement ($\delta R$) with respect to the radial position with the
     976%% flat-field tree-ring signal for \gps\ (upper-left), \rps\ (upper-right),
     977%% \ips\ (lower-left), \zps\ (lower-right).
     978%% } \label{fig:dastrom.vs.flat}
     979%% \end{center}
     980%% \end{figure*}
    935981
    936982\section{Discussion}
    … …  
    11661212
    11671213\bibliographystyle{apj}
    1168 %\bibliography{lib}{}
    1169 \input{diffusion.bbl}
     1214\bibliography{lib}{}
     1215%\input{diffusion.bbl}
    11701216
    11711217\end{document}
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.