Changeset 40307 for trunk

Timestamp:

Dec 28, 2017, 3:52:43 AM (9 years ago)

Author:

eugene

Message:

final mods for referee comments

Location:

trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411

Files:

• Makefile (modified) (1 diff)
• diffusion.tex (modified) (13 diffs)
• pics/radial_p1_r.ps (modified) ( previous)
• pics/radial_p2_r.ps (modified) ( previous)
• pics/radial_p3_r.ps (modified) ( previous)
• response.v1.tex (modified) (1 diff)

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

@@ -4 +4 @@
 # 
 DO_PDFLATEX = 1
-DO_BIBTEX = 1
+DO_BIBTEX = 0
 
 help:

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

@@ -22 +22 @@
 % \newcommand\oldtext[1]{\textbf{\color{light-gray}#1}}
 \newcommand\oldtext[1]{\ignorespaces}
-\newcommand\newtext[1]{\textbf{\color{blue}#1}}
+% \newcommand\newtext[1]{\textbf{\color{blue}#1}}
+\newcommand\newtext[1]{#1}
 \newcommand\fixtext[1]{\textbf{\color{red}#1}}
 
@@ -347 +348 @@
 \cite{2013ApJS..205...20M,magnier2017.calibration}.  As part of this
 process, several flat-field corrections have been determined.  For the
-PV2 analysis discussed here, a flat-field correction determined during
+PV0 analysis discussed here, a flat-field correction determined during
 the ubercal analysis \citep[see][]{2012ApJ...756..158S} consisted of
 an $8\times 8$ grid of corrections for each GPC1 chip, corresponding
@@ -354 +355 @@
 with modifications to the baffle structures or the system optics.  The
 critical point here is that the final effective flat-field image for
-the PV2 dataset is based on a dome-flat at the highest resolution,
+the PV0 dataset is based on a dome-flat at the highest resolution,
 with very low resolution (hundreds of pixels) corrections based on
 photometry, resulting in photometric systematic uncertainties in the
@@ -360 +361 @@
 \citep{2013ApJS..205...20M}.  \newtext{We note that the PV3 analysis
   used for the public release includes a flat-field correction
-  measured with a much finer spatial sampling than the PV2 analysis,
+  measured with a much finer spatial sampling than the PV0 analysis,
   with 40 CCD pixels per superpixel.  As a result, some of the
-  fine-grained structure discussed below is corrected in the public
+  fine-grained structure discussed below are corrected in the public
   release (see however the caveats in the discussion section below).}
 
@@ -370 +371 @@
 \citep{magnier2017.analysis}.  These position measurements are
 used in the astrometric analysis.  The astrometric calibration is
-discussed by \cite{magnier2017.calibration}; for the PV2
+discussed by \cite{magnier2017.calibration}; for the PV0
 dataset, the typical systematic floor is \approx 15 - 20
 milliarcsecond for individual measurements of brighter stars. 
@@ -643 +644 @@
 strong in the (\gps,\rps,\ips) images, but nearly swamped by fringing
 in \zps, and completely lost to fringing in \yps.  A diagonal banding
-pattern is also seen in \gps and \rps: this feature is thought to be due to
+pattern is also seen in \gps\ and \rps: this feature is thought to be due to
 the lithography process used to generate the CCD.  A blob can also
 been seen covering 4 cells near the center of this chip; this is
@@ -904 +905 @@
 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/radial_p1_r.\plotext}
 \caption{Radial run of the four tree-ring trends for \rps: smear
-  ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$), PSF magnitude
-  residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$), flat-field, and astrometric residuals
-  ($\delta R$).  } \label{fig:effects.vs.radius}
+  ($\sigma^2_{\mbox{major}} + \sigma^2_{\mbox{minor}}$, pixel$^2$), PSF magnitude
+  residuals ($\delta m_{PSF}$, magnitudes), flat-field (fractional
+  deviation), and astrometric residuals
+  ($\delta R$, arcseconds).  } \label{fig:effects.vs.radius}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure*}
@@ -915 +917 @@
 \begin{center}
 \includegraphics[width=\figwidth]{\picdir/radial_p2_r.\plotext}
-\caption{Radial run of the derivative of the smear ($\frac{\partial (\sigma^2_{major} + \sigma^2_{minor})}{\partial radius}$)
-  and astrometric residuals ($\delta R$) for \rps. 
+\caption{Radial run of the derivative of the smear
+  ($\frac{\partial (\sigma^2_{major} + \sigma^2_{minor})}{\partial
+    radius}$, pixels)
+  and astrometric residuals ($\delta R$, arcseconds) for \rps. 
 } \label{fig:dsmear.and.astrom}
 \end{center}
@@ -928 +932 @@
 \caption{Radial run of
  the derivative of the astrometric residuals ($\frac{\partial \delta
-   R}{\partial radius}$) and the flat-field for \rps.} \label{fig:dastrom.and.flat}
+   R}{\partial radius}$, pixels pixel$^{-1}$) and the flat-field
+ (fractional deviation) for \rps.} \label{fig:dastrom.and.flat}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure*}
@@ -939 +944 @@
 
 Second, the radial derivative of the smear is anti-correlated with the
-radial component of the astrometric residuals
+radial component of the astrometric residuals.
 \newtext{Figure~\ref{fig:dsmear.and.astrom} shows the radial run of
   $\frac{\partial (\sigma^2_{major} + \sigma^2_{minor})}{\partial radius}$
@@ -1032 +1037 @@
 \label{sec:discussion}
 
-These trends measured above (Section~\ref{sec:tree.rings}) help to
+The trends measured above (Section~\ref{sec:tree.rings}) help to
 illuminate the underlying causes of these different effects.
 
@@ -1201 +1206 @@
 tree rings.  These plate-scale changes introduce flat-field errors on
 the scale of \approx 1 millimagnitude and astrometric errors on the
-scale of 2-3 milliarcseconds.  The observed relationship between the
+scale of 5-10 milliarcseconds.  The observed relationship between the
 flat-field deviations and the radial derivative of the astrometric
 deviations confirms this interpretation \citep[see also discussion
@@ -1282 +1287 @@
 
 \bibliographystyle{apj}
-\bibliography{lib}{}
-%\input{diffusion.bbl}
+%\bibliography{lib}{}
+\input{diffusion.bbl}
 
 \end{document}

trunk/doc/release.2015/systematics.20140411/response.v1.tex

@@ -2 +2 @@
 \begin{document}
 \letterhead
+
+We thank the referee for the careful and thoughtful examination of our
+article.  We particularly appreciate the suggestion to reduce the
+number of figures and remove those that are superfluous.  We have
+removed the various scatter plots and replaced them with plots of the
+radial run of the important effects, along with two plots showing the
+radial run of the derivative of the smear compared with the
+astrometric residuals and the derivative of the astrometric residuals
+compared with the flat-field features.  We have also removed the
+5-filter panels for the astrometric, flat-field, smear, and shear
+effects.  We instead adjust the discussion to focus on the single
+figure with all 6 effects shown for r-band.  We have adjusted the
+wording to account for the change in the figures.
+
+Below are our point-by-point responses to the {\tt referee's suggestions}.
 
 \begin{verbatim}