Changeset 40592 for trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex
- Timestamp:
- Jan 2, 2019, 12:26:30 PM (8 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
-
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex (modified) (12 diffs)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex
r40591 r40592 623 623 \label{sec:peaks} 624 624 625 \note{add a ref to the Kaiser paper} 625 %% is there a ref I can use for the optimal detection? see SDSS docs? 626 626 627 627 The sources are initially detected by finding the location of local … … 1276 1276 1277 1277 \subsubsection{Radial Profile Wings} 1278 \label{sec:radial.profile} 1278 1279 1279 1280 We attempt to measure the radial profile of sources in order to find … … 1335 1336 neighbors. 1336 1337 1337 \note{give a test example}1338 % \note{give a test example} 1338 1339 1339 1340 \subsubsection{Source Size Assessment} … … 1379 1380 1380 1381 \subsubsection{Full PSF Model Fitting} 1381 1382 % \note{review the discussion below}1383 1382 1384 1383 % gaussSigma = MOMENTS_GAUSS_SIGMA from recipe (initially) … … 1609 1608 %% In order for a source to be included in the extended source 1610 1609 %% analysis, it much have been detected in the 'bright source' analysis 1611 %% step ($S/N > 20$, Section~\ref{sec:xxxx}). \note{is this restriction 1612 %% more or less severe than the mag limits?} 1610 %% step ($S/N > 20$, Section~\ref{sec:xxxx}). 1613 1611 1614 1612 The extended source analysis is not applied to all object which may be … … 1800 1798 in][regarding the masking of saturated pixels]{waters2017}. 1801 1799 1802 % \note{need a discussion of the detector saturation behavior 1803 1804 % \note{more detail below?} 1800 % \note{need a discussion of the detector saturation behavior?} 1805 1801 1806 1802 Before the non-linear fitting may be performed, it is necessary to … … 1899 1895 using an FFT-based convolution. 1900 1896 1901 \note{examples? show timing comparisons?}1897 % \note{examples? show timing comparisons?} 1902 1898 1903 1899 For the Exponential and DeVaucouleur fits, all parameters are fitted … … 1978 1974 minimize the impact of the stack image quality variations. 1979 1975 1980 In \code{psphotStack}, the stack analysis version of \code{psphot}, the 5 filter 1981 images are processed together. After the PSF models have been fitted 1982 and a best set of galaxy models have been determined, three sets of 1983 radial apertures are measured. In the first set, the fluxes in the 1984 radial apertures are measured using the raw stack images. The centers 1985 of the apertures for each source across the 5 filters are fixed so 1986 that the pixels represent the equivalent portions of the same galaxy 1987 for all 5 filters. In this analysis, the best model for each source 1988 is subtracted from the image pixels for all sources excluding the 1989 source in consideration. The 'best model' is determined based on the 1990 minimum $\chi^2$ value for the model fits. 1976 In \code{psphotStack}, the stack analysis version of \code{psphot}, 1977 the 5 filter images are processed together. After the PSF models have 1978 been fitted and a best set of galaxy models have been determined, 1979 three sets of fixed circular apertures are measured. In the first 1980 set, the fluxes in the apertures are measured using the raw stack 1981 images. The centers of the apertures for each source across the 5 1982 filters are fixed so that the pixels represent the equivalent portions 1983 of the same galaxy for all 5 filters. In this analysis, the best 1984 model for each source is subtracted from the image pixels for all 1985 sources excluding the source in consideration. The 'best model' is 1986 determined based on the minimum $\chi^2$ value for the model fits. 1987 1988 In addition to the raw fixed circular apertures, the stack images are 1989 each convolved with a circular Gaussian with $\sigma$ chosen to yield 1990 an image with a typical FWHM of 6 pixels (1.5\arcsec). The full set 1991 of circular apertures are again measured on these convolved images. 1992 Again, the best source models are subtracted from the image for 1993 sources not being measured. This subtraction includes the convolution 1994 to smooth the model to the effective FWHM of the convolved image. The 1995 entire procedure is then repeated with a target FWHM of 8 pixels 1996 (2\arcsec). 1991 1997 1992 1998 For the PV3 analysis of the $3\pi$ survey data, the fluxes are 1993 measured for a set of 9 circular apertures with sizes chosen to match 1994 the similar circular apertures measured by the SDSS analysis. are measured 1999 measured for a set of up to 9 circular apertures with sizes chosen to 2000 match the similar circular apertures measured by the SDSS analysis. 2001 These apertures have radii of (4.16, 7.04, 12.0, 18.56, 29.76, 45.68, 2002 72.80, 112.80, 176.88) pixels = (1.04, 1.76, 3.00, 4.64, 7.44, 11.42, 2003 18.20, 28.20, 44.22) arcseconds. If the object is too faint, the 2004 larger apertures will be largely noise and the computation is 2005 wasteful. We only calculate the circular apertures out to the second 2006 aperture larger than the ``sky radius'' (defined in 2007 Section~\label{sec:radial.profile}), but we calculate photometry for 2008 at least the smallest 4 apertures. 1995 2009 1996 2010 % at least out to aperture # RADIAL_AP_MIN (= 4), but no further than 1997 2011 % the aperture with radius > skyRadius 1998 2012 % last bin is first with inner radius >= skyRadius 1999 2000 % \note{more discussion of the selection of the best model}.2001 2002 In addition to the raw radial apertures, the stack images are each2003 convolved with a circular Gaussian with $\sigma$ chosen to yield an2004 image with a typical FWHM of 6\arcsec. The full set of radial2005 apertures are again measured on these convolved images. Again, the2006 best source models are subtracted from the image for sources not being2007 measured. This subtraction includes the convolution to smooth the2008 model to the effective FWHM of the convolved image. The entire2009 procedure is then repeated with a target FWHM of 8\arcsec.2010 2011 % \note{is the first convolution done with the Alard-Lupton technique?}2012 2013 2013 2014 \subsection{Aperture Correction and Total Aperture Fluxes} … … 2186 2187 \end{table*} 2187 2188 2188 \subsection{Output Formats}2189 % \subsection{Output Formats} 2189 2190 2190 2191 \section{Forced Photometry Modes} … … 2370 2371 types of sources. This model is fitted in the same portion of the 2371 2372 code which performs the unconvolved galaxy model analysis. 2372 \note{describe the trailed analytical model}.2373 % \note{describe the trailed analytical model}. 2373 2374 2374 2375 In some cases, the stars in the two images may be somewhat offset. … … 2381 2382 negative images will have stellar profiles, but they will be offset 2382 2383 and will not subtract well. The two components may not have the same 2383 amplitude. In theory, a PSF-dipole model could be used to fit these types of 2384 sources, with free parameters of the two centroids and the two 2385 fluxes. In practice in \ippprog{psphot}, we use a number of non-parametric 2386 pixel-level statistics in an attempt to detect these cases. 2387 2388 \note{list the parameters} 2384 amplitude. In theory, a PSF-dipole model could be used to fit these 2385 types of sources, with free parameters of the two centroids and the 2386 two fluxes. In practice in \ippprog{psphot}, we use a number of 2387 non-parametric pixel-level statistics in an attempt to detect these 2388 cases. 2389 2390 For the difference images, we measure the following quantities for 2391 each of the detections, using only pixels within the photometry 2392 aperture. First, we count the number of masked pixels (\code{nMask}), 2393 the number of pixels with positive flux (\code{nGood}), and the number 2394 of pixels with negative flux (\code{nBad}). We also add the total 2395 flux in positive pixels (\code{fGood}) and total absolute value of the 2396 flux in negative pixels (\code{fBad}). Using these values, We report 2397 the following quantities: 2398 \begin{itemize} 2399 \item \code{nGood} 2400 \item \code{fRatio} = \code{fGood} / (\code{fGood} + \code{fBad}) 2401 \item \code{nRatioBad} = \code{nGood} / (\code{nGood} + \code{nBad}) 2402 \item \code{nRatioMask} = \code{nGood} / (\code{nGood} + \code{nMask}) 2403 \item \code{nRatioAll} = \code{nGood} / (\code{nGood} + \code{nMask} + \code{nBad}) 2404 \end{itemize} 2405 2406 We also attempt to place the difference image detections in the 2407 context of the input images, both the positive (subtrahend) and 2408 negative (minuend) images. We identify the closest source in both the 2409 postive and negative images to the detection in the difference image, 2410 out to a maximum of \code{INPUT.MATCH.RADIUS} (= 50 pixels), but only 2411 if the source in those images has a signal-to-noise greater than 2412 \code{INPUT.MATCH.MIN.SN} (= 10). If there is a close neighbor in the 2413 positive image, and the difference in the magnitudes of the source in 2414 that image and the source in the difference image is less than 5 2415 $\sigma$, then the bit \code{PM_SOURCE_MODE2_DIFF_SELF_MATCH = 2416 0x00000800} is raised in \code{mask2} as these two detections are 2417 likely the same flux (\ie, detection of an isolated source). 2418 2419 If the difference image detection is matched to a nearby source in the 2420 positive image, then the signal-to-noise of the neighbor is saved as 2421 \code{DIFF_SN_P} and the distance in pixels between the difference 2422 detection and positive detection is saved as \code{DIFF_R_P}. 2423 Similarly, for a neighbor in the negative image, these values are 2424 saved as \code{DIFF_SN_M} and \code{DIFF_R_M}. Additional 2425 \code{mask2} bits are also raised: if the difference detection is only 2426 associated with one of the two input images, then the bit 2427 \code{PM_SOURCE_MODE2_DIFF_WITH_SINGLE = 0x00000001} is raised, while 2428 a difference detection which has a match in both input images has 2429 \code{PM_SOURCE_MODE2_DIFF_WITH_DOUBLE = 0x00000002} raised. 2389 2430 2390 2431 Comets appear in the difference images as a non-PSF sources. Their … … 2436 2477 \end{document} 2437 2478 2438 \subsection{Output Options}2439 2440 % \note{need to discuss tests}2441 2442 % \note{need to discuss failings and holes}2443 2444 2479 \begin{verbatim} 2445 2480 Configuration variables affecting the peak detection process:
Note:
See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.
