Changeset 41276
- Timestamp:
- Feb 24, 2020, 3:35:23 PM (6 years ago)
- Location:
- trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration
- Files:
-
- 2 edited
-
calibration.tex (modified) (10 diffs)
-
response.txt (modified) (2 diffs)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/calibration.tex
r41240 r41276 21 21 %% NOTE: 2019 Feb versions of the figures are generated in /data/kukui.1/eugene/cal.paper.20190217 22 22 23 %\def\picdir{pics}24 \def\picdir{.}23 \def\picdir{pics} 24 %\def\picdir{.} 25 25 26 26 % Pick a terse version of the title here; … … 106 106 consistent zero points over the entire area surveyed, the \approx 107 107 30,000 square degrees north of $\delta = -30$\degrees. \textadd{Using external 108 comparisons, we demonstrate that the resulting photomet ic system is109 consistent across the sky to between 7 and 12.4 millimag s depending on108 comparisons, we demonstrate that the resulting photometric system is 109 consistent across the sky to between 7 and 12.4 millimagnitudes depending on 110 110 the filter. For bright stars, the systematic error floor for 111 individual measurements is $(\sigma_g, \sigma_r, \sigma_i, \sigma_z,112 \sigma_y) = (14, 14, 15, 15, 18)$ millimag s.} The astrometric111 individual measurements is $(\sigma_g, \sigma_r, \sigma_i, \sigma_z, 112 \sigma_y) = (14, 14, 15, 15, 18)$ millimagnitudes.} The astrometric 113 113 calibration compensates for similar systematic effects so that 114 114 positions, proper motions, and parallaxes are reliable as well. \textadd{The … … 385 385 386 386 Coordinates and calibrated magnitudes of stars from the reference 387 database are loaded by \ippprog{p asastro}. A model for the positions of387 database are loaded by \ippprog{psastro}. A model for the positions of 388 388 the 60 chips in the focal plane is used to determine the expected 389 389 astrometry for each chip based on the boresite coordinates and … … 488 488 (changes from over time). The spatial scale on which the 489 489 astrometric deviations due to atmosphere are varying is related to 490 the isoplan etic patch size. We note that, in the typical conditions490 the isoplanatic patch size. We note that, in the typical conditions 491 491 at the \PSONE\ site, if the seeing is due to low-lying atmospheric 492 layers, the isoplan etic patch scale will be at most a few arcminutes492 layers, the isoplanatic patch scale will be at most a few arcminutes 493 493 \citep{1988ESOC...30..693B}, and smaller when the seeing comes from 494 494 higher altitudes.} … … 886 886 measurements of the same stars from different nights to tie nights 887 887 together. \textadd{This analysis relies on the chemical and 888 thermodynamic stability of the atmosphere during a photomet ic night888 thermodynamic stability of the atmosphere during a photometric night 889 889 so that the zero point and extinction slope are stable as a result.} 890 890 Flat-field corrections are also determined as part of the minimization … … 916 916 SDSS as an external reference, with standard deviations of (8.0, 917 917 7.0, 9.0, 10.7, 12.4) millimags in (\grizy). Internal comparisons 918 show the zero-points of indi dual exposures to be consistent with the918 show the zero-points of individual exposures to be consistent with the 919 919 Ubercal solution with a standard deviation of 5 millimags. The 920 920 former is an upper limit on the overall system zero-point stability, … … 2395 2395 rotation curve and set a fixed proper motion.} If we do not have a 2396 2396 distance modulus from the Green et al analysis, we assume a value of 2397 500pc. \textadd{We find that applying our Galactic rotat ation model improves2397 500pc. \textadd{We find that applying our Galactic rotation model improves 2398 2398 the systematic proper motion errors to some extent. The standard 2399 2399 deviation of the quasar proper motions (averaged on 12 arcminute … … 2452 2452 astrometric analysis to provide a measurement which is robust against 2453 2453 failures. In addition to the detector effects artifacts which affect 2454 astrometry, the astrometric measur ments may have non-Gaussian outliers2454 astrometry, the astrometric measurements may have non-Gaussian outliers 2455 2455 due to the high degree of structure in the astrometric transformations 2456 2456 introduced by the camera optics and the atmosphere. We have again … … 3118 3118 Canada-France Imaging Survey, or CFIS, collaborations) is expected to 3119 3119 release deep photometry in the {\it ugriz} bands for roughly 5000 3120 square degrees of the northern hemisphere with ag ressive photometric3120 square degrees of the northern hemisphere with aggressive photometric 3121 3121 precision goals. This collaboration is in part motivated to support 3122 3122 the Euclid satellite mission, which requires deep 8-band photometry to … … 3137 3137 \textadd{Second, cross-comparisons between independent datasets are critical to 3138 3138 reveal the limitations. This lesson has appeared several times in our 3139 in testigations, in the comparison between Pan-STARRS and Gaia above,3139 investigations, in the comparison between Pan-STARRS and Gaia above, 3140 3140 between Pan-STARRS and SDSS \citep{2016ApJ...822...66F}, and in the 3141 3141 comparison between Pan-STARRS and 2MASS \citep{2013ApJS..205...20M}. -
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/response.txt
r41241 r41276 1 2 ** We are resubmitting our article "Pan-STARRS Photometric and3 Astrometric Calibration" after addressing suggestions raised by the4 referee. We thank the referee for detailed comments and5 suggestions. Below are our responses to the referee's suggestions.6 In the response below, our responses are preceeded by "**".7 Modified portions of the article text are highlighted with boldface8 type.9 1 10 2 Reviewer's Comments: 11 3 12 The paper "Pan-STARRS Photometric and Astrometric Calibration" by 13 Magnier et al. describes the calibration of a major modern sky survey. 14 The paper is well written and provides sufficient technical detail to not 15 only for the reader to understand what was done, but also to inform 16 future surveys. Given this legacy aspect, my only major comment is 17 that it would be prudent to discuss the performance of Pan-STARRS 18 calibration in comparison to other major optical surveys, such as SDSS, 19 DES and HSC surveys. Such a discussion would illuminate all your 20 advances and provide direction for future work. My other, much more 21 minor comments are listed below. 4 The paper "Pan-STARRS Photometric and Astrometric Calibration" by Magnier et al. describes the calibration of a major modern sky survey. The paper is well written and provides sufficient technical detail to not only for the reader to understand what was done, but also to inform future surveys. Given this legacy aspect, my only major comment is that it would be prudent to discuss the performance of Pan-STARRS calibration in comparison to other major optical surveys, such as SDSS, DES and HSC surveys. Such a discussion would illuminate all your advances and provide direction for future work. My other, much more minor comments are listed below. 22 5 23 ** We agree with this suggestion and have substantially extended the 24 Conclusion section to put this article in the context of other 25 recent and future surveys. 6 ** We agree with this suggestion and have substantially extended the Conclusion section to put this article in the context of other recent and future surveys. 26 7 27 - Abstract: it would be good to provide quantitative summary of photometric 28 and astrometric performance (such as values listed in fig. 4 caption) 8 - Abstract: it would be good to provide quantitative summary of photometric and astrometric performance (such as values listed in fig. 4 caption) 29 9 30 10 ** we added this to the abstract. 31 11 32 - after eqs. 5 and 6: I was puzzled why there was no source color 33 dependence in these equations; you may want to clarify that early 12 - after eqs. 5 and 6: I was puzzled why there was no source color dependence in these equations; you may want to clarify that early 34 13 35 14 ** clarification added to the end of section 3.3 … … 39 18 ** fixed 40 19 41 - page 8, left column, 1st paragraph: you may want to state that your 42 fundamental assumption is that the chemical and thermodynamical 43 state of the atmosphere is constant throughout a night 20 - page 8, left column, 1st paragraph: you may want to state that your fundamental assumption is that the chemical and thermodynamical state of the atmosphere is constant throughout a night 44 21 45 22 ** clarification added 46 23 47 - page 8, left column, 3rd paragraph: what does word "reliability" mean 48 in this context? It's certainly not standard statistical usage. 24 - page 8, left column, 3rd paragraph: what does word "reliability" mean in this context? It's certainly not standard statistical usage. 49 25 50 ** This paragraph was reworded to describe the reliablity of the 51 Schlafly et al results more clearly. 26 ** This paragraph was reworded to describe the reliablity of the Schlafly et al results more clearly. 52 27 53 - page 8, left column, last paragraph: this result (20-35 mmag) is 54 discrepant by a factor of ~3 compared to Schlafly et al. results; 55 please comment and clarify 28 - page 8, left column, last paragraph: this result (20-35 mmag) is discrepant by a factor of ~3 compared to Schlafly et al. results; please comment and clarify 56 29 57 ** The Schlafly et al results do not constrain the absolute zero 58 points, relying on a tie via SDSS. The Scolnic et al analysis 59 determines the absolute zero points directly. This has been 30 ** The Schlafly et al results do not constrain the absolute zero points, relying on a tie via SDSS. The Scolnic et al analysis determines the absolute zero points directly. This has been 60 31 explained at the end of Section 5.1. 61 32 62 33 63 - page 9, right column, 2nd paragraph: this clipping procedure sounds 64 like an ad hoc hocus pocus; can you provide at least some statistical 65 justification (e.g. what is the distribution model you had in your mind)? 66 perhaps even more ad hoc procedure is assigning weights of 10x their 67 default; why 10 and not 5, or 50, or? 34 - page 9, right column, 2nd paragraph: this clipping procedure sounds like an ad hoc hocus pocus; can you provide at least some statistical justification (e.g. what is the distribution model you had in your mind)? perhaps even more ad hoc procedure is assigning weights of 10x their default; why 10 and not 5, or 50, or? 68 35 69 ** Text has been added to 5.3 (p. 10) to explain the outlier 70 rejection process and rationale. 36 ** Text has been added to 5.3 (p. 10) to explain the outlier rejection process and rationale. 71 37 72 - similarly to the above comments; what statistical outlier model are eqs. 73 17 and 18 supposed to model/address? 38 - similarly to the above comments; what statistical outlier model are eqs. 17 and 18 supposed to model/address? 74 39 75 ** Clarification has been added to the text in section 5.4.2 to 76 explain the outliers. 40 ** Clarification has been added to the text in section 5.4.2 to explain the outliers. 77 41 78 - comment about proper motions after introducing eqs. 21-24 is not 79 entirely correct because a lot of your observations are far from the 80 galactic plane and thus are sensitive to the asymmetric drift effects 42 - comment about proper motions after introducing eqs. 21-24 is not entirely correct because a lot of your observations are far from the galactic plane and thus are sensitive to the asymmetric drift effects 81 43 for disk stars 82 44 83 ** This is a good point. We have updated the text in section 6.2 to 84 address this concern. 45 ** This is a good point. We have updated the text in section 6.2 to address this concern. 85 46 86 - last paragraph in section 6.2: so how much improvement did you get 87 from eqs. 21-24? 47 - last paragraph in section 6.2: so how much improvement did you get from eqs. 21-24? 88 48 89 49 ** The improvement is noted now in section 6.2. 90
Note:
See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.
