Changeset 41310 for trunk

Timestamp:

Mar 19, 2020, 6:20:43 AM (6 years ago)

Author:

eugene

Message:

referee response update

Location:

trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis

Files:

• analysis.tex (modified) (4 diffs)
• response.txt (modified) (7 diffs)

trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex

@@ -2699 +2699 @@
 \label{sec:fixed.aperture.photom}
 
+%% some notes:
+%% PV3 3pi used the STACK_THREEPI recipe for ppStack
+%% this set (PSF.INPUT.MAX = 10.0)
+
 For some science goals, a well-measured color of a galaxy is more
 important than an accurate total magnitude.  In the case of PS1, the image
@@ -2726 +2730 @@
 to smooth the model to the effective FWHM of the convolved image.  The
 entire procedure is then repeated with a target FWHM of 8 pixels
-(2\arcsec).
+(2\arcsec).  \textadd{Note that we do not attempt to restrict the
+stack image quality to match these convolution targets.  If the
+stack has an effective FWHM larger than either the 6 or 8 pixel
+targets, the convolution does not take place and the resulting
+analysis is performed on the raw stack.  In such cases, the smallest
+apertures are sensitive to seeing variations and should be avoided.
+Of the individual images, the fraction with FWHM large than 8
+pixels is (\grizy) = (9.8\%, 5.1\%, 4.9\%, 3.4\%, 3.7\%), and the
+fraction of stacks with an effective FWHM larger than this limit will
+be much smaller.}
+
+%% filter : fraction with FWHM < the given value:
+%%   2 arcsec (7.78 pix) : 10 pixels
+%% g : 0.902134021127 0.976721262999
+%% r : 0.949197642856 0.988031447337
+%% i : 0.950975372093 0.987227497659
+%% z : 0.965690586534 0.992015231573
+%% y : 0.963653738055 0.990022484542
 
 For the PV3 analysis of the $3\pi$ survey data, the fluxes are
@@ -2740 +2761 @@
 least the smallest 4 apertures.  Sources for which photometry in these
 fixed aperture are calculated have the flag bit
-\code{PM_SOURCE_MODE_RADIAL_FLUX} set.
+\code{PM_SOURCE_MODE_RADIAL_FLUX} set.  \textadd{Although these aperture are
+chosen to match the SDSS apertures, the SDSS images are measured on
+unconvolved images.  Since the median seeing for the SDSS images is
+$\sim 1.4$ arcseconds in $r$-band \citep{2007ApJS..172..634A}, our 1.5
+arcsecond aperture photometry should generally compare well to the
+SDSS aperture magnitudes.}
+
+\note{test this?}
 
 % at least out to aperture # RADIAL_AP_MIN (= 4), but no further than
@@ -2775 +2803 @@
 aspect ratios are randomly chosen in a range from 0.25 to 1.0.  The
 position angles are set by the sequence in the image and allowed to
-vary from 0 to 180 degrees.  The images are then convolved with a PSF
-model using the \code{PS1_V1} profile ($\kappa = 0.2$) and noise is
-added using Poisson statistics for the detected photons.
+vary from 0 to 180 degrees.  The images are then convolved with a
+circular PSF model using the \code{PS1_V1} profile (\textadd{FWHM = 1.0
+arcseconds, }$\kappa = 0.2$) and noise is added using Poisson
+statistics for the detected photons.
 
 For the figures below, we present results as a function of the (input)

trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt

@@ -490 +490 @@
 arcsec seeing) images. Have they been included in the image stack, and
 the assumption made that the stacked seeing is always better than that?
+
+** We do not exclude images with seeing larger than either 1.5 or 2.0
+   arcseconds, but if the images are larger than the convolution
+   target, they are not convolved.  We have added text to explain this
+   and pointed out that stacks with FWHM larger than these limits will
+   suffer seeing effects in the smaller apertures.
+
 - It's convenient that the aperture fluxes are made with the same choice
 of radii as used in SDSS. However, it should be noted here that the
@@ -495 +502 @@
 convolution. Since the median SDSS seeing is ~1.5 arcsec, those may
 be expected to compare well with the 1.5-arcsec convolved PS1 aperture fluxes.
+** good point, we noted this in the text
 
 Sec 5.5:
 - State the seeing of these simulated images.
+** added
 
 Sec 6 and 6.1:
@@ -508 +517 @@
 are made on all of the single-epoch images, and then those measurements
 are averaged.
+
 - The general description of the section should end with "variant of psphot",
 with the motivation being written such that it applies to both the
@@ -518 +528 @@
 for the mathematical appropriateness of image stacking, a nice recent
 discussion would be Zackay & Ofek 2016.
+****
+
 - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without
 definition. Are warp images the same as CAMERA and CHIP?
+**
+
 - For the forced photometry on single epoch images, is this a joint
 fit for overlapping objects?
@@ -532 +546 @@
 "interpolated PSF ellipticities" are confusing, when I *think* what's
 being used are "interpolated star ellipticities".
+
 - Was this lensing code used in any of the GREAT challenge papers,
 and if not, which code would it be most similar to?
+
 - Define "KSB" and "HFK" references in-line
+
 - "ie,," -> "ie,"
 " absoluate" -> "absolute"
@@ -544 +561 @@
 If these questions are covered in other Pan-STARRS papers, please reference
 them here.
+
 - A basic piece of information that should be given is whether the differencing
 is performed on pairs of images, or single (warp) images compared to
 image stacks.
+
 - "model from is" -> "model is"
 
@@ -569 +588 @@
 - "window" in the figure text should be "\sigma_w" to be consistent
 with the caption and text.
+
 - For Figures 2,5,6, please do the mathematical calisthenics of stating
 how these instrumental magnitudes can be read as magnitudes above the