- Timestamp:
- Mar 30, 2020, 1:23:54 PM (6 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
-
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt (modified) (42 diffs)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt
r41312 r41317 26 26 be stated, along with the goal of providing sources for the PSF modeling. 27 27 28 ** Added introductory sentences in 4.4.1 and expanded 'intial source 29 detection' bullet in 4.1. 30 28 31 - Section 4.4.3: The purpose of the moments is to identify problematic 29 32 sources and to measure Kron magnitudes. The importance of the Kron … … 33 36 this for classification since it is typically a noisy measure. 34 37 38 ** Added addtional explanation for the uses of the second and higher 39 order moments in the introductory paragraph. Added a note about 40 star-galaxy separation when Kron magnitudes are first discussed. 41 Also added a paragraph to describe the original motivation of the 42 higher-order terms (identify collimation and alignment failures), 43 but notes that this has not panned out as hoped. Also added a 44 short justification in section 4.6.5 45 35 46 - Section 5: The extended source photometry has not been motivated 36 47 and it is unclear what the goals are for those objects. 48 49 ** added motivation in introduction of section 5. 37 50 38 51 The text doesn't explain how in general bad (saturated, light traps, … … 45 58 individual images. 46 59 47 ** we do NOTinterpolate or replace masked values; instead they are60 ** we do not interpolate or replace masked values; instead they are 48 61 ignored in model fits. their presence affects aperture-like 49 measurements. TBD 62 measurements, and we rely on averaging (as mentioned) to overcome 63 the masking. We also provide the PSF_QF and PSF_QF_PERFECT values 64 to assess the impact of masking on a specific source. Text added 65 to this effect in section 4.3 50 66 51 67 The paper should identify which of these measurements and tabulated … … 61 77 state the same for galaxy astrometry, fluxes and colors. 62 78 79 **** 80 63 81 A detail of the code is presented (variable names, etc) that imply 64 82 that the code would be publicly available. Is it, and if so where? 83 84 ** Added a link to the URL where the software can be downloaded 65 85 66 86 The other PS1 papers are discussed in the introduction, but not … … 70 90 - Sec 5.5, where the typical stellar detection limits are quoted 71 91 92 ** Added reference to Paper I for this 93 72 94 - Sec 6, which of these averaged photometry measurements are used in 73 95 the PS1 global photometry solution, and which papers demonstrate 74 96 that the photometric goals are achieved 75 97 98 **** see note section Forced PSF Phot 99 76 100 - Sec 7, where the image differencing detections and photometry is used 101 102 ** Price & Magnier is cited, but this has not yet been submitted (not 103 part of this series) 77 104 78 105 A handful of places use lower-case "psf" (Table 2 and pg 13) and 79 106 should be written "PSF" for consistency. "chi-square" is used 80 107 both lower-case and upper-case. 108 109 ** Fixed these for consistency 81 110 82 111 A number of places refer to starting guesses for ML minimizations … … 84 113 to provide the formulae for these initializations (and potentially 85 114 necessary if one were want to repeat the fits). 115 116 ** Added a discussion of the PSF parameter guesses in section 4.5.3, 117 expanded discussion in section 5.3, referring back to 4.5.3. 86 118 87 119 Although this paper is primarily meant to present the decisions made … … 92 124 in one place would be a useful service. 93 125 126 **** TBD 127 94 128 Abstract: 95 129 - This abstract states this is the version used for the "first public … … 169 203 170 204 - "astrometric accuracy goal" -> "relative astrometric accuracy goal" 205 171 206 ** fixed 172 207 173 208 - "requirement" -> "goal" to be consistent with the text elsewhere 209 174 210 ** fixed, and cleaned the introduction sentence of 'requirement' vs 175 'goal' confusion.211 'goal' confusion. 176 212 177 213 Sec 4: … … 183 219 applying to bright sources, and another addessing all (==faint) sources. 184 220 185 **** review this221 **** TBD 186 222 187 223 Sec 4.1: … … 191 227 of Sec 4.8) that the PSF model for an image is actually selected. 192 228 193 **** clarify this229 **** TBD 194 230 ** The aperture correction is measured at the end of the bright-star 195 231 ** pass, at which point the PSF model is chosen and fixed. A final … … 228 264 measure is used. 229 265 230 **** model?266 **** TBD: model? 231 267 232 268 Sec 4.4.1: … … 253 289 that there are several? 254 290 255 **** implementation looks for any key col between peaks that are 256 above a threshold, thus the highest one matters. ADD TO TEXT 291 ** noted in text and caption that the real paths are 2D, while the 292 figure is a 1D illustration. also noted that the code looks for 293 any key col between peaks that are above a threshold, thus the 294 highest one matters. 257 295 258 296 Sec 4.4.3: 259 297 - "sigma_PSF which different" -> "sigma_PSF, which is different" 298 260 299 ** fixed 261 300 262 301 - "and a trend this the" -- fix wording 302 263 303 ** fixed 264 304 265 305 - semi-colon should be period before "The sums" 306 266 307 ** fixed 267 308 268 309 - "be a large amount" -> "by a large amount" 310 269 311 ** fixed 270 312 … … 276 318 for a typical exposure. 277 319 278 **** SHOW SOME EXAMPLES of PSF variations320 **** TBD: SHOW SOME EXAMPLES of PSF variations 279 321 280 322 - Please state whether the PSF model is this set of formulae 281 323 evaluated at the pixel centers, or must be integrated over the pixel, 282 324 and the reason for the choice. 325 283 326 ** @ pixel centers (added sentence) 284 327 … … 286 329 use is presumably "linear interpolation", but the details of this 287 330 for PSF interpolation are worth describing. 331 288 332 ** reworded to note that bi-linear interpolation in used 289 333 … … 299 343 metric would be the fraction of PS1 PSF stars are confirmed to be point 300 344 sources by GAIA. 345 301 346 ***** TBD 302 347 … … 306 351 in the text and Table 5. This can be tied back to the requested 307 352 description of the expected PSF variations in Sec 4.5.1. 353 308 354 ** adding in table in the the introductory text in section 4.5.1. 309 355 … … 313 359 as undefined measurements, or are they measured with the pixels first 314 360 replaced based upon interpolation or linear prediction or some other method? 315 **** TBD 361 362 ** We provide the PSF_QF and PSF_QF_PERFECT statistics to assess the 363 impact of masking on the aperture-like measurements. Added some 364 additional explanation in section 4.5.3 316 365 317 366 Sec 4.5.3: 318 367 - "smf/cmf files" are not defined or referenced anywhere else in this paper. 319 ** removed the jargon and replace with 'output FITS catalog files' 368 369 ** removed the jargon and replaced with 'output FITS catalog files' 320 370 321 371 PSPS if referred to few enough instances (3) in the paper, that it could be … … 323 373 isn't what many people would expect, so should be defined as public to 324 374 the other code. 325 **** TBD 375 376 ** By adding more explanation of the data products, we have added 377 references to PSPS. We have now added a new paragraph in the 378 introduction to explain this subsystem and its relationship to the 379 public releases more clearly. 326 380 327 381 Sec 4.6.4: 328 382 - "times" -> "\times" 383 329 384 ** fixed 330 385 … … 338 393 - The term "size class" is only used once here, so perhaps only use 339 394 the term "classification". 395 340 396 ** reworded to make this clearer. 341 397 … … 343 399 - PSPHOT.EXT.NSIGMA.LIMIT is the only variable that looks like this 344 400 in the paper, and isn't defined in the tables. 401 345 402 ** we added an explanation at the end of Section 1 that the 346 configuration variables, in fixed-width font, have the PV3 value347 listed after them in parenthesis. We have also made the text more348 consistent about how this appears throughout the tex.403 configuration variables, in fixed-width font, have the PV3 value 404 listed after them in parenthesis. We have also made the text more 405 consistent about how this appears throughout the tex. 349 406 350 407 - Explicitly state that the cosmic ray identification is based upon 351 408 sources appearing more morphologically compact than the PSF. 409 352 410 ** done in 1st paragraph 353 411 … … 360 418 which are blended..." should be relegated to the end of the section, 361 419 and presented as a future development effort. 420 362 421 **** TBD 363 422 364 423 - Remind the reader that the 4 independent parameters includes a local sky 365 424 value. 425 366 426 **** TBD: double-check if the sky is allowed to float in this step 367 427 368 428 - "remaining flux should be below 1\sigma significance" -> 369 429 "remaing flux divided by the errors should be normally distributed about 1" 430 370 431 ** fixed wording 371 432 … … 375 436 were run showing this approach works for some separation and flux ratio 376 437 range. 438 377 439 **** TDB: was the turned on for PV3? 378 440 … … 381 443 more fully described in another paper, a summary of those findings 382 444 could be included here. 445 383 446 **** TBD: include detection limit description 384 447 … … 390 453 391 454 ** The argument in the paragraph, that photometry using a large 392 aperture can correct the PSF photometry, does not really depend on the 393 stability of the wide wings as much on the small fraction of light in 394 the wings. Since we could not back up the statement about the source 395 of the wide wings (and Saglia et al 1993 shows some variations in the396 wings of MDM 1.3 and JKT 1m data), we have removed that part of the397 argument and simplified that paragraph. A larger study of stellar 398 profiles from PS1 on large scales would be interesting, but beyond the399 scope of this papper.455 aperture can correct the PSF photometry, does not really depend on 456 the stability of the wide wings as much on the small fraction of 457 light in the wings. Since we could not back up the statement about 458 the source of the wide wings (and Saglia et al 1993 shows some 459 variations in the wings of MDM 1.3 and JKT 1m data), we have 460 removed that part of the argument and simplified that paragraph. A 461 larger study of stellar profiles from PS1 on large scales would be 462 interesting, but beyond the scope of this papper. 400 463 401 464 - "ApResid" is only sort of defined implicitly. 402 465 403 466 ** The choice of PSF model form is actually made early on, after the 404 first pass on bright stars (section 4.5). The choice of the model is 405 based on the psf - aperture (ApResid) residual scatter. The discussion of the model 406 selection at this point in the paper was an artifact of an attempt to 407 consolidate the discussion of the aperture correction with the earlier 408 aperture photometry. We've fixed the text to leave the discussion of 409 the selection of the PSF model form in section 4.5 and leave 4.8 to 410 the calculation of the aperture correction for the photometry. As a 411 result, we eliminate the term ApResid entirely. 467 first pass on bright stars (section 4.5). The choice of the model 468 is based on the psf - aperture (ApResid) residual scatter. The 469 discussion of the model selection at this point in the paper was an 470 artifact of an attempt to consolidate the discussion of the 471 aperture correction with the earlier aperture photometry. We've 472 fixed the text to leave the discussion of the selection of the PSF 473 model form in section 4.5 and leave 4.8 to the calculation of the 474 aperture correction for the photometry. As a result, we eliminate 475 the term ApResid entirely. 412 476 413 477 - It's interesting that the choice of the PSF model is made based upon … … 423 487 section 4.9, has the same PSF model class been automatically selected 424 488 for all 18 images? 489 425 490 ** This would be very interesting, but unfortunately we only used the 426 single functional form PS1_V1 for all of the PV3 analysis. We've427 added text to section 4.5 to state that explicitly.491 single functional form PS1_V1 for all of the PV3 analysis. We've 492 added text to section 4.5 to state that explicitly. 428 493 429 494 Sec 4.9: … … 435 500 be dominated by the PSF mis-estimation of bright stars rather than the 436 501 atmospheric transparency variations. 502 437 503 **** TBD 438 504 439 505 Sec 5: 440 506 - "to all object" -> "to all objects" 507 441 508 ** fixed 442 509 … … 447 514 Is this decision made for all sources within the same image, or is 448 515 the decision made object-by-object? 449 **** Draw a little picture? 450 ** The avoidance contour approaches a constant Galactic 451 latitude far from the galactic center, but rises in a Gaussian shape 452 to avoid the bulge, with the max avoidance latitude of 35 degrees at Galactic 453 longitude of 0.0. 516 517 ** The avoidance contour approaches a constant Galactic latitude far 518 from the galactic center, but rises in a Gaussian shape to avoid 519 the bulge, with the max avoidance latitude of 35 degrees at 520 Galactic longitude of 0.0. We have added a small illustration of 521 the cut, and noted that the cut is applied on an object-by-object 522 basis. 454 523 455 524 Sec 5.2: … … 457 526 not that the surface brightness is conserved with distance, which of 458 527 course it is not. 528 459 529 ** right, fixed wording 460 530 … … 463 533 as those in the SDSS catalogs. Can one expect those quantities to 464 534 compare well to those in the PS1 catalog? 465 **** compare to SDSS 535 536 **** TBD: compare to SDSS 466 537 467 538 Sec 5.3: 468 539 - Equn 28 is a blank line 540 469 541 ** fixed 470 542 471 543 - Equn 27 would conventionally be written after equns 29-32 as "with 472 544 the definition f_p=..." (remove the word "simplify"). 545 473 546 ** re-written as suggested 474 547 475 548 - "and/or" -> "or" ? 549 476 550 ** fixed 477 551 478 552 - "In the analysis, convolved galaxy fit..." -> "In the convolved galaxy fits..." 553 479 554 ** fixed 480 555 481 556 - Graham & Driver missing in the References 557 482 558 ** fixed 483 559 484 560 - For the approximation of the central pixel values, the maximum fractional 485 561 error of this approximation should be stated. 486 **** TBD 562 563 **** TBD: model 487 564 488 565 Sec 5.4: … … 502 579 convolution. Since the median SDSS seeing is ~1.5 arcsec, those may 503 580 be expected to compare well with the 1.5-arcsec convolved PS1 aperture fluxes. 581 504 582 ** good point, we noted this in the text 505 583 506 584 Sec 5.5: 507 585 - State the seeing of these simulated images. 586 508 587 ** added 509 588 … … 519 598 520 599 ** We agree that the organization of this section could be improved, 521 but we disagree a bit with the proposal. We consider all of these 522 analyses to be forced in that the fits are highly constrained by the 523 stack priors, with their positions (for PSFs and the lensing anaysis) 524 and most of the structural parameters fixed. In the extended galaxy 525 analysis, each of the grid steps is completely forced, just like in 526 forced PSF photometry. By using the term 'forced' to describe this 527 process, we would like to make it clear that, for each grid position, 528 the parameters (except normalization) are completely constrained. 600 but we disagree a bit with the proposal. We consider all of these 601 analyses to be forced in that the fits are highly constrained by 602 the stack priors, with their positions (for PSFs and the lensing 603 anaysis) and most of the structural parameters fixed. In the 604 extended galaxy analysis, each of the grid steps is completely 605 forced, just like in forced PSF photometry. By using the term 606 'forced' to describe this process, we would like to make it clear 607 that, for each grid position, the parameters (except normalization) 608 are completely constrained. 529 609 530 610 We have renamed Section 6 as Forced Warp Analysis and split out the … … 537 617 averaged forced photometry on stars and the averaged single-epoch fits 538 618 for galaxies 619 539 620 ** see previous 540 621 … … 544 625 for the mathematical appropriateness of image stacking, a nice recent 545 626 discussion would be Zackay & Ofek 2016. 546 **** 627 628 **** TBD 547 629 548 630 - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without … … 553 635 - For the forced photometry on single epoch images, is this a joint 554 636 fit for overlapping objects? 637 555 638 ** for the galaxy models, no. The galaxy model fits are measured on 556 each object with the other objects subtracted. Text added to this557 effect in Section 6.1639 each object with the other objects subtracted. Text added to this 640 effect in Section 6.1 558 641 559 642 Are overlapping galaxy models subtracted first? 643 560 644 ** yes, see above. 561 645 562 646 "The PSF model is fitted..." -> "The amplitude of the PSF model is fitted as the flux..." 647 563 648 ** fixed the wording here and also clarified below that we measure 564 Kron and aperture fluxes as well.649 Kron and aperture fluxes as well. 565 650 566 651 Sec 6.2 (now 6.3): … … 573 658 "interpolated PSF ellipticities" are confusing, when I *think* what's 574 659 being used are "interpolated star ellipticities". 660 575 661 ** reworded this to make the analysis clearer 576 662 … … 578 664 and if not, which code would it be most similar to? 579 665 666 **** TBD 667 580 668 - Define "KSB" and "HFK" references in-line 669 670 ** done 581 671 582 672 - "ie,," -> "ie," 583 673 " absoluate" -> "absolute" 674 584 675 ** fixed both 585 676 … … 590 681 If these questions are covered in other Pan-STARRS papers, please reference 591 682 them here. 592 **** 683 684 ** extended the background description, and referred to the previous 685 work on asteroid and supernova detection within Pan-STARRS. 593 686 594 687 - A basic piece of information that should be given is whether the differencing 595 688 is performed on pairs of images, or single (warp) images compared to 596 689 image stacks. 597 **** 690 691 ** we generate difference images for warp pairs, warp-stack, and 692 stack-stack. Added this to the introductory paragraph in section 7 598 693 599 694 - "model from is" -> "model is" 695 600 696 ** fixed 601 697 602 698 Conclusions: 603 699 - The PS2 telescope is only mentioned here. At least give a reference. 700 701 ** added mention to Intro & added appropriate references 604 702 605 703 Tables: … … 608 706 as reference material, in which case the tables should be self-explanatory. 609 707 708 ** Extended the table captions as requested. 709 610 710 Tables 2,3,4: 611 711 - Please provide the names of these masks in the data products. From the … … 613 713 to "mask2". 614 714 715 ** added to the table. 716 615 717 Figures: 616 718 - For all the multi-panel figures, typical style would be to label 617 719 each of the sub-panels (a), (b), etc, and describe in the caption. 618 720 721 **** TBD: fixed for Figures 2, 5, 6 TBD: 8, 9, 10 722 619 723 Figure 2: 620 724 - "window" in the figure text should be "\sigma_w" to be consistent 621 725 with the caption and text. 726 727 ** fixed, and cleaned up the figure appearence a bit (font sizes) 622 728 623 729 - For Figures 2,5,6, please do the mathematical calisthenics of stating … … 626 732 these figures to threshold magnitudes as done for Figure 7. 627 733 734 ** fixed for Figures 2, 5 & 6 735 628 736 Figure 3: 629 737 - This figure isn't referenced in the text. 738 739 ** referenced in Section 4.5.1, second paragraph after list of model equations 740 630 741 - State if each point is a single pixel value. 742 743 ** added to caption 744 631 745 - State whether the black line model is part of the PSF models for these 632 746 particular stars 747 748 **** TBD: NEED to examine how figure was created 633 749 634 750 Figure 4: … … 636 752 denoted by a point. 637 753 754 **** TBD 755 638 756 Figures 5 and 6: 639 757 - I can't find a definition of "STS" anywhere in the text. 758 759 ** reworded to remove the acronym 760 640 761 - Upper panels should be labeled "Number of stars". 762 763 ** fixed 641 764 642 765 Figure 7: 643 766 - Caption should specify the seeing of these images (not in the text either). 767 768 **** TBD 644 769 645 770 Figures 8 and 9: … … 649 774 in the text. The other 4 panels could refer to the explanation in Sec 5.5. 650 775 776 **** TBD 777 651 778 References: 652 779 - It would be helpful to append "[Paper I]", "[Paper II]", etc, to 653 780 the references for this sequence of papers. 781 782 ** added 783 654 784 - It would be helpful to append "[KSB]" and "[HFK]" to those references 655 785 since they are cited that way in the text. 786 787 ** done 788 656 789 - Some additional references should be included; some suggestions above. 657 790 791 **** TBD 792 793 ** Also, we have added Danny Farrow (UK Durham & MPIA) to the authors 794 list for contributions related assessment of the galaxy model quality.
Note:
See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.
