Index: /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt =================================================================== --- /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt (revision 41316) +++ /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt (revision 41317) @@ -26,4 +26,7 @@ be stated, along with the goal of providing sources for the PSF modeling. +** Added introductory sentences in 4.4.1 and expanded 'intial source + detection' bullet in 4.1. + - Section 4.4.3: The purpose of the moments is to identify problematic sources and to measure Kron magnitudes. The importance of the Kron @@ -33,6 +36,16 @@ this for classification since it is typically a noisy measure. +** Added addtional explanation for the uses of the second and higher + order moments in the introductory paragraph. Added a note about + star-galaxy separation when Kron magnitudes are first discussed. + Also added a paragraph to describe the original motivation of the + higher-order terms (identify collimation and alignment failures), + but notes that this has not panned out as hoped. Also added a + short justification in section 4.6.5 + - Section 5: The extended source photometry has not been motivated and it is unclear what the goals are for those objects. + +** added motivation in introduction of section 5. The text doesn't explain how in general bad (saturated, light traps, @@ -45,7 +58,10 @@ individual images. -** we do NOT interpolate or replace masked values; instead they are +** we do not interpolate or replace masked values; instead they are ignored in model fits. their presence affects aperture-like - measurements. TBD + measurements, and we rely on averaging (as mentioned) to overcome + the masking. We also provide the PSF_QF and PSF_QF_PERFECT values + to assess the impact of masking on a specific source. Text added + to this effect in section 4.3 The paper should identify which of these measurements and tabulated @@ -61,6 +77,10 @@ state the same for galaxy astrometry, fluxes and colors. +**** + A detail of the code is presented (variable names, etc) that imply that the code would be publicly available. Is it, and if so where? + +** Added a link to the URL where the software can be downloaded The other PS1 papers are discussed in the introduction, but not @@ -70,13 +90,22 @@ - Sec 5.5, where the typical stellar detection limits are quoted +** Added reference to Paper I for this + - Sec 6, which of these averaged photometry measurements are used in the PS1 global photometry solution, and which papers demonstrate that the photometric goals are achieved +**** see note section Forced PSF Phot + - Sec 7, where the image differencing detections and photometry is used + +** Price & Magnier is cited, but this has not yet been submitted (not + part of this series) A handful of places use lower-case "psf" (Table 2 and pg 13) and should be written "PSF" for consistency. "chi-square" is used both lower-case and upper-case. + +** Fixed these for consistency A number of places refer to starting guesses for ML minimizations @@ -84,4 +113,7 @@ to provide the formulae for these initializations (and potentially necessary if one were want to repeat the fits). + +** Added a discussion of the PSF parameter guesses in section 4.5.3, + expanded discussion in section 5.3, referring back to 4.5.3. Although this paper is primarily meant to present the decisions made @@ -92,4 +124,6 @@ in one place would be a useful service. +**** TBD + Abstract: - This abstract states this is the version used for the "first public @@ -169,9 +203,11 @@ - "astrometric accuracy goal" -> "relative astrometric accuracy goal" + ** fixed - "requirement" -> "goal" to be consistent with the text elsewhere + ** fixed, and cleaned the introduction sentence of 'requirement' vs -'goal' confusion. + 'goal' confusion. Sec 4: @@ -183,5 +219,5 @@ applying to bright sources, and another addessing all (==faint) sources. -**** review this +**** TBD Sec 4.1: @@ -191,5 +227,5 @@ of Sec 4.8) that the PSF model for an image is actually selected. -**** clarify this +**** TBD ** The aperture correction is measured at the end of the bright-star ** pass, at which point the PSF model is chosen and fixed. A final @@ -228,5 +264,5 @@ measure is used. -**** model? +**** TBD: model? Sec 4.4.1: @@ -253,18 +289,24 @@ that there are several? -**** implementation looks for any key col between peaks that are - above a threshold, thus the highest one matters. ADD TO TEXT +** noted in text and caption that the real paths are 2D, while the + figure is a 1D illustration. also noted that the code looks for + any key col between peaks that are above a threshold, thus the + highest one matters. Sec 4.4.3: - "sigma_PSF which different" -> "sigma_PSF, which is different" + ** fixed - "and a trend this the" -- fix wording + ** fixed - semi-colon should be period before "The sums" + ** fixed - "be a large amount" -> "by a large amount" + ** fixed @@ -276,9 +318,10 @@ for a typical exposure. -**** SHOW SOME EXAMPLES of PSF variations +**** TBD: SHOW SOME EXAMPLES of PSF variations - Please state whether the PSF model is this set of formulae evaluated at the pixel centers, or must be integrated over the pixel, and the reason for the choice. + ** @ pixel centers (added sentence) @@ -286,4 +329,5 @@ use is presumably "linear interpolation", but the details of this for PSF interpolation are worth describing. + ** reworded to note that bi-linear interpolation in used @@ -299,4 +343,5 @@ metric would be the fraction of PS1 PSF stars are confirmed to be point sources by GAIA. + ***** TBD @@ -306,4 +351,5 @@ in the text and Table 5. This can be tied back to the requested description of the expected PSF variations in Sec 4.5.1. + ** adding in table in the the introductory text in section 4.5.1. @@ -313,9 +359,13 @@ as undefined measurements, or are they measured with the pixels first replaced based upon interpolation or linear prediction or some other method? -**** TBD + +** We provide the PSF_QF and PSF_QF_PERFECT statistics to assess the + impact of masking on the aperture-like measurements. Added some + additional explanation in section 4.5.3 Sec 4.5.3: - "smf/cmf files" are not defined or referenced anywhere else in this paper. -** removed the jargon and replace with 'output FITS catalog files' + +** removed the jargon and replaced with 'output FITS catalog files' PSPS if referred to few enough instances (3) in the paper, that it could be @@ -323,8 +373,13 @@ isn't what many people would expect, so should be defined as public to the other code. -**** TBD + +** By adding more explanation of the data products, we have added + references to PSPS. We have now added a new paragraph in the + introduction to explain this subsystem and its relationship to the + public releases more clearly. Sec 4.6.4: - "times" -> "\times" + ** fixed @@ -338,4 +393,5 @@ - The term "size class" is only used once here, so perhaps only use the term "classification". + ** reworded to make this clearer. @@ -343,11 +399,13 @@ - PSPHOT.EXT.NSIGMA.LIMIT is the only variable that looks like this in the paper, and isn't defined in the tables. + ** we added an explanation at the end of Section 1 that the -configuration variables, in fixed-width font, have the PV3 value -listed after them in parenthesis. We have also made the text more -consistent about how this appears throughout the tex. + configuration variables, in fixed-width font, have the PV3 value + listed after them in parenthesis. We have also made the text more + consistent about how this appears throughout the tex. - Explicitly state that the cosmic ray identification is based upon sources appearing more morphologically compact than the PSF. + ** done in 1st paragraph @@ -360,12 +418,15 @@ which are blended..." should be relegated to the end of the section, and presented as a future development effort. + **** TBD - Remind the reader that the 4 independent parameters includes a local sky value. + **** TBD: double-check if the sky is allowed to float in this step - "remaining flux should be below 1\sigma significance" -> "remaing flux divided by the errors should be normally distributed about 1" + ** fixed wording @@ -375,4 +436,5 @@ were run showing this approach works for some separation and flux ratio range. + **** TDB: was the turned on for PV3? @@ -381,4 +443,5 @@ more fully described in another paper, a summary of those findings could be included here. + **** TBD: include detection limit description @@ -390,24 +453,25 @@ ** The argument in the paragraph, that photometry using a large -aperture can correct the PSF photometry, does not really depend on the -stability of the wide wings as much on the small fraction of light in -the wings. Since we could not back up the statement about the source -of the wide wings (and Saglia et al 1993 shows some variations in the -wings of MDM 1.3 and JKT 1m data), we have removed that part of the -argument and simplified that paragraph. A larger study of stellar -profiles from PS1 on large scales would be interesting, but beyond the -scope of this papper. + aperture can correct the PSF photometry, does not really depend on + the stability of the wide wings as much on the small fraction of + light in the wings. Since we could not back up the statement about + the source of the wide wings (and Saglia et al 1993 shows some + variations in the wings of MDM 1.3 and JKT 1m data), we have + removed that part of the argument and simplified that paragraph. A + larger study of stellar profiles from PS1 on large scales would be + interesting, but beyond the scope of this papper. - "ApResid" is only sort of defined implicitly. ** The choice of PSF model form is actually made early on, after the -first pass on bright stars (section 4.5). The choice of the model is -based on the psf - aperture (ApResid) residual scatter. The discussion of the model -selection at this point in the paper was an artifact of an attempt to -consolidate the discussion of the aperture correction with the earlier -aperture photometry. We've fixed the text to leave the discussion of -the selection of the PSF model form in section 4.5 and leave 4.8 to -the calculation of the aperture correction for the photometry. As a -result, we eliminate the term ApResid entirely. + first pass on bright stars (section 4.5). The choice of the model + is based on the psf - aperture (ApResid) residual scatter. The + discussion of the model selection at this point in the paper was an + artifact of an attempt to consolidate the discussion of the + aperture correction with the earlier aperture photometry. We've + fixed the text to leave the discussion of the selection of the PSF + model form in section 4.5 and leave 4.8 to the calculation of the + aperture correction for the photometry. As a result, we eliminate + the term ApResid entirely. - It's interesting that the choice of the PSF model is made based upon @@ -423,7 +487,8 @@ section 4.9, has the same PSF model class been automatically selected for all 18 images? + ** This would be very interesting, but unfortunately we only used the -single functional form PS1_V1 for all of the PV3 analysis. We've -added text to section 4.5 to state that explicitly. + single functional form PS1_V1 for all of the PV3 analysis. We've + added text to section 4.5 to state that explicitly. Sec 4.9: @@ -435,8 +500,10 @@ be dominated by the PSF mis-estimation of bright stars rather than the atmospheric transparency variations. + **** TBD Sec 5: - "to all object" -> "to all objects" + ** fixed @@ -447,9 +514,11 @@ Is this decision made for all sources within the same image, or is the decision made object-by-object? -**** Draw a little picture? -** The avoidance contour approaches a constant Galactic -latitude far from the galactic center, but rises in a Gaussian shape -to avoid the bulge, with the max avoidance latitude of 35 degrees at Galactic -longitude of 0.0. + +** The avoidance contour approaches a constant Galactic latitude far + from the galactic center, but rises in a Gaussian shape to avoid + the bulge, with the max avoidance latitude of 35 degrees at + Galactic longitude of 0.0. We have added a small illustration of + the cut, and noted that the cut is applied on an object-by-object + basis. Sec 5.2: @@ -457,4 +526,5 @@ not that the surface brightness is conserved with distance, which of course it is not. + ** right, fixed wording @@ -463,26 +533,33 @@ as those in the SDSS catalogs. Can one expect those quantities to compare well to those in the PS1 catalog? -**** compare to SDSS + +**** TBD: compare to SDSS Sec 5.3: - Equn 28 is a blank line + ** fixed - Equn 27 would conventionally be written after equns 29-32 as "with the definition f_p=..." (remove the word "simplify"). + ** re-written as suggested - "and/or" -> "or" ? + ** fixed - "In the analysis, convolved galaxy fit..." -> "In the convolved galaxy fits..." + ** fixed - Graham & Driver missing in the References + ** fixed - For the approximation of the central pixel values, the maximum fractional error of this approximation should be stated. -**** TBD + +**** TBD: model Sec 5.4: @@ -502,8 +579,10 @@ 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 @@ -519,12 +598,13 @@ ** We agree that the organization of this section could be improved, -but we disagree a bit with the proposal. We consider all of these -analyses to be forced in that the fits are highly constrained by the -stack priors, with their positions (for PSFs and the lensing anaysis) -and most of the structural parameters fixed. In the extended galaxy -analysis, each of the grid steps is completely forced, just like in -forced PSF photometry. By using the term 'forced' to describe this -process, we would like to make it clear that, for each grid position, -the parameters (except normalization) are completely constrained. + but we disagree a bit with the proposal. We consider all of these + analyses to be forced in that the fits are highly constrained by + the stack priors, with their positions (for PSFs and the lensing + anaysis) and most of the structural parameters fixed. In the + extended galaxy analysis, each of the grid steps is completely + forced, just like in forced PSF photometry. By using the term + 'forced' to describe this process, we would like to make it clear + that, for each grid position, the parameters (except normalization) + are completely constrained. We have renamed Section 6 as Forced Warp Analysis and split out the @@ -537,4 +617,5 @@ averaged forced photometry on stars and the averaged single-epoch fits for galaxies + ** see previous @@ -544,5 +625,6 @@ for the mathematical appropriateness of image stacking, a nice recent discussion would be Zackay & Ofek 2016. -**** + +**** TBD - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without @@ -553,14 +635,17 @@ - For the forced photometry on single epoch images, is this a joint fit for overlapping objects? + ** for the galaxy models, no. The galaxy model fits are measured on -each object with the other objects subtracted. Text added to this -effect in Section 6.1 + each object with the other objects subtracted. Text added to this + effect in Section 6.1 Are overlapping galaxy models subtracted first? + ** yes, see above. "The PSF model is fitted..." -> "The amplitude of the PSF model is fitted as the flux..." + ** fixed the wording here and also clarified below that we measure -Kron and aperture fluxes as well. + Kron and aperture fluxes as well. Sec 6.2 (now 6.3): @@ -573,4 +658,5 @@ "interpolated PSF ellipticities" are confusing, when I *think* what's being used are "interpolated star ellipticities". + ** reworded this to make the analysis clearer @@ -578,8 +664,13 @@ and if not, which code would it be most similar to? +**** TBD + - Define "KSB" and "HFK" references in-line + +** done - "ie,," -> "ie," " absoluate" -> "absolute" + ** fixed both @@ -590,16 +681,23 @@ If these questions are covered in other Pan-STARRS papers, please reference them here. -**** + +** extended the background description, and referred to the previous + work on asteroid and supernova detection within Pan-STARRS. - 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. -**** + +** we generate difference images for warp pairs, warp-stack, and + stack-stack. Added this to the introductory paragraph in section 7 - "model from is" -> "model is" + ** fixed Conclusions: - The PS2 telescope is only mentioned here. At least give a reference. + +** added mention to Intro & added appropriate references Tables: @@ -608,4 +706,6 @@ as reference material, in which case the tables should be self-explanatory. +** Extended the table captions as requested. + Tables 2,3,4: - Please provide the names of these masks in the data products. From the @@ -613,11 +713,17 @@ to "mask2". +** added to the table. + Figures: - For all the multi-panel figures, typical style would be to label each of the sub-panels (a), (b), etc, and describe in the caption. +**** TBD: fixed for Figures 2, 5, 6 TBD: 8, 9, 10 + Figure 2: - "window" in the figure text should be "\sigma_w" to be consistent with the caption and text. + +** fixed, and cleaned up the figure appearence a bit (font sizes) - For Figures 2,5,6, please do the mathematical calisthenics of stating @@ -626,9 +732,19 @@ these figures to threshold magnitudes as done for Figure 7. +** fixed for Figures 2, 5 & 6 + Figure 3: - This figure isn't referenced in the text. + +** referenced in Section 4.5.1, second paragraph after list of model equations + - State if each point is a single pixel value. + +** added to caption + - State whether the black line model is part of the PSF models for these particular stars + +**** TBD: NEED to examine how figure was created Figure 4: @@ -636,10 +752,19 @@ denoted by a point. +**** TBD + Figures 5 and 6: - I can't find a definition of "STS" anywhere in the text. + +** reworded to remove the acronym + - Upper panels should be labeled "Number of stars". + +** fixed Figure 7: - Caption should specify the seeing of these images (not in the text either). + +**** TBD Figures 8 and 9: @@ -649,9 +774,21 @@ in the text. The other 4 panels could refer to the explanation in Sec 5.5. +**** TBD + References: - It would be helpful to append "[Paper I]", "[Paper II]", etc, to the references for this sequence of papers. + +** added + - It would be helpful to append "[KSB]" and "[HFK]" to those references since they are cited that way in the text. + +** done + - Some additional references should be included; some suggestions above. +**** TBD + +** Also, we have added Danny Farrow (UK Durham & MPIA) to the authors + list for contributions related assessment of the galaxy model quality.