Changeset 41347 for trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt

Timestamp:

Apr 24, 2020, 4:01:26 PM (6 years ago)

Author:

eugene

Message:

update the figures to fix a PDF bug

File:

• trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt (modified) (9 diffs)

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

@@ -1 +1 @@
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Referee Report
 Reviewer's Comments:
@@ -98 +97 @@
 that the photometric goals are achieved
 
-**** TBD : discuss relative quality of chip, forced, stack photometry
+** added comparion discussion of chip, warp, stack photometry at the end of Sec 6.1
 
 - Sec 7, where the image differencing detections and photometry is used
@@ -126 +125 @@
 in one place would be a useful service.
 
-**** TBD : summarize the lessons learned
+** added suggested improvements in conclusion
 
 Abstract:
@@ -331 +330 @@
 for a typical exposure.
 
-**** TBD: SHOW SOME EXAMPLES of PSF variations 
-     choose 3 exposures: 1 with good IQ, one with bad IQ, but round, one with bad IQ but not round,
-     plot some IQ stats (Mxx - Myy) / (Mxx + Myy)
+** we have added a figure to show examples of the image quality
+   variations observed in PS1 in both good and bad seeing data.
 
 - Please state whether the PSF model is this set of formulae
@@ -435 +433 @@
 and presented as a future development effort.
 
-**** TBD : wording of full PSF model section 4.6.6
+** reworded to explain that this step, unlike 4.6.2, does a
+   simultaneous fit to the position and normalization for sources
+   one-at-a-time.
 
 - Remind the reader that the 4 independent parameters includes a local sky
@@ -455 +455 @@
 range.
 
-**** TBD: double-star mode: was this turned on for PV3? ppSim to show recovery
+** In reviewing the code, we discovered that this approach to close
+   neighbors was turned off for PV3, similar to the blend fits
+   discussed above.  We have moved both of these crowded field
+   analysis concepts to a single section, identified as deactivated
+   for PV3.
 
 Sec 4.7:
@@ -558 +562 @@
 compare well to those in the PS1 catalog?
 
-**** TBD: compare Petrosian mags to SDSS for some example
+** These agree to first order, but there is a tendency for the PS1
+   measurements to have larger radii and smaller (brighter)
+   magnitudes.  Added text and a figure to illustrate
 
 Sec 5.3:
@@ -585 +591 @@
 error of this approximation should be stated.
 
-**** TBD: model central pixel errors for Sersic models
+** In trying to answer this question, we realized that, while we
+   experimented with this technique, the as implemented psphot in fact
+   used brute-force numerical evaluation.  These implementation
+   experiments did not pan out so we went ahead with something that
+   worked, even if it was slower.  We have updated the text to
+   describe the actual implementation.
 
 Sec 5.4:
@@ -688 +699 @@
 and if not, which code would it be most similar to?
 
-**** TBD : check on GREAT challenge to compare code 
+** psphot was not used in any of the GREAT challenges, but is similar
+   to the EPFL_KSB team's code.  added this to the text
 
 - Define "KSB" and "HFK" references in-line