Index: trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex
===================================================================
--- trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex	(revision 41347)
+++ trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex	(revision 41402)
@@ -29,6 +29,6 @@
 
 %\def\picdir{/home/eugene/chipresid.20140404}
-\def\picdir{pics}
-%\def\picdir{.}
+%\def\picdir{pics}
+\def\picdir{.}
 
 % Pick a terse version of the title here;
@@ -184,5 +184,5 @@
   the image data products and a hierachical database of measurements
   using a system developed specifically for the Pan-STARRS dataset.
-  Development of this database systems was the product of a
+  Development of this database system was the product of a
   collaboration between the Pan-STARRS Project and Alex Szalay's
   database development group at The Johns Hopkins University (JHU)
@@ -375,5 +375,5 @@
   is performed in parallel on each of the individual CCDs in the
   camera.  This so-called \ippstage{chip} stage analysis includes the
-  detrending of CCD image as well as the detection and analysis of
+  detrending of CCD image (instrumental signature removal) as well as the detection and analysis of
   sources in the image using the basic version of \ippprog{psphot}.
   The next stage of the analysis, the \ippstage{camera} stage,
@@ -388,5 +388,5 @@
   a large regular pixel grid is defined, and then subdivided along
   pixel boundaries into smaller units which are well-matched to the
-  memory footprint of our processing computesr.  These smaller images,
+  memory footprint of our processing computers.  These smaller images,
   called `skycells' are defined with 1 arcminute of overlap with their
   neighbors to that any modest-sized object can be analysed entirely
@@ -525,9 +525,9 @@
   and astrometry accuracy at the level of our goals, not only must the
   measurement of the astronomical detections be precise, but it is
-  necessary for the detrending (instrumental signature remove) and
+  necessary for the detrending and
   calibration processes to correct for a wide variety of systematic
   effects and it is also necessary for the observations to be
   performed in such a way that the data can be calibrated well.  These
-  others aspects of the process are discussed in detail elsewhere
+  other aspects of the process are discussed in detail elsewhere
   (Papers I, III, V).  In the end, the goals were largely achieved for
   the Pan-STARRS\,1 $3\pi$ survey. As reported in Paper V, the
@@ -1227,5 +1227,5 @@
   classification of the sources.  As discussed below, the second
   moments are used to select candidate stellar sources to be used in
-  modeling the PSF and the exclude `cosmic rays' and extended sources.
+  modeling the PSF and to identify `cosmic rays' and extended sources.
   The radial moment is used in the measurement of the Kron magnitudes \citep{1980ApJS...43..305K}.
   The higher-order moments are provided primarily for image quality
@@ -1736,5 +1736,5 @@
 radial moment as the major axis size for the Gaussian ($\sigma_a$), retaining
 the position angle and axial ratio from the calculation above.  We use
-these guess parameters for all version of the PSF analytical models,
+these guess parameters for all versions of the PSF analytical models,
 despite the fact that for the versions which are not approximations of
 Gaussians these guess values will be systematically incorrect.  
@@ -2146,8 +2146,8 @@
   source model parameters (position in $X$ and $Y$ and flux
   normalization) are allowed to vary in the fit.  Note that we do {\em
-    not} allow the local sky to be fitted as a free parameters.  Since
+    not} allow the local sky to be fitted as a free parameter.  Since
   we have subtracted a model for the background, allowing the sky to
-  be again at this stage is redundant.  In fact, in our testing, we
-  found that allowing the sky to float resulted in higher scatter for
+  be fitted again at this stage is redundant.  In fact, in our testing, we
+  found that allowing the sky background value to float resulted in higher scatter for
   the flux normalizations.  For the non-linear fitting,
 \ippprog{psphot} again uses the Levenberg-Marquardt technique.}  The
@@ -2622,5 +2622,5 @@
 crowding and confusion.  Since the injection and recovery analysis of
 the fake sources operates on the source-subtracted image and does not
-attempt to fully discovery the sources, this analysis over-estimates
+attempt to fully discover the sources, this analysis over-estimates
 the completeness in crowded fields.  To explore the completeness in
 crowded field images, we generate a series of simulated images using a
@@ -3480,5 +3480,5 @@
 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.  \textadd{Although these aperture are
+\code{PM_SOURCE_MODE_RADIAL_FLUX} set.  \textadd{Although these apertures are
 chosen to match the SDSS apertures, the SDSS images are measured on
 unconvolved images.  Since the median seeing for the SDSS images is
@@ -3769,6 +3769,6 @@
  \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{\picdir/{compare.mags}.pdf}
   \caption{\label{fig:compare.mags} Comparison of {\tt psphot} average
-    chip photometry, average forced-warp photometry, and stack
-    photometry from $3\pi$ Survey data to average forced-warp
+    chip photometry (panel a), average forced-warp photometry (panel b), and stack
+    photometry (panel c) from $3\pi$ Survey data to average forced-warp
     photometry from the Pan-STARRS\,1 Medium-Deep Survey field MD06
     At bright magnitudes, average chip photometry is the most
@@ -3795,25 +3795,27 @@
 Paper V).}
 
-{\TEXTADD As can be clearly seen in the figure, the average from the forced-warp
-photometry is slightly worse than the chip photometry, while the stack
-PSF photometry is significantly degraded.  We attribute the latter
-effect to the highly-textured PSF observed in the stack images due to
-the combination of variable PSFs in each exposure and significant
-masking fraction in the PS1 camera.  At the faint end, the chip
-photometry is significantly worse that both average warp and stack
-photometry.  First, in order to have a measurement, a source must be
-detected above the detection threshold in at least one of the
-exposures, limiting the depth possible of the average chip
-photometry. Second, at the faint end, only bright fluctuations will be
-detected, resulting in a bright bias. This latter effect is clearly
-seen in Figure~\ref{fig:compare.mags} as the average chip magnitudes
-diverge from the deeper Medium Deep photometry measurements.  As has
-been noted elsewhere \citep{2018ApJS..234....1B}, the warp and stack
-photometry is also degraded for objects which have significant proper
-motion over the course of the $3\pi$ Survey since the position is held
-constant for all epochs, while the average chip photometry is
-calculated on detections which are cross-matched in the database.
-Thus, warp and stack photometry should be avoided for sources with
-proper motion greater than roughly 100 milliarcseconds per year.}
+{\TEXTADD As can be clearly seen in the figure, the average from the
+  forced-warp photometry is slightly worse than the chip photometry,
+  while the stack PSF photometry is significantly degraded.  We
+  attribute the latter effect to the highly-textured PSF observed in
+  the stack images due to the combination of variable PSFs in each
+  exposure and significant masking fraction in the PS1 camera.  At the
+  faint end, the chip photometry is significantly worse that both
+  average warp and stack photometry.  First, in order to have a
+  measurement, a source must be detected above the detection threshold
+  in at least one of the exposures, limiting the depth possible of the
+  average chip photometry. Second, at the faint end, only bright
+  fluctuations will be detected, resulting in a bright bias, a form of
+  Eddington bias \citep{1913MNRAS..73..359E}. This latter effect is
+  clearly seen in Figure~\ref{fig:compare.mags} as the average chip
+  magnitudes diverge from the deeper Medium Deep photometry
+  measurements.  As has been noted elsewhere
+  \citep{2018ApJS..234....1B}, the warp and stack photometry is also
+  degraded for objects which have significant proper motion over the
+  course of the $3\pi$ Survey since the position is held constant for
+  all epochs, while the average chip photometry is calculated on
+  detections which are cross-matched in the database.  Thus, warp and
+  stack photometry should be avoided for sources with proper motion
+  greater than roughly 100 milliarcseconds per year.}
 
 \subsection{Forced Galaxy Models}
@@ -4089,5 +4091,5 @@
 \cite{2008ApJ...677..808Y}.  The analysis of the sources detected in
 these difference images uses a portion of the \ippprog{psphot} code
-embedded in the program, \ippprog{ppSub}, which generates those image.
+embedded in the program, \ippprog{ppSub}, which generates those images.
 Difference images are generated from three different possible image
 combinations: 1) pairs of individual exposures are differenced using
@@ -4287,6 +4289,6 @@
 
 \bibliographystyle{apj}
-\bibliography{lib}{}
-%\input{analysis.bbl}
+%\bibliography{lib}{}
+\input{analysis.bbl}
 
 \end{document}