Index: /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/Makefile =================================================================== --- /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/Makefile (revision 41401) +++ /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/Makefile (revision 41402) @@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ # DO_PDFLATEX = 1 -DO_BIBTEX = 1 +DO_BIBTEX = 0 help: @@ -24,14 +24,22 @@ PDFPICS = \ pics/peaks.pdf \ -pics/galplanecut.pdf \ pics/FWHM.smooth.trend.v1.ps1.pdf \ +pics/iq.exposures.pdf \ pics/radial.profiles.pdf \ pics/moment.class.pdf \ -pics/mag.resid.psf.pdf \ -pics/mag.resid.aper.pdf \ +pics/completion.ppsim.pdf \ +pics/psphot.complete.pv3.pdf \ +pics/mag.resid.psf.v1.pdf \ +pics/mag.resid.aper.v1.pdf \ +pics/bright.mag.resid.pdf \ +pics/zpt.mjd.v0.i.pdf \ +pics/zptres.hist.v0.i.pdf \ +pics/galplanecut.pdf \ +pics/petrosians.mags.pdf \ pics/galaxy.exp.complete.pdf \ pics/galaxy.dev.complete.pdf \ pics/galaxy.exp.params.pdf \ -pics/galaxy.dev.params.pdf +pics/galaxy.dev.params.pdf \ +pics/compare.mags.pdf PNGPICS = \ Index: /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex =================================================================== --- /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/analysis.tex (revision 41401) +++ /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} Index: /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt =================================================================== --- /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt (revision 41401) +++ /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.analysis/response.txt (revision 41402) @@ -1,2 +1,9 @@ + +We thank the referee for the many detailed suggestions. We have +incorportated these in almost all cases into the article. The +result is greatly improved in terms of clarity and context. Below are +our specific responses the the suggestions of the referee. + +(Our responses to the comments start with "**" and are indented). Referee Report @@ -67,12 +74,12 @@ mask values appear in the DR1 and DR2 data releases. For example, Tables 1-4 must refer to some named quantities in the data releases. -This paper should also clearly indicate which quantities are recommended -to be most reliable for point source astrometry, fluxes and colors. -(My guess would be the astrometry from the stacked images in Sec 4.7, since -those aren't recomputed; fluxes from the averaged forced photometry -in Sec 6; and colors from either aperture photometry on the stacked -images or from the averaged forced photometry, and the authors must -know which is demonstrated to be more reliable). The paper should -state the same for galaxy astrometry, fluxes and colors. +This paper should also clearly indicate which quantities are +recommended to be most reliable for point source astrometry, fluxes +and colors. (My guess would be the astrometry from the stacked images +in Sec 4.7, since those aren't recomputed; fluxes from the averaged +forced photometry in Sec 6; and colors from either aperture photometry +on the stacked images or from the averaged forced photometry, and the +authors must know which is demonstrated to be more reliable). The +paper should state the same for galaxy astrometry, fluxes and colors. ** for each section, we have added a summary of where the values may @@ -97,5 +104,6 @@ that the photometric goals are achieved -** added comparion discussion of chip, warp, stack photometry at the end of Sec 6.1 +** 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 @@ -643,8 +651,8 @@ are completely constrained. -We have renamed Section 6 as Forced Warp Analysis and split out the -PSF vs extended source analysis sections as recommended. We added -some explanation at the end of the section to explain what we mean by -'forced'. +** We have renamed Section 6 as Forced Warp Analysis and split out the + PSF vs extended source analysis sections as recommended. We added + some explanation at the end of the section to explain what we mean + by 'forced'. - The general description of the section should end with "variant of psphot", @@ -665,4 +673,5 @@ - The terms "skycell" and "warp image" are first used here without definition. Are warp images the same as CAMERA and CHIP? + ** Updated Section 2 to outline the relevant processing stages and define 'warp', 'skycell', and 'stack' more cleanly.