IPP Software Navigation Tools IPP Links Communication Pan-STARRS Links

Changes between Version 41 and Version 42 of Background_Dark_Model


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Apr 9, 2012, 3:21:08 PM (14 years ago)
Author:
watersc1
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Background_Dark_Model

    v41 v42  
    77 1. '''From the fixedgain_improvement.png plot, most cells appear to be in XY67, are the other cells from a single chip?''' No, although the cells do seem to be clustered in some bad OTAs.  Taking a minimum improvement of 10 as the cutoff:
    88|| OTA   || XY17 || XY27 || XY15 || XY55 || Xy34 || XY06 || XY11 || XY23 || XY24 || XY33 || XY43 || XY54 || XY62 || XY73 || XY74 ||
    9 || Ncells|| 9 || 7 || 6 || 5 || 4|| 2 || 1|| 1||1||1||1||1||1||1||1||1||
    10  1. '''I guess the points in that figure with Gain/1.1 >> 1 and delta of 0.0
    11 are otherwise bad, masked, and thus have no detections, right?''' Correct.  Examples are OTA76:xy66, OTA17:xy50, etc.
    12  1. '''There is a single odd cell at Gain/1.1 ~ 80 and delta ~ 200 -- who is that?''' OTA73:xy33.  This appears to be a bad cell in general, with a defect noticable in noisemap/dark/science images.  This cell might be better off fully masked.
    13  1. '''2D plot of XY67 to confirm our expectations (that the terrible cells
    14 are no longer so terrible -- if we still see the same xy00 sticking
    15 out badly, despite losing 500 detections, then we are only getting a
    16 tweak on this chip as well as the others)'''
     9|| Ncells|| 9 || 7 || 6 || 5 || 4|| 2 || 1|| 1||1||1||1||1||1||1||1||
     10 2. '''I guess the points in that figure with Gain/1.1 >> 1 and delta of 0.0 are otherwise bad, masked, and thus have no detections, right?''' Correct.  Examples are OTA76:xy66, OTA17:xy50, etc.
     11 3. '''There is a single odd cell at Gain/1.1 ~ 80 and delta ~ 200 -- who is that?''' OTA73:xy33.  This appears to be a bad cell in general, with a defect noticable in noisemap/dark/science images.  This cell might be better off fully masked.
     12 4. '''2D plot of XY67 to confirm our expectations (that the terrible cells are no longer so terrible -- if we still see the same xy00 sticking out badly, despite losing 500 detections, then we are only getting a tweak on this chip as well as the others)'''  There are clear improvements, but xy00 is still the worst, and the position dependence is still visible (see q6 below).
    1713[[Image(q4.png,400px)]]
    18  1. '''2D plot of the full mosaic false detections, showing only the >5
    19 sigma detections (and maybe a plot with the SDSS matches removed,
    20 though another plot showing the locations of the SDSS matches would be
    21 needed to show the overlap).'''
     14 5. '''2D plot of the full mosaic false detections, showing only the >5 sigma detections (and maybe a plot with the SDSS matches removed, though another plot showing the locations of the SDSS matches would be needed to show the overlap).'''  This is somewhat difficult to interpret, but the significant unmatched SDSS sources seem to cluster tightly around very bad cells (with gradient effects visible), bright stars, and satellite trails.
    2215[[Image(q5.png,400px)]]
    23  1. '''one of the 1D plots to see if we still have the position dependent
    24 problem (I'm guessing yes)'''
     16 6. '''one of the 1D plots to see if we still have the position dependent problem (I'm guessing yes)'''  Yes, fixing the gain to a constant value still has position dependence issues.
    2517[[Image(col2_gaintest.png,400px)]]
    26  1. '''For the noisemap data, can you make a CDF of the N_1 detections vs
    27 1/MAG_PSF_ERR?  If we decide to reduce the false positives by tossing
    28 out objects below some cut, that plot would tell us the S/N hit we
    29 will take to reach a given level of confidence.'''
     18 7. '''For the noisemap data, can you make a CDF of the N_1 detections vs 1/MAG_PSF_ERR?  If we decide to reduce the false positives by tossing out objects below some cut, that plot would tell us the S/N hit we will take to reach a given level of confidence.'''
    3019[[Image(q7.png,400px)]]
    31  1. '''Finally, what are the N_1 vs N_12 numbers only for the region of SDSS
    32 overlap if you exclude < 5sigma and SDSS matches?  That really is our
    33 current bottom-line mean false positive rate (though if the SDSS
    34 overlap avoids a few really bad chips, it could be somewhat under
    35 counted).'''
     20 8. '''Finally, what are the N_1 vs N_12 numbers only for the region of SDSS overlap if you exclude < 5sigma and SDSS matches?  That really is our current bottom-line mean false positive rate (though if the SDSS overlap avoids a few really bad chips, it could be somewhat under counted).'''
    3621[[Image(q8.png,400px)]]
    3722