Changes between Version 76 and Version 77 of ppStack_testing_201111

Timestamp:

Mar 19, 2012, 3:14:07 PM (14 years ago)

Author:

Mark Huber

Comment:

--

ppStack_testing_201111

@@ -85 +85 @@
   * the stamp.dat output condition case is trouble, if no sources in a stamp will segfault -- set to 0 again.. -- wait
 
+ * recipes/ppSub.config
+  * set SYS.ERR in the STACK metedata -- '''ALL''' stacks will use this then -- fix +trunk +ipp-20120216 tag (3/16 UT)
+
+
 
 All testing currently being dumped into /data/ipp059.0/mhuber/testppstack_deep201111/ which has reached >3TB and will need to probably clean up some soon.
@@ -310 +314 @@
 
 
-A sys error on the real image may still be useful as a tuning parameter, but found to still degrade the ability to achieve a good convolution with 0.1 
- * sim 100 inputs, target~5.7, conv output ~7.8
- * selected stamps no significant different to if sys.err=0 -- better to test on MD04 sample however, need hardcopy plot of stamps chi2 vs flux ('''TODO''')
-
-
-To setup stack to use SYS.ERR=0, set SYS.ERR in the STACK metedata in recipes/ppSub.config
-
-
-How does SYS.ERR=0 affect the image rejection list - seems to reject some of the worse seeing images, which are what is used to set the TARGET to begin with. next test improvement..
-May have slightly greater sensitivity for rejecting input images on the worse quality ('''QUANTIFY''').
- * could also just keep SYS.ERR applied to real image --
-
-
-Need to run larger FPA skycell sample, multiple filters of 100 - 400 to test stability
+A sys error on the real image may still be useful as a tuning parameter -- sim set of 100
+ *  target~5.7, conv output ~5.6 so no growth
+ * selected stamps not significantly different to if sys.err=0 -- better to test on MD04 sample however, need hardcopy plot of stamps chi2 vs flux ('''TODO''')
+
+How does SYS.ERR=0 affect the image rejection list - seems to reject some of the worse seeing images, which are what is used to set the TARGET to begin with. ('''TODO''') 
+ * May have slightly greater sensitivity for rejecting input images on the worse quality ('''QUANTIFY''').
+ * Could also just keep SYS.ERR applied to real image (see above) but may be a different rejection list since before was driven by huge simulated target flux..
+
+Suspect SYS.ERR is also an issue (minor) with the single convolution diffims as well, so add back to test [wiki:ppSub_testing_201201]. Leads into larger development need of splitting/carrying the variances through and not dumping into a weight variable so early (see above).
+
+
+
+Need to run larger FPA skycell sample, grizy filters of 100 - 400 to test stability
 {{{
+--> skycell.055 near center
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s055g/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 10.172999                    
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s055i/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 7.128121                     
@@ -330 +334 @@
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s055y/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 8.210619                     
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s055z/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 8.907239                     
-
+--> convolved stack PSFs
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s055g/mem400.log:        fwhm (psf): 10.278124,10.079561 (moments): 0.000000,0.000000
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s055i/mem400.log:        fwhm (psf): 9.777281,9.695623 (moments): 0.000000,0.000000
@@ -337 +341 @@
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s055z/mem400.log:        fwhm (psf): 9.877050,9.810744 (moments): 0.000000,0.000000
 
-
+--> skycell.058 closer to edge
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s058g/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 8.574877                     
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s058i/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 8.097901                     
@@ -343 +347 @@
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s058y/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 8.535203                     
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s058z/mem400.log:      Target seeing FWHM: 8.813280                     
-
+--> convolved stack PSFs
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s058g/mem400.log:        fwhm (psf): 8.743460,8.612661 (moments): 0.000000,0.000000
 mem400_stack_test.fixtest_s058i/mem400.log:        fwhm (psf): 9.086349,9.011602 (moments): 0.000000,0.000000
@@ -351 +355 @@
 }}}
 
-How is the Target seeing FWHM selected to be >7.5 when limited to that on the input images. Are input images not being rejected?  
-Split up 400 set into subgroups and ran, looks like is not using the rejected but is growing itself in converting to the PSF.MODEL PS_MODEL_PS1_V1?
-
-
-
-Suspect SYS.ERR is also an issue (minor) with the single convolution diffims as well, so add back to test [wiki:ppSub_testing_201201].
-
-Leads into larger development need of splitting/carrying the variances through and not dumping into a weight variable so early.
+How is the Target seeing FWHM selected to be >7.5 when limited to that on the input images. Are input images not being rejected?  Somewhat part of next section on Target PSF, but need to trace out here. Split up 400 set into subgroups and ran, looks like is not using the rejected but is growing itself in converting to the PSF.MODEL PS_MODEL_PS1_V1?
+
+
 
 
@@ -411 +410 @@
 
 
-