Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-11456

Write math for new photometry model in jointcal.tex

    Details

      Description

      I need to explicitly write down the photometric model that I'm going to implement for DM-9195. It should go in a new section of the jointcal.tex document, which might eventually be converted into a DMTN or actual paper.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Parejkoj John Parejko created issue -
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Field Original Value New Value
            Epic Link DM-9184 [ 29766 ]
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Link This issue blocks DM-9195 [ DM-9195 ]
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Need to write the math before I start in on the code.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Need to write the math before I start in on the code.
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Status To Do [ 10001 ] In Progress [ 3 ]
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Eric Bellm: can you please read through and comment on sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7? You can read other parts of the document if you like, but those are the sections that I have made the most changes to, in comparison with Pierre Astier's original text. In particular, I'd like to know if my mathematics is clear and self-consistent, and if my derivation is relatively clear. You should be able to build it by running pdflatex jointcal.tex twice (to get all references). Let me know if compiling it gives you trouble.

            Pierre Astier: I've significantly re-worked the derivations and redefined some of the notation, in order to ensure we weren't overloading any letters. Any comments or suggestions you have about the above sections would be welcome, particularly if I mis-interpreted any of the notation or text.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Eric Bellm : can you please read through and comment on sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7? You can read other parts of the document if you like, but those are the sections that I have made the most changes to, in comparison with Pierre Astier 's original text. In particular, I'd like to know if my mathematics is clear and self-consistent, and if my derivation is relatively clear. You should be able to build it by running pdflatex jointcal.tex twice (to get all references). Let me know if compiling it gives you trouble. Pierre Astier : I've significantly re-worked the derivations and redefined some of the notation, in order to ensure we weren't overloading any letters. Any comments or suggestions you have about the above sections would be welcome, particularly if I mis-interpreted any of the notation or text.
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Reviewers Eric Bellm, Pierre Astier [ ebellm, astier ]
            Status In Progress [ 3 ] In Review [ 10004 ]
            Hide
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

            comments on the PR, mostly small wording suggestions.

            Show
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - comments on the PR, mostly small wording suggestions.
            ebellm Eric Bellm made changes -
            Status In Review [ 10004 ] In Progress [ 3 ]
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            I've responded to your comments, Eric.

            I'm particularly wondering what you thought about Figure 1, and the notation used in Section 3.3 (Minimization approach) and 3.4 (Photometry example).

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - I've responded to your comments, Eric. I'm particularly wondering what you thought about Figure 1, and the notation used in Section 3.3 (Minimization approach) and 3.4 (Photometry example).
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Status In Progress [ 3 ] In Review [ 10004 ]
            Hide
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

            My only confusion is what the gamma_k subscript is in Figure 1.

            While I won't say the notation used is intuitive, I didn't find it hindered my understanding, and I don't have obvious suggestions for improvement.

            Show
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - My only confusion is what the gamma_k subscript is in Figure 1. While I won't say the notation used is intuitive, I didn't find it hindered my understanding, and I don't have obvious suggestions for improvement.
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Thanks. I was torn about that k subscript; I had put it there to show that there were a bunch of different \gamma s, but it may not be necessary. Is it clear enough if I just have \gamma=(1,1) and \gamma=(m,n) at the top of the figure?

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Thanks. I was torn about that k subscript; I had put it there to show that there were a bunch of different \gamma s, but it may not be necessary. Is it clear enough if I just have \gamma=(1,1) and \gamma=(m,n) at the top of the figure?
            Hide
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

            I think so--since you don't use the subscript notation for \gamma elsewhere.

            Show
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - I think so--since you don't use the subscript notation for \gamma elsewhere.
            ebellm Eric Bellm made changes -
            Status In Review [ 10004 ] Reviewed [ 10101 ]
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Link This issue is triggering DM-11790 [ DM-11790 ]
            swinbank John Swinbank made changes -
            Sprint Alert Production F17 - 8 [ 632 ] Alert Production F17 - 8, Alert Production F17 - 9 [ 632, 639 ]
            swinbank John Swinbank made changes -
            Rank Ranked higher
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Ok, I've removed it, and I think it's ok without that extra k. Thank you for your review feedback!

            I also incorporated some feedback from Pierre Astier: thank you as well!

            Merged and done. I've filed DM-11790 to convert this into a DMTN. I'll pull it out of the jointcal repo when I do so.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Ok, I've removed it, and I think it's ok without that extra k . Thank you for your review feedback! I also incorporated some feedback from Pierre Astier : thank you as well! Merged and done. I've filed DM-11790 to convert this into a DMTN. I'll pull it out of the jointcal repo when I do so.
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Resolution Done [ 10000 ]
            Status Reviewed [ 10101 ] Done [ 10002 ]

              People

              • Assignee:
                Parejkoj John Parejko
                Reporter:
                Parejkoj John Parejko
                Reviewers:
                Eric Bellm, Pierre Astier
                Watchers:
                Dominique Boutigny, Eric Bellm, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Pierre Astier, Simon Krughoff
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                6 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel