Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-16301

Integrate DESC's checkCcdAstrometry into ProcessCcd itself

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • Data Release Production

    Description

      boutigny et al wrote a script to identify silent catastrophic astrometry outliers for their DC2 processing:

      https://github.com/LSSTDESC/ImageProcessingPipelines/blob/master/python/util/checkCcdAstrometry.py

      It just re-matches to the reference catalog with no offset, applies some very simple cuts, and tests the astrometric scatter against a configurable threshold.  We should include this logic in AstrometryTask itself.

      This will probably break HSC RC processing (but in a good way).

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            There is no final check on the final max scatter currently. The matcher works adaptability from the data to set an initial guess on what is safe to set on max scatter. There is not current default for what you are talking about, that is a post scatter test. That is part of what this ticket was adding. The fitter I believe does have a max scatter value for saying the fit failed. That is what the iteration failure in the data above is caused by.

            cmorrison Chris Morrison [X] (Inactive) added a comment - - edited There is no final check on the final max scatter currently. The matcher works adaptability from the data to set an initial guess on what is safe to set on max scatter. There is not current default for what you are talking about, that is a post scatter test. That is part of what this ticket was adding. The fitter I believe does have a max scatter value for saying the fit failed. That is what the iteration failure in the data above is caused by.

            lskelvin is their reason for saying it's "incorrect" because the rematch number doesn't match the result from the match-fit loop?

            cmorrison Chris Morrison [X] (Inactive) added a comment - lskelvin is their reason for saying it's "incorrect" because the rematch number doesn't match the result from the match-fit loop?
            lskelvin Lee Kelvin added a comment -

            cmorrison, as far as I understand at least, that's the original motivation behind the ticket as reported to DM by Dominique and others in DESC. Sadly however, no specific data IDs were mentioned at the time which exhibit this effect.

            lskelvin Lee Kelvin added a comment - cmorrison , as far as I understand at least, that's the original motivation behind the ticket as reported to DM by Dominique and others in DESC. Sadly however, no specific data IDs were mentioned at the time which exhibit this effect.
            lskelvin Lee Kelvin added a comment -

            Pinging jbosch as the original reporter of this ticket; now that DM-32129 has been implemented, is it okay for me to mark this ticket as Won't Fix?

            lskelvin Lee Kelvin added a comment - Pinging jbosch as the original reporter of this ticket; now that DM-32129 has been implemented, is it okay for me to mark this ticket as Won't Fix ?
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment -

            Yup, just Won't Fixing it now since I'm commenting anyway. Also added DM-32129 as a link.

            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment - Yup, just Won't Fixing it now since I'm commenting anyway. Also added DM-32129 as a link.

            People

              Unassigned Unassigned
              jbosch Jim Bosch
              Chris Morrison [X] (Inactive)
              Chris Morrison [X] (Inactive), Chris Walter, Jim Bosch, John Parejko, Lee Kelvin, Merlin Fisher-Levine, Yusra AlSayyad
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              7 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Jenkins

                  No builds found.