Details
-
Type:
Story
-
Status: Done
-
Resolution: Done
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
-
Story Points:8
-
Epic Link:
-
Team:Data Release Production
-
Urgent?:No
Description
Clare Saunders, assigning to you first, since you did the analysis on DM-23483.
I just closed DM-23483, since we added forcedPhotDiffim to the Gen3-only pipeline on DM-29703.
There will be `forced_diffim` and `forced_src` files for the w_2020_16 DC2 rerun that Dan Taranu is working on and the w_2020_18 RC2 rerun that Monika is going to rerun.
Looking back at our gen2 version, I see that we named the lightcurves measured on diffims as `forced_diaSrc`. That was probably a better name.
Attachments
Activity
A version of the same notebook with the 5-year DC2 results is here: https://github.com/cmsaunders/dm_notebooks/blob/main/StarLightcurves_2022_5yr.ipynb
I posted a notebook looking at forced photometry lightcurves in calexps and difference images using DC2 here: https://github.com/cmsaunders/dm_notebooks/blob/main/StarLightcurves_2022.ipynb.
As was seen back in the February 2020 sprint, there seems to be a bias between the average calexp flux and the flux for the same object in the coadd (see the plots under the header 'How does the average of the fluxes/magnitudes for an object compare with the coadd flux/magnitude in calexps and diffims?'). However, the lightcurves of the sources in the calexps and difference images both look quite good and seem to scatter around chi2/dof=1, where the model is assumed to be a constant flux (a flux of zero for the difference images).
A few objects with a high scatter in their magnitudes are looked at more closely under the header 'What do the objects with large scatter in their magnitudes look like?'. Some are just extended objects, but others look like weird optical distortions. I don't know if this is a known issue.