Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-7266

Document that some DIAsources will be dropped

    Details

    • Team:
      DM Science

      Description

      Because of sizing considerations, I believe we will need to drop some DIA sources on the floor. These will be DIAsources we are very certain are artifacts in the image: e.g. glints, airplanes. I do not believe this is written down anywhere. This issue is to document this someplace. Perhaps it should go in the DPDD.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            In my current DPDD draft I have changed DPDD to be consistent with SRD on the 10,000 per visit. I do agree that there is some confusion as to whether the 10,000 is our cap of all alerts, or if it's the number of real alerts and we are going to get a bunch of bogus ones on top.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - In my current DPDD draft I have changed DPDD to be consistent with SRD on the 10,000 per visit. I do agree that there is some confusion as to whether the 10,000 is our cap of all alerts, or if it's the number of real alerts and we are going to get a bunch of bogus ones on top.
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            I believe I have made the required changes in DPDD but it seems like this ticket also wants to make changes to LDM-151 and OSS.

            Should I file a new ticket (probably LIT one) for the OSS change and assign to Zeljko Ivezic? Should I file an LDM-151 ticket to cover that and assign to Mario Juric?

            Should I close this ticket or am I leaving it open and reassigning to Mario Juric?

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - I believe I have made the required changes in DPDD but it seems like this ticket also wants to make changes to LDM-151 and OSS. Should I file a new ticket (probably LIT one) for the OSS change and assign to Zeljko Ivezic ? Should I file an LDM-151 ticket to cover that and assign to Mario Juric ? Should I close this ticket or am I leaving it open and reassigning to Mario Juric ?
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Andrew Connolly were there any changes you wanted to be made to OSS or were you explaining the interpretation of the relevant OSS requirements, without implying that changes were needed?

            Mario Juric I think there is an implication that LDM-151 needs to be edited in response to this ticket. I am leaving the ticket open and assigned to you. If you prefer, I can create a new ticket focused on LDM-151.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Andrew Connolly were there any changes you wanted to be made to OSS or were you explaining the interpretation of the relevant OSS requirements, without implying that changes were needed? Mario Juric I think there is an implication that LDM-151 needs to be edited in response to this ticket. I am leaving the ticket open and assigned to you. If you prefer, I can create a new ticket focused on LDM-151.
            Hide
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment -

            I updated LDM-151 draft to use the 10M/night number for the number of expected alerts (used to be 2M), as well as changed the wording of the 10k number (https://github.com/lsst/LDM-151/commit/8950d85aaa64e68b284795155e15526fd9ef2b92) and the 50% false positives (https://github.com/lsst/LDM-151/commit/5f26caf48559efcb2a71cb6ac6d9153ed7aa4fb8). With the changes Tim Jenness made to the DPDD, I'd consider this ticket closed.

            There's a broader (and serious) issue of defining the policy as to how we handle fields with >10,000 real alerts (or, more accurately, fields where processing time exceeded the maximum per-string runtime needed to maintain throughput). Eric Bellm has this issue on his radar. This will also comprehensively deal with any residual ambiguities related to this ticket.

            Show
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment - I updated LDM-151 draft to use the 10M/night number for the number of expected alerts (used to be 2M), as well as changed the wording of the 10k number ( https://github.com/lsst/LDM-151/commit/8950d85aaa64e68b284795155e15526fd9ef2b92 ) and the 50% false positives ( https://github.com/lsst/LDM-151/commit/5f26caf48559efcb2a71cb6ac6d9153ed7aa4fb8 ). With the changes Tim Jenness made to the DPDD, I'd consider this ticket closed. There's a broader (and serious) issue of defining the policy as to how we handle fields with >10,000 real alerts (or, more accurately, fields where processing time exceeded the maximum per-string runtime needed to maintain throughput). Eric Bellm has this issue on his radar. This will also comprehensively deal with any residual ambiguities related to this ticket.
            Hide
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

            The issue of how to handle fields with > 10K real alerts has triggered a separate ticketĀ DM-15654

            Show
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - The issue of how to handle fields with > 10K real alerts has triggered a separate ticketĀ  DM-15654

              People

              • Assignee:
                mjuric Mario Juric
                Reporter:
                krughoff Simon Krughoff
                Watchers:
                Andrew Connolly, Colin Slater, Eric Bellm, Leanne Guy, Maria Patterson [X] (Inactive), Mario Juric, Michael Wood-Vasey, Simon Krughoff, Tim Jenness, Zeljko Ivezic
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                10 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel