Details
-
Type:
Epic
-
Status: Done
-
Resolution: Done
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: meas_base
-
Labels:
-
Epic Name:Measurement - Aperture Corrections
-
Story Points:47
-
WBS:02C.03.05
-
Team:Alert Production
-
Cycle:Summer 2015
Description
The current implementation of aperture corrections in meas_algorithms' CorrectFluxes class is broken, and should not be replicated in meas_base:
- it only works when the PSF model is correct
- it doesn't work when the aperture to correct to is larger than the PSF model image size
- it doesn't propagate the uncertainty in the aperture correction
We probably need to do this by estimating the aperture correction and its errors on single frames, using the PSF stars (not the PSF models), then attaching that information to the Psf object to be retrieved and coadded by CoaddPsf.
JK: In PMCS this would be 10% Bosch J 50% Krughoff S and 40% Owen R
Breakdown: jbosch 10%; krughoff 50%; rowen 40%
Attachments
Issue Links
| Key | Summary | Story Points | Assignee | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
5 | Russell Owen | Done | ||
|
|
CalibrateTask instantiates measureApCorr, applyApCorr and photocal subtasks using the wrong schema |
1 | Russell Owen | Done | |
|
|
In CalibrateTask if one disables psf determination then aperture correction will fail |
1 | Russell Owen | Done | |
|
|
6 | Russell Owen | Done | ||
|
|
Improve name and default value of MeasureApCorrConfig.refFluxAlg |
1 | Russell Owen | Done | |
|
|
4 | Russell Owen | Done | ||
|
|
7 | Russell Owen | Done | ||
|
|
add aperture-correction measurement code to the end of calibrate |
8 | Russell Owen | Done | |
|
|
1 | Russell Owen | Done | ||
|
|
3 | Russell Owen | Done | ||
|
|
2 | Russell Owen | Done | ||
|
|
CalibrateTask instantiates some subtasks with the wrong schema |
1 | Russell Owen | Invalid | |
|
|
3 | Russell Owen | Invalid |
Activity
Story points estimate assumes we'll do the initial work on the HSC side on DM-119, and this ticket only involves adapting that implementation to meas_base.
According to the W15 work schedule, Princeton is on the hook for this, not UW. Any reason why this epic lists its team as "UW"?
It was just rebalancing and looking at the skills needed for various tasks. We thought it more likely that UW would have the extra effort to do this, while Princeton would not. LDM-240 assignments of work between institutions are not set in some, especially between Princeton and UW. We'd like both institutions to function more like one team, which is why we share an agile board.
This is closeout of Summer 2015. There was some technical debt left over which has been rescheduled in DM-3545.
I'll be doing a prototype reimplementation on the HSC side on DM-119; that will be cleaned up and moved to the new measurement framework on this ticket.