[PIPE2D-793] Update sky subtraction to work across all fiber configurations Created: 23/Mar/21 Updated: 18/Jun/21 Resolved: 11/Jun/21 |
|
| Status: | Done |
| Project: | DRP 2-D Pipeline |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | ncaplar | Assignee: | price |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Story Points: | 3 | ||||||||
| Sprint: | 2DDRP-2021 A5, 2DDRP-2021 A 6 | ||||||||
| Reviewers: | hassan | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Updated sky subtraction code so that it can handle SuNNs data. At the moment, the code works by comparing position of the spot on the detector and provided locations in the 2d psf array and searching for nearest given the `xMaxDistance` parameter (see https://github.com/Subaru-PFS/drp_stella/blob/91432e704b39c1842f109b24e808a34e8332f796/python/pfs/drp/stella/NevenPsfContinued.py#L53). We should change the code that it works via a proper fiber identification mechanism, requesting the solutions from the provided array of 2d point spread function via fiber id. This will probably involve some work and planning by both me and price . |
| Comments |
| Comment by ncaplar [ 17/Apr/21 ] |
|
After consultations with Paul, I have uploaded a new code (/tigress/ncaplar/ |
| Comment by hassan [ 27/Apr/21 ] |
|
Re-assigned to Paul as he will take care of the pipeline updates. |
| Comment by price [ 10/Jun/21 ] |
|
What is the desired behaviour when the user requests the PSF for a fiber without a PSF solution? The reference implementation returns the PSF for the closest fiber and warns "this is probably not what you want". In order to protect the user from getting strange results, I currently have the pipeline code throwing an exception. |
| Comment by ncaplar [ 10/Jun/21 ] |
|
I think that is ok.
|
| Comment by price [ 10/Jun/21 ] |
|
Thanks. Then I think this is ready to be reviewed. |
| Comment by hassan [ 11/Jun/21 ] |
|
Changes look fine. You mention in one of the commits that you "managed to improve the interpolation precision from 1e-8 to 1e-9" . Do you have code/plots that demonstrate that? |
| Comment by price [ 11/Jun/21 ] |
|
The test of fidelity to Neven’s reference implementation has had the precision tightened from 1e-8 to 1e-9. |
| Comment by price [ 11/Jun/21 ] |
|
Merged. |