Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Comparison with CTA-MARS: Image cleaning & parametrization #37

Closed
4 tasks done
HealthyPear opened this issue Dec 17, 2019 · 0 comments
Closed
4 tasks done

Comparison with CTA-MARS: Image cleaning & parametrization #37

HealthyPear opened this issue Dec 17, 2019 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request summary A summary of issues related to the same subject

Comments

@HealthyPear
Copy link
Member

HealthyPear commented Dec 17, 2019

This issue is part of a project described in issue #24

The following is a "real-time" list of points that are found to be differences between the pipelines using the comparison.
Not all features are critical to recover the missing performance, but all should be implemented (as more similar as possible) in order to allow their optional use when comparing different algorithms.


  • Cleaning thresholds (OPTION)

These quantities depend on the calibration process (see issue #31) and in principle could be defined via benchmarking.
Currently we define them by requiring the rejection of 99.7% of the noise (which in the case of the pure MonteCarlo simulation means pixels where the true number of photoelectrons is 0).
Preliminary testing without double-pass image extraction (see below) shows that such thresholds are ~(8,4) for core and boundary pixels respectively for both LSTCam and NectarCam.
These values should decrease as we approach the method implemented in CTA-MARS.


  • miss parameter and its use in direction reconstruction (TESTING - done in the benchmarks but should be moved to code)

This is more relevant for direction reconstruction, but it is done using output of this data-level.
Description is here.
In protopipe, this requires the output of parameters that are currently missing from the generated DL1 files (the coordinates of the Center of Gravity of the parametrized image - see ISSUE #40 ).


  • Double-pass image extraction

SEE ISSUE #31 FOR LATEST NEWS


Even if in the end we will most likely use the leakage parameter to assess if an image is clipped, this is still relevant for image parametrization.
In CTA-MARS the conversion between distances and degrees in each camera is done via a linear factor. Such quantity depends on the geometry of the dish containing the mirrors and takes into account optical aberrations.
This is explained in more detail in the second point of this section of the wiki

@HealthyPear HealthyPear added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 17, 2019
@HealthyPear HealthyPear added this to the Release 0.3 milestone Dec 17, 2019
@HealthyPear HealthyPear moved this from In progress to To do in Pipeline features and enhancements Jan 31, 2020
@HealthyPear HealthyPear moved this from To do to Summary issues in Pipeline features and enhancements Feb 12, 2020
@HealthyPear HealthyPear added the summary A summary of issues related to the same subject label Feb 19, 2020
This was referenced Feb 25, 2020
@HealthyPear HealthyPear modified the milestones: v0.4.0, v0.5.0 Feb 16, 2021
@HealthyPear HealthyPear removed this from the v0.5.0 milestone Dec 9, 2021
Pipeline features and enhancements automation moved this from Summary issues to Done Feb 15, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request summary A summary of issues related to the same subject
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant