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

Wavelength limits of throughput and resolution #7

Closed
dkirkby opened this issue Feb 20, 2016 · 7 comments
Closed

Wavelength limits of throughput and resolution #7

dkirkby opened this issue Feb 20, 2016 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@dkirkby
Copy link
Member

dkirkby commented Feb 20, 2016

The files data/specpsf/psf-quicksim.fits and data/throughput/thru-*.fits have different wavelength coverage:

   Type     b(min)   b(max)   r(min)   r(max)   z(min)   z(max) 
           Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom
---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
       PSF 3569.000 5949.000 5625.000 7741.000 7435.000 9834.000
Throughput 3533.000 5997.900 5564.000 7805.000 7360.000 9913.000

Questions:

  • Do the PSF wavelength ranges effectively define the limit of active pixels on the CCD?
  • How should the ~50A regions of non-zero throughput extending beyond the PSF limits be interpreted?
  • Do photons do beyond the PSF limits actually enter the camera, potentially dispersing into an active pixel, or are they masked / collimated somewhere upstream?
  • If dispersion of wavelengths just beyond the PSF limits into the spectrum is possible, how should the dispersion FWHM be extrapolated to model this? I guess a constant extrapolation of the edge FWHM is ok?

This is relevant to getting the edge effects right in specsim (desihub/specsim#17 and desihub/specsim#18).

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member

@dkirkby, I'm assigning this to you so that you can assign it to someone who can actually resolve this.

@sbailey
Copy link
Contributor

sbailey commented Aug 17, 2016

The difference between psf-quicksim and thru*.fits comes from the difference between what wavelengths all fibers see vs. the min/max that any fiber might see. psf-quicksim uses the range for fiber 100 which is a "typical" case in between. Quoting from a June 29, 2014 "Big desimodel update" email:

David K noted that the psf-quicksim.fits file doesn't have as much wavelength coverage as thru-?.fits files, and David S has asked about where to find out the min/max wavelength coverage since it isn't in desi.yaml anymore, so some explanation:

Due to the spectrograph optics, different fibers see a different wavelength ranges. Pat Jelinsky provides PSF spots and xy locations sampled at various wavelengths and slit positions (DESI-0334), but these do not correspond to specific fibers or to the exact edges of the CCDs. In desimodel/bin/spots2psf.py I fit these with Legendre polynomials and interpolate to specific fiber positions and calculate the wavelength coverage and put these in header keywords of the data/specpsf/psf-?.fits files:

WAVEMIN : smallest wavelength seen by any fiber
WAVEMAX : largest wavelength seen by any fiber
WMIN_ALL : smallest wavelength seen by all fibers
WMAX_ALL : largest wavelength seen by all fibers

These are rounded down(min) and up(max) to integer Angstroms. HDU 1 of the data/specpsf/psf-?.fits files contain the Legendre coefficients of the y vs. wavelength fits that can be used to determine the min/max wavelength range of an individual fiber.

bin/combine_throughputs.py combines system throughput (DESI-0347) with spectrograph throughput (DESI-0334) and outputs data/throughput/thru-?.fits, which covers WAVEMIN to WAVEMAX for each spectrograph arm. i.e. it covers the throughput range for all fibers, but any individual fiber will see a smaller wavelength range than that.

bin/psf2quicksim.py extracts PSF parameters needed for quicksim (FWHM, Neff) using fiber 100 as a "not the best but not the worst" case. It uses the ranges WMIN_ALL to WMAX_ALL, i.e. all fibers would see this wavelength range. quicksim should treat this as the wavelength range seen by the spectrograph arms, even though individual fibers will see slightly more. I think that is a better choice than tying quicksim to a specific fiber wavelength range.

i.e. the throughput files cover what might happen for some fiber, while the psf-quicksim file covers a typical range that should be used for the quick simulations, even though some fibers will see higher/lower wavelengths.

This has come up multiple times so better documentation could be in order, but I don't think it requires any code or data file changes.

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member

OK, so where exactly should the documentation go? In the data model for desimodel perhaps? Or in desimodel's own documentation?

@dkirkby
Copy link
Member Author

dkirkby commented Aug 18, 2016

There is some explanation now in the DESI config file used by specsim:

# Specify the wavelength grid to use for simulation. For comparison, the
# table below summarizes the ranges of non-zero throughput in each camera,
# wavelengths that can disperse into CCDs (with a 5-sigma cut), and the
# extents of each CCD's active pixels covered by all fibers (as defined by
# cameras.*.ccd.table below). Note that individual fibers will generally have
# slightly more coverage, so we are simulating the worst-case coverage of
# all fibers.
#
#   Range     b(min)   b(max)   r(min)   r(max)   z(min)   z(max)
#            Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom Angstrom
# ---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
# Throughput 3533.000 5998.000 5564.000 7805.000 7360.000 9913.000
# Simulation 3550.000 ................................... 9850.000
#   Response 3565.400 5952.600 5621.700 7744.300 7431.000 9838.000
#        CCD 3569.000 5949.000 5625.000 7741.000 7435.000 9834.000
wavelength_grid:
    unit: Angstrom
    min: 3550.0
    max: 9850.0
    step: 0.1

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member

If this documentation is sufficient, I propose we close this.

@dkirkby
Copy link
Member Author

dkirkby commented Aug 22, 2016

Ok with me.

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member

Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants