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
evaluate b5 readnoise impact #1559
Projects
Comments
|
A proposal is
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Evaluate the impact of b5 amp B readnoise in May 2021 data to decide what should be done for Fuji.
PSF
In the f4 production, b5 PSFs failed for every exposure on nights 20210507, 20210508, and 20210509, and 4/5 exposures on 20210510. Although PR #1543 updated the OSTEP calculation so that the entire CCD isn't masked, b5 amp B is running just under the 10 e- masking threshold such that many rows get flagged as BADREADNOISE and so much data is masked that PSFs fail.
Is it really so bad that we need to flag these exposures as bad? If so, are the default PSFs in desi_spectro_calib good enough or do we need a different fall back? Or do we need an update to PSF fitting, e.g. to ignore the BADREADNOISE mask bit?
Flats
Test production /global/cfs/cdirs/desi/users/sjbailey/spectro/redux/b5readnoise night 20210509 exposure 87782 is an example flat. Many rows of b5B are flagged as bad, but this wasn't fatal for the flats. Evaulate whether they are actually ok.
Science
Also in the sjbailey b5readnoise test prod, night 20210509 exposure 87817 is a science exposure. The fibers/wavelengths covering b5B are clearly readnoise dominated instead of sky/object shotnoise dominated, leading to a different ivar structure (stripes by CCD row instead of stripes in wavelength), but it isn't obviously catastrophically wrong (vs. just noisier).
In general
The readnoise is really bad on those nights, ~10 e-, but the pipeline basically models and propagates that and it should be reflected in ivar, TSNR2, redshifts, etc. Currently >10 e- triggers the CCD pixel-level BADREADNOISE mask. This is not one of the bits in desispec.maskbits.extractmaskval so it doesn't force ivar=0 for the extractions, but it looks like that might be happening for PSFs. I think the extraction behavior is correct: treat BADREADNOISE as informative, but still use the pixels with whatever ivar they have.
@julienguy can you evaluate this, especially for the failing PSFs?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: