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

New main survey minimum exposure efftime_etc #1731

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Mar 12, 2022
Merged

Conversation

akremin
Copy link
Member

@akremin akremin commented Mar 11, 2022

This addresses email thread [desi-survey 3581] initiated by David Schlegel, where he advocated for more stringent efftime_etc cuts on the data.

The code changes are minimal. We move from a cut at 5% of goaltime to fixed cuts of:

  • dark: efftime_etc < 100s
  • bright: efftime_etc < 20s
  • backup: efftime_etc < 0.5s,

where the exposure is not flux calibrated or fit for redshifts if it fails the relevant criterion.

Below I include plots David provided for bright and dark time respectively showing all main survey exposures currently marked as good, and highlighting those that would now be cut in red:

image

image

The plots are in efftime_spec, but he verified that the cuts do not change with efftime_etc. The red points will be manually rejected to make past data consistent with future data.

@akremin
Copy link
Member Author

akremin commented Mar 11, 2022

I also improved some of the logging and comments to make things more readable by reducing the decimal precision of floats being printed. That unfortunately makes the relevant changes less obvious, but I felt the updated logging was useful while I was editing this function.

I tested this on two nights with exposures known to fail the new cuts: 20211114 and 20220120. Those exposures were all flagged under the new version of the code as being exposures that shouldn't be flux calibrated.

@sbailey sbailey merged commit 19b8b9c into master Mar 12, 2022
@sbailey sbailey deleted the new_min_efftimes branch March 12, 2022 01:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants