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

update selfcal #430

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 4, 2024
Merged

update selfcal #430

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 4, 2024

Conversation

yoachim
Copy link
Member

@yoachim yoachim commented Oct 31, 2024

Update run_selfcal_metric for note to scheduler_note schema update.
General updates to selfcal so filter is set properly.

@@ -61,7 +72,7 @@ def run_selfcal_metric():

# Make plots of the residuals map
map_bundle = MetricBundle(
IdentityMetric(metric_name="PhotoCal Uniformity"),
IdentityMetric(metric_name="PhotoCal Uniformity, %s" % args.filter),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just to make things print nicer in the end, can you drop the ","?
I admit this is just a matter of personal taste but "Photocal Uniformity r <>" (and presumably maybe other bands ..) just reads a bit easier than "Photocal Uniformity, r <>" ...
I guess I don't care a ton but none of the other summary metrics use ","

sql += " and filter='%s'" % args.filter
# Exclude strange exposure times
sql += " and visitExposureTime > 20"
sql += " and visitExposureTime < 40"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we actually need to drop these? It's true it makes things neater, but I would have thought including these exposures wouldn't make the self-calibration worse, and these visits ought to be calibrated as well ..
I'd also wonder about including the DDF visits, tbh, but I think they were excluded just for calculation speed perhaps.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was just being extra conservative, but they should be able to be used. That will let in the twilight observations, but I think you're right that they will be weighted properly.


def run(self, data_slice, slice_point=None):
filter_name = data_slice["filter"][0]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, that's interesting and I think I hadn't noticed. I don't think Eli had specified the constraint on the data either ...
So, ha. Definitely should recheck the more downtime / less downtime outputs.
I also wonder how well the metric tracks against the actual photometric calculation that Eli was expecting to do given that FGCM works across all filters (I think).

@yoachim yoachim merged commit 5e4b06c into main Nov 4, 2024
6 of 7 checks passed
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.

2 participants