Hacktoberfest 2026：メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

Tentative: PSFEx models ~0.4% larger than stars on P3 tiles (worth exploring)

オープン
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#956 コメント 2 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
18/100
issue の種類
バグ
明瞭さ
説明が足りない
活発さ
活発
技術スタック
python
領域
data

調査の方向性

The payload points at the PSFEx model evaluation and the star catalogue full_starcat_smk-p3a.hdf5 for tiles 242.293, 243.293, 242.294 and 243.294; the open question is whether the PSF size residual of about -0.4% holds beyond these four tiles. Start by checking how positions are passed to PSFEx (the 0-based versus 1-based pixel frame) and by re-measuring with the PSFEx-fit stars held out. Done means a reproduced residual with a stated cause, or a documented null result, and this needs the PSF modelling maintainers.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

Tentative, and worth exploring. This is a first look on a small area, not a systematic study.

Summary

On four P3 tiles, the PSFEx models used by ShapePipe (smk-p3a products on nibi) appear to be slightly larger than the stars: the PSF size residual is δT/T ≈ −0.4% (star minus model), and ShapePipe's own star catalogue for the same exposures gives −0.58%. If this holds more widely, a PSF size error of this order biases the multiplicative shear calibration of any shape method by roughly m ~ (T_psf/T_gal)·δT/T, i.e. a few × 10⁻³ for typical UNIONS galaxies, which is above the ~0.1–0.2% PSF-size accuracy usually needed for |m| ≲ 2 × 10⁻³.

What was measured

  • Data: tiles 242.293, 243.293, 242.294, 243.294 (17 exposures, ~1 deg²), with the persisted PSFEx models (PSF_SAMP = 1, degree 2, median 44 accepted stars per CCD) evaluated at each star's CCD position and normalised to unit sum.
  • Stars: 1,615 Gaia DR3 sources (18 ≤ G ≤ 20.5, 5/6-parameter solutions, RUWE < 1.4), at Gaia positions with proper motion applied; core sample with no masked pixel within 8 px and raw peak below 50,000 ADU.
  • Method: HSM adaptive moments of each star stamp vs the model shifted (in Fourier space) to the star's sub-pixel centre, both in the CCD pixel frame.
G star epochs δT/T (robust mean, |δT/T| < 0.1) median
18–19 1,419 −0.34 ± 0.04% −0.32%
19–20 2,036 −0.43 ± 0.09% −0.48%
20–20.5 1,294 −0.43 ± 0.11% −0.45%
  • full_starcat_smk-p3a.hdf5 (the same 17 exposures, 7,835 stars, HSM star vs PSF) independently gives −0.58 ± 0.03%.
  • The plain (non-robust) mean over all stars is +0.13 ± 0.08%, pulled by ~1.5% outliers (binaries, neighbours), so the sign depends on outlier handling; the robust statistics and the ShapePipe star catalogue agree on a negative residual.
  • Per-exposure means span −0.50% to +0.95% (rms 0.33%), and the per-star rms is ~3% at G 18–19, above the measurement noise, which suggests spatial residuals that a degree-2 polynomial on ~44 stars per CCD may not follow.
  • An independent check points the same way: with a moments-based shape estimator, the shear response measured on the Gaia stars is slightly negative (R ≈ −0.003, about −1% of the galaxy response), as expected when the PSF model is larger than the true PSF. The stars' mean ellipticity is zero to 2 × 10⁻⁴, so this does not look like a WCS offset.

Candidate causes (none tested)

  • PSFEx's own resampling or interpolation of the star vignets;
  • the star selection used for the PSFEx fit (possibly related to #316 and #919);
  • a smaller observation, unverified: PSFEx defines its position polynomial in 1-based pixel coordinates, and ShapePipe appears to pass 0-based positions (a 1-px offset in where the model is evaluated). This is probably negligible for a degree-2 polynomial, but it may be worth checking.

Caveats

1 deg² only, a single star-selection choice, and HSM moments as the size measure. A check over more tiles, and with the stars actually used in the PSFEx fit held out, would show whether this is real and survey-wide.

The measurement code and the full write-up are in a separate project (genshear) and can be shared on request.

—
Posted by Claude (AI assistant, Anthropic) on behalf of Calum Murray (@calumhrmurray), who asked for this to be raised.

主要言語
Python
スター
18
フォーク
14
平均マージ
2日 13時間
マージ済み PR（30日）
35

環境構築

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

CosmoStat/shapepipe のほかの issue

CosmoStat/shapepipe の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Python の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。