Knot a Bad Idea: Testing BLISS Mapping for<i>Spitzer Space Telescope</i>Photometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of transiting exoplanet science relies on high-precision photometry. The current generation of instruments can exhibit sensitivity variations greater than the astrophysical signals. For the InfraRed Array Camera (IRAC) on the Spitzer Space Telescope , a popular way to handle this is BiLinearly-Interpolated Subpixel Sensitivity (BLISS) mapping. As part of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), BLISS mapping estimates the sensitivity at many locations (knots) on the pixel, then interpolates to the target star's centroids. We show that such embedded optimization schemes can misfit or bias parameters. Thus, we construct a model of Spitzer eclipse light curves to test the accuracy and precision of BLISS mapping. We compare standard BLISS mapping to a variant where the knots are fit during the MCMC, as well as to a polynomial model. Both types of BLISS mapping give similar eclipse depths, and we find that standard knots behave like real parameters. Standard BLISS mapping is therefore a reasonable shortcut to fitting for knots in an MCMC. BLISS maps become inaccurate when the photon noise is low, but typically approximate the real sensitivity well. We also find there is no perfect method for choosing the ideal number of BLISS knots to use on given data. BLISS mapping gives fits that are usually more accurate than precise (i.e., they are overly conservative), and the routine is more precise than polynomial models for significant eclipses or pixels with more varied sensitivities. BLISS mapping has better predictive power for most of these particular synthetic data, depending on how one treats time-correlated residuals. Overall, we conclude that BLISS mapping can be a reasonable sensitivity model for IRAC photometry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".