MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950495630 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf64e

Characterizing and Improving the Data Reduction Pipeline for the Keck OSIRIS Integral Field Spectrograph

2019· article· en· W2950495630 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrographData reductionIntegral field spectrographObservatoryPipeline (software)Reduction (mathematics)CalibrationSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract OSIRIS is a near-infrared (1.0–2.4 μ m) integral field spectrograph operating behind the adaptive optics system at Keck Observatory and one of the first lenslet-based integral field spectrographs. Since its commissioning in 2005, it has been a productive instrument, producing nearly half the laser guide star adaptive optics papers on Keck. The complexity of its raw data format necessitated a custom data reduction pipeline (DRP) delivered with the instrument in order to iteratively assign flux in overlapping spectra to the proper spatial and spectral locations in a data cube. Other than bug fixes and updates required for hardware upgrades, the bulk of the DRP has not been updated since initial instrument commissioning. We report on the first major comprehensive characterization of the DRP using on-sky and calibration data. We also detail improvements to the DRP, including characterization of the flux assignment algorithm, exploration of spatial rippling in the reduced data cubes, and improvements to several calibration files, including the rectification matrix, bad-pixel mask, and wavelength solution. We present lessons learned from over a decade of OSIRIS data reduction that are relevant to the next generation of integral field spectrograph hardware and data reduction software design.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207