AIROPA IV: Validating point spread function reconstruction on various science cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an analysis of six independent on-sky datasets taken with the Keck-II/NIRC2 instrument. Using the off-axis point spread function (PSF) reconstruction software AIROPA, we extract stellar astrometry, photometry, and other fitting metrics to characterize the performance of this package. We test the effectiveness of AIROPA to reconstruct the PSF across the field of view in varying atmospheric conditions, number and location of PSF reference stars, stellar crowding, and telescope position angle (PA). We compare the astrometric precision and fitting residuals between a static PSF model and a spatially varying PSF model that incorporates instrumental aberrations and atmospheric turbulence during exposures. Most of the fitting residuals we measure show little to no improvement in the variable-PSF mode over the single-PSF mode. For one of the data sets, we find photometric performance is significantly improved (by ∼10 × ) by measuring the trend seen in photometry as a function of off-axis location. For nearly all other metrics we find comparable astrometric and photometric precision across both PSF modes, with a ∼13 % smaller astrometric uncertainty in variable-PSF mode in the best case. We largely confirm that the spatially variable PSF does not significantly improve the astrometric and other PSF fitting residuals over the static PSF for on-sky observations. We attribute this to unaccounted instrumental aberrations that are not characterized through afternoon adaptive optics (AO) bench calibrations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".