MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Photometry of supernovae in an image series: methods and application to the SuperNova Legacy Survey (SNLS)

2013· article· en· W6884516466 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesCanadian Space AgencyInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsPhotometry (optics)BrightnessSkySupernovaStarsSky brightnessPoint spread function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims. We present a technique to measure lightcurves of time-variable point sources on a spatially structured background from imaging data. The technique was developed to measure lightcurves of SNLS supernovae in order to infer their distances. This photometry technique performs simultaneous point spread function (PSF) photometry at the same sky position on an image series. Methods. We describe two implementations of the method: one that resamples images before measuring fluxes, and one which does not. In both instances, we sketch the key algorithms involved and present the validation using semi-artificial sources introduced in real images in order to assess the accuracy of the supernova flux measurements relative to that of surrounding stars. We describe the methods required to anchor these PSF fluxes to calibrated aperture catalogs, in order to derive SN magnitudes. Results. We find a marginally significant bias of 2 mmag of the after-resampling method, and no bias at the mmag accuracy for the non-resampling method. Given surrounding star magnitudes, we determine the systematic uncertainty of SN magnitudes to be less than 1.5 mmag, which represents about one third of the current photometric calibration uncertainty affecting SN measurements. The SN photometry delivers several by-products: bright star PSF flux measurements which have a repeatability of about 0.6%, as for aperture measurements; we measure relative astrometric positions with a noise floor of 2.4 mas for a single-image bright star measurement; we show that in all bands of the MegaCam instrument, stars exhibit a profile linearly broadening with flux by about 0.5% over the whole brightness range.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207