Issue 1316: Adding fortuitous variable stars to EXOTIC #1339
+339
−91
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…, calculating photometry values for fortuitous stars.
…als and measured.
tamimfatahi
commented
Oct 29, 2024
Comment on lines
+1503
to
+1515
| def calculate_airmass_model(norm_flux, comparison_star_params): | ||
| transformed_norm_flux = np.log(norm_flux) | ||
|
|
||
| X = sm.add_constant(comparison_star_params['airmass']) | ||
|
|
||
| model = sm.OLS(transformed_norm_flux, X).fit() | ||
|
|
||
| a1 = model.params[1] | ||
| a2 = model.params[0] | ||
|
|
||
| airmass_model = np.exp(a1) * np.exp(a2 * comparison_star_params['airmass']) | ||
|
|
||
| return airmass_model, a2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to highlight this function on calculating the airmass model with its coefficients.
tamimfatahi
commented
Oct 29, 2024
Comment on lines
+1518
to
+1529
| def detrend_and_calculate_magnitude(norm_flux, airmass_model, comparison_star_params, a2): | ||
| oot_scatter = np.std((norm_flux / airmass_model)) | ||
| norm_flux_unc = oot_scatter * airmass_model | ||
| norm_flux_unc /= np.nanmedian(norm_flux) | ||
|
|
||
| model = np.exp(a2 * airmass_model) | ||
| detrended = norm_flux / model | ||
|
|
||
| Mt = comparison_star_params['Mc'] - (2.5 * np.log10(detrended)) | ||
| Mt_err = (comparison_star_params['Mc_err'] ** 2 + (-2.5 * norm_flux_unc / (detrended * np.log(10))) ** 2) ** 0.5 | ||
|
|
||
| return Mt, Mt_err |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function calculates the target magnitude.
tamimfatahi
commented
Oct 29, 2024
Comment on lines
+1537
to
+1539
| norm_flux = target_flux[mask] / comparison_star_params['flux'] | ||
|
|
||
| norm_flux /= np.nanmedian(norm_flux) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This portion calculate the normalized flux.
|
Can you also show the relative flux on those plots? It's not clear to me what you're fitting. The airmass model should be compared to the relative flux after dividing out the transit (or on the out of transit baseline) not the actual airmass. The airmass is just used as an input. |
This was
linked to
issues
Nov 25, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Leaving this as draft for now as I am running into some issues that I'd like some advice on. Here is the thought process of the code:
Here are the issue I am running into:
After calculating the airmass model, it seems like the residuals are quite large and needs altering.
Here are the airmass plots for a variable star in the field:
Here it the predicted mag for the star (VSX=14.86 - 15.67 V):
I thought the airmass plot code was off due to the model looking like the inverse. However, on a separate star from a different dataset, I got the following:
where the magnitude was calculated as shown here (VSX=14.43+/-0.42 CV):
Both are pretty off in their calculations of the magnitude. Any ideas what I could do differently?