ajstewart / racs-historical-transients Goto Github PK

Instead of cutting/pasting to Slack, notify other users. I suppose this would need people to have an email linked to each account, so maybe not feasible. Or maybe a button to post automatically to slack?

These can be removed from the main list. Instead they can be placed in a different list. These will not be displayed in the full crossmatch detail view but instead a page that just shows all images on one page to allow for a quick check.

The high quality overlay can be slow to load. Will use a low quality one on the page and then the high quality one when clicked through.

Django can support multiple databases - I just need to work out how to do it.

Currently the pipeline measures the peak flux in a box of ~50 pixels centred on the location of the non-detection.

Instead a proper source extraction should be implemented. PySE is a good candidate to achieve this.

As title. This information doesn't exist as standard from the outputs so need to use local rms from ASKAP and standard rms from SUMSS probably.

Only important postage stamps are generated currently.

Intend to add a mode to be able to generate the rest of the stamps.

Allow the user to submit a base catalogue (plus image) rather than just searching against SUMSS and NVSS.

For diagnostics

Currently the injection of the image is a bit clunky as it checks for the last ID before injecting and adding this to a image_id field. But this is needless as it should just use the id column from the images table in the database, i.e. pk.

Idea is to switch to using this and have a unique identifier in the commit. Then the image_id can be obtained when injecting the sources.

Ability for users to add free-form notes on individual sources

Help notes for any postage stamp confusion and also more info can be put on these like the SUMSS fits that has been used.

Instead of having 3 distinct transient categories candidates can be identified by analysing one metric - the ratio. Combined with issue #47, all candidates will have measured integrated flux measurements.

This would have the side effect of making the database and injection much simpler.

This might be not too difficult.

When the postage stamps are produced the circles placed on the images showing the extracted sources are only those that have been crossmatched. This is incorrect and should be changed to show all extracted sources.

I think this is possible with some Django option. A little sort icon appears in the column headings so you can sort each column.

It can be hard to realise if the non-match is due to extended sources or not. Putting them on the postage stamps would be useful.

Namely selavy, and perhaps PySE.

They are hard to see on the postage stamps so a simple scaling factor might be good here.

Would also be an overlay and save.

When the transients are generated it should be easy to tell if an ASKAP source has not been matched because of the source being detected as a double or if the SUMSS source is extended.

Could do similar with the SUMSS sources that have no match.

Below is an example where both instances are true (the SUMSS is extended and the ASKAP source has two components).

Much better table support and will solve #15.

Instead of going image-by-image, add ability to sort output (maybe only flagged candidates?) by various filters. Such as:

RA/Dec region
l/b region
match radius
flux density
flux ratio
...

For fast scanning/rejection

Allow for separate extended thresholds in the diagnostic and transient searching parts.

I can't seem to find such an option for Aegean to spit out. Could add sigma clipping method.

Currently they are fixed in the code. This needs to be variable.

For each ASKAP source that does not have a SUMSS match, find the respective SUMSS image and extract the peak pixel value from the source location. Act as a sigma for SUMSS.

The SUMSS image is already found as part of the postage stamp code. Might be worth moving this outside of the postage stamp generation and add this to the table of ASKAP no match sources.

Add NVSS as a base comparison.

Probably much easier to do one at a time to begin with, start to get complex if do both a once (especially for the database).

Currently the flux ratio image view plot won’t cope at the RA 00h boundary.

This will decrease the number of candidates and also improve the quality of the overall candidates.

By sensible sorting this means the next and previous buttons should work for what makes sense for the current category. For example in the ASKAP sources with no SUMSS matches, the logical sorting order would be for the SUMSS SNR value high -> low.

Idea would be to put a behind the scenes ID number column that could then be used for navigation.

May be possible to produce these faster by parallelising the code, but may run into issues of an image attempting to be accessed at the same time. In addition to multiple versions of the same plot being loaded into memory.

This will identify sources that are in ASKAP that should be seen by SUMSS but aren't.

processASKAPimage.py needs to produce efficient outputs that candidates of various natures can be identified and, importantly, easily checked.

Jupyter notebook?
Website?
A slideshow?(!)

SUMSS is misspelt “SUMSSS” in ASKAP image legend label

There are options on what are produced now, but categorised into good, bad or all. Transients can now be good or bad, so really this option needs to become 'generate postage stamps of transients only'. This will allow for rapid checking for transients between two epochs (e.g. GW searching).

Make the circle around the ASKAP "matched source" a dotted one. To signify that it doesn't really mean anything but can be useful in some circumstances.

Sources that are not flagged as 'good' are removed from the Aegean output. Store these and do a check in cases where SUMSS sources do not have a match.

Make the image even higher resolution.

In the readme it needs to explicitly mention that you need to obtain the FITS files for the SUMSS and NVSS surveys for postage stamp creation.

SUMSS beam is calculated slightly wrong. ASKAP beam also needs reading from the image.

Selavy doesn't seem to spit out sensible restoring beam values for the ASKAP convolved image hence it should just be read from the image.

I think you could generalise your labels, without making it too complex, if you keep the red/green/yellow/grey coding as some overall "good" "investigate" "problem we understand". But then have different buttons with more specific labels.

Some examples so far:

• “extended/diffuse in SUMSS” as a reason why there is no match for an ASKAP source, e.g.: http://ada.physics.usyd.edu.au:8005/image/3/askapnotseen/180
  (GREEN/OK)

• “too close to bright source” as a reason, e.g.: http://ada.physics.usyd.edu.au:8005/image/3/askapnotseen/181
  (GREEN/OK)

• “there is a match” , e.g.: http://ada.physics.usyd.edu.au:8005/image/3/askapnotseen/188
  (GREEN/OK)

• “SUMSS non-detection” as a reason for something like this: http://ada.physics.usyd.edu.au:8005/image/3/askapnotseen/191
  (RED/INVESTIGATE)

• “edge of field” http://ada.physics.usyd.edu.au:8005/image/2/largeratio/189
  (GREY/PROBLEM) or (GREEN/OK)

• "out of range of mosaic": http://ada.physics.usyd.edu.au:8005/image/3/sumssnomatch/370
  (GREY/PROBLEM)