LICIACube Leia and Luke Raw and Calibrated Data and Documentation Liens ======================================================================= Note that all LICIACube collections are now certified. Below are the known issues that may be resolved before final archiving. Please note that this list is for all lien fixed data sets that PDS-SBN has in its possession, but may not be publicly available at this time. Please look at the liens list posted with each collection to know of the known issues at time of that release. When all issues have been resolved, the data sets will be marked as ARCHIVED. Special warning: For the leia and luke data products, the users are advised to calculate their own geometry values and not wholly rely on the values found within the FITs headers. ------- General ------- Please add a object to any data product label missing it. This affects the leia and luke data collections. ------------- luke and leia ------------- The FITS header geometry values are suspect. Though not a serious problem, using the NAIF kernels specified, all of the values are off by a small amount. But, in particular (1) the Positive Pole Clock angle does not appear to be correct for Luke and Leia and (2) the secondary target geometry keywords are very suspect since they several of them are expected to nearly match that of the primary target and do not. If possible add geometry related keywords and values to the PDS labels. Currently they only exist in the FITS headers. There is a discrepancy between what the RADCONV keyword value should be between the SIS, FITS headers, and calibration document. In the SIS (table 10 and 14) and FITS headers, it says the values is 1.0, but in the calibration document it says it should be 1.0 for LEIA and 102.1522 for LUKE (see section 4.3.3). --> Question: if this factor is saved in the FITS headers, why aren’t those other scaling factors listed in page 11 of calibration description also saved in the headers? files: *_calibrated_overview.txt --> Need to add your reference "Della Corte et al., 2022. detail to the references list at the end, (not sure if this is referring to the pipeline description document, if yes, the year should be 2023.) --------- documents --------- file: asi_liciacube_leialuke_calibration_pipeline_description.pdf --> "As of July 2023, no bad pixels have been flagged in the bad pixel map." This should be updated, since there are bad pixel maps provided for LUKE. --> Clarify the calibration instructions (about output_2 to output_4 and section 4.3.3): --> --> Q1: In “The value for each pixel is obtained applying this function on the output2.” by “this function”, do you mean function in red circle, f_rad(), or the pchipInterpolator python function in the following code? --> --> Q2: What is your f_rad()? What’s t_exp? Is “the value coming from pchipInterpolator process” the output_3? --> --> Q3: Is there any module/tool/software that can be used to do this de-bayerization process? If yes, can you add a ref? file: 'lcc_leia_luke_sis.pdf' --> In SIS, page 37 (section 5.2.8), this attribute is listed in the table for LUKE, but not listed in the table for LEIA in page 29 --> There is a discrepancy between what the RADCONV keyword value should be between the SIS, FITS headers, and calibration document. In the SIS (table 10 and 14) and FITS headers, it says the values is 1.0, but in the calibration document it says it should be 1.0 for LEIA and 102.1522 for LUKE (see section 4.3.3). --> --> Question: if this factor is saved in the FITS headers, why aren’t those other scaling factors listed in page 11 of calibration description also saved in the headers? file: 'asi_liciacube_leialuke_calibration_pipeline_description.pdf' --> There is a discrepancy between what the RADCONV keyword value should be between the SIS, FITS headers, and this calibration document. In the SIS (table 10 and 14) and FITS headers, it says the values is 1.0, but in the calibration document it says it should be 1.0 for LEIA and 102.1522 for LUKE (see section 4.3.3). --> --> Question: if this factor is saved in the FITS headers, why aren’t those other scaling factors listed in page 11 of calibration description also saved in the headers? --> Section 4.3.3 (pg 10): In the previous review, we suggested to replace the detailed technical description of the 'PchipInterpolator' with a high-level, simplified description. The added Python code segments do help the understanding of the technical description, but still somehow confusing: --> --> Not sure what the Python variables `par_list_0`, `par_list_1`, and `par_list_2` are, but I’m guessing they correspond to the three layers of parameters in the "_col" calibration files. --> --> But from the subscription [i, j], it looks like they are not flattened, but rather corresponding to each pixel with the 2-dimentional index [i, j]. This is not consistent with the text description, where it talks about flattening the arrays before processing --> --> Otherwise, if they are already flattened as stated in the description, the shapes of these variables are not consistent with the shape of data stored in the “_col” files -------- data_tnf -------- files: lcc_hga_tnf_*.xml --> Many fields have special constants in the data, but this such values are not flagged or described in the xml label. Please add element: then the applicable child element. --> --> Action: PDS-SBN takes this action since this was created using their software and this request affects many fields in the labels. It is non-trivial. Similar to the action for the DART Radio science labels.