Miserable Failures
Straightforward Failures
- This image is from the Moon; but it fails for lack of detectable stars, not the change in view-point! Does anyone have a good picture of the sky from the Moon for us to solve?
- An image with too few detectable stars; it is in the UV, so even the stars that are there may not be in the standards catalog.
- Galaxy in the way! This image is large enough for us to solve, but because the galaxy takes up so much of the solid angle, there aren't enough bright stars in common between the standards catalog and the image to nail it.
- Source detection goes awry; some of the stars that "should have" been detected are saturated; others may be lost to the confusion limit. As with many of our failures of this kind, this image solves when binned down 2x2 and re-submitted!
- Too much camera distortion; we need an example of a failure of this kind.
False Positives
The goal is for the system never to have a false positive, so these are very bad. Please add any new false positives you find here.
- http://live.astrometry.net/status.php?job=alpha-200811-31142511 - found through the flickr blind solver: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30408628@N08/3057278569/in/pool-astrometry
- http://live.astrometry.net/status.php?job=alpha-200812-36726075 - found through the flickr blind solver: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30408628@N08/3057278569
As of 2007-05-07, all false positives (below) can be explained as being caused by either problems with USNO-B1.0 (such as diffraction spikes), or else problems with how we build indexes off of it (indexes that have edges, for example). As we fix these problems and the false positives go away, we will remove them from the lists below.
- Our first true false positive; the multiple images of the Moon line up with multiple "standards" created by a spurious diffraction spike in USNO-B1.0; we might not have noticed if it weren't for the fact that the Moon never gets to Dec>29 deg! update: now it just fails
- Noisy image edge makes for a straight line of "stars" that lines up perfectly with a USNO-B1.0 defect. update: still false positive.
- Terrible source extraction in our large image of the Rosette Nebula from APOD February 14, 2007. update: still false positive
- USNO-B1.0 uniformization or selection problems making for a violation of our assumption that index stars are unformly distributed across the image. update: fails
False positives from APOD
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-70865916 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-19014841 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-03548715 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-50895081 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-77165569 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-34616027 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-20984722 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200704-27120032 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-43450763 update: fails
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/test/status.php?job=tor-200706-90259550
- HST:
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-26709112 (July 30, 2001: Star Cluster R136 Bursts Out / params)
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-23826641 (February 11, 2003: Dumbbell Nebula Close-Up from Hubble / params)
- http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu/blind/status.php?job=tor-200705-40067067 (May 19, 2003: The Andromeda Deep Field / params)
- http://live.astrometry.net/status.php?job=test-200708-62959282 (Aug 7, 2007) (with 10-180 degrees)
