1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{The VLA Low-frequency Sky Survey}
6:
7: \author{A.~S.~Cohen \altaffilmark{1},
8: W.~M.~Lane \altaffilmark{1},
9: W.~D.~Cotton \altaffilmark{2},
10: N.~E.~Kassim \altaffilmark{1},
11: T.~J.~W.~Lazio \altaffilmark{1},
12: R.~A.~Perley \altaffilmark{3},
13: J.~J.~Condon \altaffilmark{2},
14: W.~C.~Erickson \altaffilmark{4},
15: }
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Naval Research Laboratory, Code 7213, Washington, DC,
18: 20375 USA, Aaron.Cohen@nrl.navy.mil, Wendy.Lane@nrl.navy.mil}
19: \altaffiltext{2}{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 520 Edgemont Road,
20: Charlottesville, VA, 22903 USA}
21: \altaffiltext{3}{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 0,
22: Socorro, NM 87801 USA}
23: \altaffiltext{4}{School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Tasmania,
24: Hobart, TAS 7005, Australia}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: The Very Large Array (VLA) Low-frequency Sky Survey (VLSS) has imaged
28: 95\% of the $3\pi$ sr of sky north of $\delta = -30^\circ$ at a
29: frequency of 74~MHz (4~meter wavelength).
30: The resolution is 80$''$ (FWHM) throughout, and the typical RMS noise level
31: is $\langle \sigma \rangle \approx 0.1$~Jy/beam. The typical
32: point-source detection limit is 0.7~Jy/beam and so far nearly 70,000
33: sources have been catalogued. This survey used the 74~MHz system added to
34: the VLA in 1998. It required new imaging algorithms to remove the large
35: ionospheric distortions at this very low frequency throughout the entire
36: $\sim 11.9^\circ$ field of view. This paper describes the observation
37: and data reduction methods used for the VLSS and presents the survey
38: images and source catalog. All of the calibrated images and the source
39: catalog are available online (URL={\tt http://lwa.nrl.navy.mil/VLSS})
40: for use by the astronomical community.
41:
42: %\null\vskip 1in
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \keywords{surveys ---
46: catalogs ---
47: atmospheric effects ---
48: radio continuum: general
49: }
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52:
53: Recently, increasingly powerful telescopes and data-reduction abilities have
54: made it possible to complete comprehensive and sensitive radio surveys,
55: notably the 325~MHz Westerbork Northern Sky Survey
56: \citep[WENSS;][]{rengelink97},
57: the 843~MHz Sydney University Molonglo Sky Survey
58: \citep[SUMSS;][]{bock99}, the 1.4~GHz NRAO VLA Sky Survey
59: \citep[NVSS;][]{condon98} and the 1.4~GHz Faint Images of the Radio Sky at
60: Twenty-cm survey \citep[FIRST;][]{becker95,white97}. These four
61: surveys have resulted in the detection of millions of radio sources. Their
62: data have already made a valuable contribution to topics such as the nature of
63: extragalactic radio sources and their relation to galaxy formation, the
64: large-scale structure of the universe, and the use of Galactic foreground
65: polarization as a probe of the interstellar medium in our own Galaxy. In
66: addition, the simple web access to maps and source information of the NVSS
67: and FIRST databases has made it easy for researchers with little or no
68: experience observing at radio frequencies to use this information in their
69: work.
70:
71: Until recently, it was impossible to make images approaching the dynamic
72: range and angular resolution of WENSS, SUMSS, and the NVSS at frequencies
73: below 150 MHz owing to the severe ionospheric phase changes at such low
74: frequencies. This changed with the development of a 74~MHz
75: (4-meter wavelength) system on the VLA \citep{kassim93}, which
76: enabled sub-arcminute resolution synthesis
77: imaging with a connected-element interferometer below 150~MHz for the first
78: time. Fully implemented in 1998, this new system has produced interesting
79: science and provided valuable experience in the challenges associated with
80: low-frequency observing at high angular resolution. For a complete
81: description of the VLA 74~MHz system and its capabilities, see
82: \citet{kassim07}.
83:
84: Phase distortions from the ionosphere and a large field of view introduce
85: a particularly difficult problem for high-resolution imaging at 74~MHz.
86: The isoplanatic patch is defined as a region on the sky small enough that
87: angular variations in the ionospheric phase distortions across it are
88: negligible. Unlike at higher frequencies, the isoplanatic patch at 74~MHz
89: for the VLA A and B-configurations (with maximum baselines of 36 and 11~km
90: respectively) is significantly smaller than the field of view. Therefore,
91: initially the only sources that could be imaged were those strong enough
92: that all other sources in the field of view outside of its isoplanatic
93: patch were weak enough in comparison to be ignored during calibration.
94: This restricted the system to
95: sources with flux densities of at least $\sim$100~Jy at 74~MHz. This
96: obstacle has recently been greatly reduced through the development of new
97: calibration algorithms (described in Section~\ref{reduction.sec}) and the
98: availability of the necessary computational power to implement them. It is
99: now possible to image an entire field of view and detect sources as weak
100: as $\sim$0.1~Jy during most circumstances for the 11~km B-configuration and
101: in many cases for the 35~km A-configuration.
102:
103: These new algorithms have greatly extended the scientific capability of the
104: 74~MHz VLA system, and have made it possible to conduct
105: efficient surveys. In 2002 we began the VLA Low-frequency Sky Survey (VLSS),
106: a 74~MHz survey of the entire sky north of $\delta > -30^\circ$. VLSS
107: images have a resolution of $80''$ and a median map RMS noise level of
108: $\sim$0.1~Jy/beam. The specific survey parameters are summarized in
109: Table~\ref{tab.parms}. This paper describes the methods and presents the
110: results (images and a source catalog) of the VLSS, which is now 95\% complete.
111: In a future paper we will present analysis of these results and their
112: scientific implications.
113:
114: %\newpage
115: \section{Survey Motivation}
116:
117: There are several scientific motivations for a new, relatively high
118: resolution, high sensitivity survey at 74~MHz. The first is the study of
119: ultra-steep-spectrum objects ($\alpha < -1.3$). These include halos and
120: relics in clusters of galaxies \citep{ensslin02}, fossil radio galaxies
121: \citep{slee01}, high redshift radio galaxies \citep{chambers87,debreuck00}
122: and pulsars. The VLSS has the potential not only to help study known examples
123: of such objects, but also to help in the discovery of new objects in these
124: classes. The second main advantage of a 74~MHz survey is that the spectra
125: of known objects can be extended to a frequency low enough that extrinsic
126: (eg. free-free absorption) and intrinsic (eg. synchrotron self-absorption,
127: electron energy-spectral cutoffs, free-free absorption) spectral effects
128: can be distinguished \citep{kassim95}. This is useful for studying
129: physical processes related to acceleration, turbulence, and propagation in
130: normal galaxies, supernova remnants, HII regions, and the interstellar
131: medium. Third, extragalactic samples selected
132: at 74~MHz are dominated by isotropic (lobe-dominated) radio
133: emission, unlike those found at higher frequencies. A 74~MHz sample
134: thus provides an unbiased view of the parent populations used in
135: ``unification'' models to account for the diverse source populations
136: observed at higher frequencies \citep[eg.][]{wall97}. Finally, a large
137: survey that pushes the phase space of
138: previous observations is often useful in uncovering rare, but potentially
139: important new phenomena.
140:
141: On a technical level, the VLSS
142: will produce a low-frequency sky model and an initial calibration grid for
143: future low-frequency telescopes, such as the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) and
144: the Long Wavelength Array (LWA). The VLSS catalog will also help in the
145: design of future low-frequency telescopes since the still-unsolved problem
146: of calibrating at low frequencies on long baselines ($>$50~km) will likely
147: depend on the expected number of calibrator sources available within a
148: field of view.
149:
150: \section{Observation Strategy}
151:
152: Observations were carried out in four observational programs over
153: the course of five years (see Table ~\ref{tab:Obsdates}). They are
154: substantially complete at this time; 10 hours remain in each of the
155: upcoming B- and BnA-configurations to re-observe a few remaining
156: high-noise fields. Overall we have used just over 900 hours of VLA
157: time for this survey. During each phase of observations every effort
158: was made to observe contiguous sky areas so that the intermediate
159: catalog releases would be as useful as possible for science.
160:
161: \subsection{Pointing Grid}
162:
163: The smallest element of the VLSS is the image of a single field of view
164: surrounding a given pointing center. The primary-beam sensitivity pattern
165: of a 25-meter VLA dish at 74~MHz is a circular Gaussian with a
166: full-width at half maximum (FWHM) diameter of
167: $11.9^{\circ}$.
168: In order to obtain uniform sensitivity over the entire survey area,
169: overlapping observations were made on a roughly hexagonal
170: grid of 523 pointing centers covering the entire sky north of
171: $\delta > -30^{\circ}$. The grid spacing was
172: \begin{equation}
173: \Delta \approx \theta_p/\sqrt{2} \approx 8.6^{\circ},
174: \end{equation}
175: where $\theta_p$ is the FWHM primary beamwidth.
176: The partially overlapping images of each field are
177: weighted to correct for the primary-beam attenuation and combined
178: to produce the final sky images as described by \citet{condon98}.
179: For the same RMS noise level at the center of each pointing,
180: this grid produces nearly uniform sensitivity
181: (Figure~\ref{grid.weights.fig}).
182:
183: \subsection{Resolution}
184: Fields in the declination range $-10^{\circ} < \delta < 80^{\circ}$
185: were observed in the B-configuration which produces a dirty-beam size
186: of between $60''$ and $80''$ at this frequency. In order to produce
187: uniform resolution and avoid highly elongated beams for fields that
188: never reach high elevations, all
189: fields at declinations $\delta > 80^{\circ}$ and $\delta < -10^{\circ}$
190: were observed in the BnA-configuration which provides much longer
191: baselines along the north-south axis than along the east-west axis.
192: All images were restored with a circular $80''$ FWHM beam for uniform
193: resolution throughout the entire survey region.
194:
195: \subsection{74 MHz Specific Considerations}
196: The observations had a bandwidth of 1.56~MHz centered on the radio
197: astronomy allocation of 73.8~MHz. In order to facilitate the excision of
198: radio-frequency interference (RFI) and minimize bandwidth smearing, we
199: observed in multi-channel continuum mode with 128 channels after online
200: Hanning smoothing. We used an integration time of 10 seconds, the smallest
201: available on this system, which tangentially convolves the point-source
202: response by a function whose width is proportional to the distance from the
203: phase center and reaches 15$''$ at the primary half-power circle. Convolved
204: with the 80$''$ restoring beam, this yields a point-source response that is
205: extended to 81.4$''$ in the tangential direction at the primary half-power
206: point.
207:
208: Ionospheric distortions increase with decreased elevation. Therefore
209: we required that all fields in the B-configuration be observed at
210: elevations $\geq30^{\circ}$, and the lower-declination
211: BnA-configuration fields were
212: observed at elevations $\geq 20^{\circ}$. In all cases efforts were
213: made to observe fields at the highest elevations possible.
214:
215: At 74~MHz scattering in the solar-wind plasma distorts radio sources viewed
216: through it. In order to minimize this distortion, all observations
217: were made at solar elongations $\geq 60^{\circ}$.
218: In addition, observations were
219: scheduled during night-time as much as possible, because the
220: ionosphere is less stable during the daytime, and particularly the
221: morning.
222:
223: \subsection{Time per Pointing}
224: We integrated a minimum of 75 minutes on each field in order to reach
225: our survey sensitivity goal of 100 mJy/beam average RMS noise level at
226: the field centers. In order to improve our spatial frequency coverage,
227: each field was observed at multiple hour angles by dividing the total
228: 75 minutes on source into three shorter observations, each about
229: 25 minutes, that were separated in time at least one hour.
230:
231: We used Cygnus~A (3C~405) as the sole bandpass and complex-gain calibrator
232: for all observations. When the elevation of Cygnus~A was not high enough,
233: we observed Virgo~A and 3C~123 instead with the intent of using them as
234: calibrators. Experience showed, however, that the bandpasses and
235: instrumental gains were stable (to within a few percent) over periods of
236: as long as two days. As a result, using calibration gains derived from
237: the nearest Cygnus~A observation in time (up to two days earlier or later)
238: proved more reliable in our pipeline reduction than trying to use the two
239: weaker calibrator sources. Therefore, neither Virgo~A nor 3C~123 was
240: ever used as a calibrator. We typically observed a calibrator for three to
241: five minutes once every two hours. We did not observe any
242: secondary or phase calibrators for two main reasons. First, because
243: of the large primary beam size and low antenna gain at 74~MHz there are
244: only a few sources in the entire sky that would be suitable. Second,
245: because of the angular structure of the ionospheric fluctuations,
246: gains calculated more than a few degrees away from the target source are
247: not useful.
248:
249: We planned 1.5 hours of time per pointing center to accommodate the 75
250: minutes integration on source, slewing between fields, and calibration
251: scans. The slew times necessarily varied from observation to
252: observation; when available, extra time was used to integrate longer
253: and/or increase the number of scans on each pointing. Typically,
254: observations were made in 6-20 hour blocks.
255:
256: \subsection{Re-Observations}
257:
258: For about 65\% of the fields, the above observation strategy was
259: sufficient to produce maps that met our survey criteria. However,
260: some fields had unacceptably high RMS noise levels after 75 minutes of
261: integration. The principal causes of high map noise were RFI or
262: strong ionospheric turbulence, which can render unusable
263: some fraction of the observing time on a given field.
264: We have re-observed most of these fields with
265: additional 20-25 minute scans. The new data were then combined with
266: the old and a new map (usually with lower noise) was produced. If that map
267: still had high noise levels, more time was scheduled.
268: Including time for calibration and slewing, nearly 20\% of our total
269: project time was used for re-observations of this nature.
270:
271: \section{Data Reduction Method}
272: \label{reduction.sec}
273:
274: \subsection{Calibration}
275:
276: \subsubsection{Cygnus~A as a Calibrator}
277:
278: VLSS data were calibrated using the radio galaxy Cygnus~A (3C~405). Its
279: 17,000 Jy is by far the highest flux density for any non-variable object
280: in the sky at 74~MHz. (Cassiopeia~A has a similar flux density, but this is
281: not constant in time, and it is a much more extended source and therefore is
282: fainter on the longer baselines.) This high flux density is crucial because
283: to
284: function as a calibrator, a source must dominate the total flux density in its
285: field of view, and at 74~MHz the $11.9^{\circ}$ field typically contains
286: several hundred Jy of flux density in background sources. Another advantage
287: of such high flux density is that even in narrow (12~kHz) channels the source
288: is nearly always far stronger than any RFI. Because of its relatively
289: high declination, Cygnus~A is at an elevation of at least $30^\circ$ for
290: over 10 hours per day at the VLA, a time period
291: which nearly always overlapped with some portion of our observing sessions.
292: For the few observations where it was never at high enough elevation,
293: a scan from the day before or day after was used, as this was more reliable
294: than using a weaker source and kept the flux scale consistent.
295: We observed Cygnus~A for roughly 3 minutes
296: every 2 hours or so while it was above an elevation of
297: $30^{\circ}$. Even at our resolution of $80''$, Cygnus~A is heavily
298: resolved, and we used a pre-existing image as a calibration model
299: (available from {\tt http://lwa.nrl.navy.mil/tutorial}). This
300: model has been scaled to have the same total flux density as
301: calculated using the spectral model from \citet{baars77}, which is 17,086 Jy
302: at 73.8~MHz. This defines the flux-density scale of the entire survey.
303: The accuracy and reliability of this flux-density scale will be discussed
304: in further detail in Section~\ref{flux.scale}.
305:
306: \subsubsection{Bandpass and Amplitude Gain Calibration}
307: \label{bpasscal}
308:
309: As our observations were conducted in spectral-line mode, it was necessary to
310: perform a bandpass calibration. This was done for each observation cycle
311: using the existing scans of Cygnus~A and using the pre-existing Cygnus~A
312: model. A few channels at the center, known to be generally free of RFI, were
313: used to normalize the bandpass and set the zero-point for the phases. The
314: resulting bandpass solutions were then inspected by hand. Occasionally one
315: or more antennas were not functional, and this could immediately be identified
316: as a bandpass that appeared pathologically shaped or that was simply random
317: noise. Once identified, the data from these antennas were flagged from
318: all sources for these times and the bandpasses for all antennas were
319: re-calculated.
320:
321: Next we performed a gain calibration, again by comparing the scans of
322: Cygnus~A to its pre-existing model. This again provided an opportunity
323: to remove defective data. We removed data showing amplitude solutions
324: with a scatter among adjacent time intervals that was much greater than
325: normal. Also, typical amplitude gains at 74~MHz vary over time by about
326: 10\% or less, and so, if an antenna varied by much more than this, it was
327: also flagged. As we could only see these solutions during the times we
328: observed Cygnus~A, we removed all data surrounding a ``bad'' scan on
329: Cygnus~A.
330:
331: The gain calibration produced reliable
332: amplitude gains; however, the gain phases depend greatly on the location in
333: the sky and therefore could not be transfered from Cygnus~A to any given
334: field. Determination of the gain phases toward the field of interest would
335: be done at a later stage.
336:
337: \subsubsection{Instrumental Phase Gains}
338:
339: Although we could not fully determine the phase gains simply by calibrating
340: to Cygnus~A, it
341: was necessary to estimate the instrumental contributions to the phase
342: as they are not corrected by the technique described later.
343: For any baseline, the observed phase is the sum of four components:
344: \begin{equation}
345: \label{phaseterms.eqn}
346: \phi\ =\ \phi_{src}\ +\ \phi_{inst}\ +\ \phi_{ion}\ +\ \phi_{noise}
347: \end{equation}
348: where $\phi_{src}$ is the phase contributed by the structure of the
349: source, $\phi_{inst}$ is the phase contributed by the VLA instruments,
350: $\phi_{ion}$ is the phase produced by the
351: ionosphere and $\phi_{noise}$ is due to the noise from the Galactic
352: background and the thermal noise in the electronics.
353:
354: Observations of Cygnus~A can be used to isolate these components and
355: obtain an estimate of $\phi_{inst}$. This is because Cygnus~A is such a
356: strong source that it completely dominates its field of view and therefore
357: the overwhelming contribution to $\phi_{ion}$ comes from a single isoplanatic
358: patch. The first step in determining $\phi_{inst}$ was to observe Cygnus~A
359: in a number of scans separated in time. A standard phase-calibration
360: procedure was used to estimate the antenna-based phases every 10 to 30
361: seconds and a model of Cygnus~A was used to separate this from the phases
362: produced by the source morphology, $\phi_{src}$. Since $\phi_{noise}$ is
363: assumed to be small and uncorrelated in time, it is assumed to
364: average out to a negligible level over the course of the several scans
365: on Cygnus~A and can be ignored in the following.
366: This leaves the antenna based $\phi_{inst}$ and $\phi_{ion}$ terms in
367: the calibration results.
368: The ionospheric phase is the sum of a linear gradient across the
369: array and higher-order terms. The linear gradient causes a position
370: shift and the higher-order terms defocus the array.
371: It is not possible to uniquely determine a set of instrumental phases
372: as it is not possible to distinguish among the set of instrumental
373: phases plus a linear gradient across the array.
374: However, since the data calibration procedure described later can
375: determine and correct linear gradients, a set of instrumental phases
376: plus an arbitrary linear gradient is sufficient.
377:
378: A reference time segment of well-behaved data is used to define the
379: instrumental plus linear phase gradient.
380: A calibration at a single time at which there were no higher order
381: ionospheric phase terms would be sufficient for calibration; however,
382: this is infrequent and cannot be established from measurements at a
383: single time.
384: Thus, a least squares procedure is used in which the time sequence of
385: calibrator results are used to fit:
386: \begin{enumerate}
387: \item Instrumental phase\\
388: per antenna and receiver (plus an arbitrary linear gradient).
389: \item Linear Gradient\\
390: across the array for each calibration time with respect to the reference
391: time interval.
392: \end{enumerate}
393: The higher-order ionospheric phase terms are assumed uncorrelated over
394: the time range of the calibration data implying that their
395: influence will average out.
396: Residuals from the fitting can be used to determine when the
397: ionosphere is too disturbed and the higher-order terms dominate, as
398: well as the occasional phase jumps in the VLA electronics.
399: Periods of overly disturbed ionospheric conditions were flagged and the
400: calibration procedure repeated.
401: Occasionally phase jumps were discovered in the data and they were
402: corrected and the calibration procedure repeated.
403: Once the instrumental phases are used to correct the data, it is
404: possible to use the data to image the sky, albeit with a time and
405: position dependent systematic position offset.
406:
407:
408: \subsection{RFI Excision}
409: \label{flagging.sec}
410:
411: \subsubsection{Need for Automated Procedure}
412:
413: RFI causes excess signal to appear in the visibility data. The best way to
414: remove this is by looking at plots of phase or amplitude as a function of
415: time and frequency channel and removing contaminated data by hand
416: \citep{lane05}. However, with 523 fields, each with 120 channels, 351
417: baselines and both right and left circular polarizations, there was no
418: practical way to perform this type of flagging by hand. Therefore flagging
419: of data contaminated with RFI was done using automated procedures.
420:
421: \subsubsection{Removing Bad Channels}
422: \label{comb.sec}
423:
424: The first step in flagging was to remove channels which are known to nearly
425: always be contaminated with internally produced RFI. These channels are
426: nearly equally spaced across the bandpass (seen in Figure~\ref{rflag.fig}).
427: This internally generated interference is often seen in 74~MHz VLA data and
428: comes from the VLA DCS system (used to send command and control data around
429: the array) and results in a well-known ``100~kHz comb'' of narrow-band
430: harmonics distributed across the bandpass.
431:
432: \subsubsection{Clipping Ultra-High Visibilities}
433: \label{clip.sec}
434:
435: The next step in our automated RFI-flagging procedure was to ``clip'' all
436: visibilities with amplitudes above a flux level greater than what could
437: conceivably come from astronomical sources in the field of view. The
438: clipping threshold was determined automatically using an algorithm that
439: fit the existing $uv$-data to solve for the
440: zero-spacing flux density (ie. total flux density in the field of view).
441: The total flux density in a field of view had a median value of about
442: 330~Jy for all fields we observed, but of course certain fields with
443: unusually strong sources had much higher total flux density.
444: For a given field, we flagged all data points that were more than twice
445: the estimated total flux density of that field.
446: This typically removed about 5-10\% of the data, though for some fields
447: it was as high as 20\%.
448:
449: \subsubsection{Flagging by Statistical Tests}
450:
451: Removing the ``comb'' and clipping removed the worst data; however, RFI
452: often shows up as a
453: lower-level effect in many different visibilities that form recognizable
454: patterns that a human can identify, but which are below any reasonable
455: clipping threshold. This RFI usually produces excess signal in one channel
456: for a long time or in many channels for a short time. Statistical tests
457: on the visibility data are necessary to identify this type of RFI. For a
458: given field, we examined the statistical properties for each baseline and
459: polarization separately. The flagging based on these statistical properties
460: represents the final step in our flagging procedure.
461:
462: For a given field, we examined separately each set of visibilities
463: for a given baseline and polarization.
464: Within this set, each visibility can be identified by its time and frequency,
465: and its amplitude can be represented as a function of these, $S(t_i, \nu_j)$,
466: where the time $t_i$ and frequency $\nu_j$ are those for the $i$th time
467: interval and $j$th frequency respectively.
468: There are 120 frequency channels kept after removing attenuated channels at
469: edges of the bandpass and 450 10-second time intervals for a typical
470: observation of 75 minutes duration. This results in a total of 54,000
471: visibility data points.
472:
473: First we searched for individual points contaminated
474: by RFI. This was done by calculating the mean and RMS values for the
475: amplitudes of all 54,000 points. We then flagged all
476: points having amplitudes greater than the mean amplitude plus ten times
477: the RMS amplitude.
478:
479: The second step was to search for RFI-contaminated channels. For this
480: purpose, the time average of all data in each channel, $S_{\nu}(\nu_j)$
481: was calculated as:
482: \begin{equation}
483: S_{\nu}(\nu_j) = \frac{1}{N_{time}}\sum_{i = 1}^{N_{time}} S(t_i, \nu_j)
484: \end{equation}
485: \noindent
486: where $N_{time}$ is the number of 10-second time intervals. We then
487: calculated the median value of $S_{\nu}(\nu_j)$ over all $\nu_j$, which we
488: call $S_{\nu,med}$. We also define $\Delta S_{\nu}$ as the difference
489: between the median and the value of $S_{\nu}(\nu_j)$ for which 25\% of the
490: channels are lower (ie. the difference between the 25th and 50th
491: percentiles). For any channel whose median flux exceeded $S_{\nu,med}$
492: by more than 6$\Delta S_{\nu}$, we flagged all visibilities in that
493: channel. As RFI can only add power, we only needed to flag channels
494: that are too high, rather than any that might be too low.
495:
496: Finally, we searched for times in which all or most channels were
497: contaminated by RFI. This is done in nearly the same way as in step two,
498: but with time and frequency exchanged. For each time,
499: all frequency channels were averaged to give:
500: \begin{equation}
501: S_{t}(t_i) = \frac{1}{N_{chan}}\sum_{j = 1}^{N_{chan}} S(t_i, \nu_j)
502: \end{equation}
503: \noindent
504: where $N_{chan} = 120$ is the number of channels. We then calculated the
505: median value of $S_{t}(t_i)$ over all $t_i$, which we call $S_{t,med}$.
506: We define $\Delta S_{t}$, as the difference between the 25th and 50th
507: percentiles of $S_{t}(t_i)$. We flagged all times that had a median flux
508: that exceeded $S_{t,med}$ by more than 4$\Delta S_{t}$.
509:
510: Note from the above discussion that we flagged individual visibilities,
511: channels, and time intervals based on 10$\sigma$, 6$\Delta S_{\nu}$ and
512: 4$\Delta S_{t}$ criteria respectively.
513: These levels were determined empirically based on trial and error
514: in order to remove the most RFI possible without removing significant amounts
515: of real features. We erred on the side of leaving in RFI rather than removing
516: real data, and some low-level RFI was inevitably left in much of the data.
517: Again, we emphasize that the best method currently available for flagging
518: RFI is to do so by eye.
519: That being impossible for this survey, our goal was to removed the worst of
520: the RFI, which resulted in acceptable image quality overall.
521:
522: Figure~\ref{rflag.fig} shows the result of applying our flagging procedure to
523: a baseline with a relatively bad case of RFI contamination. Notice that RFI
524: seemed to affect a set of channels in an almost equally spaced ``comb'', as
525: described in Section~\ref{comb.sec}. However, other channels were also
526: contaminated with RFI and were removed.
527: Also seen are horizontal features which are caused by times
528: during which nearly all channels were contaminated. The smooth features,
529: sometimes appearing as diagonal stripes, are from real source structure.
530: As can be seen, most of the worst RFI was successfully removed; however,
531: some low-level contamination remains.
532:
533: \subsection{Producing Images}
534: \label{imaging.sec}
535:
536: \subsubsection{Channel Averaging}
537:
538: After flagging, we averaged the data to reduce processing time. The
539: data were averaged down to only 12 channels, the minimum we could retain
540: without introducing significant bandwidth smearing into the images. This
541: resulted in channel widths of 122~kHz. Bandwidth smearing occurs in the
542: radial direction with respect to the primary-beam center, and its magnitude
543: is proportional to the distance from the primary-beam center. In our case,
544: a point source on the primary beam half-power circle is convolved
545: radially with a function 35.3$''$ wide. This broadens the radial
546: width of the point-source response from 80$''$ to 87.4$''$ at
547: the half-power circle. This effect is of roughly
548: the same magnitude as the smearing from ionospheric effects, which will
549: be discussed later.
550:
551: \subsubsection{Field-Based Calibration}
552: \label{fieldbased.sec}
553:
554: Ionospheric phase errors $\phi_{ion}$ (see Equation~\ref{phaseterms.eqn})
555: must be removed before the (u,v)-data sets are
556: Fourier transformed to make images. At frequencies significantly
557: higher than 74 MHz, the ionospheric phase at any instant is nearly
558: constant across the primary beam of a VLA antenna and can be removed
559: by simple antenna-based calibration. Both ionospheric phases
560: \citep{kassim93} and primary beamwidths scale as $\nu^{-1}$, so the angular
561: size of the
562: "isoplanatic patch" over which the ionospheric phase is constant
563: becomes smaller than the primary beam at low frequencies. At 74 MHz
564: the isoplanatic patch is significantly smaller than the VLA primary
565: beam, and antenna-based calibration is incapable of removing
566: ionospheric phase errors throughout the field of view. Instead, we
567: must solve for $\phi_{ion}$ as a function of position within the field of
568: view.
569:
570: This was done for the survey data with a method called ``Field-Based
571: Calibration'' \citep{cotton04}. Developed specifically for 74~MHz VLA data,
572: this method fits a time-variable phase screen over the field of view.
573: Field-based calibration relies on two main assumptions. First it assumes
574: that the phase screen is the same for all antennas. This is reasonable
575: to assume for the VLA B-configuration because its maximum baseline is 11~km,
576: which is small compared to the size of the isoplanatic patch at the
577: altitude (about 400~km) of the maximum electron density of the
578: ionosphere. This calibration method fails for arrays that are much larger
579: than the isoplanatic patch projected onto the ionosphere.
580: The second assumption is that the spatial structure of the
581: ionosphere is smooth enough that across any individual source it can be
582: approximated as a simple linear gradient, which affects source images only
583: by shifting their apparent sky positions. This
584: is true most of the time, but for periods of unusual ionospheric activity
585: this assumption no longer holds, and imaging during these times is not
586: possible with this calibration method.
587:
588: Field-based calibration is implemented by dividing the data into time
589: intervals short enough that the ionosphere does not vary significantly,
590: generally 1-2 minutes. Within each time interval, small images are produced
591: of sources known to have high flux density after extrapolating from the NVSS
592: with $\alpha = -0.7$. Due to the
593: short time interval these maps have high noise levels (about 1~Jy/beam),
594: and typically only 5-10 sources in a given field will have high enough
595: peak brightness to be clearly detected. These sources can be used as
596: ionospheric phase calibrators. We compared their apparent positions
597: at 74 MHz with their NVSS positions and used the offsets to determine
598: the phase gradients at the source positions.
599: A 2nd-order Zernike polynomial phase
600: screen is then fitted to these phase-gradient measurements. Higher-order
601: fits are not possible because there are typically not enough detectable
602: calibrator sources in a field to constrain higher-order terms. However,
603: under normal ionospheric conditions, the 2nd order Zernike polynomial fit
604: is sufficient to remove most of the ionospheric distortions. Residual
605: ionospheric distortions will be discussed further in later sections on the
606: analysis of image quality.
607:
608: The improvement in image quality of field-based calibration compared to
609: self-calibration can be seen in the source maps of Figure~\ref{4A.maps.fig},
610: which was taken from \citet{cohen03}. For each map, the dots represent all
611: sources in the image with apparent peak brightnesses of 400 mJy/beam or
612: higher. This 74~MHz VLA data set was observed in the A-configuration, for
613: which ionospheric effects are much more pronounced than in the smaller
614: B- and BnA-configurations used for the VLSS, and therefore shows a very
615: marked contrast
616: between the resulting image quality of the two methods. The flux density
617: in this field of view is dominated by 3C~63, which is circled, causing
618: self-calibration to solve for ionospheric phase at that location and
619: subtract this phase over the entire field of view. At increasing angular
620: distances from 3C~63, the ionospheric phases have less correlation with
621: these solutions, and sources appear to have position shifts that vary
622: in time. As the image is produced by averaging the data over time, this
623: causes source smearing which reduces the apparent peak brightness and thus
624: the apparent source density. This is clearly seen in the source map for
625: the self-calibrated image, which shows a declining source density with
626: increasing angular distance from 3C~63. In contrast, the field-based
627: image has a roughly uniform source density throughout which only decreases
628: at the edges because of primary-beam attenuation.
629:
630: \subsubsection{Wide-Field Imaging}
631:
632: After determining the ionospheric phases, the next step is Fourier inversion
633: into the image plane. Normally, this is done
634: with a two-dimensional Fourier inversion of the visibilities by projecting
635: the baseline vectors onto the $uv$-plane perpendicular to the line of sight.
636: However, this is an approximation that is only valid for small fields of
637: view in which $\theta^2\,w_{max} \ll 1$, where $w_{max}$ is the maximum
638: baseline component parallel to the line of sight for all visibilities in
639: the data set measured in wavelengths, and $\theta$ is the angular size of
640: the imaged region in radians.
641: The 74~MHz field of view is far too large for
642: this approximation to be valid. Therefore, conversion to the image plane
643: was done with polyhedral imaging
644: that divides the field of view into smaller plane images (facets)
645: inside of which the two-dimensional approximation
646: is valid \citep{cornwell92, perley99}.
647: The facet size was set automatically for each data set such that
648: $\theta^2\,w_{max} = 0.01$, resulting in facets that were typically about
649: $1^\circ$ in size or less. Depending on the facet size, each field was
650: covered by between roughly 250 and 1500 facets. Additional facets were
651: placed at the known locations of very strong sources outside of the field
652: of view so that their deconvolution could reduce the effects of their
653: sidelobes within the field of view.
654:
655: The ionospheric phase screens, determined in Section~\ref{fieldbased.sec},
656: were then applied by using the appropriate $\phi_{ion.}$ for each facet
657: as determined by the location of that facet within the phase screen.
658: The facets
659: were deconvolved using the CLEAN algorithm with a constant circular
660: restoring beam with $80''$ FWHM. The facets were then combined into a single
661: calibrated and astrometrically corrected image of the entire primary beam
662: region.
663:
664: \subsubsection{Removal of Strong Outlier Sources}
665:
666: In some cases the location of a field near an unusually strong source could
667: cause high sidelobes in the field of view, which greatly increased the
668: overall noise level. In bad cases it could even cause the ionospheric
669: calibration to fail altogether. In these cases we first self-calibrated
670: the data to the problematic source, then mapped that source and subtracted
671: it from the $uv$-data, and then reversed the calibration before finally
672: proceeding with the imaging as normal. This procedure is generally known
673: as ``peeling''. This greatly improved the image
674: quality for many fields, although for extremely strong sources, the
675: surrounding fields still have higher noise levels than average
676: because the source subtraction is not perfect and leaves residual errors.
677:
678: \subsubsection{Corrections of Residual Ionospheric Calibration Errors}
679:
680: After examining many field images, we discovered that some fraction of them
681: contained residual ionospheric errors that shifted sources
682: from their NVSS positions. There are
683: three potential reasons for VLSS source positions to be different from their
684: NVSS positions: (1) source fitting errors caused by map noise, (2) source
685: centroids being truly
686: different at 74 and 1400~MHz because of spectral variations across the source
687: and (3) the VLSS image at the source
688: location is shifted due to ionospheric calibration errors.
689: Reasons (1) and (2) will cause (usually small) random shifts which are not
690: correlated with the shifts of nearby sources. These shifts are expected and
691: do not require correction. However reason (3) can cause all the sources in a
692: given region to be shifted by nearly the same magnitude and direction, thereby
693: making the image astrometrically incorrect in that region. The
694: fact that this was seen in some
695: images (Figure \ref{shift.fig}, top plot) indicates that ionospheric
696: errors were significantly affecting some of the data.
697:
698: Ionospheric calibration errors can be separated into errors that are
699: time-dependent and those that are time-independent during the observation.
700: Time-dependent errors could be caused by ionospheric variations that are too
701: complex in
702: time or space to be modeled by our field-based calibration scheme. There is
703: nothing that can be done about these errors because they must be corrected
704: individually for each solution time interval. Each such time interval,
705: by itself, does not produce an image deep enough to detect enough sources
706: to apply a more sophisticated ionospheric model than was originally used.
707:
708: The main causes of time-independent errors are that one or more of the
709: ionospheric calibrators used has a significantly different centroid at
710: 74~MHz than it does at 1.4~GHz and that the available calibrators are
711: distributed in the field of view in a way that doesn't allow for a realistic
712: solution everywhere in the field. These problems do not vary with time and
713: cause the same calibration error for each time interval.
714: Unlike time-dependent errors, time-independent errors can be further
715: investigated because one can use the data from all time intervals combined,
716: in which generally at least 100 sources are detected in the field of view.
717:
718: Therefore we implemented an image correction algorithm designed to
719: remove these time-independent ionospheric calibration errors.
720: We compared the positions of sources in the
721: final 74~MHz image with NVSS positions and fit a up to a 4th-order Zernike
722: polynomial correction, rather than the 2nd-order correction used for
723: the initial phase calibration. The higher-order correction is possible
724: because of the larger number of available calibrators in the integrated
725: image, rather than the 2-minute snapshots. The large number of
726: available calibrators also allows the algorithm to remove
727: individual sources that give a bad fit to the correction models,
728: making the corrections much more robust against sources with true differences
729: between centroid positions at the two frequencies. The newly modeled
730: ``phase screen'' was applied in the image plane by stretching and then
731: re-gridding the image.
732: Although not all fields had significant calibration errors, to be thorough
733: and consistent, we applied this correction algorithm to all fields.
734:
735: The resulting maps show a nearly complete correction of correlated position
736: offsets between VLSS and NVSS as can be seen by comparing the before and after
737: images of Figure \ref{shift.fig}.
738: We defined the position error of a field as the 85th percentile in
739: distribution of VLSS-NVSS source offsets in the field. The 85th
740: percentile was chosen to catch ionospheric errors affecting a small
741: portion of a field without being sensitive to a single source having a
742: large centroid shift between 74 and 1400 MHz. For each field, we performed
743: three fits using a 2nd, 3rd and 4th-order polynomial correction. The fit that
744: produced the lowest position errors (usually, but not always the 4th-order
745: fit) was used for the ``final'' image. Figure \ref{shift.hist.fig} shows the
746: overall improvement in the position errors of all fields. Before
747: correction, 10\% of the fields had position errors greater than $30''$, with
748: some over 60$''$. After correction, no field had a position error
749: greater than $30''$ and about 95\% had position errors less than $20''$,
750: or 1/4 of the beamwidth. Thus the entire survey is accurate to
751: within $30''$. Figure \ref{shift.hist.fig}
752: also shows that almost no fields have position errors less
753: than $10''$. Position uncertainties caused by map noise probably account
754: for this 10$''$ minimum.
755:
756: \subsubsection{Image combining}
757:
758: Individual field maps at this point were still not corrected for the
759: attenuation of the primary-beam pattern, and therefore their sensitivity
760: varied; it was highest at the field centers and tapered off with distance
761: proportional to the primary-beam attenuation. The individual field maps
762: were each truncated at a radius of $6.2^{\circ}$, which is slightly larger
763: than the half-power radius. In order to produce images
764: of nearly uniform sensitivity, the individual fields were combined using
765: the method of \citet{condon98} which corrects for the primary-beam
766: attenuation while co-adding data at each point in the final image
767: weighted proportionally to the inverse square of the estimated RMS noise
768: level in each contributing image. The RMS noise levels were estimated
769: by measuring the noise levels at the centers of the fields and assuming that
770: they increased with radius from the center with inverse proportion to the
771: primary-beam attenuation.
772:
773: An overlapping grid of square images with 2048 $25''$ pixels on a side
774: {$\approx 14^{\circ}$} was produced to cover the entire survey region.
775: This grid of combined images comprises the principal data product of the
776: survey. This grid of
777: images was used to produce all sub-images and the source catalog.
778:
779: \section{Survey Assessment}
780: \subsection{Sky Area Imaged}
781:
782: We have now observed, reduced, and publicly released the images and
783: catalogs for the region of the sky shown in Figure \ref{coverage.map.fig}.
784: This region covers a total of 9.35 sr, about 95\% of the intended survey
785: region $\delta > -30^{\circ}$.
786: Observing time for the observations needed to image
787: the remaining area have been allocated. The full survey data will be
788: released after this is completed and combined with the existing data.
789:
790: \subsection{Sensitivity Achieved}
791: \label{sensitivity.sec}
792:
793: For the sky area shown in Figure \ref{coverage.map.fig} we achieved
794: a median RMS noise level of 108 mJy/beam. However, some
795: regions of the sky had significantly higher noise levels. This can be
796: seen in Figure \ref{area.stats.fig} which quantifies how much sky was
797: observed at each RMS noise level. In the lower plot, one can see that
798: while most of the sky area has now been observed at $100\pm30$mJy/beam,
799: there is a significant ``tail'' extending to much higher noise levels.
800: The main causes for this are: (1) regions near very strong
801: sources in which
802: the RMS noise level is dynamic-range limited, (2) regions at the edges
803: of fields with no neighboring field in which the primary beam shape raises
804: the RMS noise level (3) field located in high-sky-temperature regions in the
805: Galactic plane near the Galactic center, and (4) fields that were affected
806: by unusually bad ionospheric conditions or RFI conditions. We can do
807: nothing about causes (1) and (2), but we intend to re-observe fields affected
808: by causes (3) and (4) to reduce this effect in the next data release.
809:
810: The sensitivity of an image produced with the 74~MHz VLA is generally not
811: thermal noise limited. For a typical VLSS observation of 75 minutes with
812: 26 working antennas, the theoretical RMS noise is 35~mJy/beam for a system
813: temperature $T_{sys}$ of 1500K and aperture efficiency of 0.15.
814: This value of $T_{sys}$,
815: which is dominated by the sky temperature $T_{sky}$, is typical for the
816: sky far from the Galactic plane, but can be up to twice that on the
817: Galactic plane and even higher still near the Galactic center. However,
818: the map noise is dominated not by $T_{sys}$, but by sidelobe confusion
819: from the thousands of sources inside and outside the primary beam area,
820: an effect that is accentuated by the poor forward gain and commensurate high
821: sidelobe levels of the 74 MHz primary beam.
822: This is why most fields have noise levels that are between two to four times
823: the thermal noise.
824:
825: While $T_{sky}$ is not the dominant factor producing map noise, the fact
826: that it varies greatly over the survey region makes it instructive to look
827: for correlations between map noise and sky position.
828: The top graph of Figure~\ref{skynoise.fig} shows the map noise for
829: each field as a function of Galactic latitude for all fields except those
830: very close to extremely strong sources such as Cygnus~A. This plot
831: indicates little
832: if any dependence of map noise on Galactic latitude except for a slight
833: increase very close to zero latitude. Images in the Galactic plane region
834: are investigated further in the bottom graph of Figure~\ref{skynoise.fig}
835: which plots the map noise of all fields within $10^\circ$ of the Galactic
836: plane as a function of Galactic longitude. This plot shows a clear increase
837: of at least 50\% in the average map noise toward the Galactic center. This
838: shows that while $T_{sky}$ is generally not a determining factor in the
839: noise levels for most of the sky, it is high enough to increase map noise in
840: the small region of the sky on the Galactic plane and near the Galactic
841: center.
842:
843: \subsection{Image Quality}
844:
845: A sample VLSS sub-image is shown in Figure \ref{sample.fig}. The crosses
846: indicate identified sources that were included in the VLSS catalog which will
847: be described in Section \ref{catalog.sec}.
848:
849: With the VLSS resolution of $80''$ most radio sources
850: are either unresolved or just slightly resolved. However, given the large
851: sky area and number of sources identified, a sizable number of very large
852: and resolved sources have been found. Figure \ref{gallery.fig} shows a
853: sample of some of the largest sources found in the survey. Many of these are
854: well-known objects and we have labeled them by their common radio names.
855:
856: \section{Extracting the Catalog}
857: \label{catalog.sec}
858:
859: \subsection{Source Finding}
860:
861: In order to produce a catalog of sources we used the same Gaussian-fitting
862: program used by the NVSS catalog \citep{condon98}. This algorithm identifies
863: each ``island'' of high brightness in an image that is above a specified
864: threshold. The threshold we
865: used was that an island had to have a peak brightness of at least 4.5 times
866: the local RMS noise in a square 100 pixels on a side centered on that island.
867: Each island was fit to a model of up to four Gaussian peaks, which was
868: generally sufficient to accurately model most source structures. Each
869: catalog entry is a single Gaussian peak. If an ``island'' was fitted by
870: multiple Gaussian peaks, they were cataloged as separate sources. Therefore,
871: a catalog ``source'' is simply a bright region that was fit by a Gaussian,
872: but may actually be just one component of an astronomical source; for
873: example, one lobe of a double source. After
874: fitting, only sources with peak brightnesses of 5 times the local RMS noise
875: level ($\sigma$) or greater were kept in the catalog.
876:
877: The result was a list of Gaussian fits, each described by six parameters:
878:
879: \begin{itemize}
880: \item $\alpha$ = right ascension (J2000)
881: \item $\delta$ = declination (J2000)
882: \item $I_p$ = peak brightness
883: \item $\theta_M$ = major axis FWHM
884: \item $\theta_m$ = minor axis FWHM
885: \item $\phi_{PA}$ = Position Angle (east of north)
886: \end{itemize}
887:
888: \noindent
889: These are all free parameters fit to each source, the only constraint being
890: that $\theta_M$ and $\theta_m$ are required to be larger than
891: $\theta_b = 80''$, the size of the restoring beam.
892:
893: \subsection{False Detections}
894: \label{falsesources.sec}
895:
896: The $5\sigma$ cutoff for source detection should eliminate virtually all
897: false source detections for the case of Gaussian map noise. However the noise
898: in the VLSS images is not always Gaussian, mainly because of sidelobes from
899: incompletely deconvolved sources. Therefore in the vicinity of sources with
900: very high peak brightness, we apply a stricter criterion for source
901: detection of $6\sigma$ peak brightness. This ``vicinity'' was a circular
902: region around each
903: source with $I_p > 12\textrm{Jy/beam}$ with radius, $\theta_r$, that
904: varied according to the measured peak brightness, $I_p$, as follows:
905:
906: \begin{equation}
907: \theta_r = (1^{\circ})\sqrt{\frac{I_p}{60\,\textrm{Jy/beam}}}
908: \end{equation}
909:
910: \noindent
911: up to a maximum of $6^{\circ}$. The parameters of this equation were
912: adjusted empirically in order to remove the most false sources without
913: removing significant numbers of real sources.
914: This removed most but not all source detections that upon visual inspection
915: of the maps were clearly sidelobes of very strong sources. In all, 549
916: sources were removed in this manner. Of these, 263 (or 48\%) had no NVSS
917: counterpart within $60''$, whereas for all sources, fewer than 1\% have no
918: NVSS counterpart within $60''$. While we cannot use NVSS counterparts to
919: determine if individual sources are real, they are useful in comparing the
920: reliability of large sets of sources. Based on this comparison it is clear
921: that these 549 ``sources'' were not reliable enough to keep in the survey.
922: However, 286 of these sources did have counterparts, and assuming most of
923: these are real it is clear that real sources were removed from the catalog.
924: Thus we increased the reliability while decreasing the completeness of the
925: catalog in the vicinity of sources with very high peak brightnesses.
926:
927: \subsection{Derived Parameters}
928:
929: The six parameters from each Gaussian fit were used along with knowledge of
930: the restoring beam size, always $\theta_b = 80''$, and the local RMS map
931: noise, $\sigma$, to produce the derived parameters for each source that we
932: present in the VLSS catalog. Three of the derived parameters are the same as
933: the fitted parameters: $\alpha$, $\delta$ and $\phi_{PA}$. However, instead
934: of reporting the peak brightness, $I_p$, we instead give the
935: integrated flux density $S_i$. Also, instead of reporting the fitted source
936: sizes, $\theta_M$ and $\theta_m$, we use our knowledge of the restoring beam
937: size to calculate deconvolved source sizes, $\phi_M$ and $\phi_m$. In Section
938: \ref{derivations}, we describe in detail how these derived parameters and
939: their errors are determined.
940:
941: \section{Derivation of Source Parameters and Their Accuracy}
942: \label{derivations}
943:
944: \subsection{Source Positions}
945: \label{dpos}
946:
947: The source coordinates, $\alpha$ and $\delta$, are those of the fitted
948: Gaussian. The largest contributors to their RMS errors, $\sigma_\alpha$
949: and $\sigma_\delta$, are errors in the ionospheric phase calibration and
950: fitting errors caused by map noise. Thus the total position errors are
951: quadratic sums of two sources of error as are given by the following formulas:
952: \begin{mathletters}
953: \begin{eqnarray}
954: \label{dpos.alpha.eqn}
955: \sigma_\alpha^2 = \sigma_{\alpha,fit}^2 + \sigma_{\alpha,cal}^2 \\
956: \label{dpos.delta.eqn}
957: \sigma_\delta^2 = \sigma_{\delta,fit}^2 + \sigma_{\delta,cal}^2
958: \end{eqnarray}
959: \end{mathletters}
960: where $\sigma_{\alpha,cal}$ and $\sigma_{\delta,cal}$ are the position errors
961: due to calibration errors and $\sigma_{\alpha,fit}$ and $\sigma_{\delta,fit}$
962: are the fitting errors.
963:
964: \subsubsection{Position Errors Caused by Calibration Errors}
965: \label{cal.pos.errors}
966: Calibration errors affect the positions of all sources, while
967: map noise causes position errors that are inversely proportional to source
968: flux density.
969: Therefore we can isolate the calibration errors by focusing on
970: sources that are strong enough that the fitting errors are negligible in
971: comparison. However, most of the strongest sources were also used as
972: calibrators during field-based calibration. A source used as a
973: calibrator could have a smaller calibration-induced position error than
974: a typical source. Therefore, we restrict our sample to sources with peak
975: brightness below 3.5 Jy/beam, which is the threshold below which calibrator
976: sources are rejected. This will ensure that the sample remains unbiased.
977:
978: We can estimate the position error of a source by measuring the difference
979: between its VLSS and NVSS positions. For most sources, the NVSS position
980: errors will be much smaller than
981: the VLSS position errors because: (1) the NVSS resolution is nearly twice that
982: of the VLSS ($45''$ versus $80''$), (2) virtually all sources are
983: detected in NVSS at a much higher signal-to-noise ratio than in the VLSS
984: and (3) NVSS calibration errors are known to be only about 0.5$''$ because
985: of smaller ionospheric effects at the higher observing frequency.
986: %%For example, a point source with a typical spectral index of $\alpha = -0.8$
987: %%will be detected in the NVSS with roughly 20 times the signal-to-noise ratio
988: %%with which it will be detected in the VLSS.
989: Thus the difference between the NVSS and VLSS positions can be assumed to be
990: dominated by the
991: VLSS position error. However, there are exceptions to this for sources in
992: which the source centroid is in fact different at 74~MHz than at 1.4~GHz
993: because of a spatially varying spectral index throughout the source (i.e.
994: the core versus a lobe of a radio galaxy). This effect may cause a small
995: contamination when calculating average position offsets for large numbers of
996: sources. However, it can only increase the average offset, and so if
997: anything this method of estimating the position errors will be an
998: overestimate, and therefore a more conservative error estimate.
999:
1000: To examine position errors of strong sources, we used only
1001: VLSS sources that have (1) peak brightness less than
1002: 3.5 Jy/beam (to avoid calibrator sources), (2) a detection level of at least
1003: $30\sigma$, (3) a bright ($I_p > 50$ mJy/beam) NVSS
1004: counterpart within 120$''$, (4) no other counterpart within 120$''$,
1005: and (5) fitted major axes less than 120$''$.
1006: The fourth and fifth criteria were included to remove fitting errors caused
1007: by very large or multiple-component sources having highly non-Gaussian
1008: shapes and the increased likelihood of having real source centroid shifts
1009: between the two frequencies. There were 866 sources that met these criteria.
1010:
1011: We then calculated the VLSS-NVSS position differences for each of these
1012: sources, which are plotted in Figure \ref{dpos.strong.fig}. The results
1013: yielded average offset of
1014: $\Delta\alpha_{mean} = 0.08''$ and $\Delta\delta_{mean} = 0.08''$ and
1015: RMS deviation about mean values of
1016: $\Delta\alpha_{RMS} = 2.86''$ and $\Delta\delta_{RMS} = 3.03''$. Because
1017: we couldn't use the very strongest sources because they might have been
1018: used as calibrators, there is some level of contamination in these figures
1019: caused by map noise errors. For example, a point source detected at the
1020: 30$\sigma$ level (the lowest allowed in the sample) should have a position
1021: error in both dimensions of 1.35$''$, which subtracted in quadrature would
1022: reduce $\Delta\alpha_{RMS}$ from $2.86''$ to $2.52''$ and
1023: $\Delta\delta_{RMS}$ from $3.03''$ to $2.71''$. However, this is only about
1024: a 10\% reduction and even this is only for sources at the minimum
1025: signal-to-noise ratio in the sample. Therefore, while these average offsets
1026: could be slightly overestimated, we will proceed with them as
1027: conservative error estimates. Based
1028: on these values, we adjusted the VLSS source positions by subtracting
1029: the mean offset values and set $\sigma_{\alpha,cal} = 2.86''$ and
1030: $\sigma_{\delta,cal} = 3.03''$ in Equations \ref{dpos.alpha.eqn} and
1031: \ref{dpos.delta.eqn}.
1032:
1033: \subsubsection{Position Errors Caused by Map Noise}
1034:
1035: Errors caused by Gaussian fitting in the presence of map noise depend on
1036: the signal-to-noise ratio of the detection, $I_p /\sigma$. However,
1037: \citet{condon97} found that in practice errors were more reliably predicted
1038: by using the following ``effective'' signal-to-noise ratio:
1039: \begin{equation}
1040: \label{SNR}
1041: \rho^2 = \frac{\theta_M\theta_m}{4\theta_N^2}
1042: \left[ 1 + \left( \frac{\theta_N}{\theta_M} \right)^2 \right]^{\alpha_M}
1043: \left[ 1 + \left( \frac{\theta_N}{\theta_m} \right)^2 \right]^{\alpha_m}
1044: \frac{I_p^2}{\sigma^2}
1045: \end{equation}
1046: for which $\theta_N$ is the FWHM of the Gaussian noise correlation function
1047: which we can take to be the restoring beam size $\theta_b$.
1048: The exponents $\alpha_M$ and $\alpha_m$, used for the terms adjusting for
1049: the major and minor axes respectively, differ depending on
1050: the error parameter being calculated.
1051:
1052: The position uncertainties are therefore given by:
1053: \begin{mathletters}
1054: \begin{eqnarray}
1055: \label{cal.alpha.eqn}
1056: \sigma_M^2 = \frac{\theta_M^2}{(4 \ln 2)\rho^2} \\
1057: \sigma_m^2 = \frac{\theta_m^2}{(4 \ln 2)\rho^2}
1058: \end{eqnarray}
1059: \end{mathletters}
1060: \noindent
1061: where $\sigma_M$ and $\sigma_m$ are the position errors along the
1062: major and minor axes respectively. The exponents used for calculating $\rho$
1063: from Equation \ref{SNR} are $\alpha_M = 5/2$ and $\alpha_m = 1/2$ for
1064: calculating $\sigma_M$, and $\alpha_M = 1/2$ and $\alpha_m = 5/2$ for
1065: calculating $\sigma_m$ \citep{condon97}.
1066:
1067: To get the source-fitting position errors along the
1068: right ascension and declination axes as needed for Equations
1069: \ref{dpos.alpha.eqn} and \ref{dpos.delta.eqn}, we have:
1070: \begin{mathletters}
1071: \begin{eqnarray}
1072: \sigma_{\alpha,fit}^2 = \sigma_M^2\sin^2(\phi_{PA})
1073: + \sigma_m^2\cos^2(\phi_{PA}) \\
1074: \sigma_{\delta,fit}^2 = \sigma_M^2\cos^2(\phi_{PA})
1075: + \sigma_m^2\sin^2(\phi_{PA})
1076: \end{eqnarray}
1077: \end{mathletters}
1078: \noindent
1079: These errors are then added
1080: in quadrature to the calibration errors that were determined in Section
1081: \ref{cal.pos.errors} to produce the total position errors that we include
1082: in the VLSS source catalog.
1083:
1084: To check the validity of these error estimates, we again compared with the
1085: NVSS positions, but we used relatively weak sources so that the
1086: source-fitting errors are significant. Sources were selected with the
1087: same criteria used in Section \ref{cal.pos.errors}, only this time we only
1088: selected sources with $5\sigma < I_p < 10\sigma$. There
1089: were 18,490 sources that met these criteria, and the resulting position
1090: error estimates are shown in Figure \ref{dpos.weak.fig}. All source offsets
1091: ($\Delta\alpha$, $\Delta\delta$) were divided by the calculated position
1092: errors for that source ($\sigma_\alpha$, $\sigma_\delta$). The ratios of
1093: actual source offsets to calculated errors, $\Delta\alpha/\sigma_\alpha$
1094: and $\Delta\delta/\sigma_\delta$, both had RMS values of 1.12. These
1095: values are close to the expected values of unity, and part of the reason
1096: they are somewhat
1097: higher is likely due to actual source centroid shifts between 74~MHz and
1098: 1.4~GHz. Therefore we conclude that our error estimates are reasonable.
1099: In our catalog, we multiplied our position error estimates by 1.12.
1100:
1101: \subsection{Source Sizes}
1102:
1103: Deconvolved FWHM source sizes, $\phi_M$ and $\phi_m$, can be calculated
1104: as follows:
1105: \begin{mathletters}
1106: \begin{eqnarray}
1107: \label{dmaj}
1108: \phi_M = \sqrt{(\theta_M^2 - \theta_b^2)} \\
1109: \label{dmin}
1110: \phi_m = \sqrt{(\theta_m^2 - \theta_b^2)}
1111: \end{eqnarray}
1112: \end{mathletters}
1113: where $\theta_M$ and $\theta_m$ are the fitted FWHM source sizes and
1114: $\theta_b = 80''$ is the FWHM of the circular restoring beam. Constraining
1115: the fitted sizes to be larger than the restoring beam guarantees that the
1116: deconvolved source sizes are zero or greater. The position angle,
1117: $\phi_{PA}$, is simply the original fitted value. Equations \ref{dmaj} and
1118: \ref{dmin} do not take into account imaging artifacts that increase the
1119: fitted size of even a point source beyond that of the restoring beam, such
1120: as time-average smearing, bandwidth smearing or, as will be discussed in
1121: Section~\ref{smear.sec}, ionospheric smearing. Therefore, values of
1122: $\phi_M$ and $\phi_m$ are only valid when they are greater than any of these
1123: effects are likely to produce. As we estimate in Section~\ref{smear.sec}
1124: this value is about $45''$, which is larger than at least 95\% of ionospheric
1125: smearing effects and also larger than any bandwidth or time-average smearing.
1126: Below $45''$, $\phi_M$ and $\phi_m$ should be treated as upper limits on
1127: the deconvolved source size.
1128:
1129: The errors in the fitted sizes are Gaussian distributed, with RMS error
1130: given by:
1131: \begin{mathletters}
1132: \begin{eqnarray}
1133: \label{thetaM.error.eqn}
1134: \sigma^2(\theta_M) = \frac{2\theta_M^2}{\rho^2} + \epsilon_o^2\theta_b^2 \\
1135: \label{thetam.error.eqn}
1136: \sigma^2(\theta_m) = \frac{2\theta_m^2}{\rho^2} + \epsilon_o^2\theta_b^2
1137: \end{eqnarray}
1138: \end{mathletters}
1139: where the exponents used for calculating $\rho$
1140: from Equation \ref{SNR} are $\alpha_M = 5/2$ and $\alpha_m = 1/2$ for
1141: calculating $\sigma^2(\theta_M)$, and $\alpha_M = 1/2$ and $\alpha_m = 5/2$
1142: for calculating $\sigma^2(\theta_m)$ \citep{condon97}. The term with
1143: $\epsilon_o$ is a calibration uncertainty which we will estimate in
1144: Section~\ref{smear.sec}.
1145: %%for which we estimate $\epsilon_o = 0.02$.
1146:
1147: We consider a source to be significantly resolved if the fitted $\theta_M$
1148: is larger than the beam size by more than 2.33$\sigma(\theta_M)$. That is
1149: the threshold for which a true point source would appear resolved only 2\%
1150: of the time. If an axis is significantly resolved, we estimate the error of
1151: the deconvolved value by varying the fitted size by $\pm1$ standard deviation
1152: and taking half of the difference of the resulting upper and lower
1153: deconvolved values. This gives:
1154: \begin{mathletters}
1155: \begin{eqnarray}
1156: \sigma(\phi_M) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \sqrt{(\theta_M + \sigma(\theta_M))^2 -
1157: \theta_b^2} - \sqrt{(\theta_M - \sigma(\theta_M))^2 - \theta_b^2} \right] \\
1158: \sigma(\phi_m) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \sqrt{(\theta_m + \sigma(\theta_m))^2 -
1159: \theta_b^2} - \sqrt{(\theta_m - \sigma(\theta_m))^2 - \theta_b^2} \right].
1160: \end{eqnarray}
1161: \end{mathletters}
1162:
1163: If an axis is not significantly resolved, we only report the 98\%
1164: confidence upper limits to the deconvolved source size along that axis.
1165: If at least one axis is significantly resolved, we give the position angle,
1166: $\phi_{PA}$ and its error given by:
1167: \begin{equation}
1168: \sigma^2_{PA} = \frac{4}{\rho^2} \left( \frac{\theta_M\theta_m}
1169: {\theta_M^2 - \theta_m^2} \right)^2
1170: \end{equation}
1171: where the exponents used for calculating $\rho$ from Equation \ref{SNR}
1172: are $\alpha_M = 1/2$ and $\alpha_m = 5/2$ \citep{condon97}.
1173:
1174: \subsubsection{Effects of Ionospheric Smearing on Source Sizes}
1175: \label{smear.sec}
1176:
1177: Ionospheric calibration errors cause artificial smearing of sources and
1178: increase their
1179: apparent sizes. To examine this effect we considered VLSS sources that
1180: are detected at high signal-to-noise ratios because fitting errors on
1181: strong sources are much smaller than ionospheric smearing effects
1182: typically are.
1183:
1184: The test we conducted was to measure the Strehl ratios of the VLSS
1185: sources with the highest peak brightnesses. The Strehl ratio is the ratio
1186: of the solid angle of the diffraction limited point source response, which
1187: in our case is simply the restoring beam (with $80''$ FWHM throughout the
1188: survey) to the actual solid angle of a point source in an image. It is
1189: also the amount by which the peak brightness will be degraded in an image.
1190: We estimated this by comparing the fitted VLSS source sizes to the expected
1191: source sizes based on convolving the NVSS counterpart source size to VLSS
1192: resolution. This test measures not only ionospheric smearing, but also
1193: time-average smearing and bandwidth smearing. However, for most sources,
1194: incorrect ionospheric calibration is the largest potential cause of smearing.
1195:
1196: To avoid other errors, we restricted our sample set to VLSS
1197: sources with detection levels of at least $60\sigma$ and with NVSS
1198: counterparts that
1199: were small enough to imply a VLSS source size of no more than 1.05 times
1200: the restoring beam solid angle. This resulted in 975 sources, and the
1201: resulting distribution of Strehl ratios is shown in Figure \ref{strehl.fig}.
1202: Because of measurement errors a small fraction of sources have a Strehl
1203: ratio above 1, which is unphysical. Most sources however had
1204: Strehl ratios below 1, with a median value of 0.96. There is a long tail
1205: of values well below the median, which could be due to observations with
1206: particularly high ionospheric calibration errors. Equally plausible is
1207: that some fraction of sources have sizes that really do appear larger at
1208: 74~MHz than at 1.4~GHz because of diffuse steep-spectrum emission. This
1209: effect has been previously observed in sources such as Hydra A
1210: \citep{lane04}. Finally, one may question whether the use of the sources
1211: with the highest peak brightnesses,
1212: many of which were used as calibrator sources, would be biased toward higher
1213: Strehl ratios. This was checked by taking a similar sample of sources with
1214: peak brightness below the 3.5~Jy/beam cutoff for calibrator selection. The
1215: weaker source sample actually had a slightly higher median Strehl ratio of
1216: 0.97, but with a much larger spread which is likely caused by the increased
1217: effects of map noise on weaker sources. However, it does not seem that the
1218: source sample is biased toward higher-than-normal Strehl ratios, and therefore
1219: our initial test appears reliable. Based on the median Strehl ratio of 0.96,
1220: we use $\epsilon_o = 0.02$ in Equations~\ref{thetaM.error.eqn} and
1221: \ref{thetam.error.eqn} assuming that on average each axis will have half
1222: of the residual ionospheric smearing.
1223:
1224: This test indicates that ionospheric smearing reduced the peak brightness
1225: of the typical source by
1226: about 4\%. Flux density is not lost, just spread out, so the
1227: integrated flux density should theoretically not be affected. However, the
1228: reduction in peak brightness will cause some sources to fall below the
1229: $5\sigma$ detection threshold, which affects the completeness of the source
1230: catalog.
1231:
1232: The biggest effect of ionospheric smearing is to increase the
1233: estimated source sizes. While a Strehl ratio of 0.96 has a rather small
1234: effect on the fitted source size, it has a larger effect on the deconvolved
1235: source size estimate. For a point source, if we take the worst case scenario,
1236: in which the entire source smearing was along one axis, a Strehl ratio of
1237: 0.96 would correspond to a deconvolved major axis of $23''$. A Strehl ratio
1238: of 0.87 (the value of the lowest 95th percentile in the distribution of
1239: Figure \ref{strehl.fig}) would increase the deconvolved major axis to $45''$.
1240:
1241: In the catalog, we report the deconvolved source sizes based only on the
1242: source fitting without taking into account the effects of ionospheric
1243: smearing. This is for two main reasons. First, though we can quantify this
1244: effect statistically for a large number of sources, it is nearly impossible to
1245: estimate the effect for a single source. Second, for all sources except those
1246: with very high peak brightnesses, any smearing is likely to be small compared
1247: to the normal
1248: map noise induced fitting errors, and would not significantly effect the
1249: reported source sizes. However, the user of the catalog should be warned that
1250: source sizes smaller than about $45''$ should be treated as upper limits.
1251:
1252: \subsection{Flux Densities}
1253:
1254: In this section we describe how the source flux densities and their errors
1255: were determined. The flux-density
1256: error estimates are quadratic sums of map-noise-induced fitting errors
1257: (Section~\ref{flux.noise}) and
1258: intensity-proportional flux errors produced by errors in both the
1259: flux-density scale and primary-beam corrections
1260: (Sections \ref{flux.scale} and \ref{PB.error}). We also correct the flux
1261: densities for a clean bias which we discuss in Section~\ref{cleanbias}.
1262: In Section~\ref{compare.sec}, we compare our flux values to those from other
1263: notable low-frequency surveys as a general check of our results.
1264:
1265: \subsubsection{Flux-Density Errors from Map Noise}
1266: \label{flux.noise}
1267:
1268: The map noise error depends on the effective
1269: signal to noise ratio, $\rho$, which for flux densities should be calculated
1270: using Equation \ref{SNR} with $\alpha_M = \alpha_m = 3/2$ \citep{condon97}.
1271: Also, map noise error depends on the number of
1272: degrees of freedom allowed in the Gaussian fit. Therefore, the best estimate
1273: for the integrated flux density of a source depends on whether or not the
1274: source is significantly resolved \citep{condon97}. There are three cases to
1275: consider:
1276:
1277: 1. If both the major and minor axes are significantly resolved, the integrated
1278: flux density is
1279: \begin{equation}
1280: S_i = I_p \left( \frac{\theta_M\theta_m}{\theta_b^2} \right)
1281: \end{equation}
1282: and the RMS uncertainty in $S_i$ is
1283: \begin{equation}
1284: \label{case1}
1285: \sigma(S_i) = S_i
1286: \left(
1287: \epsilon_S^2 + \frac{2I_p^2}{\rho^2} +
1288: \frac{\theta_b^2}{\theta_M\theta_m}
1289: \left[ \frac{\sigma^2(\theta_M)}{\theta_M^2}
1290: + \frac{\sigma^2(\theta_m)}{\theta_m^2} \right]
1291: \right)^{1/2}
1292: \end{equation}
1293:
1294: 2. If the major axis is significantly resolved but the minor axis is not,
1295: the best estimate for the integrated flux density is
1296: \begin{equation}
1297: S_i = I_p \left( \frac{\theta_M}{\theta_b} \right)
1298: \left( \frac{\theta_m}{\theta_b} \right)^{1/2}
1299: \end{equation}
1300: and the RMS uncertainty in $S_i$ is
1301: \begin{equation}
1302: \label{case2}
1303: \sigma(S_i) = S_i
1304: \left(
1305: \epsilon_S^2 + \frac{3I_p^2}{2\rho^2} +
1306: \frac{\theta_b}{\theta_M}
1307: \frac{\sigma^2(\theta_M)}{\theta_M^2}
1308: \right)^{1/2}
1309: \end{equation}
1310:
1311: 3. If neither the major nor minor axis is significantly resolved, the best
1312: estimate for the integrated flux density is
1313: \begin{equation}
1314: S_i = I_p \left( \frac{\theta_M\theta_m}{\theta_b^2}\right)^{1/2}
1315: \end{equation}
1316: and the RMS uncertainty in $S_i$ is
1317: \begin{equation}
1318: \label{case3}
1319: \sigma(S_i) = S_i
1320: \left( \epsilon_S^2 + \frac{I_p^2}{\rho^2}\right)^{1/2}.
1321: \end{equation}
1322:
1323: \subsubsection{Accuracy of the Flux-Density Scale}
1324: \label{flux.scale}
1325:
1326: The flux-density scale for each VLSS observation was determined by comparing
1327: scans on Cygnus~A to a pre-existing model that was scaled to the flux density
1328: determined by \citet{baars77}.
1329: As the 74~MHz VLA is a fairly new system, the accuracy of this method is
1330: not well determined. Ideally we could compare our results for very strong
1331: sources to some pre-existing database of accurate 74~MHz flux densities.
1332: However, no database of 74~MHz flux densities exists, nor does any database
1333: of low-frequency source spectra with enough accuracy for us to measure the
1334: accuracy of our own flux-density scale.
1335:
1336: Fortunately, Cygnus~A was not the only calibrator we observed. At times when
1337: Cygnus~A was not at high enough elevation, two other calibrators, Virgo~A and
1338: 3C~123, were observed in case the calibration from other times on Cygnus~A was
1339: not sufficient. This never was the case, so these other calibrators were
1340: never actually used in data reduction. However, as they are sources
1341: observed on many different days, their derived flux densities on each day
1342: can be used as an internal check of the flux calibration consistency.
1343: 3C~123 was observed on 24 separate days, and the flux-density measurements
1344: give a mean value of $390.5$~Jy with an RMS scatter of $15.7$~Jy,
1345: indicating that the flux-density scale
1346: is consistent to within 4\%. This
1347: measurement agrees well with the value predicted by \citet{kuhr81} which
1348: is 387.6~Jy indicating that flux-density scale remains linear even at
1349: Cygnus~A flux density levels. Virgo~A was observed on 42 days, yielding a
1350: mean flux density of $1911.5$~Jy with an RMS scatter of $119.2$~Jy
1351: which indicates that the flux-density scale
1352: is consistent to within 6\%. This is somewhat different than the predicted
1353: \citet{kuhr81} value of 2281.4~Jy. However, the \citet{kuhr81} spectrum
1354: is even farther off from its own 80~MHz data point of 1519~Jy, indicating
1355: that their spectrum may not be a good fit to the data. The fact that Virgo~A
1356: is a large, heavily resolved source may also be a factor. To be on the
1357: conservative side, and also because Virgo~A was observed more often, we
1358: consider the 6\% to be a reasonable estimate of the accuracy of our
1359: flux-density scale.
1360:
1361: \subsubsection{Total Intensity-Proportional Flux-Density Errors}
1362: \label{PB.error}
1363:
1364: The errors in the flux-density scale, discussed in Section \ref{flux.scale},
1365: are only part of the total intensity-proportional flux errors. The other
1366: significant component is the primary-beam correction error. The primary
1367: beam of a VLA antenna at 74~MHz is not perfectly understood and is probably
1368: not symmetric. The analysis of Section \ref{flux.scale} only considered
1369: sources at the center of the field of view, for which primary-beam corrections
1370: were not necessary. In this section we analyze the contribution of
1371: primary-beam correction errors to the intensity-proportional flux error of
1372: any VLSS sources.
1373:
1374: To determine the total intensity-proportional flux errors for a general VLSS
1375: source, we take advantage of the fact that most sources have been observed
1376: in two or three different pointings because of the overlapping nature of the
1377: observational grid. Thus the original field maps, prior to their combination
1378: with adjacent fields in the mosaic, contain multiple flux-density measurements
1379: with independent flux-density calibrations and primary-beam
1380: corrections. For sources detected at sufficiently high signal-to-noise
1381: ratios, map noise errors are negligible compared with intensity-proportional
1382: flux errors. Therefore, for strong sources, the differences among
1383: flux-density measurements made in overlapping fields are due almost
1384: entirely to intensity-proportional flux errors.
1385:
1386: We considered all sources detected with signal-to-noise ratios of at least
1387: 60 and that had fitted Gaussian major axes less than 120$''$ (1.5 times
1388: the restoring beam) to remove sources that are large enough that they may
1389: not be well fit by a Gaussian. There were 1,126 such sources and 1,787 pairs
1390: of flux-density measurements of the same source from different fields.
1391: The root-mean-square of the fractional differences in these measurement pairs
1392: indicates a total intensity-proportional flux error of 12.1\%. This includes
1393: both the
1394: flux-density scale errors and primary-beam correction errors. Taking the
1395: estimated flux-density scale error of 6\% from Section~\ref{flux.scale}, the
1396: primary-beam correction error alone is about 10.5\%.
1397:
1398: The 12.1\% value for the intensity-proportional flux error is almost
1399: certainly an overestimate for two reasons. First,
1400: because we only consider sources observed in two or more adjacent fields,
1401: we are biased toward sources near the outer region of the primary beam,
1402: for which primary-beam corrections will have greater than average errors.
1403: Second, this is the estimated error for a single observation. Most VLSS
1404: sources are a weighted sum of adjacent field images, and so the averaged
1405: error will be somewhat less than the error in a single field. In fact,
1406: the comparisons to other catalogs presented later in Section~\ref{compare.sec}
1407: do indicate that the intensity-proportional flux errors are probably somewhat
1408: smaller than this. In particular, the comparisons to 6C and 8C sources
1409: shows that our intensity-proportional error can be no higher than 10.4\%
1410: and even this includes the errors from both of those surveys as well as
1411: errors in interpolation which assume a constant spectral index. Therefore,
1412: we use 10\% as a conservative estimate of the intensity proportional error
1413: and set $\epsilon_S$ = 0.10 for the flux-density
1414: error determinations of Equations \ref{case1}, \ref{case2} and \ref{case3}.
1415:
1416: It should be noted that $\epsilon_S$ = 0.10 is the measure of the
1417: consistency of our flux-scale and primary-beam corrections with respect to
1418: the \citet{baars77}
1419: scale. That scale itself has an absolute accuracy that they estimate to be
1420: 5\% at frequencies below about 300~MHz.
1421:
1422: \subsubsection{Clean Bias}
1423: \label{cleanbias}
1424:
1425: Images deconvolved using the CLEAN algorithm are known to suffer from a
1426: ``clean bias''. This occurs because, as cleaning proceeds to deeper levels,
1427: the probability increases that a sidelobe of a source or a noise fluctuation
1428: (or a combination of these) can produce a peak higher than any remaining flux
1429: in the image. Cleaning this false source results in flux being subtracted
1430: from the true source that produced that sidelobe. Therefore
1431: the clean bias results in the flux densities of sources being systematically
1432: reduced. The magnitude of the bias is independent of the flux density of
1433: sources, but is known to increase with higher map noise.
1434:
1435: We have conducted a simulation to determine the clean bias in our images.
1436: This was done by adding artificial point sources to the $uv$-data and
1437: comparing the input flux densities to the measured flux densities in the
1438: resulting maps. This is a standard way to measure the clean bias, however
1439: the fact that we conducted field-based ionospheric calibration during imaging
1440: complicated this simulation. Because ionospheric phase corrections are
1441: applied to the data during imaging, we had to apply the inverse of these
1442: corrections to the artificial sources before adding them to the $uv$-data
1443: in order to produce the intended artificial point sources in the final maps.
1444:
1445: In all, we produced 2362 artificial sources at random positions in fields
1446: chosen from the survey data to represent a wide range of right ascension and
1447: declination. The flux densities varied randomly
1448: from 1 to 10 Jy. The final results showed a systematic bias between the
1449: input flux densities and the map results, confirming the clean bias. The
1450: measured clean bias was independent of the input flux density, but did
1451: increase with local RMS maps noise, $\sigma$. Fitting a model of the
1452: clean bias where its value is proportional to $\sigma$, we found the average
1453: clean bias reduces the flux densities of point sources by 1.39$\sigma$.
1454: We have corrected the source catalog for this bias by adding this amount,
1455: to the peak brightness, $I_p$, of each source when calculating the flux
1456: density, $S_i$, as described in Section~\ref{flux.noise}. Though larger
1457: than the local RMS map
1458: noise, the clean bias is still smaller than the flux density error for any
1459: source because of the intensity-proportional errors. Therefore, even with
1460: the clean bias correction, flux density errors are still dominated by the
1461: map noise errors and intensity-proportional errors calculated previously.
1462:
1463: The magnitude of the clean bias we find is similar to that of other surveys.
1464: It is a bit higher than the value found in the NVSS survey, which is about
1465: 0.67 times the typical map noise \citep{condon98}. It is a bit less than
1466: the value found in the FIRST survey, which is about 1.67 times the typical
1467: map noise \citep{becker95}. We note that both the NVSS and FIRST use a
1468: constant clean bias correction, rather than one that is proportional to the
1469: local RMS noise as we do, and the ratios mentioned are relative to the
1470: average noise levels of those surveys.
1471:
1472: \subsubsection{Comparisons with other low-frequency data}
1473: \label{compare.sec}
1474:
1475: Though it proved impossible to use other low-frequency catalogs to predict
1476: 74~MHz flux densities of enough sources with enough precision to test the
1477: accuracy of our own flux-density scale, comparisons to other low-frequency
1478: data are still of interest. In this section, we describe a few of the
1479: comparisons we conducted.
1480:
1481: \begin{description}
1482:
1483: \item[\citet{kuhr81} Spectra:]
1484: We have compared the flux densities of strong VLSS sources to
1485: their expected
1486: values based on fitted spectra provided in \citet{kuhr81}, which also uses
1487: the flux-density scale of \citet{baars77}. We used sources
1488: with VLSS integrated flux densities between 15 Jy $\leq S_{74} \leq$ 200 Jy
1489: that also had \citet{kuhr81} spectra based on data including at least one
1490: measurement below 100~MHz. There were 94 such sources, and the ratio
1491: of VLSS flux densities to the \citet{kuhr81} predicted flux densities had a
1492: RMS scatter of $\pm20$\% and a mean value of $0.87 \pm 0.02$.
1493:
1494: This ratio seems rather low, and the scatter quite high. One problem with
1495: this method is that the errors in most \citet{kuhr81} spectra
1496: tend to be quite large at the low-frequency end. In particular, the fitted
1497: spectra were often quite far off the actual measurement values below 100~MHz.
1498: In fact, for sources with 80~MHz measurements, the difference between the
1499: \citet{kuhr81} fitted spectrum and the 80~MHz value was often greater than
1500: the difference between the 74~MHz VLSS value and the fitted spectrum.
1501:
1502: \item[80~MHz data:]
1503: Because of the problems experienced in comparing VLSS flux densities to the
1504: \citet{kuhr81} spectra, we chose to simply compare the VLSS measurements
1505: directly to the 80~MHz measurements. The 80~MHz measurements were taken
1506: with the Culgoora radioheliograph \citep{slee73,slee75,slee77} and adjusted
1507: to the \citet{baars77} flux-density scale by \citet{kuhr81}. We adjusted
1508: these 80~MHz values to predicted 74~MHz values by assuming a spectral index
1509: of $\alpha = -0.8$. For the 70 sources with 80~MHz
1510: measurements in the \citet{kuhr81} spectra, the ratio of VLSS to the
1511: resulting predicted flux densities had an RMS scatter of $\pm12$\% and a mean
1512: value of $0.93 \pm 0.01$, which is a better ratio and scatter than
1513: the comparisons to the \citet{kuhr81} spectra. Because this value depends
1514: on the assumed average spectral index, it should be considered as a lower
1515: limit, as a significant fraction of sources could have flattened due to
1516: synchrotron self-absorption and would have spectra flatter than the typical
1517: value of $\alpha = -0.8$. If so, this would raise mean flux-density ratio.
1518: For example, if we assume an average spectral index of $\alpha = -0.4$, the
1519: derived mean flux-density ratio becomes $0.96 \pm 0.01$.
1520:
1521: \item[8C to 6C interpolation:]
1522: Another comparison to external data was done by predicting the flux at 74~MHz
1523: by interpolating between values from the 38~MHz 8C catalog
1524: \citep{rees90} and the 151~MHz 6C catalog \citep{hales88}. Choosing VLSS
1525: sources that were detected above at least the 60$\sigma$ level
1526: and also had single counterparts within 120$''$ in both the
1527: 8C and 6C catalogs resulted in a sample of 201 sources. The 8C and 6C
1528: catalogs are based on the flux-density scale of \citet{roger73}, and so
1529: we adjusted the interpolated flux-density value to the \cite{baars77} scale
1530: according to the flux ratios of Cygnus~A. Figure~\ref{flux.compare.fig}
1531: shows a comparison of the flux densities of the VLSS
1532: sources versus the interpolated predictions. For these
1533: sources the average ratio of VLSS to expected flux density had an RMS
1534: scatter of
1535: $\pm10.4$\% and a mean value of $0.99 \pm 0.01$. This test had a final ratio
1536: quite close to unity as well as a low scatter. After taking into account the
1537: errors in the 8C and 6C catalogs, this result seems consistent with our
1538: flux-density scale error estimate of 6\%, and actually lower than our
1539: admittedly conservative estimate of the total intensity-proportional
1540: flux-density error.
1541:
1542: \end{description}
1543:
1544: \section{Completeness of the Catalog}
1545:
1546: In this section we discuss the point-source completeness of the VLSS catalog.
1547: Because the RMS noise levels are not constant throughout the survey region,
1548: we estimated not the total completeness, but the differential completeness as
1549: a function of signal-to-noise ratio (the
1550: ratio of the peak brightness of a point source to the local RMS noise level).
1551: This was estimated through
1552: simulations in which artificial sources were added at random positions to
1553: the actual VLSS images. The same source-finding methods were then applied
1554: to the maps to see what fraction of artificial sources were ``detected''.
1555:
1556: Simulations were first done for point sources without taking into account
1557: any ionospheric source smearing. Gaussians were added to the
1558: VLSS images with the same dimensions as the restoring beam (circular with
1559: FWHM of 80$''$). The peak brightnesses of the artificial sources
1560: were set to various multiples of the local RMS noise levels and reduced by
1561: the clean bias of 1.39$\sigma$ as determined in Section~\ref{cleanbias}.
1562: For a given signal-to-noise ratio, 32 artificial sources were added at random
1563: positions to each of the 279 $14^\circ\times14^\circ$ VLSS images that had
1564: no blanked regions, for a total sample of 8,928 artificial sources. The
1565: fraction
1566: of these that were ``detected'' according to our source-finding criteria was
1567: taken to be the differential completeness level at that signal-to-noise
1568: ratio. These values are plotted in Figure~\ref{complete.fig} as the filled
1569: points.
1570: Because the source finding criteria used included the $5\sigma$ fitted
1571: peak brightness, it does not apply to the regions surrounding high peak
1572: brightness sources for which a $6\sigma$ selection was used as described
1573: in Section~\ref{falsesources.sec}
1574:
1575: We performed a second set of simulations which aimed to factor in residual
1576: ionospheric smearing. The Strehl ratio distribution of strongly detected,
1577: compact VLSS sources found in Section~\ref{smear.sec} was used as a guide.
1578: If one assumes that the majority of the smearing occurs on one axis, that
1579: Strehl ratio roughly
1580: corresponds to a mean deconvolved major axis of 22.9$''$ with an RMS deviation
1581: of 14.2$''$. Therefore we repeated the same simulation described above, but
1582: this time convolving each artificial source with a Gaussian with major axis
1583: equal to a Gaussian random variable with a mean of $22.9''$ and RMS of
1584: $14.2''$, a minor axis equal to zero and a PA set randomly between $0^\circ$
1585: and $360^\circ$. (If the random major axis was less than zero, it was replaced
1586: with zero.) The peak brightness of each artificial source was thus lowered
1587: by the same factor that its area was increased due to smearing. The resulting
1588: differential completeness levels are also shown in Figure~\ref{complete.fig}
1589: as the open points. This simulation indicates that ionospheric
1590: smearing has most likely reduced the completeness of the survey to some
1591: degree, with the effect being greatest for the faintest sources.
1592: The completeness level for $6\sigma$ point sources is lowered by 16\%, however
1593: the difference falls to 12\% for $7\sigma$ sources and 6\% for $8\sigma$
1594: sources. A much larger effect on completeness is caused by the clean bias,
1595: which shifts the entire differential completeness curve of
1596: Figure~\ref{complete.fig} to the right by 1.39 in units of the local RMS
1597: noise level. Taking into account both ionospheric smearing and the clean
1598: bias, the 50\% point-source detection limit of the survey is roughly
1599: $7\sigma$, or about 0.7~Jy for a typical noise level of 0.1~Jy/beam.
1600:
1601: \section{Accessing the Data}
1602:
1603: As the VLSS was conducted as a service to the astronomical community,
1604: we have publicly released all images and catalogs as soon as they were
1605: reduced and verified. Along with an overall description of the VLSS project
1606: and its current status, all verified data can be obtained at the
1607: VLSS website:\\
1608:
1609: {\tt http://lwa.nrl.navy.mil/VLSS}
1610:
1611: \noindent
1612: The data are available in several forms. First, all images in the grid of
1613: the original large $\approx14^{\circ}\times14^{\circ}$ combined images are
1614: available to be directly downloaded as FITS files. Further, we have made
1615: available an online postage-stamp server in which a smaller image around a
1616: point of interest can be obtained for any user-entered coordinates within the
1617: currently completed survey region.
1618:
1619: The current VLSS catalog file can be downloaded as well. Also provided
1620: is browser software which uses the catalog file to search for sources within
1621: a given radius of given positions using various criteria and gives the final
1622: parameters and their error estimates. A small sample the output of the VLSS
1623: catalog browser is shown in Table \ref{tab.catalog}.
1624:
1625: \section{Conclusion and Future Work}
1626:
1627: We have nearly completed a 74~MHz survey of the entire sky visible from the
1628: northern hemisphere. This was done by overcoming the large ionospheric
1629: effects which have been the main obstacle to wide-field arcminute-resolution
1630: imaging at this frequency for the last 50 years. We now have high-quality
1631: 74~MHz images for roughly $3\pi$ sr. of sky, yielding nearly 70,000
1632: sources detected at the $5\sigma$ level or greater in the images. All
1633: VLSS data are available publicly at the VLSS website:\\
1634:
1635: {\tt http://lwa.nrl.navy.mil/VLSS}
1636:
1637: In terms of both sky coverage and resolution, we now have produced a low
1638: frequency equivalent to the most comprehensive radio sky survey yet
1639: produced, the NVSS. The one aspect that keeps the VLSS from being a full
1640: equivalent to the NVSS is sensitivity. The VLSS has a typical RMS noise
1641: level roughly 220 times higher than the NVSS, and even allowing for an average
1642: spectral index of $\alpha = -0.8$, it is still less sensitive than the NVSS
1643: by a factor of 20. As discussed in Section~\ref{sensitivity.sec}, the
1644: limiting factor in VLSS sensitivity is sidelobe confusion.
1645: A telescope designed specifically for low frequencies could overcome this
1646: problem to a large extent with better forward gain, a smaller field of view,
1647: and higher resolution. Yet, even without sidelobe confusion, thermal noise
1648: still prevents low-frequency observations from attaining sensitivity
1649: anywhere near that of cm-wavelengths. This is because of the very high sky
1650: noise temperature at low frequencies caused by Galactic synchrotron emission.
1651: The only solution to this is a telescope
1652: with vastly more collecting area than the VLA. A number of low frequency
1653: instruments are being planned (ie. LWA, LOFAR) which will have huge
1654: collecting areas. It is these instruments which will truly bring
1655: low-frequency observations up to the level of cm-wavelength capabilities.
1656: It is hoped that the VLSS project will provide both inspiration (in the form
1657: of observational experience and science) and information (in the form of a
1658: sky model and ionospheric data) for the design and operation of these new
1659: instruments.
1660:
1661: \section{Acknowledgments}
1662:
1663: Basic research in radio astronomy at the Naval Research Laboratory is
1664: supported by the office of Naval Research. The National Radio Astronomy
1665: Observatory is a facility of The
1666: National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by
1667: Associated Universities, Inc. We thank Joseph Helmboldt for helping to
1668: diagnose errors in the source flux-density measurements.
1669:
1670: \begin{thebibliography}{thisisasampleofwhat}
1671:
1672: %Flux density of Cygnus A
1673: \bibitem[Baars et al.(1977)]{baars77} Baars, J.~W.~M., Genzel,
1674: R., Pauliny-Toth, I.~I.~K., \& Witzel, A.\ 1977, \aap, 61, 99
1675:
1676: %FIRST (paper 1)
1677: \bibitem[Becker et al.(1995)]{becker95} Becker, R.~H., White,
1678: R.~L., \& Helfand, D.~J.\ 1995, \apj, 450, 559
1679:
1680: %% SUMSS Survey
1681: \bibitem[Bock et al.(1999)]{bock99} Bock, D.~C.-J., Large,
1682: M.~I., \& Sadler, E.~M.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 1578
1683:
1684: %%
1685: \bibitem[De Breuck et al.(2000)]{debreuck00} De Breuck, C., van
1686: Breugel, W., R{\"o}ttgering, H.~J.~A., \& Miley, G.\ 2000, \aaps, 143, 303
1687:
1688: %% Confirmation of steep-spectrum high z link
1689: \bibitem[Chambers et al.(1987)]{chambers87} Chambers, K.~C.,
1690: Miley, G.~K., \& van Breugel, W.\ 1987, \nat, 329, 604
1691:
1692: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2003)]{cohen03} Cohen, A.~S., et al.\
1693: 2003, \apj, 591, 640
1694:
1695: %% Errors in Elliptical Gaussian FITS
1696: \bibitem[Condon(1997)]{condon97} Condon, J.~J.\ 1997, \pasp,
1697: 109, 166
1698:
1699: %% NVSS
1700: \bibitem[Condon et al.(1998)]{condon98} Condon, J.~J., Cotton,
1701: W.~D., Greisen, E.~W., Yin, Q.~F., Perley, R.~A., Taylor, G.~B., \&
1702: Broderick, J.~J.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 1693
1703:
1704: %% Wide-field imaging
1705: \bibitem[Cornwell \& Perley(1992)]{cornwell92} Cornwell, T.~J., \&
1706: Perley, R.~A.\ 1992, \aap, 261, 353
1707:
1708: %%VLAFM
1709: \bibitem[Cotton et al.(2004)]{cotton04} Cotton, W.~D., Condon,
1710: J.~J., Perley, R.~A., Kassim, N., Lazio, J., Cohen, A., Lane, W., \&
1711: Erickson, W.~C.\ 2004, \procspie, 5489, 180
1712:
1713: %% Predicted cluster halo luminosity function
1714: \bibitem[En{\ss}lin \& R{\"o}ttgering(2002)]{ensslin02}
1715: En{\ss}lin, T.~A., R{\"o}ttgering, H.\ 2002, \aap, 396, 83
1716:
1717: %% 6C Survey
1718: \bibitem[Hales, Baldwin, \& Warner(1988)]{hales88} Hales,
1719: S.~E.~G., Baldwin, J.~E., \& Warner, P.~J.\ 1988, \mnras, 234, 919
1720:
1721: % 74 MHz system on VLA
1722: \bibitem[Kassim et al.(1993)]{kassim93} Kassim, N.~E., Perley,
1723: R.~A., Erickson, W.~C., \& Dwarakanath, K.~S.\ 1993, \aj, 106, 2218
1724:
1725: % Thermal absorption in Cas A
1726: \bibitem[Kassim et al.(1995)]{kassim95} Kassim, N.~E., Perley,
1727: R.~A., Dwarakanath, K.~S., \& Erickson, W.~C.\ 1995, \apjl, 455, L59
1728:
1729: % 74 MHz paper
1730: \bibitem[Kassim et al.(2007)]{kassim07} Kassim, N.~E., Lazio, T.~J.~W.,
1731: Erickson, W.~C., Perley, R.~A., Cotton, W.~D., Greisen, E.~W.,
1732: Cohen, A.~S., Hicks, B. \& Schmitt, H.~R.\ 2007, accepted for publication
1733: in \apjs, arXiv:0704.3088v1 on astro-ph
1734:
1735: \bibitem[K{\"u}hr et al.(1981)]{kuhr81} K{\"u}hr, H., Witzel, A.,
1736: Pauliny-Toth, I.~I.~K., \& Nauber, U.\ 1981, \aaps, 45, 367
1737:
1738: % Hydra A paper
1739: \bibitem[Lane et al.(2004)]{lane04} Lane, W.~M., Clarke,
1740: T.~E., Taylor, G.~B., Perley, R.~A., \& Kassim, N.~E.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 48
1741:
1742: % RFI excision paper
1743: \bibitem[Lane et al.(2005)]{lane05} Lane, W.~M., Cohen, A.~S.,
1744: Kassim, N.~E., Lazio, T.~J.~W., Perley, R.~A., Cotton, W.~D., \& Greisen,
1745: E.~W.\ 2005, Radio Science, 40, 5
1746:
1747: %% Wide-field imaging
1748: \bibitem[Perley(1999)]{perley99} Perley, R.~A.\ 1999, ASP
1749: Conf.~Ser.~180: Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, 180, 383
1750:
1751: %% 8C Survey
1752: \bibitem[Rees(1990)]{rees90} Rees, N.\ 1990, \mnras, 244, 233
1753:
1754: %WENSS
1755: \bibitem[Rengelink et al.(1997)]{rengelink97} Rengelink, R.\ B.,
1756: Tang, Y., de Bruyn, A.\ G., Miley, G.\ K., Bremer, M.\ N., Roettgering, H.\
1757: J.\ A., \& Bremer, M.\ A.\ R.\ 1997, \aaps, 124, 259
1758:
1759: \bibitem[Roger et al.(1973)]{roger73} Roger, R.~S., Costain,
1760: C.~H., \& Bridle, A.~H.\ 1973, \aj, 78, 1030
1761:
1762: \bibitem[Slee \& Higgins(1973)]{slee73} Slee, O.~B., \&
1763: Higgins, C.~S.\ 1973, Australian Journal of Physics Astrophysical
1764: Supplement, 27, 1
1765:
1766: \bibitem[Slee \& Higgins(1975)]{slee75} Slee, O.~B., \&
1767: Higgins, C.~S.\ 1975, Australian Journal of Physics Astrophysical
1768: Supplement, 36, 1
1769:
1770: \bibitem[Slee(1977)]{slee77} Slee, O.~B.\ 1977, Australian
1771: Journal of Physics Astrophysical Supplement, 43, 1
1772:
1773: \bibitem[Slee et al.(2001)]{slee01} Slee, O.~B., Roy, A.~L.,
1774: Murgia, M., Andernach, H., \& Ehle, M.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 1172
1775:
1776: \bibitem[Wall \& Jackson(1997)]{wall97} Wall, J.~V., \&
1777: Jackson, C.~A.\ 1997, \mnras, 290, L17
1778:
1779: %FIRST (paper 2)
1780: \bibitem[White et al.(1997)]{white97}
1781: White, R.~L., Becker, R.~H., Helfand, D.~J., \& Gregg, M.~D.\ 1997, \apj,
1782: 475, 479
1783:
1784: \end{thebibliography}
1785:
1786: \clearpage
1787:
1788: \input{tab1}
1789:
1790: \clearpage
1791:
1792: \input{tab2}
1793:
1794: \clearpage
1795:
1796: \input{tab3}
1797:
1798: %\clearpage
1799: %\onecolumn
1800:
1801: \clearpage
1802: \begin{figure}
1803: \plotone{f1.eps}
1804: \caption{A plot showing the average (light line) and worst
1805: case (bold line) RMS noise (y-axis) as a function of
1806: declination (x-axis), based on our VLSS pointing grid and the shape of the
1807: 74 MHz VLA primary beam. This assumes a constant RMS noise level for
1808: each field, with $\sigma = 1$ normalized to the noise level at the center
1809: of any individual pointing. Due to the hexagonal observing pattern, the
1810: effects shown are not a simple function of declination.
1811: The worst case noise is only slightly higher than the average,
1812: indicating that the VLSS pointing grid produces essentially uniform
1813: sensitivity across the entire region surveyed.
1814: \label{grid.weights.fig}}
1815: \end{figure}
1816:
1817: \clearpage
1818: \begin{figure}
1819: \begin{center}
1820: \includegraphics[height=7in]{f2.eps}
1821: \end{center}
1822: \caption{\small An illustration of the automated flagging procedure. Visibility
1823: amplitudes are shown for a single baseline in right circular
1824: polarization plotted with frequency channel along the horizontal axis and
1825: time interval along the vertical axis. The time is divided into three scans
1826: of roughly 25 minutes each. On the left are the data before flagging.
1827: Most of the smooth diagonal
1828: features are actual source structure. The entirely vertical features
1829: show channels in which RFI was present for long periods of time and the
1830: horizontal features show time ranges in which RFI was present across a
1831: wide range of frequencies. On the right are the data remaining after
1832: applying the automated flagging routines described in
1833: Section~\ref{flagging.sec}. Most of the worst RFI is successfully removed;
1834: however, some amount remains in particularly bad regions.
1835: \label{rflag.fig}}
1836: \end{figure}
1837:
1838: \clearpage
1839: \begin{figure}
1840: \begin{center}
1841: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{f3.eps}
1842: \end{center}
1843: \caption{
1844: Comparison of self-calibration versus field-based calibration for the same
1845: 74~MHz data set \citep{cohen03}.
1846: For each method, all sources with peak brightness above
1847: 400~mJy/beam are plotted. The circled source is 3C~63, which at 35~Jy is
1848: much stronger than any other source in the field of view and therefore
1849: dominates the self-calibration. In the self-calibrated
1850: image, sources far from 3C~63 suffer increased ionospheric smearing due to
1851: increasingly un-correlated ionospheric phases. This causes the peak brightness
1852: of sources to decrease, lowering the apparent source density in the image.
1853: This problem is greatly improved in the field-based-calibrated image, which
1854: shows roughly uniform source density throughout the field of view.
1855: \label{4A.maps.fig}}
1856: \end{figure}
1857:
1858: \clearpage
1859: \begin{figure}
1860: \begin{center}
1861: \includegraphics[height=7.25in]{f4.eps}
1862: \end{center}
1863: \caption{
1864: Source shifts relative to the NVSS positions for a VLSS field that had one
1865: of the worst cases of ionospheric calibration errors. The
1866: dots represent the VLSS source positions and the lines represent the distance
1867: and angle to the NVSS position. The shift magnitudes are magnified according
1868: to the scale shown at the lower right in order to be visible. The
1869: upper plot is before the corrections and the lower plot is after. Individual
1870: sources may be truly shifted from the NVSS positions due to actual differences
1871: in source centroids between 1400 and 74 MHz, however any true shifts should
1872: be random and not correlated with nearby sources.
1873: \label{shift.fig}}
1874: \end{figure}
1875:
1876: \clearpage
1877: \begin{figure}
1878: \begin{center}
1879: \plotone{f5.eps}
1880: \end{center}
1881: \caption{
1882: Histogram of position errors (for the 85th percentile of all sources) for
1883: all fields before correction (solid line) and after correction
1884: (dashed line). Before correction 10\% of fields had position errors
1885: greater than $30''$, with some over $60''$. After
1886: correction, no field had position errors more than
1887: $30''$, and about 95\% have position errors parameter less than
1888: $20''$, or 1/4 of a beam width.
1889: \label{shift.hist.fig}}
1890: \end{figure}
1891:
1892: \clearpage
1893: \begin{figure}
1894: \plotone{f6.eps}
1895: \caption{Region of sky currently imaged by the VLSS project. Currently
1896: about 95\% of the sky above $\delta > -30^{\circ}$ is now covered, and
1897: further observations are planned to fully complete this region.
1898: \label{coverage.map.fig}}
1899: \end{figure}
1900:
1901: \clearpage
1902: \begin{figure}
1903: \plotone{f7.eps}
1904: \caption{
1905: Top: Total sky area (y-axis) at or below a given RMS noise level (x-axis).
1906: Bottom: Differential sky area (y-axis) at a given RMS noise level (x-axis).
1907: The median RMS noise level is 108~mJy/beam.
1908: The extended ``tail'' at higher noise levels is due
1909: mostly to regions around very bright sources (such as Cygnus~A, Casseopeia~A,
1910: Virgo~A, etc.), regions of sky with high sky temperature like the Galactic
1911: plane, and regions at the edges of the mosaic maps which have no
1912: overlap with other fields.
1913: \label{area.stats.fig}}
1914: \end{figure}
1915:
1916: \clearpage
1917: \begin{figure}
1918: \begin{center}
1919: \includegraphics[height=7.5in]{f8.eps}
1920: \end{center}
1921: \caption{
1922: Top: RMS map noise for each field plotted against the absolute value of
1923: the Galactic latitude of the field center.
1924: Bottom: RMS map noise for each field located within $10^\circ$ of the
1925: Galactic plane plotted against the Galactic longitude of the field center
1926: in terms of degrees from the Galactic center. For both plots, fields located
1927: close to extremely strong sources such as Cygnus~A were removed.
1928: \label{skynoise.fig}}
1929: \end{figure}
1930:
1931: \clearpage
1932: \begin{figure}
1933: \begin{center}
1934: \plotone{f9.eps}
1935: \end{center}
1936: \caption{
1937: Contour plot of a sample sub-image from the VLSS. The peak
1938: flux density is 2.57 Jy/beam and the overall RMS noise level is
1939: 74.9~mJy/beam. Contours begin at 2.5 times the RMS noise level
1940: (187.25~mJy/beam) and
1941: increase by factors of $\sqrt{2}$. The crosses indicate the locations
1942: of $5\sigma$ source detections which are included in the source catalog.
1943: \label{sample.fig}}
1944: \end{figure}
1945:
1946: \clearpage
1947: \begin{figure}
1948: \begin{center}
1949: \includegraphics[height=8in]{f10.eps}
1950: \end{center}
1951: \caption{
1952: Contour plots of some of the larger sources observed by the VLSS. Peak
1953: flux density and map noise are given in Jy/beam. Contours begin at
1954: 2.5 times the map noise and increase by factors of $\sqrt{2}$. Sources
1955: are each labeled by their common radio names.
1956: \label{gallery.fig}}
1957: \end{figure}
1958:
1959: \clearpage
1960: \begin{figure}
1961: \plotone{f11.eps}
1962: \caption{
1963: Source offsets of VLSS sources from their NVSS locations for the 866 sources
1964: strong enough that errors due to map noise are negligible, yet below the peak
1965: brightness threshold above which they might be used as calibrators.
1966: The ellipse represents the 90\% confidence region based on the fitted mean
1967: and RMS of these offsets.
1968: \label{dpos.strong.fig}}
1969: \end{figure}
1970:
1971: \clearpage
1972: \begin{figure}
1973: \plotone{f12.eps}
1974: \caption{
1975: Histograms of the offsets in right ascension ($\Delta\alpha$) and
1976: declination ($\Delta\delta$) in units of the predicted position errors
1977: for each source. Only weak sources with peak flux less than
1978: 10$\sigma$ were included. The curves plotted over the histograms
1979: are normalized Gaussians with an RMS equal to 1, which is the theoretically
1980: expected distribution.
1981: \label{dpos.weak.fig}}
1982: \end{figure}
1983:
1984: \clearpage
1985: \begin{figure}
1986: \plotone{f13.eps}
1987: \caption{
1988: Distribution of estimated Strehl ratios for 975 bright, compact VLSS sources.
1989: The median Strehl ratio is 0.96. There is a long tail
1990: of values well below the median, which could be due to observations with
1991: particularly high ionospheric calibration residuals. Equally plausible is
1992: that some fraction of sources have sizes that really do appear larger at
1993: 74~MHz than at 1.4~GHz because of diffuse steep spectrum emission.
1994: \label{strehl.fig}}
1995: \end{figure}
1996:
1997: \clearpage
1998: \begin{figure}
1999: \plotone{f14.eps}
2000: \caption{
2001: Comparisons of predicted flux densities versus measured flux densities for
2002: bright VLSS sources. Predicted flux densities at 73.8 MHz were calculated
2003: by interpolating between the 6C and 8C flux densities for the 201 bright
2004: VLSS sources that had counterparts in both the 6C and 8C surveys. The
2005: average ratio of the VLSS flux densities to the predicted values was
2006: $0.99\pm0.01$ with a scatter of $\pm10.4$\%. The straight line represents
2007: locations for which the predicted and measured flux densities are equal.
2008: \label{flux.compare.fig}}
2009: \end{figure}
2010:
2011: \clearpage
2012: \begin{figure}
2013: \plotone{f15.eps}
2014: \caption{
2015: Differential completeness of the VLSS catalog for point sources as a
2016: function of the ratio of peak
2017: flux density to local RMS noise level. (This completeness measure does not
2018: apply to the regions surrounding the strongest sources for which higher source
2019: selection criteria were used.) The filled points are calculated
2020: from simulations that do not take ionospheric smearing into account, while the
2021: open points are from simulations that do account for this. The entire curve
2022: is shifted to the right by the clean bias which is 1.39 in units of the
2023: local RMS noise.
2024: \label{complete.fig}}
2025: \end{figure}
2026:
2027: \end{document}
2028: