1: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\note}[1]{\textbf{\textit{(#1)}}} % for notes to authors
4: \newcommand{\muas}{$\mu{\rm as}$}
5: \slugcomment{Submitted to PASP}
6:
7: \shorttitle{Astrometry in Crowded Fields with SIM - I}
8: \shortauthors{R.\ Sridharan \& R.J.\ Allen}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{{\sc Crowded-Field Astrometry with the \\
13: Space Interferometry Mission - I \\[0.1in]
14: Estimating the Single-Measurement Astrometric Bias \\
15: Arising from Confusion} \\[0.2in]
16: }
17:
18: \author{R.\ Sridharan \& Ronald J. Allen}
19: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,
20: Baltimore, MD 21218}
21: \email{sridhar@stsci.edu, rjallen@stsci.edu}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: The accuracy of position measurements on stellar targets with the future Space
25: Interferometry Mission (SIM) will be limited not only by photon noise and by
26: the properties of the instrument (design, stability, etc.) and the overall
27: measurement program (observing strategy, reduction methods, etc.), but also by
28: the presence of other ``confusing'' stars in the field of view (FOV). We use
29: a simple ``phasor'' model as an aid to understanding the main effects of this
30: ``confusion bias'' in single observations with SIM. This analytic model has been
31: implemented numerically in a computer code and applied to a selection of typical
32: SIM target fields drawn from some of the Key Projects already accepted for the
33: Mission. We expect that less than 1\% of all SIM targets will be vulnerable to
34: confusion bias; we show that for the present SIM design, confusion may be a
35: concern if the surface density of field stars exceeds 0.4 star/arcsec$^2$.
36: We have developed a software tool as an aid to ascertaining the possible
37: presence of confusion bias in single observations of any arbitrary field. Some
38: \textit{a priori} knowledge of the locations and spectral energy distributions
39: of the few brightest stars in the FOV is helpful in establishing the possible
40: presence of confusion bias, but the information is in general not likely to be
41: available with sufficient accuracy to permit its removal. We discuss several
42: ways of reducing the likelihood of confusion bias in crowded fields. Finally,
43: several limitations of the present semi-analytic approach are reviewed, and
44: their effects on the present results are estimated. The simple model presented
45: here provides a good physical understanding of how confusion arises in a single
46: SIM observation, and has sufficient precision to establish the likelihood
47: of a bias in most cases. We close this paper with a list of suggestions for
48: future work on this subject.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: %\keywords{Astronomical Instrumentation --- space vehicles: instruments --- instrumentation: interferometers --- techniques: interferometric --- astrometry}
52: \keywords{Data Analysis and Techniques}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55: \label{intro}
56: The Space Interferometry Mission (SIM\footnote{also currently called
57: SIM--PlanetQuest}) is being designed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to
58: provide a facility-class instrument for measuring the positions and proper
59: motions of stars at optical wavelengths with micro-arc-second (\muas) precision.
60: This represents an improvement by several orders of magnitude over the
61: precision of all existing astrometric instruments. For faint sources
62: (V $\gtrsim 15$ mag.), SIM will also be more than a factor 10 better than any
63: other future planned space mission, and will therefore uniquely permit many
64: new classes of problems to be addressed. Such problems include: the direct
65: measurement (for the first time) of the masses of earth-like planets in orbit
66: around nearby stars; determining the distances to stars by direct triangulation
67: over the whole Galaxy and out to the Magellanic Clouds; measuring the transverse
68: motions of galaxies in the Local Group; and, establishing the shape of the dark
69: matter distribution in the Galaxy. A description of the instrument and its
70: current science program is available at the JPL/SIM web site.\footnote{See
71: {\it http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim\_index.cfm} for
72: descriptions of the current set of Key Projects. Almost half of the available
73: 5-year Mission time is still unallocated.}
74: The mission is now at the end of the detailed design phase. After more than 15
75: years of development, all the major technical questions have been answered.
76: New devices have been invented in order to provide metrology internal to the
77: spacecraft at a level of a few tens of picometers, a fraction of the
78: inter-atomic distance in a molecule of oxygen. The next major step is to begin
79: construction of the instrument.
80:
81: SIM will be the second optical interferometer in space devoted to astrometry,
82: following the Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS) on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).
83: However, SIM is a Michelson interferometer using separated collectors, quite
84: different from the filled-aperture white-light shearing interferometer design
85: of the FGS. SIM includes three long-baseline interferometers housed on a common
86: truss, each formed by two $\approx 0.3$ m apertures which compress their light
87: beams and guide them through delay lines to beam combiners. During operation,
88: two interferometers are used for precision guiding of the spacecraft, and the
89: third views the target of interest. Data are then accumulated by tracking
90: the target until enough photons have been recorded to achieve the particular
91: science goal.
92:
93: The precision with which astrometry can be done on a specific stellar target
94: with SIM will be limited by photon noise, the design and stability of the
95: instrument, and by the data calibration and processing. We have some control
96: over the instrument properties, which depend on the specific choices made when
97: implementing the design in hardware. Also, the operation and calibration of the
98: instrument can be optimized so as to maximize the achievable
99: precision. However, there is another source of error which may be present,
100: and which is largely out of our control; it does not reduce the ultimate
101: \textit{precision} with which a given \textit{single measurement} can be
102: made with SIM, but it may reduce the final \textit{accuracy} of that measurement. This source of error arises because of the presence of other stars
103: in the SIM field of view (FOV) which can ``confuse'' any single observation made
104: on the target star. The light from these extraneous stars perturbs the measurement, so that the measured target position can differ from the true
105: position. The difference is a \textit{bias} which can reach a level of many
106: times the single-measurement precision estimated from the instrument parameters
107: alone. It is this \textit{single-measurement confusion bias} which concerns us
108: in this paper.
109:
110: It is important to emphasize that the final \textit{accuracy} of the astrometric
111: parameters (position, parallax, and proper motion) determined by SIM for any given target star will be a result of carrying out a complex program of several
112: single measurements on that target, plus repeated measurements on many other
113: stars for the determination of calibration and baseline orientation parameters \citep{bod04,miltur03}.
114: Since we are concerned only with possible bias in a \textit{single
115: measurement}, the details of the entire observing program are not directly
116: relevant here; however, it also means that we can not quantify the consequences
117: of confusion bias to the final accuracy with which the ``end-of-mission''
118: astrometric parameters can be obtained on any specific target. It is clear that
119: the effects of single-measurement confusion bias will generally diminish
120: as more observations are combined. But this also means that projects which
121: involve only a few observations of a target (e.g.\ ``targets of opportunity'',
122: single parallax measurements on nearby bright stars, etc.) may have a greater
123: susceptibility to confusion bias.
124:
125: Specific aspects of confusion in astrometric measurements with SIM have been
126: considered by several authors in the recent past. \citet{dalalgriest01} showed
127: that the characteristic response of SIM's fixed-baseline interferometer as a
128: function of wavenumber and delay can be used to refine a model of the
129: distribution of confusing stars in the FOV. This model can then be used to
130: correct the measured position of the target of interest, and in many cases
131: where the level of confusion is not too great the astrometric accuracy can
132: approach the measurement precision.
133: Dalal and Griest successfully applied their method to models of confused
134: fields in the LMC in which $\approx 16$ faint stars are scattered
135: over the FOV around the $\approx 19$ magnitude target star. Photon noise is
136: included in these models. These authors then go on to consider the additional
137: complication if one of the stars in the FOV changes brightness owing to a
138: micro-lensing event, and show that an extension of their fitting algorithm to
139: include the precision photometry provided by SIM's detectors permits even this
140: apparently-intractable case to be handled almost as well.
141: %
142: However, their method fails when the angular separation between any pair of
143: sources in the FOV (as projected on the interferometer baseline) corresponds
144: to a delay difference of $\lesssim 2$ coherence lengths for the full bandpass
145: of the detection system. This is a projected separation of 25 milli-arcseconds
146: (mas). Indeed, this is a \textit{general limit} for SIM observations. Our approach is somewhat simpler than that of Dalal and Griest, and yields
147: some improvement in the minimum angular separation which can be measured, but
148: the basic limitation can not be overcome. We will compare our approach to
149: theirs in more detail in a future paper.
150:
151: \citet{rajbokall01} also considered a number of specific cases of confusion on
152: SIM astrometry. These authors introduced a graphical analogy using phasors as an
153: aid to understanding how errors in the target position arise from confusing
154: sources in the FOV. Typical target fields were constructed on a simulated image
155: with grid spacing of 5 mas, and the amplitude and phase of the fringe which
156: would be measured with SIM for a given wavelength on that image field was
157: computed with a Fourier transform. Diffraction effects at the edges of the
158: (presumed $\approx 1''$ square) SIM FOV were included in constructing the model
159: image, and vector averaging of the individual (narrow) SIM wavelength channels
160: was used to simulate the 1-dimensional apodization of the fringes over the FOV
161: caused by the decreasing coherence of the fringes as the bandwidth increases.
162: \citet{rajbokall01} were particularly interested in modeling the effects of
163: mispointing of the FOV in subsequent visits to the same target field when
164: target proper motions were being measured; in that case the actual distribution
165: of field stars changes as some disappear from one side of the FOV and others
166: appear at the other side. They included photon noise, and also addressed the
167: issue of how the size of the FOV defined by the field stop influenced the level
168: of confusion. Their source field models were constructed to simulate SIM
169: observations of the position and proper motion of target stars in M31, the LMC,
170: and the Galactic bulge. They concluded that the confusion-induced errors in
171: position can often be significant (several times the measurement precision)
172: for faint target stars but the proper motion errors are likely to be small.
173: The errors are, as expected, smaller for wider measurement bands.
174:
175: In one other confusion-related study, \citet{takvellin05} considered the
176: effect of circumstellar disks on the measurement of stellar wobble during
177: observations aimed at detecting extra-solar planets. Their models showed
178: that neither the motion of the disk mass center nor the contamination
179: by disk light is a serious threat to detecting planets around pre-main
180: sequence stars; the basic reason for the insensitivity of these observations
181: to confusion from circumstellar disks is that interferometers tend to resolve
182: such an extended source, reducing its influence on the astrometry of the parent
183: star.
184:
185: The studies summarized above have shown that confusion poses limits
186: to the accuracy of any single SIM measurement, and have therefore succeeded
187: in raising our awareness of this problem. However, the detailed design
188: of SIM has changed since those studies were done, and many of the changes
189: will affect on the modeling results. The size of the collector and
190: its central obscuration, the entrance aperture field stop defining the
191: geometrical FOV, the transmission efficiency of the optics, the fringe
192: disperser design (which defines the bandwidth and central wavelength of the
193: spectral channels), and the QE and spectral response of the detector are now
194: all much better defined. Furthermore, previous studies have focused
195: on specific science programs which were already suspected to be pushing the
196: capabilities of the instrument; they have not provided us with any
197: general ``tools'' for understanding and recognizing confusion, or for dealing
198: with it. Previous studies have also often taken a statistical approach which
199: is less suitable for answering direct questions about specific fields, such as:
200: is a SIM observation of this particular target embedded in that particular field
201: of stars likely to be confused? And, can the observation be done in
202: such a way so as to reduce the confusion bias? What \textit{a priori}
203: information about the target and the field would help? And, if the
204: observation has already been taken, can we identify the effects of confusion in
205: the data? These questions have provided the motivation for the work described in
206: this paper.
207:
208: This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we summarize the basic
209: Michelson interferometer response as it applies to SIM. We then recall the
210: phasor model introduced by \citet{rajbokall01} and elaborate upon it as a tool
211: for understanding the behavior of confusion in SIM astrometry. Using this
212: analytic model, together with updated knowledge of SIM's instrument parameters,
213: we have constructed a simulation code for evaluating the likelihood of confusion
214: bias in any specific field; details are presented in Section~\ref{simu}.
215: In Section~\ref{limit_values}, we present single measurement confusion bias as a function of
216: magnitude difference and projected separation of an additional star present
217: within the SIM FOV.
218: In Section~\ref{applications}, we apply this semi-analytic model to a number of
219: target fields drawn from the Key Projects which have already been chosen for the
220: initial SIM science program. From this experience we then consider how the
221: single-measurement confusion bias might be reduced through the addition of other
222: information. The most useful additions appear to be knowledge of the approximate
223: locations and spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the target and of the most
224: troublesome confusing stars in the SIM FOV. Finally, in Section
225: \ref{limitations}, we describe the limitations of our current approach. These
226: limitations are primarily related to the simplified model of the focal plane of
227: SIM which we have used here. In particular, in this
228: paper, we have not modeled the detailed mechanism by which the spectral
229: dispersion is implemented,\footnote{A thin prism disperser turns SIM into an
230: objective prism spectrograph on the CCD detector.} nor have we considered
231: the pixellation of the focal plane by the CCD detector. We have explored these
232: points with the aid of a more elaborate model that includes these effects, and find that the biases estimated using this more elaborate model differ only by
233: small amounts from those provided by the approach described here.\footnote
234: {However, consideration of this more sophisticated model does suggest
235: additional ways to reduce any confusion bias.} We have therefore chosen to
236: present the main issues relevant to SIM confusion with a minimum of
237: complication, and leave the discussion of the more elaborate instrument model
238: to a future paper.
239:
240: Binary stars will be an important class of targets for SIM, and are the
241: topic of one of the major Key Projects. In these cases, the two stars are in
242: a bound orbit and are physically close to each other. Typical binaries to be
243: studied with SIM will have separations from about a few mas to 1000 mas and
244: orbital periods from a few days to several years. Stars in crowded
245: fields can occasionally mimic the effects of binaries if their projected
246: separations become small for particular baseline orientations, but the effects
247: of confusion from such ``apparent'' binaries can be reduced (or even eliminated)
248: by rotating the interferometer baseline and repeating the observation. However,
249: for ``real'' binaries, rotation of the baseline is an integral part of the
250: measurement process. The goal of the binary observation is to obtain the
251: characteristics of the orbit, and this is done by measuring the positions of
252: the components for a number of baseline orientations. These targets
253: are sufficiently specialized that we have removed them from the list of
254: crowded-field problems treated in this paper. Such observations treat binaries
255: as ``signal", whereas here we treat them as ``noise". A discussion of astrometry on
256: binary stars with SIM is planned for a future publication.
257:
258: \section{Astrometry with SIM}
259:
260: Historically, the angular separation between two stars on the sky has been
261: determined using telescopes of various sizes mounted on mechanical structures
262: including large metal segments with regular rulings on their edges, or a
263: combination of such devices with measurements of transit times. An astrometric
264: interferometer converts the problem from a measurement of
265: \textit{angular increments} to a measurement of a \textit{distance interval}
266: which can be determined very precisely using laser metrology inside the
267: instrument. Thanks to the absence of atmospheric
268: instabilities in the space environment where SIM will operate, an additional
269: level of precision worth several orders of magnitude can be added by
270: directly measuring the \textit{phase} of the fringe pattern using target
271: photons. The main features of how these measurements are made with SIM will
272: now be described.
273:
274: \subsection{The SIM interferometer}
275:
276: The response pattern $P$ of a Michelson interferometer as applied to astrometry
277: and imaging in astronomy can be written, under quasi-monochromatic conditions,
278: as follows:
279: %
280: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:SIMresponse}
281: \lefteqn{P(\delta, \theta, \overline{\lambda}) = }\\
282: & P_{0} \{ 1 + A \sin (\frac{2 \pi}{\overline{\lambda}}
283: [\delta - B \theta ] ) \}. \nonumber
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: where, $P_0$ is the total light collected by the two collectors, $A$ is the
286: fringe amplitude, $\delta$ is the internal path delay, $B$ is the baseline,
287: $\theta$ is the angle on the sky, and $\overline{\lambda}$
288: is the mean wavelength. See Appendix \ref{appsec:response} for the derivation
289: of this equation. For convenience we often use the mean wavenumber
290: $\overline{k} \equiv 1/\overline{\lambda}$.
291:
292: The response of the interferometer as a function of $\theta$
293: projected onto the two-dimensional sky is sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:FOV}.
294: %
295: \begin{figure}%[htb]
296: \epsscale{0.8}
297: \plotone{f1.eps}
298: \caption {The response of the interferometer as a function of the angle on the
299: sky, for a fixed internal delay $\delta$ and wavelength $\lambda$. A dense
300: pattern of 1-D fringes showing the response of the instrument as a function of
301: position is here projected onto a 2-D FOV on the sky. The interferometer
302: baseline orientation is indicated by the thick double-headed horizontal arrow.
303: The amplitude of the fringes is apodized by a 1-D ``coherence FOV'' function
304: which depends chiefly on the bandwidth of the channel, as described in
305: Appendix \ref{appsec:response}. \label{fig:FOV}
306: }
307: \end{figure}
308: %
309: Figure \ref {fig:FANdiagram} shows the same interferometer response, now
310: as a function of the total optical path difference
311: $\Delta = \delta - B\theta$ and $\lambda$. This Figure is also known as
312: the ``fan diagram".
313: %
314: \begin{figure}%[htb]
315: \epsscale{0.8}
316: \plotone{f2.eps}
317: \caption {The ``fan diagram''; a contour plot of the Michelson
318: interferometer response as a function of total path delay
319: $\Delta = \delta - B\theta$ and wavelength.
320: The fringes appear to `fan out' at longer wavelengths, hence the name.
321: The possible location of a target star is shown at $\Delta = +1 \mu$.
322: \label{fig:FANdiagram}
323: }
324: \end{figure}
325: %
326: In this diagram, stellar targets appear at specific values of total delay
327: $\Delta_i$
328: along the $x$ axis corresponding to their actual positions $\theta_i$ in the
329: sky and the setting of the internal delay $\delta$,
330: and so can be represented as a set of
331: vertical lines. An example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:FANdiagram} for a single
332: target at $\Delta$ = +1$\mu$. Moving vertically in this diagram from shorter
333: to longer wavelengths at a given delay $\Delta$, we see that the fringe phase changes linearly if the delay is close to the location of an isolated target,
334: and will jump by $\pm 2 \pi$ radians if the delay is large.
335: If the delay setting corresponds to
336: the actual location of the target, the fringe phase will be a constant; this is
337: the position at which the total optical path delay difference between
338: the two arms of the interferometer is zero. It is this particular
339: property of the fringes which enables us to identify the position of the
340: target precisely.
341:
342: \subsection{How SIM works}
343: \label{how_sim_works}
344:
345: Consider a single target star located at $\theta_1$ near the center of the FOV
346: as shown in Figure \ref{fig:model2} (ignore the other stars located at
347: $\theta_2$ and $\theta_3$ for the time being).
348: %
349: \begin{figure}%[htb]
350: \epsscale{0.8}
351: \plotone{f3.eps}
352: \caption {
353: A potentially-confused FOV consisting of a target star at $\theta_1$
354: and two field stars at
355: $\theta_2$ and $\theta_3$. $\theta_0$ corresponds to the current setting of the
356: internal ``coarse'' delay $\delta_c$. Scanning the ``fine'' delay $\delta_f$
357: and fringe fitting will lead to the identification of a position which can be
358: different from the delay offset corresponding to the ``true'' location of the
359: target. Thus the presence of field stars can introduce a bias in the
360: measurement of the target star's position. \label{fig:model2}
361: }
362: \end{figure}
363: %
364: It is now convenient to consider the internal delay to be made up of two parts, a ``coarse'' part and a ``fine'' part, such that $\delta = \delta_c + \delta_f$.
365: The measurement begins by setting $\delta_f = 0$ and adjusting $\delta_c$ until
366: fringes are found. The bandwidth is then progressively widened (by further
367: binning the channels) and the coarse delay further adjusted so as to maximize
368: the fringe contrast. A limit will reached when the delay difference
369: $\delta_c - \delta_1$ is approximately within the coherence length appropriate
370: for the maximum available instrument bandwidth. Defining $\delta_0 \equiv
371: B \theta_0$ as this ``final'' setting of $\delta_c$, the goal of the subsequent
372: steps in the measurement process is to measure $\delta_1 - \delta_0 \equiv
373: B (\theta_1 - \theta_0)$ by scanning the fine delay in a series of small
374: steps to a maximum of $\approx \pm 1 \lambda$ around zero, and recording the
375: fringes which appear in each of $n$ narrow-band channels. The response function
376: of equation \ref{eqn:SIMresponse} now reads:
377: %
378: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:finalSIMresponse}
379: \lefteqn{P(\delta_f, \phi_n, \overline{k_n}) = } \\
380: & P_{0}(n) \{ 1 +
381: A_n \sin [ 2 \pi \overline{k_n}\delta_f + \phi_n ) ] \} \nonumber
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: %
384: where $\phi_n = 2 \pi \overline{k_n} B (\theta_0 - \theta_1)$. A fit is then
385: done to the data in each channel, yielding the fringe parameters $P_0(n),\,
386: A_n,\, \mbox{and } \phi_n$.
387:
388: \begin{figure}%[htb]
389: \epsscale{0.8}
390: \plotone{f4.eps}
391: \caption {The phase spectrum, showing the fringe phase $\phi$ vs.\ wavenumber. Note the ``phase-wrap'' jumps. \label{fig:phase_vs_wavenumber}
392: }
393: \end{figure}
394:
395: \begin{figure}[htb]
396: \epsscale{0.8}
397: \plotone{f5.eps}
398: \caption {Delay spectrum estimated from the unwrapped fringe phases of Figure
399: \ref{fig:phase_vs_wavenumber} as described in the text.
400: The average delay is 1309.02~nm, and corresponds to an offset of 30000.58 \muas.
401: The ``glitches'' on this figure are a result of simplifications we have made in
402: our numerical model for the dispersion of the fringes with wavelength.
403: \label{fig:delay_vs_wavenumber}
404: }
405: \end{figure}
406:
407: A plot of the resulting ``phase spectrum'' $\phi_n$ vs.\ the mean wavenumber
408: $\overline{k_n}$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:phase_vs_wavenumber}. This plot
409: will show jumps of the fringe phase if the delay offset $\delta_1 - \delta_0$
410: is larger than a typical fringe period. Taking the phase at one of the channels
411: as a reference, the phases of the other channels can be ``unwrapped'' by adding
412: or subtracting $2 \pi$ when a discontinuity is encountered. A plot of the
413: ``unwrapped'' phases will be a straight line parallel to the $x$ axis which we
414: call the ``delay spectrum'', as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:delay_vs_wavenumber}.
415: The final delay offset (and hence the angular position $\theta_1$) can be
416: computed from a simple average of the data in this Figure, although several
417: other possibilities exist \citep{milbas02}.
418:
419: We have glossed over a large number of calibration issues, including the
420: precise measurement of delay increments along the internal delay line, the precise length of the baseline, the calibration of the relation $\delta_0 \Leftrightarrow \theta_0$, etc. In addition, the measurement we have
421: obtained is an angle with respect to the direction of the interferometer
422: baseline, but that direction is not yet known in any external reference
423: frame such as equatorial coordinates. Precise determination of the baseline
424: vectors used for all SIM observations is clearly an extremely important part
425: of the whole astrometric program. These calibration and baseline
426: determination problems are a major part of the SIM project.
427: However, confusion bias acts as a perturbation on a single SIM observation, so it is possible to discuss the
428: origin and nature of confusion bias in single measurements without a detailed
429: consideration of the entire astrometric program of SIM.
430:
431: \subsection{Confusion bias in SIM measurements}
432:
433: The operation of SIM as described in the previous section makes the assumption
434: that the FOV contains only a single target star, and this is expected to be the
435: case for more than 99\% of the fields to be observed. However, the real sky may
436: occasionally contain other stars in the foreground, background, or even
437: associated with, the target star, as shown in the sketch of Figure
438: \ref{fig:model2}. Since the fringe patterns of all the stars in the FOV are the same in the same wavelength channel, the resulting fringe pattern for several
439: stars together will mimic that of a single star, but with a different amplitude
440: and phase. If the bandwidth is wide, and the (baseline-projected) positions of
441: the confusing stars are well away from the target star, their influence will
442: be attenuated. Nevertheless, it is clear that the presence of such extraneous
443: ``field stars'' in the FOV can lead to a bias in the measured fringe phase, and
444: therefore to a bias in the measured position of the target. The final
445: measurement \textit{precision} may not be affected, but the final
446: \textit{accuracy} of the target star position will be reduced.
447:
448: \subsection{Visualizing confusion}
449: \label{subsec:visconf}
450:
451: One can visualize the nature of confusion with the help of Argand diagrams
452: from the theory of complex variables \citep[e.g.][]{phi61} since,
453: after subtraction of the total power term, the sine-wave fringe pattern of
454: Equation~\ref{eqn:SIMresponse} produced by an interferometer observing
455: a single un-confused target star maps one-to-one with a vector in the
456: complex plane having \textit{modulus} equal to the fringe amplitude and \textit
457: {argument} equal to the fringe phase. Such vectors are called \textit
458: {phasors}\citep[e.g.][]{gas78,hec02}, and the results of adding many
459: fringes together from many stars in a crowded field are easily understood in
460: terms of a vector sum of these phasors as shown in Figure
461: \ref{fig:phasor_diagram}, adapted from Figure 1 of \cite{rajbokall01}.
462: %
463: \begin{figure}[ht]
464: \epsscale{1.0}
465: \plotone{f6.eps}
466: \caption{
467: Phasor diagram at a specific wavenumber $k$ showing the vector addition of
468: the complex visibilities of a bright target star, located at the origin of the
469: coordinate system, with the visibilities of 10 fainter stars, located elsewhere
470: in the FOV.
471: \label{fig:phasor_diagram}
472: }
473: \end{figure}
474: %
475: The bright target is assumed to be located at the origin of the (local)
476: coordinate system, and therefore has zero fringe phase; it is represented
477: by a vector along the real
478: axis with some amplitude. The field stars have non-zero fringe phases; they are
479: represented by shorter phasors with relative magnitudes and directions depending
480: on their locations in the field with respect to the target. The field stars
481: form a ``noise cloud'' at the tip of the strong phasor representing the
482: astrometric target of interest, and their combined effect is to alter the final
483: fringe amplitude and phase. The shift $\phi$ of the fringe phase from the
484: true position of the target phasor is the bias owing to confusion. Since the
485: phases of the confusing sources change with observing wavelength, and at a rate
486: which depends on their (projected) displacement from the nominal field center,
487: the small phasors all rotate at different rates and directions as the observing
488: wavelength changes, so that the net confusion bias $\phi = \phi(\lambda)$ of the
489: target of interest changes with the wavelength of the observations. It is now
490: obvious that the effects of confusion will depend on the spectral energy
491: distributions (SEDs) of the target and of all the confusing sources.
492:
493: \section{Simulating SIM's response}
494: \label{simu}
495:
496: In order to proceed with a simulation we need to know the expected structure
497: of the distribution of light in (and surrounding) SIM's FOV, and the response
498: of the instrument to this distribution.
499:
500: \subsection{Source models}
501:
502: In general, we assume that source distributions can be approximated as a set of
503: unresolved sources. We ignore the presence of extended emission, which will in
504: any case contribute little to the net fringe amplitude (but may increase the
505: photon noise on the detector). Each of these sources is represented by a delta
506: function with some amplitude and some 2-D location in the FOV. The spatial
507: distribution is either idealized from existing images of the target area,
508: e.g.\ images from the cameras of the \textit{Hubble Space Telescope} (HST), or
509: defined \textit{ad hoc} with an educated guess. A model consists of a set of
510: x, y positions within (and just outside of) the FOV, along with the brightnesses
511: and the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the sources at each position. If
512: the actual SEDs are not available, model SEDs are either approximated or
513: obtained from spectral libraries.\footnote{ From the web site\\ {\it http://garnet.stsci.edu/STIS/stis$\_$models.html$\#$models}\\
514: when spectral types are known and from the file {\it{kurucz$\_$orig.fits}} available at the
515: web site\\ {\it http://dae45.iaa.csic.es:8080/$\sim$jmaiz/software/chorizos\linebreak[1]/chorizos.html} when gravity, effective temperature and metallicity are known.}
516:
517: \subsection{Instrument models}
518:
519: We provide here a high-level description of the SIM instrument model we have
520: adopted in order to determine the total power, fringe amplitude and fringe
521: phase of a given source distribution. The numerical details and relevant
522: figures are collected in Appendix~\ref{appsec:power_estimation}.
523:
524: \subsubsection{Incident photon fluxes}
525:
526: The number of photons detected from each star within the FOV is estimated
527: as follows:
528:
529: \subsubsubsection{Channel response}
530:
531: We estimate the mean wavelength and bandpass of all 80 channels of SIM
532: from the knowledge of dispersion (wavelength vs.\ position at the focal plane)
533: and detector pixel size. We assume that each pixel corresponds to one channel,
534: and that the total energy of all the stars within the FOV is collected in a single pixel. This is an idealization, but we defer details of the dispersion
535: and the pixellation in the focal plane to a later paper where a more complete
536: instrument model is presented. As we shall discuss further in \S
537: \ref{limitations}, these additional complications have only small
538: effects on our results, and come at the expense of considerable
539: additional complexity.
540:
541: \subsubsubsection{Apodization through the field-stop}
542:
543: For each star in the FOV, the effects of diffraction through the entrance aperture and
544: apodization by the field stop are modeled as the convolution of a circular
545: stop with the (wavelength-dependent) diffraction pattern of SIM's entrance
546: aperture including the effects of the central obscuration (created to
547: accommodate the internal laser metrology system). This gives the aperture
548: transmission factor (a fractional number as defined here)
549: which, when multiplied by the total power, gives the fraction of the
550: total light from the star that falls within the field stop.
551: See Appendix \ref{appsec:power_estimation} for the details.
552:
553: \subsubsubsection{Throughput}
554:
555: The optical train of SIM involves many reflections, each with some loss which
556: depends on the wavelength, and ultimately the light is imaged on a detector
557: which itself has some wavelength response. These various reflectivities have
558: been multiplied with the net CCD detector quantum efficiency in order to obtain
559: an overall wavelength-dependent ``throughput'' of the optical system.
560: We have fitted this function to a polynomial for convenience in numerical
561: computations; the coefficients are listed in Appendix \ref{appsec:params}.
562: The SEDs, originally available for a mag 10 star, are modified to account
563: for the actual magnitude of the stars and are multiplied by twice the collecting
564: area of a single aperture, the aperture transmission factor, and the throughput,
565: integrated over the channel bandpass, and expressed as photons/sec/channel.
566:
567: \subsubsection{Fringe amplitude for each star}
568:
569: The visibility amplitudes of the confusing stars are attenuated by the
570: bandpass function (cf.\ Equation \ref{eqn:finalresponse}) according to their
571: angular distances from the position of the target measured parallel to the baseline, and the wavenumber and coherence length for the specific channel.
572:
573: \subsubsection{Fringe phase for each star}
574:
575: The visibility phases $\phi_f$ of the field stars depend on their projected
576: angular distances $\theta_f$ and are given by $\phi_f = 2 \pi \overline{k}
577: B\sin(\rho \cos(PA-\psi)) = 2\pi \overline{k} B \theta_f$, where
578: $\rho$ is the radial distance of the field star measured in
579: radians, $PA$ is the position angle of the field star, and
580: $\psi$ is the position angle of the baseline orientation.
581: These quantities are defined in a Cartesian coordinate system with origin
582: at the center of the FOV, and with the $X$ and $Y$ axes oriented
583: along the directions of Right Ascension and Declination.
584:
585: \subsection{Resultant fringe models}
586:
587: The resultant fringe is the sum of fringes produced by the target and each
588: of the field stars. In the notation introduced for equation
589: \ref{eqn:finalSIMresponse}, this total fringe can be written as:
590: %
591: \begin{eqnarray}
592: \lefteqn{P(\delta_f,\phi_n, \overline{k_n}) =} \nonumber \\
593: & \sum_{j=1}^{N} P_0^j(n) \{ 1+A_n^j \sin[2\pi \overline{k_n}\delta_f
594: +\phi_n^j] \},
595: \label{eqn:comb1}
596: \end{eqnarray}
597: %
598: where the summation is over all the $N$ (target + field) stars within
599: (and just outside) the FOV.
600: In this quasi-monochromatic approximation, the fringes contributed by each field
601: star will all have the same period, only their amplitudes and phases will be
602: different. In that case, the final fringe will also be a pure sinusoid, and we
603: can write it as
604: %
605: \begin{eqnarray}
606: \lefteqn{P(\delta_f,\phi_n, \overline{k_n}) =} \nonumber \\
607: & P_n \{ 1+V_n \sin[2\pi \overline{k_n}\delta_f +\phi_n] \},
608: \label{eqn:resmod}
609: \end{eqnarray}
610: %
611: where the parameters are related to those of the field star fringes by
612: %
613: \begin{eqnarray}
614: P_n &=& \sum_{j=1}^{N} P_0^j(n), \nonumber \\
615: P_nV_n \cos\phi_n &=& \sum_{j=1}^{N}P_0^j(n) A_n^j \cos\phi_n^j, \nonumber \\
616: P_nV_n \sin\phi_n &=& \sum_{j=1}^{N}P_0^j(n) A_n^j \sin\phi_n^j.
617: \end{eqnarray}
618: %
619: $P_nV_n\cos\phi_n$ and $P_nV_n\sin\phi_n$ are respectively the cosine and sine
620: components of the resultant fringe in each of the $n$ narrow band channels.
621: As assumed in Figure~\ref{fig:phasor_diagram} (and without loss of generality), we take
622: the target to be located at the center of the FOV, so that $\theta_1 = 0$;
623: its fringe phase $\phi_n^1$ is therefore zero in all $n$ channels, and the
624: resultant phase $\phi_n$ is the confusion bias arising from the presence of the
625: field stars.
626:
627: Note that $P_0(n), A_n,$ and $\phi_n$ are all functions of the nominal mean
628: wavelength of the channel, the instrument parameters (as described
629: earlier), and the intrinsic parameters of the stars such as their effective
630: surface temperature $T_{eff}$, surface gravity log $g$, metallicity
631: $\log [Fe/H]$, apparent magnitude $m_{\bar\lambda}$, and location in the FOV.
632:
633: \subsubsection{Recognizing confusion}
634:
635: In each FOV we analyze, the model for SIM described above provides us with
636: 80 measurements of the confusion bias $\phi_n$. If the brightness
637: contrast between the target and the fields stars is large, we expect the
638: channel-to-channel variation to be small and the resultant phase to be almost
639: a linear function of channel number, as described in \S \ref{how_sim_works},
640: with the slope becoming zero if the target is located precisely at the origin of
641: the adopted coordinate system in the FOV.
642: For instance, the top panel in Figure \ref{fig:phasespec} shows the phase
643: spectrum for such a case; the target is a 10th mag A star, offset from the
644: FOV coordinate origin by 1 mas, and is confused by a 15th mag M dwarf offset
645: by a (projected) angle of 100 mas. The linear part of the graph comes from the
646: 1 mas offset of the A star, while the oscillatory part arises because of the
647: presence of the faint M star. The latter becomes relatively more important
648: at longer wavelengths, hence the amplitude of the phase ``ripples'' grows
649: at smaller values of wavenumber. The middle panel shows another example of a binary, this time exhibiting a phase jump at short wavelengths indicating a
650: position offset of order 10 mas. The bottom
651: panel of Figure \ref{fig:phasespec} shows the phase spectrum for a crowded
652: field; the fringe phase in this case varies erratically with channel number, but
653: remains small.
654: %
655: \begin{figure}%[htb]
656: \epsscale{0.8}
657: \plotone{f7.eps}
658: \caption {Top: Phase spectrum to be expected in the case of a
659: binary consisting of a mag 10 A star and a mag 15 M dwarf, separated
660: by 100 mas along the direction of the baseline orientation.
661: The resultant phase is a combination of a linear and an oscillatory function.
662: Middle: A phase jump appears when the binary is resolved at
663: or close to one of the channels. Bottom: Phase spectrum to be expected in a
664: crowded field. The resultant phase varies erratically with the wave-number.
665: The magnitude of the phases and the resulting distribution across the
666: channels determine the severity of the confusion bias.
667: \label{fig:phasespec}}
668: \end{figure}
669: %
670: \begin{figure}%[htb]
671: \epsscale{0.8}
672: \plotone{f8.eps}
673: \caption {The confusion estimator $s^2$ as a function of fine-delay for the three cases
674: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:phasespec}. The minimum value of $s^2$ and the corresponding fine-delay
675: values are indicated for each case. There is some correlation between the amount of deviation of $s^2$ from zero
676: to the amount of confusion bias; the exact nature of this relation is not investigated here.}
677: \end{figure}
678:
679: \subsection{A confusion estimator}
680:
681: Phase spectrum diagrams such as those just described (and the related delay
682: spectrum described in \S \ref{how_sim_works}) are useful indications of the
683: possible presence of a confusion bias in fields with relatively bright stars,
684: but their varied character makes it less obvious how to combine them into a
685: single measure which might be of value for fields of fainter stars. In a real
686: observation with SIM, one answer to dealing with faint targets is to enlarge
687: the bandwidth by binning channels on board the spacecraft before computing the
688: fringe parameters and before transfer of the data to ground. On-board binning
689: can be accomplished by adding the charge from several pixels as the CCD detector
690: is read out. This has the advantage of reducing the relative contribution of
691: read-out noise in the electronics; the disadvantage is that information on the
692: spectral variations of the fringes is no longer available, making it impossible
693: to even recognize a confusion bias in a single observation.\footnote{Averaging
694: data in this way may also mask phase wraps even for unconfused targets.}
695: A more thorough discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper,
696: but may be a useful topic for further work.
697:
698: In the framework of our simulations, we have developed an estimator for using
699: all 80 channels of data based on summing the squared fringes in each channel
700: after subtraction of the DC term. This quantity will vary as the fine delay
701: $\delta_f$ is scanned; minimizing this squared difference leads to a unique
702: estimate of the mean astrometric delay, and hence the confusion bias. If the
703: value of the estimator is zero at that delay to within the noise, the target is
704: not significantly confused at that signal-to-noise level; non-zero values
705: are an indication that the measurement is suffering from confusion. The
706: estimator is written as
707: %
708: \begin{eqnarray}
709: s^2(\delta_f) \equiv \sum_n \vert P(\delta_f,\xi_n,\overline{k_n})-P_n \vert ^2 \nonumber \\
710: = \sum_n \frac{P_n^2V_n^2}{2}\{1- \cos [4\pi\overline{k_n}(\delta_f+\xi_n)]\}
711: \label{eqn:s_square_definition}
712: \end{eqnarray}
713: %
714: where the delay spectrum is $\xi_n = \phi_n/2\pi \overline{k_n}$ (cf.\ \S
715: \ref{how_sim_works} and Figure \ref{fig:delay_vs_wavenumber}), and the other
716: symbols have been defined previously in connection with equation
717: \ref{eqn:resmod}. As discussed in \S \ref{how_sim_works}, $\xi_n$ is independent
718: of the channel number $n$ in the case of isolated targets (after adjustment for
719: possible phase-wrapping). Thus, the quantity $\delta_f+\xi_n$ on the right side
720: of Equation~\ref{eqn:s_square_definition} can be considered as an effective
721: path-length delay of the target, and setting it to zero leads to the precise determination of the delay value $\delta_f^{\prime}$ at which $s^2$ becomes
722: zero. This is therefore the delay offset of the target from the coarse delay position. Note also that at this value of delay, the fringes disappear, and the
723: response pattern (Equation~\ref{eqn:resmod}) becomes the SED of the target
724: modulated by the throughput of the instrument. This discussion also
725: shows that minimizing the estimator $s^2$ of equation
726: \ref{eqn:s_square_definition} provides the correct astrometric delay for an
727: isolated target, and that the value of the estimator $s^2$ at that delay
728: is exactly zero.
729:
730: From the discussion above it is also clear that, in the case of a crowded field,
731: $\xi_n$ varies with channel number and there is no single value of $\delta_f$
732: which will make each term of the sum in equation \ref{eqn:s_square_definition}
733: equal to zero. The minimum value of $s^2$ will therefore be a nonzero positive
734: number, so we will know there is confusion present. But the delay corresponding
735: to that minimum is the estimator we will use for the target delay.\footnote{To
736: what extent this is an optimum estimator is presently uncertain.} In our
737: simulations we know the target position, so we can calculate the true value
738: of the target delay. We are therefore \textit{defining} the confusion bias in
739: the simulations to follow as the difference between the known delay of the
740: target and the delay provided by minimizing the $s^2$ estimator.
741:
742: It should be emphasized that even though we have defined the confusion estimator
743: $s^2$ in the context of these simulations, it would be possible to compute
744: $s^2$ from real SIM data using the values of fringe parameters in each channel
745: provided by the observations. A fictitious ``fine delay'' could be created
746: and $s^2$ minimized as usual. To start with, $s^2$ could be estimated
747: for targets known to be isolated and the noise floor could be determined. Any
748: non-zero value of $s^2$ for other targets can then be used as an indication
749: of confusion.
750:
751: \section{Limiting values of confusion bias}
752: \label{limit_values}
753:
754: It is useful to have an estimate of the ``worst case'' values of confusion
755: bias to be expected in a single SIM observation. While it is possible to
756: imagine that the phasors for a specific distribution of field stars could
757: all add up ``in phase'' to produce a very large bias (cf.\ Figure
758: \ref{fig:phasor_diagram}), this bias would be much reduced in the neighboring
759: channels; indeed, if there are many field stars, the effects will be to simply
760: raise the ``noise level'' of the average astrometric delay measurement on the
761: target. More serious will be those cases where only one or two relatively
762: bright field stars are present. As an extreme example, we compute the confusion
763: bias introduced by a single field star, as a function its (projected) angular
764: distance from the target and the ratio of its brightness to that of the target.
765: The SEDs of the field and target stars are assumed to be the same. At small
766: separations, this bias will oscillate with a large amplitude and a period
767: characteristic of the mean wavelength of the full passband. At larger separations
768: the amplitude of the oscillations will fall owing to bandwidth apodization
769: according to equation \ref{eqn:finalresponse}. Figure~\ref{fig:con_vs_proj_sep}
770: shows the confusion bias (computed using the $s^2$ estimator as described in the
771: previous section) as a function of projected separation for a field star with
772: $\Delta$m = +1. For SIM with 9.0~m (projected) baseline, a delay bias of 0.44~nm
773: corresponds to an angular position bias
774: of 10~\muas, which is approximately the expected single-measurement precision,
775: so this value of delay bias is in some sense a ``critical'' value.
776: This critical value is reached at a projected separation of $0.94''$ for
777: a +1 mag field star. The critical projected separations for fainter field
778: stars with $\Delta$m = 2, 3, 4, and 5 mag are 0.17\arcsec, 0.07\arcsec,
779: 0.024\arcsec, and 0.005\arcsec\ respectively. For instance if a field star
780: is fainter by 3 magnitudes, it is not likely to introduce a significant
781: confusion bias as long as its projected separation from the target is more
782: than 70 mas. Figure~\ref{fig:con_vs_mag_dif} shows the confusion bias as a
783: function of magnitude difference for a few selected projected separations.
784: %
785: \begin{figure*}
786: \epsscale{1.6} % make it 1.6 in the preprint2 (two column version)
787: \plotone{f9.eps}
788: \caption{Confusion-induced bias in the astrometric delay
789: of a target star as a function of the projected separation of
790: the 1 magnitude fainter field star, when both stars have
791: identical SEDs. The inset indicates a magnified view of a portion
792: of the plot. The dotted line in the inset indicates the delay bias
793: of 0.439 nm, which will correspond to a 10 \muas \ position uncertainty
794: in an single observation. The critical projected distance beyond
795: which the bias in the delay is less than 0.439 nm is 0.94 arcsec.}
796: \label{fig:con_vs_proj_sep}
797: \end{figure*}
798: %-------------------------------------
799: \begin{figure*}
800: \epsscale{2.4}
801: \plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
802: \caption{Confusion-induced bias in the astrometric
803: delay of a target star as a function of the magnitude difference between
804: the target and a fainter field star, both having identical SEDs. The
805: biases for both close and wide binaries are plotted for a few
806: arbitrarily-chosen projected separations.
807: }
808: \label{fig:con_vs_mag_dif}
809: \end{figure*}
810: %-------------------------------------
811: \section{Applications}
812: \label{applications}
813:
814: In this section, we present the results modeling confusion bias for a selection
815: of fields representative of several of the current set of Key Projects
816: chosen for SIM subsequent to the first
817: \textit{Announcement of Opportunity}.\footnote{See the project descriptions
818: at: \\ \textit{http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim\_team.cfm}.} As mentioned
819: earlier, the important case of \textit{binaries as signal} will be deferred
820: to a later paper; here we consider such ``companion'' field stars as
821: \textit{noise} no matter where they are located in the FOV.
822:
823: \subsection{Motions of nearby galaxies}
824:
825: This project (``SIMDOG'') aims at dynamical studies of the Local Group of
826: galaxies by
827: measuring their deviations from the Hubble flow.\footnote{The Principle
828: Investigator for this project is E.J.\ Shaya.} Accurate distances to the
829: nearby galaxies from e.g.\ cepheids are a part of this work, but another
830: essential component is the precise measurement of galaxy proper motions. Over
831: the 5-year lifetime of the mission, repeated SIM observations of the brightest
832: stars in galaxies out to distances of $\approx 5$ Mpc are expected to yield
833: these proper motions with sufficient precision.
834:
835: Initially, it might be assumed that proper motion measurements of a galaxy
836: with SIM would be insensitive to confusion by extraneous stars in the FOV.
837: However, if the distribution of brightness over the FOV changes from one visit
838: to the next, there is a possibility of confusion-induced biases in the proper
839: motions. One class of changes that has already been evaluated in the work of
840: \cite{rajbokall01} involves biases caused by slight differences in pointing
841: the SIM FOV on the target area during successive visits. A second class of
842: changes in the brightness distribution arises when Galactic foreground stars
843: with their own proper motions are also present in the SIM FOV; this situation
844: is likely to be avoidable merely by pointing SIM to a different target star in
845: the distant galaxy. The third class is not so easily circumvented;
846: this arises from variations in the brightnesses of stars in the distant galaxy
847: itself. Variable stars are sufficiently common that one or more of sufficient
848: relative brightness may occur within the FOV when SIM is pointed at a bright
849: star in a nearby galaxy, and their variability may not be known ahead of time.
850: Of course the target star itself may be variable, and this too may be initially
851: unknown. It is this third class of biases we model here.
852:
853: \subsubsection{Source model}
854:
855: We assumed synthetic spectra of galactic supergiants of spectral type A and B
856: with $T_{eff}$ = 10000~K, $\mbox{log g} = 2$, and $\mbox{log[Fe/H]} = -1.5$.
857: These are the most favorable stars for SIM observations in the V band, as
858: described in the key project summary.
859:
860: \subsubsection{Results}
861:
862: The FOV is assumed to consist of the target star and one additional field star,
863: both of which are stationary.
864: The position of the target star is measured at two epochs, and the proper
865: motion bias is estimated as the difference between the two positions. The target
866: positions will contain some confusion bias owing to the field star and the
867: granularity of the background galaxy, but if everything remains the same the
868: calculated proper motion will be zero. The brightnesses of the target and/or the
869: field star are then changed, and changes in the confusion bias on the target
870: position measurement will masquerade as a proper motion.
871:
872: We considered two cases: (a) the target and a field stars have the same
873: brightness, but either one or both of them change in magnitude
874: by 0.3 mag. between the two visits; and, (b) the field star is fainter than
875: the target by 1 mag., but one of them changes by 0.3 mag. between visits.
876: The bias in the proper motion for this case is a function of the magnitude
877: difference and the angular separation (projected along the baseline) between
878: the target and the field star.
879:
880: Our simulations indicate that there could be as much as $\approx 800$~\muas\
881: of bias in the proper motions for galactic supergiants of spectral types A
882: and B, in case (a) and $\approx 300$~\muas \ in case (b), if the field star
883: is located within a fringe. If the projected separation of the field star is more than a fringe but less
884: than 25~mas then the induced bias is $\approx 30$~\muas \ in case (a) and $\approx 20$~\muas \ in case (b).
885: If the projected separation of the field star is more than 50 mas, then the bias in
886: the proper motions owing to brightness variations of 0.3 mag is expected to
887: be much less than the single measurement precision.
888:
889: \subsubsection{Discussion}
890:
891: A local group galaxy at a distance of 1 Mpc with a transverse velocity of 100
892: km/s would have a proper motion of $\approx 20$ \muas/yr, so that biases at the
893: levels mentioned above could be problematic. Observing strategies to mitigate
894: such biases will be necessary, such as repeating observations with
895: changes of a few degrees in baseline orientation and/or observing
896: several target stars in the same galaxy. As with the other cases of confusion bias which we have modeled here, the impossibility of obtaining a
897: sufficiently-precise model of the bias precludes any simple correction for it;
898: the best one can hope for is to be aware of the risks and plan the observations
899: accordingly.
900:
901: \subsection{Astrometric reference frame tie}
902:
903: A list of $\approx 1300$ Galactic stars
904: spread more-or-less evenly over the sky
905: will be repeatedly observed with SIM during the mission lifetime. The positions
906: and proper motions of these ``grid stars'' will enable the definition of an
907: astrometric reference frame. Unfortunately, this frame may have a small residual
908: rotation, a possible result of some non-random component to the measured proper
909: motions of the constituent stars. This ``roll'' component will have to be
910: removed by measuring the positions and (apparent) proper motions of 50 - 100
911: distant quasars. These objects are generally too faint to be included in the
912: regular astrometric grid program of SIM, but they can be measured to sufficient
913: precision using longer integrations.\footnote{The Principle Investigator for
914: this project is K.J.\ Johnston.}
915:
916: The quasars to be used in this study are distributed all over the sky, and are
917: relatively faint compared to grid stars. These quasars may therefore be
918: susceptible to confusion from faint (but numerous) A, K, and M stars in the
919: Galactic foreground, especially near the Galactic Plane. It is this source of
920: error in the astrometry of faint quasars which will be estimated here. The
921: effects are exacerbated by the strongly differing SEDs of the quasars compared
922: to the SEDs of faint red Galactic stars.
923:
924: \subsubsection{Source model}
925:
926: The models we adopt for this set of simulations consist of a target quasar,
927: located for convenience at the center of the SIM FOV, and a field star located
928: somewhere else within the FOV. Additional structures such as lumpy, extended
929: jets, are not included. The quasar SEDs are chosen from a small but
930: representative set of quasar spectra from the ``First Bright Quasar Survey''
931: \citep{wh00} with redshifts ranging from 0 to 3. These spectra have been
932: extrapolated wherever they were not adequately
933: defined over the wavelength range 400 - 1000 nm by assuming a flat spectrum
934: with values of the nearest known value; they are generally brightest
935: at the blue end of the spectrum. The Galactic star can be of
936: spectral type A1V, K0V, or M6V. We do not include massive O and B type stars,
937: since these stars are rare at the higher Galactic latitudes where the frame
938: tie quasars are preferentially found. The foreground star is taken to be 0 - 3
939: mag fainter than the target quasar, and located at PA = 5\degr, almost directly
940: ``above'' the target. Four different radial separations
941: between the quasar and the foreground star are modeled (25, 50,
942: 100, and 200 mas), as well as 18 different possible orientations
943: (0\degr\ to 170\degr\ in steps of 10\degr\ ) of the
944: interferometer baseline.
945:
946: \subsubsection{Results}
947: \label{qftres}
948:
949: The left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:qft_plot1} shows the single-measurement confusion bias as a
950: function of the difference in brightness of the target and the location of
951: the field star for a baseline position angle of 0\degr. The right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:qft_plot2} shows a similar
952: plot for a baseline position angle of 90\degr. Together, these figures show
953: the typical bounds on the expected biases.
954:
955: \begin{figure*}[t]
956: \epsscale{2.3}% make it 2.3 in the two columns version (preprint2)
957: \plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}
958: \caption {Absolute value of bias as a function of $\Delta m$ for field star
959: separations of 25 (solid line), 50 (dotted line), 100 (dashed line), and
960: 200 mas (dash-dot line) for A1V and M6V field stars. The PA of the field star is 5\degr.
961: \textbf{Left panel:} Baseline PA = 0\degr. \textbf{Right panel:}
962: Baseline PA = 90\degr.
963: \label{fig:qft_plot1}
964: \label{fig:qft_plot2}
965: }
966: \end{figure*}
967:
968: \subsubsection{Discussion}
969:
970: The simulations show a strong dependence on the SEDs of the quasar and the
971: field star. For example, M stars cause significantly more bias then A stars
972: of the same brightness, and there is a (smaller) dependence on the redshift
973: of the quasar. These biases can be reduced by choosing another baseline orientation as long as $\Delta m \gtrsim 2$ and the projected separation
974: is $\gtrsim 50$ mas for an A-type field star. The values for an M-type field
975: star are 3 mag and 100 mas, respectively.
976:
977: \subsection{Taking the measure of the Milky Way}
978:
979: SIM will make a major contribution to the study of the distributions of both
980: dark and luminous matter in the Galaxy through precision measurements of the
981: distances and proper motions of different classes of Galactic
982: stars.\footnote{The Principle Investigator for this project is S.R.\ Majewski.}
983: One of these
984: studies involves measuring the distances to nearly 100 bright M giants in the
985: ``Baade's Window'' region of the central bulge of the Milky Way. Unfortunately
986: these are some of the richest star fields ever considered for SIM, and there
987: are significant concerns about confusion-induced biases in single position
988: measurements of these bulge stars. We have modeled typical examples of these
989: fields and investigated whether judicious choices of the orientation of SIM's
990: baseline can reduce these biases.
991:
992: \subsubsection{Source model}
993: %
994: We have constructed our models for these fields using HST/WFPC2 imaging
995: observations as a guide. For example, Figure \ref{baade} is an F555W exposure
996: in the region of Baade's window (HST Proposal ID 8574; Target name
997: FIELD180310-295143). This image has a scale of 0.0455\arcsec\ per pixel.
998: %
999: \begin{figure}%[htb]
1000: \epsscale{1.0} % do not remove!
1001: \plotone{newf12.eps}
1002: \caption {
1003: Image of the Milky Way Bulge (Baade's Window) retrieved from
1004: HST archival data. The image has a scale of 0.0455\arcsec\ per pixel.
1005: The image has been cropped and displayed as negative.
1006: The black circle indicates the SIM FOV of 3\arcsec. \label{baade}
1007: }
1008: \end{figure}
1009: %
1010: We obtained photometric and astrometric information for more than 3800 stars
1011: in this image from J.\ Holtzman (private communication); his catalog included
1012: V \& I magnitudes along with associated errors, X \& Y position measurements,
1013: and the RA \& DEC (J2000) of the stars. We abstracted a set of $\approx 40$
1014: target FOVs from this image, each centered on a bright ``target'' star, and
1015: constructed an idealized model for each field consisting of a list of all
1016: stars lying within and just outside of the SIM FOV.
1017: The SED of each star was estimated as follows:
1018: First, we fitted a 2nd degree polynomial to a theoretical plot of V-I color
1019: index vs.\ effective temperature obtained from Kurucz's
1020: models\footnote{{\it http://kurucz.harvard.edu/grids/gridP00ODFNEW\linebreak[1]/rijklp00k0odfnew.dat}}
1021: assuming that all the stars are solar-type dwarfs.
1022: This yielded a relation between the effective surface temperature and the V-I color
1023: index of the star. Using the known V-I colors for all stars in the catalog,
1024: we estimated the corresponding surface temperatures and hence the spectral
1025: types. A large fraction ($\approx 85\% $) of the V-I colors lie in the
1026: theoretically-expected range of 0.5 - 2.57; this is consistent with (but does
1027: not prove) the assumption that these stars have essentially zero metallicity.
1028: We also ignored any extinction corrections. All stars lying within a circle
1029: of 6\arcsec\ of the bright target star were considered as potential sources of
1030: confusion, since some light from these stars can be diffracted into the FOV.
1031: A baseline orientation was then chosen in the range 0\degr\ - 170\degr\ in
1032: steps of 10\degr, and the position of the target star calculated first without,
1033: and then including, the surrounding stars.
1034: The difference is the confusion-induced single-measurement astrometric bias.
1035:
1036: \subsubsection{Results}
1037:
1038: Of the 40 target fields we have simulated, 22 show biases in excess of
1039: 10 \muas\ if the same baseline orientation is chosen (90\degr\ for these
1040: simulations). The bias can be reduced below 4 \muas\ in 39 out of 40 targets
1041: simply by choosing a suitable baseline orientation. This suggests that some
1042: experimentation with the actual data set could therefore be useful, by taking
1043: the data at several baseline position angles and rejecting anomalous points.
1044: Figure~\ref{bovserr_baade} shows an example of the astrometric bias as a
1045: function of baseline orientation for two different fields. For the first field
1046: (top panel), 12 out of 18 baseline orientations show biases less than
1047: 10 \muas. For the second field (bottom panel), 7 out of 18 baseline orientations show correspondingly small biases. Also, note that the biases
1048: can occasionally be very large (e.g., at baseline PA = 20\degr\ in the
1049: second field).
1050: %
1051: \begin{figure}%[htb]
1052: \epsscale{1.0} % do not remove!
1053: \plotone{f13.eps}
1054: \caption{Single-measurement confusion-induced astrometric bias as a function
1055: of baseline orientation for models of two very crowded fields in
1056: Baade's Window. Note the logarithmic scale on the $y$ axis; the biases can
1057: be large for some baseline orientations. The dashed horizontal line is drawn
1058: at a bias of 10 \muas, which is roughly the estimated single-measurement error
1059: expected from noise and instrumental instability. \label{bovserr_baade}
1060: }
1061: \end{figure}
1062:
1063: \subsubsection{Discussion}
1064:
1065: Our results generally show that, in these very crowded fields, the amount of
1066: bias grows with the number of field stars. This is expected, as consideration
1067: of the phasor diagram in Figure \ref{fig:phasor_diagram} will show. Furthermore,
1068: the largest contributions to the net bias are primarily caused by a small number
1069: of judiciously-situated field stars. These stars can even be located outside
1070: the FOV.
1071: %
1072: \begin{figure*}%[htb]
1073: %\epsscale{0.8}
1074: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{f14a.eps}%FMODEL_34_ori_20.eps}
1075: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{f14b.eps}%P1MODEL_34_ori_20.eps}
1076: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{f14c.eps}%P13MODEL_34_ori_20.eps}
1077: \caption {\textbf{Left panel:}
1078: One of the two field stars at position angle of 110\degr\ outside
1079: the field-stop, shown by filled dots, has a projected distance of about 2 mas
1080: and is fainter by 1.4 magnitudes.
1081: \textbf{Middle panel:} Excluding it from the model reduces the bias from
1082: 351 \muas\ to -2\muas. The other field star has a projected distance of about
1083: 13 mas, but it is fainter by 6.8 magnitudes; excluding it from the model makes
1084: little difference. \textbf{Right panel:} Somewhat surprisingly, a field
1085: star located well inside the FOV at a projected distance of 1.3\arcsec\ and
1086: brighter than the target by 0.95 mag also makes a negligible contribution to
1087: the net bias.
1088: \label{model_34}}
1089: \end{figure*}
1090: %
1091: Figure~\ref{model_34} is an example of such a case. In this field, there are
1092: 56 field stars in our model. Two of them have projected distances of only 2 mas
1093: and 13 mas, and are fainter by 1.4 and 6.8 mag respectively, but they are both
1094: located outside the edge of the FOV and, at first sight, should not be a
1095: problem. Nevertheless, the simulations show that the measured target position is
1096: biased by 351 \muas. When the field star at 2 mas is excluded, the bias drops
1097: from 351 \muas\ to -2 \muas. Further excluding the 13 mas field star makes very little difference; this star is probably too faint to cause problems, or it is
1098: at a fortuitous location on the fringe pattern. There is a third field star
1099: which would seem a likely candidate for causing a bias; it is \textit{brighter}
1100: by 0.95 mag and located \textit{inside} the FOV, at a projected distance of
1101: 1.3\arcsec. However, excluding this star makes little difference to the bias,
1102: as is shown in the right panel of Figure \ref{model_34}.
1103:
1104: \subsection{Cluster distances}
1105:
1106: This project is aimed at measuring the distances to a set of selected open and
1107: globular clusters in the Galaxy in order to determine their precise ages by
1108: combining SIM parallax data with other existing data.\footnote{The Principle
1109: Investigator for this project is G. Worthey.} A few stars from each of
1110: these open and globular clusters will be chosen as targets for SIM astrometry.
1111: However, these targets are necessarily in crowded stellar fields, and the
1112: examples of the previous section suggest that the confusion-induced biases
1113: could be large. We have modeled these biases
1114: in the typical case of NGC~6440, an old globular cluster at a distance of
1115: $\approx 8.4$ kpc, and located near the Galactic center at l = 7.7\degr,
1116: b = +3.8\degr. NGC~6440 is a well-studied globular cluster, with a core radius
1117: of 8\arcsec. It is one of the 14 globular clusters known to have X-ray emission.
1118: Specifically, we have addressed the following questions with our models:
1119: %
1120: \begin{itemize}
1121: \item What is the typical confusion bias for the 50 brightest targets in
1122: NGC~6440?
1123: \item At what area density of bright field stars are the target biases
1124: tolerable?
1125: \end{itemize}
1126: %
1127:
1128: \subsubsection{Source model}
1129:
1130: Our model for NGC~6440 is based on an HST image obtained with the Planetary
1131: Camera of WFPC2, as shown in Figure \ref{globular} and kindly provided by
1132: G.\ Worthey.
1133: %
1134: %placefigure{globular}
1135: \begin{figure}[ht]
1136: \epsscale{1.0}
1137: \plotone{f15.ps}
1138: %\plotone{ngc_modfig.eps}
1139: \caption{PC image of the Globular Cluster NGC~6440 cropped and displayed as a
1140: negative. The image scale is 0.046 \arcsec/pixel. The black circle indicates
1141: the SIM FOV of 3\arcsec. \label{globular}
1142: }
1143: \end{figure}
1144: %
1145: Most of the bright stars in this picture are K giants; we generated a catalog
1146: of these stars using the `SExtractor' software.\footnote{Bertin, E.,\\
1147: {\it http://terapix.iap.fr/rubrique.php?id$\_$rubrique=91}} Although it is well
1148: known that this approach does not provide accurate photometry in crowded fields,
1149: our goal here is not to obtain precise corrections to the astrometric
1150: observations (which would require micro arc-second positions as well as accurate
1151: magnitudes) but rather to elucidate the general level and nature of the biases
1152: which may be expected. The number of sources which can be obtained with this
1153: software depends on the assumed value of the background intensity; after
1154: a few trials, we settled on a background value of $1.5 \times \sigma_{rms}$,
1155: which yielded about 2400 stars with positions and V magnitudes. A visual
1156: comparison of the selected objects with the original image showed a good
1157: correspondence. The area density of these stars as a function of the radial
1158: distance from the center of the cluster is shown in Figure \ref{ngcres1}.
1159: %
1160: \begin{figure}[ht]
1161: \epsscale{1.0}
1162: \plotone{f16.eps}
1163: \caption {Number density of stars as a function of radial distance from
1164: the core of the cluster NGC~6440. The magnitudes of the stars lie in the
1165: range from 16.19 to 25.52 \label{ngcres1}
1166: }
1167: \end{figure}
1168: %
1169: We then selected 51 circular fields at different locations
1170: in the cluster (one is shown in Figure \ref{globular}); each field is centered
1171: on a bright star (presumed to be a K-giant). The model constructed for that
1172: field consists of a list of the positions and magnitudes of the target star
1173: and all field stars within a radius of 3\arcsec\ of the target; this allows
1174: for diffraction of light into the 3\arcsec\ (diameter) SIM FOV from stars which
1175: are located beyond the edge of the aperture.
1176:
1177: The SEDs of the model stars were determined from estimates of surface
1178: temperature, gravity, and metallicity, as follows. From the V magnitudes
1179: (with the assumption that all stars are K giants) we attributed a temperature
1180: to a star randomly in the range 4000-4750 K (4000, 4250, 4500,4750) and a
1181: surface gravity randomly in the range of 1.5 to 4 with a step size of 0.5.
1182: We assumed that all the stars have solar metallicity. The spectra so determined
1183: were renormalized to account for the distance to the cluster and the magnitude
1184: of the field star.
1185:
1186: \subsubsection{Results}
1187:
1188: \begin{figure}[h]
1189: \epsscale{1.0}
1190: \plotone{f17.eps} %f14.eps
1191: \caption {Probability that the confusion bias exceeds 10 \muas \ in a single measurement as a
1192: function of radius of the globular cluster NGC6440.
1193: \label{ngcres4}
1194: }
1195: \end{figure}
1196: %
1197: In each of the 51 fields we obtained the confusion bias for 18 different
1198: orientations (position angles) of the SIM baseline (0\degr\ to 170\degr\ in
1199: steps of 10\degr).
1200: The fields used in this set of simulations typically have target stars at V $\approx$ 16-18, with brightest field stars at V $\approx 16$ or fainter,
1201: down to $\approx$ 25 (with some exceptional cases;
1202: in 5 out of 51 fields, brightest field stars were
1203: brighter than the target by 1.2, 1.6, 3.2, 2, 4.6 magnitudes; 3 of
1204: them were within the core radius and the remaining two were within 16 arcsec
1205: radius.).
1206: Of all the cases we analyzed in each field, 20\% of them showed biases in excess of
1207: 10~\muas \ in all 18 baseline orientations considered;
1208: Figure~\ref{ngcres4} shows the probability of a single
1209: measurement confusion bias exceeding 10~\muas \ as a function of
1210: radius of the cluster. For a given field, if the confusion bias was more than 10~\muas \ in
1211: 12 out of 18 orientations, the probability was estimated as 2/3 at the radial distance of
1212: the field from the center of the globular cluster.
1213: This figure indicates that, for NGC6440, the probability of having large
1214: confusion bias can be as large as 95\% even at the radius of 15\arcsec \ and there
1215: could be as much as 40\% probability of large confusion bias at large radial distances.
1216: The probability
1217: of obtaining large confusion bias drops at larger radial distances in the cluster, as
1218: the local stellar surface density decreases. This latter point is illustrated
1219: in Figure~\ref{bovserr_ogc}, which shows the confusion bias as a function of
1220: baseline orientation for two different fields, located at radial distances of
1221: 3.6\arcsec\ and 20\arcsec\ from cluster center. For the field at 3.6\arcsec\
1222: (which is actually inside the cluster core), the biases are always large (note
1223: the logarithmic scale) at all baseline orientations. For the field at 20\arcsec,
1224: the error is larger than 10 \muas\ in 30\% of the baseline orientations.
1225: %
1226: \begin{figure}[ht]
1227: \epsscale{1.0}
1228: \plotone{f18.eps}
1229: \caption {Confusion bias as a function of baseline orientation for model fields
1230: located at 3.6\arcsec\ (top panel) and 20\arcsec\ (bottom panel) from the
1231: center of NGC~6440. Target fields at the periphery of clusters are clearly
1232: preferable, but may still have an appreciable probability (here $\approx 30\%$)
1233: for a substantial confusion bias. \label{bovserr_ogc}
1234: }
1235: \end{figure}
1236:
1237: \subsubsection{Discussion}
1238:
1239: The statistics of these results indicate that the probability of having an
1240: unacceptable level ($\ge$~10~\muas) of confusion bias in the \textit{positions} of target
1241: stars is will exceed 30\% for a single
1242: observation carried out at any random baseline orientation if the stellar
1243: density in the area exceeds 0.4 stars per square arc-second (compare Figures~\ref{ngcres1} and ~\ref{ngcres4};
1244: In other words, about 3 stars within the 3\arcsec \ FOV is acceptable).
1245:
1246: However, the focus of this particular Key Project is on \textit{distances}
1247: to objects, and hence on the parallaxes of the target stars. How do our results
1248: apply to the measurement of parallaxes? Such a measurement could be carried out
1249: with SIM in a special way, namely, ensuring that the baseline orientation was
1250: identical for observations taken $\approx 6$ months apart in time.
1251: This is perhaps
1252: possible in principle, but very unlikely in practice. First, the baseline
1253: orientation can not easily be set to $\approx 1$\degr; indeed,
1254: it is in fact generally not even known until the baseline
1255: vector has been calibrated. This
1256: means that parallaxes will suffer from the same magnitude of confusion bias
1257: as do regular position
1258: measurements. In the case of the cluster Key Project, a possible strategy
1259: could be to choose a number of target stars each at some large distance from
1260: the cluster center (such that the stellar density is lower than the limit cited
1261: above), and obtain parallaxes on each of them using the standard SIM observing
1262: strategy.\footnote{This strategy is still under development and includes a complex calibration program.} Discordant single-measurement data points would
1263: then simply be rejected from the data set as a likely consequence of confusion.
1264:
1265: \section{Limitations of the models}
1266: \label{limitations}
1267:
1268: The first, and perhaps most painful, limitation of the modeling we have
1269: described here is that, in spite of our apparent ability to compute the
1270: confusion bias in any single measurement with high precision, the results
1271: are in general not likely to be sufficiently accurate to provide actual
1272: corrections to the target positions. The simple reason for this is that
1273: the \textit{true} field star positions are not known with accuracies of
1274: the same order as the expected single-measurement precision of SIM,
1275: $\approx 10$ \muas. Whether the modeling might be sufficient in any
1276: particular case will depend on the specific details of that field on the
1277: sky; our modeling tools (described in the next section) can then be used
1278: to evaluate the biases by e.g.\ varying the positions and brightnesses of
1279: the field stars over plausible ranges.
1280:
1281: The second limitation of our modeling concerns the instrument model we have
1282: adopted for SIM. There are several simplifications we have made which
1283: could be problematic:
1284: %
1285: \begin{enumerate}
1286: %
1287: \item
1288: In our numerical simulations, we have assumed that the FOV is exactly
1289: circular, and that all the photons diffracted into it will be collected
1290: (with some efficiency) by the detector. However, in practice the focal
1291: plane of SIM's camera will be covered by a CCD detector with pixels of
1292: $\approx 2$\arcsec\ on a side, and it is presently planned to average the data in
1293: three neighboring rows.
1294: %
1295: \item We have assumed that the photons collected in each FOV will be dispersed
1296: in the camera in some way into 80 channels with central wavelengths and bandwidths as specified in Appendix \ref{appsec:params}. In fact, a thin prism
1297: will be inserted into the light path before imaging onto the CCD detector,
1298: turning the camera into an objective prism spectrograph. Such instruments
1299: require special calibration and are subject to a degree of internal confusion
1300: caused by overlap of spectra from field stars with the spectrum of the target
1301: star.
1302: %
1303: \item We have estimated the fringe parameters (total power, fringe amplitude
1304: and fringe phase) analytically, and neglected the details of just how they will
1305: be measured on-board the spacecraft.
1306: %
1307: \item We have assumed that the throughput of the system is the same for
1308: different locations in the FOV. In fact, the presence of the prism will cause
1309: the throughput (and the dispersion) to change depending upon the angle of
1310: incidence at the prism, and hence to be different for the target and for the
1311: field stars.
1312: %
1313: \end{enumerate}
1314:
1315: We have carried out a further study using a more sophisticated instrument model
1316: which removes the first three of these limitations. The details of this extended
1317: model will be described elsewhere \citep{sriron07}, but we give here the results
1318: of repeating the bias computations on a subset of the fields we have described
1319: in the present paper. Table~\ref{comp-table} compares the biases obtained using
1320: the ``simplified'' approach presented in this paper with those obtained using
1321: the more detailed model of the focal plane. The cases listed are taken from the
1322: Quasar Frame Tie key project (cases 1 - 5) and a selection of binary models
1323: (cases 6 - 8). Perhaps not surprisingly, the differences are
1324: roughly proportional to the magnitude of the computed bias, although these
1325: differences are generally at a level of only a few percent. Unfortunately, the
1326: utility of the results from this more sophisticated instrument model is still
1327: compromised by inaccurate input data on the field stars, and since it also comes
1328: with considerable additional complexity we have not used it further in this
1329: paper.
1330: %
1331: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
1332: \tablecaption{Comparison of the single-measurement confusion bias obtained
1333: with the present simplified model and with the more detailed model of
1334: \citet{sriron07}.\label{comp-table}}
1335: \tablewidth{0pt}
1336: \tablehead{
1337: \colhead{Case} & \colhead{Model} & \colhead{Simple} & \colhead{Detailed} &
1338: \colhead{Difference} \\
1339: \colhead{Number} & \colhead{parameters} & \colhead{(\muas)} & \colhead{(\muas)}&
1340: \colhead{(\muas)}
1341: }
1342: \startdata
1343: 1 & Q(z=0), A1V, 2, 50, 5, 90 &\phn442 &\phn431 &11\\
1344: 2 & Q(z=0), M6V, 2, 50, 5, 90 &1072 &1036 &36\\
1345: 3 & Q(z=2), A1V, 2, 50, 5, 90 &\phn224 &\phn215 &\phn9\\
1346: 4 & Q(z=2), M6V, 2, 50, 5, 90 &\phn614 &\phn592 &22\\
1347: 5 & Q(z=2), M6V, 2, 50, 5, 10 &\phn$-46$ &\phn$-46$ &\phn0\\
1348: 6 & A1V, B1V, 3, 1500, 10, 90 &\phn\phn$-1$ &\phn\phn\phn0 &\phn1\\
1349: 7 & A1V, M6V, 2, 50, 90, 90 &\phn$-59$ &\phn$-61$ &\phn2\\
1350: 8 & A1V, M6V, 2, 25, 90, 90 &\phn$-53$ &\phn$-46$ &\phn7\\
1351: \enddata
1352: \tablecomments{In column 2, Q(z=0), A1V, 2, 50, 5, 90 means target quasar
1353: with redshift 2, A1V field star, $\Delta$m = 2, radial distance 50 mas,
1354: PA = 5\degr, baseline orientation 90\degr.}
1355: \end{deluxetable}
1356:
1357: \section{Modeling Tools}
1358:
1359: The source and instrument models described here have been implemented in a suite
1360: of programs written in the IDL programming system.
1361: These programs are available\footnote{{\it http://www.stsci.edu/$\sim$rjallen/sim/}}
1362: for further experimentation, including the code developed for
1363: estimating confusion bias in the specific target fields described in this
1364: paper.
1365:
1366: \section{Summary and Discussions}
1367: \label{sum}
1368:
1369: We have examined the bias that can occur in a single measurement with SIM
1370: owing to the presence of field stars within the FOV. In order to accomplish
1371: this task we have presented a model for the SIM interferometer, and
1372: a description of how SIM carries out a single measurement of the position of an isolated target star.
1373: The measured instrument response is then perturbed by adding a field star
1374: to the model FOV; the difference in the angles measured in the two cases is called the ``confusion bias''. The extremes of this bias are calculated for
1375: the specific (but common) case of a binary system in order to illustrate its
1376: main properties.
1377:
1378: A number of source models are then developed which resemble the fields to be
1379: studied by SIM in several of the Key Projects already selected for inclusion
1380: in the initial mission science program. An unconfused version of the source model consisting only of the main target star is used as a reference
1381: measurement, and the results compared with a measurement made on the
1382: fully-populated field. The difference is the confusion bias in a single SIM
1383: measurement. Observations are simulated at various orientations of the
1384: interferometer baseline, and variants of the full field are examined in order
1385: to understand the sensitivity of the bias to structural details in the field.
1386:
1387: The magnitude of the confusion bias is found to depend on a number of factors,
1388: some obvious, others perhaps less so:
1389: %
1390: \begin{itemize}
1391: \item the relative brightnesses of the target and the field stars;
1392: \item the shapes of the SEDs of the target and field stars;
1393: \item the angular separation of the stars from the center of the FOV;
1394: \item the angular separation of the field stars from the target star as
1395: projected on the interferometer baseline; and,
1396: \item the baseline orientation.
1397: \end{itemize}
1398: %
1399: The largest contributions to the confusion bias in a crowded field come from
1400: a small number of stars having small projected angular separations from the
1401: target, but these stars may actually be located outside of the FOV. Field stars
1402: which are less than 4 mag fainter than the target and which have projected separations within 100 mas of the target are potentially the most troublesome.
1403:
1404: The results of this study provides the understanding and the tools required
1405: to examine the likelihood of confusion bias in any single measurement with SIM.
1406: Unfortunately, data on the field stars in any specific FOV (especially their
1407: positions) is not likely to be available with sufficient accuracy to actually
1408: remove this bias.\footnote{There are some possible exceptions one could
1409: imagine, but we have not explored them further here.} Our study nevertheless
1410: suggests some strategies for recognizing the presence of confusion bias and for
1411: dealing with it, both in the observation planning stage and in the data
1412: reduction stage. These strategies might include the following:
1413: %
1414: \begin{itemize}
1415: \item While dealing with crowded fields, avoid fields with star densities in
1416: excess of 0.4 stars per square arcsec.
1417: \item If avoidance is impossible, evaluate the likelihood of confusion in the
1418: field by using the tools developed here.
1419: \item If confusion is likely, try to reduce your sensitivity to it by planning
1420: the observing program so that data is taken at the least sensitive orientations
1421: of the interferometer baseline.
1422: \item If too little is known about the specific field, plan to distribute the
1423: available observing time over a number of orientations of the interferometer
1424: baseline which differ by a few degrees from each other. Inconsistent values
1425: in the data set can then be rejected with motivation.
1426: \item If confusion is suspected in a given set of observations for which
1427: no prior data exists, acquiring new imagery from e.g., speckle or adaptive optics
1428: imaging would be useful for building a model.
1429: \end{itemize}
1430: %
1431: There is one additional strategy suggested by our more accurate model of the
1432: SIM focal plane. The CCD detector in the focal plane of
1433: SIM's camera is planned to have pixels which are smaller than the diameter
1434: of the FOV. If the data in the individual pixels can be made available, it would
1435: be possible to choose e.g.\ only the central pixel, thereby effectively
1436: reducing the FOV and possibly attenuating an offending field star. The penalty
1437: of fewer target photons could then be offset by a reduction in the level of
1438: confusion bias. This possibility will be discussed in more detail in a future
1439: paper \citep{sriron07}.
1440:
1441: We wish to emphasize that the results of this paper refer to a bias which may
1442: be present in a single measurement of angular position with SIM. The
1443: determination of the full set of astrometric parameters (position, parallax,
1444: proper motion) on any SIM target will be done with a number of
1445: measurements, reducing the effects of any single anomalous point. Furthermore,
1446: the ultimate accuracy of the results depends on an extensive calibration program
1447: to determine the instrumental parameters, including the baseline length and
1448: orientations for each field observed.
1449:
1450: \acknowledgments
1451:
1452: We are grateful to our colleagues in the SIM Science and Engineering Teams
1453: for discussions about SIM and about the potential for confusion-induced bias
1454: in SIM measurements. We thank Xiao Pei Pan, Mike Shao, and Jeff Oseas of JPL
1455: for providing the
1456: latest values of the instrumental parameters for SIM. Information on the
1457: different Key Project fields modeled here was provided by Carl Grillmair,
1458: Guy Worthey, Ed Shaya, Rick White, Jon Holtzman, and Norbert Zacharias.
1459: This work was funded primarily by the SIM project office at JPL under
1460: contract \#1268384 and carried out at the Space Telescope Science Institute;
1461: the paper was written with the partial support of the STScI Director's
1462: Discretionary Research Fund. Finally, our sincere thanks to an anonymous
1463: referee whose critical comments helped to improve the presentation.
1464:
1465: % Appendices follow:
1466:
1467: \appendix
1468:
1469: \section{Michelson interferometer response}
1470: \label{appsec:response}
1471:
1472: Michelson interferometers are used in astronomy at wavelengths from the radio
1473: to the optical for spectroscopy, for astrometry, and for synthetic imaging.
1474: The major equations giving the response of such interferometers for the latter
1475: two applications are summarized here.
1476:
1477: \subsection{Interferometers for astrometry and imaging}
1478:
1479: At any given wavelength $\lambda$ and baseline separation $B_{ij}$
1480: (both e.g.\ in meters), the response of a simple adding Michelson
1481: interferometer of the type used for astrometry and imaging of partially
1482: coherent light in optical astronomy can be modeled as
1483: (e.g.\ \citet{bw75}, p.\ 491 \textit{et. seq.}):
1484: %
1485: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:generalresponse}
1486: P(\Delta_{ij}, k) = P_{0} [ 1 + A \cos(2 \pi k \Delta_{ij})],
1487: \end{equation}
1488: %
1489: \noindent where $P_0$ is proportional to the target brightness
1490: (e.g.\ in photons/sec), $A \leq 1 $ is called the \textit{fringe amplitude}
1491: and depends on the target structure, $k = 1/\lambda$ is the \textit{wavenumber}
1492: (in e.g. meters$^{-1}$), and $\Delta_{ij}$ is the total
1493: \textit{optical path difference OPD}
1494: (e.g.\ in meters) between the two sides (or ``arms'') of the
1495: interferometer. For point source targets, $A = 1$, and the normalized version
1496: of equation \ref{eqn:generalresponse} can be considered as the interferometer's
1497: far-field ``point spread function'' (PSF), similar in concept to the PSF of a
1498: filled-aperture telescope.
1499:
1500: The total OPD $\Delta_{ij}$ consists of components on each side $i$ and $j$
1501: of the interferometer, and each of those consists of an \textit{internal} and
1502: an \textit{external} part. Furthermore, some of the internal delay is
1503: ``fixed'', and some may be ``variable''. Referring to Figure \ref{fig:generalsketch}
1504: we can write:
1505: %
1506: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eqn:delaycomps}
1507: \Delta_{ij} & = & [\mbox{total side $j$ delay}] -
1508: [\mbox{total side $i$ delay}], \nonumber
1509: \end{eqnarray}
1510: %
1511: where the components on each side are:
1512:
1513: \begin{center}
1514: \( \begin{array} {rcl}
1515: \mbox{side $j$ internal delay} & = & \mbox{fixed delay + variable delay} \\
1516: & = & d_j + \delta , \mbox{ and} \\
1517: \mbox{side $j$ external delay} & = & 0 \mbox{ by construction. Further,} \\
1518: \mbox{side $i$ internal delay} & = & \mbox{fixed delay + variable delay} \\
1519: & = & d_i + 0 \mbox{ by construction, and} \\
1520: \mbox{side $i$ external delay} & = & B_{ij} \sin \theta .
1521: \end{array} \)
1522: \end{center}
1523:
1524: \noindent This last equation is simple geometry, as Figure \ref
1525: {fig:generalsketch} shows, but it is often stated as the dot product of a vector
1526: \textsf{\textbf{B}} parallel to the direction of the baseline with a (unit)
1527: vector \textsf{\textbf{D}} in the direction for which we wish to compute $\Delta_{ij}$. \textsf{\textbf{D}} makes an angle of $\alpha$ with
1528: \textsf{\textbf{B}}, see Figure \ref{fig:generalsketch}.
1529: Then the ``side $i$ external delay'' can be written as
1530: \textsf{\textbf{B}} $\bullet$ \textsf{\textbf{D}} $ = B_{ij} \cos \alpha $.
1531: Defining $\alpha = \theta + \pi / 2$ we have ``side $i$ external delay''
1532: $ = B_{ij} \sin \theta $, with $\theta$ defined as shown in Figure \ref{fig:generalsketch}; in fact, $\theta$ is the half-opening angle
1533: of a cone with axis parallel to the interferometer baseline. Note that $\theta$
1534: is also the angular distance of the direction of interest from a direction
1535: perpendicular to the baseline ($ - \pi / 2 \leq \theta \leq + \pi / 2$).
1536: Our idealized
1537: interferometer has a constant response in directions orthogonal to the
1538: baseline; the actual field of view will be further restricted by the
1539: practicalities of its design. Note further that equation
1540: \ref{eqn:generalresponse} also closely describes the
1541: pattern in \textit{transmission}, such as would occur if a laser (or CW radio
1542: transmitter) would be sent from an appropriate point in the beam path
1543: \textit{backwards} through the interferometer. This is an
1544: expression of a general \textit{reciprocity theorem}, familiar in radio
1545: engineering, which is itself rooted in the symmetry of the wave equation
1546: for the electromagnetic field with respect to the direction of time.
1547:
1548: \begin{figure}%[t] % order of placement preference: here, top, bottom
1549: \epsscale{0.8}
1550: \plotone{f19.eps}
1551: \caption{Sketch of the basic Michelson interferometer as used for astrometry
1552: and imaging in radio and optical astronomy. \textbf{\textsf{B}} is a vector
1553: in the direction of the baseline, and \textbf{\textsf{D}} a unit vector in
1554: the direction in which we want to compute the interferometer's response.
1555: $\theta = \alpha - \pi / 2$, and P$_0$, A, and $\phi$ are defined in the text.
1556: \label{fig:generalsketch}}
1557: \end{figure}
1558:
1559: Finally, equation \ref{eqn:generalresponse} applies only at a single wavelength;
1560: one must also account for the finite bandpass. In essence the response becomes
1561: a sum of many different patterns within the bandpass, and the coefficient of the
1562: ``cos'' term in equation \ref{eqn:generalresponse} will be multiplied by
1563: a factor which is essentially the Fourier Transform of the band shape for that
1564: specific channel. Without detailed knowledge of that band shape we can not
1565: calculate the final form of equation \ref{eqn:generalresponse}; however, the
1566: results are likely to be amenable to a simple parameterization, using the
1567: following definitions. The mean wavenumber $\overline{k_n}$
1568: for channel $n$ is defined as:
1569: %
1570: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:MeanWaveNumber}
1571: \overline{k_n} = \frac{\int k F_n(k) d k}
1572: {\int F_n(k) d k} ,
1573: \end{equation}
1574: %
1575: where $F_n(k)$ is the band shape of channel $n$ expressed in wave numbers
1576: ($k = 1/\lambda = \nu / c$, where $\nu$ is the frequency in Hz).
1577: The \textit{coherence length}
1578: $\Lambda_n$ (e.g.\ in meters) for channel $n$ is defined here as:
1579: %
1580: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:correlationlength}
1581: \Lambda_n \approx 1/(\Delta k)_n
1582: \end{equation}
1583: %
1584: where $(\Delta k)_n$ is the full width at half maximum of an assumed
1585: Gaussian band shape $F_n(k)$ centered at $\overline{k_n}$. The coherence length
1586: is the scale size of the wave packet formed by the collection of photons at
1587: various neighboring wave numbers that make up the broad-band signal. It is
1588: given by the expression $\Lambda_n = \overline\lambda^2/\overline{\Delta\lambda}$.
1589: With these definitions we can write our model expression
1590: for the fringe pattern in channel $n$ as:
1591: %
1592: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:almostfinalresponse}
1593: P(\Delta_{ij}, \overline{k_n}, \Lambda_n) = P_{0} \{ 1 +
1594: A e^{ -C \left( \frac{\Delta_{ij}}{\Lambda_n} \right) ^2 }
1595: \cos ( 2 \pi \overline{k_n} \Delta_{ij} ) \}
1596: \end{equation}
1597: %
1598: where $C = \pi ^2 / 4 \ln 2 = 3.56$.
1599: Suppose further that we design the interferometer such that $d_i = d_j$
1600: (or define $\delta = 0$ such that this occurs), then the OPD becomes:
1601: %
1602: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:finaldelay}
1603: \Delta_{ij} = \delta - B_{ij}\sin\theta .
1604: \end{equation}
1605: %
1606: Inserting this last relation into equation \ref{eqn:almostfinalresponse}
1607: gives the final (approximate) expression for the interferometer response
1608: in a single channel of finite bandwidth:
1609: %
1610: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:finalresponse}
1611: P(\delta, \theta, \overline{k_n}) = P_{0} \{ 1 +
1612: A e^{ -3.56 \left[\frac{\delta - B_{ij}\sin\theta}{\Lambda_n} \right] ^2 }
1613: \cos ( 2 \pi \overline{k_n} [ \delta - B_{ij}\sin\theta ] ) \}.
1614: \end{equation}
1615: %
1616: Considered as a function of $\theta$ this equation describes the fringe pattern
1617: anywhere in the sky for a given value of internal delay $\delta$. Alternatively, equation \ref{eqn:finalresponse} describes the response to a source located at a
1618: fixed $\theta$ in the sky as a function of the internal delay $\delta$.
1619:
1620: Equation \ref{eqn:finalresponse} needs to be modified in order to render
1621: it specific to SIM. First, SIM's optical beam combiner effectively adds an
1622: additional $\pi / 2$
1623: of phase delay to one of the incoming beams, turning the ``cosine'' function
1624: into a ``sine''. Second, SIM always ``observes'' in a direction closely
1625: perpendicular to the baseline orientation (cf.\ Figure \ref{fig:generalsketch}),
1626: so that $\theta$ is small and we can set $\sin \theta \approx \theta$. Third,
1627: the exponential term describing the amplitude decorrelation can be set to
1628: unity, as the bandwidths of the individual channels are narrow.
1629: With these changes, and ignoring the subscripts $ij$ of the baseline $B$,
1630: we can write equation \ref{eqn:finalresponse} for any channel with mean
1631: wavenumber $\overline{k}$ as:
1632:
1633: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:finalresponse1}
1634: P(\delta, \theta, \overline{k}) = P_{0} \{ 1 +
1635: A \sin ( 2 \pi \overline{k} [ \delta - B\theta ] ) \}.
1636: \end{equation}
1637:
1638: \section{Instrument and Model Details}
1639: \subsection{Current SIM parameters}
1640: \label{appsec:params}
1641:
1642: Our SIM instrument model assumes the following values for the various
1643: parameters required in the simulation of the interferometer response:
1644: %
1645: \begin{description}
1646: %
1647: \item{\it Baseline length:} 9.000 m for the astrometric interferometer.
1648: %
1649: \item{\it Collector size: } Siderostats, outer diameter 304.5~mm, inner diameter 178~mm, net area = 479.378 cm$^2$.
1650: %
1651: \item{\it Field stop size:} Nominally 3\arcsec~diameter. However, this can be
1652: chosen in the simulation code to be any one of four possible values
1653: (1,2,3 or 4\arcsec).
1654: %
1655: \item{\it Number of channels and bandwidth:} The design for the fringe
1656: disperser in SIM has 80 narrow-band channels with bandwidths progressively
1657: increasing from 1.8~nm at 401.9~nm, to 24.9~nm at 985.5~nm. The band shape
1658: is likely to be approximately Gaussian, and this is what we have used;
1659: however, the simulation code allows the user to choose a rectangular
1660: passband instead. The list of central wavelengths and bandwidths assumed
1661: for these simulations can be found at the author's web site.\footnote
1662: {{\it http://www.stsci.edu/$\sim$rjallen/sim/}}
1663: %
1664: \item{\it Throughput ($Th$):} The Throughput varies across the 80 channels,
1665: depending on the reflection/transmission optics and the QE and spectral
1666: response of the detector. We found that the experimentally-measured values
1667: could be modeled best using the relation $Th = \sum_{i=0}^7 c_i \lambda^i$
1668: with $c_0 = 18.2$, $c_1 = -338.5$, $c_2 = 2076.2$, $c_3 = -6239.4$,
1669: $c_4 = 10463.3$, $c_5 = -10029.1$, $c_6 = 5151.4$ and $c_7 = -1102.1$, for
1670: $\lambda$ expressed in microns.
1671:
1672: \item{\it Pointing accuracy:} There are two parts to the ``pointing''
1673: of SIM: The \textit{angle tracker} will center the target in the instrument
1674: FOV and superpose the images from each side of the interferometer to within
1675: 10~mas for bright targets $V_{target} < 15$, and 30~mas for faint targets
1676: $15 < V_{target} < 19$. The \textit{fringe tracker} will set the coarse delay
1677: on the target with an accuracy of 10~nm (for $V_{target} < 10$, corresponding
1678: to a maximum offset of $\approx 0.2$ mas at 500~nm.
1679: %
1680: \item{\it Spectral dispersion:} A thin prism is inserted into the light path
1681: after beam combination, turning the instrument into an
1682: \textit{objective prism spectrograph}, such that the images of stars in the
1683: focal plane are stretched out into spectra in a direction approximately
1684: parallel to the projection of the SIM baseline on the sky. For a target at
1685: the center of the FOV, the experimentally-measured dispersion can be modeled
1686: with the polynomial
1687: $x = \sum_{i=0}^6c_j\nu^j$ with $c_0 = 5.1$, $c_1 = -2.7$, $c_2 = 1.0$,
1688: $c_3 = -0.23$, $c_4 = 0.03$, $c_5 = 0.002$, and $c_6 = 0.00005$, for $\nu$
1689: in units of 10$^{14}$Hz and $x$ in mm.
1690:
1691: \item {\it Focal plane camera:} The camera has pixels of size 24 $\mu$
1692: aligned along the direction of dispersion; however, we ignore the pixellation of
1693: the focal plane camera in the simulations described in this paper.%
1694:
1695: \item{\it Overall measurement precision:} The design goal is to make a single
1696: measurement of the angular position of a target on the sky with a precision
1697: of $\lesssim 10$ \muas. As the \textit{fringe period}
1698: $\lambda/B$ is typically 10 - 20 mas and the baseline length is about
1699: $10 - 20 \times 10^6 \lambda$, the design requirement on the
1700: single-measurement angular precision corresponds to $\approx 1/1000$
1701: of a fringe.
1702: %
1703: \end{description}
1704:
1705: \subsection{Estimation of Total Power}
1706: \label{appsec:power_estimation}
1707:
1708: In this Appendix we present the mathematical details of how we estimated the
1709: total light from the target and field stars that lie within and just outside
1710: the 3\arcsec\ FOV of SIM.
1711: %
1712: \begin{figure}[ht]
1713: \epsscale{.60}
1714: \plotone{f20.eps}
1715: \caption{Fraction of the energy recorded for a star located at a given
1716: radial distance from the center of the (circular) FOV of SIM, for field
1717: stops of 2, 3 and 4\arcsec\ diameter, and at several different wavelengths.
1718: \label{fig:FOVresponse}
1719: }
1720: \end{figure}
1721:
1722: For the target star, the total energy received by the interferometer in each
1723: channel is multiplied by the throughput and the encircled energy within the
1724: aperture at the mean wavelength $\bar{\lambda}$ (to account for the FOV set
1725: by the field-stop) and integrated over the bandpass to obtain the total
1726: power in that channel. It is then multiplied by $hc/{\bar{\lambda}}$ to
1727: obtain the number of photons/second/channel.
1728:
1729: In the case of the field stars, the total energy is obtained as follows:
1730: Consider a Cartesian coordinate system centered on the target star
1731: which is also at the center of the FOV. Suppose that there is a field star
1732: at ($x_0,y_0$). The energy of that part of the diffracted image that lies
1733: within the field stop is obtained by calculating the integral of the product
1734: of the point spread function (PSF) centered at ($x_0,y_0$) and a pill-box
1735: function representing the field-stop. This is equivalent to integrating the
1736: product of the on-axis PSF representing the field star with a shifted version
1737: of the pill-box function centered at ($x_0,y_0$). The expression is:
1738: %
1739: \begin{equation}
1740: EF_{bg\star}(x_0,y_0) = \int \int PSF(x,y) \times
1741: \mbox{Circ}(x-x_0,y-y_0) dx dy
1742: \end{equation}
1743: %
1744: where the ``Circ'' function is defined as:
1745: %
1746: \begin{center}
1747: \[ \mbox{Circ($x,y$)} =\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
1748: 1 & \mbox{if $ x^2+y^2 < (FSD/2)^2$} \\
1749: 0 & \mbox{otherwise,}
1750: \end{array}
1751: \right. \]
1752: \end{center}
1753: and $EF$ is the estimated flux, PSF is the point spread function, and FSD
1754: is the field stop diameter. From this representation it is clear that the
1755: energy of the field star that lies within the field stop is
1756: the convolution (or correlation) of the on-axis PSF of the field star with
1757: a pill-box function located at ($x_0,y_0$). It is convenient to normalize
1758: this correlation function and obtain a fractional number which, when
1759: multiplied by the total energy received by the interferometer from the field
1760: star, provides the desired value. This value is further multiplied by the
1761: throughput of the system and converted into photons/second/channel for each
1762: field star. Figure \ref{fig:FOVresponse} shows this overall transmission
1763: function for several possible field stop sizes and wavelengths. We have
1764: computed this response function at the mean wavelength of each channel.
1765:
1766: % end of the appendices
1767:
1768: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1769: \input{references}
1770: \end{thebibliography}
1771:
1772: \end{document}
1773:
1774: %% ---- end of paper I --------
1775: