1: %
2: % File Name: paspms.tex
3: % File Created: 2006 Dec 20 12:00 PST by NMS
4: % Last Modified: 2007 Feb 15 11:00 PST by NMS
5: % Draft Version: Final
6: %
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %NOTE: PASP paper submissions must be formatted as an AASTEX MANUSCRIPT
9: %\documentclass{aastex}
10: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}
11: %\usepackage{epsfig}
12: \usepackage{graphicx,natbib,latexsym}
13: % Formatting commands
14: \newcommand{\zi}{\v{Z}eljko Ivezi\'{c}}
15: \newcommand{\dao}{{\tt DAOPhot}}
16: \newcommand{\dop}{{\tt DoPhot}}
17: \newcommand{\sex}{{\tt SExtractor}}
18: \newcommand{\photo}{{\tt Photo}}
19: \newcommand{\my}{MySQL}
20: \newcommand{\all}{{\tt allframe}}
21:
22: \def\et{et~al.}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \title{In Pursuit of LSST Science Requirements: A Comparison of Photometry Algorithms}
27:
28: \shorttitle{Photometry Comparison}
29: \shortauthors{Becker et~al.}
30:
31: \author{
32: Andrew C. Becker\altaffilmark{1},
33: Nicole M. Silvestri\altaffilmark{1},
34: Russell E. Owen\altaffilmark{1},
35: \zi\altaffilmark{1},
36: Robert H. Lupton\altaffilmark{2}
37: % Tim S. Axelrod\altaffilmark{3,4}
38: }
39:
40: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Box 351580, University of
41: Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, U.S.A.; becker@astro.washington.edu,
42: nms@astro.washington.edu,
43: rowen@u.washington.edu,
44: ivezic@astro.washington.edu}
45:
46: \altaffiltext{2}{Princeton University Observatory, Peyton Hall,
47: Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A.; rhl@astro.princeton.edu}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: We have developed an end--to--end photometric data processing pipeline
52: to compare current photometric algorithms commonly used on
53: ground--based imaging data. This testbed is exceedingly adaptable,
54: and enables us to perform many research and development tasks,
55: including image subtraction and co-addition, object detection and
56: measurements, the production of photometric catalogs, and the creation
57: and stocking of database tables with time--series information. This
58: testing has been undertaken to evaluate existing photometry algorithms
59: for consideration by a next--generation image processing pipeline for
60: the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). We outline the results of
61: our tests for four packages: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey's (SDSS)
62: \photo\ package, \dao\ and {\tt allframe}, \dop, and two versions of
63: Source Extractor (\sex). The ability of these algorithms to perform
64: point--source photometry, astrometry, shape measurements, star--galaxy
65: separation, and to measure objects at low signal--to--noise is
66: quantified. We also perform a detailed crowded field comparison of
67: \dao\ and {\tt allframe}, and profile the speed and memory
68: requirements in detail for \sex.
69: %
70: We find that both \dao\ and \photo\ are able to perform aperture
71: photometry to high enough precision to meet LSST's science
72: requirements, and less adequately at PSF--fitting photometry. \photo\
73: performs the best at simultaneous point and extended--source shape and
74: brightness measurements. \sex\ is the fastest algorithm, and recent
75: upgrades in the software yield high--quality centroid and shape
76: measurements with little bias towards faint magnitudes. {\tt
77: Allframe} yields the best photometric results in crowded fields.
78:
79: \end{abstract}
80:
81: \keywords{Data Analysis and Techniques}
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84:
85: The next generation of astronomical surveys will provide data rates
86: and volumes that dwarf those of current time--domain surveys
87: \citep[e.g.][]{2006AIPC..870...44T,2006IAUJD..13E...7K}, requiring
88: commensurate advances in astronomical image processing and data
89: management capabilities. These surveys will enable synoptic study of
90: such diverse science aspects as the minor planets of the solar system
91: \citep{2006Icar..185..508J}, Galactic structure through
92: color--magnitude \citep{2005astro.ph.10520J} and proper motion
93: \citep{2004AJ....127.3034M} studies, time domain variability
94: \citep{2004ApJ...611..418B}, and the study of cosmological dark matter
95: and dark energy using type Ia supernovae \citep{2007ApJ...666..694W},
96: baryon acoustic oscillations \citep{2005ApJ...633..560E}, galaxy
97: clustering \citep{2004ApJ...603....1B}, and weak lensing
98: \citep{2006JCAP...08..008Z}. These science goals require precision
99: astrometric and photometric measurements of both stars and galaxies.
100: The engineering challenge in these surveys is to design and
101: manufacture a system able to obtain data of requisite quality. The
102: data management challenge is to reliably and rapidly transfer,
103: analyze, and store the raw data and data products, with the
104: algorithmic engineering challenge to realize the science goals through
105: precision analysis of the data.
106:
107: The Science Requirements Document (SRD) for the Large Synoptic Survey
108: Telescope (LSST\footnote{http://www.lsst.org/}) includes constraints
109: on point--source photometry and astrometry, as well as on stellar and
110: galaxy shape measurements. These requirements are not to be violated
111: in data or in software. The goal of this research is to test the
112: latter, given a large set of input data. In particular, the LSST SRD
113: requires that the root--mean--square (RMS) of the unresolved source
114: magnitude distribution around the mean value is not to exceed 0.005
115: magnitudes in the $g$, $r$, and $i$ passbands, when supported by
116: photon statistics. The measured photometric errors shall not exceed
117: the quoted photometric errors by $10\%$. The RMS of the distance
118: distribution for stellar pairs with separations of 5, 20, and
119: $200\arcmin$ shall not exceed 10, 10, and 15 milli--arcseconds in the
120: $g$, $r$ and $i$-bands, respectively. Finally, for fields within 10
121: degrees of zenith, the $r$ and $i$-band point--source ellipticity
122: distribution will have a median value of no more than 0.04, and must
123: be correctable to a distribution with a median no larger than 0.002.
124:
125: We compare here extant software packages in the context of these LSST
126: science requirements. This includes
127: %
128: \dao\ \citep{Stetson87},
129: \dop\ \citep{Schechter93},
130: {\tt allframe} \citep{Stetson94},
131: \sex\ \citep{Bertin96}, and
132: \photo\ \citep{2002SPIE.4836..350L}.
133: %
134: We have established quality assessment metrics for comparing ensemble
135: measurements of stellar positions, shapes, and brightnesses.
136: Important algorithmic steps required to achieve this are the
137: separation of stars and galaxies, and the deblending of neighboring
138: objects. Because the absolute ``truth'' is not known here, these
139: comparisons are by necessity relative. We compare the times required
140: to reduce astronomical images, as well as memory consumption, when
141: possible.
142:
143: While we have attempted to tune each package to obtain the best
144: results for the ensemble of data, it is very likely that better
145: results would emerge through individual study of each image. As such,
146: this analysis reflects the results for a typical pipelined application
147: of each package.
148:
149: We summarize the requirements for characterizing stellar and extended
150: sources in astronomical images in Section~\ref{sec-meas}. We describe
151: the data used in the analysis in Section~\ref{sec-data}, our pipeline
152: infrastructure in Section~\ref{sec-pipeline}, and summarize the
153: algorithms we tested in Section~\ref{sec-alg}.
154: % \footnote{More detailed descriptions may be found in the Appendix}.
155: Our time--series database is outlined in Section~\ref{sec-db}, and the
156: algorithms used to ``cluster'' single detections into multiple
157: measurements of astronomical objects are described in
158: Section~\ref{sec-cluster}. We discuss the methods used to select
159: objects from our database in Section~\ref{sec-method}. We describe
160: the results of our analyses regarding star/galaxy separation,
161: photometry, shape measurements, centroiding, and photometric depth in
162: Sections~\ref{sec-phot}--\ref{sec-depth}. We focus on a
163: crowded--field analysis of globular cluster M2 in
164: Section~\ref{sec-m2}, and on algorithm timing and scaling tests in
165: Section~\ref{sec-valgrind}. We conclude with an overall summary in
166: Section~\ref{sec-summary}.
167:
168: \section{Source Measurements in Astronomy}
169: \label{sec-meas}
170:
171: The problem of point source photometry is a well--studied one, with
172: various solutions whose algorithms differ in their methods and
173: implementation \citep[e.g.][]{Howell,Thomson,Handler,Ivezic,Pin}. The
174: problem requires the correct modeling of an image's point spread
175: function (PSF), the transfer function of point sources though the
176: atmosphere and the optics of the telescope. This solution typically
177: includes an analytic model and an ``aperture correction'' that
178: compensates for the limitations of the model
179: \citep[e.g.][]{Tanvir,Handler,Kui}. In practice, the aperture and PSF
180: fluxes are determined in a small aperture that is a small multiple of
181: the PSF full--width at half maximum (FWHM). The aperture flux is an
182: unweighted measurement, while the PSF flux is derived using the PSF as
183: the weight. The aperture fluxes of bright stars are next measured out
184: to a very large radius, where one is reasonably certain that all the
185: light has been collected.
186: %
187: % The ratio of the bright star flux in the large and small aperture is
188: % the aperture correction applied to all PSF photometry measurements.
189: %
190: The ratio of the bright star flux in the large and small apertures
191: yields a multiplicative flux correction to the small aperture
192: measurements.
193: %
194: In general, these aperture corrections need to vary across an
195: astronomical image because of spatial variation in the PSF. For very
196: bright stars, aperture photometry yields a more accurate measurement
197: of the flux than PSF photometry, due to limitations of the analytic
198: model. However, for faint stars near the sky limit, PSF photometry
199: yields a more precise measurement of the flux, since aperture
200: photometry includes many contributions from sky pixels.
201:
202: Galaxy photometry is a much less studied issue, with a variety of
203: pitfalls. Because of color changes in a galaxy's light profile, the
204: correct aperture to use before becoming sky--noise dominated is a
205: function of the passband one is observing in. Galaxies are also
206: irregular in shape and may be deblended non--uniquely \citep{Kushner}.
207: Typically, a basic symmetric model (deVaucouleurs, exponential) is
208: fitted to the light profile. For weak lensing science, which requires
209: precision measurement of the shapes of galaxies
210: \citep[e.g.][]{2002AJ....123..583B}, adaptive second moments of the
211: light profile are used to quantify the ellipticity of galaxies.
212: Photometric redshift measurements require the consistent accounting of
213: flux in a variety of passbands, and thus ideally requires a
214: simultaneous ensemble measurement of images taken through different
215: filters \citep{Collister}.
216:
217: \section{The Data}
218: \label{sec-data}
219:
220: One of the algorithms under study is the photometric reduction
221: pipeline used by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) : \photo.
222: \photo\ is one of the few packages, and the only one analyzed here,
223: that consistently performs both stellar PSF and extended source
224: photometry, and represents a solid precursor pipeline for future
225: surveys. However, \photo\ has been designed to operate solely on data
226: from SDSS; testing of this algorithm requires that we operate on data
227: from SDSS.
228:
229: SDSS uses a dedicated 2.5m telescope \citep{2006AJ....131.2332G} to
230: provide simultaneous 5--band imaging
231: \cite[$u,g,r,i,z$;][]{1996AJ....111.1748F}. The imaging camera
232: contains 30 photometric CCDs arranged in 6 columns
233: \citep{1998AJ....116.3040G}. The images are obtained in drift--scan
234: mode, and ``fields'' are defined corresponding to a scan length of
235: $9\arcmin$ (36 seconds of drift--scanning), with a field width of
236: $14\arcmin$. The five images corresponding to a given field, obtained
237: in the order $r-i-u-z-g$, are simultaneously processed by \photo.
238:
239: We have chosen to use data from two photometric runs of SDSS
240: equatorial Strip 82N for these comparisons. These are runs 3437
241: (obtained MJD 52578) and 4207 (MJD 52936). The data for run 3437
242: extend from $311\deg <$ RA $< 23\deg$ (J2000), with median $g, r$, and
243: $i$--band PSF FWHMs of $1.3\arcsec, 1.1\arcsec$, and $1.1\arcsec$,
244: respectively, and a median $r$--band sky brightness of $20.8$ mag
245: arcsec$^{-2}$. The data for run 4207 extend from $305\deg <$ RA $<
246: 60\deg$ (J2000), have a median seeing of $1.4\arcsec, 1.3\arcsec$
247: and $1.2\arcsec$ in the $g, r$ and $i$--band data, and median sky
248: brightness of $r = 20.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. There are approximately 27k
249: objects per square degree detected by \photo\ in these images.
250:
251: % number of objects per square degree
252: % /array-2/tmp/lsst2/SDSS_data/4207/40/calibChunks/summary.html
253:
254: Because \photo\ determines the PSF model for a given image by using
255: neighboring images (along the direction of the scan), the other
256: algorithms would be at a disadvantage when trying to measure the PSF
257: from a single frame. For this reason, we ``stitch'' together 3 images
258: along the direction of the scan into a $14\arcmin$ by $27\arcmin$
259: image, with the frame of interest being in the middle. The algorithms
260: operate on the entire stitched frame, but we accept only photometry
261: from the central section.
262:
263:
264: \section{The Analysis Pipeline}
265: \label{sec-pipeline}
266:
267: To control the application of each algorithm to the data, we require a
268: form of middleware that records progress and distributes jobs. For
269: this we have chosen to use the {\tt Photpipe} software developed by the
270: SuperMACHO and ESSENCE collaborations \citep{2002SPIE.4836..395S}.
271:
272: The majority of {\tt Photpipe} is written in the {\tt Perl} language.
273: This provides the internal glue that strings together the various
274: processing steps. In general, the image--level computations are
275: written in the {\tt C} language. These applications are called by the
276: {\tt Perl} scripts.
277:
278: As a programmatic summary, the {\tt Photpipe} pipeline consists of a
279: series of {\it stages}, each of which has {\it actions} which it
280: undertakes, as well as {\it dependencies} on the successful completion
281: of previous stages. By default, an ensemble of images is passed from
282: stage to stage using input and output lists. We have added a stage
283: for \dao, \dop, and \sex, whose actions are merely to reduce each
284: image using the algorithm. Results of the analysis are ingested into
285: our time--series database (Section~\ref{sec-db}).
286:
287: We made an effort to explore the response of \dao, \dop, and \sex\ to
288: different input parameters. However, because of the number of degrees
289: of freedom available to each (of order 100 for both \dop\ and \sex; of
290: order 10 for \dao\ and 60 for the {\tt Perl}--language scripts that
291: control its application) it was unfeasible to find which combination
292: of parameters yielded the optimal results for every analysis presented
293: here. We did vary the obvious tuning parameters, such as the input
294: FWHM and significance threshold for object detection, degree of
295: variation and complexity in the PSF model, and clustering size for
296: matching up the ensemble of detections, ingesting the results of each
297: analysis into our database as a separate dataset. In total we
298: ingested 112 permutations of dataset, algorithm, and algorithm input
299: parameters, and report here on those results that reflect our best
300: pipelined application of each algorithm.
301:
302: \section{The Algorithms}
303: \label{sec-alg}
304:
305: In the following sections, we briefly summarize the photometry
306: algorithms used in this analysis : \photo, \dao\ and {\tt allframe},
307: \dop, and two versions of \sex. More complete descriptions of each
308: algorithm are given in the Appendix. % of \cite{paper-astroph}.
309:
310: The SDSS photometric pipeline \photo\ contains a complete suite of
311: data reduction tools that take the raw data stream, apply reduction
312: and calibration stages, and extract photometry from the calibrated
313: images. Because the images we are using have been pre--processed by
314: \photo, we expect that \photo\ has a distinct advantage in the quality
315: of its photometric measurements. The SDSS imaging point spread
316: function (PSF) is modeled heuristically in each band using a
317: Karhunen--Loeve (K--L) transform. Objects are measured
318: self--consistently across all bands, and their positions and
319: brightnesses are fit using a variety of models, including PSF and
320: extended source models.
321:
322: The \dao\ package contains a set of algorithms primarily designed to
323: do stellar photometry and astrometry in crowded fields. The tools are
324: included as either subroutines in the executable program {\tt daophot}
325: or as independent executable programs. \dao\ builds its PSF using
326: multiple iterations of source detection, PSF modeling, and source
327: subtraction. The PSF model includes an analytic form as well as a
328: lookup table of corrections. While {\tt daophot} operates on single
329: images, \all\ performs simultaneous measurements of all sources from a
330: stack of images. \dao\ does not attempt to fully characterize
331: extended sources. We designed a set of {\tt Perl}--language scripts
332: to automate the application of the \dao\ package. While the scripts
333: have proven to be robust in the iterative building of PSFs \citep{AB},
334: they are also relatively slow. A significant fraction of the
335: computing time spent running \dao\ is due to this implementation
336: choice, and not necessarily intrinsic to the \dao\ source code.
337:
338: The \dop\ package is designed to robustly produce a catalog of stellar
339: positions, magnitudes and star/galaxy classifications for detections
340: from astronomical images. \dop\ was designed to work on a large
341: number of images quickly with little to no interaction with the user.
342: However, the version of \dop\ tested here is not the original software
343: implementation, but instead a version that has been extensively
344: modified to operate robustly in the {\tt Photpipe} environment. \dop\
345: uses a single PSF model that is {\it not} allowed to vary spatially,
346: in contrast to \photo\ and \dao, whose PSF models are allowed to vary
347: across the image.
348:
349: \sex\ is designed to quickly produce reliable aperture photometry
350: catalogs on a large number of astronomical sources. \sex\ has been
351: used to produce object catalogs for a variety of astronomical imaging
352: surveys to date such as the NOAO Deep Wide--Field Survey
353: \citep{NOAODeep}, GOODS--N Survey \citep{GOODS}, Deep Lens Survey
354: \citep{DLS}, IRAC Shallow Survey \citep{IRAC}, and the MAST Survey
355: \citep{MAST}. Aside from the ease of installation, \sex\ is also
356: notable for its speed and versatility. It is one of the few packages
357: that aspires to distinguish and photometer both stars and galaxies,
358: although its lack of a PSF model limits the accuracy of faint
359: point--source photometry. Newer versions of the software include
360: adaptive windowing functions to provide more accurate centroids and
361: shapes than the default (isophotal) measurements.
362:
363:
364: \section{The Database}
365: \label{sec-db}
366:
367: To enable the following analysis, we installed a MYSQL client and
368: server on our local computers and constructed a database to store our
369: test results (both science and performance benchmarking).
370:
371: We developed a variety of {\tt Python}--language scripts to help
372: properly ingest data (pipeline versions, parameter files, file
373: locations, etc.) into the database in an organized manner. We
374: ingested metadata on over 1000 SDSS images processed through \photo\
375: in five colors ($ugriz$) resulting in over 10 million detections in
376: our {\tt Objects} table. The main tables of our database are {\tt
377: Image}, {\tt Object} and {\tt AlgRun}.
378:
379: \begin{itemize}
380:
381: \item {\bf \tt Image}: Metadata about images including data source
382: (e.g. SDSS), date, exposure time, filter and a pointer to World
383: Coordinate System (WCS) information for the image.
384:
385: \item {\bf \tt Object}: Data for sources (detections from an image)
386: and objects (clusters of sources), including position (x,y and
387: RA/Dec), classification and various measures of intensity. In
388: addition, sources are linked to the image on which they were detected.
389:
390: \item {\bf \tt AlgRun}: Information about a particular run of a
391: component, including the input parameters used for that run. All
392: told, 112 instances of pipeline runs were ingested into the database,
393: representing different combinations of input data, photometry
394: algorithm, and input parameters. Both the {\tt Object} and {\tt
395: Image} tables link to the {\tt AlgRun} table.
396:
397: \end{itemize}
398:
399: \section{Clustering of Sources into Objects}
400: \label{sec-cluster}
401:
402: After ingest of sources and images into the database, we require a
403: method to associate sources into objects. This allows us to collate
404: the $ugriz$ data for a single astronomical object, as well as to match
405: up the reductions from different algorithms or from different nights.
406: We use the {\tt OPTICS} algorithm to do this clustering.
407:
408: The {\tt OPTICS} algorithm \cite[Ordering Points To Identify the
409: Clustering Structure;][]{optics} is a density--based method to
410: identify clusters of points in databases. In this ordering, a {\it
411: reachability distance} is defined between neighboring points. When
412: this distance is exceeded for neighboring points, the boundary of a
413: cluster is defined. {\tt OPTICS} is an improvement of the {\tt
414: DBSCAN} algorithm \citep{dbscan}.
415:
416: The user provides a minimum number of points to define the cluster
417: core. In our case, for a given object we have 4 algorithms operating
418: on 5 filters and 2 nights of data, meaning we ideally expect 40 points
419: in a cluster. We run {\tt OPTICS} requiring a minimum of 5 points to
420: include objects missed in some filters due to their color, missed on
421: some nights due to different image depths, or missed in different
422: algorithms due to the vagaries of the software. Since we only have 3
423: algorithms besides \photo\ running on these data, an artifact in one
424: image and in one filter should not lead to a spurious cluster. We do
425: however find spurious clusters in the wings of bright stars, where
426: multiple algorithms may detect signal in multiple passbands on
427: multiple nights.
428:
429: The user also defines reachability distance $\epsilon$ for a given
430: core set of points. For all points in this neighborhood, all points
431: within $\epsilon$ of it are searched, repeating until no more points
432: can be added to the cluster. The data are stored in a tree--based
433: spatial index. A search in the neighborhood $\epsilon$ of a given
434: object scales with the number of points {\it N} as {\it N log(N)}. We
435: chose a clustering distance of 1 pixel ($0.4\arcsec$).
436:
437: One way we found to optimize the clustering was to relate the size of
438: each page in the database to the length of the input list to be
439: clustered. We found that too large (or too small) a page size would
440: impact the computation of the clustering by an order of magnitude.
441: %This is clearly a consideration for the LSST database if one wishes to
442: %do spatial queries using such an algorithm.
443: Figure~\ref{fig-optics} demonstrates the {\tt OPTICS} run time as a
444: function of the number of points per page (or ``leaf'') in the
445: database.
446:
447: \section{Methodology}
448: \label{sec-method}
449:
450: In this section and those below, we describe the practical methods
451: used to quantify \dao, \dop, \photo, and \sex.
452:
453: Our analyses are designed to ascertain the level of systematics
454: inherent to each photometry algorithm by comparing the measured
455: properties of objects on multiple nights. We also compare brightness,
456: shape, and centroiding measurements by the different algorithms on the
457: same imaging data. We start with the assumption that \photo's
458: star--galaxy classification is ``truth'', and use this information to
459: derive similar classification boundaries for the other algorithms. We
460: then repeat our analyses using these new algorithm--derived
461: boundaries.
462:
463: Our initial queries to the {\tt Object} table select {\it all} objects
464: from the comparison algorithms, but only a subset of detections from
465: \photo. We only include \photo\ detections where the {\tt
466: objc\_flags}\footnote{http://www.sdss.org/dr5/products/catalogs/flags.html}
467: suggest that it is not {\tt SATURATED}, {\tt BLENDED}, or {\tt
468: BRIGHT}, was found in the {\tt BINNED1} image, and was not {\tt
469: DEBLENDED\_AS\_MOVING}. These objects essentially serve as the
470: ``seed'' objects that we use for clustering.
471:
472: We start this process by selecting only clusters where \photo\ has
473: detections in both runs that it thinks are stars. This criterion is
474: used to select measurements from other algorithms to be used for
475: magnitude zero--pointing, determination of star--selection criteria,
476: and comparison of shape measurements and photometric depth. We use
477: PSF magnitudes when available, and aperture magnitudes
478: otherwise\footnote{Aperture photometry is performed at a radius of
479: $7.4\arcsec$}.
480:
481: \dao, \dop, and \sex\ report their results in instrumental magnitudes,
482: and we have to derive zero--point offsets if we want to directly
483: compare their data to \photo. For each algorithm, filter, and run
484: combination, we take all \photo--selected stars and find the 3--sigma
485: clipped average difference in magnitudes between \photo\ and the
486: algorithm (we use aperture magnitudes for \sex; PSF magnitudes for
487: \dao\ and \dop).
488:
489: %%%%%%%%%%%
490: %%%%%%%%%%%
491: %%%%%%%%%%%
492: %%%%%%%%%%%
493:
494: \section{Star/Galaxy Separation}
495: \label{sec_ana-stargal}
496:
497: The initial step in this analysis is to define star/galaxy boundaries
498: for each algorithm. To do this, we select all objects that \photo\
499: classifies as stars and galaxies, and plot the distribution of the
500: star/galaxy separation metrics from each algorithm. In particular, we
501: have chosen to use {\tt Sharp} for \dao, {\tt Type} for \dop, and {\tt
502: CLASS\_STAR} for \sex. By studying the distribution of these
503: parameters, we can derive star/galaxy classification schemes for each
504: algorithm. For all \photo--selected stars and galaxies, we plot each
505: algorithm's star/galaxy parameter in 4 magnitude bins : $14 < r < 20;
506: 20 < r < 20.5; 20.5 < r < 21; 21 < r < 22$.
507: %
508: Each window contains a histogram and the cumulative distribution of
509: that parameter plotted as a dashed line. We show example results for
510: \dao\ in Figure~\ref{fig-class_dao}, and \sex\ in
511: Figure~\ref{fig-class_sex}.
512:
513: \subsection{Results Using \photo's Classification}
514: In \dao, {\tt Sharp} for stars is distributed in a near Gaussian that
515: is centered on value 0.0 with a characteristic width.
516: Figure~\ref{fig-class_dao} shows the $r$-band distribution from run
517: 4207. The data are split into 4 magnitude bins. The distribution for
518: stars are plotted in the left figure; for galaxies on the right. As
519: expected, the width of the stellar {\tt Sharp} distribution widens as
520: you go to fainter objects, from 0.04 at the bright end to 0.17 at the
521: faint end. The parameter distribution for galaxies remains relatively
522: constant with magnitude. We have combined the analyses from runs 3437
523: and 4207, and calculated the width of the stellar distribution in the
524: brightest bin. The mean and width of this distribution is listed in
525: Table~\ref{tab-daosharp}. We define our filter--dependent \dao\
526: star--selection criterion as anything having {\tt Sharp} within
527: $3\sigma$ of the mean in the brightest bin. We define galaxies as
528: those objects with {\tt Sharp} larger than $+3\sigma$ from the mean.
529: Anything with {\tt Sharp} less than $-3\sigma$ from the mean is
530: sharper than the PSF and likely to be an image artifact. We note that
531: other selection criteria are possible and may lead to better results,
532: such as using parameters {\tt Sharp} and {\tt Chi} in combination.
533: However, {\tt Sharp}'s highly symmetric distribution for stars and
534: highly skewed distribution for galaxies in Figure~\ref{fig-class_dao}
535: suggests that it is appropriate, although not necessarily optimal, to
536: use it as the sole criterion. The same is true for the other metrics
537: defined below.
538:
539: \dop\ returns a {\tt Type} parameter for each object it measures. A
540: {\tt Type = 1} object is considered a ``perfect'' star, and is used in
541: the computation of the weighted PSF. A {\tt Type = 3} object is not
542: as peaked as a single star, and is assumed to be a blend. It is
543: however photometered with a single PSF. A {\tt Type = 7} object is
544: too faint to do a full 7--parameter fit, so a 4--parameter fit was
545: undertaken. We found that stars in our data had almost exclusively
546: {\tt Type = 1}, with very few having {\tt Type = 7}. We found that
547: galaxies tended to have {\tt Type = 3} or {\tt Type = 1}, with a small
548: fraction of {\tt Type = 7}. Since this is our only selection
549: criterion, we select stars as all objects with {\tt Type} = 1 and
550: galaxies as all objects with {\tt Type} = 3, recognizing that our
551: stars will have non-zero contamination by galaxies.
552:
553: In \sex, {\tt CLASS\_STAR} is designed to be a star/galaxy
554: classification toggle, where a value of 1 represents an object highly
555: likely to be a star. This requires that the correct input FWHM be
556: applied for the filtering to work optimally. Therefore we use the
557: FWHM as derived by \photo\ as inputs to \sex. As
558: Figure~\ref{fig-class_sex} shows, this parameter tends to work well.
559: The top panel shows the distribution for stars, and the bottom for
560: galaxies. For all filters except for $u$-band, we chose a cutoff of
561: {\tt CLASS\_STAR} = 0.8 as the line separating stars from galaxies.
562: In the $u$-band, many of the stars are also distributed near {\tt
563: CLASS\_STAR} = 0, and we lowered our delineation to {\tt CLASS\_STAR}
564: = 0.2.
565:
566: The extent of galaxy contamination in these algorithms is summarized
567: in Table~\ref{tab-sg1} and Table~\ref{tab-sg2}. We list in
568: Table~\ref{tab-sg1} the total fraction of objects that were classified
569: as stars by both the algorithm and \photo\ (S--S); as stars in the
570: algorithm and galaxies in \photo\ (S--G); as galaxies in the algorithm
571: and stars in \photo\ (G--S); and galaxies in both algorithms (G--G).
572: We make a similar comparison in Table~\ref{tab-sg2}, which lists the
573: fraction of all objects that each algorithm (mis)classified in both
574: runs. We limit this selection to objects brighter than 21$^{st}$
575: magnitude, where \photo's star--galaxy separation has been tested
576: extensively and is considered ``truth'' for the purposes of these
577: comparisons.
578:
579: From Table~\ref{tab-sg1}, we see that \dop\ and \photo\ disagree on
580: anywhere from $1$ to $10\%$ of all bright objects (increasing to $\sim
581: 20\%$ when looking at all brightnesses). In general, \dop\ is more
582: likely to classify something as a star that \photo\ thinks is a
583: galaxy. The fraction of detected \photo-classified galaxies is also
584: lowest in \dop, suggesting that this algorithm is very inefficient at
585: detecting galaxies, and biased towards classifying galaxies it does
586: find as stars. \sex\ tends to disagree with \photo\ in the opposite
587: sense -- \sex\ is likely to call something a galaxy that \photo\
588: classifies as a star. Run 3437 is particularly egregious in this
589: regard. The most obvious cause is that we fed the wrong initial
590: estimate of the stellar FWHM (derived from the \photo\ analysis) to
591: the package, and it was therefore making poorly informed choices for
592: star/galaxy separation. However, runs 3437 and 4207 were treated
593: equally in this regard, so this is likely not the culprit.
594:
595: \dao\ agrees with \photo\ a large fraction of the time, and is
596: slightly more likely to call a \photo-classified star a galaxy than a
597: \photo-classified galaxy a star. We have created plots such as
598: Figure~\ref{fig-ccd_dao} to investigate each permutation of
599: (mis)classifications. These depict color--color diagrams of objects
600: classified in $g$, $r$, and $i$ as either stars or galaxies. We plot
601: here only the bright objects ($14 < r < 20$) classified by both \dao\
602: and \photo\ in run 3437 (the figure for run 4207 is very similar). To
603: yield a point on this diagram, the object must be classified the same
604: by each algorithm in all 3 passbands. Thus the fraction of objects in
605: each window will slightly disagree with the entries in
606: Table~\ref{tab-sg1}. Its clear that the misclassifications (the
607: off--diagonal plots) are drawn more from the stellar than the galactic
608: locus, thus we conclude that \dao\ correctly calls some objects stars
609: that \photo\ incorrectly calls galaxies, and vice versa.
610:
611: \subsection{Results Using Each Algorithm's Classification}
612: We also investigate the consistency {\it within} a given algorithm by
613: looking at the classifications of the same object detected in both
614: runs. This is listed in Table~\ref{tab-sg2}. As discussed above,
615: \dop\ is biased towards calling objects stars, but shows here that it
616: is very self consistent in that regard. \sex\ classifies a higher
617: fraction of objects as galaxies than do the other algorithms, and
618: apparently had difficulty with objects classified as stars in 4207 and
619: galaxies in 3437. \dao\ disagrees with itself for $12\%$ of objects,
620: while \photo\ is the most consistent ($\sim 2\%$) with regards to
621: misclassifications of these bright objects.
622: %However, \photo\ degrades most when fainter objects are
623: %included in the comparison (result not shown).
624: % MERGE WITH ABOVE
625: We note that if we examine the {\it entire} sample of clustered
626: objects, including objects fainter than 21$^{st}$ magnitude, the
627: misclassification rates in Table~\ref{tab-sg2} degrade worst for
628: \photo, increasing from $\sim 2\%$ to $\sim 12\%$. The ratios for the
629: other algorithms tend to remain constant at fainter magnitudes.
630:
631:
632: \subsection{Classification Conclusions}
633: Both \dop\ and \sex\ have inadequacies in their star/galaxy
634: classification schemes as derived in this experiment. It is very
635: likely that improvements can be made to \sex\ using the non--linear
636: filters from {\tt Enhance Your Extraction
637: (EyE)}~\footnote{http$://$terapix$.$iap$.$fr$/$soft$/$eye}, and it
638: should be carefully considered as an option with the potential to
639: contribute to LSST algorithm development. Surprisingly, \dao\ does a
640: better job at classification than these algorithms, although its
641: galaxy {\it characterization} methods are limited. \photo\ is the
642: best all--around package in this regard due to its extensive analysis
643: and characterization of each object.
644:
645:
646: %%%%%%%%%%%
647: %%%%%%%%%%%
648: %%%%%%%%%%%
649: %%%%%%%%%%%
650:
651: \section{Photometry}
652: \label{sec-phot}
653:
654: For \photo--selected stars and galaxies, we calculate the difference
655: of an object's magnitude as measured by a algorithm {\tt alg1} in {\tt
656: run1} and {\tt alg1} in {\tt run2}, or by algorithm {\tt alg1} in {\tt
657: run1} and algorithm {\tt alg2} in {\tt run1}. We plot these
658: distributions as a function of magnitude. We do this for both
659: aperture and PSF (when available) magnitudes, and for stars and
660: galaxies. Example $r$-band results for \dao\ are shown in
661: Figure~\ref{fig-dm_dao} for both aperture and PSF photometry. Each
662: figure contains four panels, described below.
663:
664: \subsection{Panel 1}
665: \label{subsec-panel1}
666:
667: The differences in measured magnitudes ($\Delta$M = M1 - M2) are
668: plotted as a function of \photo's magnitude. The median $\Delta$M of
669: objects brighter than $18^{\rm th}$ magnitude (or the brightest
670: magnitude plus one if no objects brighter than $18^{\rm th}$ are
671: present; typically this uses thousands of objects) was subtracted off
672: of the entire distribution, so that it is centered on $y = 0$. We cut
673: out the brightest and dimmest $0.5\%$ of the data to avoid outliers.
674: At the bright end, the width stops following Poisson statistics and
675: levels off at a characteristic width indicative of systematics in the
676: analysis. It is this width that we choose to characterize our
677: algorithms.
678:
679: For aperture magnitudes, the systematic floor is smaller at the bright
680: end because there is no reliance on any PSF model, and aperture
681: measurements are ideally Poisson limited. This distribution shows a
682: characteristic broadening at fainter magnitudes as measurements become
683: sky--noise dominated. We naively expected most algorithms to perform
684: similarly well in aperture magnitude measurements. However, there are
685: enough degrees of freedom in centroiding and in treating the
686: brightness of neighboring objects that these results in actuality are
687: significantly different.
688:
689: For PSF magnitudes, the bright--end systematic floor is much larger
690: due to reliance on a PSF model which is certain to be incomplete at
691: some level. Ideally, gross errors in the PSF model come out in the
692: aperture correction, and this systematic floor is then indicative of
693: the degree of spatial variation in the aperture corrections. At
694: fainter magnitudes, the distribution remains much tighter than for
695: aperture measurements since sky noise does not contribute as much in a
696: PSF--weighted measurement.
697:
698: \subsection{Panel 2}
699: \label{subsec-panel2}
700:
701: We divide the $\Delta$M distribution into 10 bins. The points in each
702: bin are sorted by $\Delta$M and the first (Q1) and third (Q3) quartile
703: are determined (the indices corresponding to 0.25 and 0.75 the length
704: of the sorted array, respectively). The value of the points
705: associated with Q1 and Q3 are used to determine the interquartile
706: range (IQR) of these data. We choose to use the IQR to lessen our
707: sensitivity to outliers (such as variable stars).
708:
709: We find the uncertainty in this width by assuming the data are
710: normally distributed, where $\sigma_{\rm mean} = 0.74 * IQR$ and
711: $\sigma_{\rm median} = \sqrt{\pi/2} * \sigma_{\rm mean}$. The
712: standard deviation in the IQR is $\sigma_{\rm IQR} = \sqrt{\pi} * 0.55
713: * IQR$. The uncertainty in the IQR is $\sigma_{\rm IQR} /
714: \sqrt{N-1}$.
715:
716: We plot $\sigma_{\rm mean}$ and its uncertainty (as derived from the
717: IQR) in each bin. These data are then fit with the functional form $A
718: + B z + C z^2$, where $z = 10^{0.4 * M}$, which describes well the
719: growth of this envelope with magnitude. This best fit is plotted as a
720: solid line. We evaluate this equation one magnitude below the
721: brightest data point, and use this single number to characterize the
722: systematics inherent in the comparison. The $3-\sigma$ envelope
723: allowed by this relationship is plotted in Panel~1. These results are
724: summarized in Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1} for \photo-selected stars.
725:
726: We note that the LSST Science Requirement Document states that
727: photometry should be reproducible to 0.005 magnitudes. That
728: translates into a systematic bin width at the bright end of $\sqrt{2}$
729: * 0.005, or 0.007 magnitudes.
730:
731: \subsection{Panel 3}
732: \label{subsec-panel3}
733:
734: We evaluate and plot the fraction of stars in Panel~1 that are more
735: than $3-\sigma$ from the mean. For night--to--night comparisons, this
736: is very sensitive to the level of variability in the sample. For
737: algorithm--to--algorithm comparisons on a given set of data, it allows
738: us to uncover differences in the algorithms.
739:
740: \subsection{Panel 4}
741: \label{subsec-panel4}
742:
743: We add in quadrature the uncertainties associated with each component
744: M1 and M2 and plot the distribution of $\Delta$M / $\sigma_{\Delta{\rm
745: M}}$. These data are binned, and we derive each bin's IQR and its
746: uncertainty and overplot these points. If the photometry packages
747: accurately quantify the measurement uncertainties, these binned points
748: should all lie near 1.0.
749:
750: \subsection{Results Using \photo--Selected Stars}
751: We have designed three variants of the tests described above to
752: characterize the algorithms' photometric performance : comparing
753: photometry of data taken on different nights as an overall
754: characterization of each algorithm; comparing different algorithms'
755: photometry of the same data, providing a relative characterization
756: that is insensitive to stellar variability; and comparing aperture and
757: PSF magnitudes from the same algorithm on the same data, yielding an
758: estimate of the scatter introduced by spatial variation of the
759: aperture corrections.
760:
761: We first characterize the photometric accuracy of each algorithm by
762: comparing the brightness of \photo-selected stars measured in both
763: SDSS runs. Figure~\ref{fig-dm_dao} shows example $r$-band summary
764: plots for \dao\ in both aperture and PSF photometry for
765: \photo-selected stars. The width of the $\Delta$M distributions are
766: summarized in Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1}. We note that both \photo\ and
767: \dao\ produce $g$, $r$, and $i$-band aperture photometry that meets
768: LSST's SRD on photometric accuracy. No other algorithms are able to
769: meet this requirement, failing to reach the benchmark of 0.007
770: magnitudes. We note that {\it no} algorithms are able to meet the SRD
771: in PSF photometry -- the numbers consistently fall short by a factor
772: of 2--3. \dop\ performs worst in terms of PSF photometry.
773:
774: Most algorithms tend to underestimate aperture magnitudes errors of
775: bright objects compared to the empirical scatter, with the exception
776: of \photo\ which tends to {\it overestimate} the aperture errors of
777: bright objects by as much as a factor of 2. \sex\ underestimates the
778: aperture errors of {\it all} objects by a factor of 2--3. \photo's
779: PSF magnitude errors represent the empirical scatter very faithfully.
780: \dop\ and \dao\ underestimate their PSF error uncertainties by $\sim
781: 20\%$.
782:
783: We next look at the width of the $\Delta$M distribution for different
784: algorithms running on the exact same data. This is insensitive to
785: stellar variability, and allows us to localize any differences to the
786: algorithms themselves. The results for the $r$-band are listed in
787: Tables~\ref{tab-deltaM5} and \ref{tab-deltaM7} for PSF and aperture
788: photometry, respectively. The aperture results are very similar for
789: all pairs of algorithms, while the PSF photometry comparison of
790: \photo\ to \dao\ is superior to any comparison using \dop.
791:
792: Finally, we compare aperture and PSF magnitudes from the algorithms,
793: yielding an estimate of the additional scatter coming from spatial
794: variation in the aperture corrections (Table~\ref{tab-deltaM9}). We
795: limit our comparison to \photo-selected stars. {\it A-priori}, we
796: expect \photo\ to outperform all other algorithms here, since its PSF
797: magnitudes have already been aperture corrected. Ideally, the scatter
798: here should be very close to the aperture photometry results in
799: Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1}. Table~\ref{tab-deltaM9} indicates that
800: \photo's results are equivalent to \dao's, and closer to the PSF
801: photometry scatter than the aperture photometry scatter. This
802: suggests that \photo's aperture corrections have {\it not}
803: successfully accounted for spatial variation in the PSF. The numbers
804: in Table~\ref{tab-deltaM9} do tend to bridge the difference between
805: the aperture and PSF scatter in Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1}, verifying
806: that the PSF photometry scatter contains a baseline contribution from
807: the aperture photometry and an additional contribution from aperture
808: corrections.
809:
810: \subsection{Results With Algorithm--Selected Stars}
811:
812: We repeat this analysis using objects each algorithm selects as a
813: star. These results are listed in Table~\ref{tab-deltaM3}, and are
814: very similar to the \photo-selected analysis. The largest difference
815: is that the fraction of $3\sigma$ outliers increases by a factor of
816: 2--3, indicating that the star--galaxy classification schemes for the
817: algorithms are inferior to \photo's. Some fraction of this additional
818: scatter comes from not knowing exactly which pixels in the images have
819: been interpolated over by \photo\ due to cosmic rays or bad pixels.
820:
821: \subsection{Photometry Conclusions}
822: The aperture and PSF photometry from \dao\ and \photo\ are clearly
823: superior. In particular, \dao\ performed as well as \photo, which is
824: encouraging as \photo\ was designed and commissioned with this SDSS
825: data set in mind.
826:
827: No algorithms were able to meet the LSST SRD in terms of PSF
828: photometry. The ideal aperture corrections to the PSF photometry
829: should bring the PSF scatter in--line with that from the aperture
830: photometry. The only algorithm for which this degree of calibration
831: has been done is \photo. However, it appears that \photo\ has not
832: sufficiently compensated for spatial variations in its aperture
833: corrections to PSF magnitudes, since its aperture vs. PSF scatter are
834: commensurate with \dao's.
835:
836: As far as calculating uncertainties, the PSF magnitude errors from
837: \photo\ most closely track the empirical uncertainties. Aperture
838: photometry uncertainties are either over or underestimated in {\it
839: all} algorithms.
840:
841: It is clear that the task of PSF photometry still requires significant
842: research and development if LSST is to meet its SRD in terms of
843: photometric accuracy.
844:
845: %%%%%%%%%%%
846: %%%%%%%%%%%
847: %%%%%%%%%%%
848: %%%%%%%%%%%
849:
850: \section{Shape Measurements}
851:
852: For the \photo--selected stars and galaxies, we extract the algorithm
853: shape parameters {\tt Ixx, Iyy}, and {\tt Ixy} (\dao\ does not report
854: these values on an object--by--object basis). We calculate the
855: ellipticities derived from these moments
856:
857: \begin{eqnarray}
858: % e1 & = & \frac{Ixx - Iyy}{Ixx + Iyy} \nonumber \\
859: % e2 & = & \frac{2 Ixy}{Ixx + Iyy}
860: e1 = \frac{Ixx - Iyy}{Ixx + Iyy} & ~~;~~ & e2 = \frac{2 Ixy}{Ixx + Iyy}
861: \end{eqnarray}
862:
863: and generate figures comparing each algorithm's shape measurements to
864: \photo's, dividing the data into 4 magnitude bins. We plot a linear
865: relationship between \photo's shape and that from the algorithm. The
866: RMS of the scatter about this line is calculated and listed in
867: Table~\ref{tab-e_star_sex} for \photo-selected stars, and
868: Table~\ref{tab-e_gal_sex} for \photo-selected galaxies.
869: Figure~\ref{fig-e_sex} shows a representative set of figures comparing
870: $r$--band \photo\ and \sex\ ellipticity parameters from run 3437.
871:
872: \subsection{Shape Measurement Results}
873: \sex\ is the only algorithm that we tested which reliably calculates
874: the shapes of galaxies, thus we have limited our comparison of shape
875: measurements to \photo\ and \sex. In addition, for ease of tabulation
876: and interpretation, we present only the results of the $r$--band
877: analyses. We note that the $g$ and $i$-band results are
878: quantitatively similar.
879:
880: We compare the ellipticities derived from both the ``isophotal'' shape
881: measurements from \sex\ 2.3.2 and the ``windowed'' measurements from
882: \sex\ 2.4.4. The linear relationships between \photo's and \sex's
883: $r$-band measurements, in the form {\tt e$_{\photo}$ = A + B
884: e$_{\sex}$}, are shown in Table~\ref{tab-e_star_sex} for stars, and
885: Table~\ref{tab-e_gal_sex} for galaxies. We report these numbers for
886: the brightest magnitude bin ($14 < r < 20$). We also list the RMS
887: scatter about this line.
888:
889: We first note the significantly reduced scatter from the best--fit
890: linear relationships when using the ``windowed'' shape measurements
891: from \sex\ 2.4.4. In particular, this yields up to an order of
892: magnitude less scatter in the stellar shape measures
893: (Table~\ref{tab-e_star_sex}), suggesting that \sex\ 2.3.2 is {\it not}
894: to be used for determining stellar shapes and ellipticities. The
895: improvement for galaxies is a more modest factor of 3
896: (Table~\ref{tab-e_gal_sex}), but still very significant.
897:
898: The ellipticities of galaxies in \sex\ 2.3.2 is similar to in \photo\
899: (slope $\sim 1$); the ellipticities of both stars and galaxies in
900: \sex\ 2.4.4 is different than in \photo\ (slope $\sim$ 2.0 for stars,
901: $\sim 1.8$ for galaxies). Figure~\ref{fig-e_sex} shows an example
902: plot of ellipticity comparisons for \photo-selected galaxies. The
903: left panel shows this relationship for \sex\ 2.3.2, and the right
904: panel for \sex\ 2.4.4. The isophotal measurements clearly lead to a
905: tighter relationship.
906:
907: \subsubsection{Shape Measurement Conclusions}
908: Adaptive second moments are more reliable than isophotal moments. We
909: recommend that all \sex\ analyses relying upon shape measurements use
910: ``windowed'' shape measures. Non--windowed shape measures should {\it
911: not} be used for stars.
912:
913: %%%%%%%%%%%
914: %%%%%%%%%%%
915: %%%%%%%%%%%
916: %%%%%%%%%%%
917:
918: \section{Centroiding}
919: \label{sec_ana-centroid}
920:
921: We also compare centroiding offsets between objects as measured in the
922: same images by different algorithms. To do this accurately, we must
923: first determine the conventions used to describe the image array. For
924: both \dao\ and \sex, the center of the lower--left hand corner pixel
925: (LLHC) is coordinate (1.0, 1.0). In \photo\ and \dop, the LLHC is at
926: coordinate (0.5, 0.5).
927:
928: We perform an analysis similar to that described in
929: Section~\ref{sec-phot} but describing the distribution of {\it pixel}
930: offsets as a function of magnitude. This should reveal any
931: centroiding biases as a function of magnitude. Example
932: Figure~\ref{fig-centroid} includes the three panels described in
933: Section~\ref{subsec-panel1}, Section~\ref{subsec-panel2}, and
934: Section~\ref{subsec-panel3}. Here the width of the bright end of the
935: distribution in Panel~1 reflects centroiding systematics.
936:
937: We also plot in each Panel~1 a quadratic fit to the median value of
938: the $X,Y$--coordinate pixel offsets of the form $\Delta_{X,Y} = A + B
939: z + C z^2$, where $z = M - M0$, $M0$ is the magnitude of the first
940: (brightest) bin and $M$ the central magnitude for each bin. We plot
941: the median values and their uncertainties, and the functional fit as a
942: solid line. Any shape to this distribution ($B \neq C \neq 0$)
943: suggests systematics in object centroiding as a function of magnitude.
944: These results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab-centroid2a} for
945: \photo-selected stars. Table~\ref{tab-centroid2c} shows the width of
946: this distribution, evaluated 1 magnitude below the brightest
947: unsaturated star, comparing algorithm to algorithm for $r$-band
948: centroids in run 3437 (upper triangular matrix) and run 4207 (lower
949: triangular matrix).
950:
951: \subsection{Centroiding Results}
952: We compare the measured positions of objects in each image as a
953: function of magnitude. Accurate centroiding is required to deliver
954: the SRD relative astrometry requirement of $0.01 \arcsec$ (here 0.025
955: pixels). We are unable to comment on the absolute astrometry
956: requirements since that involves knowledge of astrometric distortions
957: in the focal plane, which are different here than will be the case in
958: LSST.
959:
960: We list the results of the quadratic fit in Table~\ref{tab-centroid2a}
961: for \photo-selected stars. \sex\ 2.3.2 consistently has significant
962: offset, linear, and quadratic terms. \dop\ rarely shows significant
963: quadratic terms, but tends to have significant zeropoint offsets at
964: $\sim 0.01$ pixels. Both \dao\ and \sex\ 2.4.4 compare very well with
965: \photo's positional measurements, routinely having offsets below 0.005
966: pixels, linear terms below 0.003 pixels/magnitude, and quadratic terms
967: below 0.001 pixels/magnitude$^2$.
968:
969: An example demonstrating the improvements between \sex\ 2.3.2 and
970: \sex\ 2.4.4 is shown in Figure~\ref{fig-centroid}. Here we plot 2
971: figures containing the three panels described in
972: Section~\ref{sec_ana-centroid}. The left panel shows the distribution
973: of $z$-band $\Delta$X pixel offsets between \sex\ 2.3.2 and \photo.
974: The right panel provides a comparison between \sex\ 2.4.4 and \photo.
975: It is clear there is a much smaller trend of the median pixel offset
976: with magnitude in \sex\ 2.4.4, as well as a smaller overall RMS to the
977: distribution.
978:
979: We use this RMS at the bright end to further characterize the
980: centroiding accuracy.
981: %
982: This comparison of all algorithm centroids is shown in
983: Table~\ref{tab-centroid2c} for $r$-band $x$--coordinate centroids.
984: This table indicates that the algorithms are much more consistent with
985: each other than they are with \photo, as the RMS is consistently
986: highest in those comparisons including \photo. Compared to RMSs of
987: order 0.02--0.03 pixels for comparisons with \photo, the other
988: algorithms are consistent to 0.01 pixels or better. We trace this
989: back to \photo's astrometric corrections derived from the PSF behavior
990: \citep{2003AJ....125.1559P}, which the other algorithms do not account
991: for. These corrections demonstrably produce better {\it absolute}
992: astrometry, since they account for biases in positions due to the
993: complex PSFs. We thus expect relative astrometry to be accomplished
994: in software to better than 0.01 pixels, or more than 200 times smaller
995: than the image FWHM. Absolute astrometry may require corrections
996: similar to what has been undertaken by SDSS.
997:
998: \subsection{Centroiding Conclusions}
999: The LSST SRD relative astrometry requirement of $0.01 \arcsec$ (1/70
1000: the median SRD r--band seeing of 0.7 $\arcsec$) is not likely to be
1001: violated in software. The ``windowed'' centroids of \sex\ 2.4.4 are
1002: comparable to the PSF centroids of \dao\ and \photo, and a significant
1003: improvement over \sex\ 2.3.2.
1004:
1005: %%%%%%%%%%%
1006: %%%%%%%%%%%
1007: %%%%%%%%%%%
1008: %%%%%%%%%%%
1009:
1010: \section{Photometric Depth}
1011: \label{sec-depth}
1012:
1013: We select all clustered objects that have been classified as a star by
1014: each algorithm for each run, and create star count histograms.
1015: %
1016: We find the bin with the maximum number of stars found by each
1017: algorithm, as well as the cumulative fraction of the histogram as a
1018: function of magnitude. We characterize the photometric depth of each
1019: algorithm by determining the magnitude bins below which 95\%
1020: (M$_{95}$) and 99\% (M$_{99}$) of the objects have been detected.
1021: These values, as well as the peak of the functions, are listed in
1022: Table~\ref{tab-depth}.
1023:
1024: \subsection{Photometric Depth Results}
1025:
1026:
1027: Using M$_{99}$ as a proxy for photometric depth, \photo\ is
1028: consistently deeper than \dao\ and \dop\ in PSF magnitudes, in many
1029: cases significantly.
1030: %
1031: We can trace this back to the definition of ``significance'' in the
1032: object detection stages. For example, \dao\ triggers off the central
1033: pixel of an object in the image convolved with its PSF, yielding a
1034: weighted sum of neighboring pixels. \photo\ does a similar smoothing,
1035: but also grows the source by an amount approximately equal to the
1036: radius of the seeing disk, and defines a source as a connected set of
1037: pixels that are detected in at least one of the 5 passbands.
1038: Unfortunately, it is not sufficient to merely lower \dao's object
1039: detection threshold to compensate for these differences without also
1040: enacting a change in how the algorithm evaluates the notion of
1041: ``significance''. By lowering the threshold we would be allowing an
1042: unacceptable number of artifacts through along with the fainter
1043: astronomical objects. The ideal object detection algorithm would
1044: trigger off of medium significance pixels and determine the integrated
1045: significance of all neighboring (e.g. 8-connected) pixels, comparing
1046: the latter to the user--defined detection threshold.
1047:
1048: The comparison between \photo\ and \sex\ is slightly more difficult,
1049: since aperture photometry is not the ideal measurement to use in star
1050: count comparisons. For example, the peaks of \photo's aperture
1051: photometry star--counts are frequently 2-3 magnitudes fainter than for
1052: its PSF star--counts. At least for the $g$ and $r$ passbands, the
1053: metric M$_{99}$ is approximately the same for aperture and PSF
1054: photometry, so we use these filters in our \sex\ comparison. On both
1055: nights, \sex\ stops more than 1 magnitude brighter than \photo\ in
1056: $g$, and slightly less than 1 magnitude in $r$.
1057:
1058: \subsection{Photometric Depth Conclusions}
1059: It is difficult to compare photometric depths in the context of
1060: incomplete star/galaxy separation schemes. The star counts of all
1061: algorithms are contaminated to some degree by galaxies. However,
1062: because \photo\ measures and deblends stars and galaxies
1063: simultaneously, we believe this yields the most accurate
1064: classification criteria, and thus the most accurate star counts.
1065:
1066: \dao\ is primarily designed to photometer stars, and while it does a
1067: reasonable job of agreeing with \photo\ on object classification
1068: (Table~\ref{tab-sg2}), it also is over--complete compared to \photo\
1069: for brighter objects, where \photo\ is known to do well, and is also
1070: incomplete for fainter objects. The former is likely due to detection
1071: of artifacts in the images, as well as misclassification of galaxies
1072: as stars.
1073:
1074: %%%%%%%%%%%
1075: %%%%%%%%%%%
1076: %%%%%%%%%%%
1077: %%%%%%%%%%%
1078:
1079:
1080: \section{Analysis of Globular Cluster M2}
1081: \label{sec-m2}
1082:
1083: Globular Cluster M2 (NGC 7089) is located in our imaging strip. This
1084: cluster contains approximately 150,000 stars, with a core radius of
1085: $0.34\arcsec$. This is a highly concentrated structure, and will test
1086: the limits of any photometric software tasked to analyze it. In fact,
1087: the majority of \photo's attempts to reduce images containing this
1088: cluster are unsuccessful, failing at the stage of deblending.
1089: %
1090:
1091: We have chosen to use this particular field to test {\tt daophot}'s
1092: and {\tt allframe}'s abilities to do stellar photometry in crowded
1093: fields. With the vast majority of objects in these images being
1094: cluster stars, we expect minimal contamination from background
1095: galaxies. We do however expect to encounter problems with the
1096: brightest cluster stars ($13^{th}$ magnitude), which saturate in the
1097: standard SDSS exposures. In the images we are using, saturated pixels
1098: and bleeds have been interpolated over by \photo, leaving the profiles
1099: of these objects inconsistent with the PSF. \dao\ is therefore
1100: inclined to consider these objects extended, and will fit an ensemble
1101: of PSFs to the object until enough have been added to ``vacuum'' up
1102: all of its flux.
1103:
1104: This analysis will also serve as a proxy for how close LSST can
1105: observe to the Galactic plane and still maintain a given level of
1106: photometric precision. However, in such crowded fields, aperture
1107: photometry is neigh impossible. And as Section~\ref{sec-phot} has
1108: shown, PSF photometry is unable to produce results with the required
1109: accuracy. It is unclear if it is possible, even in the most idealized
1110: case, for the SRD requirements to be met in such crowded fields.
1111:
1112: \subsection{Photometry}
1113:
1114: Due to the degree of stellar crowding in this field, {\tt OPTICS}
1115: clustering runs yielded marginal results with a clustering distance of
1116: 1 pixel ($0.4\arcsec$). This was characterized by large scatter when
1117: matching the centroids of objects in {\tt daophot} and {\tt allframe},
1118: at the level of 0.8 pixel RMS in the $r$--band. We instead chose to
1119: cluster the data with a half pixel ($0.2\arcsec$) clustering distance,
1120: which yielded much improved results (RMS scatter of 0.04 pixel in the
1121: $r$--band). Clustering at a quarter pixel ($0.1\arcsec$) did not
1122: significantly alter the results.
1123:
1124: The results for the $\Delta$M distribution measurements are listed in
1125: Table~\ref{tab-M2deltaM}. For both algorithms, we used the
1126: star--galaxy classification schemes derived from the previous analyses
1127: and described in Table~\ref{tab-daosharp}.
1128:
1129: The results of this analysis are very encouraging. We first note that
1130: the first two sets of data ({\tt daophot} and {\tt allframe}) in
1131: Table~\ref{tab-M2deltaM} correspond to objects classified by {\tt
1132: daophot} as stars. To have clustered with {\tt daophot} detections,
1133: this subset of the data will not reach as deep as the full {\tt
1134: allframe} reductions. Therefore these numbers do not directly reflect
1135: {\tt allframe}'s photometry of faint objects, but instead the fact
1136: that {\tt allframe} is better able to deblend the stars used in this
1137: analysis from faint objects that were missed in {\tt daophot}. The
1138: second set of {\tt allframe} results are for objects classified by
1139: {\tt allframe} as stars, and thus also probes the distribution of
1140: stars missed in {\tt daophot} because they were too faint or blended.
1141: We emphasize that the PSFs used in the two analyses are exactly the
1142: same, and any improvements may be directly attributed to better
1143: deblending and centroiding.
1144:
1145: The aperture photometry results are considerably worse here than as
1146: reflected in the sparse--field analysis described in
1147: Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1} and Table~\ref{tab-deltaM3}. This is to be
1148: expected, as the field is extraordinarily crowded and there is a very
1149: steep and significant background sky gradient due to unresolved
1150: cluster stars. Both the $r$ and $i$--band aperture results are
1151: considerably worse than in the other passbands, in this case due to
1152: the extreme crowding conditions in these filters.
1153:
1154: The PSF photometry shows a marked improvement over the aperture
1155: photometry results, particularly in the $r$ and $i$--band data where
1156: the images are most crowded. The $g$-band PSF photometry is the most
1157: problematic in the \dao\ reductions. However, the magnitude scatter
1158: for objects classified by {\tt daophot} as stars is reduced by
1159: approximately $25\%$ when going to the stacked analysis of {\tt
1160: allframe}. In particular, the $g$-band photometry improves
1161: significantly, suggesting that \dao\ did a poor job of selecting all
1162: the stellar $g$-band objects, and a proper deblending was only
1163: possible by using constraints from the $r$ and $i$-band data. We also
1164: note that the {\tt allframe} PSF photometry results are commensurate
1165: with the sparse--field analyses described in Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1}
1166: and Table~\ref{tab-deltaM3}. This indicates that {\tt daophot}+{\tt
1167: allframe} is indeed a powerful combination that is able to perform
1168: consistent stellar PSF photometry across the range of crowding
1169: conditions expected in LSST.
1170:
1171: The final set of numbers in Table~\ref{tab-M2deltaM}, reflecting the
1172: analysis of objects classified by {\tt allframe} as stars, shows a
1173: slight increase in the scatter of photometric measurements. The
1174: degradation is likely due to the impact of {\tt allframe} detecting
1175: fainter, more crowded objects, for which photometry is more difficult.
1176: However, the PSF--photometry results are still better than {\tt
1177: daophot}'s single--image analysis of this field, and essentially
1178: equivalent to the sparse--field analysis results presented in
1179: Table~\ref{tab-deltaM3}.
1180:
1181: \subsubsection{Photometry as a Function of Crowding}
1182:
1183: Given the broad range of stellar densities in these images, we are
1184: able to constrain how \dao's ability to do PSF photometry degrades as
1185: a function of local crowding conditions. To do this we have divided
1186: the image up into 200 pixel by 200 pixel regions, and select only
1187: those objects that {\tt allframe} classifies as stars in both runs.
1188: We count the total number of such objects in this region, as well as
1189: the total number of ``bright'' objects in this region, where we define
1190: ``bright'' as the brightest 3 magnitudes of objects. We calculate the
1191: $\sigma_{\rm mean}$ from the interquartile range of $\Delta$M for the
1192: bright objects, and plot this against the total number of stars in the
1193: bin. We normalize this by the area of the box, yielding the local
1194: number of stars per pixel, and then multiply by the averaged FWHM$^2$
1195: of the two images, yielding the approximate number of stars per seeing
1196: disk. We fit a line to the relationship of $\Delta$M vs number of
1197: stars per FWHM$^2$. These results are summarized in
1198: Table~\ref{tab-M2deltaMvsCrowding}. We show the plots for the
1199: $r$--band data in Figure~\ref{fig-M2deltaMvsCrowding}. Extrapolation
1200: back to an empty field (number of stars = 0) yields numbers that are
1201: very close to the SRD requirement on photometric accuracy.
1202:
1203: \subsection{Photometric Depth}
1204:
1205: We select stars on an algorithm--by--algorithm basis, and find the
1206: peak of the star count histograms are the same for both {\tt daophot}
1207: and {\tt allframe}, approximately $r = 20.5$, $g = 21.0$, $i = 20.2$
1208: for run 4207. However, {\tt allframe} finds approximately 1.5 times
1209: the total number of objects in the $g$-band data, 1.3 in the $r$-band,
1210: and 1.4 in the $i$-band. This is due to {\tt allframe}'s ability to
1211: resolve and photometer blended neighbors that contaminate an object's
1212: {\tt Sharp}-ness in {\tt daophot}, as well as its extra photometric
1213: depth. Table~\ref{tab-M2depth} characterizes the depth per run and
1214: passband. For both algorithms, we list the peak of the histogram
1215: (M$_{max}$), the magnitude bin below which 95\% of the stars are
1216: contained (M$_{95}$), and the bin below which 99\% of the stars are
1217: contained (M$_{99}$). Using M$_{99}$ as our proxy, {\tt allframe}
1218: accurately photometers objects nearly a magnitude deeper than in {\tt
1219: daophot} in the $g$-band, 0.3 magnitudes in the $r$-band, and 0.5
1220: magnitudes in the $i$-band. This is a remarkable improvement
1221: considering that we only have 2 images per passband to work with. The
1222: fact that we can combine the constraints from images in different
1223: filters into a global analysis allows us to make such improvements in
1224: depth.
1225:
1226: Figure~\ref{fig-M2_cmd} shows a $r$ vs. $g-r$ color--magnitude diagram
1227: (CMD) of all stars in the SDSS images containing M2. We have not
1228: selected against field stars, which contaminate the cluster CMD. For
1229: each algorithm, we query for all clustered objects that were
1230: classified as stars in both runs {\it and} in both passbands to yield
1231: the final ensembles of points. {\tt Allframe} finds 1.7 times the
1232: number of stars as {\tt daophot}.
1233: %
1234: We plot the averaged magnitudes and colors of the objects, as well as
1235: typical error bars on each point in 8 magnitude bins.
1236:
1237: \subsection{Conclusions from Study of M2}
1238:
1239: The {\tt allframe} analysis has shown that it is an encouraging
1240: precursor to LSST's envisioned Deep Detection Pipeline ensemble
1241: analysis of imaging data \citep{2005AAS...207.2631R}. We are able to
1242: use {\it all} images of a given part of the sky to attain extra depth
1243: and precision in the measurements of {\it all} objects in the field.
1244: Potential improvements to this process include regeneration of the PSF
1245: during the ensemble analysis, as well as characterization of extended
1246: objects.
1247:
1248:
1249: \section{Processing Time and Scalability}
1250: \label{sec-valgrind}
1251:
1252: During processing, we recorded the total elapsed time to run each
1253: algorithm on all images. However, during testing we noticed severe
1254: degradations in performance during periods of heavy disk access. This
1255: is a known problem with the Redundant Array of Independent Drives
1256: (RAID) controller on the host machine, and makes the {\it absolute}
1257: numbers in this section inaccurate. The {\it relative} numbers are
1258: likely to be less affected.
1259:
1260: We do not have information for \dop\ on run 4207 because the file
1261: containing the times for this run was corrupted. We emphasize that
1262: the \dao\ results are not entirely localizable to the internal
1263: algorithms, but are also due to inefficiencies in our controlling {\tt
1264: Perl} scripts (Section~\ref{sec-alg}). We fit the trend of processing
1265: time with the number of detections, and present these results in
1266: Table~\ref{tab-timefit}. \sex\ is the fastest algorithm, with version
1267: 2.3.2 slightly faster than version 2.4.4, primarily due to the
1268: overhead in calculating windowed quantities in the latter. There
1269: appears to be a minimum threshold of at least 4 seconds necessary for
1270: \sex\ to process an individual stitched image regardless of the number
1271: of detections found, due to overhead associated with the reading and
1272: writing of data products. \dao\ shows a significant trend with number
1273: of detections and has the steepest scaling laws. The \dop\ entry in
1274: Table~\ref{tab-timefit} is a bit misleading, as \dop\ tends to be
1275: relatively insensitive to the number of objects ultimately detected in
1276: the image. This suggests that much of the processing time is spent on
1277: common--mode items such as the PSF generation.
1278:
1279: \subsection{Additional Testing \label{sec-darkstar}}
1280:
1281: In an effort to eliminate the influence of the RAID controller, we
1282: also ran time trials on a new computer. We selected four images (two
1283: from each run) covering the range of total detections per image found
1284: by \sex\ in the $r$-filter. The ``stitched'' images are approximately
1285: 2k $x$ 4k in size. We decided to examine the scaling of resource
1286: usage with image size by chopping each image into a 2k $x$ 2k image.
1287: We also produce an LSST--sized image by placing a copy of each image
1288: next to itself to yield a 4k $x$ 4k image. We store a copy of each
1289: image with a variety of bit depths to determine how this might effect
1290: \sex's behavior. We store a copy of each image as 16 and 32--bit
1291: integers (BITPIX=16,32), and as 32 and 64--bit floats
1292: (BITPIX=-32,-64). In summary, we have 4 images with different numbers
1293: of objects; we have 3 copies of each image in different sizes; and we
1294: store each of these with 4 different bit depths. In total, this
1295: yields 48 different configurations.
1296:
1297: Each of these images was {\tt SExtracted} 50 times in a row to
1298: determine the average elapsed time per image, averaging over any
1299: extraneous system load. \sex\ was run while there were no other tasks
1300: queued on the machine for the duration of each run. We monitored the
1301: memory usage of each process as a function of time by scanning the
1302: file {\tt /proc/PID/status} every half second. We extract the values
1303: {\tt VmSize} and {\tt VmRSS}. {\tt VmSize} is the total amount of
1304: memory required by this program, and {\tt VmRSS} is the "Resident Set
1305: Size" (the amount actually in memory at a given moment). We extracted
1306: the total processing time by using the executable {\tt /usr/bin/time}
1307: and summing the {\tt user} CPU and {\tt system} CPU times -- each
1308: process had $98\%$ or greater of the CPU. Table \ref{sexds} lists the
1309: results of these trials.
1310:
1311: We first examine the profiling as a function of image bit depth. The
1312: maximum memory used by \sex\ is {\it not} a function of image bit
1313: depth for a given--sized image. This suggests that \sex\ translates
1314: an image into a ``native'' bit depth before processing. The total
1315: processing times for BITPIX of 16, 32, and -32 are very similar; the
1316: BITPIX = 64 images take on average $10\%$ longer to process,
1317: suggesting significant overhead in translating from 64--bit images.
1318: We restrict our analysis henceforth to 32--bit float images.
1319:
1320: We next look at the memory consumed as a function of time for a given
1321: run. Since we only sample the memory usage in 0.5 second intervals,
1322: this will be somewhat poorly determined for the short analyses. We
1323: choose to make representative plots using the last image in
1324: Table~\ref{sexds}. Figure~\ref{fig-mem1} shows the average memory
1325: usage as a function of time for the 3 image sizes. Note that the
1326: total processing time shown here can be up to 0.5 seconds smaller than
1327: the values listed in Table~\ref{sexds} due to our coarse sampling.
1328:
1329: It is interesting to note the memory consumption profiles generally
1330: differ due to the different processing times, but the {\it maximum}
1331: memory used does not scale directly with the image size or the total
1332: number of objects. The memory requirements grow only marginally more
1333: expensive, suggesting that \sex\ undertakes an effective degree of
1334: intelligent memory management. For example, the 4k $x$ 4k image
1335: consumes less than twice as much memory as the 2k $x$ 4k image.
1336:
1337: We next examine the total processing time as a function of the number
1338: of objects in the image. These data are plotted in
1339: Figure~\ref{fig-sexds}. We plot the data from the 2k $x$ 2k images as
1340: circles, 2k $x$ 4k as squares, and 4k $x$ 4k as triangles. A linear
1341: regression yields the relationship $y = 0.5468~x + 0.0007$. Comparing
1342: this to the entries in Table~\ref{tab-timefit} is instructive. The
1343: zero--point processing time of 0.5 seconds is much shorter than
1344: previous results of $\sim 4$ seconds, almost certainly due to the
1345: aforementioned RAID issues impeding disk I/O. The slope is similar :
1346: every $\sim 1300$ objects being measured adds an additional second of
1347: processing time. We regard these tests on this machine to yield the
1348: most reliable timing results.
1349:
1350: \subsection{Processing Time Conclusions}
1351: \sex\ version 2.3.2 was the fastest of these algorithms. However,
1352: with slightly longer processing time we gain a considerable amount of
1353: accuracy in the position and shapes of detected objects by using the
1354: ``windowed'' parameters from \sex\ 2.4.4.
1355:
1356: Disk access is a fundamental issue that can significantly impede image
1357: processing tasks.
1358:
1359: The timing tests in Section~\ref{sec-darkstar} produce the most
1360: reliable {\it absolute} numbers. If we assume that the LSST focal
1361: plane is populated with 4k $x$ 4k devices, than we expect that a
1362: single detector may be photometered in (0.5 s) * (2.8 GHz) = 1.4 GHz
1363: s, with an additional overhead of 1.4 GHz s for every 1300 objects in
1364: the image. We have not tested how these numbers scale with processor
1365: speed.
1366:
1367: \section{Summary of Results}
1368: \label{sec-summary}
1369:
1370: \subsection{Star/Galaxy Separation}
1371:
1372: Each package undertakes some measure of object classification. In all
1373: cases, the benchmark profile is the PSF. \dao\ and \dop\ compare each
1374: object to the PSF profile. \sex\ compares the width of each object
1375: with the input PSF FWHM. In comparison, \photo\ compares the flux
1376: measured using the PSF to the flux from galaxy model fits.
1377:
1378: Both \dop\ and \sex\ fared poorly compared to \dao\ and \photo\
1379: (Tables~\ref{tab-sg1} and \ref{tab-sg2}). However, \sex\ has the
1380: option to use neural--network filters to enhance its performance.
1381: \dao\ does a good job at object classification, but does not
1382: explicitly compute object moments. Objects where \dao\ and \photo\
1383: disagree tend to be drawn from the stellar locus
1384: (Figure~\ref{fig-ccd_dao}).
1385:
1386: \photo\ is the most advanced package in this task, with \sex\ having
1387: the most potential for improvement through add--on software like {\tt
1388: EyE}.
1389:
1390: \subsection{Photometry}
1391:
1392: Both \dao\ and \photo\ are able to satisfy LSST's science requirements
1393: on photometric accuracy (0.005 magnitudes unless precluded by photon
1394: statistics) for aperture measurements only. This is realized in the
1395: $g$, $r$, and $i$-band datasets. PSF photometry is unable to reach
1396: this accuracy, and consistently falls short by a factor of $\sim 2-3$.
1397: \dao\ provides marginally better results than \photo\ in both aperture
1398: and PSF photometry in our normal analysis. \dop\ consistently
1399: under-performs in both aperture and PSF photometry. \sex\ provides
1400: adequate aperture photometry, but does not yet have the capability to
1401: easily build and use a PSF model. These results are summarized in
1402: Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1} (for \photo-selected stars) and
1403: Table~\ref{tab-deltaM3} (for algorithm--selected stars).
1404:
1405: The additional scatter in the PSF magnitudes can be traced back to
1406: inadequate aperture corrections to the PSF flux. We highlight that
1407: the determination of this quantity, as well as its spatial variation
1408: across an image, is a crucial issue in LSST algorithm development.
1409:
1410: From our analysis of globular cluster M2, we find that \dao\ is able
1411: to provide PSF magnitudes in a crowded field with an accuracy similar
1412: to a sparse field analysis. A stacked analysis of the data using {\tt
1413: allframe} yields an improvement of approximately $25\%$
1414: (Table~\ref{tab-M2deltaM}) in photometric accuracy, and a
1415: passband--dependent increase in photometric depth
1416: (Table~\ref{tab-M2depth}). We find a marginal degradation in
1417: photometric accuracy with local crowding conditions
1418: (Table~\ref{tab-M2deltaMvsCrowding}). {\tt Allframe} is able to
1419: maintain $2\%$ accuracy in $r$-band PSF photometry in crowding of up
1420: to 0.12 stars per PSF FWHM$^2$ ($\sim 880$ stars arcmin$^{-1}$ in
1421: 0.7\arcsec seeing).
1422:
1423: \subsection{Shape Measurements}
1424:
1425: \sex\ and \photo\ are the only packages that provide reliable
1426: estimates of object shapes, using second moment analysis. \photo\ is
1427: also the only package that also fits galaxy models (exponential, de
1428: Vaucouleurs) to each object. \sex\ version 2.3.2 uses isophotal
1429: second moments, which degrade rapidly as a function of magnitude
1430: compared to \photo's adaptive second moments (e.g. left panel of
1431: Figure~\ref{fig-e_sex}). These measurements should {\it not} be used
1432: to measure the shapes of stars. \sex\ versions 2.4.4 and greater use
1433: ``windowed'' second moments that yield ellipticities comparable to
1434: \photo's (e.g. right panel of Figure~\ref{fig-e_sex}). \photo\ and
1435: \sex\ 2.4.4's stellar ellipticity measurements are extremely
1436: consistent, their differences having an RMS of 0.001--0.004
1437: (Table~\ref{tab-e_star_sex}). This is more than a factor of 10
1438: smaller than LSST's science requirement that the median of the
1439: distribution be no larger than 0.04, indicating that the algorithmic
1440: contribution to the stellar ellipticity distribution should be
1441: negligible.
1442:
1443: \subsection{Centroiding}
1444:
1445: By comparing the calculated x,y centroids of objects to \photo's
1446: centroids, we find very strong systematic trends in isophotal
1447: centroiding accuracy as a function of magnitude for \sex\ version
1448: 2.3.2 (top panel of Figure~\ref{fig-centroid};
1449: Table~\ref{tab-centroid2a}). The windowed centroids in \sex\ version
1450: 2.4.4 and greater remedy this systematic (bottom panel of
1451: Figure~\ref{fig-centroid}). The centroiding RMS at the bright end
1452: (compared to \photo) for most algorithms is 1/100 the PSF FWHM. An
1453: algorithm--to--algorithm comparison yields a typical centroiding RMS
1454: of better than 1/200 the FWHM, with \photo\ the clear outlier due to
1455: its absolute astrometry corrections (Tables~\ref{tab-centroid2c}).
1456:
1457: The LSST relative astrometry requirement of $0.01\arcsec$ is not
1458: likely to be violated in software. The absolute astrometry
1459: requirements of $0.05\arcsec$ may require corrections similar to
1460: \photo's.
1461:
1462: \subsection{Summary}
1463:
1464: The one area where current algorithms do not clearly exceed the
1465: constraints set out in LSST's SRD is in photometric accuracy. \photo\
1466: and \dao\ are able to deliver the requisite quality, but only in
1467: aperture photometry, and then just at the threshold of acceptability.
1468: %
1469: Advances in PSF modeling and in wide--field aperture corrections and
1470: sky subtraction are likely needed to ensure that the software can
1471: deliver on the promise of LSST.
1472: %
1473: % We re--emphasize that our pipelined application of each of these
1474: % algorithms may not yield the optimal results compared to a detailed
1475: % analysis of each individual image.
1476:
1477: To summarize \photo's advantages : Its aperture photometry meets the
1478: LSST science requirements; its PSF photometry is as good as \dao; it
1479: is reliably able to discriminate stars from galaxies; it is the only
1480: algorithm that does galaxy model fitting; the 5-band simultaneous
1481: photometry is very similar to the envisioned LSST Deep Detection
1482: analysis; and its star/galaxy deblender is robust under a variety of
1483: conditions. The disadvantages of \photo\ are : it is not very
1484: flexible with respect to the format of input data, only operating on
1485: SDSS images; the code as designed is not very portable; the deblender
1486: is not designed for crowded fields.
1487:
1488: To summarize \dao's advantages : Its PSF photometry is the best among
1489: the algorithms considered here; star/galaxy separation is surprisingly
1490: robust; it provides the best solution for point source photometry in
1491: crowded fields; {\tt allframe} is also a useful Deep Detection
1492: precursor algorithm. Its disadvantages are : it is relatively slow,
1493: and it does no galaxy characterization.
1494:
1495: To summarize \dop's advantages : It is easily pipelined, and will take
1496: almost any input data. Its disadvantages are : its PSF does not vary
1497: spatially, and it returns the poorest results with respect to both
1498: photometry and astrometry (excluding \sex\ isophotal centroids).
1499:
1500: Finally, to summarize \sex's advantages : It is very fast and the code
1501: is very portable; its aperture photometry returns acceptable results;
1502: its windowed shapes are as good as \photo's adaptive shapes; the
1503: windowed centroids are as good as PSF centroids; the deblending model
1504: is very extensible; and the inclusion of neural networking for object
1505: classification is novel and potentially very powerful. Its
1506: disadvantages are : there is no easily accessible PSF modeling, and
1507: the isophotal shape and positional measurements may be significantly
1508: biased at faint magnitudes.
1509:
1510: \acknowledgments
1511:
1512: We thank P. Stetson, E. Bertin, and A. Rest for valuable insights
1513: regarding the photometry packages, and T. Axelrod and J. Kantor for
1514: many and varied LSST Data Management discussions. We also thank the
1515: anonymous referee for suggestions on the content and format of this
1516: manuscript.
1517: %
1518: LSST is a public-private partnership. Design and development activity
1519: is supported by in part the National Science Foundation under
1520: Scientific Program Order No. 9 (AST-0551161) through Cooperative
1521: Agreement AST-0132798. Portions of this work are supported by the
1522: Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-76SF00515 with the
1523: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, contract DE-AC02-98CH10886 with
1524: Brookhaven National Laboratory, and contract W-7405-ENG-48 with
1525: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Additional funding comes from
1526: private donations, grants to universities, and in-kind support at
1527: Department of Energy laboratories and other LSSTC Institutional
1528: Members.
1529:
1530: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1531: % BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1532:
1533: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1534: \bibliography{ms}
1535:
1536: %\begin{thebibliography}{40}
1537: %\expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1538: %
1539: %\bibitem[{Ankerst {et~al.}(1999)Ankerst, M., Kriegel, \& Sander}]{optics}
1540: %Ankerst, M., M., B.~M., Kriegel, H.-P., \& Sander, J. 1999, in {SIGMOD 1999,
1541: % Proceedings ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, June
1542: % 1-3, 1999, Philadephia, Pennsylvania, USA}, ed. A.~Delis, C.~Faloutsos, \&
1543: % S.~Ghandeharizadeh (ACM Press), 49--60
1544: %
1545: %\bibitem[{{Bahcall} {et~al.}(2004){Bahcall}, {Hao}, {Bode}, \&
1546: % {Dong}}]{2004ApJ...603....1B}
1547: %{Bahcall}, N.~A. \et 2004, \apj, 603, 1
1548: %
1549: %\bibitem[{Becker(2000)}]{AB}
1550: %Becker, A~C. 2000, PhD thesis, {University of Washington}
1551: %
1552: %\bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(2007){Becker}, {Silvestri}, {Owen}, {Ivezi{\'c}},
1553: % \& {Lupton}}]{paper-astroph}
1554: %{Becker}, A.~C. \et 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1555: %
1556: %\bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(2004){Becker}, {Wittman}, {Boeshaar},
1557: % {Clocchiatti}, {Dell'Antonio}, {Frail}, {Halpern}, {Margoniner}, {Norman},
1558: % {Tyson}, \& {Schommer}}]{2004ApJ...611..418B}
1559: %{Becker}, A.~C. \et 2004, \apj, 611, 418
1560: %
1561: %\bibitem[{{Bernstein} \& {Jarvis}(2002)}]{2002AJ....123..583B}
1562: %{Bernstein}, G.~M. \& {Jarvis}, M. 2002, \aj, 123, 583
1563: %
1564: %\bibitem[{Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)}]{Bertin96}
1565: %Bertin, E. \& Arnouts, S. 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
1566: %
1567: %\bibitem[{{Collister} {et~al.}(2007){Collister}, {Lahav}, {Blake}, {Cannon},
1568: % {Croom}, {Drinkwater}, {Edge}, {Eisenstein}, {Loveday}, {Nichol}, {Pimbblet},
1569: % {de Propris}, {Roseboom}, {Ross}, {Schneider}, {Shanks}, \&
1570: % {Wake}}]{Collister}
1571: %{Collister}, A. \et 2007, \mnras, 375, 68
1572: %
1573: %\bibitem[{{Eisenhardt} {et~al.}(2004)}]{IRAC}
1574: %{Eisenhardt}, P.~R. {et~al.} 2004, \apjs, 154, 48
1575: %
1576: %\bibitem[{{Eisenstein} {et~al.}(2005){Eisenstein}, {Zehavi}, {Hogg},
1577: % {Scoccimarro}, {Blanton}, {Nichol}, {Scranton}, {Seo}, {Tegmark}, {Zheng},
1578: % {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Brinkmann}, {Burles}, {Castander},
1579: % {Connolly}, {Csabai}, {Doi}, {Fukugita}, {Frieman}, {Glazebrook}, {Gunn},
1580: % {Hendry}, {Hennessy}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Knapp}, {Lin}, {Loh}, {Lupton},
1581: % {Margon}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Munn}, {Pope}, {Richmond}, {Schlegel},
1582: % {Schneider}, {Shimasaku}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Szalay},
1583: % {Szapudi}, {Tucker}, {Yanny}, \& {York}}]{2005ApJ...633..560E}
1584: %{Eisenstein}, D.~J. \et 2005, \apj, 633, 560
1585: %
1586: %\bibitem[{Ester {et~al.}(1996)Ester, Kriegel, Sander, \& Xu}]{dbscan}
1587: %Ester, M. \et 1996, in {Second International
1588: % Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining}, ed. E.~Simoudis, J.~Han,
1589: % \& U.~Fayyad (Portland, Oregon: {AAAI} Press), 226--231
1590: %
1591: %\bibitem[{{Fukugita} {et~al.}(1996){Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Gunn}, {Doi},
1592: % {Shimasaku}, \& {Schneider}}]{1996AJ....111.1748F}
1593: %{Fukugita}, M. \et 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
1594: %
1595: %\bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(1998){Gunn}, {Carr}, {Rockosi}, {Sekiguchi}, {Berry},
1596: % {Elms}, {de Haas}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, {Lupton}, {Pauls}, {Simcoe},
1597: % {Hirsch}, {Sanford}, {Wang}, {York}, {Harris}, {Annis}, {Bartozek},
1598: % {Boroski}, {Bakken}, {Haldeman}, {Kent}, {Holm}, {Holmgren}, {Petravick},
1599: % {Prosapio}, {Rechenmacher}, {Doi}, {Fukugita}, {Shimasaku}, {Okada}, {Hull},
1600: % {Siegmund}, {Mannery}, {Blouke}, {Heidtman}, {Schneider}, {Lucinio}, \&
1601: % {Brinkman}}]{1998AJ....116.3040G}
1602: %{Gunn}, J.~E. \et 1998, \aj, 116, 3040
1603: %
1604: %\bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(2006){Gunn}, {Siegmund}, {Mannery}, {Owen}, {Hull},
1605: % {Leger}, {Carey}, {Knapp}, {York}, {Boroski}, {Kent}, {Lupton}, {Rockosi},
1606: % {Evans}, {Waddell}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Barentine}, {Bartoszek}, {Bastian},
1607: % {Bracker}, {Brewington}, {Briegel}, {Brinkmann}, {Brown}, {Carr},
1608: % {Czarapata}, {Drennan}, {Dombeck}, {Federwitz}, {Gillespie}, {Gonzales},
1609: % {Hansen}, {Harvanek}, {Hayes}, {Jordan}, {Kinney}, {Klaene}, {Kleinman},
1610: % {Kron}, {Kresinski}, {Lee}, {Limmongkol}, {Lindenmeyer}, {Long}, {Loomis},
1611: % {McGehee}, {Mantsch}, {Neilsen}, {Neswold}, {Newman}, {Nitta}, {Peoples},
1612: % {Pier}, {Prieto}, {Prosapio}, {Rivetta}, {Schneider}, {Snedden}, \&
1613: % {Wang}}]{2006AJ....131.2332G}
1614: %{Gunn}, J.~E. \et 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
1615: %
1616: %\bibitem[{{Handler}(2003)}]{Handler}
1617: %{Handler}, G. 2003, Baltic Astronomy, 12, 243
1618: %
1619: %\bibitem[{{Hook} \& {GOODS Team}(2002)}]{GOODS}
1620: %{Hook}, R.~N. \et 2002, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical
1621: % Society, Vol. 201, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 601--+
1622: %
1623: %\bibitem[{{Howell}(1989)}]{Howell}
1624: %{Howell}, S.~B. 1989, \pasp, 101, 616
1625: %
1626: %\bibitem[{{Imhoff} {et~al.}(1999){Imhoff}, {Abney}, {Christian}, {Donahue},
1627: % {Hanisch}, {Kimball}, {Levay}, {Padovani}, {Postman}, {Smith}, \&
1628: % {Thompson}}]{MAST}
1629: %{Imhoff}, C. \et 1999, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
1630: % Vol.~31, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 968--+
1631: %
1632: %\bibitem[{{Ivezi{\'c}} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Ivezic}
1633: %{Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}. {et~al.} 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583
1634: %
1635: %\bibitem[{{Jannuzi} \& {Dey}(1999)}]{NOAODeep}
1636: %{Jannuzi}, B.~T. \& {Dey}, A. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific
1637: % Conference Series, Vol. 191, Photometric Redshifts and the Detection of High
1638: % Redshift Galaxies, ed. R.~{Weymann}, L.~{Storrie-Lombardi}, M.~{Sawicki}, \&
1639: % R.~{Brunner}, 111--+
1640: %
1641: %\bibitem[{{Jones} {et~al.}(2006){Jones}, {Gladman}, {Petit}, {Rousselot},
1642: % {Mousis}, {Kavelaars}, {Campo Bagatin}, {Bernabeu}, {Benavidez}, {Parker},
1643: % {Nicholson}, {Holman}, {Grav}, {Doressoundiram}, {Veillet}, {Scholl}, \&
1644: % {Mars}}]{2006Icar..185..508J}
1645: %{Jones}, R.~L. \et 2006, Icarus, 185, 508
1646: %
1647: %\bibitem[{{Juric} {et~al.}(2005){Juric}, {Ivezic}, {Brooks}, {Lupton},
1648: % {Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, {Padmanabhan}, {Bond}, {Rockosi}, {Knapp}, {Gunn},
1649: % {Sumi}, {Schneider}, {Barentine}, {Brewington}, {Brinkmann}, {Fukugita},
1650: % {Harvanek}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Jr.}, {Nitta},
1651: % {Snedden}, \& {York}}]{2005astro.ph.10520J}
1652: %{Juric}, M. \et 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1653: %
1654: %\bibitem[{{Kaiser}(2006)}]{2006IAUJD..13E...7K}
1655: %{Kaiser}, N. 2006, Exploiting Large Surveys for Galactic Astronomy, 26th
1656: % meeting of the IAU, Joint Discussion 13, 22-23 August 2006, Prague, Czech
1657: % Republic, JD13, \#7, 13
1658: %
1659: %\bibitem[{{Kuijken}(2006)}]{Kui}
1660: %{Kuijken}, K. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1661: %
1662: %\bibitem[{{Kushner} {et~al.}(2006){Kushner}, {Obric}, {West}, \&
1663: % {Dalcanton}}]{Kushner}
1664: %{Kushner}, L.~K. \et 2006, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 97.10
1665: %
1666: %\bibitem[{{Lupton} {et~al.}(2002){Lupton}, {Ivezic}, {Gunn}, {Knapp},
1667: % {Strauss}, \& {Yasuda}}]{2002SPIE.4836..350L}
1668: %{Lupton}, R.~H. \et 2002, in Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and
1669: % Discoveries. Edited by Tyson, J. Anthony; Wolff, Sidney. Proceedings of the
1670: % SPIE, Volume 4836, pp. 350-356 (2002)., ed. J.~A. {Tyson} \& S.~{Wolff},
1671: % 350--356
1672: %
1673: %\bibitem[{{Munn} {et~al.}(2004){Munn}, {Monet}, {Levine}, {Canzian}, {Pier},
1674: % {Harris}, {Lupton}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Hindsley}, {Hennessy}, {Schneider}, \&
1675: % {Brinkmann}}]{2004AJ....127.3034M}
1676: %{Munn}, J.~A. \et 2004, \aj, 127, 3034
1677: %
1678: %\bibitem[{{Pier} {et~al.}(2003){Pier}, {Munn}, {Hindsley}, {Hennessy}, {Kent},
1679: % {Lupton}, \& {Ivezi{\'c}}}]{2003AJ....125.1559P}
1680: %{Pier}, J.~R. \et 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
1681: %
1682: %\bibitem[{{Pinheiro da Silva} {et~al.}(2006){Pinheiro da Silva}, {Auvergne},
1683: % {Toublanc}, {Rowe}, {Kuschnig}, \& {Matthews}}]{Pin}
1684: %{Pinheiro da Silva}, L. \et 2006, \aap, 452, 363
1685: %
1686: %\bibitem[{{Roat} {et~al.}(2005){Roat}, {Wittman}, \&
1687: % {Tyson}}]{2005AAS...207.2631R}
1688: %{Roat}, C., {Wittman}, D., \& {Tyson}, J.~A. 2005, in Bulletin of the American
1689: % Astronomical Society, Vol.~37, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
1690: % 1207--+
1691: %
1692: %\bibitem[{Schechter {et~al.}(1993)Schechter, Mateo, \& Saha}]{Schechter93}
1693: %Schechter, P.~L., Mateo, M., \& Saha, A. 1993, \pasp, 105, 1342
1694: %
1695: %\bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2002){Smith}, {Rest}, {Hiriart}, {Becker}, {Stubbs},
1696: % {Valdes}, \& {Suntzeff}}]{2002SPIE.4836..395S}
1697: %{Smith}, C. \et 2002, in Survey and Other Telescope
1698: % Technologies and Discoveries. Edited by Tyson, J. Anthony; Wolff, Sidney.
1699: % Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 4836, pp. 395-405 (2002)., ed. J.~A. {Tyson}
1700: % \& S.~{Wolff}, 395--405
1701: %
1702: %\bibitem[{Stetson(1987)}]{Stetson87}
1703: %Stetson, P.~B. 1987, \pasp, 99, 191
1704: %
1705: %\bibitem[{Stetson(1994)}]{Stetson94}
1706: %---. 1994, \pasp, 106, 250
1707: %
1708: %\bibitem[{{Tanvir} {et~al.}(1995){Tanvir}, {Robinson}, \& {von
1709: % Hippel}}]{Tanvir}
1710: %{Tanvir}, N.~R., {Robinson}, D.~R.~T., \& {von Hippel}, T. 1995, ArXiv
1711: % Astrophysics e-prints
1712: %
1713: %\bibitem[{{Thomson} {et~al.}(1992){Thomson}, {Schade}, {Elson}, {Mackay}, \&
1714: % {Wilkins}}]{Thomson}
1715: %{Thomson}, R.~C. \et 1992, \mnras, 259, 104
1716: %
1717: %\bibitem[{{Tyson}(2006)}]{2006AIPC..870...44T}
1718: %{Tyson}, J.~A. 2006, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol.
1719: % 870, Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics: 9th Conference CIPAN2006,
1720: % 44--52
1721: %
1722: %\bibitem[{{Tyson} {et~al.}(2001){Tyson}, {Wittman}, {Dell'Antonio}, {Becker},
1723: % {Margoniner}, \& {DLS Team}}]{DLS}
1724: %{Tyson}, J.~A. \et 2001, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
1725: % Vol.~33, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 1464--+
1726: %
1727: %\bibitem[{{Wood-Vasey} {et~al.}(2007){Wood-Vasey}, {Miknaitis}, {Stubbs},
1728: % {Jha}, {Riess}, {Garnavich}, {Kirshner}, {Aguilera}, {Becker}, {Blackman},
1729: % {Blondin}, {Challis}, {Clocchiatti}, {Conley}, {Covarrubias}, {Davis},
1730: % {Filippenko}, {Foley}, {Garg}, {Hicken}, {Krisciunas}, {Leibundgut}, {Li},
1731: % {Matheson}, {Miceli}, {Narayan}, {Pignata}, {Prieto}, {Rest}, {Salvo},
1732: % {Schmidt}, {Smith}, {Sollerman}, {Spyromilio}, {Tonry}, {Suntzeff}, \&
1733: % {Zenteno}}]{2007astro.ph..1041W}
1734: %{Wood-Vasey}, W.~M. \et 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
1735: %
1736: %\bibitem[{{Zhan}(2006)}]{2006JCAP...08..008Z}
1737: %{Zhan}, H. 2006, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 8, 8
1738: %
1739: %\end{thebibliography}
1740:
1741: \clearpage
1742:
1743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1744: % Figures
1745:
1746: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1747: \begin{center}
1748: \leavevmode
1749: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f1.ps}
1750: \end{center}
1751: \caption[Run Time for {\tt OPTICS} as a Function of Leaf Size]{Run
1752: time for clustering 2.4 million points as a function of leaf size in
1753: the internal lean--tree database used by {\tt OPTICS}. Note the
1754: y-axis in units of $10^4$ seconds.}
1755: \label{fig-optics}
1756: \end{figure*}
1757:
1758: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1759: \begin{center}
1760: \leavevmode
1761: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2.ps}
1762: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f3.ps}
1763: \end{center}
1764: \caption[Example {\tt Sharp} for \dao]{Distribution of the {\tt
1765: Sharp} parameter for \dao\ reductions of $r$--band data from run
1766: 4207. The {\it left} figure shows objects that \photo\ classifies
1767: as stars, and the {\it right} figure objects that \photo\ classifies
1768: as galaxies. The data are split by magnitude into 4 bins. The
1769: dashed line shows the cumulative fraction. Note the distribution is
1770: symmetric around value 0.0 for stars and biased towards values
1771: greater than 0.0 for galaxies.}
1772: \label{fig-class_dao}
1773: \end{figure*}
1774:
1775: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1776: \begin{center}
1777: \leavevmode
1778: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f4.ps}
1779: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5.ps}
1780: \end{center}
1781: \caption[Example {\tt CLASS\_STAR} for \sex]{Distribution of the
1782: {\tt CLASS\_STAR} parameter for \sex\ reductions of $r$--band data
1783: from run 4207. The {\it top} panel shows objects that \photo\
1784: classifies as stars, and the {\it bottom} panel objects that \photo\
1785: classifies as galaxies. The data are split by magnitude into 4
1786: bins. The dashed line shows the cumulative fraction. Note the
1787: highly skewed distributions.}
1788: \label{fig-class_sex}
1789: \end{figure*}
1790:
1791: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1792: \begin{center}
1793: \leavevmode
1794: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f6.ps}
1795: \end{center}
1796: \caption[Color--Color Diagram; \dao\ vs. \photo]{These panels show
1797: $g-r$, $r-i$ diagrams (derived from the \photo\ magnitudes) for
1798: objects with $14 < r < 20$. These are the subset of objects that
1799: had detections in $g$, $r$, and $i$ in \dao\ and \photo\ from run
1800: 3437. In the upper left is the set of objects that both \dao\ and
1801: \photo\ called stars; in the upper right, \dao\ classified as a star
1802: and \photo\ classified as a galaxy; in the lower left, \dao\
1803: classified as a galaxy and \photo\ classified as a star; in the
1804: lower right, both algorithms classified as galaxies.}
1805: \label{fig-ccd_dao}
1806: \end{figure*}
1807:
1808: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1809: \begin{center}
1810: \leavevmode
1811: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f7.ps}
1812: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f8.ps}
1813: \end{center}
1814: \caption[$r$--band $\Delta$M for \dao]{Figure
1815: described in Section~\ref{sec_ana-centroid} for \dao's $r$--band
1816: photometry of stars. Figure on the left is for aperture photometry, on the right is PSF photometry.}
1817: \label{fig-dm_dao}
1818: \end{figure*}
1819:
1820:
1821: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1822: \begin{center}
1823: \leavevmode
1824: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f9.ps}
1825: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f10.ps}
1826: \end{center}
1827: \caption[Ellipticity Measurements; \sex\ 2.3.2. vs. \sex\ 2.4.4
1828: vs. \photo]{Comparison of run 3437 $r$-band galaxy ellipticity
1829: measurements in \sex\ and \photo. {\tt e1} is plotted as green
1830: triangles, and {\tt e2} as red squares. In each figure, the 4
1831: panels are for data in different $r$--band magnitude bins, and
1832: compare the shape measured in \sex\ on the $x$--axis, and \photo\
1833: on the $y$--axis. The {\it left} figure shows results from \sex\
1834: 2.3.2 and the {\it right} figure \sex\ 2.4.4. The lines show the
1835: best fits given in Table~\ref{tab-e_gal_sex}, dashed for {\tt e1}
1836: and solid for {\tt e2}.}
1837: \label{fig-e_sex}
1838: \end{figure*}
1839:
1840: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1841: \begin{center}
1842: \leavevmode
1843: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f11.ps}
1844: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f12.ps}
1845: \end{center}
1846: \caption[$\Delta$XY Plots for \sex]{Differences in measured stellar
1847: positions between \sex\ and \photo\ plotted as a function of
1848: magnitude for $z$--band data from run 4207. The $x$ coordinate is
1849: perpendicular to the scan direction in SDSS data. The {\it left}
1850: panel shows these results for \sex\ 2.3.2, while the {\it right}
1851: panel shows the results for \sex\ 2.4.4. These particular plots
1852: were chosen to demonstrate the improvements in centroiding between
1853: \sex\ versions 2.3.2 and 2.4.4.}
1854: \label{fig-centroid}
1855: \end{figure*}
1856:
1857:
1858: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1859: \begin{center}
1860: \leavevmode
1861: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f13.ps}
1862: \end{center}
1863: \caption[$\sigma_{\Delta M}$ vs Crowding for M2]{$\sigma_{\Delta M}$
1864: plotted as a function of local crowding conditions, derived from
1865: {\tt allframe} analysis of globular cluster M2, for the $r$--band
1866: data. We divided the image up into multiple regions and for each
1867: derived the width of the $\Delta$M distribution from the brightest 3
1868: magnitudes of stars. We normalized the number of {\it all} stars in
1869: each region by the area of the region and the average FWHM of the
1870: two images. The x--axis reflects the crowding conditions, and
1871: corresponds to the total number of stars per seeing disk.}
1872:
1873: \label{fig-M2deltaMvsCrowding}
1874: \end{figure*}
1875:
1876: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1877: \begin{center}
1878: \leavevmode
1879: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f14.ps}
1880: \end{center}
1881: \caption[Color--magnitude Diagram of M2]{Color--magnitude diagram
1882: (CMD) of M2 reconstructed from {\tt daophot} and {\tt allframe}
1883: analysis. All clustered objects classified by each algorithm as
1884: stars in both runs and in both the $r$ and $g$-bands were used. We
1885: also plot typical error bars in 8 magnitude bins. The {\tt
1886: allframe} CMD contains 70\% more points than the {\tt daophot} CMD,
1887: and reaches approximately 0.3 magnitudes deeper in the $r$--band.}
1888: \label{fig-M2_cmd}
1889: \end{figure*}
1890:
1891: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1892: \begin{center}
1893: \leavevmode
1894: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f15.ps}
1895: \end{center}
1896: \caption[\sex\ Memory Requirements vs. Time] {Detailed look at the
1897: average memory required by \sex\ as a function of time. The {\it
1898: solid} lines correspond to {\tt VmSize}, while the {\it dashed}
1899: lines correspond to {\tt VmRSS}. }
1900: \label{fig-mem1}
1901: \end{figure*}
1902:
1903: \begin{figure*}[htbp]
1904: \begin{center}
1905: \leavevmode
1906: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f16.ps}
1907: \end{center}
1908: \caption[\sex\ Processing Time vs. Number of Detections]
1909: {Plot of total \sex\ processing time as a function of number of
1910: detections in the image. The {\it red} circles are from the 2k $x$
1911: 2k images, {\it blue} squares from the 2k $x$ 4k images, and {\it
1912: green} triangles from the 4k $x$ 4k images. A joint fit to all the
1913: data is shown in black, with the functional form $y = 0.5468~x +
1914: 0.0007$.}
1915: \label{fig-sexds}
1916: \end{figure*}
1917:
1918:
1919:
1920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1921: % Tables
1922:
1923: \clearpage
1924:
1925: \begin{table}[htbp]
1926: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
1927: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
1928: \begin{center}
1929: \caption{\dao\ ``Sharp'' Distribution for \photo--Selected Stars}
1930: \label{tab-daosharp}
1931: \begin{tabular}{cll}
1932: \hline\hline
1933: {\em Filter} & {\em Mean} & {\em RMS} \\
1934: \hline
1935: u & 0.004 & 0.096 \\
1936: g & 0.001 & 0.062 \\
1937: r & 0.000 & 0.043 \\
1938: i & 0.003 & 0.045 \\
1939: z & 0.003 & 0.081 \\
1940: \hline
1941: \end{tabular}
1942: \end{center}
1943: Note. -- Distribution of \dao\ ``Sharp'' parameters for objects
1944: classified by \photo\ as stars. We find these distributions by
1945: combining all data from runs 3437 and 4207. These numbers were
1946: derived from the $3\sigma$ clipped distribution of {\tt Sharp}-ness
1947: parameters for all \dao\ measurements that were clustered with
1948: objects \photo\ classified as stars between $r = 14^{th}$ and $r =
1949: 20^{th}$ magnitude. \dao--selected stars are subsequently defined
1950: as anything having a sharpness within $\pm 3$ RMS of the mean.
1951: \dao--selected galaxies are objects with a sharpness larger than
1952: $+3$ RMS of the mean; objects with sharpness smaller than $-3$ RMS
1953: of the mean are likely cosmic rays or other defects.
1954: \end{table}
1955:
1956: \begin{table}[htbp]
1957: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
1958: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
1959: \begin{center}
1960: \caption{Object Classification; Algorithm vs. \photo}
1961: \label{tab-sg1}
1962: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
1963: \hline\hline
1964: {\em Algorithm} & {\em Run} & {\em Filter} & {\em S-S} & {\em S-G} & {\em G-S} & {\em G-G} \\
1965: \hline
1966: \dao\ & 3437 & g & 0.93 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.04 \\
1967: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 0.82 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.12 \\
1968: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 0.81 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.13 \\
1969: $\cdots$ & 4207 & g & 0.95 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 \\
1970: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 0.87 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.09 \\
1971: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 0.85 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.10 \\
1972: \hline
1973: \dop\ & 3437 & g & 0.93 & 0.04 & 0.00 & 0.03 \\
1974: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 0.87 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.05 \\
1975: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 0.83 & 0.13 & 0.00 & 0.04 \\
1976: $\cdots$ & 4207 & g & 0.96 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.03 \\
1977: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 0.91 & 0.05 & 0.00 & 0.04 \\
1978: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 0.87 & 0.09 & 0.00 & 0.03 \\
1979: \hline
1980: \sex\ & 3437 & g & 0.35 & 0.00 & 0.59 & 0.06 \\
1981: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 0.57 & 0.00 & 0.28 & 0.15 \\
1982: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 0.56 & 0.00 & 0.25 & 0.18 \\
1983: $\cdots$ & 4207 & g & 0.90 & 0.00 & 0.05 & 0.05 \\
1984: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 0.83 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.14 \\
1985: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 0.74 & 0.01 & 0.09 & 0.16 \\
1986: \hline
1987: \end{tabular}
1988: \end{center}
1989: Note. -- The fraction of total clustered objects brighter than 21st
1990: magnitude classified by the algorithm and \photo\ as a star (S-S);
1991: classified by the algorithm as a star and \photo\ as a galaxy (S-G);
1992: classified by the algorithm as a galaxy and \photo\ as a star (G-S);
1993: and classified by both the algorithm and \photo\ as a galaxy (G-G).
1994: This table indicates the degree of agreement between algorithms for
1995: a given set of data.
1996: \end{table}
1997:
1998:
1999: \begin{table}[htbp]
2000: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2001: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2002: \begin{center}
2003: \caption{Object Classification; Algorithm vs. Itself}
2004: \label{tab-sg2}
2005: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
2006: \hline\hline
2007: {\em Algorithm} & {\em Filter} & {\em S-S} & {\em S-G} & {\em G-S} & {\em G-G} \\
2008: \hline
2009: \dao\ & g & 0.77 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.12 \\
2010: $\cdots$ & r & 0.65 & 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.22 \\
2011: $\cdots$ & i & 0.68 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.20 \\
2012: \hline
2013: \dop\ & g & 0.92 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.04 \\
2014: $\cdots$ & r & 0.93 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.03 \\
2015: $\cdots$ & i & 0.93 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.04 \\
2016: \hline
2017: \photo\ & g & 0.94 & 0.02 & 0.00 & 0.04 \\
2018: $\cdots$ & r & 0.90 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.08 \\
2019: $\cdots$ & i & 0.86 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.11 \\
2020: \hline
2021: \sex\ & g & 0.23 & 0.58 & 0.01 & 0.17 \\
2022: $\cdots$ & r & 0.43 & 0.35 & 0.01 & 0.21 \\
2023: $\cdots$ & i & 0.45 & 0.24 & 0.02 & 0.29 \\
2024: \hline
2025: \end{tabular}
2026: \end{center}
2027: Note. -- The fraction of total clustered objects brighter than 21st
2028: magnitude classified by the algorithm in both runs as a star (S-S);
2029: classified as a star in run 4207 and galaxy in 3437 (S-G);
2030: classified as a galaxy in run 4207 and star in 3437 (G-S); and as a
2031: galaxy in both runs (G-G). This table indicates the degree of
2032: agreement within a given algorithm for a given set of objects.
2033: \end{table}
2034:
2035: \begin{table}[htbp]
2036: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2037: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2038: \begin{center}
2039: \caption{Width of $\Delta$M Distribution For \photo--Selected Stars}
2040: \label{tab-deltaM1}
2041: \begin{tabular}{llccccc}
2042: \hline\hline
2043: {\em Algorithm} & {\em Magnitude} & {\em u} & {\em g} & {\em r} & {\em i} & {\em z} \\
2044: \hline
2045: \dao\ & Aperture & 0.027 & {\bf 0.006} & {\bf 0.006} & {\bf 0.007} & 0.015 \\
2046: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.032 & 0.018 & 0.018 & 0.017 & 0.017\\
2047: \hline
2048: \dop\ & Aperture & 0.024 & 0.009 & 0.008 & 0.008 & 0.011\\
2049: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.031 & 0.026 & 0.031 & 0.037 & 0.031\\
2050: \hline
2051: \photo\ & Aperture & 0.027 & {\bf 0.007} & {\bf 0.006} & {\bf 0.007} & 0.015 \\
2052: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.029 & 0.019 & 0.019 & 0.021 & 0.019\\
2053: \hline
2054: \sex\ 2.3.2 & Aperture & 0.057 & 0.009 & 0.008 & 0.010 & 0.035 \\
2055: $\cdots$ & PSF & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
2056: \hline
2057: \sex\ 2.4.4 & Aperture & 0.057 & 0.009 & 0.008 & 0.010 & 0.035 \\
2058: $\cdots$ & PSF & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
2059: \hline
2060: \end{tabular}
2061: \end{center}
2062: Note. -- Characteristic widths of $\Delta$M , evaluated 1 magnitude
2063: below the brightest non--saturated object, representing the
2064: repeatability of photometric measurements of objects classified by
2065: \photo\ as stars, as described in Section~\ref{sec-phot}.
2066: Measurements compatible with LSST's science requirements (0.007
2067: magnitudes) are highlighted in bold.
2068: \end{table}
2069:
2070:
2071: \begin{table}[htbp]
2072: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2073: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2074: \begin{center}
2075: \caption{Width of Stellar r--band $\Delta$M Distribution Algorithm to Algorithm; Aperture Magnitudes}
2076: \label{tab-deltaM5}
2077: \begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
2078: \hline\hline
2079: & {\em \dao} & {\em \dop} & {\em \photo} & {\em \sex 2.4.4} \\
2080: \hline
2081: \dao\ & $\cdots$ & 0.011 & 0.009 & 0.009 \\
2082: \dop\ & 0.007 & $\cdots$ & 0.007 & 0.010 \\
2083: \photo\ & 0.006 & 0.005 & $\cdots$ & 0.008 \\
2084: \sex\ 2.4.4& 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.005 & $\cdots$ \\
2085: \hline
2086: \end{tabular}
2087: \end{center}
2088: Note. -- Comparison of the characteristic width of $\Delta$M at the
2089: bright end of the distribution derived from comparisons of different
2090: algorithms on the same images. The upper triangular matrix reflects
2091: r--band aperture measurements of \photo-selected stars seen in run
2092: 3437, and the lower triangular for run 4207.
2093: \end{table}
2094:
2095:
2096: \begin{table}[htbp]
2097: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2098: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2099: \begin{center}
2100: \caption{Width of Stellar r--band $\Delta$M Distribution Algorithm to Algorithm; PSF Magnitudes}
2101: \label{tab-deltaM7}
2102: \begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
2103: \hline\hline
2104: & {\em \dao} & {\em \dop} & {\em \photo} \\
2105: \hline
2106: \dao\ & $\cdots$ & 0.033 & 0.018 \\
2107: \dop\ & 0.031 & $\cdots$ & 0.032 \\
2108: \photo\ & 0.018 & 0.025 & $\cdots$ \\
2109: \hline
2110: \end{tabular}
2111: \end{center}
2112: Note. -- Comparison of the characteristic width of $\Delta$M at the
2113: bright end of the distribution derived from comparisons of different
2114: algorithms on the same images. The upper triangular matrix reflects
2115: r--band aperture measurements of \photo-selected galaxies seen in
2116: run 3437, and the lower triangular for run 4207.
2117: \end{table}
2118:
2119:
2120: \begin{table}[htbp]
2121: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2122: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2123: \begin{center}
2124: \caption{Width of $\Delta$M Distribution For \photo-Selected Stars; PSF vs. Aperture Magnitudes}
2125: \label{tab-deltaM9}
2126: \begin{tabular}{llccccc}
2127: \hline\hline
2128: {\em Algorithm} & {\em Run} & {\em u} & {\em g} & {\em r} & {\em i} & {\em z} \\
2129: \hline
2130: \dao\ & 3437 & 0.021 & 0.013 & 0.013 & 0.016 & 0.021 \\
2131: $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.021 & 0.016 & 0.014 & 0.019 & 0.024 \\
2132: \hline
2133: \dop\ & 3437 & 0.022 & 0.018 & 0.024 & 0.028 & 0.030 \\
2134: $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.017 & 0.018 & 0.027 & 0.034 & 0.024 \\
2135: \hline
2136: \photo\ & 3437 & 0.021 & 0.014 & 0.012 & 0.013 & 0.015 \\
2137: $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.020 & 0.017 & 0.014 & 0.015 & 0.018 \\
2138: \hline
2139: \end{tabular}
2140: \end{center}
2141: Note. -- Characteristic widths representing the repeatability of
2142: photometric measurements of objects classified by \photo\ as stars,
2143: as described in Section~\ref{sec-phot}. This table compares
2144: aperture vs. PSF magnitudes, and is primarily sensitive to spatial
2145: variations in the aperture corrections to PSF photometry.
2146: \end{table}
2147:
2148: \begin{table}[htbp]
2149: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2150: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2151: \begin{center}
2152: \caption{Width of $\Delta$M Distribution For Algorithm--Selected Stars}
2153: \label{tab-deltaM3}
2154: \begin{tabular}{llccccc}
2155: \hline\hline
2156: {\em Algorithm} & {\em Magnitude} & {\em u} & {\em g} & {\em r} & {\em i} & {\em z} \\
2157: \hline
2158: \dao\ & Aperture & 0.017 & {\bf 0.007} & {\bf 0.007} & 0.008 & {\bf 0.006} \\
2159: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.030 & 0.020 & 0.018 & 0.016 & 0.017\\
2160: \hline
2161: \dop\ & Aperture & 0.017 & 0.009 & 0.009 & 0.009 & {\bf 0.007} \\
2162: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.027 & 0.026 & 0.032 & 0.036 & 0.027\\
2163: \hline
2164: \photo\ & Aperture & 0.027 & {\bf 0.007} & {\bf 0.006} & {\bf 0.007} & 0.015 \\
2165: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.029 & 0.019 & 0.019 & 0.021 & 0.019 \\
2166: \hline
2167: \sex\ 2.4.4& Aperture & 0.019 & {\bf 0.007} & 0.009 &0.010 & 0.011 \\
2168: $\cdots$ & PSF & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ \\
2169: \hline
2170: \end{tabular}
2171: \end{center}
2172: Note. -- We repeat the analysis summarized in
2173: Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1} but instead use the algorithm's
2174: classification scheme instead of \photo's
2175: (Section~\ref{sec_ana-stargal}). Objects must be classified as
2176: stars in both runs. \photo\ results are the same as in
2177: Table~\ref{tab-deltaM1}.
2178: \end{table}
2179:
2180: \begin{table}[htbp]
2181: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2182: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2183: \begin{center}
2184: \caption{Comparison of Stellar $r$-band Ellipticities}
2185: \label{tab-e_star_sex}
2186: \begin{tabular}{cccrrr}
2187: \hline\hline
2188: {\em Ellipticity} & {\em Algorithm} & {\em Run} & {\em RMS} & {\em Intercept} & {\em Slope} \\
2189: \hline
2190: e1 & \sex\ 2.3.2 & 3437 & 0.026 & 0.020 & 0.406 \\
2191: e2 & $\cdots$ & 3437 & 0.021 & -0.033 & 0.447 \\
2192: e1 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.034 & -0.051 & 0.393 \\
2193: e2 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.030 & 0.014 & 0.420 \\
2194: \hline
2195: e1 & \sex\ 2.4.4 & 3437 & 0.002 & -0.003 & 2.046 \\
2196: e2 & $\cdots$ & 3437 & 0.001 & -0.000 & 2.060 \\
2197: e1 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.004 & -0.016 & 2.141 \\
2198: e2 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 2.181 \\
2199: \hline
2200: \end{tabular}
2201: \end{center}
2202: Note. -- Comparison of \photo\ and \sex\ $r$-band ellipticity
2203: measures for \photo-selected stars with $14 < r < 20$. We fit a
2204: line to the relationship and evaluate the RMS perpendicular to the
2205: principal axis. \sex\ 2.3.2 uses ``isophotal'' shape measures, and
2206: \sex\ 2.4.4 ``windowed'' shape measures.
2207: \end{table}
2208:
2209: \begin{table}[htbp]
2210: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2211: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2212: \begin{center}
2213: \caption{Comparison of Galaxy $r$-band Ellipticities}
2214: \label{tab-e_gal_sex}
2215: \begin{tabular}{cccrrr}
2216: \hline\hline
2217: {\em Ellipticity} & {\em Algorithm} & {\em Run} & {\em RMS} & {\em Intercept} & {\em Slope} \\
2218: \hline
2219: e1 & \sex\ 2.3.2 & 3437 & 0.036 & 0.005 & 0.987 \\
2220: e2 & $\cdots$ & 3437 & 0.037 & -0.002 & 0.976 \\
2221: e1 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.037 & -0.001 & 0.976 \\
2222: e2 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.038 & 0.004 & 0.973 \\
2223: \hline
2224: e1 & \sex\ 2.4.4 & 3437 & 0.016 & 0.005 & 1.834 \\
2225: e2 & $\cdots$ & 3437 & 0.015 & -0.004 & 1.848 \\
2226: e1 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.016 & -0.001 & 1.825 \\
2227: e2 & $\cdots$ & 4207 & 0.017 & 0.002 & 1.842 \\
2228: \hline
2229: \end{tabular}
2230: \end{center}
2231: Note. -- Same as Table~\ref{tab-e_star_sex}, but for \photo-selected galaxies.
2232: \end{table}
2233:
2234:
2235: \begin{table*}[htbp]
2236: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2237: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2238: \begin{center}
2239: \caption{Centroiding Offsets (in Pixels) for Stars as a Function of Magnitude}
2240: \label{tab-centroid2a}
2241: \begin{tabular}{cccrrrrrrr}
2242: \hline\hline
2243: {\em Algorithm} & {\em Run} & {\em Filter} & {\em M0} & {\em A$_x$} & {\em B$_x$} & {\em C$_x$} & {\em A$_y$} & {\em B$_y$} & {\em C$_y$}\\
2244: \hline
2245: \dao\ & 3437 & u & 16.41 & 0.000 & 0.002 & 0.000 & -0.001 & 0.000 & -0.000 \\
2246: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.29 & 0.002 & -0.001 & 0.000 & -0.003 & 0.005 & -0.001 \\
2247: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.79 & -0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 & -0.005 & 0.004 & -0.001 \\
2248: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.61 & -0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 & -0.003 & 0.003 & -0.001 \\
2249: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.44 & 0.003 & -0.003 & 0.000 & -0.001 & 0.002 & -0.000 \\
2250: % $\cdots$ & 4207 & u & 16.40 & 0.006 & -0.007 & 0.001 & -0.001 & 0.001 & -0.000 \\
2251: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.29 & 0.004 & -0.003 & 0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 & -0.000 \\
2252: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.78 & -0.001 & 0.001 & -0.000 & 0.001 & -0.001 & 0.000 \\
2253: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.61 & 0.001 & 0.000 & -0.000 & -0.000 & 0.001 & -0.000 \\
2254: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.44 & 0.005 & -0.004 & 0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 & 0.000 \\
2255: % \hline
2256: % \dop\ & 3437 & u & 16.24 & 0.014 & -0.012 & 0.000 & -0.005 & 0.006 & -0.001 \\
2257: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.26 & 0.013 & -0.009 & -0.001 & -0.001 & 0.002 & -0.000 \\
2258: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.99 & 0.008 & -0.002 & -0.000 & -0.009 & 0.005 & -0.000 \\
2259: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.71 & 0.006 & -0.001 & -0.000 & -0.012 & 0.005 & 0.000 \\
2260: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.29 & 0.013 & -0.005 & -0.000 & -0.012 & 0.005 & 0.000 \\
2261: % $\cdots$ & 4207 & u & 16.25 & 0.022 & -0.022 & -0.001 & -0.007 & 0.010 & -0.003 \\
2262: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.25 & 0.036 & -0.025 & 0.001 & 0.011 & -0.006 & -0.000 \\
2263: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.99 & 0.020 & -0.010 & -0.000 & -0.001 & 0.001 & -0.000 \\
2264: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.71 & 0.025 & -0.015 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 \\
2265: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.29 & 0.026 & -0.014 & 0.001 & -0.002 & 0.001 & -0.000 \\
2266: % \hline
2267: % \sex\ 2.3.2 & 3437 & u & 16.43 & -0.020 & 0.036 & -0.012 & -0.022 & 0.034 & -0.004 \\
2268: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.34 & -0.014 & 0.020 & -0.005 & -0.029 & 0.023 & -0.002 \\
2269: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.78 & -0.025 & 0.021 & -0.003 & -0.036 & 0.019 & 0.000 \\
2270: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.63 & -0.029 & 0.024 & -0.004 & -0.039 & 0.019 & 0.000 \\
2271: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.43 & 0.004 & 0.010 & -0.004 & -0.035 & 0.019 & -0.000 \\
2272: % $\cdots$ & 4207 & u & 16.42 & -0.013 & 0.038 & -0.017 & -0.016 & 0.022 & -0.003 \\
2273: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.35 & -0.013 & 0.032 & -0.010 & -0.016 & 0.019 & -0.003 \\
2274: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.77 & -0.019 & 0.021 & -0.004 & -0.018 & 0.009 & 0.001 \\
2275: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.63 & -0.026 & 0.030 & -0.007 & -0.025 & 0.014 & -0.001 \\
2276: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.43 & 0.023 & 0.008 & -0.007 & -0.017 & 0.013 & -0.002 \\
2277: % \hline
2278: % \sex\ 2.4.4 & 3437 & u & 16.43 & -0.005 & 0.009 & -0.002 & 0.001 & -0.000 & 0.000 \\
2279: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.34 & -0.000 & 0.001 & -0.000 & -0.001 & 0.001 & -0.000 \\
2280: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.78 & 0.000 &-0.000 & -0.000 & -0.003 & 0.003 & -0.000 \\
2281: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.63 & -0.001 & 0.002 & -0.000 & -0.004 & 0.003 & -0.001 \\
2282: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.43 & 0.003 &-0.001 & -0.000 & -0.005 & 0.002 & -0.000 \\
2283: % $\cdots$ & 4207 & u & 16.42 & 0.002 &-0.002 & -0.000 & -0.001 & 0.002 & -0.001 \\
2284: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & g & 15.35 & 0.002 &-0.000 & -0.000 & -0.000 & 0.001 & -0.000 \\
2285: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & r & 14.77 & -0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 \\
2286: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & i & 14.63 & 0.003 &-0.002 & 0.000 & -0.000 & 0.000 & -0.000 \\
2287: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & z & 14.43 & 0.004 &-0.002 & 0.000 & -0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
2288: \hline
2289: \end{tabular}
2290: \end{center}
2291: Note. -- Table~\ref{tab-centroid2a} is published in its entirety in the
2292: electronic edition of the PASP. A portion is shown here for guidance
2293: regarding its form and content.
2294:
2295: -- Results of the analysis described in
2296: Section~\ref{sec_ana-centroid} for \photo-selected stars.
2297: Coefficients subscripted $x$ are for the x--axis offsets, $y$ are
2298: for the y--axis. This analysis tests systematics in centroiding as
2299: a function of magnitude.
2300:
2301: \end{table*}
2302:
2303: \begin{table}[htbp]
2304: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2305: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2306: \begin{center}
2307: \caption{$r$--band Centroiding RMS$_x$ (in Pixels) for \photo-Selected Stars; Algorithm vs Algorithm}
2308: \label{tab-centroid2c}
2309: \begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
2310: \hline\hline
2311: & {\em \dao} & {\em \dop} & {\em \photo} & {\em \sex 2.4.4} \\
2312: \hline
2313: \dao\ & $\cdots$ & 0.008 & 0.029 & 0.007 \\
2314: \dop\ & 0.011 & $\cdots$ & 0.024 & 0.004 \\
2315: \photo\ & 0.030 & 0.021 & $\cdots$ & 0.024 \\
2316: \sex\ 2.4.4& 0.011 & 0.007 & 0.021 & $\cdots$ \\
2317: \hline
2318: \end{tabular}
2319: \end{center}
2320: Note. -- Width of the stellar positional offset distribution
2321: evaluated 1 magnitude below the brightest object. The upper
2322: triangular matrix reflects r--band measurements of \photo-selected
2323: stars in run 3437, and the lower triangular for run 4207.
2324: \end{table}
2325:
2326: \begin{table}[htbp]
2327: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2328: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2329: \begin{center}
2330: \caption{Comparison of Photometric Depth}
2331: \label{tab-depth}
2332: \begin{tabular}{lllccc|cc}
2333: \hline\hline
2334: {\em Run} & {\em Filter} & {\em Magnitude} & {\em \dao} & {\em \dop} &{\em \photo} & {\em \sex} & {\em \photo$^*$} \\
2335: \hline
2336: 3437 & u & M$_{max}$ & 20.36 & 20.91 & 22.00 & 19.99 & 19.99 \\
2337: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.63 & 21.81 & 22.54 & 21.98 & 22.16 \\
2338: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 21.99 & 21.99 & 23.45 & 23.25 & 23.07 \\
2339: \hline
2340: $\cdots$ & g & M$_{max}$ & 20.68 & 22.34 & 22.55 & 19.44 & 20.27 \\
2341: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.71 & 22.75 & 22.96 & 21.10 & 22.75 \\
2342: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.13 & 22.96 & 23.58 & 22.13 & 23.58 \\
2343: % \hline
2344: % $\cdots$ & r & M$_{max}$ & 20.53 & 22.04 & 22.25 & 19.90 & 18.17 \\
2345: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 22.03 & 22.46 & 22.68 & 20.97 & 21.83 \\
2346: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.46 & 22.68 & 22.89 & 22.05 & 22.91 \\
2347: % \hline
2348: % $\cdots$ & i & M$_{max}$ & 20.35 & 21.46 & 21.68 & 19.07 & 19.07 \\
2349: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.24 & 21.90 & 22.12 & 20.63 & 21.75 \\
2350: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 21.68 & 22.12 & 22.34 & 21.75 & 22.87 \\
2351: % \hline
2352: % $\cdots$ & z & M$_{max}$ & 19.22 & 20.11 & 20.34 & 17.78 & 18.69 \\
2353: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 20.55 & 20.55 & 20.78 & 19.14 & 20.74 \\
2354: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 20.78 & 20.78 & 21.22 & 20.29 & 21.89 \\
2355: % \hline
2356: % \hline
2357: % 4207 & u & M$_{max}$ & 20.66 & 21.16 & 22.16 & 19.97 & 20.81 \\
2358: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.82 & 21.65 & 22.82 & 21.81 & 22.48 \\
2359: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.16 & 21.99 & 23.49 & 22.98 & 23.32 \\
2360: % \hline
2361: % $\cdots$ & g & M$_{max}$ & 20.95 & 21.71 & 22.86 & 19.97 & 19.97 \\
2362: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 22.09 & 22.09 & 23.23 & 21.50 & 22.84 \\
2363: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.28 & 22.28 & 23.61 & 22.46 & 23.61 \\
2364: % \hline
2365: % $\cdots$ & r & M$_{max}$ & 20.63 & 22.01 & 22.60 & 19.84 & 17.86 \\
2366: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 22.40 & 22.40 & 22.79 & 21.22 & 22.01 \\
2367: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.79 & 22.59 & 22.99 & 22.41 & 23.00 \\
2368: % \hline
2369: % $\cdots$ & i & M$_{max}$ & 20.38 & 21.18 & 21.97 & 19.31 & 19.51 \\
2370: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.37 & 21.57 & 22.16 & 20.73 & 21.75 \\
2371: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 21.57 & 21.76 & 22.36 & 21.55 & 22.97 \\
2372: % \hline
2373: % $\cdots$ & z & M$_{max}$ & 19.66 & 20.07 & 20.48 & 17.76 & 18.83 \\
2374: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 20.48 & 20.48 & 20.89 & 19.68 & 20.76 \\
2375: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 20.89 & 20.68 & 21.51 & 20.97 & 22.05 \\
2376: \hline
2377: \end{tabular}
2378: \end{center}
2379: %
2380: Note. -- Table~\ref{tab-depth} is published in its entirety in the
2381: electronic edition of the PASP. A portion is shown here for guidance
2382: regarding its form and content.
2383:
2384: -- Comparison of the photometric depths of each algorithm. We
2385: use three numbers to characterize this quantity. M$_{max}$
2386: represents the maximum of the measured star count histogram; M$_{95}$
2387: is the bin below which 95\% of the stars are contained; M$_{99}$ is
2388: the bin below which 99\% of the stars are. PSF magnitudes are used
2389: to compare \dao, \dop, and \photo. For \sex, we use \photo's
2390: aperture magnitudes, listed as \photo$^*$, for comparison.
2391: \end{table}
2392:
2393: \begin{table}[htbp]
2394: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2395: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2396: \begin{center}
2397: \caption{Width of $\Delta$M Distribution For Algorithm--Selected Stars in M2}
2398: \label{tab-M2deltaM}
2399: \begin{tabular}{llccccc}
2400: \hline\hline
2401: {\em Algorithm} & {\em Magnitude} & {\em u} & {\em g} & {\em r} & {\em i} & {\em z} \\
2402: \hline
2403: {\tt daophot} & Aperture & 0.015 & 0.013 & 0.036 & 0.029 & 0.016 \\
2404: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.024 & 0.032 & 0.018 & 0.015 & 0.016 \\
2405: {\tt allframe} & Aperture & 0.026 & 0.012 & 0.036 & 0.031 & 0.017 \\
2406: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.018 & 0.020 & 0.014 & 0.011 & 0.011 \\
2407: \hline
2408: {\tt allframe} & Aperture & 0.039 & 0.024 & 0.046 & 0.045 & 0.023 \\
2409: $\cdots$ & PSF & 0.020 & 0.028 & 0.018 & 0.014 & 0.012 \\
2410: \hline
2411: \end{tabular}
2412: \end{center}
2413: Note. -- We repeat the analyses summarized in
2414: Section~\ref{sec-phot} for globular cluster M2. We restrict
2415: our analyses to the algorithms {\tt daophot} and {\tt allframe}. The
2416: first set of {\tt allframe} results correspond to objects classified
2417: by {\tt daophot} as stars. The second set correspond to objects
2418: classified by {\tt allframe} as stars.
2419: \end{table}
2420:
2421: \begin{table}[htbp]
2422: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2423: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2424: \begin{center}
2425: \caption{Width of $\Delta$M Distribution in M2 as a Function of Crowding}
2426: \label{tab-M2deltaMvsCrowding}
2427: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
2428: \hline\hline
2429: {\em Filter} & {\em Intercept} & {\em Slope} \\
2430: \hline
2431: u & 0.020 & 0.121 \\
2432: g & 0.018 & 0.134 \\
2433: r & 0.008 & 0.103 \\
2434: i & 0.008 & 0.077 \\
2435: z & 0.007 & 0.050 \\
2436: \hline
2437: \end{tabular}
2438: \end{center}
2439: Note. -- We repeat the analyses summarized in Section~\ref{sec-phot}
2440: for globular cluster M2, this time plotting $\Delta$M as a function
2441: of crowding conditions in the image. The $r$--band data are plotted
2442: in Figure~\ref{fig-M2deltaMvsCrowding}.
2443: \end{table}
2444:
2445:
2446: \begin{table}[htbp]
2447: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2448: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2449: \begin{center}
2450: \caption{Comparison of Photometric Depth in M2}
2451: \label{tab-M2depth}
2452: \begin{tabular}{lllcc}
2453: \hline\hline
2454: {\em Run} & {\em Filter} & {\em Magnitude} & {\em {\tt daophot}} & {\em {\tt allframe}} \\
2455: \hline
2456: 3437 & u & M$_{max}$ & 20.25 & 20.65 \\
2457: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.84 & 22.44 \\
2458: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.24 & 22.84 \\
2459: \hline
2460: $\cdots$ & g & M$_{max}$ & 20.80 & 20.80 \\
2461: $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 22.14 & 22.91 \\
2462: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.53 & 23.49 \\
2463: % \hline
2464: % $\cdots$ & r & M$_{max}$ & 20.55 & 20.91 \\
2465: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 22.37 & 22.55 \\
2466: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.74 & 22.92 \\
2467: % \hline
2468: % $\cdots$ & i & M$_{max}$ & 20.38 & 20.38 \\
2469: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.65 & 22.01 \\
2470: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.01 & 22.56 \\
2471: % \hline
2472: % $\cdots$ & z & M$_{max}$ & 19.56 & 19.95 \\
2473: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 20.53 & 21.30 \\
2474: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 20.91 & 21.49 \\
2475: % \hline
2476: % \hline
2477: % 4207 & u & M$_{max}$ & 20.16 & 20.76 \\
2478: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.75 & 22.55 \\
2479: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.15 & 22.75 \\
2480: % \hline
2481: % $\cdots$ & g & M$_{max}$ & 20.99 & 20.99 \\
2482: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 22.13 & 22.89 \\
2483: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.51 & 23.46 \\
2484: % \hline
2485: % $\cdots$ & r & M$_{max}$ & 20.51 & 20.51 \\
2486: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 22.16 & 22.35 \\
2487: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 22.53 & 22.90 \\
2488: % \hline
2489: % $\cdots$ & i & M$_{max}$ & 20.23 & 20.23 \\
2490: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 21.51 & 22.06 \\
2491: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 21.88 & 22.42 \\
2492: % \hline
2493: % $\cdots$ & z & M$_{max}$ & 19.36 & 20.14 \\
2494: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{95}$ & 20.73 & 21.31 \\
2495: % $\cdots$ & $\cdots$ & M$_{99}$ & 21.12 & 21.51 \\
2496: \hline
2497: \end{tabular}
2498: \end{center}
2499:
2500: Note. -- Table~\ref{tab-M2depth} is published in its entirety in the
2501: electronic edition of the PASP. A portion is shown here for guidance
2502: regarding its form and content.
2503:
2504: -- Comparison of the photometric depths of each algorithm.
2505: We use three numbers to characterize this quantity. M$_{max}$
2506: represents the maximum of the measured star count histogram;
2507: M$_{95}$ is the bin below which 95\% of the stars are contained;
2508: M$_{99}$ is the bin below which 99\% of the stars are. PSF
2509: magnitudes are used in this comparison.
2510: \end{table}
2511:
2512:
2513: \begin{table}[htbp]
2514: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2515: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2516: \begin{center}
2517: \caption{Algorithm Processing Time as a Function of The Number of Sources}
2518: \label{tab-timefit}
2519: \begin{tabular}{llccc}
2520: \hline\hline
2521: {\em Algorithm} & {\em SDSS Run} & {\em Slope} & {\em y-Intercept} \\
2522: {\em } & {\em } & {\em (sec/\#Det)} & {\em (sec)} \\
2523: \hline \hline
2524: \dao\ & 3437 & 0.260 & 10 \\
2525: & 4207 & 0.090 & 170 \\
2526: \hline
2527: \dop\ & 3437 & 0.025 & 101 \\
2528: & 4207 & \nodata & \nodata \\
2529: \hline
2530: \sex\ v2.3.2 & 3437 & 0.010 & 4.2 \\
2531: & 4207 & 0.001 & 4.3 \\
2532: \hline
2533: \sex\ v2.4.4 & 3437 & 0.001 & 4.5 \\
2534: & 4207 & 0.001 & 4.7 \\
2535: \hline \hline
2536: \end{tabular}
2537: \end{center}
2538: %
2539: Note. -- Scaling of processing time with the number of sources in
2540: the images. We determine the time it takes each algorithm to
2541: process one image versus the number of sources detected in that
2542: image. We find the linear trend with source number, listing here
2543: the slope and intercept.
2544: %
2545: \end{table}
2546:
2547: \begin{table*}[htbp]
2548: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
2549: \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{10pt}
2550: \begin{center}
2551: \caption{\sex\ Profiling}
2552: \label{sexds}
2553: {\footnotesize
2554: \begin{tabular}{llcrllrr}
2555: \hline\hline
2556: {\em Image} & {\em NObj} & {\em Size} & {\em BITPIX} & {\em VmSize kB} & {\em VmR
2557: SS kB} & {\em Time (s)} & {\em RMS (s)} \\
2558: \hline
2559: r-003437\_0170 & 750 & 2k x 2k & 16 & 26134 (3.1) & 16552 (2.0) & 0.95 & 0.01 \\
2560: & & & 32 & 25943 (1.5) & 16435 (1.0) & 0.98 & 0.02 \\
2561: & & & -32 & 26015 (1.5) & 16451 (1.0) & 0.97 & 0.01 \\
2562: & & & -64 & 26107 (0.8) & 16488 (0.5) & 1.09 & 0.02 \\
2563: & 1619 & 2k x 4k & 16 & 26724 (1.6) & 16698 (1.0) & 1.92 & 0.02 \\
2564: % & & & 32 & 26713 (0.8) & 16684 (0.5) & 1.97 & 0.02 \\
2565: % & & & -32 & 26724 (0.8) & 16698 (0.5) & 1.96 & 0.03 \\
2566: % & & & -64 & 26724 (0.4) & 16699 (0.2) & 2.20 & 0.03 \\
2567: % & 3246 & 4k x 4k & 16 & 35870 (1.1) & 25687 (0.8) & 3.93 & 0.03 \\
2568: % & & & 32 & 35417 (0.5) & 25294 (0.4) & 4.02 & 0.03 \\
2569: % & & & -32 & 35445 (0.5) & 25322 (0.4) & 3.99 & 0.03 \\
2570: % & & & -64 & 35440 (0.3) & 25314 (0.2) & 4.45 & 0.04 \\
2571: %hline
2572: % r-003437\_0151 & 824 & 2k x 2k & 16 & 35907 (4.3) & 22974 (2.7) & 1.36 & 0.01 \\
2573: % & & & 32 & 35049 (2.1) & 22453 (1.3) & 1.37 & 0.01 \\
2574: % & & & -32 & 34895 (2.1) & 22053 (1.3) & 1.37 & 0.02 \\
2575: % & & & -64 & 35897 (1.1) & 23033 (0.7) & 1.49 & 0.02 \\
2576: % & 1664 & 2k x 4k & 16 & 38952 (2.3) & 24144 (1.4) & 2.35 & 0.02 \\
2577: % & & & 32 & 39077 (1.2) & 23372 (0.7) & 2.38 & 0.02 \\
2578: % & & & -32 & 39001 (1.2) & 23657 (0.7) & 2.38 & 0.02 \\
2579: % & & & -64 & 38342 (0.6) & 23299 (0.3) & 2.62 & 0.03 \\
2580: % & 3328 & 4k x 4k & 16 & 54257 (1.6) & 38386 (1.1) & 4.84 & 0.05 \\
2581: % & & & 32 & 54299 (0.8) & 38587 (0.6) & 4.89 & 0.04 \\
2582: % & & & -32 & 54320 (0.8) & 38007 (0.6) & 4.87 & 0.05 \\
2583: % & & & -64 & 54865 (0.4) & 38747 (0.3) & 5.33 & 0.05 \\
2584: %hline
2585: % r-004207\_0126 & 1511 & 2k x 2k & 16 & 26380 (3.1) & 16860 (2.0) & 1.25 & 0.02 \\
2586: % & & & 32 & 26358 (1.6) & 16832 (1.0) & 1.26 & 0.01 \\
2587: % & & & -32 & 26423 (1.6) & 16880 (1.0) & 1.26 & 0.02 \\
2588: % & & & -64 & 26464 (0.8) & 16920 (0.5) & 1.38 & 0.02 \\
2589: % & 7950 & 2k x 4k & 16 & 66872 (4.0) & 53131 (3.2) & 6.92 & 0.09 \\
2590: % & & & 32 & 66649 (2.0) & 52828 (1.6) & 6.94 & 0.08 \\
2591: % & & & -32 & 66722 (2.0) & 52999 (1.6) & 6.94 & 0.12 \\
2592: % & & & -64 & 66986 (1.0) & 53106 (0.8) & 7.19 & 0.11 \\
2593: % & 15883 & 4k x 4k & 16 & 75435 (2.3) & 61623 (1.8) & 11.78 & 0.16 \\
2594: % & & & 32 & 75216 (1.1) & 61489 (0.9) & 11.84 & 0.17 \\
2595: % & & & -32 & 75419 (1.1) & 61392 (0.9) & 11.83 & 0.17 \\
2596: % & & & -64 & 75829 (0.6) & 61779 (0.5) & 12.28 & 0.15 \\
2597: %hline
2598: % r-004207\_0052 & 1905 & 2k x 2k & 16 & 27294 (3.3) & 17268 (2.1) & 1.45 & 0.02 \\
2599: % & & & 32 & 27241 (1.6) & 17232 (1.0) & 1.47 & 0.01 \\
2600: % & & & -32 & 27334 (1.6) & 17313 (1.0) & 1.47 & 0.02 \\
2601: % & & & -64 & 27326 (0.8) & 17313 (0.5) & 1.58 & 0.02 \\
2602: % & 3870 & 2k x 4k & 16 & 27261 (1.6) & 17288 (1.0) & 2.90 & 0.02 \\
2603: % & & & 32 & 27408 (0.8) & 17378 (0.5) & 2.95 & 0.03 \\
2604: % & & & -32 & 27355 (0.8) & 17324 (0.5) & 2.94 & 0.02 \\
2605: % & & & -64 & 27296 (0.4) & 17304 (0.3) & 3.17 & 0.03 \\
2606: % & 7736 & 4k x 4k & 16 & 36850 (1.1) & 26733 (0.8) & 6.13 & 0.05 \\
2607: % & & & 32 & 36900 (0.6) & 26786 (0.4) & 6.22 & 0.07 \\
2608: % & & & -32 & 36711 (0.5) & 26568 (0.4) & 6.20 & 0.04 \\
2609: % & & & -64 & 36806 (0.3) & 26728 (0.2) & 6.67 & 0.09 \\
2610: \hline
2611: \end{tabular}
2612: }
2613: \end{center}
2614:
2615: Note. -- Table~\ref{sexds} is published in its entirety in the
2616: electronic edition of the PASP. A portion is shown here for guidance
2617: regarding its form and content.
2618:
2619: -- Average memory usage and processing time of \sex\ as a
2620: function of image size, bit depth, and number of sources. VmSize and
2621: VmRSS show the average {\it maximum} memory used; in parenthesis is
2622: this number as a fraction of the image size. The average total
2623: processing time and its RMS are also listed.
2624: \end{table*}
2625:
2626: % For astroph only!
2627: \clearpage
2628: %\appendix
2629: \include{appendix3}
2630:
2631: \end{document}
2632: