1: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}
2: \documentclass{aa}
3: \usepackage{rotating}
4: \usepackage{natbib}
5: \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}
6: \usepackage{txfonts}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8:
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \authorrunning{de Jong et al.}
13:
14:
15: \title{Ground-based variability surveys towards Centaurus A:
16: worthwhile or not?}
17:
18:
19: \author{Jelte~T.A.~de~Jong\inst{1,2}
20: \and Konrad~H.~Kuijken\inst{3,2}
21: \and Philippe~H\'eraudeau\inst{4,2}
22: }
23:
24: \offprints{Jelte~T.~A.~de~Jong, \email{dejong@mpia.de}}
25:
26: \institute{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, K\"onigstuhl 17,
27: D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany
28: \and
29: Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, PO Box 800,
30: 9700 AV, Groningen, the Netherlands
31: \and
32: Sterrewacht Leiden, University of Leiden, PO Box 9513, 2300 RA, Leiden,
33: the Netherlands
34: \and
35: Argelander Institut f\"ur Astronomie, Auf dem H\"ugel 71, D-53121 Bonn, Germany}
36:
37: \date{Received / Accepted }
38:
39: \abstract
40: {Difference imaging has proven to be a powerful technique for
41: detecting and monitoring the variability of unresolved stellar sources
42: in M 31. Using this technique in surveys of galaxies outside the
43: Local Group could have many interesting applications.}
44: {The goal of this paper is to test difference imaging photometry on
45: Centaurus A, the nearest giant elliptical galaxy, at a distance of 4
46: Mpc.}
47: {We obtained deep photometric data with the Wide
48: Field Imager at the ESO/MPG 2.2m at La Silla spread over almost two
49: months. Applying the difference imaging photometry package DIFIMPHOT,
50: we produced high-quality difference images and detected variable
51: sources. The sensitivity of the current observational setup was
52: determined through artificial residual tests.}
53: {In the resulting high-quality difference images, we detect 271
54: variable stars. We find a difference flux detection limit
55: corresponding to $m_R\simeq$24.5. Based on a simple model of the
56: halo of Centaurus A, we estimate that a ground-based microlensing
57: survey would detect in the order of 4 microlensing events per year
58: due to lenses in the halo.}
59: {Difference imaging photometry works very well at the distance of
60: Centaurus A and promises to be a useful tool for detecting and studying
61: variable stars in galaxies outside the local group. For microlensing
62: surveys, a higher sensitivity is needed than achieved here, which
63: would be possible with a large ground-based telescope or space
64: observatory with wide-field imaging capabilities.}
65:
66: \keywords{Galaxies: individual: Centaurus A - Galaxies: stellar
67: content - Stars: variables: general - Gravitational lensing}
68:
69: \maketitle
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72: \label{sec:intro}
73:
74: Using difference imaging techniques
75: \citep{tomaneycrotts,gould96,alard00} it is possible to detect and
76: monitor stellar variability in highly crowded fields where the
77: individual stars are unresolved. During the past decade these
78: techniques have been used to this aim by several microlensing surveys
79: towards the \object{Magellanic Clouds} \citep[e.g.][]{alcock00,tisserand07} and
80: the Andromeda galaxy (\object{M 31})
81: \citep[e.g.][]{riffeser03,calchi05,dejong06}. This has led to the
82: successful detection of several microlensing events and tens of
83: thousands of previously unknown variable stars in M31. Following these
84: results the question arises whether the application of these
85: techniques can be extended to even more distant objects. Both the
86: detection of variable stars and of microlensing in galaxies outside
87: the local group would have several interesting applications.
88:
89: The number of known variable stars in galaxies could be multiplied,
90: which would be interesting in itself, and also useful for, for
91: example, distance determination and the study of stellar populations
92: and star formation histories. Microlensing surveys outside the Local
93: Group would also be an important tool to study the luminosity
94: functions and the halo compact object content of galaxies other than
95: the Milky Way and M 31. On the one hand this would be useful as a
96: further measure of the contribution of massive compact halo objects
97: (MACHOs) to galaxy halos. On the other hand such microlensing surveys
98: could be an important step to the generalisation of the picture
99: obtained from the surveys in the Local Group. Both the Milky Way and
100: M31 are two large spiral galaxies in a relatively low-density
101: environment. It would be interesting to also study the compact object
102: content in the halos of galaxies in other environments or in the halos
103: of other types of galaxies.
104:
105: If the dark matter does indeed have a baryonic MACHO contribution,
106: this component could be different in elliptical galaxies compared to
107: spirals, since they are believed to have undergone different formation
108: histories and star formation episodes. Furthermore, elliptical
109: galaxies tend to live in more dense environments, where galactic
110: encounters are more common and old stellar populations would have been
111: pushed out to larger radii into the halo. Microlensing surveys in
112: elliptical galaxies would also enable the study of these stellar
113: halos, that might be important repositories of faint stellar mass.
114:
115: A first attempt at a microlensing survey in an elliptical galaxy was
116: made by \cite{baltz04}. Using observations taken with the Wide Field
117: and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) on the Hubble Space Telescope, they
118: performed a search for microlensing events in the giant elliptical
119: galaxy \object{M 87}. Due to the large distance to M 87 of about 16 Mpc
120: \citep{tonry01} doing this experiment proved difficult in practice. In
121: their study, \cite{baltz04} find only seven variable sources, 1 of which
122: is consistent with microlensing, although it is bluer than expected
123: for a typical microlensing event.
124:
125: In this paper we present a pilot study of a ground-based variability
126: study using difference imaging photometry towards the giant elliptical
127: galaxy \object{Centaurus A} (Cen A, \object{NGC 5128}). Apart from the
128: general interest of a variable star and microlensing study in an
129: elliptical galaxy discussed above, this survey would have additional
130: scientific interests. From the warped gas layer, the outer isophotes
131: and the kinematics of the planetary nebulae, there are indications
132: that the potential and therefore the halo around Centaurus A is
133: triaxial \citep{hui95}. This means that the lines-of-sight toward
134: different parts of the galaxy have different path-lengths through the
135: halo. Because of this, the microlensing event rate will be asymmetric
136: over the face of Cen A, much like the microlensing rate due to halo
137: lensing is asymmetric between the near and far side of the disk of M
138: 31. The spatial distribution of halo microlensing events could
139: therefore also be used to constrain the shape of the dark halo of Cen
140: A. Because the distance to Cen A \citep[4 Mpc,][]{tonry01} is much
141: smaller than the distance to M 87, the sensitivity will be much higher
142: and the crowding of variable sources much less strong. Nevertheless,
143: Cen A lies five times further away than M 31, so the project is not
144: without challenge.
145:
146: Section \ref{sec:data} describes the data and methods that were used
147: in this study. In Section \ref{subsec:variables} the resulting
148: difference images are described and the detected variable sources
149: presented. We determine the detection efficiency for variable sources
150: in Section \ref{subsec:deteff}. The prospects of ground-based (halo)
151: microlensing surveys towards Centaurus A are estimated in Section
152: \ref{sec:microlensing}, based on our results and a simple model of the
153: halo of Centaurus A. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:conclusions} we
154: present our conclusions.
155:
156:
157: \section{Data and methods}
158: \label{sec:data}
159:
160: Goal of the observational set-up was to obtain deep, 9\,000$s$,
161: photometry in the broad $R_c$ filter during each of a series of nights
162: spread over a several month period, resulting in both high sensitivity
163: and sufficient temporal coverage to detect faint variable sources.
164: Observations were done during 12 nights spread between April 15th and
165: June 8th 2005 with the Wide Field Imager \citep[WFI;][]{wfi} at the
166: ESO/MPG 2.2m telescope at La Silla, Chile. With its field-of-view of
167: 34\arcmin$\times$33\arcmin (pixel scale 0.238\arcsec per pixel) the
168: WFI enables the monitoring of Cen A in one single pointing. The total
169: exposure time per night was divided over 1\,000$s$ exposures to help
170: with cosmic ray rejection. A small subset of data was discarded
171: because of poor seeing ($>$1.3\arcsec), leaving data for 10 nights,
172: and 9 nights with the total exposure time of 8\,000$s$ or longer. A
173: summary of the exposure times and average seeings is listed in Table
174: \ref{tab:data}. The seeings listed are the average
175: of all exposures from the four central chips in the array, with the
176: quoted errors the standard deviation.
177:
178:
179: \begin{table}
180: \begin{center}
181: \caption{Summary of data used}
182: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
183: \hline
184: \hline
185: Date & Exposures & Total $t_{exp}$ & Seeing \\
186: ~ & ~ & (sec) & (\arcsec) \\
187: \hline
188: April 17 2005 & 4 & 4\,000 & 0.99$\pm$0.06 \\
189: April 30 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 0.83$\pm$0.10 \\
190: May 9 2005 & 8 & 8\,000 & 0.78$\pm$0.03 \\
191: May 11 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 0.84$\pm$0.13 \\
192: May 12 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 0.92$\pm$0.07 \\
193: May 29 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 1.00$\pm$0.14 \\
194: May 30 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 0.82$\pm$0.10 \\
195: May 31 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 0.80$\pm$0.13 \\
196: June 1 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 1.02$\pm$0.15 \\
197: June 8 2005 & 9 & 9\,000 & 0.79$\pm$0.07 \\
198: \hline
199: \end{tabular}
200: \label{tab:data}
201: \end{center}
202: \end{table}
203:
204: The data reduction was performed with the Astronomical Wide-Field
205: Imaging System for Europe\footnote{A detailed description of the system
206: can be found at the AstroWISE portal: www.astro-wise.org/portal}
207: \citep[AstroWISE,][]{astrowise}. A short description of the main steps
208: of the data reduction process is given here.
209:
210: \begin{itemize}
211: \item Bias subtraction:\\
212: For each night a master bias image was created from between 10 and 42
213: raw bias frames after doing an overscan correction and outlier
214: rejection. These master bias frames were subtracted from all
215: overscan-corrected science frames to remove 2-D bias patterns.
216: \item Flat-fielding:\\
217: Master dome and twilight flats were constructed for each night from
218: between 5 to 20 exposures. The master dome and twilight flat-fields
219: are combined into a master flat-field used to correct the science
220: frames.
221: \item Astrometry: \\
222: The astrometry was derived using routines from the Leiden Data
223: Analysis Center (LDAC). A preliminary astrometry is first estimated as
224: a simple shift of the 8 chips together to align the field with the
225: coordinates in the USNO A2.0 catalogue. The final astrometry for each
226: chip is derived by using 2nd order polynomials to fit the position of
227: stars detected in all exposures to their USNO coordinates.
228: \item Photometry:\\
229: Since the photometry of the images is scaled to a reference image
230: during the difference imaging procedure, only mean zero points were
231: computed in AstroWISE to convert the ADU flux of variable stars to
232: magnitudes. The zero points were derived as the median of the zero
233: points obtained from the Landolt standard fields observed during the
234: whole period of the observations assuming a mean extinction in $R_c$
235: of 0.09 mag. On average, 4 standard fields were observed per night,
236: with an average of 100 standard stars landing on each chip. The
237: zero points and their uncertainties are listed in Table
238: \ref{tab:zero_points}. The uncertainties are the standard deviations
239: of the zero points derived from all 40 standard field observations.
240:
241: \begin{table}
242: \begin{center}
243: \caption{Mean zero points and their uncertainties}
244: \begin{tabular}{l c c}
245: \hline
246: \hline
247: Chip & Zero Point & Uncertainty \\
248: ~ & (mag) & (mag) \\
249: \hline
250: ccd50 & 24.238 & 0.040\\
251: ccd51 & 24.334 & 0.048 \\
252: ccd52 & 24.113 & 0.040 \\
253: ccd53 & 24.312 & 0.035 \\
254: ccd54 & 24.311 & 0.029\\
255: ccd55 & 24.363 & 0.028\\
256: ccd56 & 24.293 & 0.034\\
257: ccd57 & 24.171 & 0.029 \\
258: \hline
259: \end{tabular}
260: \label{tab:zero_points}
261: \end{center}
262: \end{table}
263:
264: \item Resampling:\\
265: Finally, images were regridded to a pixel scale equal to
266: $0.2^{\prime\prime}$\mbox{$\mathrm{pix^{-1}}$} using the {\it
267: LANCZOS3} algorithm in SWARP\footnote{For information on SWARP see
268: http://terapix.iap.fr/}.
269: \end{itemize}
270:
271: \subsection{Difference imaging photometry}
272:
273: \begin{figure*}
274: \centering
275: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{fig1.eps}
276: \caption{Example of an area in Centaurus A and its difference
277: image. {\it Left:} detail of the reference image showing the dust
278: lanes and star forming regions to the south-east of the centre of
279: Centaurus A. {\it Right:} detail of the difference image of June 8th
280: 2005 showing the same region of Centaurus A. }
281: \label{fig:cutouts}
282: \end{figure*}
283:
284: For the difference image analysis the same pipeline is used as was
285: employed by \cite{dejong06} in their analysis of M 31 data. This method
286: is based on the procedures for matching the point spread function
287: (PSF) between two images described by
288: \cite{tomaneycrotts} and although it has a different approach to the
289: problem of PSF-matching of two images from the method developed by
290: \cite{alard00} it produces difference images of similar quality. The
291: difference image pipeline runs in IRAF and makes use of the DIFIMPHOT
292: package written primarily by Austin Tomaney. Taking the reduced images
293: as input, the pipeline goes through the following steps.\\
294: \begin{itemize}
295: \item The images are aligned to a common astrometric reference frame
296: to an rms precision better than 0.1 pixels using stars spread over the
297: whole image. \\
298: \item Using cuts on the seeing, astrometric shift and
299: sky brightness, the best $\sim$15 exposures are selected and combined
300: into a high signal-to-noise reference image.\\
301: \item All images obtained
302: during the same night are combined into one image. These nightly image
303: stacks will provide the photometric measurements for the detection of
304: variable sources and their light-curves. Thus, since we use data
305: obtained during 10 nights we have 10 temporal {\it epochs} in the
306: subsequent analysis.\\
307: \item After photometric calibration and matching of the
308: PSF the reference image is subtracted from each nightly stack,
309: resulting in a difference image for each night. The PSF of the nightly
310: stacks and the reference image is measured from bright but unsaturated
311: stars on the image. From these PSFs a convolution kernel is derived in
312: Fourier space to convert the better seeing image to the seeing of the
313: worst seeing image before subtraction. To cope with PSF variations
314: across the chips, each chip is divided in 16 subregions, for each of
315: which the PSF matching is done separately, using a minimum of 10
316: stars. Photometric calibration is done using a subset of non-variable
317: bright stars. The resulting difference images are dominated by shot
318: noise in which variable sources show up as positive or negative
319: residuals.\\
320: \item Variable sources are detected on the difference images using
321: SExtractor \citep{sextractor}, where we select groups of 3 adjacent
322: pixels that are at least 3$\sigma$ above or below the local background. Bright
323: stars, saturation spikes and bad pixels are masked out during this step.\\
324: \item Using PSF-fitting photometry the brightness of all variable
325: sources is measured from the difference images and light-curves are
326: constructed.
327: \end{itemize}
328:
329: \section{Results}
330: \label{sec:results}
331:
332: \subsection{Difference image quality}
333: \label{subsec:dimquality}
334:
335: \begin{figure}
336: \centering
337: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig2.eps}
338: \caption{Difference image noise levels for a set of regions with
339: different background intensity. {\it Top: } standard deviation of
340: pixel values for four epochs with different seeing values: May 11
341: 2005 (0.84\arcsec, crosses), May 12 2005 (0.92\arcsec, triangles),
342: June 1 2005 (1.02\arcsec, squares), and June 8 2005 (0.79\arcsec,
343: circles). {\it Bottom: } Same as in top panel, but scaled to the
344: theoretical photon noise.
345: }
346: \label{fig:bgnoise}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349: \begin{figure}
350: \centering
351: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3.eps}
352: \caption{Residual strength, in terms of theoretical photon noise, of a
353: set of bright, resolved stars of different magnitudes for four
354: observation epochs. {\it Top: } Residuals in a high surface
355: brightness region ($\mu_R \simeq$28 mag/arcmin$^2$) in the
356: difference images of May 11 2005 (short dashed), May 12 2005 (long
357: dashed), June 1 2005 (dot-dashed), and June 8 2005 (dotted). {\it
358: Bottom: } Same as top panel, but for a low surface brightness region
359: ($\mu_R \simeq$29 mag/arcmin$^2$). }
360: \label{fig:starnoise}
361: \end{figure}
362:
363: The difference images that result from the above described procedure
364: are of very high quality, with noise levels close to the theoretical
365: photon noise. In Figure \ref{fig:cutouts} a cutout from the reference
366: image and the corresponding cutout from the difference image of June
367: 8th 2005 are shown.
368: While most of the difference image shows only noise, variable
369: stars in the star forming regions leave positive and negative
370: residuals. Bright foreground stars also leave residuals in the
371: difference image due to imperfect subtraction.
372:
373: As shown theoretically by \cite{gould96}, it is in principle, possible
374: to create difference images where the noise is dominated by photon
375: noise. Noise due to systematic effects such as PSF variation and
376: geometric and photometric alignment can, when handled carefully, be
377: brought down to levels where they cannot compete with the photon
378: noise. To assess how well our difference images approach the limit of
379: pure photon noise, we have determined the noise in several regions of
380: highly varying background intensity where no obvious variable sources
381: are present. In the upper panel of Figure \ref{fig:bgnoise} these
382: noise levels are plotted versus the background intensity for four
383: different images with different FWHM. There is a strong correllation
384: with higher noise in brighter regions, which is a clear signature of
385: the photon noise. Apart from this, there are offsets between the
386: different epochs, which depend on a combined accuracy of the
387: PSF-matching, photometric and astrometric alignment, seeing variations
388: between individual exposures etc.
389:
390: The lower panel of Figure \ref{fig:bgnoise} shows the same, but now
391: divided by the theoretical photon noise. For a single exposure, the
392: photon noise is simply the square root of the number of counts in a
393: pixel; in this case both the reference image and the nightly images are
394: stacks of several exposures, so that in each the photon noise should
395: be the square root of the counts divided by the square root of the
396: number of exposures going into the stack.
397: The quality of our difference images turns out to be very good, with
398: the noise very close to the theoretical photon noise. There might be a
399: slight degradation at very high background levels, because very close
400: to the centre of Centaurus A the number of stars that can be used to
401: construct an accurate PSF model is low, due to saturation of the chips.
402:
403: Another interesting test is to look at the residuals around resolved,
404: bright, but unsaturated stars. Because of their higher brightness,
405: secondary effects such as imperfections in the PSF-matching kernel or
406: photometric scaling will show up more strongly. Figure
407: \ref{fig:starnoise} shows the noise divided by the theoretical photon
408: noise for stars of varying brightness in a high background region
409: ($\mu_R \sim 28.0$ mag/arcmin$^2$, upper panel) and in a low
410: background region ($\mu_R \sim 29.0$ mag/arcmin$^2$, lower panel). In
411: both panels the residuals are much higher than the photon noise for
412: bright stars, and decreasing to the photon noise level at faint
413: magnitudes. In the high background region this decrease is faster
414: because the photon noise is higher. That the residuals at the bright
415: end are higher in the high background region is caused by the poorer
416: PSF modelling near the centre of Centaurus A, due to the lack of
417: sufficiently bright, unsaturated stars. It should be noted that this
418: problem does not affect image subtraction methods based on direct
419: pixel-to-pixel fits, such as the one developed by \cite{alardlupton}
420: and \cite{alard00}.
421:
422:
423: \subsection{Variable sources}
424: \label{subsec:variables}
425:
426: \begin{figure*}
427: \centering
428: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{fig4.eps}
429: \caption{Selection of light-curves from variable stars in Centaurus
430: A, showing difference flux in ADU/s as a function of the time in
431: days from the start of the observations on April 17th 2005. {\it(a)}
432: Bright Cepheid-like variable with a period of 43 days. {\it(b)} Same
433: variable as in (a) but showing two periods of the folded
434: light-curve.
435: {\it(c)} Cepheid-like variable with a period of 2.8
436: days. {\it(d)} Same variable as in (c) but showing two periods of
437: the folded light-curve. {\it(e)} Nova variable, erupting on May 29
438: and reaching its maximum around May 31 2005. {\it(f)} Long-period variable
439: reaching its minimum at the beginning of June 2005, with the maximum
440: occurring outside our time range. }
441: \label{fig:lightcurves}
442: \end{figure*}
443:
444: Residuals were detected in the difference images using Sextractor and
445: at all positions with at least two detections light-curves were built. A
446: by-eye inspection of light-curves and difference images to reject
447: spurious detections due to bad pixels or foreground stars, resulted in
448: a catalogue of 271 variable sources. A catalogue with the positions of the
449: variables is published in electronic form with this article.
450:
451: The majority of these variables
452: are expected to be Cepheids and long period variables (LPVs) such as
453: Mira variables, since these classes are both common and bright. There
454: is also one Nova in the sample. That we would catch one Nova during
455: its peak is not unexpected considering the Nova rate of $\sim$28 per
456: year for Centaurus A \citep{ciardullo90}. With ten points, the
457: sampling of the light-curves is too sparse to allow an accurate period
458: and amplitude determination for the Cepheids. For the LPVs the
459: situation is worse since their periods are longer than the total time
460: span of our observations. We did, however, apply two different period
461: finding algorithms to the light-curves, namely the multi-harmonic
462: periodogram method described by \cite{czerny} and the normalised
463: periodogram method developed by \cite{lomb}, both of which are
464: designed to work on unevenly sampled data. For 29 variables the
465: periods determined with the two methods lie within 10\% of each other
466: and between 2 and 50 days. These limits exclude periods that are
467: longer than the observing period and the aliases that occur close to
468: one day since this is the minimum spacing between the data
469: points.
470: These reasonably robust periods, which are in the range of typical Cepheid
471: periods,
472: are listed in the electronic catalogue of
473: variables. Of the other 242 variables, the majority of the ones in the
474: star forming regions seem chaotic. These are most likely periodic
475: variables for which the periods cannot be determined because of poor
476: phase coverage. The majority of the variables away from the centre are
477: monotonically increasing or decreasing and can be classified as LPVs.
478:
479: In Figure \ref{fig:positions} the positions of all 271 variable
480: sources are plotted. There is a clear concentration of variables in
481: the star forming regions in the dust ring in the central parts of
482: Centaurus A. The majority of the stars with confirmed periods between
483: 2 and 50 days are located in these regions. This distribution is not
484: unexpected, since Cepheids are massive stars with masses of at least 3
485: or 4 times that of the Sun and up to several tens of solar masses, and
486: therefore quite young. On the other hand, LPVs belong to old stellar
487: populations and are expected to be more evenly distributed. Also shown
488: in Figure \ref{fig:positions} are the locations of the fields
489: monitored for variability by \cite{rejkuba03} and \cite{ferrarese07}.
490: Using ISAAC at the Very Large Telescope (VLT), \cite{rejkuba03} were
491: able to detect 1504 LPVs in an area just over 10 square
492: arcminutes. None of these are detected in our survey, due to the lower
493: sensitivity of our data and the fact that LPVs are significantly
494: fainter at optical wavelengths compared to the
495: infrared. \cite{ferrarese07} used the Wide Field and Planetary Camera
496: 2 (WFPC2) on board the Hubble Space Telescope to detect Cepheid
497: variables, resulting in a sample of 56 Cepheids and 70 other periodic
498: variables. Due to the difference in sensitivity and the fact that
499: \cite{ferrarese07} use clear periodicity as one of their detection
500: criteria, we only identify three stars that are both in our and in
501: their sample. For completeness, also the Nova variables from the
502: extragalactic part of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars
503: \citep{artyukhina96} are plotted. To give the reader an impression of
504: the quality of the light-curves, we present the light-curves of two
505: periodic variables, a Nova and an LPV in Figure
506: \ref{fig:lightcurves}. The Nova variable shown in panel (e) of the
507: figure has a peak difference flux corresponding to $m_R$=20.2, making
508: this by far the brightest variable in our sample. A period-amplitude
509: plot is shown in Figure \ref{fig:perampl} for the 29 variables with
510: robust periods. The amplitudes were determined by taking the
511: difference between the highest and the lowest point of the lightcurve;
512: these amplitudes estimates are lower limits since the actual maxima
513: and minima might not be sampled by the data. The dashed line
514: indicates the period-amplitude relation found for type I Cepheids in M
515: 31 using the same techniques as employed here \citep{dejong05}.
516:
517:
518: \begin{figure}
519: \centering
520: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig5.eps}
521: \caption{Positions of the 271 variable sources detected in our survey,
522: with respect to the centre of Centaurus A. Closed circles indicate
523: variable sources for which a reasonably accurate period could be
524: determined. The two squares outline the fields in which
525: \cite{rejkuba03} detected a total of 1504 long-period variables
526: using ISAAC at the VLT; the WFPC2 field-of-view used by
527: \cite{ferrarese07} in their survey for Cepheids is located just to
528: the right from the centre of the Figure. Crosses indicate the
529: positions of Nova variables taken from \cite{artyukhina96}. }
530: \label{fig:positions}
531: \end{figure}
532:
533: \begin{figure}
534: \centering
535: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig6.eps}
536: \caption{Periods and amplitude estimates of the 29 variables
537: with robust period determinations. The dashed line represents the
538: approximate period amplitude relation found for type I Cepheids in M
539: 31 \citep{dejong05}, scaled to the distance of Centaurus A and
540: corrected for the different gains.}
541: \label{fig:perampl}
542: \end{figure}
543:
544: \subsection{Detection efficiency}
545: \label{subsec:deteff}
546:
547: To determine the detection efficiency for variable sources we put
548: artificial residuals in the difference images and try to ``detect''
549: them. Of course, there are different ways to detect sources in
550: variability studies such as pixel lensing surveys. The method used in
551: this paper to detect variable stars searches the difference images for
552: groups of pixels that exceed a certain threshold above or below the
553: background. This method was also used by the MEGA collaboration in
554: their M 31 microlensing survey \citep[cf.][]{dejong06}. In another
555: frequently used method, light-curves are built at each pixel position in
556: the image, after which the light-curves are identified that show a variable
557: signal \citep[cf.][]{calchi05}. To be as general as possible we will
558: use both approaches in our detection efficiency analysis and show that
559: the difference in sensitivity between the two is small.
560:
561: We select a subset of six difference images for the detection
562: efficiency tests that are of high quality and from CCDs in the centre
563: of the array. The images are from the nights of April 30, May 30 and
564: June 8 2005 and correspond to chips 2 and 7 from the CCD array.
565: This way reductions in sensitivity due to poor seeing and PSF
566: degradation in the perifery of the focal plane are avoided.
567: Although these kind of effects are unavoidable in real surveys, the
568: detection efficiencies we retrieve will represent upper limits for the
569: current observational setup.
570: Because the background from unresolved stars varies strongly in
571: intensity across the field, the detection efficiency will vary
572: spatially. To probe this effect we divide both chips in the part where
573: the background surface brightness is lower than $\mu_R$=28.5
574: mag/arcmin$^2$ and the part where it is higher, and consider these
575: regions separately. The high background region includes the small but
576: very bright centre of Centaurus A. We randomly place residuals of a
577: fixed (difference) flux in the selected difference images, 1\,000 at a
578: time in the low background regions and 250 at a time in the smaller
579: high background regions. Fluxes probed are 2, 1.5, 1, 0.75, 0.5, and
580: 0.25 ADU/s, corresponding to 23.6, 24.0, 24.4, 24.7, 25.2 and 25.9
581: magnitudes; in total we put 20\,000 residuals with these fluxes in
582: each region, respectively.
583: The actual PSFs measured from the stacked nightly
584: images, which are divided in subregions to deal with possible PSF
585: variations across the field, are used for building the residuals.
586: Photon noise is included in the residuals.
587:
588: After inserting the residuals, SExtractor is run on the difference
589: images and groups of 3 adjacent pixels that are at least 3$\sigma$
590: above the local background are selected. Comparison of the list of
591: detected sources with the input list of residuals gives the detection
592: efficiency of this residual detection method. At each position where
593: an artificial residual is inserted, we also perform PSF-fitting
594: photometry to measure the flux at that position. We consider the
595: residual to be detected if the recovered flux is at least 3 $\sigma$
596: above zero, where the $\sigma$ is the photometry error. This error is
597: calculated by the PSF-fitting photometry routine and based on the
598: statistics of the fit and includes a correction for photometric
599: scaling inaccuracies during the image subtraction. The fraction of
600: sources detected with this PSF-fitting photometry gives a second
601: measurement of the detection efficiency.
602:
603: \begin{figure}
604: \centering
605: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig7.eps}
606: \caption{Detection efficiencies in percent as function of difference
607: flux in ADU/s. Dashed lines show the results for chip 7 in the
608: WFI array, dotted lines those for chip 2, where each line
609: corresponds to a different epoch. The left panels show the
610: efficiencies for the case where residuals are detected as groups of
611: significant pixels in the difference images, the right panels for the
612: case of PSF-fitting photometry. In the upper panels the results for
613: the regions with a background surface brightness higher than 28.5
614: mag/arcmin$^2$ are plotted, in the lower panels for the regions with
615: lower surface brightness.
616: }
617: \label{fig:deteff}
618: \end{figure}
619:
620: Figure \ref{fig:deteff} shows the detection efficiencies for both
621: detection methods and all regions.
622: There is indeed a difference in the detection efficiency in the bright
623: regions (upper panels) and the fainter regions (lower panels),
624: although not very large. In both cases the detection efficiency is
625: 100\% down to a flux of 1.5 ADU/s and virtually 0\% at 0.5 ADU/s, with
626: the transition more gradual in the bright regions. This more gradual
627: slope is due to the larger variation in the background
628: intensity. These results show that even very close to the bright
629: centre of Centaurus A, residuals with a flux of 1.5 -- 1 ADU/s are
630: still detected with high efficiency. There is not much difference between the
631: SExtractor-based detection method (left panels) and the
632: photometry-based method (right panels).
633: A variability survey with the WFI at the ESO/MPG 2.2m telescope with
634: 9\,000$s$ exposure time per epoch thus will have a detection limit of
635: at best slightly below 1 ADU/s. This corresponds to $\sim$24.5 $m_R$,
636: or for a variable of absolute magnitude $M_R$=$-4$ to a magnitude
637: difference in the order of 1 magnitude. Since the majority of Cepheids
638: has amplitudes of less than 1 magnitude this means that only the very
639: bright ones or ones with high amplitudes are detected.
640:
641: \section{Implications for microlensing surveys}
642: \label{sec:microlensing}
643:
644: Now that we have shown that Difference Image Photometry works well at
645: the distance of Centaurus A, we want to investigate the prospects of
646: ground-based microlensing surveys towards this galaxy. In the previous
647: section the detection efficiency for a single residual of a certain
648: flux in a high quality difference image was determined. Taking this as
649: the detection efficiency for a microlensing event of the same maximum
650: amplitude is of course a gross oversimplification. To be able to
651: ``detect'' a microlensing event, enough information must be obtained
652: from the light-curve to be reasonably certain of the lensing nature of
653: the detected variability. In practice one would want to detect the
654: event in more than one difference image and with sufficient
655: signal-to-noise to recover certain characteristic signatures, such as
656: light-curve shape and achromaticity. Even assuming a survey with
657: observations every night, a detection limit of 1 ADU/s is optimistic,
658: but can serve as an upper limit.
659:
660: In the light of the arguments discussed in Section \ref{sec:intro} we
661: concentrate on microlensing by objects in the halo of Centaurus A.
662: If we assume the halo is a cored isothermal sphere
663: with velocity dispersion $\sigma$ and core radius $r_c$, the density
664: is given by,
665: \begin{equation}
666: \rho(r)= \frac{\sigma^2}{2 \pi G} ~ \frac{1}{r^2+r_c^2}.
667: \label{eq:rhohalo}
668: \end{equation}
669: By definition, a source is considered to be microlensed if it is lying
670: within the Einstein radius of a lens, i.e. if it is magnified at least
671: a factor of 1.34. The microlensing optical depth $\tau$ is defined as
672: the number of lenses within one Einstein radius of the line-of-sight
673: towards the source and therefore gives the fraction of stars that is
674: microlensed at a given time. This means that $\tau$ is given by,
675: \begin{equation}
676: \tau = \int_{0}^{r_h} n_l(r) \pi R_{\rm E}^2 ~dr ~=~ \int_{0}^{r_h}
677: \frac{f_b\rho(r)}{M_{\rm lens}} \frac{4 \pi G M_{\rm lens}}{c^2} \frac{D_{\rm LS}D_{\rm OL}}{D_{\rm OS}} ~dr,
678: \end{equation}
679: where $n_l$ is the number density of lenses, $f_b$ is the fraction of
680: halo mass in the lenses, $R_{\rm E}$ is the Einstein radius, and $D_{\rm OL}$,
681: $D_{\rm OS}$ and $D_{\rm LS}$ are the distances between observer, lens and
682: source. We integrate from the position of the source to the outer
683: radius of the halo $r_h$. For external galaxies like Centaurus A,
684: $D_{\rm OL} \simeq D_{\rm OS}$ and $D_{\rm LS} \simeq r$, so that,
685: \begin{equation}
686: \tau(r_0) \sim \frac{2 f_b \sigma^2}{c^2} \int_0^{\sqrt{r_h^2-r_0^2}}
687: \frac{r}{r^2 + r_0^2 + r_c^2} ~dr,
688: \end{equation}
689: for a source star located at a projected distance $r_0$ from the
690: centre of the galaxy.
691: Integrating gives,
692: \begin{equation}
693: \tau(r_0) ~=~ \frac{f_b \sigma^2}{c^2} ~ln \left( \frac{r_h^2 +
694: r_c^2}{r_0^2 + r_c^2} \right).
695: \end{equation}
696: For a MACHO mass fraction $f_b$ of 10\%, a halo velocity dispersion
697: of $\sim$100 km/s \citep{peng04} and reasonable values for $r_h$,
698: $r_0$ and $r_c$ this gives values in the order of $10^{-7}$, meaning
699: that at any time one in ten million stars is being microlensed.
700:
701: However, at the distance of Centaurus A we are in the regime where
702: only very high amplification events are detected, the so-called spike
703: pixel-lensing regime defined by \cite{gould96}. In this regime the
704: impact parameter $\beta$, expressed in units of the Einstein Radius
705: $R_{\rm E}$, is very small, $\beta \ll 1$, and inversely proportional to the
706: maximum amplification $A$: $\beta \sim 1/A$.
707: Suppose a source has to change in brightness by a certain amount
708: $L_{\rm det}$ in order to be detected. This means that for a microlensing
709: event to be detected, the maximum impact parameter is $\beta \sim 1/A
710: ~=~ L/L_{\rm det}$ for a source star with luminosity $L$.
711: The number of detectable microlensing events at any time is now given
712: by the optical depth multiplied by the square of the impact parameter,
713: \begin{equation}
714: N_{\rm det} \simeq \tau \cdot \beta^2(L) = \tau \int dL f(L) \frac{L^2}{L_{\rm det}^2},
715: \end{equation}
716: where $f(L)$ is the luminosity function of the source stars.
717: Using the fact that the luminosity of the galaxy $L_{gal}=\int dL f(L)
718: L$ and the fluctuation brightness of the stellar population
719: $\bar{L}=\int dL f(L) L^2/L_{gal}$ we obtain,
720: \begin{equation}
721: N_{\rm det} \simeq \tau \frac{\bar{L} L_{gal}}{L^2_{\rm det}}.
722: \end{equation}
723: The absolute magnitude of Centaurus A is $M_R \simeq -22$
724: \citep{laubertsvalentijn} and a typical value for the fluctuation
725: brightness of an old stellar population is in the order of $R \simeq
726: -1.3$ \citep[e.g.][]{buzzoni93,tonry01}.
727: Given our detection limit of $m_R\simeq$24.5, corresponding to
728: $M_R\simeq$-3.5 this leads to a number of detectable microlensing
729: events at any time of $N_{\rm det} = 10^{6.5} \tau$. Assuming a MACHO
730: halo mass fraction of about 10\% this means that at any moment $\sim$0.3
731: microlensing events can be seen.
732:
733: The rate $\Gamma$ at which microlensing events due to halo lensing
734: occur is given by the number of events $N_{\rm det}$ divided by the average
735: duration of the events, measured by the time during which the
736: magnification is above half the maximum magnification $t_{\rm FWHM}$. In
737: the regime where $\beta \ll 1$, we can approximate $t_{\rm FWHM} =
738: \sqrt{3} \beta t_{\rm E}$ \citep{gondolo99}. Here $t_{\rm E}$ is the Einstein
739: crossing time, the time it takes the lens to cross the full Einstein
740: disk, given by,
741: \begin{eqnarray}
742: t_{\rm E} ~=~ \frac{2 R_{\rm E}}{v_{\perp}} ~=~ \frac{2}{v_{\perp}}
743: \sqrt{ \frac{4 G M_{\rm lens}}{c^2} \frac{D_{\rm LS}D_{\rm OL}}{D_{\rm OS}}}\\
744: \simeq 2.8 \times 10^7 s ~ \left( \frac {M}{M_\odot} \right)^{1/2} ~ \left(
745: \frac {D_{\rm LS}}{10 kpc} \right)^{1/2} ~ \left( \frac {v_\perp}{100 km/s} \right)^{-1},
746: \end{eqnarray}
747: where $v_\perp$ is the transverse velocity of the lens with respect to
748: the observer-source line of sight.
749: A typical value of $t_{\rm E}$ for 1 $M_{\odot}$ halo objects in Centaurus A
750: is therefore in the order of a year.
751: The event rate is now given by,
752: \begin{eqnarray}
753: \Gamma \simeq \tau \int dL f(L) \beta^2 / t_{\rm FWHM} \simeq
754: \sqrt{3}\frac{\tau}{t_{\rm E}} \int dL f(L) \frac{L}{L_{\rm det}}
755: \nonumber\\
756: ~\simeq~ \sqrt{3}\frac{\tau}{t_{\rm E}} \frac{L_{\rm gal}}{L_{\rm det}}
757: \end{eqnarray},
758: and filling in the numbers gives $\Gamma \simeq \sqrt{3}\cdot10^{7.4} \tau /
759: t_{\rm E}$. Again assuming an $f_b$ of 10\% we get an expected detectable
760: event rate of $\sim$4 per year. The average event duration is simply
761: $N_{\rm det}/\Gamma \sim 1$ month.
762:
763: An added complication for studying microlensing due to MACHOs in
764: the halo of Centaurus A is that these microlensing events have to be
765: separated from different possible contaminants, such as variable stars
766: and lensing by other lens populations. Most periodic variables can be
767: recognised as such by extending the time baseline of the survey
768: sufficiently. Cataclysmic variables are not period, but can be
769: identified based on the lightcurve shape and colour
770: evolution. Considering the expected Nova rate for Centaurus A of
771: $\sim$28 per year \citep{ciardullo90}, which is several factors higher
772: than the halo microlensing rate, the need for sufficiently dense time
773: sampling and multi-band photometry is clear.
774: Microlensing by stars in Centaurus A, rather than by objects in the
775: halo, will also have to be disentangled from the halo lensing signal.
776: As for M 31 and M 87, this so-called ``self-lensing'' will dominate
777: over halo lensing in the central parts of Centaurus A
778: \citep[cf.][]{baltz03,baltz04,riffeser06}. The cleanest halo lensing
779: sample is therefore obtained in the outer parts of the galaxy.
780:
781: \section{Conclusions}
782: \label{sec:conclusions}
783:
784: In this paper we have demonstrated that difference imaging techniques
785: can be successfully applied to ground-based data of Centaurus A, a
786: giant elliptical galaxy at a distance of 4 Mpc. Using the Wide Field
787: Imager at the ESO/MPG 2.2m telescope at La Silla, and a total exposure
788: time of 9\,000$s$ per epoch, we reach a difference flux detection
789: limit corresponding to a brightness of $m_R\simeq$24.5. We have
790: detected and photometered 271 variable sources in Centaurus A, mostly
791: Cepheids and long-period variables and a Nova. The majority of
792: these variables were previously unknown and are available as an online
793: catalogue with this paper. Clearly, these techniques can be used as
794: powerful tools to enlarge the samples of known variable stars in and
795: to study stellar populations of Centaurus A and other galaxies in the
796: nearby universe. At these depths the difference images do not suffer
797: from crowding, and can be photometered straightforwardly.
798:
799: The microlensing optical depth towards Centaurus A due to lenses in
800: the halo is of the order of $\tau \sim 10^{-7}$ if we assume that 10\%
801: of the halo mass is in compact objects. Given this optical depth and
802: our detection limit the expected microlensing event rate is $\sim$4
803: per year over the whole galaxy. At large distances it will be
804: impossible to identify the source stars of individual microlensing
805: events and blending by stars and variables that are too faint to be
806: detected will play a more important role. Also, only very high
807: amplification events can be observed, meaning that the microlensing is
808: completely in the spike regime \citep{gould96}. Even more than for
809: microlensing in M 31, the information that can be obtained for
810: individual events is limited. Statistical analysis of event rates,
811: spatial distribution and timescale distribution is the only way of
812: extracting scientific information out of these data. This again
813: emphasises the need for large samples of microlensing events.
814:
815: The pilot experiment described here shows that it would be possible to
816: put useful limits on the number of microlensing events in Centaurus A,
817: but a survey that is several magnitudes deeper would be required. This
818: could be achieved with a large ground-based telescope equipped with a
819: wide-field imager large enough to take in all of the galaxy in one
820: exposure, or better still, with a wide-field space observatory.
821: We therefore endorse the plea of \cite{baltz05} for inclusion of
822: microlensing of nearby galaxies into the observing programmes of
823: upcoming wide-field cosmological survey facilities.
824:
825:
826: \begin{acknowledgements}
827: We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions to
828: improve this paper.
829: J.T.A.d.J. acknowledges support from DFG Priority Program 1177.
830: Ph.H\'eraudeau acknowledges the financial
831: support provided through the European Community's Human Potential
832: Programme under contract HPRM-CT-2002-00316, SISCO.
833: \end{acknowledgements}
834:
835:
836: \begin{thebibliography}{}
837: \bibitem[Alard(2000)]{alard00}{Alard, C., 2000, \aaps, 144, 363}
838: \bibitem[Alard \& Lupton(1998)]{alardlupton}{Alard, C., Lupton, R. H., 1998, \apj, 503, 325}
839: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2000)]{alcock00}{Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A.,
840: Alves, D. R., et al., 2000, \apj, 542, 281}
841: \bibitem[Artyukhina et al.(1996)]{artyukhina96}
842: {{Artyukhina}, N.~M., {Durlevich}, O.~V., {Frolov}, M.~S., et al.,
843: 1996, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2205}
844: \bibitem[Baade et al.(1999)]{wfi}{Baade, D., Meisenheimer, K, Iwert,
845: O., et al., 1999, Messenger, 95, 15}
846: \bibitem[Baltz(2005)]{baltz05}{Baltz, E. A., 2005, \apj, 624, 168}
847: \bibitem[Baltz et al.(2003)]{baltz03}{Baltz, E. A., Gyuk, G., Crotts,
848: A. P. S., 2003, \apj, 582, 30}
849: \bibitem[Baltz et al.(2004)]{baltz04}{Baltz, E. A., Lauer, T. R.,
850: Zurek, D. R., et al., 2004, \apj, 610, 691}
851: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{sextractor}{Bertin, E., Arnouts, S.,
852: 1996, \aaps, 117, 393}
853: \bibitem[Buzzoni(1993)]{buzzoni93}{Buzzoni, A., 1993, \aap, 275, 433}
854: \bibitem[Calchi Novati et al.(2005)]{calchi05}{Calchi Novati, S.,
855: Paulin-Henriksson, S., An, J., et al., 2005, \aap, 443, 911}
856: \bibitem[Ciardullo et al.(1990)]{ciardullo90}{Ciardullo, R., Tamblyn,
857: P., Jacoby, G. H., Ford, H. C., Williams, R. E., 1990, \aj, 99, 1079}
858: \bibitem[de Jong(2005)]{dejong05}{de Jong, J. T. A., PhD. thesis,
859: University of Groningen, the Netherlands}
860: \bibitem[de Jong et al.(2006)]{dejong06}{de Jong, J. T. A., Widrow,
861: L. M., Cseresnjes, P, et al., 2006, \aap, 446, 855}
862: \bibitem[Ferrarese et al.(2007)]{ferrarese07}{Ferrarese, L., Mould,
863: J. R., Stetson, P. B., et al., 2007, \apj, 654, 186}
864: \bibitem[Gondolo(1999)]{gondolo99}{Gondolo, P., 1999, \apjl, 510, L29}
865: \bibitem[Gould(1996)]{gould96}{Gould, A., 1996, \apj, 470, 201}
866: \bibitem[Hui et al.(1995)]{hui95}{Hui, X., Ford, H. C., Freeman,
867: K. C., Dopita, M. A., 1995, \apj, 449, 592}
868: \bibitem[Lauberts \& Valentijn(1989)]{laubertsvalentijn}{Lauberts, A.,
869: Valentijn, E. A., 1989, The surface photometry catalogue of the
870: ESO-Uppsala galaxies, Garching: European Southern Observatory}
871: \bibitem[Lomb(1976)]{lomb}{Lomb, N. R., 1976, AP\&SS, 39, 447}
872: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2004)]{peng04}{Peng, E. W., Ford, H. C., Freeman,
873: K. C., 2004, \apj, 602, 685}
874: \bibitem[Rejkuba et al.(2003)]{rejkuba03}{Rejkuba, M. and Minniti,
875: D. and Silva, D. R., 2003, \aap, 406, 75}
876: \bibitem[Riffeser et al.(2003)]{riffeser03}{Riffeser, A., Fliri, J.,
877: Bender, R., Seitz, S., G\"ossl, C. A., 2003, \apj, 599, L17}
878: \bibitem[Riffeser et al.(2006)]{riffeser06}{Riffeser, A., Fliri, J.,
879: Seitz, S., Bender, R., 2006, \apjs, 163, 225}
880: \bibitem[Schwarzenberg-Czerny(1996)]{czerny}{Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A.,
881: 1996, \apjl, 460, L107}
882: \bibitem[Tisserand et al.(2007)]{tisserand07}{Tisserand, P., Le
883: Guillou, L., Afonso, C., et al., 2007, \aap, 469, 387}
884: \bibitem[Tomaney \& Crotts(1996)]{tomaneycrotts}{Tomaney, A. B.,
885: Crotts, A. P. S., 1996, \aj, 112, 2872}
886: \bibitem[Tonry et al.(2001)]{tonry01}{Tonry, J. L., Dressler, A.,
887: Blakeslee, J. P., et al., 2001, \apj, 546, 681}
888: \bibitem[Valentijn et al.(2007)]{astrowise}{{Valentijn}, E. A.,
889: {McFarland}, J. P., {Snigula}, J., et al., 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0702189}
890:
891: \end{thebibliography}
892:
893:
894: \end{document}
895: