1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
4: \newcommand{\myemail}{majello@mpe.mpg.de}
5:
6: \newcommand{\drv}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2} }
7:
8: \shorttitle{BXS survey - I}
9: \shortauthors{Ajello et al.}
10:
11:
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15:
16: \title{BAT X-ray Survey - I: Methodology and X-ray Identification.}
17:
18:
19: \author{M. Ajello\altaffilmark{1}, J. Greiner\altaffilmark{1},
20: G. Kanbach\altaffilmark{1}, A. Rau\altaffilmark{2}, A. W. Strong\altaffilmark{1}, and J. A. Kennea\altaffilmark{3}}
21: \affil{$^1$ Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Extraterrestrische Physik, Postfach 1312,
22: 85741, Garching, Germany}
23: \affil{$^2$ Caltech Optical Observatories, MS 105-24, California, Institute of
24: Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
25:
26: \affil{$^3$ Pennsylvania State University, 525 Davey Laboratory, UniversityPark, PA 16802, USA }
27:
28: \email{majello@mpe.mpg.de}
29:
30:
31:
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We applied the Maximum Likelihood method, as an image
35: reconstruction algorithm,
36: to the BAT X-ray Survey (BXS).
37: This method was specifically designed
38: to preserve the full statistical information in the data and to avoid
39: mosaicking of many exposures with different pointing directions, thus
40: reducing systematic errors when co-adding images.
41: We reconstructed, in the 14-170\,keV energy band,
42: the image of a 90x90 deg$^2$
43: sky region, centered on (RA,DEC)=105$^{\circ}$,-25$^{\circ}$,
44: which BAT surveyed with an exposure time of
45: $\sim1$\,Ms (in Nov. 2005).
46: The best sensitivity in our
47: image is $\sim0.85$\,mCrab or $2.0\times 10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$.
48: We detect 49 hard X-ray sources above the 4.5\,$\sigma$ level; of these,
49: only 12 were previously known as hard X-ray sources ($>$15\,keV).
50: Swift/XRT observations allowed us to firmly identify
51: the counterparts for 15 objects, while 2 objects have Einstein IPC counterparts
52: \citep{harris90};
53: in addition to those,
54: we found a likely counterpart for 13 objects by correlating our sample with the
55: ROSAT All-Sky Survey Bright Source Catalog \citep{voges99}. 7 objects
56: remain unidentified.
57: Analysis of the noise properties of our image shows that $\sim75$\% of the
58: area is surveyed to a flux limit of
59: $\sim$1\,mCrab.
60: This study shows that the coupling of the Maximum Likelihood method
61: to the most sensitive, all-sky surveying, hard X-ray instrument, BAT, is able
62: to probe for the first time the hard X-ray sky to the mCrab flux level.
63: The successful application of this method to BAT demonstrates that it could
64: also be applied with advantage to similar instruments like INTEGRAL-IBIS.
65: %
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \keywords{galaxies: active -- surveys -- X-rays: binaries -- X-rays: galaxies}
69:
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72: More than 40 years after its discovery, the nature of the Cosmic X-ray Background
73: (CXB) is still debated.
74: Population synthesis models, based on unified AGN schemes,
75: explain the CXB spectrum using a mixture of obscured and unobscured
76: AGN \citep[e.g.][]{comastri95,gilli01}.
77:
78: According to these models, most AGN spectra are heavily absorbed, and
79: about 85\% of the radiation produced by super massive black hole
80: accretion is obscured by dust and gas
81: \citep{fabian99}.
82:
83: Deep soft X-ray surveys (0.5--2.0\,keV) were able to resolve
84: the majority ($\approx 80$\%) of the
85: CXB flux into discrete sources \citep{hasinger98}.
86: However the resolved fraction decreases with energy, being $\sim$50-60\%
87: in the 6--8\,keV band
88: \citep{giacconi02,rosati02} and even less above $>$8\,keV; the missing CXB component
89: has a spectral shape that is consistent with a population of yet undetected,
90: highly obscured AGN \citep[see][]{worsley05}.
91:
92:
93: It is important to realize that highly obscured objects are detectable
94: in X-rays only above 10\,keV.
95: Moreover, most of the energy of the CXB
96: is emitted around 30\,keV \citep{marshall80} and the exact nature of the source
97: population responsible for the background at these energies is unknown primarily
98: because of the low sensitivity of previous X-ray telescopes operating above 15\,keV.
99:
100: All these reasons together motivate more sensitive observations of the hard X-ray sky.
101: \\\\
102: %
103: The Burst Alert Telescope \citep[BAT;][]{barthelmy05}, on board the
104: Swift mission \citep{gehrels04}, launched by NASA on 2004 November 20,
105: represents
106: a major improvement in sensitivity for imaging of the hard X-ray sky.
107: BAT is a coded mask telescope with a wide field of view
108: (FOV, $120^{\circ} \times 90^{\circ}$ partially coded) aperture
109: sensitive in the 15--200\,keV domain.
110: BAT's main purpose is to locate Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs).
111: While chasing new GRBs,
112: BAT surveys the hard X-ray sky with an unprecedented sensitivity.
113: Thanks to its wide FOV and its pointing strategy,
114: BAT monitors continuously up to 80\% of the sky every day.
115: Early results from the BAT survey \citep{markwardt05} show that BAT
116: is already ten times more sensitive than the previous
117: hard X-ray all-sky survey performed by HEAO-1 \citep{levine84}.
118: \\\\
119: %
120: Coded mask telescopes are, until the advent of next generation hard X-ray
121: focusing optics, among the most sensitive
122: instruments able to image the sky in the hard X-ray domain.
123: Objects in the FOV cast part of the mask pattern onto the detector plane.
124: Since the sources' signal is coded by the mask onto the plane
125: this phase is also referred to as coding phase. Thus,
126: a decoding procedure is required in order to reconstruct the original sky image.
127: A variety of methods can be used to reconstruct the sky image in the case
128: of a coded mask
129: aperture \citep[see][for a general discussion on reconstruction
130: methods]{skinner87}.
131: Among them, standard cross correlation of the shadowgram
132: with a deconvolution array, the mask pattern, via FFT transforms,
133: is the most often used.
134: Generally, sky images are obtained for each individual observation,
135: where an observation is defined as a period during which the attitude is
136: stable and constant. Subsequently, another procedure,
137: such as resampling and reprojecting, is needed in order to assemble
138: the final all-sky image.
139: \\\\
140: %
141: %
142: Most of the extragalactic sources are very faint in the hard X-ray band. Thus
143: their detection is challenging and requires sensitive techniques.
144: We here describe the application of an alternative
145: method which was designed to improve the sensitivity avoiding
146: some of the disadvantages of the standard mask unfolding technique.
147: %
148: \\\\
149: %
150: This study has been performed in the framework of a campaign for optical spectroscopy
151: analysis of a sample of ``hard X-ray selected'' extragalactic sources aimed
152: at identifying new Sy2 galaxies. This paper discusses the method
153: used to reconstruct the survey image and presents the source catalog.
154: A second paper \citep{rau07}
155: describes in details the optical campaign and the source
156: identification process; the spectral analysis and the statistical
157: properties of the source sample are discussed in \cite{ajello07b}.
158: %
159: \\\\
160: %
161: The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sec:ml} we present
162: details of the Maximum Likelihood method that was developed to analyze the BAT data.
163: In Section \ref{sec:analysis}, we describe the analysis steps performed and we present
164: and discuss the results of our image reconstruction algorithm.
165: The last section summarizes the results.
166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167: % Method Section
168:
169: \section{Spatial Model Fitting} \label{sec:ml}
170:
171:
172: We apply ``spatial model fitting'', as described in \cite{strong05},
173: to directly reconstruct the survey image from the raw detector data.
174: ``Spatial model fitting'' means that a
175: number of sky distributions, whose linear combination constitutes the model,
176: are forward-folded through
177: the full instrumental response in order to generate a model shadowgram.
178: The model shadowgram, which is a linear combination of all model components,
179: is then fitted in the full data space in order to get
180: the most probable sky distribution.
181: The actual search for unknown sources is then realized by moving a source probe
182: in a grid over the sky.
183: It is worth noting that no other steps, as image mosaicking, are required at
184: the end of this process. This method was successfully applied
185: to different kinds of experiments
186: \citep[i.e. COMPTEL and INTEGRAL-SPI;][]{diehl95,strong05}. Its
187: development was driven by the capabilities
188: of reducing systematic errors and noise e.g. the noise related with individual
189: short images and the systematics when co-adding noisy images
190: in the mosaicking procedure.
191: This leads to an improvement in sensitivity over other methods, in particular
192: reducing systematic errors from background variations and resampling. The full
193: information in the data is preserved and correctly treated in a statistical sense.
194: \\\\
195: The likelihood is the probability of the observed BAT data given the model.
196: For our case it is defined as the product of the probability for each detector of each
197: observation:
198: \begin{equation}
199: L = \prod_{ijk}\ p_{ijk}.
200: \end{equation}
201:
202: where
203: \begin{equation}
204: p_{ijk} = \frac{\theta_{ijk}^{n_{ijk}} e^{-\theta_{ijk} }}{n_{ijk}!}.
205: \end{equation}
206:
207: is the Poisson probability of observing $n_{ijk}$ counts in pixel $ij$,
208: during the $k$-th observation,
209: when the number of counts predicted by the model is $\theta_{ijk}$.
210:
211: The model is a linear combination of components; in the simplest case of
212: 1 non variable source and 1 background component for each observation, we get:
213: \begin{equation}\label{eq:model}
214: \theta_{ijk}= c_0\times(A\otimes S^{\alpha_0, \delta_0})_{ijk}+c_k \times B_{ijk}
215: \end{equation}
216: where $(A\otimes S^{\alpha_0, \delta_0})$ is the convolution of the detector
217: response ($A$) and a source of unit flux ($S$)
218: at the sky position $\alpha_0,\delta_0$
219: and thus $(A\otimes S^{\alpha_0, \delta_0})_{ijk}$ yields
220: the prediction of counts from a unit flux source
221: at the sky position $\alpha_0,\delta_0$ in detector $ij$, during observation $k$;
222: $B_{ijk}$ is the background prediction for pixel $ij$ in observation $k$ and
223: $c_0$ and $c_k$'s are the parameters we want to estimate.\\
224:
225: For the analysis described in this paper, the background model comprises,
226: for each observation, an empirical model (i.e. a 2 dimensional quadratic
227: function similar to the one used by the tool {\it batclean}
228: as described in section \ref{sec:preproc}) and the model shadowgrams for
229: all bright sources (see also section \ref{sec:preproc}).
230: The actual fit to the background is performed only
231: once;
232: during the source search only the normalization of the background
233: in each pointing is allowed to vary. Since sources detected at this
234: stage are faint, the background normalizations are expected
235: to vary by very small quantities. Indeed,
236: we verified that such variations were less than 10$^{-3}$ with respect to
237: the background parameters determined before the source search.
238:
239: In the future, our method will allow to test more complex and
240: physical background models (e.g. diffuse emissions).
241: %
242: % PARAMETER ESTIMATES
243: %
244: \subsection{Parameter model estimation}
245: The parameter values are found by maximizing the likelihood function, or, which is the
246: equivalent, maximizing its logarithm:
247: \begin{equation}
248: \drv{\ln L}{\Lambda_i}= \drv{}{\Lambda_i} \left[\sum_{ijk} n_{ijk} \ln(\theta_{ijk}) - \sum_{ijk} \theta_{ijk} \right].
249: \end{equation}
250:
251: where $\Lambda$ is the vector of the parameters.
252: This translates into the following set of equations:
253: \begin{equation}
254: \drv{lnL}{c_0} = \sum_{ijk} (A \otimes S)_{ijk} \left( \frac{n_{ijk}}{\theta_{ijk}} -1\right),
255: \end{equation}
256: \begin{equation}
257: \drv{\ln L}{c_k} = \sum_{ijk} B_{ijk} \left( \frac{n_{ijk}}{\theta_{ijk}} -1 \right),\ \forall k
258: \end{equation}
259: which allows to estimate all parameters simultaneously.\\
260: This set of equations can be solved only numerically and we use
261: a modified Newton algorithm in order to find the solution.
262: %
263: \subsection{Source significance}
264: %
265: In the case of a single source component,
266: the source significance can be estimated using
267: the likelihood-ratio test. For this application, the null hypothesis is that no point
268: source exists at the position under consideration and the background model can explain
269: all the data. The alternative hypothesis is the converse.
270: Two maximizations have to be done in order to calculate the likelihood $L_0$ of the
271: background (null hypothesis) and the likelihood of both source and background for
272: the alternative hypothesis $L_1$.
273: The test statistic:
274: \begin{equation}
275: T_{\rm s} \equiv -2( \ln L_0 - \ln L_1)
276: \end{equation}
277:
278: is expected, from Wilks's theorem \citep{wilks38}, to be asymptotically
279: distributed as $\chi^2_{n}$ in the null hypothesis, where $n$ is the
280: additional number of free parameters that are optimized for the alternative
281: hypothesis. Since in our case the source intensity is the only additional free
282: parameter, the test statistics is expected to follow the $\chi^2_{1}$
283: distribution.
284: %
285: Thus, the significance of a detection can be addressed as:
286: \begin{equation}
287: S= \int^{\infty}_{T_s} \frac{1}{2} \chi^2_1(x) dx ,
288: \end{equation}
289: which, after changing variables, become:
290: \begin{equation}\label{gauss}
291: S= \int^{\infty}_{\sqrt{T_s}} \frac {e^{-y^2/2} } {(2\pi)^{1/2}} dy .
292: \end{equation}
293: Equation \ref{gauss} is exactly the integral of the standard normal distribution
294: from $T_s^{1/2}$ to $\infty$ and so the significance of the detection is:
295: \begin{equation}
296: T_s^{1/2}\sigma = \sqrt{ -2( \ln L_0-\ln L_1)}\sigma = n\sigma.
297: \end{equation}
298: %
299: Hence, by definition, the significance fluctuations must be distributed as a
300: normal Gaussian if everything is done correctly.
301: %
302: %
303: %
304: \subsection{Method implementation}
305: In case of large detector counts, the likelihood maximization is equivalent
306: to the $\chi^2$ minimization,
307: with the $\chi^2$ problem having the advantage
308: that it can be solved faster analytically.
309: We have verified that in the case
310: of large detector counts ($\geq$20) and large numbers of observations ($\geq$100)
311: the two solutions are very similar and from now on we use the $\chi^2$ solution.
312: \\\\
313: The algorithm used is a parallelized implementation
314: of {\itshape spidiffit} \citep{strong05} used for INTEGRAL-SPI data analysis.
315: Parallelization was needed because of the size of the problem we are dealing with.
316: The typical execution time needed to compute the analytical
317: $\chi^2$ solution scales with n$^2$ where n is the number of data points to fit
318: (i.e.: number of BAT detectors, 32768, multiplied by the number of observations).
319: A single minimization with 2600 observations takes nearly 90\,s; the total execution
320: time to generate a map of 450$\times$450 pixels would be $\sim$200\,days.
321: This time has been reduced to $<$15 days using an average of 15 CPUs. We
322: remark also that it is the first time that such an approach is applied
323: to a problem of this large size.
324: %
325: \\\\
326: %
327: As shown in equation \ref{eq:model}, the model is a
328: linear combination of different components which can be specified at the input
329: of the program. Source and background components are in general treated in different
330: ways. Sources are assigned a single free parameter (their average intensity)
331: while, as already discussed, the background components are allowed to vary
332: from pointing to pointing. However, in case of variable sources, the user
333: can specify that the source intensity is left as a free parameter in all
334: pointings (or in time-contiguous groups of them).
335: \\\\
336: We remark that for the analysis presented in the next sections,
337: the program has been used
338: in its simplest configuration, with only one constant source and normalizations
339: of the per-pointing backgrounds allowed to vary.
340: However, after the source search had been performed and source candidates identified we have used the ability to fit simultaneously all sources
341: (each of which was again assumed constant in time).
342: In fact, the simultaneous fit of all sources yields
343: the best parameters (significances and fluxes)
344: and allows us to discard spurious detections.
345: When the analysis is based on a large
346: number of observations correlation (``cross-talk'') between sources
347: is negligible.
348:
349:
350: \subsection{Instrumental response}
351: As shown in equation \ref{eq:model}, the first part of the model represents the source
352: component (or components if more than one) and this is given in the most simple
353: form by a
354: point like source at position $\alpha_0,\delta_0$ in the sky, forward-folded
355: with the instrumental response.
356: We have used a large set of Crab observations ($>$ 1000)
357: to develope a parametrized diagonal full
358: instrumental response which enables us to predict the expected counts
359: (essentially the term $A\otimes S^{\alpha_0,\delta_0}$ of equation \ref{eq:model})
360: from a unit flux source as a function of energy and position in the
361: field of view.
362: The parametrized instrumental response was obtained in the following way
363: (standard BAT software is reported in brackets):
364: %
365: \begin{enumerate}
366: \item for each Crab observation a model shadowgram for the source
367: position is computed (tool {\it batmaskwtimg});
368: \item for each Crab observation the source model and the standard
369: background components of {\it batclean} (see Section \ref{sec:preproc})
370: are fit to the data;
371: \item the normalizations of the source components (in the different observations)
372: are parametrized as a function of off-axis angle.
373: \end{enumerate}
374: %
375: The parametrized instrumental response is thus,
376: for a given source position,
377: the multiplication of the model shadowgram described in (1) and of a coefficient
378: computed from the parametrization derived in (3). In this way the instrumental
379: response accounts for the off-axis\footnotemark{}
380: variation of the detected source intensity
381: which the {\it batmaskwtimg} model does not take into account.
382: \footnotetext{The reader can find more details about the off-axis variation of
383: the source signal and other effects in the Appendix A.1 of \cite{ajello07b} }
384: The response, derived in this way, agrees with measured values
385: to within 1 sigma anywhere in the FoV.
386:
387:
388: To improve the speed of the code during source search
389: the full instrumental response was pre-computed
390: over a 6\arcmin\ pitch grid in the whole BAT FOV.\\
391: %
392: \\\\
393: %
394: To conclude, in Fig.~\ref{fig:lmc} we show
395: the imaging reconstruction capabilities of our approach;
396: two closeby faint sources, LMC X-1 and PSR B0540-69.3, are clearly detected
397: in the image obtained using $\sim$2600 observations.
398: The good angular resolution of BAT is also preserved by
399: our imaging reconstruction algorithm, in fact the two sources are separated by just
400: 25\arcmin\ (for comparison the BAT Point Spread Function is 22\arcmin).
401:
402: %############################################################################
403: % ANALYSIS
404: \section{Analysis}\label{sec:analysis}
405:
406: In this section we describe the application of the Maximum Likelihood method
407: to reconstruct the image of $\sim1/8$ of the sky using 8 months of BAT
408: data.
409:
410: % PREPROCESSING
411: \subsection{Data selection and screening}\label{sec:preproc}
412: We used 8\,months of data, from April 2005 (when BAT data became public)
413: to November 2005. In order to secure optical follow-up with a dedicated
414: observing campaign at La Silla, Chile in January 2006, we selected only
415: observations
416: with angular separation less than 45\,degrees from the zenith
417: (RA=105\,degrees, DEC=$-$25\,degrees).
418: The all-sky analysis, still within
419: the capabilities of modern super-computers, will be left to a future study.
420:
421:
422:
423: Swift-BAT survey data are in the form of 80 channels detector plane
424: histograms (DPH) with typical exposure time of 300\,s.\\
425: In order to have a suitable clean dataset as input of the imaging
426: reconstruction algorithm described in section \ref{sec:ml},
427: preprocessing must be carried out on the raw survey data.
428: This preprocessing phase accomplishes two different goals: 1)
429: data quality is monitored along
430: the processing and 2) the very bright sources detected during each single observations
431: are localized and inserted in the background model
432: of the imaging reconstruction algorithm.
433: The latter procedure can be justified as follows.
434: The brightest sources (except the Crab Nebula)
435: are known to be highly variable. However, since they are detected in general
436: at high significance in a single observation,
437: their intensities can be determined with good accuracy.
438: Thus, inserting bright sources in the background model,
439: rather than treating them
440: as several independent components in the source model, allows to handle
441: source variability in a natural way without increasing the size of the
442: problem.
443:
444: All the pre-processing was carried out using the latest
445: available version of the Swift software contained in the
446: HEASOFT 6.0.3. Below we report in brackets the name
447: of the standard BAT tools used during our pre-processing.
448:
449: For each DPH, our pre-processing pipeline, does the following operations:
450: \begin{enumerate}
451: \item{data are rebinned in energy channels according
452: to the gain-offset map generated on board ({\it baterebin})};
453: %
454: \item{the DPH is integrated along the energy axis, between 14 and 170\,keV,
455: and a detector plane image (DPI) is generated ({\it batbinevt})};
456: %
457: \item{a detector quality mask is created,
458: where hot and cold pixels are masked out ({\it bathotpix})}. These pixels
459: are identified as the wings of the distribution of counts for a given
460: observation; in general 2\% (and so roughly 1\% on each side)
461: of the distribution is excised;
462: %
463: \item{an empirical background model is fitted to the DPI
464: ({\it batclean}\footnote{the empirical background model
465: built-in in batclean fits (for a given energy range) a quadratic spatial
466: function plus a series of models which take care of detector edge effects for a
467: total of 14 parameters. The user is also free to include sources or different background models. The reader can find more details about the batclean background model
468: in the documentation included in the HEASOFT package (a copy of it is also
469: available online at
470: http://heasarc.nasa.gov/lheasoft/ftools/headas/batclean.html.)}});
471:
472: \item{the DPI and the background model are input
473: to a FFT deconvolution algorithm
474: which generates the sky image ({\it batfftimage})};
475: \item{source detection
476: takes place on the sky image and a catalog of all sources detected
477: above S/N$>6\,\sigma$ is created ({\it batcelldetect}); }
478: %
479: \item{a model for each detected source
480: is created and it is added to the background model of step 4.
481: The source model is created using the measured source coordinates.
482: These coordinates were preferred to the catalog position because
483: of non-trivial systematic effects which
484: produced a shift in the measured source coordinates
485: as a function of position in the FOV
486: (see http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/analysis/bat\_digest.html for more
487: details) ;
488: }
489: %
490: \item{steps 4 to 7 are repeated until no new sources are detected in a
491: single 300\,s observation.}
492: \end{enumerate}
493:
494:
495:
496: In order to have the cleanest dataset possible we have applied cuts on the quality
497: of the data. During the steps above data are screened on the basis
498: of the following conditions:
499: \begin{itemize}
500: \item{lock of the star tracker and pointing stability}
501: \item{spacecraft being outside of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA).
502: This information is reported in the housekeeping data and is referred
503: to a fiducial point inside the SAA.}
504: \item{BAT array rate $<$18000\,counts s$^{-1}$}
505: \item{exposure being larger than 200\,s}
506: \item{reduced $\chi^2$ of the background fit $<$1.5 }
507: \item{$>$ 9$\sigma$ detected sources must be within a distance of 0.1\,deg
508: from a known source otherwise they are thought to be spurious or transient.
509: The observation is flagged for a later analysis, but not inserted into the final dataset.}
510: \end{itemize}
511:
512: In table~\ref{tab:data_frac}, we have listed the fraction of exposure
513: which is rejected if a single data quality cut is applied to the data
514: used for this analysis. For the current dataset, $\sim$ 34\% of the overall
515: exposure time was rejected because the data did not meet one or more
516: of the above mentioned criteria.
517:
518:
519:
520: After processing and screening the data according to these criteria,
521: the final data set includes 2671 observations.
522: These observations are input to the imaging reconstruction algorithm
523: described in section \ref{sec:ml}. Fig.~\ref{fig:exp} shows
524: the total exposure map of all pointings.
525:
526: All sources detected
527: during the preprocessing phase are listed in table~\ref{tab:prec_src}
528: along with their identification, their maximum and total significance
529: (computed as the sum of the squared of significances)
530: from this per-pointing analysis, and the number of detections.
531: The distribution of the offsets of sources in table~\ref{tab:prec_src} from their catalog
532: counterpart is reported in Fig. \ref{fig:off5min}. The same graph shows the extremely
533: good location accuracy of BAT which locates 95\% of all
534: sources, detected in single pointings, within
535: 2\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$2} radius. \\
536: In order to understand the dependence of location accuracy
537: on the source significance,
538: we have analyzed all per-pointing detections, see Fig.~\ref{fig:off5min_sn},
539: and determined that the
540: %Crab Nebula detections and determined that the
541: offset varies with significance accordingly to
542: \begin{equation}
543: \textup{OFFSET}= 4.94(\pm 0.68 )\times (\textup{S/N})^{-0.59 (\pm0.05)}\ \ \ \ {\rm [arcmin]}
544: \label{eq:off}
545: \end{equation}
546:
547: This analysis is based only on sources detected during
548: individual pointings.
549:
550: %
551: %
552: % IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION
553: %
554: %
555: \subsection{Imaging reconstruction}
556:
557: The 2671 DPIs along with their background models (created at step 4 in section
558: \ref{sec:preproc}) are input of the imaging reconstruction algorithm. For this
559: analysis we have used 1 parameter for the source component; moreover
560: we have allowed the
561: normalization of the background component to vary separately
562: in each pointing, leading to a total of 2672 parameters.
563: The map is built in small segments of 5$\times$5 deg$^2$.
564: A pixel size of 12\arcmin\ was chosen as the best
565: compromise between computational time and the resampling factor of the PSF
566: ($\sim$ 2 in this case). The significance image is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:map}.\\
567:
568:
569:
570: %
571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
572: % Setting the significance threshold
573: %
574: \subsection{Setting the significance threshold}
575:
576: There are several approaches in order to derive the best
577: significance threshold.
578: The Maximum Likelihood method leads to perfectly symmetric Gaussian, normal,
579: noise in the pixels of the reconstructed image.
580: Thus, the most straightforward approach is setting the threshold as the
581: absolute value of the lowest negative fluctuation.
582: In this case, since the negative fluctuations are given by noise, one should expect
583: no false detection above this threshold.
584:
585:
586:
587: As it can be seen in the significance distribution reported in
588: Fig. \ref{fig:snrdistr}, no negative fluctuations larger than $-4.3$ are found.
589: If we take into consideration the number of trials and the normal Gaussian
590: distribution we get that above the threshold S/N ratio of 4.5
591: we expect a number
592: of false detections of 0.7.
593: We also made a Monte-Carlo simulation generating a large number
594: ($>$1000) of sky images with Gaussian noise. We then counted
595: all the excesses above the 4.5\,$\sigma$ level and found out that
596: the number of expected false detection is 1.01, in agreement
597: with the previous finding.
598: A contamination of our sample of sources
599: by $\sim$1 spurious detection was judged to be a good compromise between
600: detection sensitivity and sample corruption (see Section \ref{sec:det} for the
601: chance connected to have a higher contamination).
602: Hence we decided to fix the threshold to 4.5\,$\sigma$.
603:
604:
605: %
606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
607: % Sky Coverage
608: %
609: \subsection{Noise properties and Sky coverage}
610:
611: The sky coverage is, for a given survey, the distribution of the survey's area
612: as a function of limiting flux. The knowledge about the sky coverage is
613: particularly important when computing the number-flux relation
614: (also known as LogN-LogS distribution). We leave the derivation of the number-flux
615: relation to a separate paper \citep{ajello07b}, but we are interested in deriving
616: the sky coverage here as it brings crucial information about the sensitivity
617: and noise properties of the survey.
618: \\\\
619: The sky coverage as a function of the minimum detectable flux $F_{min}$ is defined as
620: the sum of the area covered to fluxes $f_i < F_{min}$:
621: \begin{equation}
622: \Omega(<F_{min}) = \sum_i^N A_i \ \ \ \ f_i< F_{min}
623: \label{eq:skycov}
624: \end{equation}
625: where N is the number of image pixels and $A_i$ is the area associated with each
626: of them.
627:
628: We have followed two procedures to compute the sky coverage of our survey area:
629: \begin{itemize}
630: \item the ML method produces a flux map and an error map as output of the
631: fitting procedure. In order to get the sky coverage we multiplied the error
632: map by the 4.5\,$\sigma$ threshold S/N ratio and then counted the area as in Equation
633: \ref{eq:skycov}; \\
634: \item we computed the local (flux) image variance
635: using a sliding annular region whose internal and external radii
636: were 5 and 30 pixels respectively. The noise of a given pixel is thus
637: computed as the variance of the pixels contained in the annulus centered on it.
638: The central pixels are excised so that the background does not include
639: contamination from the source region. This map is a true
640: representation of the noise in our image. Again, we multiplied this noise map
641: by our detection threshold of 4.5\,$\sigma$ and then counted the area
642: as in Equation \ref{eq:skycov}.
643: \end{itemize}
644:
645: The sky coverage computed in both ways does not present any significant differences
646: testifying that the error computed by the ML method is very close to
647: (if not the same as) the real noise term of the sky image.
648: In the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:noise} we report the sky coverage of the entire area
649: and for the extragalactic portion of the sky (selected imposing
650: $\mid b\mid>15^{\circ}$). As it can be seen from the sky coverage, $>$75\% of the
651: surveyed area is sensitive to fluxes $\sim$1\,mCrab and all of it to fluxes
652: $>$2.0\,mCrab. The limiting sensitivity in our image is a bit less than
653: 0.9\,mCrab (or 2.05$\times 10^{-11}$erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$).
654: \\\\
655: The analysis of the pixel noise as a function of exposure time
656: (reported in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:noise})
657: shows that the survey sensitivity scales $\propto T^{-0.5}$ denoting that
658: systematic errors do not dominate over statistical ones.
659: We then compared our survey sensitivity to
660: recent results from the BAT and INTEGRAL-ISGRI hard X-ray surveys
661: \citep{markwardt05,
662: bassani06}. In order to perform the comparison, we transformed the sensitivities
663: provided by the authors in different bands to sensitivities in a common band
664: (20-100\,keV); the comparison, which is shown in table \ref{tab:sens}, is done
665: in two ways: once taking into account the threshold S/N used by the authors
666: in their work, and then also based on a common 5\,$\sigma$-equivalent sensitivity.
667: The main
668: result is that for 1\,Ms of exposure, our survey is one of the most sensitive.
669:
670:
671: %
672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
673: % Source detection and fluxes
674: %
675: \subsection{Source detections and fluxes}\label{sec:det}
676: %
677: Source detection on the reconstructed image is a straightforward process
678: since
679: significance and flux maps are direct results of our reconstruction algorithm.
680: All not-neighbouring pixels which meet the criterion
681: $S/N > S/N_{threshold}$ are identified. However at this stage we have
682: lowered our detection threshold to (an optimally chosen) 3.5\,$\sigma$.
683: Indeed, our procedure of using a pre-computed response over a 6\arcmin\ pitch
684: grid on a 12\arcmin\ pixel-size map might produce a small loss
685: in the reconstructed sources' fluxes and significances.
686: In order to overcome this problem,
687: we have generated, for all the above candidates,
688: a 5\arcmin\ pitch grid map using the correct instrumental response
689: (i.e. not pre-computed on a 6\arcmin\ pitch grid).
690: One such map has already been shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lmc}. Only those
691: candidates
692: whose significance, as derived from the oversampled small maps, exceeds
693: the 4.5\,$\sigma$ threshold are kept in the sample and fit with
694: the instrumental point spread function
695: (the {\it batcelldetect} is used here) in order to determine the most
696: accurate source parameters.
697: This procedure allows us to recover the correct
698: source significance and flux at the cost of a slightly larger number of false
699: detections. Indeed, due to the increased number of trials
700: the expected number of false detection is now 1.5.
701: We remark that our map is one realization over many;
702: thus there exists a not-zero probability that the number of false
703: detection exceeds the (averaged) value estimated here. Our Monte Carlo
704: simulation shows that the probability of getting
705: a number of false detections of 2, 3, and 4 is respectively
706: 0.21, 0.09, and 0.02.
707:
708: % --------------------------------------
709: % these are the prob ==n
710: % Prob of =1 spurious source is 0.363000
711: % Prob of =2 spurious source is 0.210000
712: % Prob of =3 spurious source is 0.093000
713: % Prob of =4 spurious source is 0.033000
714: % Prob of =5 spurious source is 0.007000
715: % Prob of =6 spurious source is 0.001000
716: % Prob of =7 spurious source is 0.000000
717:
718: % --------------------------------------
719: % these are the prob >= n
720: % Prob of >1 spurious source is 0.707000
721: % Prob of >2 spurious source is 0.344000
722: % Prob of >3 spurious source is 0.134000
723: % Prob of >4 spurious source is 0.041000
724: % Prob of >5 spurious source is 0.008000
725: % Prob of >6 spurious source is 0.001000
726: % Prob of >7 spurious source is 0.000000
727: % --------------------------------------
728:
729:
730:
731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
732: % Detected Source
733: %
734: %
735: \subsection{Detected sources}
736: We have detected 49 hard X-ray sources in our survey. Four of these sources are
737: residuals caused by imperfect modeling (and inclusion in the background model)
738: of bright sources which are detected in individual DPHs.
739: These 4 sources (LMC~X--4, EXO~0748$-$676, Vel~X$-$1 and V$^*$~V1055~Ori)
740: are still detected in the reconstructed image with a S/N of 20--40.
741: \\\\
742: In table~\ref{tab:src}, we report the coordinates and fluxes of all
743: 45 serendipitous objects detected above the 4.5\,$\sigma$
744: detection threshold.
745: %
746: \\\\
747: We have correlated our sources with the ROSAT All-Sky Survey Bright Source Catalogue
748: \citep{voges99} in the same way as in \cite{stephen06}.
749: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ros_corr}, we report the number of BAT sources which have at least
750: one ROSAT source within a given radius. Also, to understand the contribution
751: of chance coincidences to these associations, we
752: performed a Monte Carlo simulation using 5$\times 10^5$
753: positions randomly distributed in our
754: field. Due to non-uniformity in the distribution of ROSAT sources, the probability
755: of a chance association increases slightly towards negative
756: Galactic latitudes. Taking into account the highest density of ROSAT sources
757: (for $-40^{\circ}<$b$<-20^{\circ}$), we get from Fig.~\ref{fig:ros_corr}
758: that using a radius of 300\arcsec\ for the identification
759: of our sources will yield a probability of chance coincidence of 0.015
760: (1 wrong identification overall).
761: %
762: %
763:
764: %
765: The same figure yields
766: also information about the BAT point spread function location accuracy (PSLA),
767: as the BAT uncertainty in the position dominates the ROSAT error. Thus,
768: assuming that the ROSAT position is the ``true'' source position and
769: considering only the ROSAT associations, we fitted an inverted Gaussian to the curve
770: of Fig.~\ref{fig:ros_corr} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_ros}); we
771: derived that 95\% and 99\% of all spatial coincidences
772: are within 3\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$3} and 5\arcmin\ respectively.
773: Thus, using a 5\arcmin\ radius for source identification yields the
774: best compromise between probability of finding the BAT counterpart and
775: chance coincidence.
776: %
777:
778: It is not surprising that $<$70\% of our
779: sample is correlated with the ROSAT catalog since photoelectric absorption might
780: play an important role.
781: Using the ROSAT catalog we achieved to identify 30 of our sources.
782: These sources are generally the brightest of our sample and they
783: were already detected by previous observatories \citep{macomb99}.
784: \\\\
785: Using the same 300\arcsec\ error radius, we searched for spatial coincidences
786: between our sources and both
787: the HEAO-1 catalog of high energy sources \citep{levine84}
788: and the 2nd INTEGRAL-IBIS catalog \citep{bird06}.
789: We found that 2 sources were already detected in hard X-rays by HEAO-1
790: and 7 objects, including also the previous 2, by INTEGRAL.
791: All these 7 sources were already detected at low energy by ROSAT.
792: Two additional sources, 3C 227 and V* BG CMi have an Einstein IPC counterpart
793: \citep{harris90}. 3C 227 was also detected during a long (11\,ks) ROSAT-PSPC
794: observations \citep{crawford95}.
795: \\\\
796: Some of the new sources can be identified using the narrow field X-ray telescope (XRT)
797: on board Swift. With its 5\arcsec\ position
798: accuracy XRT is able to pinpoint the source counterpart in less than 2 ks.
799: We requested and obtained 3 followup observations of our targets
800: (J0732.5-1330, J0823.3-0456 and J0918.6+1617) and this
801: allowed us to firmly identify the counterpart of those sources \citep{ajello06a}.
802: Other sources (e.g. J0916.4-6221, J0519.5-3240, J0505.8-2351 and J0920.8-0805)
803: were observed
804: by XRT as part of the ongoing effort of the BAT all-sky survey
805: \citep{tueller05a,tueller05b,kennea05atel3}.
806: We also searched the Swift archive for XRT observations covering
807: the fields of our sources.
808: \\
809: A total of 17 sources can be firmly identified thanks to XRT.
810: The results of all the identification efforts using X-ray catalogs and XRT, are
811: reported in table \ref{tab:src}.
812: Details of all sources identified using XRT are
813: given case-by-case in the next section.
814: \\
815: Using the sources with a known X-ray counterpart,
816: we report, in Fig. \ref{fig:snr_off}, the sources' offsets
817: from their catalog position as a function of significance. A fit to the
818: data shows that the offset varies with S/N as:
819: %
820: \begin{equation}
821: \textup{ OFFSET} = 10.7(\pm 1.9)\times \textup{S/N}^{-0.95 (\pm0.08)}\ \ \ \ [\textup{arcmin}]
822: \label{eq:off_survey}
823: \end{equation}
824: %
825: Moreover, from the same plot we expect that for a 4.5\,$\sigma$
826: detection the maximum offset be 5\arcmin; this is in perfect agreement
827: with what is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fit_ros}.\\
828: The offset derived for a 10\,$\sigma$ source from the previous relation
829: and from equation \ref{eq:off} (i.e. the same 10\,$\sigma$ source is detected
830: in the single 300\,s sky image) is
831: 1\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$18} and 1\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$26} respectively.
832: The small difference between the per-pointing location accuracy
833: and the accuracy in the summed image is due to the fact that Equations
834: \ref{eq:off} and \ref{eq:off_survey} are computed for different ranges
835: of S/N. Indeed, sources detected in the survey image (sum of 2671 shorter
836: observations) span the 4.5--10 range of significance while most of the sources
837: detected in single pointings have S/N greater than 9\,$\sigma$
838: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:off5min_sn}).
839: %
840: Thus, we can affirm that our survey analysis preserves
841: the good location accuracy of BAT.
842: %%%%%%
843: %%%%%%
844:
845:
846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
847: %---------XRT observations
848: %
849: \subsection{XRT observations}
850: %
851: {\bf SWIFT J0407.6+0336.} XRT observed this source field for 7\,ks on Jul 11, 2006.
852: The only detected object, RA(2000)= 04 07 16.2 Dec(2000)=+03 42 24.3,
853: is coincident with the Sy2 galaxy 3C 105.0 and distant
854: 4\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$7} from
855: the BAT position. It is the first time that 3C 105.0 is detected in X-rays.
856: \\\\
857: {\bf SWIFT J0505.8-2351.} XRT observed this source field for 3.2\,ks on Aug. 20, 2005.
858: Only one source is detected within the BAT error box
859: at RA(2000)=05 05 45.4 Dec(2000)=-23 51 16.8 coincident with the Sy2 galaxy
860: 2MASX J05054575-2351139. This object was already identified as the BAT counterpart
861: in \cite{tueller05b}.
862: \\\\
863: {\bf SWIFT J0519.5-3240.} A 7\,ks XRT observation was performed on Nov. 26, 2005. In the XRT
864: field only two objects are detected. The brighter one at
865: RA(2000)=05 19 35.5 Dec(2000)=-32 39 22.4 is only
866: 1\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$1} from the BAT position.
867: The fainter one is detected at RA(2000)=05 19 25.8 Dec(2000)=-32 42 32.3
868: and it is only a 2$\sigma$ detection. The bright source is associated with
869: the nearby Sy1.5 galaxy ESO 362- G 018 (also detected by ROSAT
870: as 1RXS J051936.1-323910).
871: ESO 362- G 018 was already identified as the BAT
872: counterpart by \cite{tueller05b}.
873: \\\\
874: {\bf SWIFT J0522.6-3625.} XRT observed this field for 899\,s in May 26 2005. Only one
875: source is detected at RA(2000)=05 22 57.8 Dec(2000)=-36 27 29.7 at
876: 4\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$6}
877: from the BAT position. The XRT source is coincident with ESO 362-G021 a BL Lac
878: object already detected by ROSAT and XMM at lower energies and by BeppoSAX
879: in hard X-rays \citep{donato05}.
880: \\\\
881: {\bf SWIFT J0539.9-2842.} An XRT observation of 14\,ks
882: took place on Dec. 8, 2005.
883: A faint source is detected at RA(2000)=05 39 09.3 Dec(2000)=-28 41 01.5
884: coincident with the z=3.1 QSO PKS 0537-2843 and distant
885: 2\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$5} from the BAT
886: position. The QSO was discovered in X-rays by the Einstein observatory
887: \citep{zamorani81}
888: and then studied by ROSAT, ASCA and lately by XMM. The BAT detection in hard
889: X-rays is the first to date.
890: \\\\
891: {\bf SWIFT J0550.8-3215.} A 9\,ks XRT observation took place on May 21, 2005.
892: A very bright source is detected at RA(2000)=05 50 40.4 Dec(2000)=-32 16 15.5
893: distant 2\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$4} from the BAT position.
894: The XRT source is associated
895: with a well known blazar PKS 0548-322 already detected in hard X-ray
896: \citep[see][]{donato05}. The blazar is then the BAT counterpart.
897: \\\\
898: {\bf SWIFT J0552.1-0727.} During 9\,ks of exposure on Apr. 8, 2006, XRT detects
899: a bright source located at RA(2000)=05 52 11.5 Dec(2000)=-07 27 24.2.
900: The object is coincident with the well known Sy2 galaxy NGC 2110 and
901: its position is only 0\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$4} away from the BAT detection.
902: The detection of NGC 2110 in the 3-20\,keV band by RXTE \citep{revnivtsev04}
903: and the presence of no other source in the XRT field secure the identification
904: of NGC 2110 as the BAT counterpart.
905: \\\\
906: {\bf SWIFT J0640.0-2553.} During 2.8\,ks of observation on Mar. 23, 2006,
907: XRT detects only one bright source at RA(2000)=06 40 11.8 Dec(2000)=-25 53 41.5
908: coincident with the Sy1 galaxy ESO 490- G26 (already detected in soft X-rays by
909: ROSAT as RX J064011-25536).
910: The source position is 2\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$5} distant from the BAT detection.
911: \\\\
912: {\bf SWIFT J0732.5-1330, aka SWIFT J0732.5-1331.}
913: XRT observed this field for 4\,ks on Apr. 28, 2006. Only
914: one source is detected in the XRT field at RA(2000)=07 32 37.7
915: Dec(2000)=-13 31 08.6. This source is coincident with an
916: USNO B1 star J073237.64-133109.0. The source was already identified as
917: the BAT counterpart by \cite{ajello06a}. Follow-up measurements
918: in the optical determined that this source is a new intermediate polar
919: \citep[][and references therein]{weathley06}.
920: \\\\
921: {\bf SWIFT J0759.9-3844.} XRT observed the field of this source for 7\,ks.
922: Three sources
923: are clearly detected. The brightest of them is located at RA(2000)=07 59 41.2
924: Dec(2000)=-38 43 57.9 being only
925: 0\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$5}
926: away from the BAT position while
927: the remaining two are distant more than 10\arcmin.
928: The brightest object is coincident with the INTEGRAL source IGR J07597-3842
929: and with the ROSAT source RX J075942.0 -384359.
930: The fact that the only source within 4\arcmin\ from the BAT position is also
931: detected by INTEGRAL in hard X-rays \citep{denhartog04}
932: makes this source the BAT counterpart.
933: The probable association with an IR point source
934: IRAS 07579-3835, and a 1.4-GHz radio counterpart (NVSS archive) makes the case
935: for a AGN nature of the object. This source was identified as
936: being a Sy1.2 galaxy during a recent optical spectroscopy followup \citep{masetti06b}.
937: \\\\
938: {\bf SWIFT J0823.3-0456.} Only a single faint source is detected by XRT
939: during 1.2\,ks of
940: exposure on Jan. 6, 2006. The source is located at
941: RA(2000)=08 23 01 Dec(2000)=-04 56 02.5 and 2\arcmin\ away
942: from the BAT detection.
943: The object is coincident with the galaxy FAIRALL 0272 and
944: was already identified as the BAT counterpart by \cite{ajello06a}.
945: An optical follow-up showed that the source is a Sy2 galaxy \citep{masetti06}.
946: \\\\
947: {\bf SWIFT J0918.6+1617.} SWIFT J0918.5+1617, aka SWIFT J0918.5+1618,
948: is another source found thanks to our algorithm \citep{ajello06a}.
949: During an XRT followup of 0.6\,ks, the only detected source
950: is located at RA(2000)=09 18 25.8 Dec(2000)=+16 18 20.8
951: (2\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$5} away
952: from the BAT position) and coincident with the galaxy Mrk 704.
953: Mrk 704 was previously detected in soft X-rays by ROSAT \citep{schwope00}.
954: In a recent optical followup, the galaxy was found to be a Sy1 \citep{masetti06}.
955: \\\\
956: {\bf SWIFT J0920.8-0805.} An XRT observation of 8.5\,ks took place on Dec. 10, 2005.
957: Only one source is detected in the entire field. Its position,
958: RA(2000)=09 20 46.0 Dec(2000)=-08 03 21.8, is coincident with
959: the Sy2 galaxy MCG-01-24-012 and distant
960: 2\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$2}
961: from the BAT position.
962: This object was already identified as the BAT counterpart by \cite{kennea05atel3}.
963: \\\\
964: {\bf SWIFT J0945.9-1421.} An XRT observation of 11\,ks took place on Jul. 8, 2006.
965: The only source detected inside the BAT error box
966: is located at RA(2000)=09 45 42.0 Dec(2000)=-14 19 33.7. The source
967: is coincident with the Sy1.9 galaxy NGC 2992 and is distant
968: 1\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$5}
969: from the BAT detection. The source was already detected in soft X-rays
970: by ROSAT as 1RXS J094541.9-141927.
971: \\\\
972: {\bf SWIFT J0947.6-3056.} XRT observed the source field for 10\,ks on Dec. 9, 2005.
973: Only one bright source is detected at RA(2000)=09 47 39.8 Dec(2000)=-30 56 55.4
974: coincident with the Sy2 galaxy ESO 434- G 040 and distant only
975: 0\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$4}
976: from the BAT position. The galaxy was also detected in hard X-ray by INTEGRAL
977: \citep{bird06}.
978:
979:
980: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
981: %
982: % CONCLUSION
983: %
984: \section{Conclusions}
985:
986: We have presented an application of the Maximum Likelihood method as a deconvolution
987: technique used to reconstruct the sky image when dealing with a coded-mask instrument
988: like BAT. The main difference with other image reconstruction algorithms, such as the
989: standard cross-correlation technique, is that a sky distribution model
990: is forward-folded through the full instrumental response and fit to
991: the detector plane counts in order to derive the most probable sky image.
992: This is realized in a single step
993: including data from many pointings and thus no image mosaicking is required.
994: This study was motivated principally by the capabilities of ML to: 1)
995: preserve the full statistical information in the data and 2) to reduce the systematic
996: errors connected to mosaicking techniques which other methods cannot avoid.
997: This leads to an improvement in sensitivity over other methods.
998: \\\\
999: Moreover, this study is motivated by the need to use sensitive
1000: imaging techniques for the study of the hard X-ray sky. Although deep
1001: soft X-ray surveys (0.5-2.0\,keV) were able to resolve the majority
1002: of the CXB emission into discrete sources \citep{hasinger98}, only a minor
1003: fraction of the CXB above 8\,keV is resolved \citep{worsley05}.
1004: Furthermore, the bulk of the CXB radiation is emitted around
1005: 30\,keV \citep{marshall80} and the exact nature of the source population
1006: responsible for the background at these energies is unknown because of the
1007: low sensitivity of previous hard X-ray telescopes.
1008: The BAT
1009: coded mask detector, on board the Swift mission, represents a major
1010: improvement in sensitivity for imaging of the hard X-ray sky; thus,
1011: we tested our ML imaging algorithm on BAT survey data.
1012: This study was also complemented by an optical spectroscopy
1013: campaign aimed at identifying BAT-discovered extragalactic hard X-ray objects
1014: \citep{rau07}.
1015: \\\\
1016: The results presented in the previous sections can be summarized as follows:
1017: after screening our dataset for bad data as discussed in
1018: Section \ref{sec:preproc}, the final survey image
1019: obtained using the ML method presents a perfect Gaussian normal
1020: noise. We detected 49 hard X-ray sources
1021: above the 4.5\,$\sigma$ detection threshold.
1022: Only 12 were previously
1023: known as hard X-ray emitters (previously detected by INTEGRAL or HEAO-1).
1024: 37 are new sources detected by BAT due to our image reconstruction method.\\
1025: The correlation of BAT sources with the ROSAT catalog shows the extremely good
1026: location accuracy of the BAT instrument which is also preserved by our algorithm.
1027: Also it is worth noticing that $\sim$30\%
1028: of our sources are not correlated with
1029: the ROSAT objects; this is most probably due to the presence of
1030: photoelectric absorption in some of the new BAT sources.
1031: The analysis of the limiting flux as a function of pixel exposure
1032: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:noise})
1033: for the reconstructed image sum of all observations,
1034: shows that systematic errors do not dominate over statistical ones and
1035: that BAT should be able to achieve, in the future,
1036: a sensitivity of 0.5\,mCrab with 3\,Ms
1037: of exposure (if systematics remain at this level).
1038: The sky coverage
1039: shows that 75\% of the survey
1040: is covered to flux $\sim$1\,mCrab and all of it to fluxes $>2.0$\,mCrab.
1041: All of this makes this analysis one of the most sensitive surveys ever performed
1042: in the hard X-ray domain.
1043: \\\\
1044: The optical spectroscopy identification of the new sources and
1045: a discussion about the optical properties are left to a separate paper
1046: \citep{rau07} while the statistical and spectral X-ray properties
1047: will be discussed in \cite{ajello07b}.
1048:
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054: \acknowledgments
1055: MA acknowledges N. Gehrels and the BAT team for the warm
1056: hospitality and enlightening discussions,
1057: A. Yoldas for all his tips\&tricks about parallel programming and python.
1058: The anonymous referee is aknowledged for his helpful comments which
1059: improved the manuscript.
1060: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which
1061: is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, of data obtained from the
1062: High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC) provided
1063: by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, of the SIMBAD Astronomical Database
1064: which is operated by the Centre de Donn\'ees astronomiques de Strasbourg, of
1065: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) managed by the Astrophysical Research
1066: Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions and of the ROSAT All Sky
1067: Survey mantained by the Max Planck Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik.
1068:
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072:
1073: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1074: \bibliography{/Users/marcoajello/Work/Papers/BiblioLib/biblio}
1075:
1076:
1077: \clearpage
1078:
1079:
1080:
1081: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Tables
1082:
1083: \input{tab1}
1084:
1085: %\clearpage
1086:
1087: \input{tab2}
1088:
1089: \input{tab3}
1090:
1091: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% this is the main table
1092: \clearpage
1093: \input{tab4}
1094:
1095:
1096:
1097: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES
1098:
1099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 1
1100: \clearpage
1101: \begin{figure}[h!]
1102: \begin{centering}
1103: \includegraphics[height=60mm,scale=1,width=70mm]{f1.ps}
1104: \caption{Image of LMC X-1 (right) and PSR B0540-69.3 (left)
1105: clearly separated. The pixel size is 5\arcmin\ and the map is about
1106: $1\times 1$ deg$^2$.}
1107: \label{fig:lmc}
1108: \end{centering}
1109: \end{figure}
1110:
1111:
1112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 2
1113: \begin{figure}[h!]
1114: \begin{centering}
1115: \includegraphics[scale=1.0,trim= 0 0 0 20, clip=true]{f2_low.eps}
1116: \caption{Exposure map, corrected for telescope vignetting,
1117: of the survey field presented in text after data screening.
1118: }
1119: \label{fig:exp}
1120: \end{centering}
1121: \end{figure}
1122:
1123:
1124:
1125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 3
1126: \begin{figure}[h!]
1127: \centering
1128: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f3.eps}
1129: %\epsscale{0.7}
1130: %\plotone{Offset_5min.eps}
1131: \caption{The solid line is the distribution of the offsets
1132: of sources detected in the individual observations (see
1133: Tab.~\ref{tab:prec_src}) from their catalog position.
1134: The inner histogram (dotted line) shows
1135: the detections of the Crab while the dashed line is the
1136: cumulative distribution of all detections.
1137: 90\% and 95\% confidence limits are at
1138: radii of 1\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$8} and 2\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$2} respectively.}
1139: \label{fig:off5min}
1140: \end{figure}
1141:
1142:
1143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 4
1144: \begin{figure}[h!]
1145: \centering
1146: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f4.eps}
1147: \caption{Offset from catalog position
1148: of sources detected in individual observations as
1149: a function of S/N. The solid line is the function described in Eq.~\ref{eq:off}}
1150: \label{fig:off5min_sn}
1151: \end{figure}
1152:
1153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 5
1154: \begin{figure}[h!]
1155: \begin{centering}
1156: \includegraphics[scale=1.3,trim=0 0 0 18,clip=true]{f5_low.eps}
1157: \caption{Significance map of the 90x90\,deg$^2$ surveyed area.
1158: Blue circles mark all sources above 4.5\,$\sigma$ presented in
1159: Tab.~\ref{tab:src},
1160: while red squares show the position of bright sources which were included
1161: in the background model.}
1162: \label{fig:map}
1163: \end{centering}
1164: \end{figure}
1165:
1166:
1167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 6
1168: \begin{figure}[h!]
1169: \epsscale{0.7}
1170: \plotone{f6.eps}
1171: \caption{S/N distribution.The dashed line is an overlaid
1172: Gaussian with $\sigma =1$.}
1173: \label{fig:snrdistr}
1174: \end{figure}
1175:
1176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 7
1177: \begin{figure*}[ht!]
1178: \begin{center}
1179: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1180: \includegraphics[scale=0.41]{f7a.eps}
1181: \includegraphics[scale=0.41]{f7b.eps}\\
1182: \end{tabular}
1183: \end{center}
1184: \caption{
1185: {\bf Left Panel:}
1186: Sky coverage as a function of minimum detectable flux for S/N=4.5
1187: in the 14-170\,keV band. As it can be seen 75\% of the surveyed area is covered
1188: to 1\,mCrab. The dashed line is the sky coverage for $|b|>15^{\circ}$.
1189: {\bf Right Panel:}
1190: Pixel 5\,$\sigma$ sensitivity threshold as a function of pixel exposure time.
1191: The dashed line is the fit to data points corresponding to the
1192: function 3.0mCrab$(T/100\textup{ks})^{-0.5}$.
1193: }
1194: \label{fig:noise}
1195: \end{figure*}
1196: %
1197: %
1198: %
1199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 8
1200: \begin{figure}[h!]
1201: \begin{centering}
1202: \includegraphics[height=90mm,scale=1,width=80mm,angle=270]{f8.ps}
1203: \caption{Probability of finding at least one ROSAT source within a given radius
1204: for our source sample of table \ref{tab:src}. The thick solid line is the probability
1205: for the real sample while the thin line is the expected contribution of chance
1206: coincidences. The inset shows a closeup view of the chance coincidence curve
1207: for the region of interest (200\arcsec\ $<$ R $<$300\arcsec); the dashed line
1208: is the chance coincidence distribution for latitudes
1209: $-40^{\circ}<$b$<-20^{\circ}$, while the dotted line
1210: is for $0^{\circ}<$b$<20^{\circ}$. }
1211: \label{fig:ros_corr}
1212: \end{centering}
1213: \end{figure}
1214:
1215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 9
1216: \begin{figure}[h!]
1217: \begin{centering}
1218: \epsscale{0.7}
1219: \plotone{f9.eps}
1220: \caption{Gaussian fit to the curve of Fig. \ref{fig:ros_corr}.
1221: The PSLA at 95\% and
1222: 99\% confidence is respectively 3\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$3} and 5\arcmin.}
1223: \label{fig:fit_ros}
1224: \end{centering}
1225: \end{figure}
1226: %
1227: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%fig 10
1228: \begin{figure}[h!]
1229: \begin{centering}
1230: \epsscale{0.7}
1231: \plotone{f10.eps}
1232: \caption{Offset of the sources detected in the final survey image
1233: as a function of their significance.
1234: The solid line is the fit to the data with the function
1235: OFFSET = 10\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime}$7}$\times \textup{S/N}^{-0.95}$.
1236: The long dashed line is the fit
1237: to $>3$\,$\sigma$ deviations from the previous fit and gives the maximum expected
1238: offset for a given significance. For comparison, the short dashed line shows
1239: the best fit (Eq. \ref{eq:off}) to the offset-significance relation for
1240: sources detected in individual pointings.}
1241: \label{fig:snr_off}
1242: \end{centering}
1243: \end{figure}
1244: %
1245:
1246: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1247: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1248: %% To embed the sample graphics in
1249: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
1250: %% \includegraphics commands
1251: %%
1252: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
1253: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
1254: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
1255: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
1256: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
1257: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
1258: %%
1259: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
1260: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
1261: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
1262: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
1263: %% journal to journal.
1264:
1265: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
1266: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
1267: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
1268: %% available in the electronic journal.
1269:
1270: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,
1271: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color
1272: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates
1273: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.
1274: %%
1275:
1276: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame
1277: %% for an mpeg animation.
1278:
1279: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may
1280: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the
1281: %% User Guide for details.
1282: %%
1283: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
1284: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
1285: %% after every seventh one.
1286:
1287: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
1288: %% each one.
1289:
1290: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
1291: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
1292: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
1293: %%
1294:
1295: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
1296: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
1297:
1298: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
1299: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
1300: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
1301: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
1302: %% reduced font size.
1303: %%
1304: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
1305: %% inside the \tablecaption.
1306:
1307: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
1308: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
1309: %% edition.
1310:
1311: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
1312: %% \tableline, not \hline.
1313: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
1314: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
1315:
1316:
1317: %% If the table is more than one page long, the width of the table can vary
1318: %% from page to page when the default \tablewidth is used, as below. The
1319: %% individual table widths for each page will be written to the log file; a
1320: %% maximum tablewidth for the table can be computed from these values.
1321: %% The \tablewidth argument can then be reset and the file reprocessed, so
1322: %% that the table is of uniform width throughout. Try getting the widths
1323: %% from the log file and changing the \tablewidth parameter to see how
1324: %% adjusting this value affects table formatting.
1325:
1326: %% The \dataset{} macro has also been applied to a few of the objects to
1327: %% show how many observations can be tagged in a table.
1328:
1329: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying
1330: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.
1331: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input
1332: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this
1333: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,
1334: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want
1335: %% to include it in this document.)
1336:
1337: %% \input{table}
1338:
1339: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1340: %% that appears after it.
1341:
1342: \end{document}
1343:
1344: %%
1345: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1346: