1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 2005 December 5

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

10: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

11: 

12: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

13: 

14: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

15: %\usepackage{amsmath}

16: 

17: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

18: 

19: \begin{document}

20: 

21: \title{Bayesian Image Reconstruction \\

22:  Based on Voronoi Diagrams}

23: 

24: \author{G. F. Cabrera\altaffilmark{1, 2}, S. Casassus\altaffilmark{1}}

25: %\affil{Departamento de Astronom\'ia, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Casilla 36-D, Chile}

26: \and

27: \author{N. Hitschfeld\altaffilmark{2}}

28: \email{guille@das.uchile.cl}

29: 

30: \altaffiltext{1}{Departamento de Astronom\'ia, Universidad de Chile,

31:   Santiago, Casilla 36-D, Chile} 

32: \altaffiltext{2}{Departamento de Ciencias de la Computaci\'on, 

33:   Universidad de Chile, Santiago}

34: 

35: %\affil{Departamento de Ciencias de la Computaci\'on, Universidad de Chile, Santiago}

36: 

37: \begin{abstract}

38: We present a Bayesian Voronoi image reconstruction technique (VIR) for

39: interferometric data. Bayesian analysis applied to the inverse problem

40: allows us to derive the \emph{a-posteriori} probability of a novel

41: parameterization of interferometric images. We use a variable Voronoi

42: diagram as our model in place of the usual fixed pixel grid.

43: % To describe the probability we calculate the likelihood

44: % and \emph{a-priori} probabilities, which need the intensity

45: % distributions to be discretized. We use a $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ quantum

46: % for this purpose. 

47: A quantization of the intensity field allows us to calculate the

48: likelihood function and \emph{a-priori} probabilities.  The Voronoi

49: image is optimized including the number of polygons as free

50: parameters.

51: % We show reconstructions made over visibilities simulated using the

52: % Cosmic Background Imager (CBI) and compare them with a MEM

53: % reconstruction.

54: We apply our algorithm to deconvolve simulated interferometric data.

55: Residuals, restored images and $\chi^2$ values are used to compare our

56: reconstructions with fixed grid models. VIR has the advantage of

57: modeling the image with few parameters, obtaining a better image from

58: a Bayesian point of view.

59: %as required by Bayesian theory.

60: \end{abstract}

61: 

62: \keywords{methods: data analysis --- methods: numerical --- methods:

63: statistical --- techniques: image processing --- techniques:

64: interferometric}

65: 

66: \section{Introduction}

67: %\subsection{Interferometric Reconstruction Basics}

68: % \subsection{Introduction to Image Reconstruction for Interferometric Data}

69: 

70: % Interferometers sample the Fourier transform of the sky intensity

71: % field.

72: 

73: % A general problem in astronomy is to obtain the sky image from the

74: % data. The data consists in the image convolved with the instrument

75: % response. 

76: 

77: % Astronomical interferometric data are the sum of instrumental noise

78: % with the convolution of the sky image and the instrumental response.

79: Astronomical interferometric data result from the addition of

80: instrumental noise to the convolution of the sky image and the

81: instrumental response.  Because of incomplete sampling in the $(u, v)$

82: plane, obtaining sky images from interferometric data is an instance

83: of the inverse problem, and involves reconstruction algorithms.

84: 

85: %\subsection{Existing Methods} 

86: 

87: % TESIS

88: %The CLEAN algorithm was created by \cite{CLEAN}. It starts with a

89: %direct Fourier transform of the visibilities by which it obtains the

90: %dirty map (DM). Then, on each iteration it subtract a dirty beam (DB)

91: %image centered in the maximum intensity point of the image, normalized

92: %by a $\gamma I_0$ value, where $I_0$ is the maximum intensity value

93: %and $\gamma$ is called the \emph{loop gain}. This is repeated until

94: %the noise level on the map is reached. The final reconstructed map

95: %consists of the sum of the resulting map with all the components

96: %removed on previously iterations but in the form of clean beams. 

97: 

98: The CLEAN method consists of modeling the side-lobe disturbances and

99: subtract them iteratively from the dirty map \citep[][]{CLEAN}. The

100: CLEAN method works well for low noise and simple sources. But if the

101: source has many complex features, or if the data is too noisy, CLEAN

102: will do only a few iterations returning a noisy image

103: \citep[][]{CLEAN}. Another shortcoming is that CLEAN involves some

104: ad-hoc parameters (the loop gain, stopping criteria, clean beam) that

105: bias the final reconstruction, in the sense that CLEAN can give many

106: different reconstructions for the same dataset.

107: % image user-dependent

108: % (sesgada?).

109: 

110: The maximum entropy method (MEM) finds the image that simultaneously

111: best fits the data, within the noise level, and maximizes the entropy

112: $S$. This is done by minimizing

113: \begin{equation}

114:   L_\mathrm{MEM} = \chi^2 - \lambda S,\label{eq:LMEM}

115: \end{equation}

116: where, for the case of interferometric data, $\chi^2$ can be

117: calculated as

118: \begin{equation}

119:   \chi^2 = \sum_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}}\frac{||V_k^\mathrm{obs} -

120:     V_k^\mathrm{mod}||^2}{\sigma_k^2},

121: \end{equation}

122: where the sum runs over all the $N_\mathrm{Vis}$ visibilities, the

123: symbol $||z||$ stands for the modulus of the complex number $z$ and

124: $\sigma_k$ is the root mean square (rms) noise of the corresponding

125: visibility. $\lambda$ is a control parameter and the entropy $S$

126: varies for different implementations \citep[e.g.][]{Nar&Nit}. The

127: entropy is used as a regularizing term in a degenerate inverse

128: problem, when there are more free parameters than data. Different

129: formulations for $S$ appear in the literature. Some examples are

130: $\sum_i\ln(I_i)$, $\sum_iI_i\ln(I_i)$, $\sum_i\ln(p_i)$,

131: $\sum_ip_i\ln(p_i)$, where $I_i$ is the specific intensity value at

132: pixel $i$ and $p_i = I_i/\sum_iI_i$ \citep[see][and references

133: therein]{P&P}.

134: 

135: \cite{Corn&Ev} used MEM in the AIPS VM task. Their method makes some

136: approximations that diagonalize the Hessian matrix required to

137: optimize their merit function. They used an entropy of the form $S =

138: -\sum_iI_i\log{(I_i/ m_i)}$, where the sum extends over all the pixels

139: $i$, $\{I_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is the model image and $\{m_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is a

140: prior image. However, the neglect of the side-lobe contribution to the

141: Hessian may lead the optimization to local minima that still bear

142: instrumental artifacts. \cite{Casassus}implemented a MEM algorithm

143: based on the conjugate gradient method, without the use of the

144: Cornwell and Evans approximation.

145: %\cite{Casassus} have used a similar approach but without the use of

146: %any approximation. 

147: They used an entropy of the form $S = -\sum_iI_i\log{(I_i/ M)}$, where

148: $\{I_i\}_{i=1}^N$ is the model image and $M$ is a small intensity

149: value, i.e they start with a blank image prior, and $M$ is an

150: intensity value much smaller than the noise.

151: % Casassus et al. created their own MEM

152: % because the neglect of the side-lobes (visible in the dirty map

153: % surrounding the primary beam half maxima contour) contribution to the

154: % Hessian of the merit function in Cornwell and Evans MEM was not well

155: % suited to their ends.

156: % They did not use Cornwell and Evans MEM because their neglect of the

157: % side-lobes (visible in the dirty map surrounding the primary beam half

158: % maxima contour) contribution to the Hessian of the merit function was

159: % not well suited to their ends.

160: 

161: % The idea of introducing the entropy is to smooth the final image.

162: 

163: Bayesian analysis is a powerful tool for image reconstruction

164: techniques. In this application, our goal is to find the most probable

165: image by maximizing its \emph{a-posteriori} probability. For Bayesian

166: methods, the \emph{a-priori} and likelihood distributions are

167: needed. To derive the \emph{a-priori} probability the definition of an

168: intensity quantum is needed. This quantum represents the minimum

169: measurable intensity unit. The intensity in each pixel can be

170: interpreted as a number of quanta $I_i = \sigma_\mathrm{q}N_i$, where

171: $I_i$ is the intensity in pixel $i$, $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ is the

172: quantum size and $N_i$ the number of quanta in pixel $i$.

173: 

174: \cite{P&P} used Bayesian analysis in the Pixon algorithm. They use a

175: variable model and maximize $P(I,M|D)$, that is, the probability of

176: the image $I$ and model $M$ given the data $D$. In their approach the

177: model used to parameterize the image is a set of Gaussians which are

178: used to average a pseudo-image. The pseudo-image starts as a maximum

179: residual likelihood reconstruction and a local Gaussian pixon is

180: assigned to each of its pixels. The number of pixons, and hence the

181: number of free parameters, is reduced in each iteration. 

182: 

183: \cite{W&S} have used Bayesian analysis for interferometric data, but

184: using a fixed pixel grid to parameterize the model image. They use

185: Gibbs sampling to determine the posterior density distribution.

186: 

187: The most typical model used in astronomy to represent the sky

188: brightness distribution consists of a pixel grid.  A big disadvantage

189: of this grid is that the number of pixels remains fixed as well as

190: their size. Often, uniform pixel grids involve more free parameters

191: than really needed to fit the data.

192: 

193: The purpose of this paper is to explore Bayesian reconstruction with

194: image models based on Voronoi tessellations in place of the usual

195: pixelated image. We call this new deconvolution method ``Voronoi image

196: reconstruction'' (VIR, hereafter). The advantage of using Voronoi

197: models is that it is possible to use a smaller number of free

198: parameters, as required by Bayesian theory. Our purpose is not optimal

199: CPU efficiency; we search for the optimal image and model from a

200: Bayesian point of view.

201: 

202: We used the Cosmic Background Imager \citep[CBI,][]{pad02} to

203: illustrate our method. The CBI is a planar interferometer array with

204: 13 antennas, each 0.9~m in diameter, mounted on a 6~m tracking

205: platform. An example of CBI baselines is shown in Figure

206: \ref{fig:baselines}. The radius of the hole at the center of the $(u,

207: v)$ plane is the reciprocal of the minimum distance between two

208: antennas, measured in wavelengths. The side-lobes of the CBI are

209: caused mainly by this central hole in the $(u, v)$ baselines.

210: % This central hole in the $(u, v)$ baselines causes the side-lobes of

211: % the CBI.

212: 

213: \begin{figure}[h]

214: \epsscale{.50}

215: \plotone{f1.eps}

216: \caption{Coverage in the $(u, v)$ plane of the CBI in the

217:   configuration used for our simulations.\label{fig:baselines}}

218: \end{figure}

219: 

220: 

221: We briefly summarize the elements of Bayesian theory that determine

222: the probability distributions concerning our problem

223: (Section~\ref{sec:Bayes}).  The new model based on Voronoi

224: tessellations is described (Section~\ref{sec:Voronoi}), as well as

225: optimization issues involved in our problem

226: (Section~\ref{sec:Optimization}).  We discuss implementation details

227: such as the optimal quantum size and number of Voronoi polygons

228: (Section~\ref{sec:Implementation}), compare reconstructions made with

229: MEM and VIR (Section~\ref{sec:Results}) and finally summarize our

230: results (Section~\ref{sec:Conclusions}).

231: 

232: % The Cosmic Background Imager (CBI, \cite{pad02}) data is a particular

233: % case where image reconstruction is difficult. The CBI is a planar

234: % interferometer array with 13 antennas, each 0.9~m in diameter, mounted

235: % on a 6~m tracking platform, which rotates in parallactic angle to

236: % provide uniform $uv$-coverage. The CBI receivers operate in 10

237: % frequency channels, with 1~GHz bandwidth each, giving a total

238: % bandwidth of 26--36~GHz. It is located in Llano de Chajnantor,

239: % Atacama, Chile. An example of CBI baselines is shown in Figure

240: % \ref{fig:baselines}. The hole in the center of the $(u, v)$ plane is

241: % caused because of the minimum distance that two antennas can be

242: % arranged. This sparse distribution of the $(u, v)$ baselines causes

243: % the CBI to have strong side-lobes.

244: 

245: \section{Bayesian Theory} \label{sec:Bayes}

246: 

247: An image model is required to parameterize the sky brightness

248: distribution. The most typical model used in astronomy is a

249: rectangular grid of uniform pixels. That configuration of pixels is

250: the model $M$, and the distribution of brightness in the model is

251: called an image $I$.  We search for the image that represents as

252: accurately as possible the visibility data $D$.  The Bayesian image

253: reconstruction approach, using a fixed model, tries to find the image

254: that maximizes the probability $P(I | D, M)$, i.e. find the most

255: probable image given the data and the model.

256: 

257: Using the Bayes theorem, we obtain

258: \begin{equation}

259:   P(I | D, M) = \frac {P (D| I, M)P(I | M)}{P (D | M)}.

260: \end{equation}

261: Since the data is fixed, $P(D | M)$ is a constant in the problem when

262: the model is not considered as a variable. Thus, the fixed image model

263: optimization problem reduces to

264: \begin{equation}

265:   \max_I P(I | D, M) = \max_I P (D| I, M)P(I | M). \label{eq:P(I|D|M)}

266: \end{equation}

267: The first term, $P (D|I, M)$ is called the likelihood, and measures

268:  how well our data represents our image. The second term, $P (I | M)$

269:  is called the image prior, and gives the \emph{a-priori} probability

270:  of the image given the model, i.e. how probable is the image given

271:  only the model.

272: 

273: In the case of having a variable model, what we would like to find is

274: the image and model that maximize $P(I, M| D)$, i.e. find the most

275: probable image and model given the data. In this case we find

276:  \begin{eqnarray}

277:    P(I, M| D) & = & P(I|D,M)P(M|D)\nonumber\\

278:    & = & \frac {P (D| I, M)P(I| M)P(M|D)}{P (D | M)}\nonumber\\

279:    & = & \frac {P (D| I, M)P(I| M)P(M)}{P (D)}.

280:  \end{eqnarray}

281: Since the data is fixed, $P(D)$ is constant in our problem. As we

282: cannot privilege one model over another in the absence of image and

283: data, $P(M)$ is the same for all models, so it is not important for

284: our analysis. This way, our optimization problem reduces to

285: % the same one we would have with a fixed model in Eq. \ref{eq:P(I|D|M)}

286:  \begin{equation}

287:   \max_{I, M} P(I, M| D) = \max_{I, M} P (D| I, M)P(I | M).

288:  \end{equation}

289: 

290: \subsection {Probability Distributions}

291: 

292: Our data is a set of $N_\mathrm{Vis}$ observed visibilities

293: $\{V_1^\mathrm{obs}, V_2^\mathrm{obs}, \cdots,

294: V_{N_\mathrm{Vis}}^\mathrm{obs}\}$.  If we have a certain model $M$

295: and image $I$, we obtain model visibilities $\{V_k^\mathrm{mod}\}$

296: by simulating the interferometric observations over our image:

297: \begin{equation} 

298: V^\mathrm{mod}_k = V^\mathrm{mod}(u_k,v_k) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} A(x,y)

299: I(x,y)\exp\left[2\pi i (u_kx+v_ky)\right]

300: \frac{dx\,dy}{\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}} ~, \label{eq:vmodel}

301: \end{equation}

302: where $\{u_k, v_k\}$ are the coordinates of baseline $k$ in the $(u,

303: v)$ plane and $A$ is the primary beam. We thus have a set of

304: $N_\mathrm{Vis}$ model visibilities.  Assuming that each visibility is

305: independent from the others and Gaussian noise, the likelihood is

306: \begin{eqnarray}

307:   P (D|I, M) & = &

308:   P(\{V_k^\mathrm{obs}\}_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}}|\{V_k^\mathrm{mod}(I, M)\}_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}})

309:   = \prod_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}} P (V_k^\mathrm{obs}|V_k^\mathrm{mod}) \nonumber\\

310:   & = &

311:   \prod_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}}\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma_k^2}e^{-||V_k^\mathrm{obs}

312:   - V_k^\mathrm{mod}||^2/2\sigma_k^2}.

313: \end{eqnarray}

314: % where the symbol $||z||$ stands for the modulus of the complex number

315: % $z$ and $\sigma_k$ is the rms noise of the corresponding visibility.

316: 

317: To obtain the image prior, $P (I | M)$, we calculate the statistical

318: weight of a given distribution of counts \citep[as

319: in][]{P&P,W&S}. Consider a model consisting of $n$ cells. In the case

320: of a traditional image, each pixel would be a cell. There is a number

321: of $N$ quanta falling into these cells. These are intensity quanta of

322: some size $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$.

323: % These quanta are used to determine the number of distinguishable

324: % events in each cell.

325: In the case of a pixelated image, the intensity in each pixel $i$

326: would be $I_i = \sigma_\mathrm{q} N_i$, where $I_i$ is the intensity

327: in cell $i$. Each quantum could fall into any of the $n$ cells, so the

328: total number of possible configuration for the $N$ quanta will be

329: $n^N$. The probability of the image given the model is the probability

330: of a certain state $\{N_1, N_2, \cdots, N_n\}$ that represents that

331: image, where $N_i$ is the number of quanta in cell $i$.  Consider a

332: given image configuration defined by a particular distribution

333: $\{N_i\}$. The image distribution is not changed in the $N!$ possible

334: redistributions of counts between cells, provided each $N_i$ is

335: constant. The $\prod_i N_i!$ swaps of counts within each cell keep the

336: same image configuration.

337: % If we place all the quanta in the desired configuration, it is

338: % possible to swap them and still have the same configuration

339: % $\{N_i\}$. The number of possible swaps are $N!$. But swapping between

340: % elements of the same cell would leave the same state.

341: The model $M$ consists of the Voronoi diagram and the total number of

342: quanta (i.e. n, the position of the generators and N), thus the

343: \emph{a-priori} probability is

344: % reduces to $n$, thus the \emph{a-priori} probability is

345: \begin{equation}

346: P (I | M) = P (\{N_i\}|n, N) = \frac{N!}{n^N\prod_i N_i!}.

347: \label{eq:apriori}

348: \end{equation}

349: % \cite{P&P} and \cite{W&S} have used this same Bayesian approach for

350: % defining their regularizing term.

351: 

352: As explained above, $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ is an intensity quantum. It is

353: also possible to describe the number of quanta per cell using a flux

354: quantum $\sigma_i^\mathrm{F}$, where $i$ is the index of the cell to

355: which we associate the quantum. This flux quantum can be expressed in

356: terms of the intensity quantum as $\sigma_i^\mathrm{F} =

357: \sigma_\mathrm{q}A_i$, where $A_i$ is the area of cell $i$. In this

358: case, the number of quanta per cell is $N_i =

359: F_i/\sigma_i^\mathrm{F}$, where $F_i = I_i A_i$ is the flux of cell

360: $i$. This leads to $N_i = I_i/\sigma_\mathrm{q}$, which is the same

361: expression for $N_i$ obtained using the intensity quantum

362: $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$. Using these cell-dependent flux quanta, the

363: probability of a quantum falling into each cell will be $\frac{1}{n}$

364: for every cell, leaving the \emph{a-priori} probability the same as

365: Eq. \ref{eq:apriori}.

366: 

367: \subsection {MEM and Natural Entropy}

368: 

369: % As said before, MEM tries to obtain an image that adjusts to the data

370: % within the noise level while maximizes the entropy. This is done by

371: % minimizing $L = \chi^2 - \lambda S$.

372: 

373: In Bayesian theory, for a fixed model, the image $I$ can be found by

374: optimizing the \emph{a-posteriori} probability:

375: \begin{eqnarray}

376:   \max_I P (I | D, M) & = & \min_I(-\ln{P (D| I, M)P(I | M)})\nonumber\\

377:   & = & \min_I\sum_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}}\frac{||V_k^\mathrm{obs} -

378:   V_k^\mathrm{mod}||^2}{2\sigma_k^2} - \ln\bigg(\frac{N!}{n^N\prod_i

379:   N_i!}\bigg)\nonumber\\

380:   & = & \min_I\frac{1}{2}\chi^2 - S,\label{eq:funcL}

381: \end{eqnarray}

382: where we have defined the natural entropy $S =

383: \ln\bigg(\frac{N!}{n^N\prod_i N_i!}\bigg)$. \cite{W&S} call the term

384: $\ln{(N!/\prod_i N_i!)}$ the multiplicity prior. In the limit of large

385: $N_i$,

386: \begin{eqnarray}

387: S 

388: % TESIS

389: % & = & \ln{N!} - N\ln{n} - \sum_i\ln{N_i!}\nonumber\\

390: % & \simeq & N\ln{N} - N -N\ln{n} - \sum_i(N_i\ln{N_i} - N_i)\nonumber\\

391: % & = & N\ln{N} - N\ln{n} - \sum_i N_i\ln{N_i}\nonumber\\

392: & \simeq & N\ln\frac{N}{n} - \sum_i N_i\ln{N_i},\label{eq:SStirling}

393: \end{eqnarray}

394: and it can be seen that the Bayesian method is very similar to MEM in

395: the sense that we are adjusting the image to the data while maximizing

396: an entropy of the form of Eq. \ref{eq:SStirling}.

397: % \cite{W&S} made a similar analysis for the entropic term, where they

398: % call the term $\ln{(N!/\prod_i N_i!)}$ the multiplicity prior.

399: % We used the exact version of the natural entropy, but did this entropy

400: % analysis to compare the MEM algorithm and the Bayesian method.

401: VIR uses the natural entropy as a regularizing term.

402: 

403: % Write about MEM, the election of the entropy function and the Bayesian entropy.

404: 

405: \section {A New Image Model based on Voronoi Diagrams} \label{sec:Voronoi}

406: 

407: A Voronoi diagram is a division of the Euclidian plane into $n$

408: regions $\mathcal{V}_i$ defined by $n$ points $\vec{x_i}$ (called

409: sites or generators) such that every coordinate $\vec{x}$ in the space

410: belongs to $\mathcal{V}_i$ if and only if $||\vec{x} - \vec{x_i}|| <

411: ||\vec{x} - \vec{x_j}||\ \forall\ j\neq i$. The result of the above

412: definition is a set of polygons defined by the generators. Figure

413: \ref{fig:Voronoi} shows an example of a Voronoi diagram. For further

414: details on Voronoi diagrams see \cite{Voronoi}.

415: 

416: \begin{figure}[h]

417: \epsscale{.50}

418: \plotone{f2.eps}

419: \caption{Example of Voronoi diagram.\label{fig:Voronoi}}

420: \end{figure}

421: 

422: We propose a 2D Voronoi diagram in place of the usual pixelated,

423: uniform grid, image as our model. We associate an intensity $I_i$ to

424: each of these polygons. The advantage of using a Voronoi diagram is

425: that we can use just as many cells (i.e. free parameters) as the data

426: requires. Our optimization parameters will be the position of each

427: generator $\vec{x_i} = (x_i, y_i)$, and the intensity at each cell,

428: $I_i$.

429: 

430: With our new model $M$ consisting of $n$ generators ($3\times n$

431: parameters, $x_i, y_i$ and $I_i$ for each generator), we can vary the

432: number of free parameters as required by the optimization problem. We

433: can see in equation (\ref{eq:funcL}) that the

434: % QUANTUM importance of the 

435: entropy $S$ increases as the number of cell $n$ decreases.

436: 

437: \section{Optimization} \label{sec:Optimization}

438: 

439: The optimization problem can be seen as a maximization of the

440: \emph{a-posteriori} probability $\max_{I, M} P (I, M | D)$, or

441: equivalently as a minimization of the more convenient merit function

442: $L = \frac{1}{2}\chi^2 - S$.

443: %There are different approaches for optimizing functions. 

444: The conjugate gradient method (CG) is often used for minimization

445: problems where derivatives can be easily calculated. Though it is

446: usually fast in convergence, CG has the problem of converging on local

447: minima depending on the initial condition.

448: % We also tried the use of

449: % Monte Carlo methods, such as Metropolis-Hasting, Gibbs sampling and

450: % some efficient Monte Carlo methods, and Genetic algorithms with no

451: % satisfactory results.  

452: The use of other optimization algorithms is postponed to future work.

453: 

454: % TESIS

455: % Monte Carlo methods (MM) and genetic algorithms (GAs) are maximization

456: % algorithms that try to find the global maximum of the merit

457: % function. MM are used for generating samples that follow a certain

458: % density distribution, while GAs are heuristics based on evolution of

459: % species that find the vector of parameters that maximize certain

460: % function. GA doesn't have a proof of why they work, but they often do.

461: 

462: %Write about the different approaches for the optimization function

463: %(maximization of the probability or minimization of the object

464: %function).

465: 

466: % TESIS

467: % \subsection{Conjugate Gradient}

468: 

469: The CG method searches parameters space using the gradient of the

470: function to be minimized. The derivatives of this function are

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472:   \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial \chi^2

473:   }{\partial x} - \frac{\partial S}{\partial x},\\ 

474:   \frac{\partial \chi^2}{\partial x} & = & 2\sum_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}}

475:   \frac{1}{\sigma_k^2} \mathrm{Re}\left((V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}

476:   - V_k^{\mathrm{obs}})^* \frac{\partial

477:   V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial x}\right) \label{dLdx},

478: \end{eqnarray}

479: where $x$ is any of the optimization parameters ($x_i$, $y_i$ or

480: $I_i$). The derivatives of the visibilities with respect to the

481: position $\vec{x}_i = (x_i, y_i)$ of the $i$ generator are

482: \begin{eqnarray}

483:   \frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial x_i} & = & 

484:   \sum_{j\in J_i} \bigg[(I_i - I_j)

485:     \sum_{l|\mathrm{pixel~}l\epsilon a_{ij}}A_l\Delta t_l

486:     (M_xt_l + b_x)e^{(t_lc_2 + s_0c_1)}\bigg],\\ 

487:   \frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial y_i} & = & 

488:   \sum_{j\in J_i} \bigg[(I_i - I_j)

489:     \sum_{l|\mathrm{pixel~} l\epsilon a_{ij}}A_l\Delta t_l

490:     (M_yt_l + b_y)e^{(t_lc_2 + s_0c_1)}\bigg],

491: \end{eqnarray}

492: where $I_i$ is the intensity in cell $i$, $J_i$ is a set of the

493: indices of the polygons adjacent to $\mathcal{V}_i$, $a_{ij}$ is the

494: edge which divides polygons $\mathcal{V}_i$ and $\mathcal{V}_j$, $l$

495: sums over the pixels which intersect $a_{ij}$, $A$ is the CBI primary

496: beam. For further details see Sec.~\ref{ap:derivatives}.

497: 

498: The derivative of the visibilities with respect to the intensity of

499: each cell $I_i$ is

500: \begin{equation}

501:   \frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial I_i} =

502:   \frac{\sin{(\pi u_k\Delta x)}\sin{(\pi v_k\Delta y)}}{\pi^2u_kv_k}

503:   \sum_{\textrm{\scriptsize{pixels }}l\epsilon \mathcal{V}_i}A_l

504:   e^{2\pi i(u_kx_l+v_ky_l)} \label{eq:dVdI},

505: \end{equation}

506: where $\vec{k}_k = (u_k, v_k)$ is the baseline corresponding to the

507: pair of antennas $k$, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ are the pixel width

508: and height, and the sum extends over all the pixels inside

509: $\mathcal{V}_i$.

510: 

511: The entropy only depends of the intensities $I_i$, so $\frac{\partial

512: S}{\partial x_i} = \frac{\partial S}{\partial y_i} = 0$, then (see

513: Sec.~\ref{ap:derivativesdS})

514: \begin{equation} 

515:   \frac{\partial S}{\partial I_i} = \frac{1}{\sigma_\mathrm{q}}

516:   (\sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{1}{k} - \ln{n} - \sum_{k=1}^{N_i}\frac{1}{k}).

517: \end{equation} 

518: 

519: %T % TESIS

520: %T \subsection{Genetic Algorithm}

521: %T 

522: %T Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are methods based on evolution of species

523: %T that find the vector of parameters that maximize certain function. As

524: %T said before, GA doesn't have a proof of why they work, but they often

525: %T do.

526: %T 

527: %T PIKAIA is a particular implementation of genetic algorithm

528: %T consisting in a set of points in the parameter space (called

529: %T \emph{population}), which usually start by choosing random values. On

530: %T each iteration the following procedure is made:

531: %T \begin{enumerate}

532: %T \item All points in the population are evaluated by the merit

533: %T function to be maximized.

534: %T \item Pairs of points in the set are selected (\emph{parents}) with a

535: %T probability proportional to its function value and breeded producing

536: %T two new points (\emph{offspring}). This step is repeated until the

537: %T number of offspring produced equals the number of individuals in the

538: %T current population.

539: %T \item Replace the old population by the new offspring.

540: %T \end{enumerate}

541: %T These steps are repeated until some termination criterion is satisfied. 

542: %T 

543: %T PIKAIA's idea is to simulate the process of natural selection. It

544: %T involves the breeding of the most qualified (or most probable) beings,

545: %T which produce offspring with similar characteristics. The less probable

546: %T points start to disappear on each generation. For the breeding process

547: %T PIKAIA encodes the parameters to a string-like structure

548: %T (\emph{chromosome}). The creation of the new offspring involves

549: %T crossover and mutation of their parents chromosomes. This creates a new

550: %T pair of chromosomes that afterwards are decoded to obtain the offspring

551: %T parameters.

552: %T 

553: %T Suppose you have a point $(x_1, x_2, \cdots , x_n)$ in the

554: %T $n$-dimension parameter space. PIKAIA's encoding consists in directly

555: %T fragmenting each parameter $x_i$ into simple decimal integers and then

556: %T concatenating them into a single string. The number of digits taken in

557: %T account $nd$ is given by the user. For example, if the parameter space

558: %T has two dimensions, a point $(x_1, x_2) = (0.123456789,0.987654321)$

559: %T using $nd = 8$ would be encoded into the string

560: %T ``1234567898765432''. The decoding process is straightforward, the

561: %T string should be splitted into two strings of size $nd$ and transform

562: %T them to their decimal form, $1234567898765432\rightarrow

563: %T (0.12345678,0.98765432)=(x_1,x_2)$. Note that in the whole process a

564: %T truncation lost has occurred.

565: %T 

566: %T PIKAIA's crossover process consist of splitting each chromosome in a

567: %T unique random position and then swap their first and second parts in

568: %T order to obtain two new chromosomes. For example, if we have,

569: %T 1234567898765432 as one of the parents and 7654321023456789 as the

570: %T other one, and we randomly select to cut them at site number 10, the

571: %T splitted chromosomes would be $123456789\leftrightarrow 8765432$ and

572: %T $765432102\leftrightarrow 3456789$. Then, the swap of the splitted

573: %T parts would be $123456789\leftrightarrow 3456789$ and

574: %T $765432102\leftrightarrow 8765432$, which finally produce the two

575: %T offspring 1234567893456789 and 7654321028765432. After this, both new

576: %T chromosomes are decodified in order to obtain the offspring

577: %T parameters. In literature, this is called one point uniform

578: %T crossover. ``One point'' because chromosomes are splitted in only one

579: %T place, and ``uniform'' because the place to be splitted is selected by a

580: %T random uniform distribution.

581: %T 

582: %T PIKAIA also involves a mutation process in which each gene (or digit)

583: %T in the offspring chromosome can be changed with a small probability

584: %T $P_\mathrm{m}$. If the gene is to be changed, a new digit is chosen

585: %T randomly in order to replace the old one. For example, in our

586: %T chromosome 7654321028765432, digit number two can be changed with a

587: %T probability $P_\mathrm{m}$ to another random number, for example, 1,

588: %T leaving the offspring as 7154321028765432. In literature, this is

589: %T called one point uniform mutation.

590: %T 

591: %T Crossover and mutation can create individuals very similar or very

592: %T different from their parents. It all depends on the splitting point in

593: %T the crossover process and in the chromosome to be changed in the

594: %T mutation process. These selections may be done in one of the leading

595: %T digits or in one of the least significant digits of the chromosome,

596: %T making some points to move further from their parents than others.

597: %T 

598: %T We used PIKAIA for our reconstruction problem, using as parameters the

599: %T positions and intensities of our Voronoi polygons ($(x_i, y_i)$ and

600: %T $I_i$). We used a population of 100 individuals and stopped after

601: %T $10^6$ generations. Because our parameter space is too big, the GA

602: %T took a lot of time and did not converge to a satisfactory result.

603: 

604: %

605: % What genetic algorithms are and how they work. Particularly, explain

606: % PIKAIA.

607: % 

608: % \subsection{Monte Carlo Methods}

609: % Generation of samples which follow a particular probability

610: % function. How can we use this for optimization. Brief explanation of

611: % uniform sampling, importance sampling and rejection sampling.

612: % \subsubsection{Metropolis-Hasting}

613: % \subsubsection{Gibbs Sampling}

614: % \subsubsection{Efficient Monte Carlo Methods}

615: % Brief explanation of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, Overrelaxation,

616: % Simulated Annealing and Skilling's Method, and why didn't we used

617: % them.

618: % 

619: % \subsection{Hybrid Methods}

620: % How we combined different of the above algorithms.

621: % \subsubsection{Incremental Algorithms}

622: % Starting with few polygons and incrementing them in each step.

623: 

624: \section{VIR Design and Implementation} \label{sec:Implementation}

625: 

626: We have designed, and implemented in c++, VIR with 6 modules which include

627: algorithms for:

628: \begin{itemize}

629:   \item the generation of the Voronoi diagram

630:   \item calculation of model visibilities

631:   \item calculation of the merit function $L$ to be optimized as well

632:     as its derivatives

633:   \item fitting a Voronoi diagram to an image

634:   \item the CG method

635:   \item the optimization of the number of polygons

636: \end{itemize}

637: %We have implemented them by using object oriented programming in c++.

638: 

639: VIR uses the CG method from \cite{NumericalRecipes} and searches for

640: the position and intensities of the Voronoi polygons, ${x_i, y_i,

641: I_i}$, that minimize our merit function $L$. The CG method modifies

642: the intensities and also moves the positions of the Voronoi

643: generators. This causes the shape of the Voronoi polygons to change as

644: well.

645: % for optimizing the

646: % position and intensity of each Voronoi cell. 

647: % We decided to use object oriented programming and programmed a set of

648: % classes in C++.

649: A general problem with CG is that it usually converges on local

650: minima. For VIR in particular, though Voronoi polygons intensities

651: adjust quite fine, the positions of the generators are difficult to

652: modify substantially. The VIR parameter space is smooth enough in

653: intensity space to converge to a good solution. But the parameter

654: space in cell generator positions is very structured, and CG is

655: quickly stuck on local minima.

656: 

657: Due to the fact that CG easily falls into local minima, we needed a

658: good approximation for the initial Voronoi diagram. For this purpose

659: we used a pixelated version of the Bayesian algorithm, where the model

660: was a uniform grid.

661: % QUANTUM

662: % But, as explained below, the importance of the natural entropy term

663: % increases for many free parameters, which causes plainer images than

664: % expected. 

665: We decided to do a pure $\chi^2$ (maximum likelihood, ML)

666: reconstruction and use the fifth CG iteration as our starting

667: image. We chose this particular iteration because on inspection the

668: modeled images were still smooth.

669: %, this iteration picks up smooth intensity fields. 

670: Pure $\chi^2$ reaches convergence with noisy images, where the

671: true image is unrecognizable.

672: %by visual inspection of its residuals. 

673: We then fitted a Voronoi diagram to the image (see

674: Sec.~\ref{ap:fitting}) and ran CG using the positions and intensities

675: of the generators as our free parameters, which led to our final

676: reconstruction. Truncation to a level of $10^{-5}$ quanta was used to

677: enforce positivity.

678: 

679: % \subsection{Quantum Size and Number of Voronoi Generators}

680: 

681: An important issue to consider is the size of the quantum

682: $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$. \cite{W&S} treat $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ as a free

683: parameter. But, as we now explain, $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ was held

684: constant in this implementation of VIR. We treat the number of quanta

685: per cell as a continuous variable in order to use the CG method.

686: Entropy is maximized at $\sigma_\mathrm{q} = \infty$, where, for a

687: given configuration of intensities $\{I_i\}$, $N = 0$ and $S = 0$. For

688: every other value of $N$, the entropy will be negative. This means

689: that even for large $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$, the intensities $I_i =

690: \sigma_\mathrm{q}N_i$ can have reasonable values (using small

691: $N_i$). Figure \ref{fig:SvsN} shows $S$ as a function of $N$ for $51$

692: Voronoi generators and 3 different intensity distributions using the

693: model tessellation of Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}c. We considered:

694: 1- the VIR intensities of Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}c, 2- a

695: uniform intensity distribution image ($N_i = \frac{N}{n}$ $\forall$

696: $i$), 3- a spike where all $N$ are only in one cell ($N_i = N$, $N_j

697: =0$ $\forall$ $j\neq i$). The curves of Figure \ref{fig:SvsN} are

698: obtained by keeping the intensities fixed and modifying

699: $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ in order to obtain different $N$. It can be seen

700: on Figure~\ref{fig:SvsN} that the entropy is maximized at $N = 0$,

701: independently of the intensities $\{I_i\}$ of the model, where the

702: optimal value of $\sigma_\mathrm{q} = \infty$ is achieved if the

703: number of quanta per cell is treated as a continuous variable. If the

704: number of quanta per cell were discrete variables, as in \cite{W&S},

705: the choice of a big $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ would admit only zero values

706: for every cell. Otherwise, if one or more quanta fell in a given cell,

707: the intensity of that cell would diverge as $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ for

708: arbitrarily large $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$, causing a big $\chi^2$

709: value. Therefore, in our continuous optimization the intensity quantum

710: must be determined a-priori.

711: 

712: \begin{figure}[h]

713: %\epsscale{1.50}

714: \plotone{f3.eps}

715: \caption{Entropy values for different $N$, $n = 51$ and keeping

716:   $\{I_i\}$ fixed. This is achieved by varying

717:   $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$. (a) VIR reconstruction intensities. (b) Uniform

718:   intensities distribution, $N_i = \frac{N}{n}$ $\forall$ $i$. (c)

719:   Only one cell has all the quanta. $N_i = N$, $N_j =0$ $\forall$

720:   $j\neq i$.

721:   \label{fig:SvsN}}

722: \end{figure}

723: 

724: \begin{figure}[h!]

725: %  \includegraphics[scale=1.115]{figuras/reconstrucciones51.ps}

726:   \epsscale{1}

727:   \plotone{f4_color.eps}

728:   \caption{Comparison of MEM and VIR reconstruction techniques for a

729:     SNR of $\sim52$. (a) The true image. (b) Dirty map. (c) VIR

730:     reconstruction with its polygons drawn. (d) VIR

731:     reconstruction. (e) Dirty map of the VIR reconstruction

732:     residuals. (f) Restored image for the VIR model. (g) MEM

733:     reconstruction. (h) Dirty map of the MEM reconstruction

734:     residuals. (i) Restored image for the MEM model.

735:     \label{fig:reconstruccion}}

736: \end{figure}

737: 

738: 

739: %QUANTUM

740: %The importance of the entropy diminishes for small $N$. Figure

741: %\ref{fig:SvsN} shows $S$ as a function of $N$ for $57$ generators

742: %Voronoi diagrams with 3 different intensity distributions using the

743: %same model tessellation of Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}a. We

744: %considered: 1- the VIR intensities of Figure

745: %\ref{fig:reconstruccion}a, 2- a uniform intensity distribution image

746: %($N_i = \frac{N}{n}$ $\forall$ $i$), 3- a spike where all $N$ are only

747: %in one cell ($N_i = N$, $N_j =0$ $\forall$ $j\neq i$). The curves of

748: %Figure \ref{fig:SvsN} are obtained by keeping the intensities fixed

749: %and modifying $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ in order to obtain different $N$.

750: %The diminution of $||S||$ when $N$ diminishes means that for larger

751: %$\sigma_\mathrm{q}$, $\chi^2$ becomes more important than the entropy,

752: %resulting in noisy optimal images. We reach this conclusion because

753: %%This is caused by the fact that 

754: %we are optimizing our $N_i$ as continuous variables, which means that

755: %even for large $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$, the intensities $I_i =

756: %\sigma_\mathrm{q}N_i$ will have reasonable values (using small

757: %$N_i$). If the number of quanta per cell were discrete variables, as

758: %in \cite{W&S}, the choice of a big $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ would admit

759: %only zero values for every cell. Otherwise, if one or more quanta fell

760: %in a given cell, the intensity of that cell would diverge as

761: %$\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ for arbitrarily large $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$, causing

762: %a big $\chi^2$ value.

763: %

764: %Therefore, in our continuous optimization the intensity quantum must

765: %be determined a-priori. 

766: In the Bayesian description of the entropy we count events that fall

767: in each cell. It seems reasonable to take the noise level as the

768: minimum value of intensity we can distinguish. So, $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$

769: should approximate the estimated thermal noise in the naturally

770: weighted dirty map. The definition of the weighted dirty map

771: \citep[e.g.][]{Briggs} is

772: \begin{eqnarray}

773:   I^\mathrm{D} (x, y) \equiv

774:   \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}W(u, v)V(u, v)e^{-2\pi

775:   i(ux + vy)}dudv,\\

776:   W(u, v) = \frac{1}{\sum_kw_k} \sum_kw_k\delta(u-u_k, v-v_k),

777: \end{eqnarray}

778: where the sums extend over all visibilities, $w_k$ are the weights

779: given to visibility $k$ and $\delta$ is the two-dimensional Dirac

780: delta function. Propagating the thermal noise, we get for the standard

781: deviation of the dirty map

782: \begin{equation}

783: \sigma_\mathrm{rms}^\mathrm{D} =

784: \sqrt{\frac{\sum_kw_k^2\sigma_k^2}{(\sum_kw_k)^2}}, \label{eq:sigmaD}

785: \end{equation}

786: where $\sigma_k$ are the visibilities standard deviations. To take

787: into account model pixels correlated by the interferometer beam, we

788: should multiply the previous expression by $\sqrt{N_\mathrm{beam}}$,

789: where $N_\mathrm{beam}$ is the number of pixels inside a beam

790: pattern. This leads to

791: \begin{equation}

792:   \sigma_\mathrm{rms} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_kw_k^2\sigma_k^2}

793:   {(\sum_kw_k)^2}}\sqrt{N_\mathrm{beam}}.

794: \end{equation}

795: For natural weights, $\sigma_k^2 = \frac{1}{w_k}$,

796: \begin{equation}

797:   \sigma_\mathrm{rms} = \sqrt{\frac{N_\mathrm{beam}}{\sum_kw_k}} =

798:   \sqrt{\frac{N_\mathrm{beam}}{\sum_k\frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}}}.

799: \end{equation}

800: We calculated the noise with natural weighting, $w_k =

801: \frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}$, because this is the weight we give to each

802: individual visibility data in the optimization of the merit function.

803: 

804: Once we have the value of $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ we search for the

805: optimal number of cells $n$. In Figure \ref{fig:Lvsn} we plot the

806: optimal merit function for different $n$ and

807: $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$. These reconstructions were made over a simulation

808: of CBI observations on a mock sky image (Figure

809: \ref{fig:reconstruccion}a). We averaged over 100 reconstructions with

810: different realizations of Gaussian noise. The average curves shown in

811: Figure \ref{fig:Lvsn}, start with $n = 10$ and end with $n = 100$ for

812: even $n$. One single reconstruction for all $n$ took about two hours

813: using an AMD Athlon64 XP3000 processor with 1GB of DDR RAM at 333 MHz,

814: so the 300 reconstructions

815: % using the three different values of $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ 

816: took about $25$ CPU days, but we distributed the work in six

817: computers, so it took about $5$ real days in total. It can be seen

818: that for a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of $\sim 52$, on average, the

819: optimal number of polygons $n$ is between 50 and 55. When

820: $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ is diminished to $\frac{1}{10}\sigma_\mathrm{q}$,

821: on average, the optimal merit function is found at $n$ close to

822: $30$. For $\sigma_\mathrm{q} = 10\sigma_\mathrm{q}$, the optimal $n$

823: is found between $80$ and $90$.  It can be seen that as we increase

824: the value of $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ we reach lower values for our

825: function, as discussed above. Furthermore, the optimal number of

826: polygons increases.

827: %This is because as $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$

828: %increases, $\chi^2$ becomes more important than the entropy giving a

829: %reconstruction similar to a ML, and so more parameters are needed to

830: %model the noise.

831: 

832: \begin{figure}[h]

833: %\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{figuras/resumen.ps}

834:   \epsscale{.50}

835: \plotone{f5.eps}

836: \caption{The merit function $L$ for different $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ and

837:   number of polygons $n$. The lines are averages taken over 100

838:   different realizations of noise for each $n$. (a) Reconstructions

839:   made using $\sigma_\mathrm{q} =

840:   \frac{1}{10}\sigma_\mathrm{rms}$. (b) Reconstructions made using

841:   $\sigma_\mathrm{q} = \sigma_\mathrm{rms}$. (c) Reconstructions made

842:   using $\sigma_\mathrm{q} = 10\sigma_\mathrm{rms}$. (d) $L$ as a

843:   function of $n$ for a practical application of VIR to the simulated

844:   visibilities used in the reconstructions of

845:   Figure~\ref{fig:reconstruccion}. In this practical application, the

846:   minimum $L$ was found at $n = 51$, and is indicated by a vertical

847:   line.

848:   %(d) Dots represent the reconstruction of our simulation for

849:   %different $n$. A vertical line is drawn at $n = 51$, where the

850:   %minimum was found. 

851:   \label{fig:Lvsn}}

852: \end{figure}

853: 

854: %\subsection{Number of Voronoi Generators}

855: %Optimal number of polygons (still running, I had a few errors).

856: 

857: \section{Example Reconstruction} \label{sec:Results}

858: \subsection{Mock Dataset}

859: % We test the VIR algorithm over CBI simulations. 

860: % As said before, the CBI strong side-lobes make image reconstruction a

861: % difficult task.

862: The mock sky image we used for simulations is a $256\times 256$ image

863: consisting of three Gaussians and a rectangle. Figure

864: \ref{fig:reconstruccion}a shows this image on a $128\times128$ pixel

865: field. Pixels are $0.75'\times0.75'$, while the CBI's primary beam is

866: of $45'$ FWHM (60 pixels), so most of the emission lies under the

867: beam. We simulated a CBI observation of 3620 visibilities over this

868: image and added Gaussian noise to the visibilities in order to reach a

869: SNR of $\sim52$. This SNR was calculated by taking the maximum

870: intensity from the dirty map using natural weights, and using the

871: noise $\sigma_\mathrm{rms}^\mathrm{D}$ (see

872: Eq. \ref{eq:sigmaD}). Simulation of the CBI observations is performed

873: with the MockCBI program (Pearson 2000, private communication), which

874: calculates the visibilities $V(u,v)$ on the input images $I(x,y)$ with

875: the same $uv$ sampling as a reference visibility dataset

876: (Eq.~\ref{eq:vmodel}). Thus MockCBI creates the visibility dataset

877: that would have been obtained had the sky emission followed the true

878: image. Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}b shows the dirty map calculated

879: over these simulated visibilities using the DIFMAP package

880: \citep[][]{she97}. The CBI's primary beam is drawn as a dashed

881: circle. The secondary side-lobes due to the central discontinuity in

882: $u$-$v$ coverage can be distinguished in Figure

883: \ref{fig:reconstruccion}b at a level comparable to the true emission.

884: 

885: \subsection{MEM Reconstruction}

886: The VIR method was compared with the MEM algorithm described in

887: \cite{Casassus}. To fit the model image to the observed visibilities,

888: MEM calculates the model visibilities required by its merit function

889: $L_\mathrm{MEM}$.

890: % MEM fits model visibilities, calculated on a model

891: % image, to the observed visibilities. 

892: The model visibilities are those obtained by a simulation of CBI

893: observations had the sky followed the model image

894: % (``CBI-simulated visibilities'' hereafter)

895: .  The free-parameters of our MEM model are the pixels in the model

896: $64\times64$ image. The model functional we minimize is

897: $L_\mathrm{MEM} = \chi^2 - \lambda S$, with the entropy $S= - \sum_i

898: I_i \log I_i/M$, where $M$ is a default pixel value well below the

899: noise level, and $\{I_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$ is the model image. We started

900: with the fifth iteration of a pure $\chi^2$ reconstruction ($\lambda =

901: 0$) as initial condition for the CG minimization. This is the same ML

902: initial condition used in our VIR method. Figure

903: \ref{fig:reconstruccion}g shows the reconstructed image using $\lambda

904: = \frac{100}{\sigma_\mathrm{rms}}$ and $M =

905: 10^{-2}\sigma_\mathrm{rms}$ inset on a larger $128\times128$ image

906: \footnote{We choose to display the sky images in a larger field than

907: the domain of free parameters; larger fields are required to highlight

908: secondary side-lobes}.

909: 

910: % We avoided the use of Cornwell-Evans MEM (\cite{Corn&Ev}) because its

911: % neglect of side-lobes in the optimization algorithm is not well suited

912: % to the CBI, and because the relatively small number of visibilities

913: % % ($\sim 3000$ for each on-off cycle)

914: % allows working in the $uv-$plane and fit for the observed visibilities

915: % directly, rather than work in the sky plane and deconvolve the

916: % synthetic beam.  The model functional we minimize is $L =

917: % \frac{1}{2}\chi^2 - \lambda S$, with the entropy $S= - \sum_i I_i \log

918: % I_i/M$, where $M$ is a default pixel value well below the noise level,

919: % and $\{I_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$ is the model image.  $\lambda$ is a Lagrange

920: % multiplier that we adjust to ensure that $\chi^2 \sim \Omega$, where

921: % $\Omega$ is the number of observed visibilities ($\times 2$ to include

922: % real and imaginary parts).  The exact values of $\lambda$ and $M$ are

923: % subjective, and we guide our criterion by the quality of the

924: % visibility residuals and output image.  Image positivity is enforced

925: % by truncation of pixel intensities. We started with the fifth

926: % iteration of a pure $\chi^2$ reconstruction ($\lambda = 0$) as initial

927: % condition for the CG minimization. This is the same ML initial

928: % condition used in our VIR method. Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}c

929: % shows the reconstructed image using $\lambda =

930: % \frac{100}{\sigma_\mathrm{rms}}$ and $M = 10^{-2}\sigma_\mathrm{rms}$

931: % overlaid on a $128\times128$ image. Convergence is achieved in $\sim

932: % 30$ iterations using the Fletcher-Reeves conjugate-gradient algorithm

933: % of \cite{NumericalRecipes} obtaining a reduced $\chi^2$ value of

934: % 1.016.

935: 

936: \subsection{VIR Reconstruction}

937: The MEM algorithm described above requires the prior assignment of the

938: $\lambda$ and $M$ parameters as well as the entropy formula. In

939: contrast, our VIR algorithm is free from such arbitrary parameters

940: (provided the optimal $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ is indeed equal to

941: $\sigma_\mathrm{rms}$). For our VIR method, we only need to find the

942: number of polygons to be used. In order to find the optimal number of

943: polygons we reconstructed with different numbers of generators in a

944: range covering each natural number from $n = 6$ to $n = 100$. We found

945: a minimum at $n = 51$. Figure \ref{fig:Lvsn} summarizes this

946: search. The whole search for a particular realization of noise took

947: about 10 hours on the AMD Athlon64 XP3000 processor with 1GB of DDR

948: RAM at 333 MHz. The VIR reconstruction using 51 polygons is shown in

949: Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}c, where the Voronoi cells have also

950: been drawn. Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}d shows the same model but

951: without drawing the Voronoi mesh.

952: 

953: \subsection{Results}

954: % MODEL

955: The quality of each reconstruction can be assessed by visual

956: inspection, comparing the VIR and MEM model images with the true

957: image.  The MEM model looks similar to the true image but is

958: noisy. The density of Voronoi generators in the VIR model is greater

959: where there is more emission in the true image, approximating the true

960: image with only a few polygons.  We calculated $\chi^2_\mathrm{im} =

961: \sum_i(I_i^\mathrm{mod} - I_i^\mathrm{true})^2$, where

962: $I_i^\mathrm{mod}$ is the intensity at pixel $i$ of the model image

963: (MEM or VIR), $I_i^\mathrm{true}$ is the intensity at pixel $i$ of the

964: true image, and the sum extends over all pixels in the

965: images. $\chi^2_\mathrm{im}$ gives a measure of how well the model

966: fits the true image. It can be seen in Table \ref{table:funciones}

967: that the VIR reconstruction has a better $\chi^2_\mathrm{im}$ than

968: MEM, showing that the VIR model is closer to the true image than the

969: MEM model.

970: 

971: \begin{deluxetable} {crrrrr}

972: \tabletypesize{\small} \tablecaption {Comparison

973: between MEM and VIR reconstructions.\label{table:funciones}}

974: \tablewidth{0pt} 

975: \tablehead{ & \colhead{$\chi^2$} & \colhead{$\frac{\chi^2}{n_\mathrm{data}}$} 

976:   & \colhead{$L$} & \colhead{$\chi^2_\mathrm{im}$}}

977: \startdata

978: MEM & 7354.85 & 1.016 & 12192.6 & 0.001608 \\

979: VIR & 7221.04 & 0.997 & 3753.28 & 0.001396 \\

980: \enddata

981: \end{deluxetable}

982: 

983: % RESIDUALS

984: Figures \ref{fig:reconstruccion}e and \ref{fig:reconstruccion}h show

985: the VIR and MEM models residuals. Residual images are the dirty map of

986: the residuals of the visibilities, calculated over the optimal model

987: visibilities. It can be noted on Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}e that

988: the VIR residuals are very good, showing only noise. On the other

989: hand, in the MEM residuals (Figure \ref{fig:reconstruccion}h) the

990: object shape can clearly be distinguished as well as the CBI's

991: side-lobes. The object seems to be more compact in the model than in

992: its MEM residuals; as expected these residuals are convolved with the

993: synthetic beam.

994: 

995: % RESTORED

996: Restored images

997: %(convolution of the reconstruction with the CBI beam plus the residuals) 

998: are shown in Figures \ref{fig:reconstruccion}f and

999: \ref{fig:reconstruccion}i. These images are obtained by convolving the

1000: models with a Gaussian point spread function (PSF) given by DIFMAP and

1001: adding the dirty map of the residuals visibilities.

1002: % The restored images show similar results. 

1003: On Figures \ref{fig:reconstruccion}f and \ref{fig:reconstruccion}i it

1004: can be assessed that VIR produces improved restored images relative to

1005: MEM. The VIR restored image is similar to that expected given the

1006: instrumental noise: it approximates the true image convolved with a

1007: Gaussian PSF plus a uniform noise level. In the MEM restored image, on

1008: the other hand, the CBI side-lobes can still be distinguished.

1009: 

1010: % STATS

1011: The number of optimization parameters in MEM are $64\times64 = 4096$,

1012: while the VIR method has only $51$ triplets (cell's $(x, y)$ position

1013: and intensity) i.e. $153$ free parameters. This smaller number of

1014: parameters causes the Bayesian entropy to be greater than the

1015: pixelated version, obtaining a smaller value for our merit function

1016: $L$ to be minimized.

1017: 

1018: Table \ref{table:funciones} also shows

1019: $\frac{\chi^2}{n_\mathrm{data}}$ values, where $n_\mathrm{data}$ is

1020: the number of data points ($3620\times 2$ in our case). A good

1021: reconstruction should have a $\frac{\chi^2}{n_\mathrm{data}}$ value

1022: close to $1$. It can be seen that the VIR model gives a value of

1023: $\frac{\chi^2}{n_\mathrm{data}}$ closer to $1$ than the MEM

1024: reconstruction.

1025: % The VIR model is more satisfactory in this $\chi^2$ sense than the MEM

1026: % model.

1027: 

1028: % Table \ref{table:funciones} shows different parameters used to

1029: % evaluate MEM and VIR reconstructions. We calculated two kinds of

1030: % reduced $\chi^2$. For a large number of parameters $n$, the use of a

1031: % reduced $\chi^2$ of the form $\chi^2 = \frac{\chi^2}{m}$ is needed,

1032: % where $m$ is the number of data points ($3620\times 2$ in our

1033: % case). When using a smaller $n$ the reduced $\chi^2$ is $\chi^2_\nu =

1034: % \frac{\chi^2}{\nu}$, where $\nu = m - n$ is the number of degrees of

1035: % freedom. In MEM models the number of free parameters $n$ can be larger

1036: % than $m$. It can be seen in Table \ref{table:funciones} that the MEM

1037: % reconstruction has a reduced $\chi^2$ value close to 1 only when using

1038: % the first definition. By contrast, the VIR reconstruction has a

1039: % reduced $\chi^2$ close to 1 for both definitions. VIR models are

1040: % satisfactory in the reduced $\chi^2$ sense, while MEM models lack a

1041: % statistical interpretation.

1042: 

1043: % MEM model does not give a good fit in this sense.

1044: % Although it cannot be strictly comparable, the Bayesian $L$ function

1045: % gives a much smaller value for VIR than for MEM (the MEM model

1046: % optimizes $L_\mathrm{MEM}$, not $L$). This reflects the increase in

1047: % entropy with the number of free parameters.

1048: 

1049: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:Conclusions}

1050: We have introduced a Bayesian Voronoi image reconstruction (VIR)

1051: technique for interferometric data where the image is represented by a

1052: Voronoi tessellation in place of the usual pixelated image. The

1053: advantage of Voronoi models is that we can use a smaller number of

1054: free parameters, as required by the Bayesian analysis of a discretized

1055: intensity field. Our purpose is not optimal CPU efficiency; we search

1056: for the optimal image and model from a Bayesian point of view. The

1057: free parameters of our model are the Voronoi generators positions

1058: $(x_i, y_i)$ and intensities $I_i$. The following points summarize our work:

1059: \begin {itemize}

1060: % \item We used a new model for representing the sky plane consisting of

1061: %   a Voronoi tessellation. The free parameters of our model are the

1062: %  Voronoi generators positions $(x_i, y_i)$ and intensities $I_i$.

1063: \item We discretized the intensity field in order to calculate \emph{a

1064:   priori} probabilities. We defined a quantum intensity value

1065:   $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ such that $I_i = \sigma_\mathrm{q} N_i$, where

1066:   $I_i$ is the intensity at cell $i$ and $N_i$ the number of quanta in

1067:   cell $i$.

1068: % \item We defined our merit function as $-\ln{P (I, M | D)}$ and used a

1069: %   conjugate gradient algorithm for optimizating it.

1070: \item We calculated the analytical derivatives required by the

1071:   conjugate gradient and cross checked them by finite

1072:   differences. Because the parameter space in cell generators

1073:   positions is very structured, the positions of the Voronoi

1074:   generators are difficult to change. As initial condition we took a

1075:   Voronoi tessellation adjusted to an interrupted maximum likelihood

1076:   reconstruction.

1077:   % (making the position of the  generators 

1078:   % hard to move), we adjusted a Voronoi tessellation to the fifth 

1079:   % iteration of a maximum likelihood reconstruction as initial 

1080:   % condition.

1081: \item We simulated a CBI observation over a true image and

1082:   reconstructed sky images from this mock visibility dataset using MEM

1083:   and VIR.

1084: \item We defined the value of $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ as the estimated

1085:   noise of the dirty map and searched for the optimal number of

1086:   Voronoi polygons for our example dataset.

1087: \item We finally compared the MEM and VIR models, residuals and

1088:   restored images. The VIR model is closer to our true image than the

1089:   MEM model. Residuals and restored images are also better in VIR than

1090:   in MEM. We found that VIR model visibilities give a better fit to

1091:   the data than MEM, in the sense that $\chi^2$ is closer to its

1092:   expected value.

1093:   

1094:   %We also calculated $\chi^2$ values for quantitative comparison,

1095:   %obtaining a value closer to the number of data points for VIR.

1096: \end{itemize}

1097: 

1098: % Analysis of the correct quantum size for the \emph{a-priori} probability was

1099: % also made as well as its dependency in the optimal number of polygons.

1100: %

1101: % Our implementation consists in a conjugate gradient method which

1102: % maximizes the \emph{a-posteriori} probability of the image. Function

1103: % derivatives with respect to Voronoi generators and intensities are

1104: % needed, calculated analytically and cross checked by finite

1105: % differences.

1106: %

1107: % Reconstructions over simulated data on a true image using our

1108: % algorithm and a MEM one were compared.

1109: 

1110: \acknowledgments

1111: We are grateful to Tim Pearson for advice on FFTs and the use of

1112: MOCKCBI. G.F.C. and S.C. acknowledge support from FONDECYT grant

1113: 1060827, and from the Chilean Center for Astrophysics FONDAP 15010003.

1114: 

1115: \appendix

1116: 

1117: \section{Derivatives}\label{ap:derivatives}

1118: 

1119: Our merit function for minimization is

1120: \begin{eqnarray}

1121: L & = &

1122: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}}\frac{||V_j^{\mathrm{mod}}

1123:   - V_j^{\mathrm{obs}}||^2}{\sigma_j^2}

1124: -\ln\left(\frac{N!}{n^N \prod_{i=1}^{n}N_{i}!}\right)\\ & = &

1125: \frac{1}{2}\chi^2 - S.

1126: \end{eqnarray}

1127: So, the derivative of $L$ with respect to any variable $x$ is

1128: \begin{equation}

1129: \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial

1130: \chi^2}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial S}{\partial x}

1131: \end{equation}

1132: 

1133: \subsection {Calculation of the Derivatives of $\chi^2$}

1134: 

1135: $\chi^2$ derivatives with respect to any variable $x$ can be obtain as follows

1136: \begin{eqnarray}

1137: \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \frac{1}{2}\chi^2

1138:   & = & \frac{\partial}{\partial x}

1139:     \left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}}\frac{||V_k^{\mathrm{mod}} -

1140:     V_k^{\mathrm{obs}}||^2}{\sigma_k^2}\right)\nonumber\\

1141: % TESIS

1142: %   & = & \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}} \frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}

1143: %     \frac{\partial}{\partial x}

1144: %     \left((V_k^{\mathrm{mod}} -

1145: %     V_k^{\mathrm{obs}})(V_k^{\mathrm{mod}} -

1146: %     V_k^{\mathrm{obs}})^*\right)\nonumber\\

1147: %   & = & \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}} \frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}

1148: %     \frac{\partial}{\partial x}

1149: %     \left(\mathrm{Re}(V_k^{\mathrm{mod}} - V_k^{\mathrm{obs}})^2

1150: %     + \mathrm{Im}(V_k^{\mathrm{mod}} - V_k^{\mathrm{obs}})^2

1151: %     \right)\nonumber\\

1152:   & = & \sum_{k=1}^{N_\mathrm{Vis}} \frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}

1153:     \left(\mathrm{Re}(V_k^{\mathrm{mod}} - V_k^{\mathrm{obs}})

1154:     \mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial x}\right)

1155:     %\nonumber\\ &&

1156:     + \mathrm{Im}(V_k^{\mathrm{mod}} - V_k^{\mathrm{obs}})

1157:     \mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial x}\right)

1158:     \right),\nonumber\\

1159:   && \label{eq:dLdI}

1160: \end{eqnarray}

1161: where its necessary to calculate the model visibilities derivatives

1162: with respect to $x$.

1163: 

1164: \subsubsection {Calculation of $\frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial I_i}$}

1165: 

1166: % As said before, $V(\vec{k}) = \int A(\vec{x}) I(\vec{x})

1167: % e^{2\pi i\vec{k}\vec{x}}d\vec{x}$, but according to 

1168: In our Voronoi tessellation representation of the sky image

1169: \begin{equation} \label{eq:VisDiscreta}

1170: V(\vec{k}) = \sum_i^{N_\mathrm{V}} I_i\int_{\mathcal{V}_i} A(\vec{x}) e^{2\pi

1171: i\vec{k}\vec{x}}d\vec{x},

1172: \end{equation}

1173: where $N_\mathrm{V}$ is the number of polygons, $\mathcal{V}_i$ is

1174: polygon $i$ and $I_i$ its intensity. We neglected the $\sqrt{1 - x^2 -

1175: y^2}$ term which is close to $1$, but it can easily be included in

1176: $A(\vec{x})$. After derivation and defining $f_k(\vec{x})\equiv

1177: A(\vec{x}) e^{2\pi i\vec{k_k}\vec{x}}$ we obtain

1178: \begin{eqnarray}

1179: \frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial I_i} & = &

1180: \int\int_{\mathcal{V}_i} f_k(\vec{x})d^2x, \\

1181: & = & \frac{\sin{(\pi u_k\Delta x)}\sin{(\pi v_k\Delta y)}}{\pi^2u_kv_k}

1182:   \sum_{\textrm{\scriptsize{pixels }}l\epsilon \mathcal{V}_i}A_l

1183:   e^{2\pi i(u_kx_l+v_ky_l)}, \\

1184: & \simeq & \Delta x\Delta y

1185:   \sum_{\textrm{\scriptsize{pixels }}l\epsilon \mathcal{V}_i}A_l

1186:   e^{2\pi i(u_kx_l+v_ky_l)}

1187: \end{eqnarray}

1188: for small $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$.

1189: % This integral can be computed numerically, and its domain is only

1190: % polygon $i$.

1191: 

1192: \subsubsection {Calculation of $\frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial x_i}$ and $\frac{\partial V_k^{\mathrm{mod}}}{\partial y_i}$}

1193: 

1194: To evaluate $\frac{\partial V_k}{\partial x_i}$ we move the generator

1195: $\vec{x}_i$ an infinitesimal quantity $\delta_x$ parallel to the

1196: $\hat{x}$ axis as in Figure \ref{fig:VoronoiDelta}. We will calculate

1197: \begin{equation}

1198: \frac{\partial V_k}{\partial x_i} =

1199: \lim_{\delta_x\to 0}\frac{\Delta V}{\delta_x},\label{eq:DerivadaLimite}

1200: \end{equation}

1201: where $\Delta V_k = V_k(\vec{x}_1, \cdots,

1202: \vec{x}_i + \vec{\delta_x}, \cdots, \vec{x}_{N_V}) -

1203: V_k(\vec{x}_1, \cdots, \vec{x}_i, \cdots, \vec{x}_{N_V})$.

1204: 

1205: \begin{figure}[h]

1206: %  \plotone{figuras/Voronoi_deltaB&N.ps}

1207:   \plotone{f6.eps}

1208:   \caption{Voronoi tessellation before and after translating the site

1209:     $\vec{x}_i$ by $\vec{\delta_x}$. Voronoi ge\-ne\-rators are

1210:     represented with dots. The solid lines are the polygons before

1211:     moving $\vec{x_i}$. The dotted lines represent the new polygons

1212:     after varying $\vec{x_i}$.}

1213:   \label{fig:VoronoiDelta}

1214: \end{figure}

1215: 

1216: It can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:VoronoiDelta} that when moving the

1217: generator $\vec{x}_i$, the only polygons modified are $\mathcal{V}_i$

1218: and its neighbors. Using this, Eq. \ref{eq:VisDiscreta} leads to

1219: \begin{eqnarray}

1220: \Delta V_k & = & I_i'\int_{\mathcal{V}_i'}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x} -

1221: I_i\int_{\mathcal{V}_i}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x}\nonumber\\

1222: & & + \sum_{j\in J_i}\bigg(I_j'\int_{\mathcal{V}_j'}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x} -

1223: I_j\int_{\mathcal{V}_j}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x}\bigg),\label{eq:deltaVis}

1224: \end{eqnarray}

1225: where $\mathcal{V}_i$ is the polygon generated by $\vec{x}_i$ before

1226: moving, $\mathcal{V}_i'$ is the same polygon after moving $\vec{x}_i$,

1227: $J_i$ is the set of indices of the polygons that are neighbors to

1228: $\mathcal{V}_i$ and $J_i'$ is the set of indices of the polygons that

1229: are neighbors to $\mathcal{V}_i'$.

1230: 

1231: It can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:VoronoiDelta} that

1232: \begin{eqnarray}

1233: \mathcal{V}_i = (\mathcal{V}_i\cap \mathcal{V}_i')\cup(\mathcal{V}_i\setminus \mathcal{V}_i\cap \mathcal{V}_i'), & \mathcal{V}_i' =

1234: (\mathcal{V}_i\cap \mathcal{V}_i')\cup(\mathcal{V}_i'\setminus \mathcal{V}_i\cap \mathcal{V}_i'),\\

1235: \mathcal{V}_j = (\mathcal{V}_j\cap \mathcal{V}_j')\cup(\mathcal{V}_i'\cap \mathcal{V}_j), & \mathcal{V}_j' = (\mathcal{V}_j\cap

1236: \mathcal{V}_j')\cup(\mathcal{V}_i\cap \mathcal{V}_j'),

1237: \end{eqnarray}

1238: so, Eq. \ref{eq:deltaVis} is

1239: \begin{eqnarray}

1240: \Delta V_k & = & (I_i'-I_i)\int_{\mathcal{V}_i'\cap

1241: \mathcal{V}_i}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x}\nonumber\\

1242: && + \sum_{j\in J_i}\bigg[(I_i' - I_j)\int_{\mathcal{V}_i'\cap

1243: \mathcal{V}_j}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x} + (I_j' - I_i)\int_{\mathcal{V}_i\cap

1244: \mathcal{V}_j'}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x}\bigg].

1245: \end{eqnarray}

1246: In our case the cells' intensities don't depend of the position of the

1247: generators, so we obtain

1248: \begin{equation}\label{eq:DeltaVis}

1249: \Delta V_k = \sum_{j\in J_i}\bigg[(I_i-I_j)\bigg(\int_{\mathcal{V}_i'\cap

1250: \mathcal{V}_j}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x} - \int_{\mathcal{V}_i\cap

1251: \mathcal{V}_j'}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x}\bigg)\bigg].

1252: \end{equation}

1253: 

1254: It can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:VoronoiDelta} that to obtain $\Delta

1255: V_k$ we must integrate only over the shaded regions.  For this

1256: purpose, for each region between $\vec{x}_i$ and $\vec{x}_j$ we will

1257: define a coordinate system

1258: \begin{eqnarray}

1259: \hat{s} = -\cos{\alpha_j}\hat{x} + \sin{\alpha_j}\hat{y}. & \hat{t}

1260: = \sin{\alpha_j}\hat{x} + \cos{\alpha_j}\hat{y},\label{eq:sistema_coordenadas}

1261: \end{eqnarray}

1262: where $\alpha_j$ is the angle formed by the $-\hat{x}$ axis and the

1263: edge $a_{ij}$ between $\vec{x}_i$ and $\vec{x}_j$ (see Figure

1264: \ref{fig:VoronoiCoordenadas}). Using this change of coordinates, the

1265: integral over the region of interest is

1266: \begin{equation}

1267: \int_{\mathcal{V}_i'\cap \mathcal{V}_j}f_k(x, y)dxdy = \int_{\mathcal{V}_i'\cap

1268: \mathcal{V}_j}f_k(s,t)dsdt.\label{eq:int}

1269: \end{equation}

1270: 

1271: \begin{figure}[h]

1272:   \epsscale{.50}

1273: %  \plotone{figuras/VoronoiCoordenadasB&N.ps}

1274:   \plotone{f7.eps}

1275:   \caption{Change of coordinates from $(x, y)$ to $(s, t)$.}

1276:   \label{fig:VoronoiCoordenadas}

1277: \end{figure}

1278: 

1279: Let $\vec{x_i} = (x_i, y_i)$ be the position of the $i$ cell's

1280: generator, $\vec{x_j} = (x_j, y_j)$ one of its neighbor, and

1281: $\vec{x_i}' = (x_i + \delta_x, y_i)$ the site's position after moving

1282: it a quantity $\delta_x$. We define $\vec{x_0} \equiv (x_0, y_0)$ as

1283: the point in the intersection of the segment formed by $\vec{x_i}$ and

1284: $\vec{x_j}$ and its respective edge $a_{ij}$. The same way, we define

1285: $\vec{x_0}' = (x_0', y_0')$ as the point in the intersection of the

1286: segment formed by $\vec{x_i}'$ and $\vec{x_j}$ and its respective edge

1287: $a_{ij}'$. It can be seen on Figure \ref{fig:VoronoiCoordenadas} that

1288: $x_0 = \frac{x_i + x_j}{2}$ , $x_0' = x_0 + \frac{\delta}{2}$ and $y_0'

1289: = y_0 = \frac{y_i + y_j}{2}$.

1290: 

1291: The edge $a_{ij}$ is defined in the new coordinate system by

1292: \begin{equation}

1293: s = s_0 = -x_0\cos{\alpha_j} + y_0\sin{\alpha_j}.

1294: \end{equation}

1295: In the same way, the edge $a_{ij}'$ is defined in the original

1296: coordinate system by

1297: \begin{equation}

1298: y = m(x - x_0') + y_0,

1299: \end{equation}

1300: where

1301: \begin{equation}

1302: m \equiv \frac{x_i + \delta_x - x_j}{y_j - y_i}.

1303: \end{equation}

1304: We can define the same line in our new coordinate system as

1305: \begin{equation}

1306: s = m't+b',

1307: \end{equation}

1308: where

1309: \begin{eqnarray}

1310: m' & \equiv & -\frac{\cos{\alpha_j} + m\sin{\alpha_j}}{\sin{\alpha_j}

1311:   - m\cos{\alpha_j}},\\ 

1312: b' & \equiv & \frac{-mx_0' +

1313:   y_0}{\sin{\alpha_j} - m\cos{\alpha_j}}.

1314: \end{eqnarray}

1315: This can be approximated to first order in $\delta_x$ as

1316: \begin{eqnarray}

1317: m' & \simeq & \delta_xM_x,\\

1318: b' & \simeq &s_0 + \delta_xB_x,

1319: \end{eqnarray}

1320: where

1321: \begin{eqnarray}

1322: M_x & \equiv &\frac{\sin^2\alpha_j}{y_j - y_i} =

1323: \frac{\sin{\alpha_j}\cos{\alpha_j}}{x_i - x_j},\\ 

1324: B_x & \equiv &

1325: \frac{\sin{\alpha_j}}{y_j-y_i}(s_0\cos{\alpha_j} + x_i) =

1326: \frac{\cos{\alpha_j}}{x_i-x_j}(s_0\cos{\alpha_j} + x_i).

1327: \end{eqnarray}

1328: 

1329: The integral in Eq. \ref{eq:DeltaVis} using our new coordinate system

1330: will be

1331: \begin{eqnarray}

1332: \mathcal{I} & = & \int_{\mathcal{V}_i'\cap \mathcal{V}_j}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x} - \int_{\mathcal{V}_i\cap

1333: \mathcal{V}_j'}f_k(\vec{x})d\vec{x}\\

1334: & = & \int\int_{a_{ij}}^{a_{ij}'}A(\vec{x})e^{2\pi i(ux + vy)}dxdy.\label{eq:Ixy}

1335: \end{eqnarray}

1336: If we use $A(\vec{x})$ in the $(s, t)$ coordinate system as a

1337: pixelated image, Eq. \ref{eq:Ixy} will be

1338: \begin{equation}

1339: \mathcal{I} = \sum_{l\ \epsilon \mathrm{\ pixeles\ de\ }

1340: a_i}A_l\int_{t_{ijl}^1}^{t_{ijl}^2}\int_{s_0}^{m't+b'} e^{2\pi i(ux(s,

1341: t) + vy(s, t))}dsdt,

1342: \end{equation}

1343: where $t_{ijl}^1$ and $t_{ijl}^2$ are the $t$ coordinate of the

1344: beginning and end of the portion of the edge $a_{ij}$ that intersects pixel

1345: $l$.  Developing the previous expression,

1346: \begin{eqnarray}

1347: \mathcal{I} & = & \sum_{l}A_l\int_{t_{ijl}^1}^{t_{ijl}^2}\int_{s_0}^{m't+b'}

1348: e^{2\pi i(u(-s\cos{\alpha_j} + t \sin{\alpha_j}) + v(s\sin{\alpha_j} +

1349: t \cos{\alpha_j}))}dsdt,\label{eq:integralPixel}\\ 

1350: % & = &

1351: % \sum_{l}A_l\int_{t_{ijl}^1}^{t_{ijl}^2}\int_{s_0}^{m't+b'} e^{2\pi

1352: % i(sc_1 + tc_2)}dsdt,\\ 

1353: & \simeq & 

1354: \sum_{l}\frac{A_l}{\pi c_2}e^{2\pi i(s_0c_1 + \bar{t}_{ijl}c_2)}\kappa_{ijl}\delta_x,

1355: \label{eq:IExacto}

1356: \end{eqnarray}

1357: where we defined

1358: \begin{eqnarray}

1359:   c_1 & \equiv & -u\cos{\alpha_j} + v\sin{\alpha_j},\\ 

1360:   c_2 & \equiv & u\sin{\alpha_j} + v\cos{\alpha_j},\\ 

1361:   \kappa_{ijl} & \equiv &

1362:   (M_x\bar{t}_{ijl} + B_x)\sin{(\pi c_2\Delta t_{ijl})} \\\nonumber 

1363:   &&+ i\frac{M_x}{2} \bigg(\frac{\sin(\pi c_2\Delta t_{ijl})}{\pi c_2} -

1364:   \Delta t_{ijl}\cos{(\pi c_2\Delta t_{ijl})}\bigg),\\ 

1365:   \bar{t}_{ijl} & \equiv & \frac{t_{ijl}^1 + t_{ijl}^2}{2},\\ 

1366:   \Delta t_{ijl} & \equiv & \frac{t_{ijl}^2 - t_{ijl}^1}{2}.

1367: \end{eqnarray}

1368: 

1369: In the calculation above we integrated over the fraction of the edge

1370: that falls inside pixel $l$ and then summed these integrals over the

1371: whole edge $a_i$. It is also possible to approximate the integral of

1372: Eq. \ref{eq:integralPixel} as $\int_{t_{ijl}^1}^{t_{ijl}^2}g(t) dt =

1373: g(\bar{t}_{ijl})\Delta t_{ijl}$, which is equivalent to taking the

1374: limit over the integral $\mathcal{I}$ of Eq. \ref{eq:IExacto},

1375: $\lim_{\Delta t_{ijl}\rightarrow 0} \mathcal{I}$, obtaining

1376: \begin{equation}

1377:   \mathcal{I} = \sum_{l} A_l\Delta t_{ijl} (M_x\bar{t}_{ijl} + B_x)e^{2\pi

1378:     i(\bar{t}_{ijl}c_2 + s_0c_1)}\delta_x.\label{eq:IAprox}

1379: \end{equation}

1380: 

1381: We found by direct evaluation that the difference between

1382: Eq.~\ref{eq:IAprox} and Eq.~\ref{eq:IExacto} is negligible, so, for

1383: simplicity, we will use Eq. \ref{eq:IAprox}. Introducing

1384: Eq. \ref{eq:IAprox} in Eq. \ref{eq:DeltaVis}, we obtain

1385: \begin{equation}

1386:   \Delta V_k = \delta_x\sum_{j\in

1387:     J_i}\bigg[(I_i-I_j)\sum_{l} A_l\Delta t_{ijl} (M_x\bar{t}_{ijl} +

1388:     B_x)e^{2\pi i(\bar{t}_{ijl}c_2 + s_0c_1)}\bigg],

1389: \end{equation}

1390: so, according to Eq. \ref{eq:DerivadaLimite}, the derivative of the

1391: $k$ visibility with respect to the position $x$ of polygon $i$ is

1392: \begin{eqnarray}

1393:   \frac{\partial V_k}{\partial x_i} & = &

1394:   \lim_{\delta_x\to 0}\frac{\Delta V}{\delta_x},\\

1395:   & = & \sum_{j\in

1396:     J_i}\bigg[(I_i-I_j)\sum_{l} A_l\Delta t_{ijl} (M_x\bar{t}_{ijl} +

1397:     B_x)e^{2\pi i(\bar{t}_{ijl}c_2 + s_0c_1)}\bigg].

1398: \end{eqnarray}

1399: Similarly, for the derivative with respect to the position $y$ of the

1400: $i$ polygon we obtain

1401: \begin{equation}

1402:   \frac{\partial V_k}{\partial y_i} = \sum_{j\in

1403:     J_i}\bigg[(I_i-I_j)\sum_{l} A_l\Delta t_{ijl} (M_y\bar{t}_{ijl} +

1404:     B_y)e^{2\pi i(\bar{t}_{ijl}c_2 + s_0c_1)}\bigg],

1405: \end{equation}

1406: where

1407: \begin{eqnarray}

1408: M_y & \equiv &\frac{\cos^2\alpha_j}{x_i - x_j} =

1409: \frac{\sin{\alpha_j}\cos{\alpha_j}}{y_j - y_i},\\ 

1410: B_y & \equiv & \frac{\sin{\alpha_j}}{y_j-y_i}(s_0\sin{\alpha_j} - y_i)

1411: = \frac{\cos{\alpha_j}}{x_i-x_j}(s_0\sin{\alpha_j} - y_i).

1412: \end{eqnarray}

1413: 

1414: \subsection {Calculation of the Derivatives of $S$}\label{ap:derivativesdS}

1415: 

1416: We defined our entropy as 

1417: \begin{eqnarray}

1418: S & = & \ln\left(\frac{N!}{n^N

1419:   \prod_{i=1}^{n}N_{i}!}\right) \\

1420:   & = & \ln(N!) - N\ln(n) - \sum_{i=1}^{n}\ln(N_i!)\\

1421:   & = & \ln\Big(\Gamma(N + 1)\Big) - N\ln(n) - \sum_{i=1}^{n}\ln\Big(\Gamma(N_i +

1422:   1)\Big),

1423: \end{eqnarray}

1424: where $N_i = \frac{I_i}{\sigma_\mathrm{q}}$ is the number of quanta

1425: in cell $i$, $N = \sum_iN_i$ and $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. It

1426: can be seen that this function does not depend on the position of the

1427: Voronoi generators, so

1428: \begin{equation}

1429:   \frac{\partial S}{\partial x_i} = \frac{\partial S}{\partial y_i} = 0.

1430: \end{equation}

1431: 

1432: Using Weierstrass' definition of the Gamma function

1433: \[\Gamma(z) = z^{-1}e^{-\gamma z}\prod_{n=1}^\infty

1434:   \left[\left(1 + \frac{z}{n}\right)^{-1} e^{z/n}\right],\]

1435: where $\gamma$ is Euler's constant, we can obtain

1436: \begin{equation}

1437:   \frac{\partial \ln \Big(\Gamma(z + 1)\Big)}{\partial z} = -\gamma +

1438:   \sum_{n=1}^z\frac{1}{n}

1439: \end{equation}

1440: so, the derivative of $S$ with respect to $I_i$ is

1441: \begin{equation}

1442:   \frac{\partial S}{\partial I_i} = \frac{1}{\sigma_\mathrm{q}}

1443:   (\sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{1}{k} - \ln{n} - \sum_{k=1}^{N_i}\frac{1}{k}).

1444: \end{equation}

1445: 

1446: \subsection {Finite Difference Cross Check on the Derivatives}

1447: 

1448: Numerical calculation of the derivatives by finite differences is not

1449: very accurate, in particular for the position of the

1450: generators. Finite difference derivatives are calculated as

1451: $\frac{\partial L}{\partial x} = \frac{ L(x + \delta) -

1452: L(x)}{\delta}$, where $\delta$ is a small displacement of $x$. In the

1453: case of the positions of the generators, if $\delta$ is too small, the

1454: pixelization of the Voronoi diagram (needed to obtain the model

1455: visibilities) will not change after the displacement $\delta$. On the

1456: other hand, if $\delta$ is too big, the generator displacement may

1457: cause the function to change abruptly, as explained below. That is why

1458: we calculated the analytical expression for the derivatives.

1459: 

1460: To verify that our derivatives are correctly calculated and

1461: programmed, we compared our analytical result with a numerical

1462: calculation. We created a Voronoi tessellation of $50$ polygons with

1463: random positions and intensities and calculated the analytical and

1464: numerical derivatives using these parameters $\{x_i, y_i, I_i\}$. For

1465: the case of $\frac{\partial L}{\partial x_i}$ and $\frac{\partial

1466: L}{\partial y_i}$ this numerical cross check consists of moving each

1467: Voronoi generator a quantity $\delta$ from -0.1 to 0.1 with an

1468: interval of $10^{-3}$ in units of the total size of the square

1469: image. We evaluate the merit function $L$ at each position intervals,

1470: thus obtaining two sequences $\{L_i\}_{i=1}^{2\times 10^2}$. We then

1471: fitted a polynomial of order four to the curve defined by each

1472: sequence $\{L_i\}$ and calculated the derivative of the polynomial at

1473: $\delta = 0$. For the case of $\frac{\partial L}{\partial I_i}$ we

1474: varied the intensity of cell $i$ from $-\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ to

1475: $\sigma_\mathrm{q}$ and did the same approximation to a polynomial of

1476: order four and calculated its derivative. Figure~\ref{fig:dLdx} shows

1477: this cross check for $\frac{\partial L}{\partial x_i}$ and

1478: $\frac{\partial L}{\partial I_i}$. Although the derivatives are

1479: similar, they are not exactly the same for $\frac{\partial L}{\partial

1480: x_i}$. This is caused by the polynomial coarseness fit, as explained

1481: below.

1482: 

1483: \begin{figure}[h]

1484:   \epsscale{1.1}

1485: %  \plottwo{figuras/dx.ps}{figuras/dI.ps}

1486:   \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}

1487:   \caption{Verification of the derivatives. The solid line shows

1488:   analytical derivatives, and dots show numerical

1489:   approximations. \emph{Left:} $\frac{\partial L}{\partial

1490:   x_i}$. \emph{Right:} $\frac{\partial L}{\partial I_i}$. 

1491:   The polygon identifier $i$ is indicated on the $x$-axis.

1492:   % The polygon $i$ is represented on the $x$-axis.

1493:   \label{fig:dLdx}}

1494: \end{figure}

1495: 

1496: % MOCKCBI

1497: % In order to increase the calculation speed, MockCBI uses a fast

1498: % Fourier transform (FFT) to obtain a grid of the $uv$ plane. To obtain

1499: % the visibility at a certain baseline MockCBI interpolates the

1500: % visibility value at the four pixels surrounding the $(u, v)$

1501: % point. Figure \ref{fig:comparacionVis} shows a comparison of the

1502: % visibilities obtained using MockCBI and a direct Fourier transform

1503: % (DFT). We plotted correlations between visibility real and imaginary

1504: % parts, and modulus. We also fitted a straight line $f(x) = ax + b$ to

1505: % these data obtaining $a = 0.93,$ $b = 0.14$ for the real part, $a =

1506: % 0.51,$ $b = -0.06$ for the imaginary part and $a = 1.28,$ $b = 0.01$

1507: % for the modulus. It can be seen that using a FFT and then

1508: % interpolating to obtain simulated visibilities is not very accurate,

1509: % though it is considerably fastest for implementation purpose. The FFT

1510: % takes $\mathcal{O}((n_x\times n_y)\log{(n_x\times n_y)})$, while the

1511: % DFT takes $\mathcal{O}((N_\mathrm{Vis})(n_x\times n_y))$, where $n_x$

1512: % is the image width in pixels, $n_y$ is the image height in pixels, and

1513: % $N_\mathrm{Vis}$ is the number of visibilities. The DFT computation

1514: % time is considerably larger than the FFT, an important issue for our

1515: % method, so we decided to use MockCBI although is not exact. Figure

1516: % \ref{fig:dLdx} shows a comparison of the numerical and the analytical

1517: % derivatives for each polygon, using MockCBI (i.e. a FFT) and a DFT to

1518: % calculate model visibilities. Analytical-MockCBI derivatives use

1519: % MockCBI only when calculating model visibilities, the analytical

1520: % derivatives are calculated as above using these visibilities. It can

1521: % be seen that difference between using MockCBI and a DFT is small.

1522: 

1523: Figure \ref{fig:ajuste} shows the curve fit for $\frac{\partial

1524: L}{\partial x_i}$ for three different generators (generator number 37,

1525: 36 and 18 respectively). It can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:ajuste}

1526: that the polynomial fit adjusts quite well to the function values for

1527: polygon number 37, so on Figure \ref{fig:dLdx} both derivatives are

1528: the same. On the contrary, for polygons number 36 and 18, the fitted

1529: polynomial does not resemble the function $L$ at $\delta = 0$, causing

1530: a slight difference in their derivatives on Figure \ref{fig:dLdx}. For

1531: polygon number 18 the polynomial does not fit the curve at all. This

1532: is the main problem of using a numerical approximation for the

1533: derivatives of $\{\vec{x_i}\}$: when two polygons are closer than

1534: $\delta$, the generator displacement causes the function $L$ to change

1535: abruptly (see Figure \ref{fig:VorProblem}).

1536: 

1537: \begin{figure}[h!]

1538: %  \includegraphics[scale=1.05]{figuras/ajuste37.ps}

1539: %  \includegraphics[scale=1.05]{figuras/ajuste36.ps}

1540: %  \includegraphics[scale=1.05]{figuras/ajuste18.ps}

1541:   \epsscale{0.4}

1542:   \plotone{f9a.eps}

1543: 

1544:   \plotone{f9b.eps}

1545: 

1546:   \plotone{f9c.eps}

1547:   \caption{Examples of polynomial fits, used to determine numerical

1548:   derivatives of the optimization function $L$ for a particular

1549:   generator. Dots represent $L$ vs the polygon displacement $\delta$

1550:   in $x$ and the solid line shows the fourth order polynomial fit to

1551:   $L$. A vertical line is drawn at $\delta = 0$, where the derivatives

1552:   were calculated. \emph{Top:} Generator number 37, with a

1553:   satisfactory polynomial fit. \emph{Middle:} Generator number 36, the

1554:   curve is not a good fit at $\delta = 0$. \emph{Bottom:}

1555:   $18^\mathrm{th}$ generator, the curve is not a good fit because $L$

1556:   shows an abrupt variation near $\delta = 0$, which is due to the

1557:   proximity of another generator.\label{fig:ajuste}}

1558:   

1559:   % does not fit well to $L$ because the generator is too close to another

1560:   % one.\label{fig:ajuste}}

1561: \end{figure}

1562: 

1563: \begin{figure}[h]

1564:   \epsscale{0.9}

1565: %  \plottwo{figuras/VorDelta1.eps}{figuras/VorDelta2.eps}

1566:   \plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}

1567:   \caption{Translation of a generator close to another. \emph{Left:}

1568:   Before moving generator $\vec{x_i}$, polygon $i$, the darker polygon

1569:   in the image, is on the left. \emph{Right:} After moving generator

1570:   $\vec{x_i}$, by a displacement of $\delta$, polygon $i$ is on the

1571:   right of polygon $j$.  When displacing generator $\vec{x_i}$ the

1572:   diagram changes considerably, with a concomitant abrupt variation in

1573:   $L$.

1574:   %making the optimization function $L$ to change as well.

1575:   \label{fig:VorProblem}}

1576: \end{figure}

1577: 

1578:  It can be seen that the analytical and numerical derivatives on

1579: Figure \ref{fig:dLdx} are almost the same. As explained above,

1580: differences are produced because there are cases where the polynomials

1581: do not fit well to the variations of the merit function $L$ (for

1582: example, when two generators are too close). In an accurate

1583: calculation it is necessary to use the analytical derivatives.

1584: 

1585: \section{Fitting a Voronoi Tessellation to an Image}\label{ap:fitting}

1586: Once we have a reasonable reconstruction for a pixelated image, we

1587: would like to fit a Voronoi tessellation to it in order to have a good

1588: initial starting point for the CG. This is done in an incremental way.

1589: 

1590: We start with a mesh consisting in only one polygon. We calculate the

1591: error per polygon as

1592: \begin{equation}

1593:   e_i^2 = \sum_l

1594:   (I_i - I^\mathrm{im}_l)^2,

1595: \end{equation}

1596: where the sum runs over all the pixels that fall inside polygon $i$,

1597: $I_i$ is the intensity of that polygon and $I^\mathrm{im}_l$ is the

1598: intensity of pixel $l$ in the image to be fitted. In each iteration we

1599: add a new polygon inside the one with the greatest error. The new

1600: generator is inserted in the position of the pixel that has the most

1601: different intensity value with respect to the mesh intensity.

1602: 

1603: % I'm not sure where to put this. I guess its an incremental algorithm,

1604: % so I left it here.

1605: 

1606: % {\it Facilities:} \facility{CBI}.

1607: 

1608: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1609: %\bibitem[Briggs et al.(1999)]{Briggs} Briggs D. S., Schwab F. R.,

1610: %  Sramek R. A., 1999, in Taylor G. B., Carilli C. L., Perley R. A., eds,

1611: %  Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ASP Conf. Ser. 180,

1612: %  Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p. 127

1613: \bibitem[Briggs et al.(1999)]{Briggs} Briggs, D. S., Schwab, F. R. \&

1614:   Sramek R. A. 1999, ASP Conf. Ser., 180, 127

1615: \bibitem[Casassus et al.(2006)]{Casassus} Casassus, S., Cabrera, G. F., F\"orster, F, Pearson, T. J., Readhead, A. C. S., Dickinson, C. 2006,

1616:   \apj, 639, 951

1617: \bibitem[Cornwell \& Evans(1985)]{Corn&Ev} Cornwell, T. J. \& Evans,

1618:   K. F. 1985, A\&A, 143, 77

1619: \bibitem[H\"ogbom(1974)]{CLEAN} H\"ogbom, J. A. 1974, A\&AS, 15, 417

1620: \bibitem[Narayan \& Nityananda(1986)]{Nar&Nit} Narayan, Ramesh \&

1621:   Nityananda, Rajaram 1986, \araa, 24, 127

1622: \bibitem[Okabe et al.(1992)]{Voronoi} Okabe, A., Boots, B. \&

1623:   Sugihara, K. 1992, Spacial Tessellations Concepts and Applications

1624:   of Voronoi Diagrams, John Wiley \& Sons

1625: \bibitem[Padin et al.(2002)]{pad02} Padin, S., et al, 2002, \pasp,

1626:   114, 83

1627: \bibitem[Pi\~na \& Puetter(1993)] {P&P}Pi\~na, R. K. \& Puetter,

1628:   R. C. 1993, \pasp, 105, 630

1629: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{NumericalRecipes} Press, W. H., Flannery,

1630:   B. P., Teukilsky, S. A., Vettering, W. Y. 1992, Numerical Recipes in

1631:   C, C. Cambridge University Press

1632: \bibitem[Shepherd(1997)]{she97} Shepherd, M.C., 1997, in ASP

1633:   Conf. Ser. 125, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI,

1634:   ed. G.~Hunt \& H.E.~Payne (San Francisco: ASP), 77

1635: \bibitem[Sutton \& Wandelt(2006)]{W&S} Sutton, E. C. \& Wandelt,

1636:   B. D. 2006, \apjs, 162, 401

1637: % \bibitem[Auri\`ere(1982)]{aur82} Auri\`ere, M.  1982, \aap,

1638: %   109, 301

1639: \end{thebibliography}

1640: 

1641: \clearpage

1642: 

1643: \clearpage

1644: 

1645: % \begin{figure}

1646: %   \begin{minipage}[t]{2.1in}

1647: %     %\epsscale{1.1}

1648: %     %\plottwo{figuras/gaussianas.ps}{figuras/reconstruccion.ps}

1649: %     \begin{center}

1650: %       TRUE

1651: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/gaussianas128.ps}

1652: %       DIRTY MAP

1653: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/dirtyMap128K.ps}

1654: %     \end{center} 

1655: %   \end{minipage}

1656: %   \begin{minipage}[t]{2.1in}

1657: %     \begin{center}

1658: %       MEM RECONSTRUCTION

1659: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/MEM_CBIFinal.ps}

1660: %       MEM RESIDUALS

1661: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/residuosMEM128K.ps}

1662: %       MEM RESTORED

1663: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/MEMrestaurada128.ps}

1664: %     \end{center}

1665: %   \end{minipage}

1666: %   \begin{minipage}[t]{2.1in}

1667: %     \begin{center}

1668: %       VIR RECONSTRUCTION

1669: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/VIR_48_nsr50_128.ps}

1670: %       VIR RESIDUALS

1671: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/residuosVIR128K.ps}

1672: %       VIR RESTORED

1673: %       \includegraphics[scale=.32]{figuras/VIRrestaurada128.ps}

1674: %     \end{center}

1675: %   \end{minipage}

1676: %   \caption{Comparison of MEM and VIR reconstruction techniques for a

1677: %     nsr of $\sim51$.

1678: %     \label{fig:reconstruccion}}

1679: % \end{figure}

1680: 

1681: % MOCKCBI

1682: % \begin{figure}

1683: %   \epsscale{1.1}

1684: %   \includegraphics[scale=0.423]{figuras/comparacionVisR.ps}

1685: %   \includegraphics[scale=0.423]{figuras/comparacionVisI.ps}

1686: %   \includegraphics[scale=0.423]{figuras/comparacionVis.ps}

1687: %   \caption{Simulated visibility correlations over the full range of

1688: %     the $uv$-radii obtained by MockCBI and by a direct Fourier

1689: %     transform for each visibility baseline. Plots show real

1690: %     (\emph{left}) and imaginary (\emph{center}) parts, and

1691: %     modulus (\emph{right}).\label{fig:comparacionVis}}

1692: % \end{figure}

1693: 

1694: \end{document}

1695: