1: %% Beginning of main file
2: %% Last Modified 2006 Oct 19
3:
4: %\documentclass[natbib209,flushrt]{aastex} % maybe useful when using bibtex
5: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex} % manuscript
6:
7: %% directives for bibtex
8: %\citestyle{aa} % no commas in autor-year form
9: %\bibliographystyle{apj} % AASTeX standard style
10:
11: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc} % suporte para acentos e �
12: \usepackage{graphicx} % figures
13:
14: \slugcomment{To appear in PASP}
15: \shorttitle{The 2DPHOT environment}
16: \shortauthors{F. La Barbera et al.}
17:
18: \author{F. La Barbera}
19: \affil{INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, via Moiariello
20: n.16, Napoli, Italy}
21: \email{labarber@na.astro.it}
22: \author{R. R. de Carvalho}
23: \affil{INAF-VSTCeN, via Moiariello
24: n.16, Napoli, Italy\footnote{On leave of absence INPE/DAS, Av. dos Astronautas 1758, S$\tilde{a}$o Jos\'e dos Campos, SP 12227-010, Brazil.}}
25: \email{reinaldo@das.inpe.br}
26: \author{J.L. Kohl-Moreira}
27: \affil{Observat\'orio Nacional, Rua General Jos\'e Cristino 77, S$\tilde{a}$o Crist\'ov$\tilde{a}$o, Rio de Janeiro 20921-400, Brazil}
28: \author{R.R. Gal}
29: \affil{University of Hawaii, Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn Dr., Honolulu, HI, 96822, United States}
30: \author{M. Soares-Santos}
31: \affil{Instituto de Astronomia, Geof\'isica e Ciencias Atmosf\'ericas}
32: \author{M. Capaccioli}
33: \affil{INAF-VSTCeN, via Moiariello
34: n.16, Napoli, Italy}
35: \author{R. Santos}
36: \affil{INPE/LAC, Av. dos Astronautas 1758, S$\tilde{a}$o Jos\'e dos Campos, SP 12227-010, Brazil}
37: \author{N. Sant'Anna}
38: \affil{INPE/LAC, Av. dos Astronautas 1758, S$\tilde{a}$o Jos\'e dos Campos, SP 12227-010, Brazil}
39:
40: %\author{K. Kuijken}
41: %\affil{Leiden Observatory, 2300RA Leiden, The Netherlands}
42:
43: \begin{document}
44:
45: \title{2DPHOT: a multi-purpose environment for the
46: two-dimensional analysis of wide-field images}
47:
48: % list of authors has to be included here..................
49:
50: %
51: %\author{R. R. de Carvalho}
52: % \affil{Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, S�o Jos� dos Campos SP}
53: %\email{reinaldo@das.inpe.br}
54: %
55: %\author{F. La Barbera}
56: %\affil{Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte}
57: %\email{labarber@na.astro.it}
58: %
59: %\author{M. Soares-Santos}
60: %\affil{Instituto de Astronomia, Geof�sica e Ci�ncias Atmosf�ricas}
61: %\email{msoares@astro.iag.usp.br}
62: %
63: %
64: %
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: We describe 2DPHOT, a general purpose analysis environment for
68: source detection and analysis in deep wide-field images.
69: 2DPHOT is an automated tool to obtain both integrated and surface
70: photometry of galaxies in an image, to perform reliable
71: star-galaxy separation with accurate estimates of contamination at
72: faint flux levels, and to estimate completeness of the image catalog.
73: We describe the analysis strategy on which
74: 2DPHOT is based, and provide a detailed description of the different
75: algorithms implemented in the package. This new environment is
76: intended as a dedicated tool to process the wealth of data from
77: wide-field imaging surveys. To this end, the package is complemented
78: by 2DGUI, an environment that allows multiple
79: processing of data using a range of computing architectures.
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82: \keywords{Data Analysis and Techniques -- Astronomical Techniques --
83: Astrophysical Data -- Galaxies}
84:
85: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
86:
87: In the past decade, wide-field surveys have provided the scientific
88: community with a huge amount of spectroscopic and photometric data,
89: allowing significant progress in our understanding of the Universe.
90: Perhaps the most widely known example is the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
91: (SDSS), whose sixth data release has now provided photometry in five
92: bands for more than $2 \! \cdot \! 10^8$ astronomical objects, as
93: well as spectra of about one million sources (see
94: \citealt{Adelman:07}) over more than $8500$ square degrees on the sky.
95: One key to the success of the SDSS has been its capability to
96: effectively store, process, and analyze, in a fully automated fashion,
97: the vast amount of data gathered during survey operations. This goal
98: was achieved by using dedicated and well-designed software pipelines,
99: updated during survey operations with
100: reprocessing for the delivery of new data releases. In the coming
101: years, many general purpose astronomical surveys are slated to begin
102: taking data. These wide-field imaging projects will gather deeper and
103: deeper multi-waveband data over large sky areas, producing ever
104: greater data flows. The scientific community must manage and analyze
105: the huge wealth of information contained in these enormous datasets.
106:
107: In this environment, we have undertaken the development of a new image
108: analysis tool called 2DPHOT, designed to derive two-dimensional
109: information by analyzing both the surface brightness distributions of
110: individual astronomical sources and the spatial distribution of these
111: sources in the image. The package includes several tasks, such as
112: star/galaxy classification, measurement of both integrated and surface
113: photometry of galaxies, PSF modeling, and estimation of catalog
114: completeness and classification accuracy. The package is complemented by a
115: graphical interface named 2DGUI. A schematic view of the 2DPHOT environment is shown in
116: Fig.~\ref{DBFIG}. Briefly, the environment is conceived as
117: follows. To start processing, the input images are uploaded to a
118: computer system (e.g. a local cluster or a grid computer) via the
119: 2DGUI interface. 2DGUI also allows the user to configure the 2DPHOT
120: input parameters. A scheduler is also included, allowing timed and
121: sequential execution of several 2DPHOT runs to be performed on the
122: same computer. The actual image analysis is done by the 2DPHOT
123: package, which is the core of the whole environment. During
124: execution, several output tables and plots are produced, showing the
125: different steps of the image analysis and providing a means of quality
126: control. These data, which can also be directly downloaded from the
127: user through the 2DGUI interface, are all uploaded into a database
128: system (by the 2DLOAD application, see Fig.~\ref{DBFIG}). This system
129: produces a master catalog, by cross-matching 2DPHOT output results
130: with information provided from other VO-compliant web services, and
131: allows the user to perform data queries on this master catalog.
132:
133: \begin{figure*}%[!bp]
134: \begin{center}
135: \scalebox{0.53}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}}
136: \end{center}
137: \caption[]{\footnotesize Schematic representation of the 2DPHOT
138: environment.~\label{DBFIG} }
139: \end{figure*}
140:
141: There are several survey projects for which the 2DPHOT environment has
142: already been partly implemented or will be implemented. We have
143: automatically processed the $g$- and $r$-band images from the Palomar
144: Abell Cluster Survey~\citep{Gal:00}, with the main goal of measuring
145: structural parameters, i.e. the effective radius, the corresponding
146: mean surface brightness, and the S\'{e}rsic index $n$ of galaxies in
147: clusters with different richnesses, in the redshift range of 0.05 to
148: 0.2. The structural parameters have been used to estimate the
149: environmental dependencies of internal color gradients in early-type
150: galaxies (see \citealt{LaB:05}). Some examples of general purpose
151: imaging surveys to be analyzed by 2DPHOT are those carried out with
152: the VLT Survey Telescope (VST), a 2.6m diameter imaging telescope
153: equipped with a large format (16k x16k pixels) CCD camera yielding a 1
154: square degree field of view. The VST, which will be located at the
155: ESO Cerro Paranal Observatory (Chile), has been designed and
156: constructed under a joint venture of ESO and the Capodimonte
157: Astronomical Observatory (OAC). Several survey projects will be
158: carried out with Capodimonte's VST guaranteed
159: time\footnote{\footnotesize See http://vstportal.oacn.inaf.it/}.
160:
161:
162: One of the most interesting science cases for the development of
163: 2DPHOT is the Kilo-Degree Survey with VST (KIDS,
164: see~\citealt{Arn:07}), a public survey project which will image 1500
165: square degrees of the southern sky in the $u$$g$$r$$i$ bands. As
166: shown in a forthcoming paper \citep{paper2:08},
167: applying 2DPHOT to a moderately deep survey such as VST-KIDS allows
168: detection and measurement of massive galaxy clusters up to redshift $z
169: \sim 1.2$ with high completeness. This cluster abundance measurement
170: can be used to set strong constraints on the dark energy equation of
171: state, which is one of the most crucial issues of modern observational
172: and theoretical cosmology. Reliable star-galaxy separation, with
173: accurate estimates of contamination at very faint flux levels, as well
174: as an accurate cluster detection algorithm are among the 2DPHOT
175: features of paramount importance for such a dark energy project.
176:
177: This paper presents the 2DPHOT package\footnote{\footnotesize The source code
178: of the package is available on request to the authors in its
179: standard form, namely without the VO structure and 2DGUI interface,
180: which will be made available in the near future. },
181: describing the image analysis strategy on which it is based, as well
182: as all the algorithms which are implemented for the different tasks
183: the package performs. We also describe briefly the web-based
184: graphical interface. This paper is intended as a reference work for
185: all current and forthcoming scientific applications of 2DPHOT. The
186: layout of the paper closely follows the order of execution of the
187: 2DPHOT tasks. In Sec.~\ref{2DPHOT}, we give general, short
188: descriptions of these tasks, and how they are linked during image
189: analysis. Section~\ref{catalog} describes the initial components of
190: the first analysis step, i.e. how 2DPHOT produces the image catalog
191: and identifies those objects which are classified as sure stars in the
192: input image. The analysis of each source in the catalog is performed
193: by extracting a stamp image from the input frame and constructing a
194: corresponding mask file (Sec.~\ref{stamps}). The package performs PSF
195: modeling and derives rough structural parameters for all sources in
196: the image as described in Secs.~\ref{PSF} and~\ref{INI2DF},
197: respectively. Sec.~\ref{SGCLAS} deals with the star/galaxy
198: separation, while Sec.~\ref{2DFIT} describes the final fitting of
199: galaxy stamps with seeing-convolved S\'{e}rsic models. The isophotal
200: analysis of galaxy stamps is then described in Sec.~\ref{SPHOT}, while
201: the determination of the seeing-corrected galaxy aperture magnitudes
202: is outlined in Sec.~\ref{GROWTH}. Sections ~\ref{COMPLETENESS} and
203: ~\ref{SG_CONTAM} describe how 2DPHOT estimates the completeness of the
204: galaxy catalog and the uncertainty in the star/galaxy separation.
205: Section~13 shows how 2DPHOT performs in estimating contamination and
206: completeness at faint magnitudes.
207: Finally, Sec.~\ref{INTERF} presents the
208: graphical interface (2DGUI). A summary is given in
209: Sec.~\ref{SUMMARY}. The input parameters and output quantities
210: measured by 2DPHOT are provided in Appendices~\ref{INPAR}
211: and~\ref{OUTPAR}, respectively.
212:
213: \section{The 2DPHOT package: tasks and analysis strategy}
214: \label{2DPHOT}
215: 2DPHOT is designed to have a simple structure consisting of a shell
216: script running a suite of C and Fortran77 programs developed using
217: freely available software libraries. 2DPHOT works on both single-chip
218: and wide-field (up to 16000x16000 pixels) images with a set of
219: input parameters provided either at the invocation of
220: the shell script through a command line syntax or a corresponding
221: graphical interface (see Sec.~\ref{INTERF}). Thus, the package can be
222: used either as a standalone application or via a dedicated web-based
223: interface. The list of input parameters along with short
224: descriptions is provided in Appendix~\ref{INPAR}.
225:
226:
227: The main tasks of 2DPHOT are:
228: \begin{description}
229: \item[1.] Producing a cleaned catalog of the image.
230: \item[2.] Performing reliable star/galaxy classification.
231: \item[3.] Estimating the completeness of the galaxy catalog and the
232: contamination due to star/galaxy misclassification.
233: \item[4.] Constructing an accurate model of the Point Spread Function
234: (PSF) of the input image, taking into account possible spatial
235: variations of the PSF as well as deviations of stellar isophotes
236: from circularity.
237: \item[5.] Deriving structural parameters of galaxies by fitting
238: galaxy images with two-dimensional PSF-convolved S\'{e}rsic models.
239: \item[6.] Measuring galaxy isophotes by fitting them with
240: Fourier-expanded ellipses, and derivation of one-dimensional surface
241: brightness profiles of galaxies.
242: \item[7.] Measuring the growth curve of seeing corrected aperture
243: magnitudes of galaxies.
244: %\item[8.] Identifying clusters/groups of galaxies in the field, by
245: % estimating the local density of galaxies with the Voronoi
246: % tessellation algorithm.
247: % \item[7.] estimating Petrosian parameters for galaxies;
248: %\item[8.] uploading all the derived information to a database where
249: % data coming from different observations (e.g. different wavebands)
250: % can be cross-correlated.
251: \end{description}
252:
253: All of these tasks are part of an image analysis flow and are
254: strictly linked with each other such that the output from one
255: task is used as input to the subsequent tasks. Figure~\ref{FLOW}
256: provides a graphical representation of this flow, where the boxes
257: represent different steps in the image analysis and the arrows follow
258: the image processing timeline. The package starts by running
259: S-Extractor~\citep{BeA:96} on the input image through an iterative
260: procedure, allowing simultaneous measurement of the seeing FWHM and
261: removal of spurious object detections. Stamp and mask images are then
262: extracted for each object in the cleaned catalog, and are used to
263: model the PSF across the field and to obtain a coarse estimate of the
264: S\'{e}rsic parameters of the detected sources. Using both the S-Extractor
265: stellarity index and the coarse effective radius estimates, 2DPHOT
266: performs star/galaxy classification. The selected galaxies are
267: then analyzed using a two-dimensional fitting procedure as well as a
268: full isophotal analysis. Seeing corrected aperture magnitudes are also
269: estimated. At this point, simulations are performed to estimate
270: completeness and contamination of the final catalog.
271:
272: The following sections describe all of the image analysis steps,
273: following the diagram in Fig.~\ref{FLOW}. The output quantities
274: measured by 2DPHOT are summarized in Appendix~\ref{OUTPAR}.
275:
276:
277: \begin{figure*}
278: \begin{center}
279: \scalebox{1.0}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}
280: \end{center}
281: \caption[]{\footnotesize Image analysis flow of 2DPHOT.~\label{FLOW} }
282: \end{figure*}
283:
284:
285:
286: \section{The image catalog and the definition of `sure stars'}
287: \label{catalog}
288: 2DPHOT produces the source catalog from the input image using the S-Extractor
289: package~\citep{BeA:96}. Star/galaxy separation is performed on the
290: basis of the S-Extractor stellarity index $SI$ and the effective
291: radius parameter $r_e$ (see Sec.~\ref{whyparam}). In order to obtain a
292: reliable estimate of the stellarity index, the seeing FWHM of the
293: input image has to be provided to S-Extractor via the $SEEING\_FWHM$
294: input parameter (see the S-Extractor
295: documentation\footnote{\footnotesize $http://terapix.iap.fr/rubrique.php?id\_rubrique=91/index.html$}).
296: To measure this, 2DPHOT produces a catalog from the input image via the
297: following two-step procedure. S-Extractor is first run for the sole
298: purpose of detecting sources in the input image and calculating their
299: Kron magnitudes and FWHM and ELLIPTICITY parameters. By applying a
300: $3\sigma$ clipping procedure to the FWHM and ELLIPTICITY distributions
301: of all the bright ($S/N > 100$) unsaturated objects, 2DPHOT generates
302: a preliminary list of candidate stars. The peak value $f$ and the
303: width $\sigma$ of the FWHM distribution of these objects is derived
304: using the bi-weight estimator (Beers et al.~1990). The values of $f$
305: and $\sigma$ define what we call the {\it sure star locus}, with the
306: {\it sure stars} being the objects that lie within $\pm 2 \sigma$ of
307: $f$. Given the values of $f$ and $\sigma$, S-Extractor is run a
308: second time by setting the $SEEING\_FWHM$ parameter to the value of
309: $f$. As an example of this procedure, Fig.~\ref{surestars} shows the
310: FWHM versus $S/N$ ratio diagram for all the detected sources in two
311: CCD images of the galaxy cluster Abell 2495, which has been observed
312: twice, under different seeing conditions, as part of the Palomar Abell
313: Cluster Survey (Gal et al. 2000). Similar figures showing the sure
314: star locus and the sure stars are automatically produced during each
315: run of 2DPHOT.
316:
317: After sure stars are defined, the catalog is cleaned of spurious
318: detections by excluding all sources 3$\sigma$ below the sure star
319: locus. Objects whose distance from the image edges, in units of their
320: FWHM value, is smaller than {\it REDGE}, where {\it REDGE} is one of
321: the input 2DPHOT parameters (see Appendix~A), are also excluded from
322: the analysis since their photometry can be incomplete and/or
323: corrupted.
324:
325: \begin{figure}
326: %\resizebox{\hsize}{10cm}{\includegraphics{FIGURES/cca2495_n186g.ps}\includegraphics{FIGURES/cca2495_n187g.ps}}
327: %\scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{FIGURES/cca2495_g.ps}}
328: \begin{center}
329: \scalebox{0.41}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}
330: \end{center}
331: % \includegraphics{FIGURES/cca2495_n187g.ps}}
332: \caption[]{\footnotesize Locus of sure stars for two $g$-band images from
333: the Palomar Abell Cluster Survey (see Gal et al. 2000). The images were obtained with a SITe 2048$\times$2048,
334: AR-coated CCD, at the Palomar 1.5m telescope, and cover an area of
335: 12.56$^{\prime}\times$12.56$^{\prime}$ around the cluster of
336: galaxies Abell 2495 (at $z\sim0.09$), with a pixel scale of 0.368
337: arcsec/pixel. Both panels plot the $FWHM$ vs. $S/N$ diagram for all
338: the sources in the same field around the cluster center, with the
339: lower panel for the image taken in worse seeing conditions
340: ($FWHM\sim1.7''$). The $FWHM$ is given in pixel units. The $S/N$
341: ratio is computed as the inverse of the uncertainty on the
342: S-Extractor Kron magnitude (neglecting readout noise). The locus of
343: sure stars is defined by the two horizontal dashed gray lines that
344: mark the $\pm2\sigma$ region around the peak value of the FWHM
345: distribution of star candidates. Sure stars are defined as the
346: bright ($S/N>100$) non-saturated star candidates which lie inside
347: the sure star locus, and are plotted as grey circles (see
348: text). \label{surestars} }
349: \end{figure}
350:
351:
352: \section{Extraction of stamps and mask images}
353: \label{stamps}
354: For each detected source, 2DPHOT extracts an image section (stamp) centered
355: on the source. The area of the stamp is
356: proportional to the $ISOAREA$ output by S-Extractor such that a wide
357: sky region around the central object is also included in the stamp.
358: This allows a reliable estimate of the local background to be obtained
359: from the two-dimensional fitting program (see Sec.~\ref{2DFIT}). For
360: each stamp, a mask image is also produced by flagging all the pixels
361: that belong to all the other sources in the input image whose
362: isophotal areas overlap the given stamp. The isophotal areas are
363: defined through the $ISOAREA$, $ELLIPTICITY$, and position angle
364: ($PA$) parameters from S-Extractor, by multiplying the $ISOAREA$ value
365: by an expansion factor $EXPND$ (with a default value of 1.5), which is
366: an input parameter of 2DPHOT. This expansion factor allows us to mask
367: also the faintest diffuse external regions of each object.
368: Sources whose isophotal areas overlap the central source by more than
369: $50\%$ are not masked out and are analyzed simultaneously with the
370: central object (see Secs.~\ref{INI2DF} and~\ref{2DFIT}). For each stamp,
371: the number of sources treated simultaneously is written into the
372: $NOBJ$ keyword of the corresponding mask file header. The local
373: background value and its standard deviation are also estimated by
374: applying biweight statistics to all the pixels which do not belong to
375: the isophotal area of the central source and are not flagged in the
376: mask file. These values are stored in the keywords $M\_BK$ and $S\_BK$
377: of the mask file header, respectively. Fig.~\ref{masks} shows some
378: examples of the stamp and mask images automatically produced by
379: 2DPHOT.
380:
381: \begin{figure*}
382: \begin{center}
383: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{f4.eps}}
384: \end{center}
385: \caption[]{\footnotesize Examples of stamp and mask images produced by
386: 2DPHOT. Stamps are shown in the upper panels, while lower panels plot
387: the corresponding mask images. The pixels which are flagged in the
388: mask files are plotted in black. Notice that pixels very close to the
389: stamp edges are also flagged in each mask image. This is done to
390: reduce computational overhead in the 2D fitting
391: algorithm. \label{masks} }
392: \end{figure*}
393:
394: \section{PSF modeling}
395: \label{PSF}
396: The Point Spread Function (PSF) is modeled by fitting the images of
397: sure stars (Sec.~\ref{catalog}) with a sum of two-dimensional Moffat
398: functions. In order to account for PSF asymmetries, the isophotes of
399: each Moffat function are described by ellipses, whose shape is
400: modulated with a sin/cos angular expansion, similar to that adopted
401: for describing deviations of the isophotal shape of early-type
402: galaxies from pure ellipses (see e.g. \citealt{Bender:87}). The
403: number of fitted stars is given by the lesser of the number of
404: available sure stars and the 2DPHOT input parameter $NSMAX$. The
405: value of $NSMAX$ is chosen as a compromise between the computation
406: time for the fitting algorithm and the accuracy of the PSF model.
407: Increasing $NSMAX$ yields more accurate PSF models at the cost of
408: larger computational times. Usually, values of $NSMAX$ in the range
409: of 3 to 5 give reliable results\footnote{\footnotesize Processing several images, we
410: found that increasing the value of $NSMAX$ to more than 5 stars does
411: not significantly change the output of 2DPHOT.}. To account for
412: possible spatial variations of the PSF across the chip, 2DPHOT
413: provides two PSF modeling options. In the first case, a global PSF
414: model is obtained by simultaneously fitting $NSMAX$ stars
415: randomly extracted from the entire list of sure stars. As a second
416: option, 2DPHOT can construct a two-dimensional grid on the input image
417: and derive a PSF model independently for each cell, by randomly
418: selecting up to $NSMAX$ stars among the available sure stars. PSF
419: models are only derived for cells including at least two sure stars.
420: The cell size has to be provided through the 2DPHOT input parameter
421: $NSIZE$. 2DPHOT associates to the PSF model of each cell the median
422: values of the x and y coordinates of the corresponding fitted sure
423: stars and the two-dimensional modeling of each galaxy
424: (Sec.~\ref{2DFIT}) is performed by using its closest PSF model. In
425: order to avoid a discretely varying PSF across the chip, the user can
426: also choose to adopt a locally interpolated PSF model. For each
427: galaxy, 2DPHOT selects the PSF models of the cells around the galaxy
428: itself, and performs a bi-linear interpolation of the selected models
429: at the galaxy position. Since there is a strong correlation between the
430: fitting parameters of each PSF model, 2DPHOT does not derive the local
431: PSF model by interpolating each single fitting parameter. Instead,
432: the interpolation is performed independently for each pixel of the PSF
433: models, by interpolating the corresponding intensity values.
434:
435: \begin{figure}[!]
436: \begin{center}
437: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{f5.eps}}
438: \end{center}
439: \caption[]{\footnotesize Examples of the clipping procedure applied to
440: four stellar images. Each column corresponds to a different star. From
441: top to bottom, the star stamps, the corresponding median images, the
442: original mask images and the updated mask images are shown. The four stars
443: have been selected because S-Extractor fails to detect the faint
444: sources around them, and therefore the corresponding mask images are
445: blank. The 2DPHOT clipping procedure detects the missed faint
446: sources, and masks them in the updated mask images. The star stamps and
447: median images use the same intensity scale.
448: \label{STARCLIP} }
449: \end{figure}
450:
451: Prior to fitting the PSF, 2DPHOT applies a clipping procedure to
452: remove stars that might be contaminated by nearby objects. For each
453: star, all of the other sure stars are co-registered to the same center
454: coordinates and median stacked. An rms image is constructed by
455: estimating, at each position, the standard deviation of the stacked
456: pixels. The mask images of the sure stars are then updated by flagging
457: all the pixels which deviate by more than 5$\sigma$ from the
458: corresponding median images. If the fraction of flagged pixels is
459: larger than $20\%$ of the total mask image area, the sure star is
460: considered to be strongly contaminated and it is excluded from the PSF
461: fitting. This procedure allows faint sources which may not have been
462: detected by S-Extractor to be masked, and to exclude objects which
463: are misclassified or blended with nearby sources. Some examples
464: of the clipping and mask update algorithms are shown in
465: Fig.~\ref{STARCLIP}, while Fig.~\ref{PSF_FIT} plots an example of the PSF
466: modeling results. The latter figure is automatically produced by
467: 2DPHOT.
468:
469:
470: \begin{figure}
471: \begin{center}
472: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{f6.eps}}
473: \end{center}
474: \caption[]{\footnotesize Examples of PSF modeling. Eight star images
475: have been fitted simultaneously using a sum of three
476: two-dimensional Moffat functions (see the text). For each star, two
477: panels are shown, with the upper panel plotting the stamp image and
478: the lower panel showing the fitting residuals.
479: ~\label{PSF_FIT} }
480: \end{figure}
481:
482:
483: \section{Coarse 2D fitting}
484: \label{INI2DF}
485: 2DPHOT produces an initial estimate of structural parameters for all
486: objects in the input image using a discrete, coarse two-dimensional
487: fitting algorithm (INI2DF). For each object, a set of PSF-convolved
488: S\'{e}rsic models is constructed by varying the effective radius $r_{\rm
489: e}$, the total magnitude $m_{\rm T}$, and the S\'{e}rsic index $n$.
490: `Geometric' parameters, such as the center coordinates, the axis ratio
491: and the position angle of the models are estimated by fitting the
492: object image with a single 2D Moffat function, and are kept fixed
493: during the coarse fitting. The Moffat fit is performed by excluding
494: the inner part of the object, which is strongly affected by seeing.
495: The local background value is also not changed in the fit and is
496: obtained from the keyword $M\_BK$ in the mask image header (see
497: Sec.~\ref{stamps}). INI2DF changes the effective radius of the S\'{e}rsic
498: model using an adaptive grid of 10 values computed on the basis of
499: both the pixel scale and the seeing FWHM of the image. Four different
500: values are considered for the S\'{e}rsic index parameter, $ n= \{1, 3, 5,
501: 7\}$, while the total magnitude can take the values $m_{\rm T} =
502: m_{\rm K}, m_{\rm K}-0.2, m_{\rm K}-0.4$, where $m_{\rm K}$ is the
503: Kron magnitude of the source (S-Extractor $MAGAUTO$). We point out
504: that the grids of $r_{\rm e}$, $m_{\rm T}$ and $n$ values have been
505: empirically chosen by analyzing several images with a wide range of
506: characteristics (e.g. optical and near-infrared data as well as
507: ground-based and HST images). We found that further increasing the
508: grid size does not change significantly the 2DPHOT results. With
509: these sizes for the $r_{\rm e}$, $m_{\rm T}$ and $n$ grids, INI2DF
510: produces a total of $120$ discrete models, each of which is compared
511: to the object image by computing the corresponding $\chi^2$ value.
512: The coarse structural parameters are given by the parameters of the
513: model with lowest $\chi^2$.
514:
515: In the case that, for a given stamp, several objects have to be
516: treated simultaneously (see Sec.~\ref{stamps}), the above procedure is
517: modified as follows. A simultaneous fit is performed by using a
518: single two-dimensional Moffat function for each object. Then, for
519: each overlapping object, the others are subtracted using the fitted
520: Moffat models. A corresponding updated mask image is also produced,
521: by flagging all pixels for which the sum of the subtracted Moffat
522: models exceeds the local background standard deviation ($S\_BK$ in the
523: mask image header, see Sec.~\ref{masks}) by $>50 \%$. Coarse
524: structural parameters are then obtained by fitting each object in the
525: stamp as a single source, applying the same procedure outlined above.
526: Some examples of this procedure are shown in Fig.~\ref{MULTI}. We see
527: that there are some cases where the single Moffat models do not result
528: in accurate subtraction of overlapping sources. Nevertheless, we found
529: that the above approach allows reliable estimation of structural
530: parameters, with the great advantage of significantly
531: reduced computational times compared to an approach where overlapping
532: galaxy models are fitted simultaneously (see also Sec.~\ref{2DFIT}).
533:
534: \begin{figure}
535: \begin{center}
536: \scalebox{0.41}{\includegraphics{f7.eps}}
537: \end{center}
538: \caption[]{\footnotesize Coarse fitting of double objects. Panels in
539: each column of the figure correspond to a different stamp image.
540: From the top row down, the first and second rows show the stamp
541: image and the corresponding Moffat model, obtained by
542: simultaneously fitting two single Moffat functions. The third panel
543: shows the subtraction of one Moffat function from the stamp. The
544: corresponding updated mask image is shown in the fourth panel. The
545: lowest two panels show the Moffat subtracted image and the
546: corresponding updated mask image for the second object in the
547: stamp. \label{MULTI} }
548: \end{figure}
549:
550:
551: \section{Identification of stars in the 2DPHOT package}
552: \label{SGCLAS}
553: The classification of stars and galaxies is one of the most
554: challenging issue in the analysis of astronomical images, and there is
555: no method that works in all scenarios as the optimum classifier. In
556: the current version, 2DPHOT adopts a simple method of star/galaxy
557: (hereafter $S/G$) separation, which is based on both the S-Extractor
558: and the coarse structural parameters estimated by the INI2DF procedure
559: (Sec.~\ref{INI2DF}). The parameters which are used for $S/G$
560: classification have been chosen on the basis of Monte-Carlo
561: simulations as detailed in Sec.~\ref{whyparam}, while the $S/G$
562: classification algorithm is described in Sec.~\ref{SGrules}. In the
563: future, we plan to implement more complex classification techniques
564: (such as wavelet approaches), and provide a detailed comparison of
565: their performance. Since there is no method that correctly
566: classifies all sources in a given image, particularly at the faintest
567: flux levels, it is crucial that every classification framework provide
568: an estimate of contamination due to misclassified sources as a
569: function of the S/N ratio. As described in Sec.~\ref{SGrules}, 2DPHOT
570: accurately estimates such contamination using simulated stars and
571: galaxies added to the input processed frame.
572:
573: \subsection{Reliable parameters to identify stellar sources}
574: \label{whyparam}
575:
576: We adopt a two-step procedure to establish useful parameters for star/galaxy
577: separation. First, we look for reliable
578: classifiers of point-like sources, i.e. 2DPHOT output parameters
579: whose values for stellar sources lie in a
580: narrow region of parameter space over wide ranges of the S/N ratio,
581: seeing, and sampling characteristics of the images. Then, we
582: analyze the ability of such classifiers to separate stars and
583: galaxies by examining the distribution of values they assume for
584: both kinds of objects. To address the first point, we created
585: simulated CCD images, each with a random spatial distribution of
586: stars. The simulations were generated using the same pixel scale
587: ($0.369''/pix$), image size ($2048\times2048$ pixels), and
588: the noise properties as the $r$-band images of the Palomar Abell
589: Cluster Survey (hereafter PACS, see Gal et al. 2000).
590: The PACS data have been extensively processed from the authors through
591: the 2DPHOT package in order to investigate the effects of environment
592: on internal color gradients of early-type galaxies (see La Barbera et
593: al.~2005).
594:
595: Stellar images were simulated using both the Gaussian profile and
596: the Moffat law:
597: \begin{equation}
598: P(r)= \left[ 1+ \left( \frac{r}{r_{\rm c}} \right)^2
599: \right]^{-\beta},
600: \end{equation}
601: where $P(r)$ is the surface brightness of the star as a function of
602: the distance $r$ to its center, $\beta$ is the shape parameter of
603: the profile, and $r_{\rm c}$ is the Moffat scale radius,
604: which is related to the FWHM by $FWHM=2
605: r_{\rm c} (2^{1/\beta}-1)^{0.5}$. For the Moffat fits, we
606: set $\beta=3$, which is the mean value for stellar images
607: in the PACS, and we varied the $FWHM$ from one star to
608: another within each simulated image according to a normal deviate
609: with central value $<FWHM>$ and width $\sigma_{FWHM}$. Four simulated
610: fields were created, labeled F1, F2, F3, and F4. The main
611: simulation parameters are summarized in Table~\ref{PARSIM}.
612: %, while a
613: %section of the image of F1 is shown as an example in
614: %Fig.~\ref{F1FIELD}.
615: For each field, we randomly created $N=500$ stars, and we set the
616: parameters $<FWHM>$ and $\sigma_{FWHM}$ as follows. For field F1,
617: both the $<FWHM>$ and $\sigma_{FWHM}$ are set to the median values
618: measured from the $r$-band PACS images. Fields F2 and F3 simulate
619: observations with worse seeing conditions. F2 has the same $<FWHM>$
620: as F1 while $\sigma_{FWHM}$ is doubled, mimicking the case of large
621: scatter in the seeing $FWHM$ across the image. Field F3 has the same
622: $\sigma_{FWHM}$ as field F1 but higher $<FWHM>$, corresponding to
623: either observations taken in worse mean seeing or data with better PSF
624: sampling. Finally, for Field F4, we used the same $<FWHM>$ and
625: $\sigma_{FWHM}$ values as F1, but stellar images were created
626: with Gaussian profiles. We note that the above simulated images
627: span all the possible cases that have been found when processing the
628: PACS images, and because of their wide range of seeing parameters,
629: they also reproduce the seeing properties of a variety of ground-based
630: images.
631: %. {\bf
632: %BUT NOT THE SAMPLING, SINCE THE P60 IMAGES HAVE 2-3 PIXELS/FWHM,
633: %WHEREAS SOME NEWER SURVEYS WILL HAVE MUCH BETTER SAMPLING, I THINK}
634:
635: %\begin{figure}
636: %\begin{center}
637: %\scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{SIM_STAR_FILED1.ps}}
638: %\end{center}
639: %\caption[]{\footnotesize Simulation of CCD stellar fields. A
640: % 500x500 pixels section of field F1 is shown as example (see the text).
641: %\label{F1FIELD} }
642: %\end{figure}
643:
644: \begin{figure}
645: \begin{center}
646: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{f8.eps}}
647: \end{center}
648: \caption[]{\footnotesize Measured parameters for sources in
649: field F1 as a function of their S/N ratio. The quantities $r_{\rm
650: e}$, $b/a$, and $n$ are the effective radius, axis ratio, and S\'{e}rsic
651: index obtained from 2DPHOT through the two-dimensional fitting
652: procedure (see Sec.~\ref{2DFIT}). The other parameters (ELLIPTICITY,
653: FWHM, and STELLARITY INDEX) are those measured by S-Extractor. As
654: shown in the plot, the solid, dashed and short-dashed grey lines in
655: the upper-left panel mark the values of $r_{\rm e}$ corresponding to
656: different pixel fractions. Grey circles and corresponding error bars
657: in the ELLIPTICITY, FWHM, and STELLARITY INDEX panels have been
658: obtained by binning the data with respect to the S/N ratio, and
659: correspond to the mean and 1$\sigma$ interval in each bin.
660: \label{F1} }
661: \end{figure}
662:
663: \begin{figure}
664: \begin{center}
665: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{f9.eps}}
666: \end{center}
667: \caption[]{\footnotesize Same as Fig.~\ref{F1} but for Field F2. \label{F2} }
668: \end{figure}
669:
670: \begin{figure}
671: \begin{center}
672: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{f10.eps}}
673: \end{center}
674: \caption[]{\footnotesize Same as Fig.~\ref{F1} but for Field F3. \label{F3} }
675: \end{figure}
676:
677: \begin{figure}
678: \begin{center}
679: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics{f11.eps}}
680: \end{center}
681: \caption[]{\footnotesize Same as Fig.~\ref{F1} but for Field F4. \label{F4} }
682: \end{figure}
683:
684:
685: Catalogs of the simulated stellar fields were generated as described in
686: Sec.~\ref{catalog}. For each field, all detected sources were
687: fit with PSF convolved S\'{e}rsic models, following the procedure
688: described in Secs.~3--5 and running the final two-dimensional fitting
689: program (see Sec.~\ref {2DFIT}). Figs.~\ref{F1},~\ref{F2},~\ref{F3}
690: and~\ref{F4} plot the S\'{e}rsic parameters, i.e. the effective radius
691: $r_e$, the S\'{e}rsic index $n$, and the axis ratio $b/a$, as well as the
692: the ELLIPTICITY, FWHM and stellarity index (hereafter SI) parameters
693: from S-Extractor as a function of the S/N ratio of sources in fields F1,
694: F2, F3, and F4, respectively. The S/N ratio was computed as the
695: inverse of the uncertainty on the S-Extractor Kron magnitude. From
696: Figs.~\ref{F1},~\ref{F2},~\ref{F3} and~\ref{F4}, we draw the following
697: conclusions:
698: \begin{description}
699: \item[i)] The S\'{e}rsic index and the $b/a$ parameters are not reliable
700: classifiers. The scatter in these quantities is large compared
701: to the range of values they can assume.
702: \item[ii)] The effective radius is a reliable classifier, in the sense
703: that its values are always well limited to a given region of the
704: corresponding parameter space. Whatever the seeing conditions are,
705: the effective radius of stars is always smaller than $\sim 1$ pixel,
706: and for $S/N>30$, the values of $r_{\rm e}$ are always smaller than
707: $\sim 0.5$ pixel.
708: %{\bf WHAT IS THE Re
709: % DISTRIBUTION FOR GALAXIES?}
710: \item[iii)] As one would expect~\citep{BeA:96}, the SI parameter of
711: S-Extractor is a reliable classifier. Its values can range from 0 to
712: 1, but for the simulated stars with $S/N >20$, the values of $SI$
713: are always larger than $\sim0.7$.
714: \item[iv)] The FWHM and ELLIPTICITY parameters are good potential
715: classifiers as well, although the values of FWHM are obviously
716: strongly dependent on the seeing characteristics of the analyzed
717: image. Generally, we find that using the FWHM and ELLIPTICITY
718: parameters does not lead to any significant improvement in
719: star/galaxy separation, and thus we elected not to use
720: these parameters.
721: %, and the values of $r_{\rm e}$ are always smaller than $\sim
722: % 0.5$pixel.
723: %{\bf WHAT ARE THE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR GALAXIES? ALSO I DO
724: % NOT BELIEVE THE SI STATEMENT TO BE UNIVERSALLY TRUE}
725: \end{description}
726: The reliability of the above star/galaxy separation scheme, based on
727: the $SI$--$r_{e}$ diagram, will be further addressed in Section 13,
728: where we will assess contamination and completeness as measured by
729: 2DPHOT.
730: \begin{table*}
731: \caption[]{Parameters of simulated stellar fields. Cols.~2,~3 and~4
732: give the $FWHM$, $\sigma_{FWHM} / FWHM$ and $\beta$ parameters (see
733: text). The gain, zero-point and read-out noise are in Cols.~5,~6 and 7,
734: respectively. In the case of field 4, stellar images have Gaussian
735: profiles.\label{PARSIM}}
736: \hspace{2.3cm}
737: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccccc|}
738: \hline
739: %Field $\#$ & FWHM & $\sigma_$FWHM & $\beta$ & gain & zpoint &rnoise \\
740: $Field \#$ & $FWHM$ & $\frac{\sigma_{\rm FWHM}}{FWHM}$ & $\beta$ &
741: $gain$ & $zpoint$ & $rnoise$ \\ & (pxls) & $\%$ & & $e^-/ADU$
742: & & $e^-$ \\
743: \hline
744: 1 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 1.62 & 30.75 & 6.3 \\
745: 2 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 1.62 & 30.75 & 6.3 \\
746: 3 & 6 & 6 & 3 & 1.62 & 30.75 & 6.3 \\
747: 4 & 4 & 3 & Gaussian & 1.62 & 30.75 & 6.3 \\ \hline
748:
749: \end{tabular}
750: \end{table*}
751:
752: %The small angular size of faint and high redshift galaxies is by
753: %itself a challenge for any method (parametric or not) trying to
754: %properly separate stars and galaxies. We will address the reliability
755: %of the
756: %separation scheme based on the $SI$ $r_{e}$ diagram, in Section 13.
757: %There we present deep data obtained from the ground and with ACS on
758: %board of HST and assess contamination and completeness as measured by
759: %2DPHOT.
760:
761:
762: %To assess the reliability of the $SI$ and $r_{\rm e}$ parameters for
763: %S/G separation, we use simulated images of high redshift galaxy
764: %clusters. Fig.~\ref{STARGAL}
765: %compares the distributions of $SI$ and $r_{\rm e}$ values as a
766: %function of S/N ratio for stars and galaxies in one simulated
767: %image. Since the small angular size of high redshift galaxies is the
768: %most critical issue for reliable S/G classification, we consider here
769: %the case of a simulated cluster at high redshift ($z \sim 1.2$). The
770: %figure shows that stars and galaxies are sharply separated in the $SI$
771: %vs. $r_{\rm e}$ plane. In this diagram, even at low S/N ratio, most stars occupy the region with $r_{\rm e}$ larger than
772: %$\sim 2/3 $ of the image pixel scale ($0.21''/pxl$) and $SI > \sim
773: %0.75$ (see hatched region of Fig.~\ref{STARGAL}), while almost all
774: %galaxies are found in the complementary area. Hence, we conclude that
775: %the $r_{\rm e}$ and $SI$ parameters allow accurate S/G separation
776: %whose performance can be accurately quantified through the
777: %contamination estimated by 2DPHOT (Sec.~\ref{SG_CONTAM}).
778:
779:
780: %\begin{figure}[!bp]
781: %\begin{center}
782: %\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{FIGURES/STAR_LOCUS_1.ps}\includegraphics{FIGURES/STAR_LOCUS_2.ps}}
783: %\scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics{f12.eps}}
784: %\end{center}
785: %\caption[]{\footnotesize Distribution of stellarity index (SI) and
786: % effective radius ($r_{\rm e}$) for a simulated
787: % image of a cluster of galaxies at redshift $z \sim 1.2$
788: % (see paper II). Stars and galaxies are plotted as grey
789: % circles and black crosses, respectively. The upper panels plot the
790: % values of $r_{\rm e}$ and $SI$ as a function of the S/N ratio, while
791: % the lower panel shows the $r_{\rm e}$ versus $SI$ diagram. For each
792: % plot, the symbol size is proportional to the S/N ratio. The hatched
793: % region in the lower panel mark the locus corresponding to an
794: % effective radius smaller than $2/3$ of the image pixel scale, and to
795: % a value of $SI$ larger than 0.75.
796: % \label{STARGAL} }
797: %\end{figure}
798:
799:
800: \begin{figure}[!]
801: \begin{center}
802: %\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{FIGURES/STAR_LOCUS_1.ps}\includegraphics{FIGURES/STAR_LOCUS_2.ps}}
803: \scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{f12.eps}}
804: \end{center}
805: \caption[]{\footnotesize Definition of the stellar locus in the 2DPHOT
806: package (see text). The plot shows the stellar index versus Kron
807: magnitude diagram for two $g$-band images from PACS. Grey points
808: are the simulated stars added to each field by
809: 2DPHOT, while black circles show the objects with stellar index
810: larger than 0.5. The hatched area marks the region used
811: to select star candidates.\label{STARLOCUS} }
812: \end{figure}
813:
814:
815: \begin{figure}
816: \begin{center}
817: \scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{f13.eps}}
818: \end{center}
819: \caption[]{\footnotesize Selection of stars in 2DPHOT for
820: two $g$-band images of the PACS. The upper panels show the stellar
821: index versus Kron magnitude diagrams, with the hatched region
822: showing the stellar locus (see text). Grey circles are the
823: selected stars, while black crosses plot all the remaining sources.
824: Lower panels show the corresponding FWHM versus Kron magnitude plots
825: for the same PACS images.~\label{STARDEF} }
826: \end{figure}
827:
828: \subsection{Final rules for identifying stellar sources}
829: \label{SGrules}
830: After INI2DF parameters have been derived for all the sources in a
831: given field, 2PHOT performs $S/G$ separation. Simulated images are
832: constructed by adding a spatially random distribution of stars to the
833: input image. The surface density of stars is chosen so that 50 stars
834: are added to an input image area of 2000$\times$2000 pixels, while the
835: number of simulations is such that we have a total of 2000 artificial
836: stars. Stars are created from the actual PSF model, with photon noise
837: added based on the GAIN provided in the {\it default.sex} file of
838: S-Extractor. The magnitude of each artificial star is extracted
839: according to a uniform random $S/N$ ratio distribution, with an upper
840: cutoff of $S/N=200$. For each simulation, a new catalog is generated
841: and the SI parameter is computed for all of the artificial stars
842: detected by S-Extractor. 2DPHOT defines star candidates on the basis
843: of the distribution of these artificial stars in the SI versus
844: magnitude diagram. First, artificial stars are ordered by ascending
845: magnitude, and the 50 stars with magnitudes closest to that of each
846: artificial star are selected. Then, for each artifial star, the
847: $10\%$ percentile of the distribution of SI values ($SI_{10}$) of the
848: 50 selected artificial stars is computed. In order to minimize the
849: number of galaxies that are misclassified at the faintest magnitudes
850: of the catalog, a minimum cutoff of $SI_{10}=0.7$ is imposed (see
851: Sec.~\ref{SG_CONTAM} for details). As a second option, that turns out
852: to be more suitable in the case of deep images (see Sec.~13), 2DPHOT
853: can define the star locus by applying the same procedure outlined
854: above but replacing the $10\%$ percentile of the $SI$ distribution of
855: simulated stars with the quantity $\theta- p \sigma$, where $\theta$
856: and $\sigma$ are the location and width of the $SI$
857: distribution, while $p$ is a parameter input to 2DPHOT. With a
858: suitable choice of $p$ this second definition allows a narrower
859: stellar locus to be defined in the $SI$ versus magnitude diagram (see
860: Sec.~\ref{SG_CONTAM}), and thus it can be more suitable at faint
861: magnitudes where galaxies with small size are more likely to be
862: misclassified as stars. Hereafter, unless stated explicitly, we will
863: consider only the first definition of the star locus.
864:
865: Since saturated stars have lower $SI$ than bright unsaturated stars,
866: at magnitudes brighter than those of artificial stars the value of
867: $SI_{10}$ is set to the minimum $SI$ for observed sources with $SI>
868: SI_{\rm min}=0.5$. This procedure allows even saturated stars to be
869: correctly classified by 2DPHOT. The value of $SI_{\rm min}$ was chosen
870: empirically based on several processed images where we found that
871: saturated stars always have $SI>0.5$, while the brightest galaxies all
872: have lower $SI$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{STARLOCUS}, star candidates are
873: selected using the region between $SI=SI_{10}$ and $SI=1$ in the $SI$
874: versus magnitude diagram. Plots like those in Fig.~\ref{STARLOCUS}
875: are automatically produced by each run of 2DPHOT. If required, the
876: value of $SI_{\rm min}$ can be changed by the user after inspection of
877: the stellar locus plot. As final rules for $S/G$ separation, we
878: define an object as a candidate star if it belongs to the star
879: candidate locus and its INI2DF effective radius is smaller than 1
880: pixel, with the latter criterion from the results of Monte-Carlo
881: simulations discussed in Sec.~\ref{whyparam}. The locus of star
882: candidates should include most of the point-like sources in the input
883: image, with the percentage of misclassified objects increasing as the
884: magnitude increases. The selection of stars through this procedure is
885: shown in Fig.~\ref{STARDEF}, where we consider two CCD images from the
886: PACS. The plots in Fig.~\ref{STARDEF} are automatically produced by
887: 2DPHOT. As one would expect, at faint magnitudes the star/galaxy
888: classification becomes progressively more uncertain. The distribution
889: of artificial stars with respect to the locus of star candidates
890: provides a quantitative way to estimate the magnitude (and/or) the S/N
891: limit above which the $S/G$ classification is reliable (see
892: Sec.~\ref{SG_CONTAM}).
893:
894: \section{Final 2D fitting}
895: \label{2DFIT}
896: Objects identified as galaxies through the 2DPHOT $S/G$ classification
897: scheme are then fit with PSF convolved S\'{e}rsic models. This `final'
898: fitting differs from that of Sec.~\ref{INI2DF} since a full $\chi^2$
899: minimization algorithm is adopted, without using any discrete (coarse)
900: grid of reference convolved models (as for INI2DF), providing a
901: precise estimate of structural parameters at the cost of longer
902: computation times\footnote{\footnotesize The CPU time required for the final
903: two-dimensional fitting is 4-5 times longer than for the coarse fit.}.
904: The $\chi^2$ minimization is performed through the Levenberg-Marquardt
905: algorithm, assigning zero weight to all the flagged pixels in the mask
906: image. The 2D fitting routine adopted in the 2DPHOT package is also
907: described in \citet{LaB:02}, where several tests of its accuracy
908: have been performed. The initial conditions for the optimization
909: routine are set to the output values of INI2DF, which are on average
910: quite close to the best fitting final parameters. This largely reduces
911: the well known issue of spurious convergence that can characterize
912: strongly non-linear optimization problems. The case of overlapping
913: objects is treated with an analogous approach to that described in
914: Sec.~\ref{INI2DF} for the coarse fit. Instead of using the multiple
915: single Moffat fits described in Sec.~\ref{INI2DF}, 2DPHOT takes
916: advantage of the INI2DF best fitting models to reduce the final
917: fitting of overlapping objects to that of separate single sources.
918: For each blended galaxy, the overlapping objects are subtracted using
919: the INI2DF models and the mask image is correspondingly updated as
920: described in Sec.~\ref{INI2DF}. Although a suitable treatment of
921: overlapping galaxies would require a simultaneous fit to be performed
922: (see e.g.~\citealt{vanDokkum:96}), reducing the problem to that of
923: fitting single sources greatly decreases computation times. Comparing
924: both approaches, we verified that the 2DPHOT procedure does not
925: produce any significant change in the final structural parameters of
926: {\it multiple} objects. Some examples of two-dimensional fitting are
927: shown in Fig.~\ref{PLOT_2DFIT}. The plots in this figure are
928: automatically generated by 2DPHOT.
929:
930: \begin{figure*}
931: \begin{center}
932: \scalebox{0.75}{\includegraphics{f14.eps}}
933: \end{center}
934: \caption[]{\footnotesize Two-dimensional fitting of galaxy stamps with
935: seeing-convolved S\'{e}rsic models. Subpanels show the galaxy stamps
936: and the corresponding residual images, obtained by
937: subtracting the model fit from the galaxy stamp. For each galaxy
938: stamp, the fitted galaxy is marked by a grey circle of radius $2''$,
939: and the lower subpanel shows the residual image, where the same
940: circle is plotted in black. From top to bottom and left to right,
941: galaxies are shown in order of decreasing magnitude, from
942: $r\sim16.5$ for the upper-right panel to $r\sim20$ for the
943: lower-right panel. Images are drawn from the PACS image of the
944: cluster Abell~574 at $z \sim 0.185$.~\label{PLOT_2DFIT} }
945: \end{figure*}
946:
947: \section{Isophotal analysis}
948: \label{SPHOT}
949: To analyze the isophotal properties of galaxies, 2DPHOT
950: performs an elliptical fit of galaxy isophotes and measures the
951: deviations of such isophotes from purely elliptical shapes. Details on
952: how the package performs these tasks are given in Sec.~\ref{ISFIT}.
953: The isophotal fit allows the radial surface brightness profile of
954: galaxies and stars to be extracted. As described in
955: Sec.~\ref{SBPROF}, the package uses these brightness profiles to
956: obtain a further estimate of the galaxy structural parameters, hence
957: providing an independent estimate of these parameters than that
958: obtained with the full two-dimensional fitting approach
959: (Sec.~\ref{2DFIT}). The isophotal analysis is also used to extract a
960: growth curve for each galaxy's aperture magnitude. The aperture
961: magnitudes are computed and corrected for seeing effects as described
962: in Sec.~\ref{GROWTH}.
963:
964: \subsection{Isophotal fitting}
965: \label{ISFIT}
966: For the measurement of galaxy isophotes, the package first defines the
967: corresponding isophotal intensity values. For each stamp, a rough
968: estimate of the object center coordinates are obtained as the
969: intensity-weighted means of the x and y pixel coordinates. The mean
970: values are computed in a section of 5x5 pixels around the intensity
971: peak of the object. Using these center coordinates, a set of
972: concentric circles is constructed, with radii equally spaced by 0.5
973: pixel. For each circle, the mean value of 90 intensity samples equally
974: spaced in polar angle is computed via cubic interpolation of the stamp
975: intensity values at the corresponding radial and polar coordinates.
976: The mean intensity values provide an initial estimate of the object
977: surface brightness profile, and are used to derive the isophotal
978: contours of the object. This procedure allows us to construct
979: isophotal contours whose equivalent radii are approximately equally
980: spaced by 0.5 pixels. For a given isophotal intensity level, $I$, the
981: isophote is defined by a set of x and y pairs on the stamp. These
982: isophotal samples are defined as follows. For a given polar angle
983: $\theta$, different intensity values $I_j$ are computed at several
984: radii $r_j$ from the galaxy center. The algorithm selects the
985: smallest radius at which the intensity brackets the value of $I$ (i.e.
986: $ I_j \! \le \! I \! \le \! I_{j+1}$ or $ I_{j+1} \! \le \! I \!
987: \le \! I_{j}$). The radius $r$ corresponding to this intensity is
988: then computed by linear interpolation of the $r_j$ values with respect
989: to $I_j$. The isophotal samples are directly computed from $r$ and
990: $\theta$ by varying $\theta$ such that the number of samples is
991: proportional to the isophote length and by excluding those points
992: flagged in the mask file. To exclude low signal-to-noise regions, the
993: isophotal computation is stopped when the background-subtracted value
994: of $I$ falls below four times the background standard deviation within
995: the stamp. As a default, to exclude galaxies whose isophotal contours
996: are overly affected by seeing, 2DPHOT performs the isophotal analysis
997: only for galaxies whose S-Extractor isophotal
998: radius\footnote{\footnotesize This is
999: defined as $\sqrt{ISOAREA/\pi}$, where $ISOAREA$ is the ISOAREA
1000: parameter of S-Extractor.} is larger than four times the seeing FWHM.
1001: Figure~\ref{IS_PLOT} plots some example of isophotal analysis for
1002: galaxies from one PACS $r$-band image. The panels shown in the
1003: plot are automatically produced by 2DPHOT.
1004:
1005: \begin{figure*}
1006: \begin{center}
1007: \scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{f15.eps}}
1008: \end{center}
1009: \caption[]{\footnotesize Fitting of galaxy isophotes with elliptical
1010: contours modulated by a series of sin/cos angular functions. The four
1011: panels plot different galaxy stamps, extracted from one PACS $r$-band
1012: image. Solid lines are the isophotal contours, derived as described
1013: in Sec.~\ref{ISFIT}, while the fitted ellipses are plotted as dashed
1014: curves. The fits were performed by including only the $a_4$ term in
1015: the sin/cos expansion. Isophotes are plotted with different gray
1016: levels, with the grayscale proportional to the corresponding surface
1017: brightness value. The relations between gray intensity and surface
1018: brightness are shown on the grey scales at the right of each panel.
1019: Each surface brightness value on these gray scales corresponds to a
1020: different isophote. Surface brightness values are given in units of
1021: $mag/arcsec^2$, and become brighter as the isophotal color changes
1022: from white to black. The spatial scale is shown in the lower-left
1023: corner of each panel. The plots are produced automatically from the
1024: 2DPHOT package.~\label{IS_PLOT} }
1025: \end{figure*}
1026:
1027: Galaxy isophotes are modeled as described in~\citet{Bender:87}, by
1028: fitting each isophote with an elliptical contour modulated by the
1029: following sin/cos angular expansion:
1030: \begin{equation}
1031: \sum a_n \cdot cos(n \theta) + b_n \cdot sin(n \theta),
1032: \label{sincos}
1033: \end{equation}
1034: where $\theta$ is the polar angle, and the sum is done with respect to
1035: the index $n$. For $n \ge 3$, the coefficients $a_n$ and $b_n$
1036: describe the deviations of the isophotes from the elliptical shape.
1037: In particular, the $a_4$ term is used to describe the boxy ($a_4 <0$)
1038: and disky ($a_4>0$) isophotal shapes of early-type galaxies. Each
1039: ellipse is characterized by five fitting parameters, which are its
1040: center coordinates, equivalent radius, ellipticity, and position angle
1041: of the major axis. The sin/cos terms which have to be included in
1042: Eq.~\ref{sincos} are defined as input parameters of 2DPHOT. The
1043: isophotal parameters are derived by a $\chi^2$ minimization procedure,
1044: through a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. Examples of isophotal fits
1045: are shown in Fig.~\ref{IS_PLOT}, while Fig.~\ref{IS_PROF} shows the
1046: radial profiles of isophotal parameters measured by the
1047: fitting procedure. All of these plots are automatically
1048: produced by 2DPHOT. Global values of $a_n$ and $b_n$ are computed as
1049: follows. Following~\citet{Bender:87} and~\citet[hereafter
1050: B89]{Bender:89}, only the range of $a_n$ and $b_n$ profiles between a minimum
1051: radius $R_{min}$ and a maximum radius $R_{max}$ is selected. $R_{min}$ is set to four times the seeing FWHM of the
1052: image, while $R_{max}$ is set to twice the galaxy effective
1053: radius. The global $a_n$ and $b_n$ values are then defined as the
1054: average of their profiles within the selected radial
1055: range. Fig.~\ref{BCOMP} compares the $a_4$ values of B89 with those
1056: derived by running 2DPHOT on the $r$-band images of 42 galaxies from B89
1057: with available photometry from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data
1058: Release 5 (SDSS DR5). Ten out of the 42 galaxies have been observed
1059: multiple times in the SDSS, and we used these repeated observations
1060: to check the reliability of the $a_4$ values. Looking at the figure,
1061: we see that there is good agreement between the two sets of
1062: measurements. Moreover, there is excellent agreement among repeated
1063: $a_4$ measurements. We note that 2DPHOT measures global $a_n$ and $b_n$
1064: values somewhat differently than \citet{Bender:89}, where either the peak values or the values of $a_n$ and $b_n$ at one
1065: effective radius were considered. Using the mean
1066: values has the advantage of producing more robust estimates, reducing
1067: the effects of possible spurious peaks in the $a_n$ and $b_n$ profiles
1068: that can arise from noise fluctuations. Furthermore, as shown above, the
1069: two methods give, on average, fully consistent results.
1070:
1071: \begin{figure}
1072: \begin{center}
1073: \scalebox{0.43}{\includegraphics{f16.eps}}
1074: \end{center}
1075: \caption[]{\footnotesize Radial profiles of isophotal parameters, as
1076: derived by the isophotal fitting algorithm (Sec.~\ref{ISFIT}). From
1077: top to bottom, the panels show the profiles of ellipticity, position
1078: angle of the ellipse's major axis, and $a_4$ coefficient as a function
1079: of the equivalent radius of the fitted isophotes. Left panels show
1080: the profiles of the galaxy in the lower-left panel of
1081: Fig.~\ref{IS_PLOT}, while right panels correspond to the galaxy shown
1082: in the upper-right panel of Fig.~\ref{IS_PLOT}. Error bars mark one
1083: sigma standard uncertainties. In the bottom panels, the minimum and
1084: maximum radii to define the global $a_4$ value are shown as vertical
1085: dashed lines. The effective radius of the galaxy is marked by a
1086: vertical solid line. The solid horizontal gray line denotes the mean
1087: value of $a_4$ in the selected radial range, while the dashed gray
1088: lines mark the corresponding $1\sigma$ interval.
1089: ~\label{IS_PROF} }
1090: \end{figure}
1091:
1092: \begin{figure}
1093: \begin{center}
1094: \scalebox{0.36}{\includegraphics{f17.eps}}
1095: \end{center}
1096: \caption[]{\footnotesize Comparison of $a_4$ values as estimated from
1097: \citet{Bender:89} (horizontal axis) and from the 2DPHOT package
1098: (vertical axis). The new $a_4$ values were obtained by running the
1099: 2DPHOT package on r-band images of the 42 galaxies of
1100: \citet{Bender:89} with available photometry from the SDSS DR5. The
1101: horizontal error bars mark the typical uncertainty on the $a_4$
1102: values of \citet{Bender:89} (see their sec.2). The vertical bars
1103: denote one sigma standard uncertainties as estimated from
1104: 2DPHOT. Most of these error bars are smaller than the symbol size in
1105: the plot. From left to right, the following galaxies are plotted:
1106: NGC4261, NGC4365, NGC4387, NGC5322, NGC3605, NGC5127, NGC4478,
1107: NGC5532, NGC3894, NGC4551, NGC4406, NGC5576, NGC4649, NGC4374,
1108: NGC4472, NGC3842, NGC6411, NGC4636, NGC4489, NGC3608, NGC3640,
1109: NGC4486, NGC5638, NGC3379, NGC3193, NGC4494, NGC5490, NGC5831,
1110: NGC3613, NGC4382, NGC4168, NGC5845, NGC4125, NGC4473, NGC2693,
1111: NGC3377, NGC4621, NGC4550, NGC4564, NGC3610, NGC4660, NGC4251,
1112: NGC4570. In several cases, a galaxy has repeated SDSS
1113: observations. Such cases have been processed independently by
1114: 2DPHOT, and the corresponding values are plotted as gray symbols in
1115: the figure. ~\label{BCOMP} }
1116: \end{figure}
1117:
1118: \subsection{Measuring surface brightness radial profiles}
1119: \label{SBPROF}
1120: For all galaxies with final 2D fitting parameters, 2DPHOT extracts a
1121: one dimensional surface brightness profile. Four galaxy isophotes,
1122: corresponding to intensity values of ${4, 6, 8,}$ and 10 background
1123: standard deviations over the background level are computed, and are
1124: fitted by elliptical contours, as described in Sec.~\ref{ISFIT}. The
1125: values of center coordinates, axis ratio, and position angle of the
1126: fitted ellipses are averaged, and are used to construct several
1127: concentric ellipses on the galaxy stamp, with their equivalent radii
1128: equally spaced by 0.5 pixel. The one dimensional surface brightness
1129: profile is then obtained as described in Sec.~\ref{ISFIT}, by
1130: computing the mean intensity value in each ellipse as a function of
1131: the ellipse equivalent radius. The brightness profile is
1132: sky-subtracted by applying a similar procedure to that described
1133: in~\citet{Jorgensen:95}. The outermost part of the surface brightness
1134: profile intensities is fit with a power law, $\alpha \cdot r^{-\beta}
1135: + bg$, where the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters as well as the local
1136: background value, $bg$, are estimated by a $\chi^2$ minimization
1137: procedure. The outermost part of the profile is defined as that
1138: radial range where the mean isophotal intensity minus an approximated
1139: median background falls below twice the background standard deviation.
1140: Some examples of surface brightness profiles for the same galaxies as
1141: in Fig.~\ref{IS_PLOT} are shown in Fig.~\ref{1DPROF}. The profiles
1142: are used to obtain a further estimate of galaxy structural parameters
1143: independent of the 2D fitting approach. 2DPHOT follows the procedure
1144: described by \citet[hereafter BPZ82]{Bendinelli:82}. In this
1145: approach, one assumes the surface brightness distributions of both the
1146: galaxy and the PSF to have circular symmetry. With this assumption,
1147: it can be shown that the 2D seeing convolution is reduced to a one
1148: dimensional integral, with the integrand given by the product of the
1149: surface brightness radial profile of the galaxy model with that of the
1150: PSF surface brightness profile, modulated by a zero-order modified
1151: Bessel function (see BPZ82 for details). Drawbacks and advantages of
1152: the one and two-dimensional methods have been discussed in many papers
1153: (see \citealt{Kelson:00}, \citealt{LaB:02} and references therein). To
1154: summarize, the one dimensional approach allows one to significantly
1155: reduce the computation time of galaxy structural parameters. However,
1156: the uncertainties in the 1D parameters are larger, due to the circular
1157: symmetry approximation as well as to the interpolation of intensity
1158: values which is required to derive the galaxy and PSF one-dimensional
1159: profiles. On the other hand, the 2D approach is more time consuming,
1160: but allows more accurate estimates of structural parameters by taking
1161: advantage of all the information contained in the galaxy image. The
1162: one dimensional fitting procedure is included in the 2DPHOT package
1163: for completeness, particularly for cases where galaxy
1164: isophotes are strongly distorted and this distortion changes as a
1165: function of galaxy radius. In these situations the 2D approach can
1166: provide a poorly constrained fitting model, while useful parameters
1167: can still be obtained by the 1D approach. In order to apply the BPZ82
1168: method, for each cell of the two-dimensional grid over which the two
1169: dimensional PSF modeling is done (see Sec,~\ref{PSF}), a one
1170: dimensional PSF model is computed. To this end, the circular surface
1171: brightness profiles of all the sure stars in a given cell are derived
1172: (see Sec.~\ref{ISFIT}) and averaged together after sky subtraction and
1173: flux scaling. The 1D combined profiles are fit with a sum of Moffat
1174: or Gaussian functions applying a procedure similar to that described
1175: in Sec.~\ref{PSF}. The one dimensional structural parameters are then
1176: derived by the BPZ82 method, convolving one dimensional S\'{e}rsic models
1177: with the derived 1D PSF models. The best fitting 1D parameters, i.e.
1178: the central surface brightness, the effective radius and the S\'{e}rsic
1179: index are then derived using $\chi^2$ minimization with the
1180: Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. Examples of one dimensional fitting
1181: results are shown in Fig.~\ref{1DPROF} for the same galaxies as in
1182: Fig.~\ref{IS_PLOT}.
1183:
1184: \begin{figure}
1185: \begin{center}
1186: \scalebox{0.2}{\includegraphics{f18.eps}}
1187: \end{center}
1188: \caption[]{\footnotesize Surface brightness profiles of the same
1189: galaxies as in Fig.~\ref{ISFIT}. In the upper plot of each panel, the
1190: surface brightnesses computed over different elliptical contours are
1191: plotted as a function of the ellipses' equivalent radii. The surface
1192: brightness values have been sky subtracted as described in the text.
1193: The error bars denote $1\sigma$ uncertainties, computed by adding in
1194: quadrature the standard deviation of the intensity values in each
1195: ellipse with the uncertainty in the background estimate. The solid
1196: line is the best-fitting one dimensional S\'{e}rsic model. The lower plot
1197: of each panel shows the residuals, in units of $mag/arcsec^2$,
1198: obtained after subtracting the model from the data. The four panels
1199: correspond to the same galaxies as in Fig.~\ref{IS_PLOT}.
1200: ~\label{1DPROF} }
1201: \end{figure}
1202:
1203: \begin{figure}
1204: %\begin{center}
1205: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{f19.eps}}
1206: %\end{center}
1207: \caption[]{\footnotesize Completeness as a function of magnitude
1208: (upper panel) and S/N ratio (lower panel) for sources in the PACS
1209: image of the cluster Abell~1081 at $z \sim 0.16$. Hatched regions
1210: mark $1\sigma$ confidence intervals of the completeness. Stars and
1211: galaxies are plotted as grey and black regions, respectively, as
1212: shown in the upper panel. The dashed line in the lower plots marks
1213: the 100$\%$ completeness level.
1214: ~\label{COMPL} }
1215: \end{figure}
1216:
1217:
1218: \section{Growth curves}
1219: \label{GROWTH}
1220: The aperture magnitude growth curve of each galaxy is derived by
1221: direct integration of the corresponding one dimensional surface
1222: brightness profile. The integration is performed for each of the
1223: concentric ellipses used to extract the 1D profile. As described in
1224: Sec.~\ref{SBPROF}, all of the ellipses are defined by the average
1225: ellipticity and position angle of the galaxy. In order to correct the
1226: growth curve for seeing effects, the following procedure is
1227: adopted. The 2D seeing convolved S\'{e}rsic model obtained from the final
1228: 2D fitting analysis is used to extract a growth curve following the
1229: same procedure as for the galaxy image. The growth curve is also
1230: computed for the deconvolved S\'{e}rsic model, which is defined by the
1231: output parameters of the final 2D fit. The model is integrated over
1232: concentric ellipses using an adaptive 2D integration algorithm, and
1233: aperture magnitudes are extracted within the same apertures that
1234: define the galaxy growth curve. The difference between the growth
1235: curves of the seeing convolved and the seeing deconvolved models are
1236: used to correct the galaxy aperture magnitudes. We note that since
1237: the S\'{e}rsic model appears in the difference between the convolved and
1238: the deconvolved curves, the correction is expected to be largely
1239: independent of the choice of galaxy model, especially for the
1240: outermost parts of the galaxy where seeing corrections are small. The
1241: seeing corrected growth curve is used to estimate the half-light
1242: radius of the galaxy, and the corresponding mean surface brightness
1243: within that radius. We note that the seeing corrected growth curve
1244: and surface brightness profile allows the so-called eta function to be
1245: computed, which is defined by the ratio of the surface brightness
1246: value at a given radius to its mean value within the same radius
1247: (see~\citealt{Sandage:90}). This function can be used to compute
1248: Petrosian metric radii and corresponding mean surface
1249: brightnesses. This feature will be implemented in the 2DPHOT
1250: package.
1251:
1252: \section{Completeness}
1253: \label{COMPLETENESS}
1254: In order to estimate the completeness of the galaxy catalog, we follow
1255: a procedure similar to that described in Sec.~\ref{SGrules}. 2DPHOT
1256: creates a set of simulated images by adding to the input image a
1257: random spatial distribution of artificial galaxies. The surface
1258: density of artificial galaxies in each simulated image and the total
1259: number of simulations are chosen using the same criteria outlined in
1260: Sec.~\ref{SGrules}. Artificial galaxies are created with
1261: seeing-convolved S\'{e}rsic models. The parameters of each model are
1262: chosen to match the distribution of galaxy structural parameters as a
1263: function of galaxy magnitude obtained from the input image. The
1264: coordinates of each artificial galaxy are chosen randomly within the
1265: input image, while its total magnitude $m_{\rm g}$ is extracted from a
1266: uniform random distribution spanning the same range as the observed
1267: galaxies\footnote{\footnotesize i.e. the same magnitude range as objects classified
1268: as extended sources by 2DPHOT}. 2DPHOT randomly selects one of the
1269: fifty objects\footnote{\footnotesize This number is chosen to sample the full range
1270: of galaxy structural parameters at a given galaxy magnitude. For
1271: several kinds of images, we verified that varying this number from
1272: twenty to eighty does not affect significantly the completeness
1273: estimates. } in the catalog with magnitudes closest to $m_{\rm g}$
1274: and with corresponding S/N ratio larger than a cutoff value, $S/N_{\rm
1275: min}$. The INI2DF parameters of this object and the PSF model that
1276: correspond to the extracted center coordinates are then used to create
1277: the artificial galaxy. The $S/N$ cutoff $S/N_{\rm min}$ is introduced
1278: because at very low S/N ratios the catalog is highly incomplete,
1279: biasing the distribution of galaxy structural parameters toward
1280: objects with a higher detection probability, such as galaxies with
1281: smaller effective radii and/or higher central concentrations (i.e.
1282: higher S\'{e}rsic index). Since the distribution of galaxy parameters at
1283: magnitudes below the completeness limit is not known, we adopt the
1284: working assumption that this distribution is similar to that of
1285: galaxies which are `close' to the completeness limit of the catalog.
1286: In other words $S/N_{\rm min}$ is chosen as the lowest value of the
1287: $S/N$ ratio for which the catalog is still nearly 100\% complete.
1288: 2DPHOT adopts a default value of $S/N_{\rm min}=25$. However,
1289: processing several images, we found that changing $S/N_{\rm min}$ from
1290: 25 to 50 does not significantly change the completeness function.
1291:
1292: For each simulated image, a catalog is generated using S-Extractor
1293: with the same settings as for the observed data. The galaxy
1294: completeness function is then derived by binning the artificial
1295: galaxies in magnitude and measuring the fraction of detected objects
1296: in each bin. The uncertainties on the completeness function are
1297: estimated by shifting magnitudes of artificial galaxies according to
1298: their corresponding uncertainties and recomputing the fraction of
1299: detected sources in each given bin. The same procedure is applied
1300: to the simulated stars created by 2DPHOT to define
1301: the locus of star candidates (Sec.~\ref{SGrules}). In this way,
1302: the completeness functions of both extended and point-like sources are
1303: estimated. Fig.~\ref{COMPL} shows the results of processing one
1304: $r$-band image from the PACS. The figure has been automatically produced
1305: by 2DPHOT. The completeness of the catalog is shown as a
1306: function of both magnitude and $S/N$ ratio. For the latter,
1307: artificial data are binned by $S/N$ ratio and
1308: the fraction of detected sources is measured in $S/N$ bins. We see
1309: that both the galaxy and the star catalogs are almost $100\%$ complete down to
1310: $S/N \sim 20$ ($r\sim21^m$).
1311:
1312: \begin{figure}
1313: \begin{center}
1314: \scalebox{0.43}{\includegraphics{f20.eps}}
1315: \end{center}
1316: \caption[]{\footnotesize The upper panel plots the stellarity index from
1317: S-Extractor as a function of the Kron magnitude of simulated stars
1318: (grey crosses) and simulated galaxies (black circles), respectively.
1319: The hatched region corresponds to the stellar locus, which is
1320: defined as described in Sec.~\ref{SGrules}. The fractions of stars
1321: and galaxies that are erroneously classified on the basis of the
1322: stellar locus are plotted as grey and black curves, respectively.
1323: The plots have been obtained by processing the PACS image of the
1324: cluster Abell~1081, as for Fig.~\ref{COMPL}. ~\label{CONTAM} }
1325: \end{figure}
1326:
1327: \section{Contamination}
1328: \label{SG_CONTAM}
1329: Using simulated stars and galaxies described in Sec.~\ref{SGrules} and
1330: Sec.~\ref{COMPLETENESS}, 2DPHOT estimates the fractions of galaxies
1331: and stars which are misclassified as a function of their magnitudes.
1332: We examine the distribution of the artificial galaxies and stars added
1333: to the input image in the $SI$ versus magnitude diagram, using the
1334: definition of the star locus (Sec.~\ref{SGrules}) to perform $S/G$
1335: classification. This procedure is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{CONTAM},
1336: where the results obtained for one of the $r$-band PACS images are
1337: displayed. These figures are automatically produced by 2DPHOT. The
1338: upper panel shows the star locus as well as the distribution of both
1339: artificial stars and artificial galaxies in the $SI$ - Mag diagram.
1340: We note that almost all of the artificial galaxies have $SI \le 0.7$,
1341: which holds true for all images we processed with 2DPHOT. This
1342: implies that adopting a lower cutoff of $SI=0.7$ for the definition of
1343: the star locus minimizes the fraction of misclassified galaxies at low
1344: $S/N$ ratios, as noted in Sec.~\ref{SGrules}. The lower panel of
1345: Fig.~\ref{CONTAM} plots the fraction, $\phi_{\rm s}$, of misclassified
1346: stars, i.e. the fraction of artificial stars that lie outside the
1347: locus of star candidates, and the fraction, $\phi_{\rm g}$, of
1348: misclassified galaxies, i.e. the fraction of artificial galaxies that
1349: are classified as stars, as a function of their magnitude. We see
1350: that $\phi_{\rm g}$ is always smaller than a few percent, while the
1351: fraction of misclassified stars increases rapidly at faint
1352: magnitudes ($MAG>21$). For bright magnitudes, at $MAG<20$,
1353: where one would expect that stars and galaxies are always properly
1354: identified, we find that the value of $\phi_{\rm s}$ does
1355: not reach zero, but is typically $\sim 5 \%$, varying from $\sim 3\% $ to $\sim 10\%$ between $MAG=18$ and
1356: $MAG=20$. In order to understand why there is such a small fraction of
1357: misclassified stars, we considered the PACS frame whose 2DPHOT
1358: contamination plots are shown in Fig.~\ref{CONTAM} and selected those
1359: misclassified stars for which $MAG\le20$, yielding $25$ out of $726$ total stars.
1360: Fig.~\ref{SG_TEST_BRIGHT} shows the regions where each of these 25
1361: simulated stars are randomly added to the PACS image. The S-Extractor
1362: stellarity index and FLAG values are also reported in the
1363: plot. Looking at the figure, we can clearly see that the small
1364: misclassification fraction at the bright magnitudes is caused by
1365: blending. In fact, the figure shows that bright misclassified stars
1366: can be identified as follows: (i) they lie just on top of some other
1367: object in the field, (ii) strongly blended with bright galaxies, and
1368: (iii) embedded within the extended halo of a bright saturated star.
1369: We also find that for $\sim 70 \%$ (18 out of 25) of the simulated
1370: stars the FLAG value estimated by S-Extractor is 3, corresponding to
1371: the case of blended sources (see ~\citealt{BeA:96}). We notice that
1372: the blending issue does in principle affect any star/galaxy separation
1373: algorithm, and can be more or less important depending on how crowded
1374: is the image being processed. On the other hand, adding simulated
1375: stars and galaxies to a given image as done by 2DPHOT
1376: (Sec.~\ref{SGrules}) one can estimate the star and galaxy
1377: contamination fractions by taking into account also misclassification
1378: due to blended sources.
1379:
1380: \begin{figure*}
1381: \begin{center}
1382: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics{f21.eps}}
1383: \end{center}
1384: \caption[]{\footnotesize Regions of the same PACS image analyzed in Fig.~\ref{CONTAM} showing
1385: the position of bright simulated stars erroneously classified as galaxies by 2DPHOT (see the text).
1386: Each panel corresponds to a different simulated star. For clarity, we do not show the simulated star images added to the real one, but their positions on each panel are marked by a grey circle with a radius equal to three times the average FWHM value (1.8'') of the PACS
1387: image. The stellarity index and the FLAG parameters estimated by S-Extractor are
1388: reported in the lower-right corner of each panel, while the spatial scale is shown in the lower-left.
1389: ~\label{SG_TEST_BRIGHT} }
1390: \end{figure*}
1391:
1392: \section{Testing the star/galaxy separation at faint magnitudes}
1393: \label{SG_FAINT}
1394: So far, we have tested the star/galaxy separation obtained with
1395: 2DPHOT using images from the Palomar Abell Cluster Survey. As shown
1396: in Sec.~\ref{SG_CONTAM}, with PACS data we achieve reliable star/galaxy
1397: separation down to $r \sim 21$. On the other hand, many scientific
1398: programs are expected to reach significantly deeper limits,
1399: where the small size of galaxies and blending issues
1400: can make the star/galaxy separation far more troublesome. In order
1401: to discuss how the star/galaxy separation in 2DPHOT performs at
1402: faint magnitudes, we use two deep i-band image pointings taken with
1403: the Large Format Camera (LFC) at the Palomar 200" telescope. Each
1404: LFC pointing covers a circular area of $24'$ in diameter, with a
1405: pixel scale of $0.182''/pixel$. Data for the same sky area were also
1406: taken with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) onboard of HST and
1407: consist of 15 pointings taken with the F814W filter. The ACS data
1408: were drizzled to a pixel scale of $0.03''/pixel$, covering a total
1409: area of $\sim 13 \,arcmin^2$. For more details on the data quality
1410: and main characteristics of the images, we refer the reader
1411: to~\citet{Gal:05}.
1412:
1413: %\subsection{HST and ground-based data}
1414: %\label{LFC_ACS_DATA}
1415: % We are using only fields sc1604_1_i and sc1604_2_i for LFC, since only those
1416: % fields are covered by ACS photometry. For the ACS images, we use all
1417: % the 15 images in the F814W filter.
1418:
1419:
1420: \subsection{Comparing the HST and ground-based classification}
1421: \label{LFC_ACS_SG}
1422: We ran 2DPHOT on each of the ACS and LFC images and obtained the
1423: corresponding catalogs of stars and galaxies. All the ACS and LFC
1424: catalogs were matched, resulting in a final list of 3825 sources in
1425: common. In order to define the star locus, we adopted here the second
1426: option provided by 2DPHOT (see Sec.~\ref{SGrules}), where the locus is
1427: defined by setting the minimum value of the stellarity index $SI$
1428: equal to $\theta - 2.5 \sigma$, where $\theta$ and $\sigma$ are the
1429: location and width values of the $SI$ distribution of artificial
1430: stars. As shown in Fig.~\ref{STAR_LOCUS_HST_LFC}, where the star
1431: locus is plotted for one of the LFC and one of the ACS images, the
1432: above definition establishes a narrower stellar region reducing the
1433: number of small faint galaxies which can be potentially misclassified
1434: as galaxies.
1435:
1436: As shown in Fig.~\ref{STAR_LOCUS_HST_LFC}, the HST data go about two
1437: magnitudes fainter than the LFC imaging. Moreover, HST allows a sharp
1438: separation of stars and galaxies down to $i_{AB} \sim 25$, while for
1439: LFC the two classes begin to overlap by $i_{AB} \sim 22$. Assuming
1440: that the HST data provide the 'true' classification, we can estimate
1441: the fraction of HST stars and galaxies which are not properly
1442: classified from LFC and compare these fractions with those estimated
1443: by 2DPHOT. Fig.~\ref{STAR_LOCUS_HST_LFC} compares the 'true'
1444: misclassified fractions with those predicted by 2DPHOT, as computed by
1445: averaging those obtained for the two LFC fields. The figure shows
1446: that the 2DPHOT results are in good agreement with the 'true'
1447: contamination estimates. The fraction of misclassified galaxies is
1448: always very close to zero, reaching $\sim 10\%$ at $i_{\rm AB} \sim
1449: 24$ for both the 'true' and 2DPHOT estimates. For stars, the fraction
1450: of both 'true' and 2DPHOT misclassified stars increases smoothly with
1451: magnitude, becoming larger than $50\%$ at $i_{\rm AB} \sim 24$. We
1452: notice that the 'true' fraction is slightly larger than that estimated
1453: by 2DPHOT in the magnitude range of $i_{\rm AB} \sim 21$ to $i_{\rm
1454: AB} \sim 23$. However, considering the uncertainty on the 'true'
1455: fraction of misclassified stars the above difference is only
1456: marginally significant. Hence, we conclude that also at the fainter
1457: magnitudes sampled by the LFC photometry, 2DPHOT is able to provide
1458: realiable estimates of the contamination in the star and galaxy
1459: catalogs.
1460:
1461: \begin{figure}%[!bp]
1462: \begin{center}
1463: \scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics{f22.eps}}
1464: \end{center}
1465: \caption[]{\footnotesize Definition of star locus obtained from 2DPHOT for one
1466: of the HST (upper panel) and one of the LFC (lower panel) images. Each panel plots the
1467: stellarity index versus the $i_{AB}$ magnitude. Grey circles mark all the sources in a given
1468: image, with the corresponding stellar locus being represented by the
1469: hatched region.~\label{STAR_LOCUS_HST_LFC} }
1470: \end{figure}
1471:
1472: \begin{figure}
1473: \begin{center}
1474: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{f23.eps}}
1475: \end{center}
1476: \caption[]{\footnotesize
1477: Comparison of the fractions of misclassified stars and galaxies provided by 2DPHOT
1478: with the 'true' values obtained by comparing the HST and LFC data (see text).
1479: The fractions of stars and galaxies are plotted in grey and black, respectively.
1480: The 'true' fractions are plotted as filled circles, with the error bars marking
1481: $1 \sigma$ standard uncertainties, estimated by accounting for poissonian errors
1482: on counts in each magnitude bin. The fraction of misclassified sources provided by
1483: 2DPHOT are shown as continuous curves.~\label{SG_CONTAM_COMB} }
1484: \end{figure}
1485:
1486:
1487: \section{2DGUI: An interface for 2DPHOT}
1488: \label{INTERF}
1489: The 2DPHOT package requires installation of supporting software
1490: packages\footnote{\footnotesize such as S-Extractor and the cfitsio and pgplot
1491: libraries.} and its performance varies depending on the compilers
1492: used. After installation, the user has to run the package by
1493: configuring both the input files for S-Extractor as well as some
1494: additional parameters specific to the package itself, which control
1495: the different steps of the image analysis (see Sec.~\ref{2DPHOT}). To
1496: simplify deployment and provide a uniform interface, we have developed
1497: a front-end called 2DGUI. To allow the timely execution of
1498: potentially time-consuming processing jobs and manage parallelization,
1499: we have also included a simple scheduler system.
1500:
1501: The 2DGUI package consists of three basic components. First, we
1502: provide an interface where the user can execute several
1503: 2DPHOT runs (jobs) through a local 2DPHOT installation. Second, a
1504: small, local (i.e. server-independent) database provides user access
1505: to the output files of 2DPHOT. Finally, the simple scheduling system
1506: allows timely execution of several jobs to be performed without server
1507: overloading. All of these components were either developed or adapted
1508: from well-known, portable, royalty-free software. Since the database is
1509: included in the 2DGUI package, no additional software
1510: is required. Since the scheduler is based on the {\it cron} utility
1511: and on a bash-- or csh--system shell, the server must use a Unix-like
1512: operating system.
1513:
1514: The first step includes user
1515: identification and job creation through the form shown in panel 1 of
1516: Fig.~\ref{panels}. Currently, only data available on the server can
1517: be processed. After creating a job, the user must configure
1518: parameters for both S-Extractor and 2DPHOT, using the two forms shown
1519: in panels 2 and 3 of Fig.~\ref{panels}, respectively. Both forms show
1520: the command-line equivalent parameter names, their default values, and
1521: short comments. At this point, the job is created and scheduled, and
1522: information on the job execution is provided in the 2DGUI interface, as shown
1523: in panel 4 of Fig.~\ref{panels}.
1524:
1525: 2DGUI then creates a user directory (if necessary), along with a
1526: subdirectory for each job defined by the user identification, the
1527: 2DPHOT and S-Extractor parameters, and the filename of the input
1528: image. Four files are stored in this directory: 1) the original FITS
1529: image uploaded by the user; 2) a shell script (runme.sh), that
1530: includes the command-line syntax\footnote{\footnotesize An example of this syntax
1531: is shown in panel 4 of Fig.~\ref{panels}.} for running 2DPHOT; 3 and
1532: 4) The S-Extractor configuration and parameter files of S-Extractor,
1533: named {\it default.sex} and {\it default.param}.
1534:
1535: During execution, the 2DPHOT main script dumps textual
1536: information on each step of the image analysis in a log file. 2DGUI reads this file and informs the user of
1537: the job processing status by automatically updating the form
1538: shown in panel 4 of Fig.~\ref{panels}. When processing is finished,
1539: all the files generated by 2DPHOT are listed in the 2DGUI interface, and
1540: the user can select and download 2DPHOT output results. The
1541: execution of several {\it runme.sh} files on a given server is done by
1542: a scheduling program which runs only a predefined maximum number of
1543: {\it runme.sh} scripts, in such a way as to avoid overloading the server.
1544:
1545: Currently, 2DGUI is still under development and its components are
1546: actively being improved. The major planned improvements include the
1547: following features: 1) the ability for a given user to submit several
1548: jobs, using the same parameters to process several images
1549: simultaneously; 2) use of the local database to store users' preferred
1550: parameters; 3) offline processing alerts (e.g. sending an e-mail to
1551: the user when a task is completed); and 4) a remote dispatcher, that
1552: allows tasks to be executed remotely, e.g. on a local cluster or a
1553: grid computer.
1554:
1555: %4) Resources
1556: %accounting, to limit users usage of the server and package and/or
1557: %selective scheduling based on control lists;
1558:
1559: %(e.g. creation of profiles to process collections of
1560: %images)
1561:
1562:
1563:
1564:
1565: \begin{figure*}%[!bp]
1566: \begin{center}
1567: \scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{f24.eps}}
1568: \scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{f25.eps}}
1569: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{f26.eps}}
1570: \scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{f27.eps}}
1571: \end{center}
1572: \caption[]{\footnotesize Web forms used by the 2DGUI package. The
1573: upper form, panel 1, is used for the user login and image upload.
1574: The middle forms, panels 2 and 3, are used to set the S-Extractor and
1575: 2DPHOT parameters. The bottom form, panel 4, provides
1576: information to the user about the image processing.~\label{panels} }
1577: \end{figure*}
1578:
1579: %\section{A Database system for 2DPHOT}
1580: %\label{DB}
1581: %The 2DPHOT package is mainly aimed at analyzing images coming from
1582: %wide-field survey projects. This processing would produce huge
1583: %amounts of output data, at faster and faster rates, and thus requires
1584: %an efficient tool of data storage and handling. To this aim, in order
1585: %to accomadate the output results of 2DPHOT, we are currently
1586: %developing a suitable database (hereafter dB) architecture, which is
1587: %realized according to the standards proposed by the IVOA
1588: %(International Virtual Observatory Alliance). In this section, we
1589: %briefly highlight the main aspects of this dB system.
1590:
1591: %The main motivation for developing an environment like 2DPHOT
1592: %is the need for a better way of analyzing and storing data which is
1593: %becoming available at a faster rate with the recent wide field
1594: %systems. In previous sections we presented a detailed account of the
1595: %analysis been carried out here in this work.
1596: %Now we briefly describe
1597: %the dB modeling proposed for 2DPHOT, which can be part of a pipeline
1598: %specifically designed for processing data coming from large area
1599: %coverage surveys and large amount of data is better managed when an
1600: %appropriate dB is used.
1601:
1602: %Designing a dB is the first step for implementing a robust data
1603: %structure. A data model is an abstraction that represents objects from
1604: %the real world. A model defines the elements considered in our
1605: %scientific application, establishing the relations among them. In our
1606: %case, the scientific application is 2DPHOT, a software package that
1607: %produces scientific results in the form of i) ASCII tables, listing
1608: %astrophysical parameters obtained by several specialized programs, and
1609: %ii) postscript files, providing plots and images related to all the
1610: %intermediate steps of the whole analysis. Modeling our dB means
1611: %structuring all these astrophysical information as well as all of the
1612: %other information related to the data processing itself (e.g., in
1613: %which computer system the image was processed, by whom, etc...). It
1614: %is of paramount importance that proper relations are made, so that,
1615: %all sorts of later on queries, the user might want to do, can be made
1616: %in an efficient way.
1617:
1618: %The 2DPHOT dB system uses PostgreQSL as a core element, an open source
1619: %relational dB that has the two most important features needed for
1620: %making the environment as robust as possible as far as data is
1621: %concerned, persistency and retrieval. In summary, PostgreSQL 1) is
1622: %capable of managing large amounts of data (hundreds of TB - a maximum
1623: %Table size is 32 TB); 2) can be assessed by a large number of
1624: %connections (users and applications); 3) has concurrency management
1625: %(more than one user accessing the same data at the same time); 4) has
1626: %a high level of efficiency during transaction processing; 5) has high
1627: %availability level (dB is still available during backup operation); 6)
1628: %allows physical storage management; and 7) allows database
1629: %replication. After fifteen years of active development and an
1630: %architecture that has earned strong reputation of reliability, data
1631: %integrity, and correctness, PostgreSQL is one of the most powerful dB
1632: %available in the market. It is fully ACID compliant, full support for
1633: %foreign keys, joins, views, triggers, and stored procedures. It
1634: %includes most SQL92 and SQL99 data types like INTEGER, NUMERIC,
1635: %BOOLEAN, CHAR,VARCHAR, DATE, INTERVAL, and TIMESTAMP. It has native
1636: %programming interfaces for C/C++, Java, .Net, Perl, Python, Ruby, Tcl,
1637: %ODBC among others, which is essential for the software infrastructure
1638: %been developed here.
1639:
1640: %The 2DPHOT dB system is represented in Fig.~\ref{DBFIG}, by the part
1641: %of the diagram which comes after the 2DGUI and 2DPHOT boxes.
1642: % A dB system is composed of data and a set of applications developed
1643: % to manipulate them. Fig.~\ref{DBFIG} shows the environment we
1644: % designed
1645: %for 2DPHOT with the elements defining the global architecture.
1646: %XXXXXXXX TO BE DISCUSSED XXXXXXXXXXXXX
1647: %The first and most fundamental element of the system is the dB itself.
1648: %Based on the relational concept, the dB is a set of 40 tables that
1649: %contain all the information produced by running 2DPHOT on a given
1650: %image. Besides the scientific data, the dB keeps the metadata
1651: %associated to the image or to the process itself, such as, for
1652: %instance, the image fits header, the time when the image was
1653: %processed, in which computer system, by whom, and what is the setup
1654: %used for detection and analysis. A program called 2DLOAD brings all
1655: %the 2DPHOT output information into the dB structure. The second
1656: %element in the whole scheme is the application or applicative program.
1657: %Two classes of application can be identified: i) those which allow the
1658: %user to interact with and the system in order to retrieve data; and
1659: %ii) the ones responsible for exchanging information with web services
1660: %recognized as VOs (Virtual Observatories). These applications are
1661: %identified by the ellipses in the lower part of Fig.~\ref{DBFIG}. It
1662: %is important to emphasize that in this later category we have to
1663: %include applications that manipulate the information resulting from
1664: %the interaction between the 2DPHOT system and any specific VO.
1665: %Applications can be used, as instance, to cross-matching 2DPHOT
1666: %catalogs with those available in other VOs. In our case, a master
1667: %catalog will be created after cross-matching the 2DPHOT catalogs with
1668: %those available on different wavelength domains, such as UV, Infrared,
1669: %X-ray, and Radio.
1670: %
1671:
1672: \section{Summary}~\label{SUMMARY} We have presented 2DPHOT, a new
1673: computational tool for astronomical image processing, designed to
1674: analyze the output data of wide-field imaging surveys in a
1675: completely automated fashion. The package includes several tasks,
1676: such as star/galaxy classification, measurement of both integrated and
1677: surface photometry of galaxies, PSF modeling, estimation of catalog
1678: completeness and classification accuracy.
1679: 2DPHOT incorporates a variety of quality control plots, which have
1680: historically been left to a separate step in image analysis, and is
1681: complemented by a graphical interface named 2DGUI. In
1682: addition, to accommodate the extensive output of 2DPHOT, both in terms
1683: of object catalogs and quality control figures, we are developing a
1684: database architecture which will comply with the standards proposed by
1685: the IVOA (International Virtual Observatory Alliance). All these
1686: components make 2DPHOT a powerful environment to analyze, handle, and
1687: store the output data coming from large area surveys. Some examples
1688: of surveys where we plan to apply this new analysis environment are
1689: those that will be carried out with the VLT-Survey Telescope (VST).
1690: We emphasize that 2DPHOT is conceived as a general purpose package,
1691: whose possible applications can span different research topics. In a
1692: forthcoming publication, we illustrate one such applications
1693: by describing a project to measure the abundance of clusters of
1694: galaxies at high redshifts (up to $z \sim 1.2$). Running 2DPHOT on
1695: simulated images of the VST KiloDegree Survey (KIDS,
1696: see~\citealt{Arn:07}), we show that this cluster abundance can be
1697: measured with a high completeness level, allowing one to put strong
1698: constraints on the nature of dark energy in the Universe.
1699:
1700: \newpage
1701:
1702: \appendix
1703: \section{Input parameters of 2DPHOT}~\label{INPAR}
1704: Table~\ref{INTAB} summarizes the main input parameters of
1705: 2DPHOT. These parameters can be either set as input options for the
1706: 2DPHOT main script or passed to the package by 2DGUI (see
1707: Secs.~\ref{2DPHOT},~\ref{INTERF}). In the table, we also include a
1708: short description of each parameter, as well as a reference to the
1709: sections in this paper where the 2DPHOT task influenced by that
1710: parameter is described.
1711:
1712: \begin{table*}
1713: \footnotesize
1714: \caption{ Summary of 2DPHOT input parameters. Column 1: Options for
1715: the 2DPHOT main script. Column 2: Description of the parameter. Column 3: The name used to denote the parameter in the paper text. Column 4: Paper sections
1716: related to the parameter.
1717: }
1718: \label{INTAB}
1719: \centering
1720: \begin{tabular}{|c|p{12.2cm}|c|c|}
1721: \hline
1722: -l & Minimum S/N ratio required to perform 2D final fitting and surface photometry. & & \ref{2DFIT},~\ref{SPHOT} \\
1723: \hline
1724: -x & Stamp sizes are proportional to the S-Extractor ISOAREA parameter. This parameter provides the proportionality factor. & $EXPND$ & ~\ref{stamps} \\
1725: \hline
1726: -z & Maximum size of the stamp images. This parameter can be used to prevent overly large stamp frames. & & ~\ref{stamps} \\
1727: \hline
1728: -i & Minimum S/N ratio required to define sure stars. & &\ref{catalog} \\
1729: \hline
1730: -f & Maximum S/N ratio required to define sure stars. & &\ref{catalog} \\
1731: \hline
1732: -j & Number of Moffat/Gaussian functions for 1D PSF fitting. & &\ref{SBPROF} \\
1733: \hline
1734: -m & Number of Moffat/Gaussian functions for 2D PSF fitting. & $NSMAX$ &\ref{PSF} \\
1735: \hline
1736: -g & Functions used in the 2D PSF fitting (0=Moffat, 1=Gaussian). & & \ref{PSF} \\
1737: \hline
1738: -t & Number of cos/sin terms used for the expansion of star isophotes in the 2D PSF fitting. & & \ref{PSF}\\
1739: \hline
1740: -d & Minimum S/N ratio to perform 2D fitting with expansion of the galaxy model into a cos/sin series. & & \ref{2DFIT} \\
1741: \hline
1742: -b & Label providing the cos terms used for the expansion of the galaxy model in 2D final fitting (e.g. -b 34 makes 2DPHOT calculate the $a_3$ and $a_4$ coefficients) & & ~\ref{2DFIT},~\ref{ISFIT} \\
1743: \hline
1744: -c & Label providing the sin terms used for the expansion of the galaxy model in 2D final fitting. & & ~\ref{2DFIT},~\ref{ISFIT} \\
1745: \hline
1746: -e & Minimum distance of an object to the image edges, in units of its FWHM. Objects that are closer to the edge this distance are not analyzed. & $REDGE$ & \ref{catalog} \\
1747: \hline
1748: -s & Maximum number of sure stars used in a cell to perform PSF modeling. & $NSIZE$ & \ref{PSF},~\ref{SBPROF} \\
1749: \hline
1750: -a & Flag that determines the 2D PSF fitting method. When equal to zero, this option forces all sure stars in a given cell to be fitted simultaneously. When equal to one, a single fit to each sure star is performed. & & \ref{PSF} \\
1751: \hline
1752: -n & Size (in pixels) of the grid cells where PSF modeling is performed. & & \ref{PSF} \\
1753: \hline
1754: -o & The user can choose to process only some objects in the image by providing a list of x and y coordinates on the image. This feature is enabled with -o 1. & & \ref{catalog} \\
1755: \hline
1756: \end{tabular}
1757: \end{table*}
1758:
1759:
1760: \section{Output quantities measured by 2DPHOT}~\label{OUTPAR}
1761: Table~\ref{OUTTAB} summarizes the output quantities measured by 2DPHOT.
1762: A short description of all quantities is provided, together with a
1763: reference to sections where the corresponding 2DPHOT tasks are
1764: described. The quantities measured by running S-Extractor are not
1765: included for brevity.
1766:
1767: \begin{table*}
1768: \footnotesize
1769: \caption{ Summary of 2DPHOT output quantities. Column 1:
1770: Quantity description. Column 2: Related sections in the text. }
1771: \label{OUTTAB}
1772: \centering
1773: %\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{0.4mm}
1774: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.5}
1775: \begin{tabular}{|p{12cm}|c|}
1776: \hline S-Extractor quantities. & \ref{catalog},~\ref{stamps} \\
1777: \hline Stellar locus quantities: stellar index vs. S/N ratio for S/G
1778: separation, mean and standard deviation values of the sure star locus. & \ref{catalog},~\ref{stamps},~\ref{SGCLAS}\\
1779: \hline PSF fitting parameters: central intensity, width, axis ratio,
1780: position angle, shape parameter (in the case of PSF fitting with
1781: Moffat functions), and cos/sin terms of each PSF fitting function;
1782: central coordinates and local background value of each sure star
1783: stamp; reduced $\chi^2$ of PSF fitting. These quantities are obtained
1784: for both the 2D and 1D fitting methods. & \ref{PSF},~\ref{SBPROF}\\
1785: \hline
1786: Coarse S\'{e}rsic parameters: center coordinates, central surface brightness,
1787: effective radius, axis ratio, position angle of the major axis, S\'{e}rsic
1788: index, total magnitude. & \ref{INI2DF}\\
1789: \hline
1790: Final 2D fitting parameters: center coordinates, central surface
1791: brightness, effective radius, axis ratio, position angle of the major
1792: axis, S\'{e}rsic index, total magnitude magnitude, local stamp background value,
1793: reduced $\chi^2$. & \ref{2DFIT}\\
1794: \hline
1795: Isophotal parameters. For each isophote, the following
1796: quantities are computed: center coordinates, equivalent radius,
1797: position angle of the major axis, coefficients of the sin/cos
1798: expansion. & \ref{SPHOT}\\
1799: \hline
1800: 1D S\'{e}rsic fitting parameters: central surface
1801: brightness, effective radius, S\'{e}rsic index, total magnitude,
1802: reduced $\chi^2$. & \ref{SBPROF}\\
1803: \hline
1804: Seeing corrected parameters: aperture magnitudes and surface brightness values
1805: corresponding to elliptical and circular contours, half-light radius
1806: and the corresponding mean surface brightness is also computed, petrosian
1807: function. & \ref{GROWTH}\\
1808: \hline
1809: Completeness function: percentage of recovered simulated stars and galaxies as
1810: a function of the S/N ratio and magnitude. & \ref{COMPLETENESS} \\
1811: \hline
1812: Contamination estimates: percentages of misclassified stars and galaxies as
1813: a function of the S/N ratio and magnitude. & \ref{SG_CONTAM} \\
1814: \hline
1815: \end{tabular}
1816: \end{table*}
1817:
1818: \noindent Acknowledgements
1819:
1820: We would like to thank Drs. Hugo Capelato, George Djorgovski and Scott
1821: Dodelson for careful reading of the paper and suggestions that helped
1822: improve the presentation. We also thank Drs. G. Busarello, C.P.
1823: Haines, P. Merluzzi, and M. Radovich for helpful comments and
1824: suggestions.
1825:
1826: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1827: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2007)]{Adelman:07} Adelman-McCarthy
1828: J. K. et al., 2007, submitted to The Astrophysical Journal
1829: Supplement Series
1830: \bibitem[Arnaboldi et al.(2007)]{Arn:07} Arnaboldi, M. et al.,
1831: Messenger No. 127, March 2007, pp.28-32
1832: \bibitem[Bender \& M\"ollenhoff (1987)]{Bender:87} Bender, R., \&
1833: M\"ollenhoff, C. 1987, A\&A 177, 71
1834: \bibitem[Bender et al.(1989)]{Bender:89} Bender, R. et al. 1989, A\&A
1835: 217, 35
1836: \bibitem[Bendinelli et al.(1982)]{Bendinelli:82} Bendinelli, O.,
1837: Parmeggiani, G., \& Zavatti, F. 1982 Ap\&SS, 83, 239
1838: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts (1996)]{BeA:96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts,
1839: S. 1996, A\&A 117, 393
1840: \bibitem[Gal et al.(2000)]{Gal:00} Gal, R.R., de Carvalho, R.R.,
1841: Brunner, R., Odewahn, S.C., \& Djorgovski, S.G. 2000, AJ 120, 540
1842: \bibitem[Gal et al.(2005)]{Gal:05} Gal, R.R., Lubin, L.M., \& Squires, G.K. 2005, AJ, 129, 1827
1843: \bibitem[J\o rgensen et al.(1995)]{Jorgensen:95} J\o rgensen, I., Franx,
1844: M., \& Kjaergaard, P. 1995, MNRAS 273, 1097
1845: \bibitem[Kelson et al.(2000)]{Kelson:00} Kelson, D., Illingworth, G.D., van Dokkum, P.G., \& Franx, M. 2000, ApJ 531, 184
1846: \bibitem[La Barbera et al.(2002)]{LaB:02} La Barbera, F., Busarello, G.,
1847: Merluzzi, P., Massarotti, M., \& Capaccioli, M., 2002, ApJ 571, 790
1848: \bibitem[La Barbera et al.(2005)]{LaB:05} La Barbera, F., de Carvalho,
1849: R.R., Gal, R.R., Busarello, G., Merluzzi, P., Capaccioli, M.,
1850: \& Djorgovski, S.G. 2005, ApJ, 626, 19
1851: \bibitem[Lopes et al.(2004)]{Lopes:04} Lopes, P.A.A., et al. 2004, AJ
1852: 128, 1017
1853: \bibitem[Sandage \& Perelmuter(1990)]{Sandage:90} Sandage, A. \&
1854: Perelmuter, J.M. 1990, ApJ 350, 481
1855: \bibitem[Shewchuk (1996)]{Shewchuk:96} Shewchuk, J. 1996, in Applied
1856: Computational Geometry, ed. M.C. Lin \& D.N. Manocha (Berlin:
1857: Springer), 203
1858: \bibitem[Soares-Santos et al.(2008)]{paper2:08} Soares-Santos, M., de Carvalho, R.R., La Barbera, F., Lopes, P., Kohl-Moreira, J.K., Gal, R.R., Capaccioli, M. 2007, ApJ {\it to be submitted}
1859: \bibitem[van Dokkum \& Franx(1996)]{vanDokkum:96} van Dokkum, P. G., \& Franx, M. 1996, MNRAS 281, 985
1860: \end{thebibliography}
1861:
1862:
1863: \end{document}
1864:
1865: %% End Of File
1866:
1867:
1868:
1869:
1870:
1871: %\section{Some applications of the 2DPHOT package}
1872: %In the present section we show three examples of star/galaxy
1873: %separation from the 2DPHOT package.
1874: %
1875: %The first case is the F1 simulated image of Tab.~1. Fig.~\ref{PARF1}
1876: %shows the ELLIPTICITY and FWHM parameters of simulated stellar images
1877: %which have been randomly added to the given field as described at
1878: %point iii) of the previous section. The blue points and the
1879: %corresponding error bars mark the peaks of each distribution in each
1880: %S/N bin. Fig.~\ref{STARSF1} shows the final star/galaxy separation for
1881: %the F1 field. Blue circles are the stars which have been selected from
1882: %the INI2DF parameters (steps i and ii of Section.~\ref{rules}) while
1883: %blue symbols mark the objects which have been selected as stars
1884: %through the last 2DPHOT step.
1885: %
1886: %The second case is a $8.6x8.6$~$arcmin^2$ image extracted from one of
1887: %the R band Deep Lens Survey (DLS) fields. The pixel scale of the
1888: %image is $0.257''/pxl$ with a seeing FWHM of $0.95''$.
1889: %
1890: %The third case is a $12.5x12.5$~$arcmin^2$ image around the cluster of
1891: %galaxies Abell~1445 coming from the Palomar Abell Cluster Survey. The
1892: %pixel scale of the image is $0.369''/pxl$ with a seeing FWHM of
1893: %$1.4''$.
1894: %\newpage
1895: %\begin{figure}[Top]
1896: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1897: %\psfig{figure=PARAMETERS_FWHM4_SFWHM0.06.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1898: %\caption[]{\footnotesize Ellipticity and FWHM parameters of simulated
1899: %stars in field F1 are plotted as a function of the S/N ratio (upper
1900: %and lower panels respectively). For each S/N bin, the peak and the
1901: %standard deviation of the FWHM and ELLIPTICITY parameters are marked
1902: %as blue symbols.
1903: %\label{PARF1}
1904: %}
1905: %\end{figure}
1906: %\begin{figure}[Top]
1907: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1908: %\psfig{figure=PARAMETERS_FWHM4_SFWHM0.03.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1909: %\caption[]{\footnotesize FWHM of all the objects in field F1 is
1910: % plotted vs. S/N ratio (upper panel) and S-Extractor auto magnitude
1911: % (lower panel). Candidate stars are marked as blue and red circles (
1912: % see text). \label{STARSF1} }
1913: %\end{figure}
1914: %\begin{figure}[Top]%
1915: %
1916: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1917: %\psfig{figure=STARS_FIN_F1.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1918: %\caption[]{\footnotesize
1919: %\label{FIN_F1}
1920: %}
1921: %\end{figure}
1922: %\begin{figure}[Top]%
1923: %
1924: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1925: %\psfig{figure=STARS_FIN_F2.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1926: %\caption[]{\footnotesize
1927: %\label{FIN_F2}
1928: %}
1929: %\end{figure}
1930: %\begin{figure}[Top]
1931: %
1932: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1933: %\psfig{figure=STARS_FIN_F3.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1934: %\caption[]{\footnotesize
1935: %\label{FIN_F3}
1936: %}
1937: %\end{figure}
1938: %
1939: %\begin{figure}[Top]
1940: %
1941: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1942: %\psfig{figure=STARS_FIN_DLS.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1943: %\caption[]{\footnotesize
1944: %\label{STARSDLS}
1945: %}
1946: %\end{figure}
1947: %
1948: %\begin{figure}[Top]
1949: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1950: %\psfig{figure=STARS_FIN_A1445_n168r.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1951: %\caption[]{\footnotesize
1952: %}
1953: %\end{figure}
1954: %
1955: %\begin{figure}[Top]
1956: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1957: %\psfig{figure=PLOT_SIM_STARS_cca1445_n168r.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1958: %\caption[]{\footnotesize
1959: %}
1960: %\end{figure}
1961: %
1962: %\begin{figure}[Top]
1963: %{ \hspace{1cm}
1964: %\psfig{figure=STARS_FIN_cca1445_n168r.ps,height=19cm,width=13cm}}
1965: %\caption[]{\footnotesize
1966: %}
1967: %\end{figure}
1968:
1969: