1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: % notes:
3: % ------
4: % - minimal capitalization in section headings.
5: % - ``uncertainty'' not ``error'' except when it really is an error.
6: % - units get macros and go inside math environments
7:
8: \usepackage{natbib}
9: \usepackage{ifthen}
10: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}
11: % \usepackage{subfig}
12: \usepackage{subfigure}
13: \newcounter{address}
14: \newcommand{\latin}[1]{\textit{#1}}
15: \newcommand{\ie}{\latin{ie}}
16: \newcommand{\eg}{\latin{eg}}
17: \newcommand{\cf}{\latin{cf}}
18: \newcommand{\etc}{\latin{etc}}
19: \newcommand{\etal}{\latin{et~al}}
20: \newlength{\threewidth}
21: \setlength{\threewidth}{0.333\textwidth}
22: \newlength{\threewidthshort}
23: \setlength{\threewidthshort}{0.300\textwidth}
24: \newlength{\twowidth}
25: \setlength{\twowidth}{0.499\textwidth}
26: \newlength{\twowidthshort}
27: \setlength{\twowidthshort}{0.45\textwidth}
28: \newlength{\twothreewidth}
29: \setlength{\twothreewidth}{0.666\textwidth}
30: \newlength{\onewidth}
31: \setlength{\onewidth}{1.0\textwidth}
32: \newcommand{\Tycho}{Tycho-2}
33: \newcommand{\USNOB}{USNO-B Catalog}
34: \newcommand{\an}{\textsl{Astrometry.net}}
35: \newcommand{\numtests}{47}
36: \newcommand{\numcleantests}{27}
37: \newcommand{\numnoisytests}{20}
38: \newcommand{\smallspace}{\hspace{5 mm}}
39: \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left|\left|#1\right|\right|}
40: \newcommand{\linespace}{\medskip \\}
41: \newcommand{\bd}{\textsl{Blind~Date}}
42: \newcommand{\dchiSq}{\frac{\mathrm{d}\chi^2}{\mathrm{d}t}}
43: \newcommand{\ddchiSq}{\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\chi^2}{\mathrm{d}t^2}}
44: \newcommand{\diag}{\mathrm{diag}}
45: \newcommand{\cutoff}{8}
46:
47: \newcommand{\examplecaptionA}{Mar-1914 / Nov-1917}
48: \newcommand{\examplecaptionB}{Mar-1947 / Nov-1945}
49: \newcommand{\examplecaptionC}{Feb-1949 / May-1951}
50: \newcommand{\examplecaptionD}{Feb-1914 / Jun-1910}
51: \newcommand{\examplecaptionE}{Mar-1914 / Nov-1916}
52: \newcommand{\examplecaptionF}{Jan-1975 / Jan-1800}
53:
54: \newcommand{\imagex}[1]{x_{#1}}
55: \newcommand{\imagey}[1]{y_{#1}}
56: \newcommand{\nextimagex}[1]{{\imagex{#1}}'}
57: \newcommand{\nextimagey}[1]{{\imagey{#1}}'}
58: \newcommand{\imagesigmax}[1]{\sigma_{x{#1}}}
59: \newcommand{\imagesigmay}[1]{\sigma_{y{#1}}}
60:
61: \newcommand{\catalogx}[1]{u_{#1}}
62: \newcommand{\catalogy}[1]{v_{#1}}
63: \newcommand{\catalogsigmax}[1]{ \sigma_{u{#1}} }
64: \newcommand{\catalogsigmay}[1]{ \sigma_{v{#1}} }
65:
66: \newcommand{\catalogra}[1]{\ra_{#1}}
67: \newcommand{\catalogdec}[1]{\dec_{#1}}
68: \newcommand{\catalogsigmara}[1]{\sigma_{\ra{#1}}}
69: \newcommand{\catalogsigmadec}[1]{\sigma_{\dec {#1}}}
70:
71: \newcommand{\catalogmura}[1]{\hat{\mu}_{\ra {#1}}}
72: \newcommand{\catalogmudec}[1]{\mu_{\dec {#1}}}
73: \newcommand{\catalogsigmamura}[1]{\hat{\sigma}_{\mu \ra {#1}}}
74: \newcommand{\catalogsigmamudec}[1]{\sigma_{\mu \dec {#1}}}
75:
76: \newcommand{\catalogmuraRAW}[1]{\mu_{\ra {#1}}}
77: \newcommand{\catalogsigmamuraRAW}[1]{\sigma_{\mu \ra {#1}}}
78: \newcommand{\tearlysym}{t_{\mathrm{early}}}
79: \newcommand{\tlatesym}{t_{\mathrm{late}}}
80: \newcommand{\tearly}{1955.0}
81: \newcommand{\tlate}{1990.0}
82: \newcommand{\epoch}{2000.0}
83:
84: \newcommand{\pairdE}{d}
85: \newcommand{\paird}[1]{\pairdE_{#1}}
86: \newcommand{\nextpaird}[1]{{\paird{#1}}'}
87: \newcommand{\pairsigmaE}{\bar{\sigma}}
88: \newcommand{\pairsigma}[1]{\pairsigmaE_{#1}}
89: \newcommand{\pairweight}[1]{w_{#1}}
90:
91: \newcommand{\imageresolution}{\theta_\mathrm{pix}}
92: \newcommand{\xytord}{WCS_{xy \rightarrow \mathrm{RD}}}
93: \newcommand{\rdtoxy}{WCS_{\mathrm{RD} \rightarrow xy}}
94: \newcommand{\ra}{\mathrm{RA}}
95: \newcommand{\dec}{\mathrm{Dec}}
96: \newcommand{\unitf}[1]{\mathrm{#1}}
97: \renewcommand{\arcsec}{\unitf{arcsec}}
98: \newcommand{\pix}{\unitf{pix}}
99: \newcommand{\yr}{\unitf{yr}}
100:
101: \begin{document}
102: \title{
103: \textsl{Blind Date:}\
104: Using proper motions to determine the ages of historical images
105: }
106:
107: \author{
108: Jonathan~T.~Barron\altaffilmark{\ref{Toronto},\ref{NYUCS}},
109: David~W.~Hogg\altaffilmark{\ref{NYUCCPP},\ref{email}},
110: Dustin~Lang\altaffilmark{\ref{Toronto}},
111: Sam~Roweis\altaffilmark{\ref{Toronto},\ref{Google}}
112: }
113:
114: \setcounter{address}{1}
115: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{Toronto}
116: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 6 King's
117: College Road, Toronto, Ontario, M5S~3G4 Canada}
118: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{NYUCS}
119: Department of Computer Science, The Courant Institute of Mathematical
120: Sciences, New York University, 715 Broadway, New York, NY 10003}
121: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{NYUCCPP} Center
122: for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York
123: University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003}
124: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{email} To whom
125: correspondence should be addressed: \texttt{david.hogg@nyu.edu}}
126: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{Google} Google Inc,
127: Mountain View, CA}
128:
129: \begin{abstract}
130: Astrometric calibration is based on patterns of cataloged stars and
131: therefore effectively assumes a particular epoch, which can be
132: substantially incorrect for historical images. With the known proper
133: motions of stars we can ``run back the clock'' to an approximation of
134: the night sky in any given year, and in principle the year that best
135: fits stellar patterns in any given image is an estimate of the year in
136: which that image was taken. In this paper we use 47 scanned
137: photographic images of M44 spanning years 1910--1975 to demonstrate
138: this technique. We use only the pixel information in the images; we
139: use no prior information or meta-data about image pointing, scale,
140: orientation, or date. \bd\ returns date meta-data for the input
141: images. It also improves the astrometric calibration of the image
142: because the final astrometric calibration is performed at the
143: appropriate epoch. The accuracy and reliability of \bd\ are functions
144: of image size, pointing, angular resolution, and depth; performance is
145: related to the sum of proper-motion signal-to-noise ratios for catalog
146: stars measured in the input image. All of the science-quality images
147: and $85$~percent of the low-quality images in our sample of
148: photographic plate images of M44 have their dates reliably determined
149: to within a decade, many to within months.
150: \end{abstract}
151:
152: \keywords{
153: astrometry ---
154: catalogs ---
155: methods:~statistical ---
156: stars:~kinematics ---
157: techniques:~image~processing ---
158: time
159: }
160:
161: \section{Introduction}
162:
163: Astronomy needs well calibrated data to make precise measurements, but also
164: wants to make use of large data sources that are poorly calibrated. Unreliable
165: data sets such as historical archives, amateurs collections, and engineering
166: data contain important information, especially in the time domain. Astronomy
167: needs methods by which data of unknown provenance, quality, and calibration
168: can be vetted, calibrated, and made reliably useable by the community.
169:
170: There is an enormous amount of information about proper motions,
171: stellar and AGN variability, transients, and Solar System bodies in
172: historical plate archives and the collections of good amateur
173: astronomers. The Harvard College Observatory Astronomical Plate
174: Stacks\footnote{http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/plates/} alone contain
175: enough photographic exposures to cover the entire sky 500 times over,
176: and span many decades with good coverage and imaging depth. However,
177: in many cases, it is challenging to use those images
178: quantitatively. Often the details of observing date, telescope
179: pointing, bandpass, and exposure time are lost because the logs have
180: been lost, because the information was written incorrectly or
181: illegibly, or because it is difficult or expensive to associate each
182: image with the appropriate record in the log.
183:
184: The astronomical world is moving towards the development of a Virtual
185: Observatory, in which a heterogeneous set of data providers
186: communicate with researchers and the public through open data-sharing
187: protocols\footnote{http://www.ivoa.net/}. These protocols can be
188: easily spoofed---intentionally and unintentionally---and permit the
189: dissemination of badly calibrated, erroneous, or untrustworthy
190: data\footnote{http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/IVOArch/IVOArch-20040615.html}. Indeed,
191: the lack of a ``trust'' model may compromise the VO's goals of making
192: it easy for astronomers to discover and use wide varieties of input
193: data; without trust, all the time that saved in searching and using
194: has to be spent in verification and tracking of provenance.
195:
196: Amateur astronomers and educators at college/planetarium observatories are, in
197: many cases, well equipped and can take science-quality observations,
198: especially for time-domain science. In addition, most of these astronomers are
199: interested in contributing to research astronomy. However, it is challenging
200: at present for these potential data providers to provide their data to the
201: community in a form that is trivially useable by the research community. These
202: observers need automated systems to calibrate their data and hardware and to
203: package the data and meta-data in standards-compliant forms. Even professional
204: observatories often produce data with incorrect or standards-violating
205: meta-data because of telescope faults, software bugs, or the youth of most
206: standards and conventions for digital data formats.
207:
208: We have begun a large project (\an) to vet, restore, determine, and package in
209: standards-compliant form the calibration meta-data for astronomical images for
210: which such information is lost, damaged, or unreliable \citep{lang08a}. Our
211: system can astrometrically calibrate an image (that is, determine the world
212: coordinate system) using the information in the image pixels alone. It starts
213: by identifying asterisms that determine astrometric calibration. Once the
214: astrometry is correct, the sources in the image can be identified with
215: catalogs and other calibration meta-data can be inferred through quantitative
216: image analysis. In the process of testing and running this calibration system,
217: we have indeed confirmed that many historical and amateur images---and even
218: some scientific images from modern professional facilities---have missing or
219: incorrect astrometric meta-data; automated calibration, as a vetting step at
220: the very least, is essential for all data sources.
221:
222: For the same reason that the time domain is interesting, it can also be used
223: to calibrate the \emph{date} at which an image was taken. Stars are moving and
224: varying, so the particular configuration and relative brightnesses of the
225: stars in an image provide, in principle, a measure of the time at which the
226: image was taken. Here we show that stellar motions catalogued at the present
227: day can be used to age-date plates from a plate archive to within a few years,
228: even for very old plates. This new capability takes the \an\ project a small
229: step closer to being a comprehensive image meta-data vetting and automated
230: calibration system.
231:
232: \section{Input data}
233:
234: The larger goal of our project is to add calibration meta-data to data of
235: unknown provenance. For this reason, the system begins truly ``blind'' in the
236: sense that we ignore all meta-data associated with each input image, and start
237: with only the image pixels themselves. We calibrate the images using the \an\
238: astrometric system; this calibration provides output that is taken as input
239: data for the \bd\ analysis.
240:
241: For each automatically detected star $i$ in the image, there is a centroid
242: $(\imagex{i}, \imagey{i})$ in the input image measured in pixels. For each
243: source, this centroid is the location of the maximum of a second-order
244: polynomial (generalized parabolic) surface fit to the area immediately
245: surrounding the center of the image star. The fit also provides uncertainties
246: $(\imagesigmax{i}, \imagesigmay{i})$ in these centroids. For unsaturated stars
247: these are taken (arbitrarily) to be one pixel, and for saturated stars (which
248: are common in the digitized plate data) these are taken to be one-third of the
249: radius of the saturated region. These are over-estimates, since the stars
250: are detected at good signal-to-noise, but this is
251: conservative; furthermore, in the case of saturated stars, it is possible for
252: the saturated ``disk'' to be non-concentric with the true centroid.
253:
254: The system also provides a rough world coordinate system (WCS) for the
255: image; that is, first guesses at two functions: $\xytord(x,y)$, which
256: transforms points from the image plane in pixels into celestial
257: coordinates in angular units, and $\rdtoxy(\ra,\dec)$, the inverse. A
258: derived quantity from these functions is the pixel scale
259: $\imageresolution$, measured in angle per pixel, which we will use
260: below. Strictly $\imageresolution$ is a function of position in the
261: image, but in typical science images it does not vary substantially.
262:
263: The WCS effectively identifies the sources from the \USNOB\ \citep{monet03a}
264: that are in or likely to be in the image. For each catalog ``star'' $j$ (the
265: \USNOB\ contains both stars and compact galaxies) inside the image, the
266: catalog contains a J2000 celestial position $(\catalogra{j}, \catalogdec{j})$
267: on the celestial sphere (extrapolated to epoch $\epoch$) measured in angular
268: units, an uncertainty $(\catalogsigmara{j}, \catalogsigmadec{j})$ in that
269: position, a proper motion $(\catalogmuraRAW{j}, \catalogmudec{j})$ measured in
270: angle per time, and an uncertainty
271: $(\catalogsigmamuraRAW{j},\catalogsigmamudec{j})$ in that proper motion.
272:
273: The \USNOB\ uncertainties required some processing and adjustment. For the
274: sake of clarity and simplicity, we make as few assumptions as possible in
275: transforming the uncertainties. Our approach here is not intended to be
276: definitive. Many of these entries in the catalog have values of zero for the
277: uncertainty of position or proper motion. In the case of zero-valued
278: uncertainty in position, we assume that the uncertainty is below the precision
279: of $0.002\,\arcsec$ at which the catalog was reported. We therefore set all
280: zero-valued position uncertainties to one-half of the precision
281: ($0.001\,\arcsec$). For entries with zero-valued uncertainty in proper motion,
282: there is more we need to consider; a nonzero-valued proper motion paired with
283: a zero-valued uncertainty indicates that the uncertainty is below the
284: precision of the catalog, and therefore should be set to half of the
285: precision. A zero-valued proper motion paired with a zero-valued uncertainty
286: indicates that the proper motion of the entry could not be measured accurately
287: (Dave Monet, private communication). We therefore set the uncertainty in the
288: proper motion for such entries to three times the median value of nonzero
289: proper motion uncertainties. This captures the idea that, generally speaking,
290: we are significantly more uncertain about the proper motion of such entries
291: than we are most other entries. A more principled approach could certainly be
292: attempted but we found that this worked well enough for our purposes.
293:
294: Much work has already been done by the \an\ team to identify spurious sources
295: in the \USNOB\ that appear to have been created by diffraction spikes and
296: reflection halos \citep{barron08a}. For the purposes of this project, we
297: ignore the entries in the catalog which have been flagged as spurious. Testing
298: has shown that ignoring these sources generally improves the accuracy of our
299: results.
300:
301: Using a technique that will be described in a future paper from the
302: \an\ team, we are able to estimate the bandpass of each image being
303: processed, in that we determine which bandpass of the \USNOB\ most
304: closely predicts the brightness ordering of the stars in the
305: image. Though this technique is still in an experimental stage, its
306: results are not very controversial; all of Harvard's images of M44
307: appear to best match the blue bands ($O$ and $J$ emulsions) of the
308: \USNOB. This finding is reinforced through experimentation with
309: manually setting each image's band: On average, \bd\ performs better
310: on these images using the $J$ emulsion of the Catalog
311: than on any other band.
312:
313: Assuming that we have estimated the bandpass correctly, the $N$ stars in the
314: image should correspond---roughly---to the $N$ brightest catalog stars that
315: lie within the area of the image. For that reason, we use only the $N$
316: brightest catalog stars in what follows.
317:
318: \section{Method}
319:
320: We use the \USNOB\ positions and proper motions to ``wind'' the $N$ catalog
321: stars backwards and forward through time along the celestial sphere. Once the
322: catalog has been adjusted, we can use the image WCS to project the catalog
323: entries onto the image plane, making a synthetic catalog for that image at
324: that time, in image coordinates. We then attempt to fit the image stars to
325: that synthetic image of the moved catalog stars. We choose a freedom with
326: which the image star positions are allowed to warp to fit the catalog star
327: positions, and a scalar objective function that is minimized when the
328: positions are ``best'' warped. We warp the input image to the catalog
329: ``wound'' to different times, and use the best-fit values of the objective
330: function to determine the year at which the image was taken.
331:
332: \subsection{Winding back the catalog}
333:
334: We estimate the celestial coordinates of catalog star $j$ at the arbitrary
335: date $t$, and then project them onto the image plane
336: \begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle
337: \left( \catalogx{j}, \catalogy{j} \right) & = &
338: \rdtoxy \left(
339: \catalogra{j} - \catalogmura{j} [t-(\epoch\,\yr)]
340: ,
341: \catalogdec{j} - \catalogmudec{j} [t-(\epoch\,\yr)]
342: \right)
343: \quad ,
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: where we have adjusted the $\catalogmuraRAW{j}$ proper motion vector
346: components and their associated uncertainties into coordinate derivatives
347: $\catalogmura{j}$ by
348: \begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle
349: \catalogmura{j} & = & \mathrm{cos}(\catalogdec{j})\,\catalogmuraRAW{j}
350: \nonumber \\
351: \catalogsigmamura{j} & = & \mathrm{cos}(\catalogdec{j})\,\catalogsigmamuraRAW{j}
352: \quad .
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: We estimate the uncertainty of the location of catalog star $j$ at year $t$ on
355: the image plane with
356: \begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle
357: \catalogsigmax{j}
358: & = &
359: \frac{1}{\imageresolution}\,\sqrt{\catalogsigmara{j}^{2} + ( \max\left( | t - \tearlysym |, | t - \tlatesym | \right)\,\catalogsigmamura{j} )^{2}}
360: \nonumber \\
361: \catalogsigmay{j}
362: & = &
363: \frac{1}{\imageresolution} \sqrt{\catalogsigmadec{j}^{2} + ( \max\left( | t - \tearlysym |, | t - \tlatesym | \right)\,\catalogsigmamudec{j} )^{2}}
364: \label{eq:uncertainty}
365: \end{eqnarray}
366: where $\tearlysym$ and $\tlatesym$ are the dates at which the \USNOB\ source
367: imagery were taken, which in this patch of the sky are \tearly\ and \tlate,
368: respectively. All positions in the Catalog, however, were extrapolated to the
369: year $\epoch$ (epoch and equinox). This means that though we are given each
370: catalog star's location at the year $\epoch$, we know that each star's
371: measured location is, in general, more accurate between the two epochs in
372: which the images were taken, and less accurate at years further from that
373: range. This means that when ``winding'' locations through time, we look at the
374: difference between $t$ and the year $\epoch$; when ``winding'' uncertainties
375: through time, we look at the maximum distance between $t$ and both
376: $\tearlysym$ and $\tlatesym$. This is equivalent to using
377: $(\tearlysym + \tlatesym)/2$ as our reference year, and assuming a non-zero
378: uncertainty on the measurement of each star's proper motion at that reference
379: year.
380:
381: Note that in our notation for $(\catalogx{j}, \catalogy{j})$ and
382: $(\catalogsigmax{j}, \catalogsigmay{j})$, we do not reference $t$. This is
383: because once the catalog has been wound through time and projected onto the
384: image plane, we consider time to be fixed. Note that in Sections
385: \ref{sec:objectiveSection} and \ref{sec:fittingSection}, time will remain
386: fixed, and therefore $t$ is not mentioned in any of the notation except for in
387: $\chi^2(t)$.
388:
389: \subsection{Objective function}
390: \label{sec:objectiveSection}
391:
392: Determination of the image coordinate system and date involves finding
393: parameters---astrometric parameters and the date---that optimize an objective
394: function. The choice of this objective is therefore the fundamental scientific
395: choice in the project.
396:
397: We seek an objective function that has the following properties, listed in
398: rough order of priority: The function must decrease as image-coordinate
399: distances between catalog and image stars decrease. The function must be
400: insensitive to anomalous outliers, and more sensitive to well-measured stars
401: than to poorly-measured stars. The function must be some approximation to a
402: likelihood or have some equivalent justification so that changes in the
403: function with respect to parameters can be interpreted in terms of
404: uncertainties in those parameters. The function ought to be differentiable and
405: second-differentiable with respect to all fit parameters (in particular time
406: and astrometric calibration). The function should be easily optimized. We have
407: identified an objective function that has all of these properties; it is so
408: similar to the least-square function that we call it a ``modified
409: chi-squared'' and denote it ``$\chi^2$''.
410:
411: For all $i = 1:N$ and $j = 1:N$ we compute $\paird{ij}$, the Euclidian
412: distance between image star $i$ and catalog stars $j$ in the image plane.
413: \begin{equation} \paird{ij} = \sqrt{ \left( \catalogx{j} - \imagex{i}
414: \right)^2 + \left( \catalogy{j} - \imagey{i} \right)^2 } \end{equation}
415:
416: We also estimate the uncertainty $\pairsigma{ij}$ of each pair's distance
417: measurement, using the previously defined values for
418: $(\imagesigmax{i}, \imagesigmay{i})$ and
419: $(\catalogsigmax{j}, \catalogsigmay{j})$. We calculate
420: the combined uncertainty for the pair in $x$ and $y$ at time $t$, and then
421: simply take the mean as an estimation of the uncertainty of that pair:
422:
423: \begin{equation}
424: \pairsigma{ij} =
425: \frac{1}{2}\,\left(\sqrt{ \imagesigmax{i}^2 + \catalogsigmax{j}^2}
426: + \sqrt{ \imagesigmay{i}^2 + \catalogsigmay{j}^2}\right)
427: \end{equation}
428: We define a weighting function for each pair that returns a value between 0
429: and 1 based on the ratio of the distance of a pair to the uncertainty of that
430: pair:
431: \begin{equation}
432: W(\pairdE, \pairsigmaE) = \frac{1}{1+\left(\frac{\pairdE}{\pairsigmaE}\right)^2}
433: \end{equation}
434: (see also Figure~\ref{fig:weightCurve}).
435: This function has the property that outliers are down-weighed in a smooth
436: manner; it causes the influence of a image--catalog pair to smoothly drop to
437: zero at large displacement. This permits us to avoid the
438: discontinuous optimization problem of sigma clipping, which is the standard
439: ``robust estimation'' technique in common use in astronomy applications. The
440: weighting function has a number of properties which make it well-suited to our
441: purpose:
442: \begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle
443: W(0, \pairsigmaE) & = & 1
444: \label{eqn:wnearzero} \\
445: \left.\frac{\mathrm{d}W}{\mathrm{d}\pairdE}(\pairdE, \pairsigmaE)\right|_{d=0} & = & 0
446: \label{eqn:dwnearzero} \\
447: \lim_{(\pairdE/\pairsigmaE)\rightarrow\infty} W(\pairdE, \pairsigmaE)\left(\frac{\pairdE}{\pairsigmaE}\right)^2 & = & 1
448: \label{eqn:wbig}
449: \end{eqnarray}
450:
451: \begin{figure}[t]
452:
453: \centering
454: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f1a.eps}}
455: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f1b.eps}}
456:
457: \caption{On the left, the weighting function versus a pair's ratio of
458: distance to uncertainty. On the right, the corresponding weighted
459: contribution of a pair to the modified chi-squared. The dotted line
460: indicates the point at which we assume that the weighted contribution
461: stops changing.
462: \label{fig:weightCurve}}
463: \end{figure}
464:
465: We use this weighting function to assign a weight $\pairweight{ij}$ to all
466: pairs as follows:
467: \begin{equation}
468: \pairweight{ij} = W \left(\paird{ij}, \pairsigma{ij} \right)
469: \end{equation}
470: Our final objective function is:
471: \begin{equation}
472: \displaystyle \chi^2(t) =
473: \sum_{ij} \pairweight{ij}\,\left(\frac{\paird{ij}}{\pairsigma{ij}}\right)^2
474: \end{equation}
475: where the sum is over all possible image--catalog pairs.
476:
477: For ``good'' (small-separation) image--catalog pairs, the weight function is
478: near unity (equation \ref{eqn:wnearzero}) and has near-zero derivatives
479: (equation \ref{eqn:dwnearzero}), so small changes in separation do not enter
480: strongly into derivatives of the objective function. For ``bad''
481: (large-separation) image--catalog pairs, the pair's contribution to
482: $\chi^2(t)$ is nearly constant (equation \ref{eqn:wbig}). This makes
483: optimization and interpretation of our objective function very like
484: optimization and interpretation of a chi-squared fitting system. This weighted
485: chi-squared objective function could also be interpreted as a Geman-McLure
486: error function, In this framework, optimizing the objective function is
487: equivalent to robust M-estimation \citep{hampel86}.
488:
489: In constructing the modified chi-squared, we use---in principle---all
490: image--catalog pairs, irrespective of their separation in image coordinates.
491: The fact that the contribution of a pair to the objective function quickly
492: converges to $1$ as the pair becomes highly separated allows us---in
493: practice---to ignore all highly separated pairs. We therefore choose to
494: approximate the contributions of all pairs where
495: $\pairdE > \cutoff\,\pairsigmaE$ as
496: $W(\cutoff\,\pairsigmaE, \pairsigmaE) \left( \frac{8\pairsigmaE}{\pairsigmaE} \right)^2 $,
497: which is $64/65$. This dramatically speeds up our computation.
498:
499: \subsection{Fitting the image}
500: \label{sec:fittingSection}
501:
502: At this point, we have our image stars on the image plane, our catalog stars
503: (wound to the time of interest) projected onto the image plane, and an
504: objective function that we wish to minimize. We need to find the
505: transformation that we can apply to the image that minimizes the objective
506: function, which we take to be the transformation that best ``fits'' the image
507: to the catalog.
508:
509: Testing has suggested that the initial location of the image returned by the
510: \an\ solver is close enough to the optimal location that locally minimizing
511: the objective function is sufficient for finding the global minimum, and that
512: we generally do not run the risk of falling into a false local minimum.
513: Therefore, we only present our method for locally minimizing the optimal
514: function through iteratively reweighted least-squares (IRLS). We experimented
515: with techniques such as RANSAC to fit images to the catalog in the face of
516: extreme noise, but no technique was more effective and robust than our IRLS
517: method.
518:
519: Let us first construct a solution to a simplified version of this problem, in
520: which we know which correspondences are true: We assume that image point $i$
521: corresponds to catalog point $i$ for all $i \in \{ 1, 2, ..., N \} $. Assuming
522: that we are interested in solving for an affine transformation (first-order
523: linear transformation plus shift), this means that we need to find the
524: transformation matrix that best satisfies the following equations:
525: \begin{equation}
526: \underset{i \in \{ 1, 2, ..., N \} }{\forall} \,
527: \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
528: m_x & m_y & t_x \\
529: n_x & n_y & t_y
530: \end{array} \right]
531: \left[\begin{array}{c}
532: \imagex{i} \\
533: \imagey{i} \\
534: 1
535: \end{array} \right]
536: =
537: \left[\begin{array}{c}
538: \catalogx{i} \\
539: \catalogy{i}
540: \end{array} \right]
541: \end{equation}
542:
543: This can be generalized straightforwardly for higher order transformations.
544:
545: The transformation that best satisfies these equations can be found using a
546: standard least-squares solver. We can then use this transformation to warp all
547: of the image points onto the catalog points (and vice-versa), thus solving our
548: simplified problem.
549:
550: Of course, since we do not know which image stars correspond to which catalog
551: stars, we must include equations for all image--catalog pairs. We are not
552: interested in the solution to this problem, as it would describe a
553: transformation from \emph{every} image star to \emph{every} catalog star. To
554: specify a transformation that satisfies \emph{likely} image--catalog
555: correspondences, we must use our weighting function to make soft assignments
556: regarding correspondences. We therefore use the following equations:
557: \begin{equation}
558: \underset{i \in \{1, 2, ..., N \} }{\forall} \,\,\,
559: \underset{j \in \{1, 2, ..., N \} }{\forall} \,
560: \left[\begin{array}{cc}
561: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij}} & 0 \\
562: 0 & \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij}}
563: \end{array} \right]
564: \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
565: m_x & m_y & t_x \\
566: n_x & n_y & t_y
567: \end{array} \right]
568: \left[\begin{array}{c}
569: \imagex{i} \\
570: \imagey{i} \\
571: 1
572: \end{array} \right]
573: =
574: \left[\begin{array}{cc}
575: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij}} & 0 \\
576: 0 & \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij}}
577: \end{array} \right]
578: \left[\begin{array}{c}
579: \catalogx{j} \\
580: \catalogy{j}
581: \end{array} \right]
582: \end{equation}
583:
584: We begin our solution by constructing a linear system which contains all of
585: the previously described (unweighted) equations.
586: \begin{equation}
587: \left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
588: \imagex{1} & \imagey{1} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
589: 0 & 0 & 0 & \imagex{1} & \imagey{1} & 1\\
590: \imagex{1} & \imagey{1} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
591: 0 & 0 & 0 & \imagex{1} & \imagey{1} & 1\\
592: & & \ldots \\
593: \imagex{N} & \imagey{N} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
594: 0 & 0 & 0 & \imagex{N} & \imagey{N} & 1\\
595: \imagex{N} & \imagey{N} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
596: 0 & 0 & 0 & \imagex{N} & \imagey{N} & 1
597: \end{array} \right]
598: \left[\begin{array}{c}
599: m_x \\
600: m_y \\
601: t_x \\
602: n_x \\
603: n_y \\
604: t_y
605: \end{array} \right]
606: =
607: \left[\begin{array}{c}
608: \catalogx{1} \\
609: \catalogy{1} \\
610: \catalogx{2} \\
611: \catalogy{2} \\
612: \ldots \\
613: \catalogx{N-1} \\
614: \catalogy{N-1} \\
615: \catalogx{N} \\
616: \catalogy{N}
617: \end{array} \right]
618: \end{equation}
619:
620: We can write this matrix equation as:
621: \begin{equation}
622: \mathbf{Ax} = \mathbf{b}
623: \end{equation}
624:
625: To introduce the weight values described in the equations, we construct our
626: weight matrix $ \mathbf{W} $, as follows:
627: \begin{equation}
628: \mathbf{W} = \diag
629: \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
630: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{1,1}}}{\pairsigma{1,1}},
631: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{1,1}}}{\pairsigma{1,1}},
632: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{1,2}}}{\pairsigma{1,2}},
633: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{1,2}}}{\pairsigma{1,2}},
634: \ldots,
635: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{N,N}}}{\pairsigma{N,N}},
636: \frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{N,N}}}{\pairsigma{N,N}}
637: \end{array} \right)
638: \end{equation}
639:
640: Our final matrix equation can then be written as:
641: \begin{equation}
642: \mathbf{WAx} = \mathbf{Wb}
643: \end{equation}
644: We then find $\mathbf{x}$ such that the squared residuals,
645: $\mathbf{ (WAx-Wb)^T (WAx-Wb) }$,
646: are minimized. By construction, $\mathbf{x}$ describes the transformation that
647: best satisfies all of the equations we previously constructed, and can be
648: found using a standard least-squares solver.
649:
650: Using the transformation defined by $\mathbf{x}$ we can calculate the
651: coordinates of our warped image points.
652: \begin{eqnarray}
653: \displaystyle
654: {\imagex{i}}' & = & m_x \imagex{i} + m_y \imagey{i} + t_x \nonumber \\
655: {\imagey{i}}' & = & n_x \imagex{i} + n_y \imagey{i} + t_y
656: \end{eqnarray}
657:
658: Unlike the simplified version of this problem, the warp found after one
659: iteration is not our final solution. As we warp the image, the distances and
660: weights between the image and catalog points change, and so our objective
661: function is no longer minimized. The solution is to repeatedly recalculate our
662: $\paird{ij}$ and $\pairweight{ij}$ values and our weighted least squares
663: transformation. We perform this iteratively reweighted least-squares operation
664: until the resulting transformations stop changing, which by construction is
665: also when our objective function stops changing. The solution which we
666: converge upon is returned as the best fit of the image onto the catalog.
667:
668: The IRLS method minimizes the objective function, as it was constructed such
669: that the objective function is equal to the sum of the squares of the weighted
670: residuals of the matrix equation.
671: \begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle
672: \mathbf{ (WAx-Wb)^T (WAx-Wb) } & = & \mathbf{ (W(Ax-b))^T (W(Ax-b)) } \nonumber \\
673: & = & \sum_{ij}
674: \left(\frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij} }
675: \left( \catalogx{j} - \nextimagex{i} \right) \right)^2 +
676: \left(\frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij} }
677: \left( \catalogy{j} - \nextimagey{i} \right) \right)^2 \nonumber \\
678: & = & \sum_{ij} \left(\frac{\sqrt{\pairweight{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij}} \nextpaird{ij} \right)^2 \nonumber \\
679: & = & \sum_{ij} \pairweight{ij} \left(\frac{{\nextpaird{ij}}}{\pairsigma{ij}}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
680: & \approx & \chi^2(t)
681: \end{eqnarray}
682:
683: We say that the residuals only \emph{approximate} the optimal function because
684: we use the weights of the previous transformed image ($\pairweight{ij}$) and
685: the distances of the next warped transformed image ($\nextpaird{ij}$). Though
686: this may seem strange, once the IRLS has converged on a solution and the
687: optimal function has stopped changing, the distances in one iteration are
688: effectively equal to the distances in the following iteration.
689:
690: For numerical stability we always use the initial coordinates when
691: constructing our transformation, and only return the final warped image
692: coordinates. The intermediate warped image coordinates are only used for
693: calculating distances and weights. This means that our final image coordinates
694: have only been subjected to one transformation, as opposed to many small
695: transformations.
696:
697: See Figure~\ref{fig:fitExamples} for some examples of fit and unfit images
698: against correct and incorrect catalog dates.
699:
700: \subsection{Estimating the date}
701: \label{sec:searchSection}
702:
703: Now that we have defined a method for fitting an image to the catalog, and a
704: metric by which we can assess the degree to which an image can be fit to the
705: catalog, we can use a number of techniques to estimate the year in which the
706: image can best be fit to the catalog. We take that year to be the year in
707: which the image was created.
708:
709: This problem can be phrased as such: an image has some unknown chi-squared
710: curve $\chi^2(t)$, of which we wish to find the year $t_0$, the theoretical
711: optimal year such that: \begin{equation} t_0 = \underset{t}{\arg\min} \,
712: \chi^2(t) \end{equation}
713:
714: In the algorithm we will describe, finding $t_0$ is not computationally
715: feasible, so we must settle on finding a reasonable approximation of the
716: minimum $t^*$, such that given an accuracy threshold $\delta_\chi$ we are
717: confident that:
718: \begin{equation}
719: \norm{\chi^2(t_0)-\chi^2(t^*)} \leq \delta_\chi
720: \end{equation}
721:
722: Once we have found $t^*$ and therefore $\chi^2(t^*)$, we also wish to find the
723: extents of our uncertainty region, $(t^*_-, t^*_+)$, such that:
724: \begin{equation}
725: \begin{array}{c}
726: t^*_- < t^* < t^*_+ \linespace
727: \chi^2(t^*_-) = \chi^2(t^*)+1 = \chi^2(t^*_+) \linespace
728: \underset{t \in [t^*_-,t^*_+]}{\forall} {\, \chi^2(t) \leq \chi^2(t^*)+1 }
729: \end{array}
730: \end{equation}
731:
732: Ideally, we want to find all of these values as accurately as possible while
733: sampling the $\chi^2$ curve as few times as possible. There are a number of
734: methods by which we can accomplish this task, each with different tradeoffs
735: concerning efficiency and assumptions about the shape of the curve.
736:
737: The simplest method for estimating the origin date is through brute force. We
738: sample our $\chi^2$ curve at regular intervals, and take the year in which our
739: objective function scored the lowest as $t^*$. We then linearly interpolate
740: along the curve to find the extents of the uncertainty region. This method is
741: terribly inefficient and assumes nothing about the shape of the curve, so we
742: only use it as an approximate ground truth to which we will compare our final
743: algorithm.
744:
745: Our search algorithm begins with first sampling our $\chi^2$ curve at a very
746: broad, regular interval. Though only one initial sample is required, for the
747: figures shown in this paper we sample the curve at $1900$, $1950$, and $2000$.
748: We take the sampled year with the lowest $\chi^2$ score to be $t_n$, and we
749: then iteratively refine $t_n$ into $t_{n+1}$ until we believe that we have
750: found $t^*$.
751:
752: Our objective function was constructed such that we could efficiently
753: calculate $\dchiSq(t)$ and $\ddchiSq(t)$. The equations for these analytical
754: derivatives are elaborate, so we do not present them here. Since $\chi^2(t^*)$
755: is a minimum in the $\chi^2$ curve, we can assume that $\dchiSq(t^*)=0$. We
756: can therefore use Newton's method to find $t_{n+1}$:
757: \begin{equation}
758: t_{n+1} = t_n - \frac{\dchiSq(t_n)}{\ddchiSq(t_n)}
759: \end{equation}
760:
761: We iteratively evaluate $t_{n+1}$ until
762: $\norm{\chi^2(t_{n+1})-\chi^2(t_n)} \leq \delta_\chi$
763: holds for two consecutive iterations, at which point we take $t_{n+1}$ as
764: $t^*$. Since Newton's method generally converges quadratically, this is an
765: extremely fast process.\footnote{Of course since $\chi^2(t)$ is not globally
766: quadratic, Newton's method is not guaranteed to converge from any
767: starting point. To improve numerical conditioning and ensure that
768: the search remains well-behaved in the face of somewhat
769: irregular $\chi^2$ curves, we require that $\ddchiSq(t_n)\ge\epsilon$,
770: where $1+\epsilon$ is the smallest representable number $>1$ on our machine
771: and we require that $| t_{n+1} - t_n | < 25$ years.
772: Additionally, if Newton's method appears to be diverging or failing to
773: converge, we find $t_{n+1}$ using a binary-search approach in which we sample
774: the midpoint of the area in which the minimum appears to lie. This collection
775: of restrictions effectively amounts intelligent gradient descent, which we
776: switch to when Newton's method cannot be performed. This fallback system is
777: rarely required, but does sometimes prevent oscillation and search failure.}
778:
779: Once we have found $t^*$, we can locate $t^*_-$ and $t^*_+$. We use our
780: modified Newton's method with these new goals:
781: \begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle
782: \chi^2(t^*_+) = \chi^2(t^*)+1 \nonumber \\
783: \chi^2(t^*_-) = \chi^2(t^*)+1
784: \end{eqnarray}
785: This uncertainty region would be the true one-sigma uncertainty region in the
786: limit that the modified chi-squared were the standard linear-fitting
787: chi-squared. Because of the weighting function, in practice this criterion
788: over-estimates the one-sigma uncertainty.
789:
790: We can perform root-finding on these equations using the following formula for
791: iteration:
792: \begin{equation}
793: t_{n+1} = t_n - \frac{\chi^2(t_n) - \left( \chi^2(t^*)+1 \right)}{\dchiSq(t_n)}
794: \end{equation}
795:
796: We begin our two new searches with a sensible initial estimate of the bounds
797: of the uncertainty region, based on our present knowledge of the $\chi^2$
798: curve. These searches operate under all of the constraints under which the
799: previously detailed search operated, and also converges when
800: $\norm{\chi^2(t_{n+1})-\chi^2(t_{n})} \leq \delta_\chi$ holds for two
801: consecutive iterations.
802:
803: Additionally, we can speed up the total search process by using the
804: transformed image points from the previous iteration to find the new
805: transformation for the next iteration. This heuristic means that as the search
806: converges on a final result, the amount of time required to query new years is
807: dramatically reduced. Also, it becomes easier to visualize the search
808: algorithm as a single bidirectional fitting process, in which we repeatedly
809: fit the image to the catalog and the catalog to the image until both fittings
810: have converged. Just as in the previous section, all transformations are
811: constructed using the initial positions of the points, so our final
812: transformation after searching the $\chi^2$ curve is still very numerically
813: stable. Figure~\ref{fig:searchMethodCompare} shows a comparison of this search
814: algorithm against a brute-force ``ground truth''.
815: Figure~\ref{fig:chiSqResults} shows the modified $\chi^2$ curves for each
816: image as they were estimated by this search algorithm.
817:
818: The output of this process is a polynomial description of the image
819: astrometric WCS, a best-fit year value $t^*$, and an uncertainty region around
820: that value.
821:
822: \subsection{Implementation notes}
823:
824: \bd's two primary performance bottlenecks are calculating the distances
825: between image and catalog points and solving the weighted least-squares
826: problems. In both cases, we are able to use the properties of our weighting
827: function to construct approximate solutions that very effectively approximate
828: the true solution.
829:
830: Our algorithm theoretically requires us to repeatedly calculate the distances
831: of all image--catalog pairs. However, due to the properties of the weighting
832: function as described in Section \ref{sec:objectiveSection}, we do not need to
833: know the distances of significantly separated pairs. Because the
834: transformation applied at each iteration tends to be very small, we can
835: generally assume that significantly separated pairs in one iteration will also
836: be significantly separated in the next iteration. This allow us to do one
837: initial calculation of all image--catalog distances, but in later iterations
838: only calculate the distances of image--catalog pairs that will likely cause a
839: change in the value of the objective function. This is a rough heuristic, so
840: we safeguard ourselves by manually recalculating all image--catalog distances
841: every 10 iterations, as well as whenever the IRLS begins to converge. This
842: dramatically speeds up our algorithm, while producing nearly identical results
843: to the na\"{\i}ve brute-force approach.
844:
845: We use the aforementioned properties of our weight function to determine if an
846: image--catalog pair should be considered in the weighted least-squares
847: calculation. A highly separated pair always contributes a nearly-constant
848: value to the residuals, and therefore can be safely ignored. This gives us a
849: slight performance boost.
850:
851: We require an additional threshold for the difference between the optimal
852: function from one iteration to the next, which determines when our IRLS
853: operation has converged. We use the very conservative value of $10^{-4}$ as
854: the maximum amount that the $\chi^2$ score of the final IRLS iteration is
855: allowed to change from those of the previous two IRLS iterations.
856:
857: \section{Results}
858:
859: Harvard's interface for accessing its scanned plates of M44 made it difficult
860: to obtain more than $3000$ by $3000$ pixel subsets of the images, though the
861: entire plates are significantly larger. The interface for downloading the
862: images did not provide an obvious mechanism for selecting the same $3000$ by
863: $3000$ pixel subsets of each image, which means that such selection was done
864: by hand, and is therefore not very accurate. Many of the plates suffer from
865: the many sources of noise typical of historical imagery: Some are
866: multiple-exposures, badly out of focus, badly saturated, or cracked, and some
867: contain handwritten labels, digital scanning artifacts, and bad trailing. For
868: the sake of fairly assessing \bd's performance, we split the images into two
869: sets; \numcleantests\ ``science-quality'' images and \numnoisytests\
870: ``low-quality'' (see Figure~\ref{fig:imageExamples} for examples). For our
871: convenience, we used the JPEG versions of the images, which probably
872: introduces some minor noise in the form of compression artifacts. Harvard
873: graciously provided ground-truth dates for each image, which presumably were
874: taken from logs or from writing on the plates. We take these dates to be true.
875: Though the ground-truth dates range from 1910 to 1975, the dates are not
876: uniformly distributed. See the distribution of images along the y-axis of
877: figure~\ref{fig:performance} for a demonstration of this clustering.
878:
879: The tests were performed using the modified Newton's method, with affine
880: distortions and an accuracy threshold $\delta_\chi$ of $10^{-4}$ year. Tests
881: were done on a 2007 Macbook with a 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, and 2GB of
882: RAM. Median runtime for estimating each image's date was $\sim 2.6$ seconds
883: per image, after source extraction and \an's initial calibration. Results are
884: shown in Table~\ref{table:performance}.
885:
886: \begin{table}[!h]
887: \begin{center}
888: \begin{tabular}{| l || c | c | c |}
889: \hline
890: & mean year error (bias) & median absolute error & fraction within uncertainty \\ \hline \hline
891: science-quality & $ 1.68 $ & $ 1.29 $ & $ 27/27 $ \\ \hline
892: low-quality & $ -5.28 $ & $ 4.00 $ & $ 17/20 $ \\ \hline
893: \end{tabular}
894: \end{center}
895: \caption{Accuracy of estimated dates for the two subsets of data.
896: See Figures \ref{fig:performance} and \ref{fig:errorDist} for a
897: more detailed visualization of the results.
898: }
899: \label{table:performance}
900: \end{table}
901:
902: Though the results shown were generated by fitting an affine (linear)
903: transformation in image coordinates, we experimented with increasing the order
904: of the polynomial warp being fitted. Results were very similar to those
905: obtained using affine transformations, although the median absolute error
906: for science-quality images dropped to $1.01$ years for second-order
907: transformation, and to $0.99$ years for third-order transformations. Median
908: absolute error for low-quality images also decreased slightly as the order was
909: increased, as did the bias for science-quality images.
910:
911: Additionally, we tested \bd\ on the five \USNOB\ source images of M44 that we
912: were able to retrieve from the US Naval Observatory Precision Measuring
913: Machine Data Archive, and on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep{york00} image
914: of M44. The dates of the \USNOB\ source imagery were estimated accurately (all
915: within six years of the true dates, and all within the uncertainties), which
916: is as good as we would expect performance to be given the relatively low
917: resolution ($3.2\,\arcsec\,\pix^{-1}$) of the source imagery that we were able
918: to obtain. The SDSS image was estimated to have been taken in late 2004, and
919: was actually taken in 2006.
920:
921: We assembled an alternate test-bed of ten amateur images of M44 that we were
922: able to find online. The websites on which we found most of our imagery did
923: not explicitly note the date at which the image was taken, so we were forced
924: to use the ``date'' tag in each image's EXIF meta-data as the ground truth.
925: For many of the images, \bd\ provided accurate dates and uncertainties that
926: are consistent with our previous findings: all estimated dates lay within the
927: our uncertainty bounds, accuracy generally depended on the resolution and
928: quality of each image, and most estimated dates (for all sufficiently
929: high-resolution images) were within a few years from the true dates. Our
930: ground-truth dates are, unfortunately, very unreliable, as the EXIF data may
931: simply reflect the date at which an image was digitized or modified, rather
932: than the date at which it was imaged. Though this means that we are not able
933: to truly vet \bd's performance for these amateur images, this issue also
934: highlights the utility of this system: the dates of origin of these images are
935: effectively lost, but can be re-estimated.
936:
937: \section{Discussion}
938:
939: We have shown that our \bd\ system can successfully attach time meta-data to
940: historical imaging data. The system runs in seconds on standard inexpensive
941: consumer computer equipment; it does not require large investments of time or
942: money to vet or create time meta-data for large collections of astronomical
943: imaging.
944:
945: The performance of \bd\ will depend on the properties of the input image, and
946: on the properties of the catalog information known about the region of the sky
947: that is being imaged. We can phrase this as two questions: ``What is the
948: information content in an image?'', and ``What is the information content in a
949: catalog star?''
950:
951: In an attempt to empirically assess the information content of an image, we
952: ran a simple experiment in which we varied the resolution of an input images
953: and the number of stars contained in an input image (by downsampling and
954: cropping the image, respectively). The results are shown in
955: Figure~\ref{fig:performanceVs}, where we see that performance depends heavily
956: on an image containing a large number of stars imaged at high resolution. We
957: also explored the effects of different kinds of imaging defects. Our objective
958: function is designed to be robust to false sources, and as such, \bd\ performs
959: very well on images with multiple exposures. Our experiments suggests that
960: saturation, large PSF due to poor focus or trailing, and short exposure time
961: (low sensitivity) most negatively effect \bd's performance. See
962: Figure~\ref{fig:imageExamples} for examples of our accuracy in the face of
963: different kinds of imaging defects. Trailing and saturation can effectively be
964: thought of as decreasing the resolution of our input image (by decreasing our
965: ability to accurately centroid stars), and shallow imaging is effectively
966: equivalent to dropping dim stars out of the image; these are the two trends
967: demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig:performanceVs}. Once again, \bd's accuracy
968: appears to depend on an image containing many well-imaged (high resolution)
969: stars.
970:
971: The information in a single catalog star (provided that it has been
972: detected in the input image, in the limit that our procedure is
973: equivalent to least-square fitting) is proportional to that star's
974: contribution to the second derivative of $\chi^2$ with respect to
975: date. This contribution is approximately the square of the magnitude
976: of the star's proper motion, divided by the square of the uncertainty,
977: that is, the square of the signal-to-noise at which the proper motion
978: is detected (where the ``noise'' in this case is the combined
979: uncertainty from the catalog and the image as in
980: equation~\ref{eq:uncertainty}). We expect \bd's performance on an image to
981: scale roughly with the sum of the squares of the detected catalog
982: stars' proper motion signal-to-noise ratios. Imagery unlike the
983: imagery analyzed here ought to obtain date calibration with
984: uncertainty that goes down as the sum of the detected catalog stars'
985: proper motion signal-to-noise ratios goes up.
986:
987: Increasing the polynomial order of the transformation on the image plane
988: produces slightly more accurate date estimates, presumably because the input
989: images do have distortions that are represented reasonably by these functions.
990: We are reluctant to advocate unnecessarily large polynomial orders,
991: as---theoretically---the more freedom we give the transformation model, the
992: more irregular our resulting $\chi^2$ curves may become. That being said, we
993: have not seen any evidence that reinforces such a concern. In principle, even
994: more accurate results could be obtained without increasing the number of
995: degrees of freedom in the fit by employing a physical camera model that
996: represents known distortions in the particular camera used to take the data.
997:
998: For each image in our dataset, we performed an experiment to determine the
999: range of initial dates for which our search algorithm is robust. We discovered
1000: each image had a range of at least $300$ years (and on average, $620$ years)
1001: roughly centered around the true year from which the search could be
1002: initialized without the final result being affected. If we ignore our
1003: precaution of using gradient descent when the second derivative of the
1004: $\chi^2$ curve is non-positive, this range is significantly smaller (on
1005: average, about $55$ years). This finding highlights the importance of the
1006: modifications we make to Newton's method in constructing our search algorithm,
1007: and also suggests that the coarse grid of queries with which we initialize our
1008: search is unnecessary---a single initial query in the correct century would
1009: have been more than sufficient.
1010:
1011: \bd\ largely ignores one very important source of information, namely the
1012: brightnesses of the image and catalog stars. This data is used in our
1013: band-pass estimation step, but is then largely ignored. In future versions of
1014: \an\ we plan to utilize this data in a number of ways. We eventually hope to
1015: simultaneously estimate all parameters of a given image, including the image's
1016: WCS, its date of origin, and its band-pass. Estimating all of these
1017: simultaneously should means that brightness information is implicitly used in
1018: our estimation of the location and date, and should improve our results
1019: accordingly. This would also solve our current conundrum regarding this
1020: process, which is that image--catalog correspondences are required for
1021: band-pass estimation, while band-pass estimation is required for finding
1022: image--catalog correspondences.
1023:
1024: Analysis of the brightness of image stars may be able to play a profound role
1025: in date estimation if we consider the subset with periodic variability. Given
1026: an image containing $k$ stars with different periods, and given sufficient
1027: information concerning the periodic variations in their brightnesses, we
1028: should be able to constrain the date of origin of the image to one of a set of
1029: time intervals in which those $k$ stars are at whatever particular point in
1030: their periods (to within photometric precision). Given the set of intervals
1031: constrained by the periodic variations, we can use the range of dates
1032: determined by \bd\ (that is, from the proper motions of the stars) to select a
1033: potentially very narrow time interval in which the image must have originated.
1034: In principle, it may even be possible to determine the date of origin of an
1035: image solely though periodic brightness, though that would require very good
1036: measurements of the periods of the catalog stars and of the brightnesses of
1037: the image stars.
1038:
1039: \bd's value, on the most superficial level, is clear: this system could be
1040: used to recover lost meta-data (at low precision) for historical and amateur
1041: data that have been archived poorly or not at all. Now that large scanning
1042: projects are underway at photographic archives and the web is providing new
1043: opportunities for file sharing among amateurs and professionals, we need
1044: systems that automatically vet and provide meta-data for data of unknown
1045: provenance.
1046:
1047: Regardless of whether or not imagery already contains reliable date meta-data,
1048: the techniques described in \bd\ may have deep-seated implications for the
1049: calibration of all imagery not taken at the year $\epoch$. The fact that the
1050: date can be well estimated from input images demonstrates both that the images
1051: contain important information about stellar motions, \emph{and} that
1052: astrometric calibration is hampered when calibration is performed with a
1053: catalog projected to an epoch far from the date of the image. A system that is
1054: time sensitive, such as \bd, will plausibly provide the best astrometric
1055: calibration possible for arbitrary imaging.
1056:
1057: What may be \bd's most important consequence is an inversion of the system,
1058: in which we attempt to use imagery to re-estimate the proper motions of
1059: catalog stars. The most straightforward approach to this would be to ``cheat''
1060: and use the ground-truth dates of all input imagery. One could repeatedly:
1061: calibrate each image using the catalog wound to that image's date-of-origin,
1062: re-estimate the proper motions of the catalog stars, and re-wind the catalog
1063: using those new proper motions. This could be thought of as performing
1064: expectation-maximization on the proper motions of the catalog. Of course, an
1065: ideal system would be robust to some (or all) input imagery not having
1066: ground-truth ages. We could estimate the date-of-origin of all unlabeled
1067: imagery, and use these estimates (and their uncertainties) in our
1068: expectation-maximization. Labeled and unlabeled data could be treated
1069: equivalently, except that labeled data would have much less uncertainty
1070: associated with it. This system would then become a two-way street, in which
1071: we do not just reposition images relative to the sky, but also reposition the
1072: sky relative to the images, and dynamically develop a consensus between the
1073: two. The future \an\ ``catalog'' would not have to be a static entity, but
1074: would instead be a consensus of all available imagery---using the \USNOB\ as a
1075: static ``prior.'' \bd\ takes us one step closer to this grand long-term hope
1076: for \an\ becoming an always-changing database of everything we know about the
1077: sky, by allowing \emph{time} to become one more dimension of our data.
1078:
1079:
1080: \acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge generous assistance from Mike
1081: Blanton, Rob Fergus, Yann LeCun, Brett Mensh, Keir Mierle, and Dave Monet. We
1082: thank the USNO-B and DASCH teams for providing the data used for this study.
1083: This project made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System, the US Naval
1084: Observatory Precision Measuring Machine Data Archive, and data and code from
1085: the \an\ project.
1086:
1087: \begin{thebibliography}{70}
1088:
1089: \bibitem[Barron \etal(2008)]{barron08a}
1090: Barron,~J.~T., Stumm,~C., Hogg,~D.~W., Lang,~D., \& Roweis,~S.,
1091: 2008, \aj, 135, 414
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Hampel \etal(1986)]{hampel86}
1094: Hampel,~F.~R., Ronchetti,~E.~M., Rousseeuw,~P.~J., \& Stahel,~W.~A.,
1095: 1986, \textit{Robust Statistics:\ The Approach Based on Influence Functions,}
1096: Wiley, New York
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Lang \etal(2008)]{lang08a}
1099: Lang,~D., Hogg,~D.~W., Mierle,~K., Blanton,~M., \& Roweis,~S.,
1100: 2007, Science, submitted
1101:
1102: \bibitem[Monet \etal(2003)]{monet03a}
1103: Monet,~D.~G., \etal,
1104: 2003, \aj, 125, 984
1105:
1106: \bibitem[York \etal(2000)]{york00}
1107: York,~D., \etal, 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1108:
1109: \end{thebibliography}
1110:
1111: \clearpage
1112:
1113: \begin{figure}
1114: \centering
1115: \subfigure[Catalog at year 1914, initial image.]{
1116: \label{fig:fitExample1}
1117: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f2a.eps}}
1118: }
1119: \subfigure[Catalog at year 1914, fitted image.]{
1120: \label{fig:fitExample2}
1121: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f2b.eps}}
1122: }
1123: \subfigure[Catalog at year 2000, initial image.]{
1124: \label{fig:fitExample3}
1125: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f2c.eps}}
1126: }
1127: \subfigure[Catalog at year 2000, fitted image.]{
1128: \label{fig:fitExample4}
1129: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f2d.eps}}
1130: }
1131: \caption{
1132: The extracted sources (size is proportional to brightness) from the 900 by
1133: 900 pixel sub-image shown in Figure~\ref{fig:imageExamples}. These plots
1134: illustrate the error in the initial calibration returned by the \an\
1135: solver, as well as the difference in fitting a historical image to \USNOB\ at
1136: the year 2000 and to the Catalog at 1914, the year which we correctly estimate
1137: to be the image's year of origin.
1138: \label{fig:fitExamples}}
1139: \end{figure}
1140:
1141: \begin{figure}
1142:
1143: \resizebox{\onewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f3a.eps}}
1144:
1145: \caption{
1146: Evaluation of the accuracy of our search algorithm. The top is our modified
1147: Newton's method with $\delta_\chi=10^{-4}$, and the bottom is brute force,
1148: with an interval of $0.1$ years. The uncertainty regions are identical to
1149: within $10^{-3}$ years, and the estimated dates are within $0.05$ years of
1150: each other. Brute force took 1001 iterations to achieve this accuracy, while
1151: Newton's method took only 23. For clarity's sake, the curves were vertically
1152: separated, and the individual points that were sampled to construct the
1153: brute-force curve are not displayed. \label{fig:searchMethodCompare}}
1154: \end{figure}
1155:
1156: \begin{figure}
1157: \centering
1158: \subfigure[Estimated $\chi^2$ curves of the science-quality images.]{
1159: \label{fig:chiSqResults1}
1160: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f4a.eps}}
1161: }
1162: \subfigure[Estimated $\chi^2$ curves of the low-quality images.]{
1163: \label{fig:chiSqResults2}
1164: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f4b.eps}}
1165: }
1166:
1167: \caption{
1168: The estimations of each image's $\chi^2$ curves generated by our modified
1169: Newton's method, for both datasets. The vertical axes of these plots do not
1170: show the constant contributions of image--catalog pairs whose separations are
1171: always too large to be directly calculated, as including those would make
1172: the curves excessively vertically separated, rendering these plots
1173: incomprehensible.
1174: \label{fig:chiSqResults}}
1175: \end{figure}
1176:
1177:
1178: \begin{figure}
1179: \centering
1180: \subfigure[\examplecaptionA]{
1181: \label{fig:imageExample1}
1182: \resizebox{\threewidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f5a.eps}}
1183: }
1184: \subfigure[\examplecaptionB]{
1185: \label{fig:imageExample2}
1186: \resizebox{\threewidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f5b.eps}}
1187: }
1188: \subfigure[\examplecaptionC]{
1189: \label{fig:imageExample3}
1190: \resizebox{\threewidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f5c.eps}}
1191: }
1192: \subfigure[\examplecaptionD]{
1193: \label{fig:imageExample4}
1194: \resizebox{\threewidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f5d.eps}}
1195: }
1196: \subfigure[\examplecaptionE]{
1197: \label{fig:imageExample5}
1198: \resizebox{\threewidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f5e.eps}}
1199: }
1200: \subfigure[\examplecaptionF]{
1201: \label{fig:imageExample6}
1202: \resizebox{\threewidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f5f.eps}}
1203: }
1204:
1205: \caption{
1206: A series of $900$ by $900$ pixel subsets of our $3000$ by $3000$ pixel images.
1207: The top three images are from our set of science-quality images, and the the
1208: bottom three images are from our set of low-quality images. The captions are
1209: of the form ``true date / estimated date''. All but
1210: figure~\ref{fig:imageExample6} have estimated dates that lie within the
1211: uncertainty region.
1212: \label{fig:imageExamples}}
1213: \end{figure}
1214:
1215:
1216: \begin{figure}
1217: \centering
1218: \subfigure[Performance on the science-quality images.]{
1219: \label{fig:performance1}
1220: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f6a.eps}}
1221: }
1222: \subfigure[Performance on the low-quality images.]{
1223: \label{fig:performance2}
1224: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f6b.eps}}
1225: }
1226:
1227: \caption{
1228: An informative visualization of performance for both datasets. The x-axis is
1229: an arbitrary index denoting the test image (images were sorted by true year),
1230: and the y-axis shows each image's true year, estimated year, and uncertainty
1231: region. The last image in figure~\ref{fig:performance2} is not shown, as
1232: it is estimated as originating before $1900$.
1233: \label{fig:performance}}
1234: \end{figure}
1235:
1236: \begin{figure}
1237: \centering
1238: \subfigure[Error in date estimation.]{
1239: \label{fig:errorDist1}
1240: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f7a.eps}}
1241: }
1242: \subfigure[Error relative to uncertainty.]{
1243: \label{fig:errorDist2}
1244: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f7b.eps}}
1245: }
1246:
1247: \caption{
1248: Histograms of the errors in date estimation, for both datasets.
1249: Figure~\ref{fig:errorDist1} shows the difference between our estimated dates
1250: and the true dates. Figure~\ref{fig:errorDist2} shows those errors relative to
1251: the widths of the uncertainties; effectively, the differences between the
1252: $\chi^2$ scores of the true years and the $\chi^2$ scores of the estimated
1253: years. A relative error of less than $1$ indicates that the true year lies
1254: within the uncertainty. The two outliers in figure~\ref{fig:errorDist1} are
1255: actually significantly worse than they appear: $+65$ and $-175$ years.
1256: \label{fig:errorDist}}
1257: \end{figure}
1258:
1259: \begin{figure}
1260:
1261: \centering
1262: \subfigure[Performance versus resolution.]{
1263: \label{fig:performanceVs1}
1264: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f8a.eps}}
1265: }
1266: \subfigure[Performance versus number of image stars.]{
1267: \label{fig:performanceVs2}
1268: \resizebox{\twowidthshort}{!}{\includegraphics{f8b.eps}}
1269: }
1270:
1271: \caption{
1272: Plots showing performance relative the resolution of the input image, and to
1273: the number of stars the input image contains. Figure~\ref{fig:performanceVs1}
1274: was produced by repeatedly downsampling the input image, while
1275: Figure~\ref{fig:performanceVs2} was produced by repeatedly cropping out the
1276: borders of the input image. Note that in downsampling the image, some smaller
1277: stars stop being detectable by our source-extraction algorithm, so the number
1278: of stars in the image decreases with the resolution of the image.
1279: \label{fig:performanceVs}}
1280: \end{figure}
1281:
1282: \end{document}
1283: