1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{natbib,amssymb}
3: \usepackage[usenames]{color}
4: \usepackage{lscape}
5:
6: \def\um {\mbox{ }\mu\mbox{{m}}}
7: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}
8: \def\ra#1#2#3{#1$^{\rm h}$#2$^{\rm m}$#3$^{\rm s}$}
9: \def\dec#1#2#3{#1$^\circ#2'#3''$}
10: \def\sci#1#2{$#1 \times 10^{#2}$}
11: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
12: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
13: \newcommand\be{\begin{equation}}
14: \newcommand\ee{\end{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\mbf[1]}{\mathbf{#1}}
16:
17: \newcommand\tbd[1]{\textbf{\color{blue}(#1)}}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20: \title{Precision Astrometry with Adaptive Optics}
21: \author{P. B. Cameron, M. C. Britton and S. R. Kulkarni}
22: \affil{California Institute of Technology, Division Physics,
23: Mathematics and Astronomy, MC 105-24, Pasadena, CA 91125 \\ Electronic
24: mail: pbc@astro.caltech.edu}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We investigate the limits of ground-based astrometry with adaptive
28: optics using the core of the Galactic globular cluster M5. Adaptive
29: optics systems provide near diffraction-limit imaging with the world's
30: largest telescopes. The substantial improvement in both resolution and
31: signal-to-noise ratio enables high-precision astrometry from the
32: ground. We describe the dominant systematic errors that typically
33: limit ground-based differential astrometry, and enumerate
34: observational considerations for mitigating their effects. After
35: implementing these measures, we find that the dominant limitation on
36: astrometric performance in this experiment is caused by tilt
37: anisoplanatism. We then present an optimal estimation technique for
38: measuring the position of one star relative to a grid of reference
39: stars in the face of this correlated random noise source. Our
40: methodology has the advantage of reducing the astrometric errors as
41: $\sim 1/\sqrt{t}$ and faster than the square root of the number of
42: reference stars -- effectively eliminating noise caused by atmospheric
43: tilt to the point that astrometric performance is limited by centering
44: accuracy. Using 50 reference stars we demonstrate single-epoch
45: astrometric precision of $\approx 1\,$mas in 1\,second, decreasing to
46: $\simlt 100\,\mu$as in 2\,minutes of integration time at the Hale
47: 200-inch telescope. We also show that our astrometry is accurate to
48: $\simlt 100\,\mu$as for observations separated by 2 months. Finally,
49: we discuss the limits and potential of differential astrometry with
50: current and next generation large aperture telescopes. At this level
51: of accuracy, numerous astrometric applications become accessible,
52: including planet detection, astrometric microlensing signatures, and
53: kinematics of distant Galactic stellar populations.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57: The benefits of astrometry have long been clear to
58: astronomers. Measurements of parallax and proper motion yield model
59: independent determinations of fundamental quantities like distance and
60: velocity. It is not surprising that astrometry has motivated a wide
61: variety of observational programs using many different techniques to
62: answer fundamental questions in astrophysics. Potential applications
63: span a wide range of physical scales including: planet detection,
64: reconstruction of the Milky Way's formation, and tests of $\Lambda$CDM
65: cosmology (e.g. \citealt{ust+07}).
66:
67: The most ubiquitous astrometric measurements have been carried out
68: with ground-based telescopes in the seeing limit. \cite{mdv+92}
69: conducted visible light measurements of 72 stars ($V=15$--20) using
70: the 1.55\,m US Naval Observatory astrometric reflector. This program
71: achieved single epoch measurement precision $\approx
72: 4$\,milliarcseconds (mas), and parallax accuracies ranging from 0.5--3
73: mas over $\sim$~5 yr baselines. \cite{ps96} performed visible light
74: measurements of stars in the cluster NGC 2420 ($V=13$--16) and
75: achieved single epoch precision of $\approx 150\,\mu$as in one hour,
76: which motivated an astrometric survey for low-mass companions to
77: nearby stars (e.g. \citealt{psh+04}). More recently,
78: 200--300\,$\mu$as astrometric precision has been demonstrated with
79: VLT/FORS in the visible \citep{l06,lmd+07}. Each of the above programs
80: employed relatively narrow-field visible imagers (a few square
81: arcminutes) to perform differential astrometry; however, the
82: increasing availability of wide angle imagers has motivated studies
83: over larger fields. \citealt{abp+06} performed similar experiments
84: using a 33' $\times$ 34' visible camera on the ESO 2.2\,m telescope,
85: which resulted in 7\,mas single-epoch precision.
86:
87: Ground-based interferometers provide an alternative method for
88: performing high precision astrometry, typically over very narrow
89: fields relative to a single reference star. The Palomar Testbed
90: Interferometer has used phase-referencing to achieve astrometric
91: accuracies $\approx 100\,\mu$as for a 30\arcsec\ binary
92: \citep{lcb+00}, and $\approx 20\,\mu$as over years for binaries with
93: separations $\simlt 1$\arcsec\ \citep{mlk+06}. Due to its 40 cm
94: apertures, this instrument is limited to targets with $K_s < 6$.
95: Large aperture, ground-based interferometers equipped with adaptive
96: optics systems, such as those at Keck \citep{cw03} and the VLT
97: \citep{gac+00}, can perform at similar levels to fainter limiting
98: magnitudes (e.g. \citealt{bts+07}).
99:
100: Differential astrometric accuracies achieved in both single aperture
101: and interferometric ground-based programs are fundamentally limited by
102: atmospheric effects. In the seeing limit, single aperture
103: observations suffer from image quality degradation and interferometers
104: lose visibility fringe coherence due to atmospheric turbulence. In
105: addition, all ground-based programs suffer from systematic effects due
106: to differential atmospheric refraction and optical distortions.
107:
108: Space-based observatories are one possible method for avoiding the
109: effects of atmospheric turbulence. {\it Hipparcos} was the first
110: space-based mission with astrometric goals, and achieved $\simlt
111: 1$\,mas astrometry over the mission lifetime on bright targets ($V
112: \simlt 9$ mag; \citealt{plk+97}). Currently, the only space-based
113: telescope that can perform high-precision astrometry is
114: \textit{Hubble}. Both the imagers and Fine Guidance Sensor have been
115: characterized and well-utilized for astrometry at the $\simlt 1$\,mas
116: level (e.g. \citealt{ak00,ak03b,baf+03}). Two complimentary future
117: space missions are aimed at achieving levels of astrometric
118: performance 2--3 orders of magnitude below the {\it Hubble}
119: performance levels. GAIA will catalog roughly one billion stars to $V
120: \approx 20$\,mag over the entire sky with parallax accuracies ranging
121: from 10--$300\,\mu$as depending on the magnitude \citep{pdg+01}. The
122: Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) will take a pointed approach, and
123: enable microarcsecond ($\mu$as) astrometry on Galactic and
124: extragalactic targets \citep{ust+07}.
125:
126:
127: Ground-based adaptive optics (AO) offer an alternative, more easily
128: accessible, and cost effective method for overcoming atmospheric
129: turbulence over small fields ($\simlt$ arcminute). The current
130: generation of astronomical adaptive optics systems provide diffraction
131: limited image quality at near-infrared wavelengths. Achieving the
132: telescope's diffraction limit and the resulting boost in
133: signal-to-noise ratio prove to be a powerful combination for
134: astrometry. These two effects reduce the errors in determining stellar
135: centers, increase the number of possible reference stars at small
136: separations, and allow techniques for mitigating systematics (e.g. use
137: of narrow-band filters to eliminate chromatic refraction; see
138: \S\ref{sec:errors}).
139:
140: The marked improvement in wavefront sensor technology and the
141: development of laser beacons has rapidly increased the usable sky
142: coverage of these systems (e.g. \citealt{wlb+06a}). The increase in
143: sky coverage, operation in the near-infrared, gain in signal-to-noise
144: ratio, and the diffraction-limited image quality make astrometry with
145: adaptive optics amenable to numerous Galactic applications spanning a
146: wide number of fields: detection of astrometric companions, the
147: improved determination of the mass-luminosity relation of stars, and
148: the formation and evolution of compact objects \citep{ust+07}.
149:
150: Here we present an optimal estimation technique appropriate for
151: mitigating the astrometric errors arising in AO observations and
152: demonstrate its potential with multi-epoch imaging of the core of the
153: globular cluster M5 using the Hale 200-inch Telescope. We are able to
154: achieve $\simlt 100\,\mu$as astrometric precision in 2 minutes, and
155: have maintained this accuracy over 2 months. In \S\ref{sec:errors} we
156: discuss the dominant noise terms that arise in ground-based astrometry
157: and the experimental techniques we have adopted to control them. We
158: lay out the framework of our reduction model and illustrate its
159: salient properties with a numerical simulation in \S\ref{sec:grid}. We
160: describe the observations of M5 and the results of applying the
161: optimal estimation technique to the data in \S\ref{sec:obs} and
162: \S\ref{sec:res}. This is followed in \S\ref{sec:dis} by a discussion
163: of the role and potential of adaptive optics in ground-based
164: astrometry with current and future large aperture telescopes.
165:
166: \section{Astrometric Error Terms in Ground Based Astrometry}
167: \label{sec:errors}
168: Ground-based optical and infrared imaging observations suffer from a
169: number of errors that limit the accuracy and precision of astrometric
170: measurements. Relative to seeing-limited observations, the
171: diffraction-limited image quality afforded by adaptive optics modifies
172: the relative importance of these error terms. This section describes
173: the four largest effects, and indicates observational considerations
174: utilized in this experiment aimed at mitigating them.
175:
176: \subsection{Differential Tilt Jitter}
177: \label{sec:tj}
178: With AO, the image motion of the guide star is removed with a flat
179: tip-tilt mirror. This stabilizes the image of the guide star with
180: respect to the imager to high accuracy. Any residual tip-tilt error is
181: removed in subsequent analysis by calculating only differential
182: offsets between the target of astrometry (not necessarily the AO guide
183: star) and the reference stars. However, the difference in the tilt
184: component of turbulence along any two lines of sight in the field of
185: view causes a correlated, stochastic change in their measured
186: separation, known as differential atmospheric tilt jitter.
187:
188: More specifically, in propagating through the atmosphere to reach the
189: telescope aperture, light from the target star and light from a
190: reference star at a finite angular offset traverse different columns
191: of atmospheric turbulence that are sheared. Differential atmospheric
192: tilt jitter arises from the decorrelation in the tilt component of the
193: wavefront phase aberration arising from this shearing effect. This
194: differential tilt leads to a random, achromatic, and anisotropic
195: fluctuation in the relative displacement of the two objects. The three
196: term approximation to the parallel and perpendicular components of the
197: variance arising from differential atmospheric tilt jitter, assuming
198: Kolmogorov turbulence, is given by \citep{s94}
199: \be {\sigma^2_{\parallel,{\rm TJ}} \brack \sigma^2_{\perp,{\rm TJ}}} = 2.67
200: \frac{\mu_2}{D^{1/3}}\left(\frac{\theta}{D}\right)^2{3 \brack 1} -
201: 3.68 \frac{\mu_4}{D^{1/3}}\left(\frac{\theta}{D}\right)^4{5 \brack 1}
202: + 2.35
203: \frac{\mu_{14/3}}{D^{1/3}}\left(\frac{\theta}{D}\right)^{14/3}{17/3
204: \brack 1}.
205: \label{eqn:tj}
206: \ee
207: In this equation $D$ is the telescope diameter and $\theta$ is the
208: angular separation of the stars. The turbulence moments $\mu_m$ are
209: defined as
210: \be
211: \mu_m = \sec^{m+1}\xi \int_0^\infty dh C_n^2(h)h^m,
212: \ee
213: where $h$ is the altitude, $\xi$ is the zenith angle, and
214: $C_{n}^{2}(h)$ is the vertical strength of atmospheric
215: turbulence. Typical $C_n^2(h)$ profiles yield $\sigma_{\parallel,{\rm
216: TJ}} \approx 20$--30\,mas for a 20\arcsec\ binary when observed with a
217: 5\,m aperture. Note that the variance from differential tilt is a
218: random error, and thus is also $\propto \tau_{\rm TJ}/t$, where
219: $\tau_{\rm TJ}$ is the tilt jitter timescale (of order the wind
220: crossing time over the aperture; see \S\ref{sec:res}) and $t$ is the
221: integration time.
222:
223: \subsection{Distortion}
224: The largest instrumental systematic that limits the accuracy of
225: astrometry in any optical system is geometric distortion. These
226: distortions can be stable --- resulting from unavoidable errors in the
227: shape or placement of optics --- or dynamic --- resulting from the
228: flexure or replacement of optics.
229:
230: If geometric distortions are stable, then a number of strategies can
231: be employed to mitigate their effect. One method is to model the
232: distortion to high accuracy; the most notable example is the
233: calibration of \textit{HST} (e.g. \citealt{ak03a}). This is
234: particularly important for data sets obtained with multiple
235: instruments or those that use the technique of dithering, since
236: knowledge of the distortion is necessary to place stellar positions in
237: a globally correct reference frame. Alternatively, one could use a
238: consistent optical prescription from epoch-to-epoch by using the same
239: instrument and placing the field at the same location and orientation
240: on the detector. Here we use both a distortion solution and a single,
241: consistent dither position to achieve accurate astrometry.
242:
243: Any changes in the geometric distortion must be tracked through
244: routine, consistent calibration. The question of stability is
245: particularly important at the Hale 200-inch, since the AO system and
246: the imaging camera (PHARO; see \S\ref{sec:obs}) are mounted at the
247: Cassegrain focus, and PHARO undergoes a few warming/cooling cycles per
248: month (see \S\ref{sec:obs}). The PHARO distortion
249: solution\footnote{see also
250: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/$\sim$metchev/ao.html} by \cite{m06}
251: accounts for changes in the orientation of the telescope (which are
252: relatively small for our experimental design), but the overall
253: stability of the system is best verified with on-sky data. One of the
254: purposes of the data presented here is to track the system
255: stability. We find that the combination of the Hale Telescope, PALAO,
256: and PHARO is capable of delivering $\simlt 100\,\mu$as astrometry.
257:
258: \subsection{Atmospheric Refraction}
259: Refraction by the Earth's atmosphere causes an angular deflection of
260: light from a star, resulting in an apparent change in its position.
261: The magnitude of this deflection depends on the wavelength and the
262: atmospheric column depth encountered by an incoming ray. The former
263: effect is chromatic, while the latter is achromatic. The error induced
264: by differential chromatic refraction (DCR) has proven to be an
265: important, and sometimes the dominant, astrometric limitation in
266: ground-based efforts (e.g. \citealt{mdv+92,ps96,abp+06,l06}). These
267: studies have shown DCR can contribute $\approx 0.1$--1\,mas of error
268: depending on the wavelength and strategy of the observations.
269:
270: The observations presented here were conducted using a Br-$\gamma$
271: filter at 2.166\,$\mu$m with a narrow bandpass of 0.02\,$\mu$m to
272: suppress differential chromatic refraction. The increased
273: signal-to-noise ratio provided by adaptive optics allows sufficient
274: reference stars to be detected even through such a narrow filter in a
275: short exposure time. We reach $K_s \approx 15$\,magnitude in our
276: 1.4\,s exposures through this filter with the Hale 200-inch (see
277: \S\ref{sec:obs}). In addition, observations were acquired over a
278: relatively narrow range of airmass (1.17--1.27) at each epoch to
279: minimize the achromatic differential refraction.
280:
281: In order to estimate the effect of atmospheric refraction on our data
282: we took the asterism in the core of M5 and refracted it to 37 and 32
283: degrees elevation with the parallactic angles appropriate for the
284: observations on 2007 May 28 using the {\it slarefro} function
285: distributed with the STARLINK library \citep{gt98}. The
286: root-mean-square (RMS) deviation in reference star positions between
287: these two zenith angles was $\simlt 250\,\mu$as and the shift in guide
288: star position with respect to the grid (see \S\ref{sec:grid}) was
289: $\approx 10\,\mu$as. Thus, our consistent zenith angle of
290: observations, narrow-band filter and observations in the near-infrared
291: (where the refraction is more benign) make the contribution of this
292: effect negligible for our purposes, and we make no effort to correct
293: for it.
294:
295: Performing a similar experiment using a the broadband $K$ filter with
296: a field of $\approx 5000$\,K reference stars and a $\approx 3000$\,K
297: target would lead to a systematic shift of $\approx 100\,\mu$as
298: between zenith angles separated by 10$^\circ$, which would be
299: detectable by this experiment. Consequently, for observations where
300: broadband filters are necessary, refraction effects must be considered
301: and corrected.
302:
303: \subsection{Measurement Noise}
304: \label{sec:mn}
305: In the case of a perfect optical system, a perfect detector and no
306: atmosphere, the astrometric precision is limited one's ability to
307: calculate stellar centers. The centering precision is determined by
308: measurement noise, and we will use the two terms interchangeably. For a
309: monopupil telescope the uncertainty is
310: \be
311: \sigma_{\rm meas} = \frac{\lambda}{\pi D}\frac{1}{\rm SNR}
312: = 284\,\mu{\rm as}\left(\frac{\lambda}{2.17\,\mu{\rm m}}\right)
313: \left(\frac{5\,{\rm m}}{D}\right)\left(\frac{100}{\rm SNR}\right)
314: \label{eqn:mn}
315: \ee
316: \citep{l78}.
317: Adaptive optics allow us to achieve the diffraction limit even in the
318: presence of the atmosphere and substantially boosts the SNR over the
319: seeing-limited case --- thereby decreasing measurement noise and
320: improving astrometric precision.
321:
322: In practice, the centering of a given stellar image is limited by
323: spatial and temporal variations in the AO point-spread function (PSF).
324: A great deal of time and effort has been spent determining the AO PSF
325: and producing software packages to perform PSF fitting
326: (e.g. \citealt{dbb+00,b06a}). However, any PSF-fitting software
327: package is capable of calculating image positions at $\simlt 0.01$
328: pixel level in a single image. For the observations considered here
329: this is $\simlt 2$\,mas, a factor of 5 -- 10 larger than the
330: measurement noise in Equation~\ref{eqn:mn}, but it is much smaller
331: than the tilt jitter mentioned in \S\ref{sec:tj}. As such, we have
332: chosen to use simple and widely available PSF centering software
333: (DAOPHOT; \citealt{s87}; see \S\ref{sec:obs}).
334:
335: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccccc}
336: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
337: \tablewidth{0pt}
338: \tablecaption{Observations\label{tab:obs}}
339: \tablehead{
340: & & \colhead{Integration Time} & & \colhead{Seeing\tablenotemark{a}}
341: & \colhead{$\theta_{0}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\mu_{2}$} & \colhead{$\mu_{4}$} &
342: \colhead{$\mu_{14/3}$} & \\
343: \colhead{ Date} & \colhead{ Time} & \colhead{(sec)} &\colhead{ Airmass} & \colhead{(asecs)} &
344: \colhead{(asecs)} & \colhead{($m^{7/3}$)} & \colhead{($m^{13/3}$)} & \colhead{($m^{15/3}$)}
345: }
346: \startdata
347: 2007-05-28 & 05:18:29 - 06:19:29 & 890 & 1.26 - 1.18 & 1.22 & 2.34 & 1.01e-5 & 3.82e3 & 2.77e6 \\
348: 2007-05-29 & 05:58:26 - 06:48:30 & 570 & 1.19 - 1.17 & 1.39 & 2.16 & 1.14e-5 & 3.89e3 & 2.82e6 \\
349: 2007-07-22 & 03:57:12 - 04:40:36 & 630 & 1.20 - 1.27 & 1.05 & 1.66 & 1.74e-5 & 6.46e3 & 4.71e6 \\
350: \enddata
351: \tablenotetext{a}{Calculated at a wavelength of 0.5\,$\mu$m. These
352: quantities scale as $\lambda^{1/5}$ and $\lambda^{6/5}$, respectively.}
353: % wave=2.12 seeing=0.911 isoplanatic=13.2 isokinetic=20.4
354: \end{deluxetable}
355:
356:
357: \begin{figure}
358: \plotone{f1.eps}
359: \caption{{\it Top left:} Image of the core of the globular cluster M5
360: in 1.4 seconds through the narrow-band Br-$\gamma$ filter. The AO
361: guide star is labeled as star `A', and is one of 82 detected stars in
362: the image. The additional plots show the measured $x$-$y$ angular
363: separation of each pair of stars denoted by the arrows in 600 images
364: taken on 28 May 2007. These plots show the clear signature of
365: anisotropic differential atmospheric tilt jitter as predicted from
366: Equation~\ref{eqn:tj}. The measured (red) and predicted (green)
367: 1\,$\sigma$ error ellipses are over-plotted. We see that temporal
368: averaging over the 1.4\,second exposure time has reduced the measured
369: variance with respect to that predicted from the DIMM/MASS
370: measurements and Equation~\ref{eqn:tj}.}
371: \label{fig:finder}
372: \end{figure}
373:
374: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
375: \label{sec:obs}
376: We observed the the globular cluster M5 on three dates spanning 2
377: months (see Table~\ref{tab:obs} for a summary of observations) using
378: the Hale 200-inch telescope and the Palomar High Angular Resolution
379: Observer (PHARO; \citealt{hbp+01}) assisted by the Palomar Adaptive
380: Optics System (PALAO; \citealt{tdb+00}). The globular cluster M5 was
381: chosen for its relatively large distance of $\approx 7.5$\,kpc from
382: the Sun, low velocity dispersion of $\approx 5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, and the
383: availability of guide stars near the cluster core
384: \citep{pm93,h96}. This combination of distance and velocity yields an
385: expected cluster dispersion of only $140\,\mu$as\,yr$^{-1}$, or
386: 20\,$\mu$as over our 2 month observing span. We acquired 400--600
387: images per night. A typical image can be found in
388: Figure~\ref{fig:finder}. The guide star is a red giant branch member
389: of the globular cluster with $V \approx 12.6$ magnitude \citep{sb04}.
390: The cluster was imaged through the narrow-band Br-$\gamma$ filter
391: (central wavelength is 2.166\,$\mu$m and bandpass is 0.02\,$\mu$m)
392: using the 25\arcsec\ $\times$ 25\arcsec\ narrow-field channel
393: (0.025\arcsec\,pixel$^{-1}$), which over samples the 87\,mas
394: diffraction-limited PSF. The brightest star filled the detector to
395: 10\% of the maximum well-depth in the 1.4\,sec exposure time --- well
396: within the linear regime of the detector.
397:
398:
399: Contemporaneous measurements of the atmospheric turbulence profile
400: were acquired with a differential image motion monitor (DIMM) and
401: multi-aperture scintillation sensor (MASS), which have been deployed
402: as a single unit in a dome at Palomar Observatory
403: \citep{tbp07,kts+07}. These turbulence profile measurements permitted
404: an independent estimate of the magnitude of differential tilt jitter
405: (computed using Equation~\ref{eqn:tj}).
406:
407: We processed the raw images by subtracting dark frames and removing
408: bad pixels from the analysis. Flat-field calibration was performed
409: using twilight sky flats. Sky subtraction was accomplished by forming
410: the median of the dithered frames taken outside of the cluster and
411: subtracting this median from each exposure. The photometry and
412: astrometry of each star was extracted using PSF-fitting as implemented
413: by the DAOPHOT package in PyRAF\footnote{PyRAF is a product of Space
414: Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA for
415: NASA.}. DAOPHOT is not optimized for astrometry (see e.g.
416: \citealt{ak00}), and since our measurement model reduces the noise due
417: to atmospheric turbulence, our single epoch precision could be
418: improved with a more careful centering technique (see \S\ref{sec:sim}
419: and \S\ref{sec:prec}). However, our astrometric accuracy over 2 months
420: is not limited by this choice (see \S\ref{sec:acc}). We used the 4
421: brightest stars in the field to derive a model PSF that is assumed to
422: be constant over the field, and calibrated the image zeropoints using
423: 2MASS and find that the guide star has $K_s \approx 9.1$\,magnitude.
424:
425: \section{Grid Astrometry for Ground-based Adaptive Optics Observations}
426: \label{sec:grid}
427: After controlling for distortion and atmospheric refraction, the
428: dominant astrometric errors are caused by differential atmospheric
429: tilt jitter and measurement noise. In this section we present a
430: general framework for measuring the position of a star relative to a
431: grid of reference stars in the face of these noise sources. This
432: framework has two key ingredients. The first is the covariance matrix
433: ($\mbf[\Sigma_d]$), which encapsulates the relevant statistical
434: uncertainties for astrometry with adaptive optics. The second is the
435: weight matrix ($\mbf[W]$), which determines how the differential
436: measurements between the target star and the reference stars are
437: combined to calculate the target's position relative to the grid.
438:
439: \subsection{Measurement Model}
440: The fundamental quantity in differential astrometry is the measured
441: angular offset between a pair of stars. We will denote the angular
442: distance between two stars, $i$ and $j$, as $\vec{d}_{ij}$. Since
443: $\vec{d}_{ij}$ is measured from an image, we will denote its
444: components in the Cartesian coordinate system of the detector, simply
445: \be
446: \vec{d}_{ij} = { x_j - x_i \brack y_j - y_i } \equiv { x_{ij} \brack y_{ij} },
447: \ee
448: where we have introduced the notation $x_{ij} \equiv x_j - x_i$ and
449: likewise for $y$. The variance in the the angular separation between
450: two stars is given by
451: \be
452: {\sigma_{\parallel}^2 \brack \sigma_{\perp}^2} =
453: {\sigma_{\parallel,{\rm meas}}^2 \brack \sigma_{\perp,\rm meas}^2} +
454: \frac{\tau_{\rm TJ}}{t}
455: {\sigma_{\parallel,{\rm TJ}}^2 \brack \sigma_{\perp,{\rm TJ}}^2}
456: \label{eqn:varpair}
457: \ee
458: where $\sigma_{\parallel,{\rm meas}}^2$ is the sum of the squares of
459: the centering errors of each star parallel to the axis connecting the
460: pair (and similarly for the perpendicular variance), and the remaining
461: terms are as defined in \S\ref{sec:tj}.
462:
463: Measurement of the offset between the target star (which we will
464: denote with a subscript $i=0$) and each of the $N$ reference stars
465: results in a set of $N$ vectors, $\vec{d}_{0i}$. For simplicity, we
466: will write these measured offsets as a single column vector,
467: \be
468: \mbf[d] = [ x_{01},\cdots,x_{0N},y_{01},\cdots,y_{0N}]^{\rm T}.
469: \label{eqn:d}
470: \ee
471: The goal of differential astrometry is to use $\mbf[d]$ to determine
472: the position of the target star with respect to the reference grid
473: of stars at each epoch.
474:
475: There are many possible ways to construct the position of the
476: astrometric target from a given $\mbf[d]$. Here we use the most
477: general linear combination of the angular offsets, namely
478: \be
479: \vec{p} = \mbf[Wd],
480: \label{eqn:wavg}
481: \ee
482: where $\mbf[W]$ is the 2 $\times 2N$ weight matrix, given by
483: \be
484: \mbf[W] = \left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
485: w_{xx,01} & \cdots & w_{xx,0N} & w_{xy,01} & \cdots & w_{xy,0N} \\
486: w_{yx,01} & \cdots & w_{yx,0N} & w_{yy,01} & \cdots & w_{yy,0N}
487: \end{array} \right].
488: \label{eqn:W}
489: \ee
490: We have used the notation $w_{xy,0i}$ to denote the weighting of the
491: offset from the target star to star $i$ in the $y$ direction used to
492: determine the $x$ component of the target's position, $\vec{p}$. For
493: example, for a standard average of the $x$ and $y$ measurements to
494: calculate $\vec{p}$, we would assign all the $w_{xx,0i} = w_{yy,0i} =
495: 1/N$ and $w_{xy,0i} = w_{yx,0i} = 0$.
496:
497: In principle, we are free to assign weights in any manner we
498: please. However, we find it convenient to choose the weights such that
499: they satisfy
500: \be
501: \sum_i w_{xx,0i} = 1 \ \ , \ \ \sum_i w_{yy,0i} = 1 \ \ ,
502: \sum_i w_{xy,0i} = 0 \ \ , \ \ \sum_i w_{yx,0i} = 0.
503: \label{eqn:const}
504: \ee
505: These constraints ensure that the components of $\vec{p}$ have
506: physical units (e.g. pixels or arcseconds) and that its components are
507: measured in the same coordinate system as $\mbf[d]$ (presumably the
508: detector coordinates). As a consequence, $\vec{p}$ represents the
509: position of the target star in the sense that a proper motion of the
510: target, $\vec{\epsilon}$, with respect to the fixed grid between two
511: epochs will cause a change, $\vec{p} \rightarrow \vec{p} +
512: \vec{\epsilon}$.
513:
514: In order to determine if any change in $\vec{p}$ over time is
515: meaningful we must understand its statistical properties. Both
516: differential tilt jitter and measurement errors are assumed to follow
517: Gaussian statistics, so that each instance of target-reference grid offset
518: measurements, $\mbf[d]$, is drawn from a multivariate normal
519: probability distribution:
520: \be
521: P(\mbf[d]) =
522: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\det \mbf[\Sigma_d]}} \exp \left(\frac{1}{2}
523: [\mbf[d]-\bar{\mbf[d]}]^{\rm T} \mbf[\Sigma_d]^{-1}
524: [\mbf[d]-\bar{\mbf[d]}]\right),
525: \label{eqn:mnd}
526: \ee
527: where $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$ is the covariance matrix, and the bars above
528: symbols denote using the average value of each matrix entry.
529:
530: The statistics of $\vec{p}$ follow in a straightforward manner from
531: Equation~\ref{eqn:mnd} given our choice in Equation~\ref{eqn:wavg}.
532: Since $\vec{p}$ is a linear function of $\mbf[d]$, each $\vec{p}$ is
533: also drawn from a multivariate normal probability distribution
534: with covariance matrix
535: \be
536: \mbf[\Sigma]_p = \mbf[W]^{\rm T}\mbf[\Sigma_d]\mbf[W],
537: \label{eqn:sigp}
538: \ee
539: and the uncertainties of $\vec{p}$ are described by the eigenvectors
540: and eigenvalues of $\mbf[\Sigma]_p$. Thus, our goal of optimally
541: determining the target's position requires calculating the covariance
542: matrix, $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$, from data or theory, and choosing $\mbf[W]$
543: to minimize the eigenvalues of $\mbf[\Sigma]_p$.
544:
545: \subsection{The Covariance Matrix}
546: \label{sec:cvm}
547: We have chosen to measure positions and offsets in the Cartesian
548: coordinates of the detector, so the form of the covariance
549: matrix, given our definitions above, is
550: {\small \be \mbf[\Sigma_d] = \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
551: \langle(\Delta x_{01})^2\rangle & \cdots &
552: \langle(\Delta x_{01})(\Delta x_{0N})\rangle &
553: \langle(\Delta x_{01})(\Delta y_{01})\rangle &
554: \cdots &
555: \langle(\Delta x_{01})(\Delta y_{0N})\rangle \\
556: & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
557: & & \langle(\Delta x_{0N})^2\rangle &
558: \langle(\Delta x_{0N})(\Delta y_{01})\rangle & \cdots&
559: \langle(\Delta x_{0N})(\Delta y_{0N})\rangle \\
560: & & & \langle(\Delta y_{01})^2\rangle & \cdots &
561: \langle(\Delta y_{01})(\Delta y_{0N})\rangle\\
562: & & & & \ddots & \vdots\\
563: {\rm symmetric} & & & & & \langle(\Delta y_{0N})^2\rangle
564: \end{array} \right),
565: \label{eqn:cvm}
566: \ee }
567: where we have written $\Delta x_{ij} \equiv (x_{ij} - \bar{x}_{ij})$
568: to simplify the notation (likewise for $y$).
569:
570: The total covariance matrix has contributions from centering
571: errors and differential atmospheric tilt jitter. Since these
572: contributions are independent, the total covariance matrix can be
573: written $\mbf[\Sigma_d] = \mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm meas} + \mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm
574: TJ}$, and each term can be derived separately.
575:
576: \subsubsection{The Covariance Matrix for Measurement Noise}
577: In the absence of differential tilt jitter it is straightforward to
578: construct the covariance matrix for measurement noise alone,
579: $\mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm meas}$. The diagonal terms can be written
580: \be
581: \langle\Delta x_{0i}^2\rangle \equiv \sigma_{x,0i}^2 = \sigma_{x,0}^2 +\sigma_{x,i}^2,
582: \label{eqn:mdiag}
583: \ee
584: where $\sigma_{x,i}$ and $\sigma_{x,0}$ are the the
585: uncertainties in determining the $x$-position of star $i$ and the
586: target star, respectively. For the off-diagonal terms $\langle\Delta
587: x_{0i}\Delta x_{0j}\rangle$ we can use the fact that
588: \begin{eqnarray}
589: \langle\Delta x_{0i} \Delta x_{0j}\rangle
590: &=& \frac{1}{2}\langle\{ \Delta x_{0i}^2 + \Delta x_{0j}^2 -
591: [\Delta x_{0i}- \Delta x_{0j}]^2\}\rangle\cr
592: &=& \frac{1}{2}\{ \langle\Delta x_{0i}^2\rangle + \langle\Delta x_{0j}^2\rangle -
593: \langle[\Delta x_{0i}- \Delta x_{0j}]^2\rangle\}\cr
594: &=& \frac{1}{2}\{ \langle\Delta x_{0i}^2\rangle + \langle\Delta x_{0j}^2\rangle -
595: \langle\Delta x_{ij}^2\rangle\}\cr
596: &=& \frac{1}{2} (\sigma_{x,0i}^2 + \sigma_{x,0j}^2 - \sigma_{x,ij}^2)\cr
597: &=& \sigma_{x,0}^2.
598: \label{eqn:trick}
599: \end{eqnarray}
600: where we have used only algebra and the definitions
601: above. Equation~\ref{eqn:trick} is the obvious result of the fact that
602: the measurements of the target star's coordinates are common to all
603: differential measurements, and so its uncertainty appears in all the
604: off-diagonal covariance terms, $\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta
605: x_{0j}\rangle$ and $\langle\Delta y_{0i}\Delta
606: y_{0j}\rangle$. However, the cross-terms involving both $x$ and $y$
607: (e.g. $\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0j}\rangle$) vanish because
608: $\sigma_{x,0}$ and $\sigma_{y,0}$ are uncorrelated for measurement
609: noise alone.
610:
611: \subsubsection{The Covariance Matrix for Differential Tilt Jitter}
612: The covariance matrix for differential atmospheric tilt
613: jitter between a pair of stars is diagonal when written in an
614: orthogonal coordinate system with one axis lying along the separation
615: axis of the binary. We see from Equation~\ref{eqn:tj} that it can be
616: written as
617: \be \mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm pair} =
618: \left(\begin{array}{cc} \langle(d_\parallel -
619: \bar{d}_\parallel)^2\rangle & \langle(d_\parallel -
620: \bar{d}_\parallel)(d_\perp - \bar{d}_\perp)\rangle \\
621: \langle(d_\parallel - \bar{d}_\parallel)(d_\perp -
622: \bar{d}_\perp)\rangle & \langle(d_\perp - \bar{d}_\perp)^2\rangle
623: \end{array} \right) =
624: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
625: \sigma^2_{\parallel,{\rm TJ}} & 0 \\
626: 0 & \sigma^2_{\perp,{\rm TJ}}
627: \end{array} \right),
628: \label{eqn:diag}
629: \ee
630: where $d_\parallel$ and $d_\perp$ are the angular offsets parallel and
631: perpendicular to the axis connecting the pair of stars, respectively.
632:
633: For a general field of $N$ stars, no coordinate system exists that
634: diagonalizes the full tilt jitter covariance matrix,
635: $\mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm TJ}$. But, we can begin computing the entries by
636: rotating $\mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm pair}$ into our $x$-$y$ coordinates via
637: $\mbf[R]^{\rm T}\mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm pair}\mbf[R]$, where
638: \be \mbf[R] =
639: \left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos\phi & \sin\phi\\ -\sin\phi & \cos\phi
640: \end{array} \right).
641: \ee
642: The result is
643: \be
644: \mbf[R]^{\rm T}\mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm pair}\mbf[R] = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
645: \sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2\cos^2\phi_{0i} + \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2\sin^2\phi_{0i} &
646: (\sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2 - \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2)\cos\phi_{0i}\sin\phi_{0i} \\
647: (\sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2 - \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2)\cos\phi_{0i}\sin\phi_{0i} &
648: \sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2\sin^2\phi_{0i} + \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2\cos^2\phi_{0i}
649: \end{array} \right).
650: \label{eqn:right}
651: \ee where $\phi_{0i}$ is the angle between $\vec{d}_{0i}$ and our
652: arbitrary Cartesian system measured counterclockwise from the
653: $x$-axis, and we have introduced the notation that the uncertainty
654: parallel to $\vec{d}_{ij}$ is $\sigma_{\parallel,ij}$ and uncertainty
655: orthogonal to $\vec{d}_{ij}$ is $\sigma_{\perp,ij}$ as calculated from
656: Equation~\ref{eqn:tj}. Thus, we can identify the diagonal terms
657: \begin{eqnarray}
658: \langle\Delta x_{0i}^2\rangle =
659: \sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2\cos^2\phi_{0i} + \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2\sin^2\phi_{0i},\cr
660: \langle\Delta y_{0i}^2\rangle =
661: \sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2\sin^2\phi_{0i} + \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2\cos^2\phi_{0i},
662: \label{eqn:dterms}
663: \end{eqnarray}
664: and
665: \be
666: \langle\Delta x_{0i} \Delta y_{0i}\rangle =
667: (\sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2 - \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2)\cos\phi_{0i}\sin\phi_{0i}.
668: \label{eqn:cterms}
669: \ee For the off-diagonal terms $\langle \Delta x_{0i} \Delta
670: x_{0j}\rangle$ we notice that (as used in
671: Equation~\ref{eqn:trick})
672: \begin{eqnarray}
673: \langle\Delta x_{0i} \Delta x_{0j}\rangle
674: &=& \frac{1}{2}\langle\{ \Delta x_{0i}^2 + \Delta x_{0j}^2 -
675: [\Delta x_{0i}- \Delta x_{0j}]^2\}\rangle\cr
676: &=& \frac{1}{2}\{ \langle\Delta x_{0i}^2\rangle + \langle\Delta x_{0j}^2\rangle -
677: \langle[\Delta x_{0i}- \Delta x_{0j}]^2\rangle\}\cr
678: &=& \frac{1}{2}( \sigma_{\parallel,0i}^2\cos^2\phi_{0i} +
679: \sigma_{\perp,0i}^2\sin^2\phi_{0i} + \sigma_{\parallel,0j}^2\cos^2\phi_{0j} +
680: \sigma_{\perp,0j}^2\sin^2\phi_{0j} \cr
681: & & - \sigma_{\parallel,ij}^2\cos^2\phi_{ij} - \sigma_{\perp,ij}^2\sin^2\phi_{ij}),
682: \label{eqn:cterm2}
683: \end{eqnarray}
684: where in the last step we have used the fact that $x_{ij} =
685: x_{0i}-x_{0j}$ and the relations in Equations~\ref{eqn:dterms} and
686: \ref{eqn:cterms}. The quantities $\langle \Delta y_{0i} \Delta
687: y_{0j}\rangle$ can be obtained by interchanging sine and cosine in
688: Equation~\ref{eqn:cterm2}.
689:
690: For the remaining off-diagonal terms $\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta
691: y_{0j}\rangle$ we can use the fact that
692: \begin{eqnarray}
693: \langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0j}\rangle
694: &=&\langle\Delta x_{0i}[\Delta y_{0i}+\Delta y_{ij}]\rangle\cr
695: &=&\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle+
696: \langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{ij}]\rangle\cr
697: &=&\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle+
698: \langle[\Delta x_{0j}-\Delta x_{ij}]\Delta y_{ij}\rangle\cr
699: &=&\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle+
700: \langle\Delta x_{0j}\Delta y_{ij}\rangle-
701: \langle\Delta x_{ij}\Delta y_{ij}\rangle\cr
702: &=&\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle+
703: \langle\Delta x_{0j}[\Delta y_{0j}-\Delta y_{0i}]\rangle-
704: \langle\Delta x_{ij}\Delta y_{ij}\rangle\cr
705: &=&\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle+
706: \langle\Delta x_{0j}\Delta y_{0j}\rangle-
707: \langle\Delta x_{ij}\Delta y_{ij}\rangle-
708: \langle\Delta x_{0j}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle.
709: \end{eqnarray}
710: Rearranging gives
711: \begin{eqnarray}
712: \langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0j}\rangle +
713: \langle\Delta x_{0j}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle
714: &=&\langle\Delta x_{0i}\Delta y_{0i}\rangle+
715: \langle\Delta x_{0j}\Delta y_{0j}\rangle-
716: \langle\Delta x_{ij}\Delta y_{ij}\rangle.
717: \label{eqn:cterm3}
718: \end{eqnarray}
719: All the terms in the right-hand side are known from
720: Equation~\ref{eqn:cterms}, and further investigation shows that the
721: two terms on the left-hand side are equal. So,
722: Equations~\ref{eqn:mdiag}, \ref{eqn:trick}, \ref{eqn:dterms},
723: \ref{eqn:cterms}, \ref{eqn:cterm2}, and \ref{eqn:cterm3} contain all
724: the information required to construct the full covariance matrix,
725: $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$.
726:
727: \subsection{The Optimal Weight Matrix}
728: \label{sec:optimal}
729: The optimal choice of weights in Equation~\ref{eqn:mn} are those which
730: minimize the eigenvalues in Equation~\ref{eqn:sigp}. For a $2 \times
731: 2$ symmetric matrix the sum of the eigenvalues is the trace of the
732: matrix, so our problem becomes one of minimizing the trace of
733: $\mbf[\Sigma_p]$ subject to the constraints in
734: Equation~\ref{eqn:const}. Specifically, we will use the method of
735: Lagrange multipliers \citep{b80} to find the optimal weights,
736: $\mbf[W]^\prime$, that minimize the quadratic equation
737: \be
738: {\rm Tr(}\mbf[\Sigma_p]) = \frac{1}{2} \mbf[W]^{\rm \prime T}\mbf[SW]^{\prime},
739: \label{eqn:min}
740: \ee
741: where
742: \be
743: \mbf[S] = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
744: \mbf[\Sigma_d] & \mbf[0] \\
745: \mbf[0] & \mbf[\Sigma_d]
746: \end{array} \right],
747: \ee
748: is a $4N \times 4N$ matrix, and
749: \be
750: \mbf[W]^\prime = [w_{xx,01},\cdots, w_{xx,0N}, \ w_{xy,01},\cdots,w_{xy,0N}, \
751: w_{yx,01},\cdots,w_{yx,0N}, \ w_{yy,01},\cdots,w_{yy,0N}]^{\rm T}
752: \ee
753: is a vector of length $4N$. Note that $\mbf[W]^\prime$ has identical
754: entries as $\mbf[W]$ in Equation~\ref{eqn:W}, it is just written as
755: a single vector to cast the minimization problem into a single
756: equation (\ref{eqn:min}). We want to find the extrema of
757: Equation~\ref{eqn:min} subject to the linear constraints in
758: Equation~\ref{eqn:const}, which can be written
759: \be
760: \mbf[CW]^\prime = \mbf[V],
761: \label{eqn:matrixconst}
762: \ee
763: where we define the $4 \times 4N$ symmetric matrix
764: \be
765: \mbf[C] = \left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
766: 1 & \cdots & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
767: & & & 1 & \cdots & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
768: & & & & & & 1 & \cdots & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
769: {\rm sym} & & & & & & & & & 1 & \cdots & 1
770: \end{array} \right],
771: \ee
772: and
773: \be
774: \mbf[V] = \left[\begin{array}{c}
775: 1 \\
776: 0 \\
777: 0 \\
778: 1
779: \end{array} \right].
780: \ee
781:
782: In this framework the optimal weights are those that solve the system
783: of linear equations
784: \be
785: \left[\begin{array}{cc}
786: \mbf[S] & \mbf[C]^{\rm T}\\
787: \mbf[C] & \mbf[0]
788: \end{array} \right]
789: \left[\begin{array}{c}
790: \mbf[W]^\prime\\
791: \mbf[\lambda]
792: \end{array} \right] =
793: \left[\begin{array}{c}
794: \mbf[0]\\
795: \mbf[V]
796: \end{array} \right].
797: \label{eqn:lm}
798: \ee
799: Here $\mbf[\lambda]$ are the Lagrange multipliers, which will not be
800: used further. Equation~\ref{eqn:lm} can be solved via a matrix
801: inversion.
802:
803: Note that the general constraints on the weights we have written in
804: Equation~\ref{eqn:const} and \ref{eqn:matrixconst} have two somewhat
805: unintuitive features. The first is that the $y$ measurements are
806: sometimes used to compute the $x$ position and vice versa. The other
807: property is that they allow for negative weights, meaning that in some
808: cases certain measurements will be subtracted in calculating the
809: position of the astrometric target, $\vec{p}$. These two facts conspire
810: to exploit the natural correlations inherent in the data. The flexible
811: and possibly negative weights essentially allow the reference grid to
812: be symmetrized, thereby using the known correlations to cancel noise
813: so as to minimize the variance in $\vec{p}$.
814:
815:
816: \subsection{Numerical Simulations}
817: \label{sec:sim}
818: As indicated in the above analysis, the single epoch uncertainty in
819: the location, $\vec{p}$, of the target relative to the grid of
820: reference stars is represented by the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of
821: the $2 \times 2$ matrix $\mbf[\Sigma]_p$ (Equation~\ref{eqn:sigp}).
822: This matrix itself depends on the distribution of reference stars, the
823: precision of centering measurements, and the degree of noise
824: correlation due to differential tilt through the matrix
825: $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$. In this way, the intrinsic precision of the
826: measured value of $\vec{p}$ depends on these three factors.
827:
828: To ascertain the behavior of $\mbf[\Sigma]_p$ with the density of
829: available reference stars, we performed a series of numerical
830: simulations. In each simulation, $N$ ($2 \leq N \leq 100$) stars were
831: randomly distributed throughout a 25\arcsec\ $\times$ 25\arcsec\ field
832: of view. We assumed the target was a bright star in the middle of the
833: field with centering error of 0.5\,mas and the reference stars were
834: fainter, drawn from a Gaussian distribution with mean centering error
835: of 2\,mas and a standard deviation of 1\,mas (somewhat analogous to
836: the situation for the guide star in M5; see \S\ref{sec:res}). The
837: full covariance matrix, $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$, was computed for each
838: stellar configuration assuming these centering errors, the typical
839: turbulence profile above Palomar Observatory, and a 1.4\,sec exposure
840: time.
841:
842: In the first simulation, $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$ was contracted as in
843: Equation~\ref{eqn:sigp} using standard averaging for $\mbf[W]$
844: ($w_{xx,0i} = w_{yy,0i} = 1/N$; $w_{xy,0i} = w_{yx,0i} = 0$). For the
845: second simulation, $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$ was contracted using the optimal
846: $\mbf[W]$ as calculated using the prescription in \S\ref{sec:optimal}.
847: In each case, the geometric mean of the two eigenvalues of the
848: resulting matrix, $\mbf[\Sigma]_p$, were computed to form an estimate
849: of the single epoch measurement precision of $\vec{p}$. To average
850: away random effects arising from the particular geometry of the random
851: distribution of stars, each numerical simulation was repeated for 100
852: random distributions of stars for each value of $N$, and these were
853: averaged to generate a mean value for the single epoch measurement
854: precision.
855:
856: The resulting values for the single epoch measurement precision of
857: $\vec{p}$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:simn} as a function of the
858: number of reference stars, along with the contributions of measurement
859: noise and differential tilt jitter. In both simulations the error due
860: to measurement noise decreases as $N^{-0.3}$. However, in the
861: limit of an infinite number of reference stars, this error asymptotes
862: to the target star's measurement error. The rate at which the
863: measurement noise decreases to this value depends on the distribution
864: of reference star measurement errors.
865:
866:
867:
868: \begin{figure}
869: \begin{center}
870: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=4in]{f2a.ps}
871: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=4in]{f2b.ps}
872: \end{center}
873: \caption{{\it Top:} Simulated astrometric precision as a function of
874: the number of reference stars using standard averaging (solid line). The
875: total astrometric precision has contributions from the measurement
876: noise (dash-dotted) and the differential atmospheric tilt jitter
877: (dashed line). Here the measurement noise was taken to be 0.5\,mas for
878: the AO guide star, and the reference stars were drawn from a normal
879: distribution with a mean of 2\,mas and standard deviation of 1\,mas.
880: The tilt jitter is that expected in a 1.4\,sec exposure assuming the
881: turbulence profile measured on the night of 2007 May 28 at Palomar
882: Observatory (see Table~\ref{tab:obs}). {\it Bottom:} Simulated
883: astrometric precision as a function of the number of reference stars
884: using optimal weighting (lines as above). By using optimal weighting
885: based on the covariance matrix, the effect of atmospheric noise is
886: reduced to values less than measurement noise.}
887: \label{fig:simn}
888: \end{figure}
889:
890: The important distinction between the two simulations is the
891: contribution of tilt jitter to astrometric performance. In the
892: simulation utilizing standard averaging, there is very little gain with
893: increased stellar density ($N^{-0.15}$), and tilt jitter dominates the
894: error budget. However, the optimal estimation algorithm rapidly
895: ($N^{-0.7}$) eliminates the contribution of differential tilt by
896: taking advantage of the correlations inherent in $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$ and
897: the flexibility to symmetrize the reference field through the choice
898: of weights.
899:
900: \section{Analysis and Results}
901: \label{sec:res}
902: In the analysis that follows we will use the measurement model
903: described in \S\ref{sec:grid}. For a given target star, we will
904: calculate the differential offsets with respect to the grid stars to
905: generate a value of $\mbf[d]$ for each image at each epoch
906: (Equation~\ref{eqn:d}). We then use either these data or the theory in
907: \S\ref{sec:cvm} to generate the full covariance matrix,
908: $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$. From $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$, we use the prescription in
909: \S\ref{sec:optimal} to calculate the the optimal weights,
910: $\mbf[W]$. These weights are used to combine the differential offsets
911: to generate the target star's position, $\vec{p}$, in each image via
912: Equation~\ref{eqn:wavg}. The statistics of the positional measurements
913: are then described by the covariance matrix, $\mbf[\Sigma]_p$, from
914: Equation~\ref{eqn:sigp}.
915:
916: \subsection{Differential Tilt Jitter}
917:
918: In order to test our expectation that tilt jitter dominates the
919: astrometric error, we calculate the RMS of the angular offsets for
920: pairs of stars in the field (Figures~\ref{fig:finder} and
921: \ref{fig:tj}). These results clearly show the characteristic
922: signature of differential tilt. Namely, the RMS separation along the
923: axis connecting the two stars is larger than that of the perpendicular
924: axis by a factor of $\approx \sqrt{3}$. However, the magnitude of the
925: tilt jitter is smaller than the theoretical expectations, which
926: suggests that some of the tilt jitter has been averaged away in the
927: 1.4\,sec exposure time.
928:
929: We have no direct measurement of the wind speed profile over the
930: telescope to calculate the expected tilt jitter timescale. Instead,
931: we fit the observed $\sigma_{ij}^2$ and angular offsets using the
932: model in Equation~\ref{eqn:varpair} with $t=1.4$\,seconds. The best
933: fit values are $\sigma_{\rm meas,ij} \approx 2$\,mas and $t/\tau_{\rm
934: TJ} \approx 7$. This implies that the characteristic timescale for
935: tilt jitter is $\approx 0.2$\,seconds, resulting in a wind crossing
936: time of 25\,m\,sec$^{-1}$. Turbulence at higher altitudes contributes
937: most to the differential atmospheric tilt jitter, and this velocity is
938: typical of wind speeds in the upper atmosphere \citep{g77}. It is also
939: clear from the figure that a number of stars have measurement noise
940: that is much less than 2\,mas, thus this number should only be taken
941: as characteristic of the faint stars.
942:
943: \begin{figure}
944: %\epsscale{0.65}
945: \begin{center}
946: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=4in]{f3a.ps}
947: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=4in]{f3b.ps}
948: \end{center}
949: %\plotone{f3a.ps}
950: %\plotone{f3b.ps}
951: \caption{{\it Top:} RMS deviation in the distance between pairs of
952: stars in the direction parallel to their separation axis on 2007 May
953: 28 (filled circles). The jitter predicted (assuming no measurement
954: noise) from the measured turbulence profiles and Equation~\ref{eqn:tj}
955: (dashed-line) is far larger than the measured jitter, indicating that
956: some tilt jitter has been averaged away in 1.4\,sec. The best fit
957: model (Equation~\ref{eqn:varpair}) including averaged tilt jitter and
958: measurement noise indicates that the tilt timescale is $\approx
959: 0.2$\,sec (solid line). {\it Bottom:} As above, but in this case the
960: separations and predictions are for the direction perpendicular to the
961: separation axis. The expected RMS for the perpendicular direction is
962: lower by the expected factor as seen in Equation~\ref{eqn:tj}. Note
963: that not all pairs include the AO guide star.}
964: \label{fig:tj}
965: \end{figure}
966:
967:
968: \begin{figure}
969: \plotone{f4.eps}
970: \caption{Allan deviation in the guide star position as a function of
971: integration time for 2007 May 28 (solid curve), May 29 (dash-dotted)
972: and July 22 (dashed). The astrometric precision scales as $t^{-0.51
973: \pm 0.08}$, and the covariance matrix and optimal weights were derived
974: from data.}
975: \label{fig:adevt}
976: \end{figure}
977:
978: \subsection{Astrometric Precision}
979: \label{sec:prec}
980: The astrometric precision achieved in a single epoch is an important
981: diagnostic of the measurement model. On a given night for a given
982: star, we investigate the use of both the $\approx 500$ images and the
983: theory in \S\ref{sec:cvm} to calculate $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$, leading to
984: the optimal weights. We then apply this weight matrix to the measured
985: offsets to compute the target's position in each image --- resulting
986: in a timeseries in each component of $\vec{p}$ for each epoch. The
987: properties of each timeseries are best explored by computing its Allan
988: deviation (also known as the square root of the two-sample variance).
989: The Allan deviation is calculated by dividing a timeseries into
990: chunks, averaging each segment, and computing the RMS of the
991: resulting, shorter timeseries. If the timeseries is dominated by
992: random errors, its Allan deviation will decrease as $1/\sqrt{t_{\rm
993: avg}}$, where $t_{\rm avg}$ is the length of each chunk. It is also
994: necessary to have sufficiently many segments so that an RMS
995: calculation is meaningful. Here the longest timescale probed is
996: $\approx 2$--3 minutes for each 10--15\,minute timeseries.
997:
998: We compute the geometric mean of the Allan deviation in each dimension
999: as a function of the averaging time for the AO guide star in
1000: Figure~\ref{fig:adevt} after computing the covariance matrix from
1001: data. After 1.4 seconds the guide star's positional precision is
1002: $\approx 600\,\mu$as. The precision subsequently improves as $t^{-0.51
1003: \pm 0.08}$ to $\approx 70\,\mu$as after 2 minutes, and has yet to hit
1004: a systematic floor. This suggests a precision of $\approx 30\,\mu$as
1005: for the full 10--15 minutes data set, assuming that no systematic
1006: limit is reached in the interim.
1007:
1008:
1009: This level of precision is not limited to the AO guide star; similar
1010: performance is obtained on other stars in the core of M5. In
1011: Figure~\ref{fig:precvmag} we show the astrometric precision obtained
1012: on 2007 May 29 after 2 minutes for all detected stars as a function of
1013: their $K_s$ magnitude. Precision below 100\,$\mu$as is achieved on
1014: targets as faint as $K_s \approx 13$ magnitude using a narrow-band
1015: filter and 1.4\,sec individual exposures. This demonstrates the
1016: substantial signal-to-noise ratio benefit afforded by adaptive
1017: optics.
1018:
1019: The astrometric precision shown in Figure~\ref{fig:precvmag} resulting
1020: from the theoretically determined covariance matrix and optimal
1021: weights is $\approx 300\,\mu$as after 2 minutes for stars with $K_s
1022: \simlt 13$ magnitude. This level of precision is substantially better
1023: than the performance of simpler weighting schemes, but it is a factor
1024: of 2--4 worse than using the data to calculate the covariance matrix
1025: and weighting. There are several possible reasons for this reduction
1026: in precision. The first is that we have only used estimates of the
1027: measurement noise for each star used to calculate $\mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm
1028: meas}$. Secondly, the turbulence profile used to construct
1029: $\mbf[\Sigma]_{\rm TJ}$ is estimated from the average $C_n^2(h)$ seen
1030: by the DIMM/MASS. This unit is located 300\,m from the Hale telescope
1031: and uses Polaris to estimate the turbulence profile. As a
1032: consequence, there could be important differences between the measured
1033: atmospheric turbulence and that encountered by the light from
1034: M5. Finally, we have not attempted to capture the time variability of
1035: the turbulence, having used only the average values.
1036:
1037: In Figure~\ref{fig:adevn} we investigate the improvement of the AO
1038: guide star astrometry with the number of reference stars. We drew
1039: random subsets of the available grid stars, computed $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$
1040: from the data, calculated the optimal weights, and show the geometric
1041: mean of the eigenvalues of $\mbf[\Sigma_p]$. To average over the
1042: geometry of a particular draw, we repeated this process 10 times for
1043: each value of $N$ and averaged the results. We see that the precision
1044: rapidly decreases as $N^{-0.60 \pm 0.03}$. This is slightly faster
1045: than our simulations predict for 1.4\,sec of integration
1046: time. However, as noted above, our simulations are meant to
1047: approximate M5, but do not capture the true distribution of stellar
1048: measurement errors (which are difficult to decouple from tilt jitter)
1049: or any evolution in atmospheric turbulence during the observation.
1050:
1051:
1052: \begin{figure}
1053: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6in]{f5.ps}
1054: \caption{The astrometric precision (Allan deviation after 2 minutes)
1055: using the theoretical covariance matrix (open diamonds) and the
1056: covariance matrix from data (filled circles) as function of $K_s$
1057: magnitude for all 82 detected stars on 2007 May 29. The precision in
1058: both cases is essentially constant for $K_s \simlt 13$\,mag. However,
1059: the astrometric precision for the theoretical $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$ is a
1060: factor of 2--4 times larger than when calculated from data.}
1061: \label{fig:precvmag}
1062: \end{figure}
1063:
1064:
1065: \begin{figure}
1066: \plotone{f6.eps}
1067: \caption{Allan deviation in 1.4\,seconds for the AO guide star's
1068: position as a function of the number of reference stars on 2007 May 28
1069: (solid curve), May 29 (dash-dotted), and July 22 (dashed). The
1070: astrometric precision scales as $N^{-0.60 \pm 0.03}$.}
1071: \label{fig:adevn}
1072: \end{figure}
1073:
1074: \subsection{Astrometric Accuracy}
1075: \label{sec:acc}
1076: The goal of astrometry is to measure the position of the target star
1077: over many epochs. Astrometrically interesting timescales range from
1078: hours to years. Clearly, the optical systems must be stable over
1079: these spans for astrometry with AO to be viable. There are several
1080: obstacles that could render the single-epoch precision obtained in
1081: \S\ref{sec:prec} meaningless. For example, PHARO is mounted at the
1082: Cassegrain focus which results in flexure of the instrument as the
1083: telescope tracks, and undergoes warming and cooling cycles between
1084: observing periods (typically twice per month) that could cause small
1085: changes in the powered optics. Either of these facts could alter the
1086: geometric distortion, and make astrometric measurements
1087: unrepeatable. In order to probe the system stability, we have designed
1088: our experiment to be as consistent as possible, and it has spanned many
1089: removal and reinstallations of PHARO over 2 months.
1090:
1091: In order to investigate the accuracy of the M5 measurements we first
1092: measured and corrected the small rotational ($\simlt 0.04^{\circ}$)
1093: and plate scale ($\simlt 10^{-5}$) changes between the the May 29 and
1094: July 22 data and the May 28 images. We also calculate the optimal
1095: weights for a given star on all three nights, and average them to
1096: create one weighting matrix to use for each epoch. This is not
1097: strictly optimal, since each night has different turbulence conditions
1098: for example, but it ensures that the scenario that $\vec{p}
1099: \rightarrow \vec{p} + \vec{\epsilon}$. We see in
1100: Figure~\ref{fig:epochs} that the measured position of the AO guide
1101: star is accurate from epoch-to-epoch at the $\approx 100\,\mu$as. The
1102: error ellipses are those estimated by continuing to extrapolate the
1103: precision found in Figure~\ref{fig:adevt} by $1/\sqrt{t}$ to the full
1104: 10--15 minute timeseries. This is an impressive level of accuracy, but
1105: unfortunately is a factor of 3 worse than our expectation. It suggests
1106: that there is some instability, likely in the distortion, over the two
1107: months that limit the astrometric accuracy.
1108:
1109: The other stars in M5 show a similar level of astrometric accuracy
1110: (Figure~\ref{fig:accuracy}) up to $K_s \approx 13$\,mag. This limit
1111: can certainly be pushed considerably fainter with in increased
1112: integration time or a larger aperture. The achievement of such high
1113: levels of astrometric performance on faint targets, given the modest
1114: time investment, short integration time and narrow-band filters,
1115: illustrates the substantial signal-to-noise ratio gain and potential
1116: for astrometry enabled by AO.
1117:
1118:
1119: \begin{figure}
1120: \plotone{f7.eps}
1121: \caption{The position of the AO guide star in an arbitrary coordinate
1122: system on three dates: 2007 May 28 (solid), 2007 May 29 (dashed), and
1123: 2007 July 22 (dash-dotted; see \S\ref{sec:acc}). The error circles are
1124: inferred by averaging the covariance matrix measured from the data and
1125: extrapolating to the total 10--15 minute integration time as
1126: $1/\sqrt{t}$ (e.g. see Figure~\ref{fig:adevt}). The positions agree at
1127: the $\simlt 100\,\mu$as level --- a factor of 2--3 larger than the
1128: expected dispersion. This discrepancy indicates that some systematic
1129: errors have occurred between epochs, most likely optical distortion.}
1130: \label{fig:epochs}
1131: \end{figure}
1132:
1133: \begin{figure}
1134: \epsscale{0.65}
1135: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=6in]{f8.ps}
1136: \caption{Astrometric accuracy (geometric mean of the RMS in each
1137: coordinate over the three epochs) versus $K_s$ magnitude. The level
1138: of accuracy is $\simlt 100\,\mu$as, and is essentially unchanged for
1139: $K_s \simlt 13$\,mag. However, this is a factor of 2--3 above our
1140: expectations from the achieved astrometric precision, suggesting a
1141: systematic limitation between epochs.}
1142: \label{fig:accuracy}
1143: \end{figure}
1144:
1145: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
1146: \label{sec:dis}
1147: Here we have presented a technique for performing high-precision grid
1148: astrometry using ground-based telescopes equipped with adaptive optics
1149: systems. With this technique, the effects of distortion and
1150: atmospheric dispersion that give rise to systematic errors are
1151: mitigated through the design of the experiment. Random errors arising
1152: from differential tilt jitter and measurement noise are minimized
1153: through the use of an optimal estimation scheme that accounts for the
1154: correlated noise statistics through the covariance matrix
1155: $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$. The experimental results obtained on the Hale 200-inch
1156: Telescope have demonstrated single epoch astrometric precision of
1157: $\simlt 100\,\mu$as in 2 minutes and multi-epoch astrometric accuracy
1158: at the same level. This level of precision is comparable to that
1159: afforded by ground-based interferometry, and is better than the
1160: precision obtained in seeing-limited programs on single apertures.
1161:
1162: The simulation of astrometric precision afforded by the optimal
1163: weighting scheme shown in Figure~\ref{fig:simn} illustrates that
1164: measurement noise is the dominant residual astrometric error on a 5
1165: meter telescope for stellar fields that contain more than a few
1166: reference stars. The scaling laws for differential tilt jitter
1167: ($D^{-7/6}$) and measurement noise ($D^{-2}$) indicate that on larger
1168: aperture telescopes measurement noise will represent a smaller
1169: fraction of this residual error. This effect is illustrated in
1170: Figure~\ref{fig:ptj}, which shows the RMS error between pairs of stars
1171: for a range of telescope apertures and angular separations.
1172:
1173: The values in Figure~\ref{fig:ptj} assume that tilt jitter is resolved
1174: by sufficiently short exposures. Longer exposure times will certainly
1175: reduce the differential tilt jitter by $1/\sqrt{t}$, but the
1176: measurement noise will also be decreased by this factor (for a given
1177: stellar brightness). The implication being that if tilt jitter
1178: dominates for short exposure times, it will continue to dominate
1179: longer exposures.
1180:
1181:
1182: \begin{figure}
1183: \plotone{f9.eps}
1184: \caption{The RMS separation between a pair of stars versus angular
1185: offset and aperture diameter. We have assumed the turbulence profile
1186: on 2007 May 28, a measurement error of $1/\sqrt{2}$\,mas for each star
1187: for a 5\,m telescope, and included the geometric mean of each
1188: component of Equation~\ref{eqn:tj}. Relative to Palomar (solid curve),
1189: there are substantial astrometric gains to be made for larger 10\,m
1190: (dash dotted) and 30\,m (dashed) telescopes due to the reduction of
1191: both measurement noise (the $y$-intercept; $\propto D^{-2}$) and tilt
1192: jitter ($\propto D^{-7/6}$). Because measurement noise falls off more
1193: quickly with $D$, tilt jitter becomes the dominant source of
1194: astrometric error for large aperture telescopes.}
1195: \label{fig:ptj}
1196: \end{figure}
1197:
1198: \begin{figure}
1199: \plotone{f10.eps}
1200: \caption{Astrometric precision as a function of aperture size and
1201: stellar density. We have used Equation~\ref{eqn:sum} with the
1202: assumptions of the Palomar turbulence profile, a 25\arcsec\ $\times$
1203: 25\arcsec\ field of view, the M5 brightness distribution, and photon
1204: noise limit as described in \S\ref{sec:dis}. The astrometric
1205: precision demonstrates a very favorable scaling law with aperture
1206: diameter, and suggests orders of magnitude improvement in precision
1207: may be available using large aperture, AO equipped telescopes. In
1208: practice, the level of astrometric accuracy will depend on the extent
1209: to which current and future facilities can characterize and control
1210: systematic errors.}
1211: \label{fig:rmsd}
1212: \end{figure}
1213:
1214: In situations where fewer images are available, either due to time
1215: constraints or longer exposure times per frame, it is difficult or
1216: impossible to effectively calculate the covariance matrix directly
1217: from the data. Our results show that independent measurements of the
1218: turbulence profile, for example from a DIMM/MASS unit, are sufficient
1219: to calculate $\mbf[\Sigma_d]$, and result in astrometric precision
1220: within a factor of 2--4 of the levels achieved using the data
1221: itself. Thus, the astrometric applications of turbulence sensors are
1222: two-fold; they can be used to independently assess astrometric data
1223: quality, and predict the AO PSF \citep{b06a}.
1224:
1225: The scaling laws presented throughout this paper indicate a
1226: substantially improved astrometric performance on large aperture
1227: telescopes equipped with adaptive optics. We have used the measured
1228: performance on M5 with the Hale Telescope combined with these scaling
1229: laws to predict the astrometric performance of a single conjugate AO
1230: system as a function of aperture diameter and number of reference
1231: stars. The relationship can be summarized using the results of
1232: simulation and data analysis as
1233: \be
1234: \sigma_{\rm tot}^2 = \sigma_{\rm meas}^2 + \sigma_{\rm TJ}^2 =
1235: \left(\frac{1.4{\rm \ sec}}{t}\right)
1236: \left\{
1237: \left[
1238: 2{\rm \ mas}\left(\frac{2}{N}\right)^{0.3}\left(\frac{5{\rm \ m}}{D}\right)^2
1239: \right]^2 +
1240: \left[
1241: 2{\rm \ mas}\left(\frac{2}{N}\right)^{0.7}\left(\frac{5{\rm \ m}}{D}\right)^{7/6}
1242: \right]^2
1243: \right\}.
1244: \label{eqn:sum}.
1245: \ee
1246: This equation assumes that measurement error is dominated by photon
1247: noise ($\propto D^{-2}$) and the other dependencies (field of view,
1248: stellar brightness distribution, turbulence profile) are identical to
1249: those for the M5 experiment.
1250:
1251: Figure 10 shows the resulting estimates for astrometric precision as a
1252: function of aperture diameter and number of reference stars for a 2
1253: minute exposure. These predictions demonstrate that limits to
1254: astrometric precision arising from random errors (dominated by tilt
1255: jitter) lie below $10\,\mu$as for 30\,m telescopes. However, very
1256: careful characterization and control of systematic errors will be be
1257: required to achieve this level of precision in an actual experiment.
1258: The extent to which systematic errors can be eliminated will
1259: distinguish the scientific goals that can be accomplished with
1260: ground-based facilities from those that require a space-based
1261: solution.
1262:
1263: \bigskip\noindent {\it Facilities:} Hale (PALAO/PHARO)
1264:
1265: \acknowledgements
1266:
1267: We thank Nicholas Law, Michael Ireland, David Le Mignant, Adam Kraus,
1268: Marten van Kerkwijk, and Andrew Gould for useful discussions on
1269: astrometry. We also thank Palomar Observatory for providing support
1270: for the DIMM/MASS unit used in this study. This work has been
1271: supported by NASA, and by the National Science Foundation Science and
1272: Technology Center for Adaptive Optics, managed by the University of
1273: California at Santa Cruz under cooperative agreement No. AST -
1274: 9876783.
1275:
1276: \bibliographystyle{apj1b_ams}
1277: \bibliography{ms,journals}
1278:
1279:
1280:
1281:
1282:
1283:
1284: \end{document}
1285: