1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \shorttitle{Precision VLBI pulsar astrometry}
3: \shortauthors{Deller, Tingay, \& Brisken}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \newcommand{\pbdot}{\ensuremath{\dot{P}_{\mathrm b}}}
8: \newcommand{\esys}{\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{sys}}}}
9: \newcommand{\etherm}{\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{therm}}}}
10: \newcommand{\phisys}{\ensuremath{\phi_{\mathrm{sys}}(t)}}
11: \newcommand{\degrees}{\ensuremath{^{\circ}}}
12:
13: \title{Precision Southern Hemisphere pulsar VLBI astrometry: techniques and results for PSR J1559--4438}
14:
15: \author{A.T. Deller,\altaffilmark{1,2} S.J. Tingay,\altaffilmark{3} \&
16: W. Brisken\altaffilmark{4}}
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, Mail H39, P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia}
18:
19: \altaffiltext{2}{co-supervised through the Australia Telescope National Facility, P.O. Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia}
20:
21: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Imaging and Applied Physics, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA, Australia}
22:
23: \altaffiltext{4}{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Charlottesville, VA, USA}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We describe a data reduction pipeline for VLBI astrometric observations of pulsars, implemented using
27: the ParselTongue AIPS interface. The pipeline performs calibration (including ionosphere modeling), phase referencing with proper accounting of reference source structure, amplitude corrections for pulsar scintillation, and position fitting to yield the position, proper motion and parallax. The optimal
28: data weighting scheme to minimize the total error budget of a parallax fit, and how this
29: scheme varies with pulsar parameters such as flux density, is also investigated.
30: The robustness of the techniques employed are demonstrated with the presentation of the first
31: results from a two year astrometry program using the Australian Long Baseline Array (LBA).
32: The parallax of PSR J1559--4438 is determined to be $\pi = 0.384 \pm 0.081$\ mas $(1\sigma)$,
33: resulting in a distance estimate of 2600 pc which is consistent with earlier DM and HI absorption
34: estimates.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \keywords{Techniques: interferometric --- astrometry --- pulsars: general --- pulsars: individual(J1559--4438)}
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40: Accurate, model independent distances to pulsars are, like many astronomical distance
41: measurements, highly prized but difficult to obtain. The dispersion measure (DM) of
42: a pulsar indicates the integrated column density of free electrons between the observer
43: and the pulsar, and can be used in conjunction with Galactic electron distribution models
44: to estimate pulsar distances, but this approach suffers from considerable uncertainty
45: when the electron distribution model is poorly understood, such as at high Galactic latitudes.
46: Timing residuals for millisecond pulsars (MSPs) can be used to determine parallax and
47: proper motion \citep[e.g.][]{hot06}, but only for the very limited subset of pulsars with extremely accurate
48: timing solutions. VLBI astrometry offers a means to directly measure the parallaxes and proper
49: motions of nearby pulsars.
50:
51: By obtaining an independent pulsar distance estimate, a pulsar DM can be used to determine
52: the average electron density along the line of sight; an ensemble of such measurements can be
53: used to improve electron distribution models. Whilst several recent large pulsar parallax programs
54: have significantly increased the number of known VLBI parallaxes \citep[e.g.][]{cha04}, to date
55: very few VLBI parallaxes have been obtained for southern pulsars, due to the bias of VLBI facilities
56: towards the Northern Hemisphere. As such, models of Galactic electron distributions are more
57: uncertain at far southern declinations.
58:
59: Furthermore, binary pulsars offer the opportunity to make exceedingly precise tests of gravitational theories,
60: since relativistic effects contribute to the observed rate of change of binary period (\pbdot), which
61: can be measured very precisely in systems with a stable pulsar. However,
62: kinematic effects \citep{shk70} also contribute to \pbdot, and can only
63: be accurately subtracted to obtain \pbdot\ due to General Relativity (GR) if
64: the pulsar distance and transverse
65: velocity are accurately known. The effect scales with the square of proper motion, and hence
66: is typically largest for nearby pulsars, where VLBI measurements of parallax are most feasible.
67: Since the uncertainty of a DM--based distance estimate
68: is large for any individual pulsar, a reliable estimate of the error on derived GR quantities
69: requires a direct distance determination. Similarly, luminosities for individual pulsars based on
70: DM--inferred distances are questionable, so deriving accurate an accurate luminosity for any
71: individual pulsar generally requires an independent confirmation of distance.
72:
73: In this paper, we describe our target selection policy in \S\ref{sec:select}, and the observations
74: undertaken in \S\ref{sec:obs}. The data reduction pipeline is described in \S\ref{sec:datared},
75: and we present the results of PSR J1559--4438 in \S\ref{sec:results}. We analyse the optimum
76: visibility weighting scheme to use for VLBI astrometry in \S\ref{sec:optweight}, and
77: the magnitudes of different sources of systematic errors are investigated in \S\ref{sec:errorbudget}.
78: Our conclusions are presented in \S\ref{sec:conclusions}.
79:
80: \section{Target selection}
81: \label{sec:select}
82: Our observational program encompassed 8 pulsars, listed in Table~\ref{tab:targets}.
83: Previous Southern Hemisphere VLBI pulsar astrometry programs
84: \citep{dod03,leg02,bai90} have yielded only two published pulsar parallaxes, so one of our
85: primary motivations was to increase the number of southern VLBI parallaxes and hence
86: improve models of Galactic electron distributions at southern declinations. Additionally,
87: as this is the first such large scale southern parallax study, we chose to target pulsars
88: of varying brightness and predicted distance to determine the types of targets
89: that would be feasible for future southern VLBI studies.
90:
91: In this paper we present results for the bright pulsar J1559--4438. As an isolated pulsar
92: with a characteristic age of 4 Myr and DM distance of 2.35 kpc, J1559--438 is unremarkable, but as
93: it provides the highest signal to noise detections of our target pulsars, and
94: suffers most heavily from scintillation, it provides the clearest example of the techniques
95: which we will apply to the data reduction of the remaining pulsars. PSR J2048--1616 was
96: included as a second ``technique check" source and those results will be presented in a future publication.
97:
98: The remaining targets can be broadly divided into two scientific categories:
99: binary pulsars used for tests of GR and gravitational wave detection
100: (J0437--4715, J0737--3039A/B and J2145--0750), and pulsars with unusual DM--based luminosity
101: in the radio (low luminosity pulsars J0108--1431 and J2144--3933) or x-ray
102: (J0630--3834, whose x--ray luminosity is anomalously high).
103: Each group will be the subject of a forthcoming analysis.
104:
105: \section{Observations}
106: \label{sec:obs}
107: Eight observational epochs were spread over a two year period between May 2006 and February 2008.
108: Epochs were typically 24 hours in duration, and observed
109: a subset of the 8 pulsars, depending on which were closest to parallax extrema.
110: The observing frequency was centred on 1400 MHz for the first observation, and 1650 MHz
111: for the remaining 7 observations. PSR J0437--4715 was observed separately, with four epochs of
112: 12 hours duration, centred on 8400 MHz. Observations at this higher frequency were made possible
113: by the high flux and narrow pulse profile of PSR J0437--4715 . Dual circular polarization was used at all
114: frequencies.
115:
116: The Australian Long Baseline Array (LBA) consists of six antennas -- the
117: Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) telescopes in New South Wales (Parkes, Australia Telescope Compact Array [ATCA], Mopra); the University of
118: Tasmania telescopes at Hobart, Tasmania and Ceduna, South Australia; and the
119: NASA DSN facility at Tidbinbilla, Australian Capital Territory.
120: The Parkes, phased ATCA, Mopra, and Hobart telescopes participated in all experiments,
121: but a Tidbinbilla antenna (70m or 34m) was used only when available, and Ceduna
122: participated in observations of J0437-4715 only\footnote{Ceduna
123: does not possess a 1600 MHz receiver, so could only participate in the higher frequency
124: experiments}. The maximum baseline length with Ceduna is 1700 km, and without Ceduna
125: is 1400 km. Representative $uv$\ coverage at 1650 MHz and 8400 MHz is shown below in
126: Figure~\ref{fig:uvcoverage}.
127:
128: All observations used the recently introduced LBADR disk-based recording system
129: (Phillips et al., in preparation).
130: At the three ATNF observatories, the presence of two Data Acquisition System (DAS) units allowed
131: a recording rate of 512 Mbps (8 $\times$ 16 MHz bands, Nyquist sampled at 2 bits), while the
132: non-ATNF stations recorded at 256 Mbps (4 $\times$ 16 MHz bands). For epochs
133: where dual--polarization
134: feeds were available at all antennas, two frequency bands were dropped at the non--ATNF
135: stations, but as some of the NASA DSN feeds are single polarization only, 1650 MHz
136: epochs featuring the 70m NASA antenna and 8400 MHz epochs featuring the 34m NASA
137: antenna instead retained a single polarization of all frequency bands.
138:
139: A phase reference
140: cycle time of six minutes, apportioned equally to target and calibrator, was used for all observations.
141: As the LBA consists of disparate antennas ranging up to 70m in diameter (and, when phased, the
142: ATCA has an equivalent diameter of hundreds of metres for the purposes of calculating
143: field of view), it was not possible to utilise in--beam calibrators for any sources, unlike
144: recent pulsar astrometric programs using the VLBA \citep{chatterjee01a,chatterjee05a}.
145:
146: The data were correlated using matched filtering on pulse profiles with the DiFX
147: software correlator \citep{del07}, producing
148: RPFITS\footnote{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/computing/software/rpfits.html} format
149: visibility data.
150: Matched pulse profile filters (a more advanced pulsar `gate')
151: allow the maximum recovery
152: of signal to noise when observing pulsars, by dividing the pulse into bins and appropriately
153: weighting each bin by the expected signal strength before summation. Table~\ref{tab:targets}
154: shows the predicted gain due to pulse profile filtering for each target source. Pulsar ephemerides
155: were obtained using the ATNF Pulsar Catalogue \citep{man05}, with the exception of the double
156: pulsar J0737-3039, which was periodically updated with the latest published ephemeris.
157: Two second integrations and 64 spectral points per 16 MHz band were used for all observations.
158:
159: \section{Data reduction}
160: \label{sec:datared}
161: Data reduction was performed principally in AIPS\footnote{http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/aips},
162: using the python interface ParselTongue \citep{ket06}. The DIFMAP package \citep{shep97}
163: was used for imaging and self calibration. The data reduction was implemented
164: as a pipeline, with user interaction for imaging, editing of solution tables, and visibility flagging.
165: All scripts used in the data reduction process are available
166: at \verb+http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~adeller/software/scripts/+.
167: The individual stages of the pipeline are described below.
168:
169: \subsection{Amplitude and weight calibration and flagging}
170: Amplitude calibration using the measured telescope system temperatures was carried out using
171: the AIPS tasks APCAL and ANTAB. Flagging based on predicted or (when available) logged
172: telescope off-source times due to slewing or failures was applied using UVFLG, while the first
173: and last 10 seconds of every scan was excised with the task QUACK. For the ATCA,
174: the tied array infrastructure required flagging the
175: first 3 correlator integrations (30 seconds) of each scan with QUACK. The weight of each
176: visibility point, which is set to a constant value when the RPFITS format data is loaded into
177: AIPS, was initially scaled by the predicted baseline sensitivity using a ParselTongue script. The effect of
178: data weighting is investigated further in \S\ref{sec:dataweights}.
179:
180: \subsection{Geometric model and ionospheric corrections}
181: \label{subsec:geoionocorrect}
182: At the low frequencies which are generally used for pulsar astrometry, ionospheric variations
183: usually make the dominant contribution to systematic error \citep[see e.g.][]{bri02}. Using
184: ionospheric models based on Global Position System (GPS) data
185: provided by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory\footnote{available
186: from the Crustal Dynamics Data Information Systems (CDDIS) archive:
187: ftp://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/gps/products/ionex/},
188: we corrected for phase variations due to the ionosphere using the task TECOR.
189: This observing program roughly coincided with the solar minimum of 2006,
190: and consequently the ionospheric variations were generally at a minimum.
191:
192: Total Electron Content (TEC) models suffer at southern declinations due to the relatively
193: sparse distribution of GPS receivers at southern latitudes. Consequently, the
194: derived ionospheric corrections are much less reliable for the LBA than for similar
195: Northern Hemisphere instruments. The dispersive delay corrections generated
196: by TECOR were inspected for each epoch, and the effectiveness
197: of different TEC maps is investigated in \S\ref{1559:tecor}.
198:
199: While the observational program was underway, considerably more accurate station
200: positions were derived for several LBA antennas using archival geodetic observations and the
201: OCCAM software \citep{tit04}, a dedicated 22 GHz LBA geodetic experiment (Petrov et al., in
202: preparation)
203: and GPS measurements. Additionally, more accurate positions for some calibrators were
204: published in the 5th VLBA Calibrator Survey \citep[VCS5;][]{kov07}. The visibilities
205: were corrected to account for the revised positions using an AIPS SN table generated
206: with the Wizardry feature of ParselTongue, which stored the difference between the initial
207: and corrected geometric models.
208:
209: For some pulsars, their proper motions ($> 100$ mas yr$^{-1}$)\ caused significant position shifts
210: over the course of a 24 hour observation, comparable in some cases to the epoch positional
211: accuracy. As the geometric model generation used in DiFX
212: at the time of these observations could not account for proper motion, the visibility phases and
213: uvw values were corrected in AIPS using a SN table generated by ParselTongue, interpolating
214: between predicted postions for the pulsar at the start and end of the experiment.
215:
216: \subsection{Fringe-fitting and amplitude calibration refinement}
217: Fringe fitting was performed using the AIPS task FRING, using a point source model, on the phase reference calibrator data for each target pulsar.
218: Subsequently, a single structural model was produced for each calibrator using the combined
219: datasets from all epochs. Each source was modeled using a dominant component (delta or narrow
220: Gaussian) fixed at the phase center, and 0 -- 2 secondary components which were allowed to vary
221: in position. The flux of all components was allowed to vary. Typically, the variation between epochs
222: of secondary component(s) flux were $<1\%$ of peak image flux.
223: The solutions were applied to each calibrator and the data averaged in frequency,
224: exported to disk and loaded into DIFMAP. The calibrator model was loaded and
225: several iterations of self-calibration and modelfitting performed. The difmap `modelfit'
226: command uses the Levenberg--Marquardt least--squares minimisation algorithm to fit the
227: free model parameters to the visibility points, incorporating the visibility weights. The self calibration
228: corrections were then written to disk as an AIPS SN table using the `cordump' patch to
229: difmap\footnote{http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/{\char126}elenc/difmap-patches/}. Additionally,
230: data points flagged in DIFMAP were collated in a Wizardry script and converted into a
231: flag file suitable for the AIPS task UVFLG.
232:
233: The amplitude corrections generated in this manner allowed compensation for
234: imperfectly measured system temperature values, and were also applied to visibility weights.
235: For bands which could not be self--calibrated, due to only being observed by the three
236: ATNF antennas, a correction was estimated based on the nearest band with self
237: calibration solutions of the same polarization. The self calibration solutions were
238: loaded into AIPS using TBIN, and applied to the target pulsars using CLCAL.
239:
240: The use of bandpass calibration was investigated but found to make insignificant difference to
241: the fitted target position. The LBA Data Acquisition System (DAS) utilitizes digital filtering and
242: typical bandpass phase ripple was $<2\,^{\circ}$. When averaging in frequency, the lowest and
243: highest 10\% of the band was discarded and the central 80\% of the band averaged with uniform
244: weight assigned to each channel.
245:
246: \subsection{Pulsar scintillation correction}
247: Nearby pulsars can suffer dramatic, and rapid, variations in visibility amplitude due to diffractive
248: scintillation. The size of the scintillation pattern is typically much larger than the size of the Earth,
249: and so the amplitude variations are essentially independent of baseline length.
250: Maximal amplitude fluctuations (where the rms is equal to the mean
251: flux) are seen for pulsars in the strong scattering regime \citep[see e.g.][]{walker98a}, which can
252: be predicted from Galactic electron distribution models. The NE2001 model \citep{cordes02a}
253: predicts that strong scintillation should be observed for J0630--2834, J1559--4438, J2048--1616,
254: J2144--3933 and J2145--0750. As an example, Figure~\ref{fig:scint}a shows the variation of
255: visibility amplitude with time for J1559--4438 on Tidbinbilla baselines over a 2 hour period.
256: Observed scintillation parameters for target pulsars are shown in Table~\ref{tab:scint}.
257: Assuming the material responsible for the
258: scintillation is turbulent, with a Kolmogorov distribution, the
259: scintillation time $\tau_{\mathrm{scint}}$\ and scintillation bandwidth
260: $B_{\mathrm{scint}}$\ can be scaled to the frequencies used in these
261: observations with the relations $\tau_{\mathrm{scint}}\propto\nu^{1.2}$\
262: and $B_{\mathrm{scint}}\propto\nu^{4.4}$\ \citep{cordes86a}.
263:
264: Left uncorrected, the variation in visibility amplitude with time scatters power throughout the image
265: plane, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:scint}c, which shows the residuals for J1559--4438 after fitting a single
266: point source to the visibilities shown in Figure~\ref{fig:scint}a. To overcome this, a ParselTongue
267: script was written to produce an AIPS SN table which would flatten visibility amplitudes
268: by averaging data over all sensitive baselines to 1/4 of the scintillation time, normalizing,
269: and taking the square root to obtain an antenna based correction. The visibility weights were
270: then scaled by the inverse of the square of the correction, upweighting points when
271: the amplitude was high and downweighting points of low significance. The effect of these
272: corrections is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:scint}b and d, which show the visibility amplitudes
273: and image residuals respectively. In this example, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the detection is
274: improved by a factor of two when the visibility amplitudes are corrected
275: for scintillation, which ultimately reduces the error on the position determination
276: by a corresponding factor.
277:
278: \section{Positional determination and parallax fitting}
279: The calibrated visibilities for each pulsar were averaged in frequency, written to disk
280: and loaded into DIFMAP. A single delta function model component was initialized
281: at the peak of the dirty image, and the modelfit command used to obtain the best fit
282: for the pulsar visibility data. Each observing band, as well as the combined dataset,
283: was then imaged separately using uniform
284: weighting (2 pixels, weights raised to the power $-1$) producing 8 images which were saved
285: and read back into AIPS using the task FITLD.
286: Variations to the weighting scheme are discussed in \S\ref{sec:dataweights}.
287: The AIPS task JMFIT was used to determine the pulsar position and formal
288: (SNR--based) errors in the image plane.
289: Systematic offsets of several (3--6) mas were observed at all epochs
290: between the 4 bands that were only contributed to by the three ATNF
291: antennas, and the 4 bands common to all antennas. The magnitude and
292: direction of these offsets varied between epochs, and so the ATNF--only
293: bands (which additionally had formal errors of approximately five times
294: the other bands, primarily due to the shorter baselines) were dropped.
295: We suspect that the systematic offsets were caused by the lack of an accurate amplitude
296: self--calibration solution for these bands.
297:
298: For each pulsar, the best fit values of J2000 position (RA and declination), proper motion
299: (RA and declination) and parallax were initially determined by iteratively minimising the error
300: function calculated by summing the value of predicted minus actual position
301: over all measurements, weighted by the individual measurement errors. The iterative
302: minimisation code used is described in \citet{bri02}. A reference time
303: for the proper motion was chosen to be 31 Dec 2006 (MJD 54100) to minimize
304: proper motion uncertainty contibutions to be position uncertainty.
305:
306: This approach yields error estimates for the 5 fitted parameters which are almost certainly
307: an underestimate, for two reasons:
308: \begin{enumerate}
309: \item There are systematic errors, varying from band to band within an epoch (intra--epoch
310: errors) such as the residual unmodeled differential ionosphere, bandpass effects etc, and
311: varying from epoch to epoch (inter--epoch errors) caused by effects dependent on
312: observing time, such as seasonal or diurnal ionospheric variations, and variations
313: in refractive scintillation image wander \citep{rickett90a}. These should increase
314: the error on each individual measurement, but estimating the magnitude of the systematic
315: component for each individual measurement is poorly constrained.
316: \item Each measurement is assumed to be completely independent, whereas as noted above
317: we expect correlated errors between measurements from the same epoch. In essence, this
318: approach overestimates the number of independent measurements, lowering the reduced
319: chi--squared and implying a better fit than the actual result.
320: \end{enumerate}
321: It is possible to make an estimate of the magnitude of the intra--epoch errors by comparing
322: the scatter in fitted positions from the individual bands. Forming a weighted centroid
323: position for each epoch utilising all measurements from that epoch allows an estimation
324: of the likelihood that the measured points are consistent with that centroid, through the
325: calculation of a reduced chi--squared value. If the reduced chi--squared value exceeds unity,
326: the presence of unmodeled systematic errors can be inferred.
327:
328: Since we have no a priori knowledge of the systematic error distribution, we have chosen
329: to allocate an equal systematic error to each measurement, and add in
330: quadrature to the original measurement error. The errors in right ascension and declination
331: are treated separately. This is necessarily an iterative procedure, since
332: the weighted centroid will be altered by the addition of these systematic error estimates.
333: In effect, this assumes a zero mean, gaussian distribution for the systematic errors.
334: Although this is unlikely to be the true distribution, it is the most reasonable assumption available, and
335: certainly more correct than assuming no systematic errors at all. The intra--epoch systematic
336: error estimate for an epoch is obtained when the reduced chi--squared reaches unity.
337:
338: Once a single position measurement and error has been calculated for each epoch,
339: the fit to position, parallax and proper motion can be re--calculated, and
340: the reduced chi--squared of the fit inspected again. Since the number of
341: measurements were reduced, the addition of systematic errors did not always lower
342: the reduced chi--squared of the fit. If reduced chi--squared remained significantly
343: greater than unity, we concluded that significant inter--epoch systematic errors remained.
344: As with intra--epoch errors, the true error distribution is unknown, and so the inter--epoch
345: error was apportioned equally between epochs. The errors in right ascension and declination
346: were treated separately, and iterated until a reduced chi--squared of
347: unity was obtained.
348:
349: Thus, the final astrometric dataset for each pulsar consisted of a single position measurement
350: for each epoch, with a total error equal to the weighted sum of the individual band
351: formal errors, added in quadrature to the estimates of intra--epoch and inter--epoch
352: systematic errors.
353:
354: For each pulsar, the robustness of error estimation after the inclusion of estimated systematic
355: contributions was checked by implementing a bootstrap technique.
356: Bootstrapping, which involves repeated trials on samples selected with replacement
357: from the population of measured position points, is a statistical technique allowing the
358: estimation of parameter errors without complete knowledge of the underlying distribution
359: \citep{press02a}. In this instance, the original single band position measurements
360: were taken as the population, and N samples were drawn, where N was the original number
361: of measurements. Each bootstrap consisted of 10,000 such trials, and the parameter
362: errors estimated from the variance of the resultant distributions.
363: A minimum of 3 different epochs needed to be included to ensure a fit was possible - on
364: the rare occasion that a trial did not satisfy this requirement, it was re--drawn.
365:
366: Thus, three sets of fitted parameters and errors were obtained for each pulsar -- a ``naive" result
367: using the single--band positions, a bootstrap result, and a more conservative estimate which
368: attempts to account for the impact of systematic errors (the ``inclusive" fit).
369: In general, the estimated magnitude
370: of errors on fitted parameters increased through these three different schemes.
371: Typically, the ratio in the errors on the inclusive fit to those on the naive fit ranged from 0.95 to 1.90.
372: We feel that the final error values obtained from the inclusive fit
373: are the most accurate estimation possible, and are inherently conservative. All quoted
374: errors are 1$\sigma$ unless otherwise stated.
375:
376: \section{Results for PSR J1559--4438}
377: \label{sec:results}
378:
379: \subsection{Initial results}
380: \label{sec:initresults}
381: Using the techniques described above, we obtained initial results for J1559--4438
382: (shown in Table~\ref{tab:initial}). The motion of J1559--4438
383: in right ascension and declination is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:weightedfit}, along with the fitted path
384: according to the systematic--error weighted fit.
385: The fit is clearly unsatisfactory, since it predicts a negative parallax (though consistent with zero).
386: The final column of Table~\ref{tab:initial} shows that systematic errors far exceed the nominal
387: single--epoch positional accuracies, and inspection of Figure~\ref{fig:weightedfit} shows that
388: the first epoch (MJD 53870) is markedly discrepant with the remaining epochs.
389:
390: As we show below, fine-tuning of the data reduction is required in order to obtain optimal results from each pulsar, in particular with regard to the details of the ionospheric corrections and the visibility weighting schemes using in imaging. We describe the steps taken for J1559--4438 in
391: \S\ref{1559:tecor} and \S\ref{sec:dataweights}.
392:
393: \subsection{Ionospheric correction}
394: \label{1559:tecor}
395:
396: The obvious source of the large systematic errors present in the initial fit shown in
397: \S\ref{sec:initresults} is the varying ionospheric correction between epochs. Accordingly,
398: as a first check, the position fits for each epoch were recalculated after subtracting the differential
399: ionospheric correction between PSR J1559--4438 and its phase reference -- in effect,
400: removing the applied ionospheric correction and leaving the data uncorrected for
401: ionospheric effects. This was implemented
402: using a ParselTongue script which made a two--point interpolation between adjacent calibrator scans
403: to calculate the differential correction to the target (which was not absorbed into the fringe--fit),
404: which was stored in a CL table and subtracted using the AIPS task SPLAT. The applied values
405: were saved for later analysis.
406:
407: Typically, we would expect the largest ionospheric corrections when the angular displacement of
408: the pulsar from the sun is small, since angular displacement and solar activity are
409: the largest influence on TEC. The angular displacement at each epoch between the original fitted
410: position and the position obtained when ionospheric correction was
411: removed is presented in Table~\ref{tab:tecorshifts}, and
412: plotted against angular separation of the pulsar from the sun at the time of observation in
413: Figure~\ref{fig:tecor_sun}. The revised astrometric fit obtained without ionospheric correction
414: is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:notecorfit}.
415:
416: It is immediately apparent from Figure~\ref{fig:tecor_sun} that the first epoch
417: (MJD 53870) is discrepant in that
418: the position shift due to ionospheric correction is unusually large, given the large angular
419: separation from the Sun. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:notecorfit}, this epoch becomes more
420: consistent with the fit when the ionospheric correction is removed,
421: but the third epoch (MJD 54057) becomes much more
422: inconsistent. This is unsurprising, however, since this epoch had the smallest pulsar--Sun separation
423: and the largest ionospheric corrections.
424: %The magnitude of the differential TECOR corrections for
425: %MJD 53870 are also the second largest (after those for MJD 54057) -- meaning the TEC map itself
426: %was responsible for the large correction, not the lower observing frequency used in this first epoch.
427:
428: To investigate whether the chosen ionospheric map was at fault, the first epoch was re--reduced with
429: all available maps from the NASA CDDIS
430: archive\footnote{ftp://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/gps/products/ionex/}, but no significant change
431: was found in fitted position. Given that the different TEC maps make use of many of the same
432: GPS stations, this is unsurprising. This problem is exacerbated at southern declinations due
433: to the low density of GPS receivers at southern latitudes.
434: Additionally, any errors in the TEC maps would have an
435: impact $\sim40\%$ greater for this first epoch, due to its lower observing frequency of 1400 MHz,
436: compared with the 1650 MHz center frequency used for all subsequent observations.
437:
438: Thus, due to the probability of residual ionospheric errors for this epoch, and also
439: the potential for frequency--dependent calibrator source structure, the first epoch
440: (MJD 53870, the only 1400 MHz epoch) was dropped from all further analysis.
441: The fit to the remaining 7 epochs, with
442: ionospheric corrections re--enabled, is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:weighted_no_v190b}. While
443: a realistic fit is now obtained, the measurement of parallax is still not significant.
444:
445: \subsection{Data weights}
446: \label{sec:dataweights}
447:
448: Initial pulsar imaging and position fitting used visibilities weighted according
449: to the best estimate of instantaneous baseline sensitivity. Whilst this is theoretically optimal
450: for data which consists only of signal $S$ and additive random thermal errors \etherm,
451: it fails to account for the presence of multiplicative
452: systematic errors $\esys=e^{i \phisys}$ caused by
453: residual calibration errors. Typically, these systematic
454: errors are dominated by atmospheric and ionospheric gradients, although other contributions
455: include antenna and calibrator source position errors, time--variation of antenna bandpasses,
456: and instrumental phase jitter. \citet{fomalont05a}
457: presents a theoretical review of phase referencing errors, while \citet{pradel06a} presents a
458: simulation--based approach.
459:
460: If \phisys\ had zero--mean and was ergodic, its effect would be
461: indistinguishable from thermal noise and could be easily estimated, allowing the visibility weights
462: to be corrected. For antenna/source position errors
463: and large--scale atmospheric/ionospheric structure, however, the residual errors are correlated
464: over long times, causing systematic shifts in the fitted position for the target.
465:
466: When normal sensitivity--based
467: weighting is employed in the presence of substantial and persistent systematic
468: phase errors, the systematic noise on the most sensitive baseline will be absorbed into the fit, at the cost
469: of a poorer fit to the less sensitive baselines. The magnitude of the induced error will be
470: dependent on the ratio of systematic to thermal errors, and the discrepancy in sensitivity
471: between the most and least sensitive baselines in the array. For the LBA,
472: the most sensitive baseline (Parkes--DSS43: system equivalent flux density 30 Jy)
473: is roughly 13 times more sensitive than
474: the least sensitive (Hobart--Mopra: 380 Jy). Thus, the LBA is particularly susceptible to
475: the influence of systematic errors, due to the pronounced variation in baseline sensitivities.
476:
477: %At high SNR, the probability distribution of phase (in radians) reduces to a Gaussian with std dev
478: %deltaS/S, where S is true amplitude and deltaS is std dev of real or imag part of visibility.
479:
480: The systematic errors can be crudely estimated (in a model--dependent fashion)
481: by performing phase--only self--calibration on the target pulsar over a sufficiently
482: long timescale to obtain sufficient SNR,
483: and comparing the magnitude of the corrections to those expected from thermal noise alone.
484: While this approach probes systematic
485: errors over a shorter time period than those which would dominate for inter--epoch errors
486: (tens of minutes, rather than hours to days), it is illustrative of the presence of systematic
487: errors overall.
488: Such corrections are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:selfcal} for the ATCA station using a three--minute
489: solution interval during the observation on MJD 54127. The corrections are clearly correlated
490: over timescales of tens of minutes, and
491: the rms deviation of $4.4\,^{\circ}$\ is an order of magnitude greater than the estimated thermal
492: phase rms of $0.4\,^{\circ}$\ (calculated in this high--SNR limit as station sensitivity divided
493: divided by target flux, scaled by pulse filtering gain and converted from radians to degrees).
494: Thus, for this observation, systematic errors $\gg$ thermal errors and weighting visibilities
495: by sensitivity actually degrades the quality of the position fit.
496:
497: If the average \esys\ could be accurately estimated for each baseline over the duration of an
498: experiment, the baseline visibility weights could be adjusted by assuming that \esys\ is time--invariant.
499: Even more desirable would be the estimation of \esys\ as a function of time, allowing
500: a time--variable adjustment of the visibility weights.
501: Given present instrumentation, there is no way to reliably estimate systematic
502: error (time dependent or independent) in a model independent fashion.
503: In the limit where $\esys\gg\etherm$, however,
504: the visibility weight for each baseline (regardless of sensitivity)
505: will be dominated by the systematic error contribution, resulting in
506: approximately equal weights for all visibilities. Accordingly, visibility weights for all
507: baselines were reset to an equal, constant value and data reduction repeated.
508: The results are discussed below in \S\ref{1559:final}.
509:
510: \subsection{Final results}
511: \label{1559:final}
512:
513: The revised fit obtained using equally weighted visibility data is described in Table~\ref{tab:final} and
514: plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:final}. Through comparison of Table~\ref{tab:final} with Table~\ref{tab:initial},
515: it can be seen that the average fit error for a single epoch has increased by 20\%, but the
516: inter--epoch systematic error has decreased by 95\%. Thus, while using equally weighted data
517: incurs a small sensitivity penalty, it benefits significantly through the reduced susceptibility
518: to systematic errors.
519:
520: The use of natural weighting, as opposed to uniform weighting, was investigated but found
521: to produce inferior results. Fitted parameters remained relatively constant but errors on
522: the fitted parameters increased by $\sim 50\%$. This is unsurprising, since the use of
523: natural weighting promotes a larger beamsize, since more visibility points are
524: concentrated at small {\it uv} distances.
525:
526: The best--fit distance of $2600^{+690}_{-450}$\ pc is consistent with the DM--based distance
527: prediction from the NE2001 Galactic electron distribution model
528: \citep[2350 pc;][]{cordes02a}, which differed considerably from the earlier
529: \citet{tay93} distance estimate of 1580 pc. Whilst DM--based distance predictions are often assumed
530: to be accurate to $\sim$20\%, errors up to a factor of several have been observed for
531: individual objects \citep[e.g. PSR B0656+14;][]{brisken03a}.
532: The VLBI distance is also consistent with the lower distance estimate of $2.0 \pm 0.5$ kpc made
533: using HI line absorptions by \citet{koribalski95a}. The measured values of
534: proper motion ($\mu_{\alpha} = 1.52 \pm 0.14$\ mas yr$^{-1}$,
535: $\mu_{\delta} = 13.15 \pm 0.05$\ mas yr$^{-1}$)
536: are consistent with the VLA observations of \cite{fomalont97a}, who measured
537: $\mu_{\alpha} = 1 \pm 6$\ mas yr$^{-1}$, $\mu_{\delta} = 14 \pm 11$\ mas yr$^{-1}$.
538: Neglecting acceleration from the Galactic potential, the kinematic age of the pulsar can be estimated
539: from its Galactic latitude $b = 6.3667\,^{\circ}$\ and
540: proper motion perpendicular to the Galactic plane $\mu_{b} = 8.93$\ mas yr$^{-1}$ as
541: $2.57 \pm 0.51$ Myr, assuming a birth location within 100 pc of the plane.
542: Under the standard assumption of a braking index
543: of 3, the observed period $P=257$\,ms and period derivative
544: $\dot{P} = 1.01916\times10^{-15}$\ \citep{siegman93a} imply a birth period
545: $P_{0}$\ between 35 and 151 ms -- longer than is often assumed for normal pulsars
546: \citep[see e.g.][]{migliazzo02a}, but similar to the calculated value of $P_{0} =139.6$\,ms
547: for PSR J0538+2817 \citep{kramer03a}.
548:
549: With an accurate proper motion now calculated, the position angle of the proper motion
550: for PSR J1559--4438 can be compared to the position angle of the emission polarisation, which tests
551: the alignment of the rotation and velocity vector, as described by \citet{johnston07a}. If
552: the pulsar emits predominantly parallel or perpendicular to the magnetic field lines,
553: then the angle between the velocity and polarisation position angles is expected to be
554: 0\degrees\ or 90\degrees\ respectively. \citet{johnston07a} found plausible alignment
555: in 7/14 pulsars of similar ages to PSR J1559--4438. From
556: Table~\ref{tab:final}, it is easy to calculate the velocity position angle as
557: PA$_{v} = 6.6 \pm 0.6$\degrees. The polarisation position angle for PSR J1559--4438 given in
558: \citet{johnston07a} is $71\pm3$, and so in this instance there is no strong case for alignment
559: of the velocity and rotation axes.
560:
561: One inconsistency with previously published data on PSR J1559--4438 is the transverse
562: velocity, which at 164 km s$^{-1}$ (95\% confidence upper limit of 287 km s$^{-1}$) is
563: inconsistent with the 400 km s$^{-1}$ estimated from
564: scintillation by \citet{joh98}. However, this scintillation estimate assumes that the scattering material
565: resides in a thin screen at the midpoint between the pulsar and the solar system, and neglects
566: any motion of the scattering screen itself. As the true distribution of the
567: scattering material along the line of sight to the pulsar is not known, the most reasonable interpretation
568: of our results is that the scattering screen for PSR J1559--4438
569: resides considerably closer to the pulsar than to the solar system.
570:
571: \section{Optimal data weighting}
572: \label{sec:optweight}
573: From the results shown in \S\ref{sec:dataweights} and \S\ref{1559:final}, it is clear that
574: for PSR J1559--4438 our astrometric error budget is dominated by systematic errors, and that the
575: use of equally weighted visibility points is optimal. However, Table~\ref{tab:targets} shows that
576: this may not be the case for other pulsars in our target sample, as some are orders of magnitude
577: fainter than PSR J1559--4438. Accordingly, we have investigated
578: the conditions under which sensitivity--weighted visibilities give superior results to
579: equally--weighted visibilities. This was carried out by adding simulated
580: thermal noise of varying RMS to the existing dataset.
581:
582: Three ``noisy" datasets $D_{A}$, $D_{B}$, and $D_{C}$\ were constructed by adding
583: gaussian--distributed noise to the real and imaginary visibility components of the original
584: observations. Since the theoretical single epoch SNR for sensitivity--weighted data should be
585: $\sim800$ (a factor of 10 greater than the typically obtained SNR),
586: the RMS of the added noise in the three datasets was set to
587: predicted baseline sensitivity scaled by a factor of 20, 40, and 80, which should allow
588: a maximum single--epoch SNR of 40, 20 and 10 respectively.
589: The results of fitting the modified datasets (using the inclusive fit approach only) with
590: and without the use of sensitivity weighting are presented in Tables \ref{tab:optweight_with} and
591: \ref{tab:optweight_without} respectively.
592:
593: Tables~\ref{tab:optweight_with} and \ref{tab:optweight_without} show that while the equally weighted
594: dataset performs better for $D_{A}$, when the average epoch SNR is still high, its performance
595: rapidly deteriorates as the average epoch SNR decreases.
596: In $D_{C}$, the pulsar was not detected in several
597: epochs using equally--weighted data. The reduction in performance is
598: less marked for the weighted datasets, although they are clearly still affected by
599: systematic errors. However, if the pulsar was closer and the parallax larger, these systematics
600: would be less dominant, and weighted datasets would allow measurement of a parallax
601: when equally weighted datasets may be overwhelmed by thermal errors, to the point of not detecting
602: the pulsar in a single epoch.
603:
604: As noted in \S\ref{sec:dataweights}, the use of weighted visibility points would always be
605: optimal if the weights could include an estimate of the systematic error contribution to that
606: visibility. In the absence of such an estimate, we propose that for the LBA with typical observing
607: conditions and calibrator throws, the transition region from systematic to thermal error dominated
608: astrometry occurs when the single--epoch detection SNR falls to approximately 10 for
609: equally--weighted visibilities. This is
610: shown by the similarity of result quality for $D_{B}$, where the average epoch SNR was approximately
611: 10 for the equally--weighted visibilities.
612: Alternatively, both weighting regimes can be used and average total single--epoch error
613: (formal + systematic) can be compared to estimate the optimal weighting scheme.
614: Again, this is borne out in the simulated datasets, where a transition
615: from systematic errors dominating to epoch fit errors dominating is seen as more noise is added.
616:
617: \section{Estimated contributions to systematic error}
618: \label{sec:errorbudget}
619:
620: The major contributions to systematic error in VLBI astrometry
621: include geometric model errors (station/source
622: position, Earth Orientation Parameters), residual ionospheric and tropospheric errors,
623: variable phase reference source structure, and image
624: wander due to refractive scintillation. Of these, at 1650 MHz residual ionospheric errors would be
625: expected to dominate, despite the a priori ionospheric calibration employed
626: \citep[e.g.][]{bri02}.
627: However, these should be largely uncorrelated from epoch to epoch, and hence the addition of
628: more observations can be expected to continue to improve the fit. Residual tropospheric errors
629: should also be uncorrelated with epoch, and considerably smaller.
630:
631: Geometric model errors cause relative astrometric errors which increase with calibrator throw.
632: Earth Orientation Parameters (EOPs) are well determined
633: by geodetic observations and make minimal contributions to astrometric errors \citep{pradel06a}.
634: Similarly, the mean position of well-determined calibrators makes a minimal contribution.
635: Some LBA stations, however, have position uncertainties of several cm,
636: which could make a several hundred $\mu$as
637: contribution to systematic error. The magnitude of the error
638: depends on the source declination and the calibrator--target separation. Given similar $uv$\ coverage
639: at different epochs, however, the offset will be largely constant with time and is absorbed into
640: the reference position of the target.
641: Future planned geodetic observations
642: will continue to improve LBA station positions, and reduce this systematic contribution. Additionally,
643: as noted in \S\ref{subsec:geoionocorrect}, small station position errors can be
644: corrected post--correlation, which offers the potential to further improve previous position fits.
645:
646: Refractive image wander is caused by large--scale fluctuations in the ISM, and can
647: be estimated based on the strength of the pulsar scattering and the scattering disk size
648: \citep[e.g.][]{rickett90a}. For strong scattering, which includes PSR J1559--4438, the image
649: wander is less than the scattering disk size, if Kolmogorov turbulence is assumed for the scattering
650: material \citep{rickett90a}. Thus, since Table~\ref{tab:scint} shows that scattering disk of
651: PSR J1559--4438 is estimated to be only 133 $\mu$as at our observing frequency,
652: the maximum refractive image wander is $\ll 100\ \mu$as, and can be discounted
653: as a source of systematic error. Table~\ref{tab:scint} shows that refractive scintillation is unlikely
654: to be significant for any of our currently targeted pulsars.
655:
656: The variability of calibrator structure with time depends on the source chosen, but all compact
657: extragalactic radio sources are expected to show some variability, with typical
658: rms values of 100~$\mu$as \citep{fomalont05a}. Over short time periods, this image wander
659: may be correlated from epoch to epoch and absorbed into proper motion fits,
660: but over long times (which could be longer than
661: as astrometric observing program), the mean apparent position will be constant.
662:
663: \section{Conclusions}
664: \label{sec:conclusions}
665: A pipeline for the reduction of LBA astrometric data has been developed in ParselTongue and
666: verified by calculating the parallax ($\pi = 0.384 \pm 0.081$\ mas) and proper
667: motion ($\mu_{\alpha} = 1.52 \pm 0.14$\ mas yr$^{-1}$, $\mu_{\delta} = 13.15 \pm 0.05$\ mas yr$^{-1}$)
668: of PSR J1559--4438. The calculated values are consistent with the DM distance estimate
669: and earlier HI absorption and proper motion studies. Full account
670: has been made of the impact of residual systematic errors on the quality of the astrometric
671: fit. The optimal weighting scheme in the presence of systematic errors and varying thermal
672: errors has been investigated, resulting in the guideline that superior astrometric quality can be
673: obtained for the LBA for typical astrometric observations by using equally weighted, as opposed
674: to sensitivity weighted, visibilities if the
675: target can be detected with S/N $>10$. The completion of this parallax program
676: will result in the publication of 5 more Southern Hemisphere pulsar parallaxes, which
677: will quadruple the number of Southern Hemisphere pulsars with parallaxes determined directly from VLBI astrometry.
678:
679: \acknowledgements
680:
681: The authors would like to thank Ramesh Bhat for useful discussions regarding pulsar scintillation.
682: This work has been supported by the Australian Federal Government's Major National Research Facilities program. ATD is supported via a Swinburne University of Technology Chancellor's Research Scholarship and a CSIRO postgraduate scholarship. The Long Baseline Array is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. This research made use of the
683: ATNF Pulsar Catalogue and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). NED is operated by
684: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the
685: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
686:
687:
688: \begin{thebibliography}{}
689: \bibitem[Bailes et al.(1990)]{bai90} Bailes, M., Manchester,
690: R.~N., Kesteven, M.~J., Norris, R.~P., \& Reynolds, J.~E.\ 1990, \nat, 343,
691: 240
692: \bibitem[Brisken et al.(2002)]{bri02} Brisken, W.~F., Benson,
693: J.~M., Goss, W.~M., \& Thorsett, S.~E.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 906
694: \bibitem[Brisken et al.(2003)]{brisken03a} Brisken, W.~F.,
695: Thorsett, S.~E., Golden, A., \& Goss, W.~M.\ 2003, \apjl, 593, L89
696: \bibitem[Chatterjee et al.(2001)]{chatterjee01a} Chatterjee, S.,
697: Cordes, J.~M., Lazio, T.~J.~W., Goss, W.~M., Fomalont, E.~B.,
698: \& Benson, J.~M.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 287
699: \bibitem[Chatterjee et al.(2004)]{cha04} Chatterjee, S.,
700: Cordes, J.~M., Vlemmings, W.~H.~T., Arzoumanian, Z., Goss, W.~M., \& Lazio,
701: T.~J.~W.\ 2004, \apj, 604, 339
702: \bibitem[Chatterjee et al.(2005)]{chatterjee05a} Chatterjee, S., et
703: al.\ 2005, \apjl, 630, L61
704: \bibitem[Cordes et al.(1986)]{cordes86a} Cordes, J.~M.,
705: Pidwerbetsky, A., \& Lovelace, R.~V.~E.\ 1986, \apj, 310, 737
706: \bibitem[Cordes \& Lazio(2002)]{cordes02a} Cordes, J.~M., \& Lazio, T.~J.~W.\ 2002,
707: ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0207156
708: \bibitem[Deller et al.(2007)]{del07} Deller, A.~T., Tingay,
709: S.~J., Bailes, M., \& West, C.\ 2007, \pasp, 119, 318
710: \bibitem[Dodson et al.(2003)]{dod03} Dodson, R., Legge, D.,
711: Reynolds, J.~E., \& McCulloch, P.~M.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 1137
712: \bibitem[Fomalont et al.(1997)]{fomalont97a} Fomalont, E.~B., Goss,
713: W.~M., Manchester, R.~N., \& Lyne, A.~G.\ 1997, \mnras, 286, 81
714: \bibitem[Fomalont(2005)]{fomalont05a} Fomalont, E.~B.\ 2005, EAS
715: Publications Series, 15, 131
716: \bibitem[Hotan et al.(2006)]{hot06} Hotan, A.~W., Bailes, M.,
717: \& Ord, S.~M.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 1502
718: \bibitem[Kettenis et al.(2006)]{ket06} Kettenis, M., van
719: Langevelde, H.~J., Reynolds, C., \& Cotton, B.\ 2006, Astronomical Data
720: Analysis Software and Systems XV, 351, 497
721: \bibitem[Koribalski et al.(1995)]{koribalski95a} Koribalski, B.,
722: Johnston, S., Weisberg, J.~M., \& Wilson, W.\ 1995, \apj, 441, 756
723: \bibitem[Johnston et al.(1998)]{joh98} Johnston, S.,
724: Nicastro, L., \& Koribalski, B.\ 1998, \mnras, 297, 108
725: \bibitem[Johnston et al.(2007)]{johnston07a} Johnston, S., Kramer,
726: M., Karastergiou, A., Hobbs, G., Ord, S.,
727: \& Wallman, J.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 1625
728: \bibitem[Kovalev et al.(2007)]{kov07} Kovalev, Y.~Y., Petrov,
729: L., Fomalont, E.~B., \& Gordon, D.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 1236
730: \bibitem[Kramer et al.(2003)]{kramer03a} Kramer, M., Lyne, A.~G.,
731: Hobbs, G., L{\"o}hmer, O., Carr, P., Jordan, C.,
732: \& Wolszczan, A.\ 2003, \apjl, 593, L31
733: \bibitem[Legge(2002)]{leg02} Legge, D.~L.\ 2002, PhD thesis, University of Tasmania
734: \bibitem[Manchester et al.(2005)]{man05} Manchester, R.~N.,
735: Hobbs, G.~B., Teoh, A., \& Hobbs, M.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1993
736: \bibitem[Migliazzo et al.(2002)]{migliazzo02a} Migliazzo, J.~M.,
737: Gaensler, B.~M., Backer, D.~C., Stappers, B.~W., van der Swaluw, E.,
738: \& Strom, R.~G.\ 2002, \apjl, 567, L141
739: \bibitem[Pradel et al.(2006)]{pradel06a} Pradel, N., Charlot, P.,
740: \& Lestrade, J.-F.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 1099
741: \bibitem[Press(2002)]{press02a} Press, W. H., Vetterling, W. T., Teukolsky, S. A. \& Flannery, B. P.,
742: 2002, {\em Numerical Recipes in C++}, Cambridge University Press
743: \bibitem[Rickett(1990)]{rickett90a} Rickett, B.~J.\ 1990, \araa, 28, 561
744: \bibitem[Shepherd(1997)]{shep97} Shepherd, M.~C.\ 1997,
745: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, 125, 77
746: \bibitem[Siegman et al.(1993)]{siegman93a} Siegman, B.~C.,
747: Manchester, R.~N., \& Durdin, J.~M.\ 1993, \mnras, 262, 449
748: \bibitem[Shklovskii(1970)]{shk70} Shklovskii, I.~S.\ 1970, Soviet Astronomy, 13, 562
749: \bibitem[Taylor \& Cordes(1993)]{tay93} Taylor, J.~H., \& Cordes, J.~M.,\ 1993, \apj, 411, 674
750: \bibitem[Titov, Tesmer \& Boehm(2004)]{tit04}Titov, O., Tesmer, V. \& Boehm, J., 2004,
751: International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry 2004 General Meeting Proceedings,
752: ed. N. R. Vandenberg \& K. D. Baver, 267
753: \bibitem[Walker(1998)]{walker98a} Walker, M.~A.\ 1998, \mnras,
754: 294, 307
755: \end{thebibliography}
756:
757: \clearpage
758:
759: \input{tab1}
760:
761: \input{tab2}
762:
763: \input{tab3}
764:
765: \input{tab4}
766:
767: \input{tab5}
768:
769: \input{tab6}
770:
771: \input{tab7}
772:
773: \clearpage
774: \begin{figure}
775: \begin{center}
776: \begin{tabular}{cc}
777: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f1a.eps} &
778: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f1b.eps} \\
779: \end{tabular}
780: \caption{Typical $uv$\ coverage at 1650 MHz (no Ceduna; left panel) and at 8400 MHz (with Ceduna;
781: right). The target sources are PSR J1559--4438 and PSR J0437-4715 respectively. Without
782: Ceduna, the $uv$\ coverage is heavily biased North--South, and wide hour--angle coverage is
783: necessary to gain acceptable $uv$\ coverage. The uniformly weighted beam size is
784: 40$\times$13 mas at 1650 MHz, and 3.2$\times$2.6 mas at 8400 MHz.}
785: \label{fig:uvcoverage}
786: \end{center}
787: \end{figure}
788:
789: \begin{figure}
790: \begin{center}
791: \begin{tabular}{cc}
792: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f2a.eps} &
793: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f2b.eps} \\
794: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f2c.eps} &
795: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f2d.eps} \\
796: \end{tabular}
797: \caption{The effects of diffractive scintillation for pulsar J1559--4438. Panel a) shows the uncorrected
798: visibility amplitude on baselines including the Tidbinbilla antenna from one experiment -- the
799: scintillation timescale of several minutes is apparent. Panel b) shows the same visibility amplitudes after
800: correcting for scintillation. Panel c) shows the image residuals of the uncorrected dataset -- contours are 1,2,4 and 8 mJy/beam. Panel d) shows image residuals after correcting for scintillation, with contours at 1,2 and 4 mJy/beam -- the improvement in image quality is obvious.}
801: \label{fig:scint}
802: \end{center}
803: \end{figure}
804:
805: \begin{figure}
806: \begin{center}
807: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f3.eps}
808: \caption{Motion of the pulsar in right ascension and declination, with measured positions
809: overlaid on the best fit. Sensitivity--weighted visibilities were used.
810: The motion of the pulsar is positive in right ascension and declination.
811: The first epoch (lower left) is clearly inconsistent.}
812: \label{fig:weightedfit}
813: \end{center}
814: \end{figure}
815:
816: \begin{figure}
817: \begin{center}
818: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f4.eps}
819: \caption{Variation of fitted position shifts due to ionospheric correction for PSR J1559--4438 vs
820: angular separation between the pulsar and the Sun. The single 1400 MHz epoch has an
821: unusually large correction despite the large angular separation between the pulsar and the Sun.}
822: \label{fig:tecor_sun}
823: \end{center}
824: \end{figure}
825:
826: \begin{figure}
827: \begin{center}
828: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f5.eps}
829: \caption{Motion of the pulsar in right ascension and declination, with measured positions
830: overlaid on the best fit, when ionospheric corrections have been removed.
831: Sensitivity--weighted visibilities were used.
832: The first epoch (lower left) is now more consistent, but the third epoch (during which the pulsar--Sun
833: angular separation was only $26\,^{\circ}$) is now inconsistent.}
834: \label{fig:notecorfit}
835: \end{center}
836: \end{figure}
837:
838: \begin{figure}
839: \begin{center}
840: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f6.eps}
841: \caption{Motion of the pulsar in right ascension and declination, with measured positions
842: overlaid on the best fit, with ionospheric corrections reinstated but the first epoch dropped.
843: Sensitivity--weighted visibilities were used.
844: The fit is improved considerably.}
845: \label{fig:weighted_no_v190b}
846: \end{center}
847: \end{figure}
848:
849: \begin{figure}
850: \begin{center}
851: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f7.eps}
852: \caption{Self--calibration corrections, using a three--minute timescale,
853: for the ATCA station on J1559--4438. Clear systematic
854: deviations are seen from the zero--mean distribution expected from purely thermal noise.
855: The rms of the corrections exceeds those expected due to thermal noise by an order of magnitude.}
856: \label{fig:selfcal}
857: \end{center}
858: \end{figure}
859:
860: \begin{figure}
861: \begin{center}
862: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f8.eps}
863: \caption{Motion of the pulsar in right ascension and declination, with measured positions
864: overlaid on the best fit, with ionospheric corrections reinstated but the first epoch dropped.
865: Equally weighted visibilities were used, mitigating systematic errors and allowing for the first
866: time a significant measurement of the parallax for this pulsar.}
867: \label{fig:final}
868: \end{center}
869: \end{figure}
870:
871: \end{document}
872: