1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: % to-do in paper 2:
4: % -----------------
5: % - DR7
6: % - change to a cleaner parent sample
7: % - put in SQL query that generates the parent sample
8: % - measure the PM of all Annis objects within a few arcmin of your candidates to find
9: % common PM pairs.
10:
11: \usepackage{bm}
12: \usepackage{calc}
13: \newcounter{address}
14: \newcommand{\equationname}{equation}
15: \newcommand{\latin}[1]{\emph{#1}}
16: \newcommand{\etal}{\latin{et\,al.}}
17: \newcommand{\ie}{\latin{i.e.}}
18: \newcommand{\apriori}{\latin{a priori}}
19: \newcommand{\USNOB}{USNO-B Catalog}
20: \newcommand{\an}{\textsl{Astrometry.net}}
21: \newcommand{\sn}{{[s/n]}}
22: \newcommand{\sntotal}{\sn_{\mathrm{total}}}
23: \newcommand{\fwhm}{{\theta_{\mathrm{FWHM}}}}
24: \newcommand{\RA}{{\mathrm{RA}}}
25: \newcommand{\Dec}{{\mathrm{Dec}}}
26: \newcommand{\vecmu}{\bm{\vec{\mu}}}
27: \newcommand{\mualpha}{{\mu_\alpha}}
28: \newcommand{\mudelta}{{\mu_\delta}}
29: \newcommand{\var}[1]{\mathrm{Var}({#1})}
30: \newcommand{\unit}[1]{\mathrm{#1}}
31: \renewcommand{\mag}{\unit{mag}}
32: \newcommand{\s}{\unit{s}}
33: \newcommand{\yr}{\unit{yr}}
34: \newcommand{\km}{\unit{km}}
35: \newcommand{\pc}{\unit{pc}}
36: \newcommand{\kpc}{\unit{kpc}}
37: \newcommand{\mas}{\unit{mas}}
38: \newcommand{\pix}{\unit{pix}}
39: \newcommand{\kmpers}{\km\,\s^{-1}}
40: \newcommand{\masperyr}{\mas\,\yr^{-1}}
41: \renewcommand{\arcsec}{\unit{arcsec}}
42: \newcommand{\arcsecperyr}{\arcsec\,\yr^{-1}}
43: \newcommand{\code}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
44: \newcommand{\mean}[1]{\left<{#1}\right>}
45:
46: \newlength{\examplefigurewidth}
47: \setlength{\examplefigurewidth}{0.9\textwidth}
48:
49: \begin{document}
50: \title{
51: Measuring the undetectable:\\
52: Proper motions and parallaxes of very faint sources
53: }
54:
55: \author{
56: Dustin~Lang\altaffilmark{\ref{Toronto}},
57: David~W.~Hogg\altaffilmark{\ref{CCPP},\ref{MPIA},\ref{email}},
58: Sebastian~Jester\altaffilmark{\ref{MPIA}},
59: Hans-Walter~Rix\altaffilmark{\ref{MPIA}}
60: }
61:
62: \setcounter{address}{1}
63: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{Toronto}
64: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 6 King's
65: College Road, Toronto, Ontario, M5S~3G4 Canada}
66: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{CCPP} Center
67: for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York
68: University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003}
69: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{MPIA}
70: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, K\"onigstuhl 17,
71: D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
72: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{\stepcounter{address}\label{email} To whom
73: correspondence should be addressed: \texttt{david.hogg@nyu.edu}}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: The near future of astrophysics involves many large solid-angle,
77: multi-epoch, multi-band imaging surveys. These surveys will, at
78: their faint limits, have data on large numbers of sources that are
79: too faint to be detected at any individual epoch. Here we show that
80: it is possible to measure in multi-epoch data not only the fluxes
81: and positions, but also the parallaxes and proper motions of sources
82: that are too faint to be detected at any individual epoch. The
83: method involves fitting a model of a moving point source
84: simultaneously to all imaging, taking account of the noise and
85: point-spread function in each image. By this method it is possible
86: to measure the proper motion of a point source with an uncertainty
87: close to the minimum possible uncertainty given the information in
88: the data, which is limited by the point-spread function, the
89: distribution of observation times (epochs), and the total
90: signal-to-noise in the combined data. We demonstrate our technique
91: on multi-epoch Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) imaging of the SDSS
92: Southern Stripe. We show that with our new technique we can use
93: proper motions to distinguish very red brown dwarfs from very
94: high-redshift quasars in these SDSS data, for objects that are
95: inaccessible to traditional techniques, and with better fidelity
96: than by multi-band imaging alone. We re-discover all 10 known brown
97: dwarfs in our sample and present 9 new candidate brown dwarfs,
98: identified on the basis of significant proper motion.
99: \end{abstract}
100:
101: \keywords{
102: astrometry ---
103: methods:~statistical ---
104: quasars:~general ---
105: stars:~kinematics ---
106: stars:~low-mass,~brown~dwarfs ---
107: techniques:~image~processing
108: }
109:
110: \section{Introduction}
111:
112: There are many multi-epoch imaging surveys in progress or coming up,
113: which will, among other things, deepen our image of the sky and
114: provide information on source variability and proper motions. These
115: surveys include the SDSS Southern Stripe \citep{sdssdr7}, the Dark
116: Energy Survey, PanSTARRS, LSST, and SNAP. These surveys promise
117: proper-motion precisions for well-detected sources on the order of
118: $\masperyr$ over large parts of the sky. For context, a typical halo
119: star at a distance of $10~\kpc$ moving at a transverse heliocentric
120: speed of $100~\kmpers$ has a proper motion of $2~\masperyr$, and a
121: typical disk star at $100~\pc$ and $10~\kmpers$ has a proper motion of
122: $20~\masperyr$. These surveys therefore have the capability of
123: revolutionizing our view of the Galaxy and of the Solar neighborhood.
124:
125: In most conceptions of a proper-motion measurement, one imagines
126: measuring the position of a source in each of several images, taken at
127: different times. A linear trajectory is fitted to the positions,
128: relative to some reference frame or set of fixed sources or sources
129: with well measured proper motions. In its most straightforward form,
130: this method only works for sources bright enough to be detected
131: independently at every epoch---or at least most epochs. In a
132: multi-epoch survey like the SDSS Southern Stripe, which has $\sim 70$
133: epochs \citep{sdssdr7}, this limits the sources with measured proper
134: motions to a small subset of all sources detectable in the combined
135: data, since the combined data reach $\sim 2.3~\mag$ fainter than any
136: individual epoch; for typical source populations this represents
137: increases in population size by factors of $5$ to $25$ at any given
138: signal-to-noise threshold. In this paper we present a methodology for
139: measuring in multi-epoch imaging the proper motions of sources too
140: faint to detect at any individual epoch.
141:
142: There are several different technical regimes for these faint-source
143: proper-motion measurements. In the ``easy'' regime, the sources of
144: interest move a distance smaller than or comparable to the
145: point-spread function width over the duration of the multi-epoch
146: survey. In this regime, the sources are easy to detect in the
147: co-added image, even without taking account of their proper motions;
148: proper motions can be determined from processing the individual epoch
149: images after detection in the co-added image. There is a
150: ``difficult'' regime in which the sources of interest move
151: substantially more than the width of the point-spread function over
152: the duration of the survey. In this regime, the source will not
153: appear at high significance in the co-added image if it does not
154: appear at high significance at any epoch, because its different
155: appearances in the different individual-epoch images do not overlap.
156: In principle, the difficult regime can be addressed by brute force
157: with large computing resources. In the context of outer Solar-System
158: bodies, brute-force search in the narrow range of expected motions is
159: feasible (for example, \citealt{bernstein04a, fuentes2008}). In this
160: paper, we consider only the easy regime.
161:
162: \paragraph{Modeling the data:}
163: The traditional method for measuring a stellar proper motion with a
164: set of images taken at different times is as follows: Detect the star
165: at each observed epoch; measure its centroid (by, for example, finding
166: the peak or first moment of the flux) at each observed epoch; and fit
167: a linear motion to the measured positions and times. This procedure
168: obtains a proper motion, but it puts an unnecessary requirement on the
169: data: that the star be detectable at every epoch. It also puts an
170: unnecessary burden on the data analyst: it requires decision making
171: about detection and centroiding of the stars at each epoch, decisions
172: that matter at low signal-to-noise, or when faced with data issues
173: such as bad pixels or strong variations in noise from pixel to pixel.
174:
175: Our new approach is to \emph{model} all individual-epoch images
176: simultaneously with a single point source that is permitted to have a
177: non-zero parallax and proper motion. This approach combines the
178: individual-image positional measurement and the determination of the
179: parallax and proper motion, and determines all of these simultaneously
180: by making a statistically ``good'' model of the union of all the data.
181:
182: In any well-understood imaging survey, each image will have a
183: per-pixel noise model, photometric calibration parameters, and a model
184: of the point-spread function. In any sufficiently small patch of the
185: sky, if the foreground-subtracted intensity in that patch is dominated
186: by a small number of point sources, it is possible to make an accurate
187: model of all of the pixels in the data set that contribute signal to
188: that small patch. In this model of the patch, the fluxes, angular
189: positions, parallaxes, and proper motions of the stars in the patch
190: are simply parameter values in the well-fitted models. In other
191: words, we are assuming that it is possible to model the set of pixels
192: (from all of the images) that contribute to the patch with a
193: $6N$-dimensional model that consists of a set of $N$ moving point
194: sources.
195:
196: The proper motions determined by image modeling have several
197: advantages over those determined by the traditional method: They
198: require fewer decisions about measurement techniques (although they do
199: require a good model of the data, including point-spread function);
200: they use all of the information in all of the pixels, not just those
201: pixels involved in traditional centroiding; they gracefully handle
202: missing data due to bad pixels or cosmic rays (assuming the bad pixels
203: have been flagged); they require the investigator to make explicit the
204: assumptions about the physical properties of the image and the noise;
205: they can be made to properly propagate pixel-value uncertainties into
206: parameter uncertainties (in this case, proper motion uncertainties);
207: they are the result of optimization of a well-justified scalar
208: objective function (in this case the likelihood). Most importantly for
209: what follows, they can be determined in data sets in which the stars
210: are not well detected at any individual epoch, but only appear in the
211: \emph{combination} of the images. In a data set with $\sim 70$ similar
212: epochs (such as the SDSS Southern Stripe), this corresponds to an
213: increase in the number of available targets by factors of $5$ to $25$
214: (assuming source populations double to quadruple with each magnitude
215: of depth).
216:
217: Here we propose, build, test, and use an image-modeling system for the
218: determination of stellar proper motions. We show that it can work
219: down to low signal-to-noise ratios and that it makes measurements in
220: real data that fully exploit the information available. We also use
221: it to discover interesting new astrophysical sources. An
222: approximation to the technique used here has been used previously in
223: the Solar System literature \citep{bernstein04a}.
224:
225: \paragraph{Proper-motion and parallax uncertainties:}
226: Consider a well-sampled image $i$ with a point-spread function of full
227: width at half maximum $\fwhm_i$. The signal-to-noise at which the
228: flux of a point source can be measured, $\sn_i$, is the sum in
229: quadrature of the signal-to-noise contributions from pixels within the
230: point-spread function. A point source measured with signal-to-noise
231: $\sn_i$ in a single image can be centroided with (RMS) uncertainty
232: $\sigma_{\theta,i}$ of
233: \begin{equation}
234: \sigma_{\theta,i} \approx \frac{\fwhm_i}{\sn_i} \quad ;
235: \end{equation}
236: details such as the shape of the point-spread function introduce
237: factors of order unity \citep{king1983}.
238:
239: If we have $N$ such images spanning some time interval, we might hope
240: to obtain a proper motion estimate with uncertainty $\sigma_{\mu}$
241: limited by the point-spread function, the time interval, and the total
242: signal-to-noise
243: \begin{equation}
244: \sntotal^2=\sum_{\mathrm{images}\ i}\sn_i^2
245: \label{eq:sntotal}
246: \end{equation}
247: in the combination of all the images (we have assumed here that the
248: images $i$ are all independent). The relevant time ``interval'' is
249: not the total time spanned by the data but rather
250: $\delta_t\equiv\sqrt{\var{t}}$, the standard deviation (root variance)
251: of the times; the best possible proper-motion estimates will have
252: uncertainties
253: \begin{equation}
254: \sigma_{\mu}\approx\frac{\fwhm}{\delta_t\,\sntotal} \quad ,
255: \label{eq:muerror}
256: \end{equation}
257: where properly $\fwhm$ is the square-signal-to-noise weighted mean
258: point-spread function full width at half maximum, and $\delta_t$ is
259: the square root of the square-signal-to-noise-weighted variance of the
260: times at which the individual epoch images were taken.
261:
262: By a similar argument, we hypothesize that the best possible parallax
263: estimates will have uncertainties
264: \begin{equation}
265: \sigma_{\pi}\approx\frac{\fwhm}{\delta_\lambda\,\sntotal} \quad ,
266: \end{equation}
267: where $\delta_\lambda$ is the square root of the
268: square-signal-to-noise-weighted variance of the trigonometric
269: functions of the ecliptic longitude $\lambda$ of the Sun (time of year
270: in angle units):
271: \begin{equation}
272: \delta_\lambda^2\equiv\sigma_{\cos\lambda}^2+\sigma_{\sin\lambda}^2 \quad .
273: \end{equation}
274: Essentially, $\delta_\lambda$ describes how well the parallactic
275: ellipse is sampled; an ideal survey for parallax measurements will
276: have $\delta_\lambda\approx 1$.
277:
278: Disk stars move with respect to one another at velocities of $\sim
279: 30\,\kmpers$ \citep{dehnen98a, hogg05a}, that is, on the same order as
280: the velocity of the Earth around the Sun. In a multi-epoch survey
281: spanning a small number of years (such as the SDSS Southern Stripe),
282: $\delta_t$ is of order unity, so for disk stars the parallax and
283: proper motion signal-to-noise ratios ought to be comparable in
284: magnitude. However, most surveys sample ecliptic longitude $\lambda$
285: poorly, because of season and scheduling constraints; therefore
286: $\delta_\lambda$ is usually substantially less than unity, so the
287: signal-to-noise of parallax is smaller than that of proper motion.
288:
289: \section{Method}
290:
291: The goal is to measure the proper motions and parallaxes of sources
292: detected in multi-epoch data. We start with a catalog of detections
293: from a co-addition of the multi-epoch data (co-added at zero lag or
294: under an assumption that the sources are static). These detections
295: serve as ``first-guess'' positions for sources in the imaging. We
296: measure the properties of these sources by building models of all the
297: individual images, at the pixel level, so that each model ``predicts''
298: every pixel value in every image at every epoch.
299:
300: Some of the candidate sources will not be point sources but rather
301: resolved galaxies, and others will not be astronomical sources but
302: will be caused by artificial satellites or imaging artifacts. We fit
303: three qualitatively different models, described below. One is of a
304: moving point source, one is of an extended galaxy, and one is of a
305: general transient or artifact. For each model, ``fitting''
306: constitutes optimizing a scalar objective, which is the logarithm of
307: the likelihood under the assumption that the per-pixel noise is
308: Gaussian with a known variance in each pixel. Under the Gaussian
309: assumption, we can use the different values of the log likelihood to
310: perform a hypothesis test based on likelihood ratios. This hypothesis
311: test distinguishes point sources from extended galaxies and transients
312: and artifacts. The parameters of the best-fitting model are the
313: ``measurements'' of the source.
314:
315: Nothing in what follows fundamentally depends on the assumption of
316: Gaussian noise. Data with Poisson errors, for example, can be
317: analyzed the same way but with the objective function changed to the
318: logarithm of the Poisson likelihood. Indeed, any noise model can be
319: accomodated, though possibly at the expense of computational
320: simplicity.
321:
322: In detail, for each source, we have $N$ small images (patches of what
323: is presumed to be a much larger imaging data set) $i$ taken at times
324: $t_i$, and we assume that each image has reasonable photometric
325: calibration, a noise estimate in each pixel (assumed Gaussian, but
326: that could be relaxed in what follows), and correct astrometric
327: calibration or world coordinate system (WCS) fixed to an astrometric
328: $(\RA,\Dec)$ reference frame. From a co-added image made from all $N$
329: single-epoch images we have been given a candidate (``first-guess'')
330: position $(\RA_j,\Dec_j)$ for each source $j$.
331:
332: \paragraph{point-source model}
333: The first of the three models is that of a point source, moving in
334: space and a finite distance from the Solar System. This point source
335: is assumed to have a constant flux $S_j$, a position $(\RA_j,\Dec_j)$
336: at some standard epoch, a parallax $\pi_j$ and a proper motion
337: $\vecmu_j=(\mualpha_j,\mudelta_j)$. In this model and the models to
338: follow, we assume that the sky level has been correctly fitted and
339: subtracted from the images, or else that sky errors are not strongly
340: covariant with errors in the model parameters. In fitting this model,
341: we find the six-dimensional quantity
342: $(S_j,\RA_j,\Dec_j,\pi_j,\mualpha_j,\mudelta_j)$ that optimizes the
343: scalar objective.
344:
345: Given the times $t_i$ and WCS of the images, any point-source
346: parameter set \linebreak[4]$(S_j,\RA_j,\Dec_j,\pi_j,\mualpha_j,\mudelta_j)$,
347: specifies the pixel position of point source $j$ in each image $i$.
348: This position and the (possibly position-dependent) point-spread
349: function model for image $i$ permits construction of a pixel-for-pixel
350: model of source $j$ as it ought to appear in image $i$.
351:
352: If we had multi-band imaging (the tests below are on are on
353: single-band images), the flux $S_j$ becomes a set of fluxes $S_{kj}$,
354: one for each bandpass $k$. In principle, precise fitting is
355: complicated by the existence of differential refraction for sources
356: with extreme colors, so there are relationships among the fluxes
357: $S_{kj}$, positional offsets, and the airmass or altitude of the
358: observations. In the tests below, we are working far enough to the
359: red that there are no differential refraction issues at the relevant
360: level of precision.
361:
362: Although we have assumed non-varying flux in our model, we should
363: still be able to detect and measure moving sources with varying flux.
364: We have not investigated this question, but we expect that our method
365: would produce a flux estimate of approximately the mean flux measured
366: at the available epochs, and that the point-source model would be
367: preferred over the transient model, since the objective function is
368: convex.
369:
370: \paragraph{galaxy model}
371: Our model of a resolved galaxy is a Gaussian distribution of flux with
372: an elliptical covariance parameterized by its radius $r_j$,
373: eccentricity $e_j$, angle $\theta_j$ and total flux $S_j$. For each
374: image, this Gaussian model is convolved with that image's particular
375: point-spread function to make a seeing-convolved galaxy model. This
376: seeing-convolved Gaussian galaxy model is not a realistic galaxy
377: model, but it is good enough for distinguishing resolved and
378: unresolved sources at the faint limit, which is sufficient here.
379: Again, if we had multi-band imaging, the flux $S_j$ would be replaced
380: by a set of fluxes $S_{jk}$.
381:
382: \paragraph{junk model}
383: Our model of a transient or imaging artifact is that there is nothing
384: but noise in all but one of the images, and that one ``junk'' image
385: contains many bright pixels. We compute this model trivially by
386: computing the chi-squared ($\chi^2$) contribution for each image under
387: the assumption that there is no flux in the image at all. The image
388: with the largest $\chi^2$ contribution is judged to be the ``junk''
389: image and is discarded. In order to keep the number of $\chi^2$
390: contributions constant, we replace the ``junk'' image $\chi^2$ by the
391: median of the $\chi^2$ contributions of the remaining images.
392:
393: \paragraph{scalar objective optimization}
394: The choices of model, scalar objective, and optimization methodology
395: can all be made independently. For the objective function the natural
396: choice is the $\chi^2$ difference between the model and the data taken
397: over all the pixels that are close to the first-guess position in all
398: $N$ images. This objective is analogous to a logarithm of a
399: likelihood ratio; it is exact if the noise in the image pixels is
400: Gaussian and independent, with known variances (which can vary from
401: pixel to pixel). For optimizing this objective function, we use the
402: Levenberg-Marquardt method \citep{levenberg44, marquardt63}.
403:
404: \paragraph{hypothesis test}
405: In the approximation that the noise is Gaussian, the best fits for
406: each of the three models can be compared via the best-fit values of
407: the $\chi^2$ scalar objective. If the three models are equally likely
408: \apriori\ and if they have the same number of degrees of freedom, then
409: one model is confidently preferred over another if it has a best-fit
410: $\chi^2$ value smaller by an amount $\Delta\chi^2 \gg 1$. Of course
411: the models are not equally likely \apriori, but for for the vast
412: majority of sources, the differences in $\chi^2$ are so large that no
413: reasonable prior would change the results of our hypothesis test.
414:
415: Note that there is some degeneracy in our models: a galaxy model with
416: zero radius and a star model with zero proper motion and parallax
417: produce exactly the same predictions, and thus our hypothesis test
418: cannot distinguish them. This could be remedied by placing prior
419: probabilies over the model parameters---for example, penalizing tiny
420: galaxies---but since we are not concerned with the region of parameter
421: space where this occurs, we have not done this.
422:
423: Rather than explicitly including a junk model, we could instead place
424: a threshold on the likelihood of the star and galaxy models: junk data
425: will be poorly fit by the star and galaxy models and thus will have
426: tiny likelihood. In general we have found that image sets for which
427: the junk model is preferred clearly contain artifacts or transients;
428: the method is not sensitive to the details of the junk model.
429: % Indeed,
430: % some simple heuristics could be used to filter the ``first guess''
431: % hypotheses and this would largely obviate the junk model.
432:
433: \paragraph{jackknife error analysis}
434: In principle, the region in parameter space around the best-fit point
435: where $\chi^2$ is within unity of the minimum provides an estimate of
436: the uncertainties in the fitted parameters. However, this estimate is
437: only good when the model is a good fit; many error contributions in
438: real data come from source variability, poorly known data properties
439: (such as pixel uncertainty or point-spread-function estimates that are
440: in error) and unflagged artifacts in the data. For this reason, we
441: use (and advocate) a ``jackknife'' technique for error analysis.
442:
443: The jackknife technique is to perform the analysis on the $N$ subsets
444: of the $N$ images created by leaving one image out. The complete fit
445: of the three models is performed on each of the $N$ leave-one-out
446: subsets and parameters are measured. The uncertainty estimate
447: $\sigma_p$ for any fitted parameter $p$ is related to the $N$
448: leave-one-out measurements $p_i$ (made leaving out image $i$) by
449: \begin{equation}
450: \sigma_p^2 = \frac{N-1}{N}\,\sum_i \left(p_i - \mean{p}\right)^2
451: \quad ,
452: \label{eq:jackknife}
453: \end{equation}
454: where $\mean{p}$ is the mean of the leave-one-out measurements $p_i$.
455: The jackknife technique automatically marginalizes the error estimates
456: over the other parameters, and provides a properly marginalized
457: estimate of any multi-parameter covariance matrix by the
458: generalization of \equationname~(\ref{eq:jackknife}) in which the
459: square is changed into the $d\times d$ matrix outer product of the
460: ``vectors'' made from the $d$ parameters for which the covariance
461: matrix is desired. Of course when $d$ is large, the jackknife will
462: not accurately sample all degrees of freedom available in the
463: covariance matrix, but provided $N$ is large enough, it \emph{will}
464: sample the dominant eigenvectors (the principal components).
465:
466: \paragraph{Implementation notes}
467:
468: Our code is implemented in Python and uses the Django web framework,
469: which provides powerful database and web server integration. This
470: allows us to quickly and easily manage and visualize the data and
471: results. Combined with the scientific data analysis packages
472: \code{scipy} and \code{numpy} and the plotting package
473: \code{matplotlib}, this yielded a powerful software development
474: environment.
475:
476: For optimization, we use the Levenberg-Marquardt implementation
477: \code{levmar} (version 2.2; \citealt{lourakis04}) with Python bindings
478: \code{pylevmar} (revision 313; \citealt{tse08}). In this Python
479: environment, analysis takes on the order of seconds for each source
480: (30 epochs, $15\times 15$ images), but this could be sped up
481: substantially by implementing some of the core operations in \code{C}.
482:
483: \section{Tests on real data}
484:
485: % SDSS-SS coverage is ~300 deg^2, but the number of exposures at
486: % the edges drops off so the highly-repeated region is about 250 deg^2
487:
488: For test data, we make use of the SDSS Southern Stripe (SDSSSS), a
489: multi-epoch survey undertaken as part of SDSS-II \citep{adelman08a,
490: sdssdr7}. The SDSSSS data are part of The Sloan Digital Sky Survey
491: \citep{Gunn:1998vh,York:2000gk}; it involves $ugriz$ CCD imaging of
492: $\sim 250~\deg^2$ on the Equator in the southern Galactic cap. All
493: the SDSSSS data processing, including astrometry \citep{Pier:2002iq},
494: source identification, deblending and photometry
495: \citep{Lupton:2001zb}, and calibration \citep{Smith:2002pca,
496: padmanabhan08a} are performed with automated SDSS software.
497:
498: The SDSSSS data have been found to have a small astrometric drift
499: \citep{bramich08a}, because astrometric calibration was performed at a
500: single, slightly inappropriate epoch \citep{Pier:2002iq}. This drift,
501: for which we are making no correction, is at the $10~\masperyr$ level;
502: at the precision of this study it does not change any of the
503: conclusions below.
504:
505: In general, the hypothesis test we perform requires that the variance
506: of the noise be properly estimated on a pixel-by-pixel basis. These
507: are based on an SDSS imaging noise model, with the adjustment that
508: pixels that have been corrupted by cosmic rays or other defects are
509: given infinite variances (vanishing contribution to $\chi^2$).
510: Occasionally there are unidentified cosmic rays in the data. These
511: lead to localized regions with very large contributions to $\chi^2$.
512: When one of these noise defects appears in the data near one of the
513: targets, it sometimes causes a source which is truly a galaxy or a
514: star to be assigned ``junk'' status. After by-eye inspection of
515: cutouts, we estimate this rate to be on the order of $<0.5$~percent
516: for this data source; the rate of such problems increases with the
517: number of epochs and the image cut-out size (the total number of
518: pixels in the fit).
519:
520: For some of the sources we have UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey
521: (UKIDSS; \citealt{lawrence07a}) data. UKIDSS uses the UKIRT Wide
522: Field Camera \citep{casali07a} with the infrared photometric system
523: described by \cite{hewett06a}, and automated data processing and
524: archiving \citep{irwin08a, hambly08a}. The UKIDSS data used here
525: comes from the fourth data release.
526:
527: Very red point sources in deep optical imaging---for example,
528: $z$-band-only sources in the multi-epoch SDSS Southern
529: Stripe---include both very cool dwarfs and very high redshift quasars.
530: In principle these can be distinguished with parallax and
531: proper-motion estimates. For this reason, we performed a test on
532: $z$-only point sources in the SDSS Southern Stripe. The parent sample
533: is point sources from the SDSSSS ``Co-add Catalog'' (J.~Annis \etal,
534: in preparation) that have $[i-z]>2~\mag$ and $[r-z]>2~\mag$. This
535: criterion selects quasars at $5.8 \la z \la 6.5$ as well as cool
536: dwarfs with spectral types ranging from mid-L to T (\citealt{fan01a}
537: and references therein). Hotter brown dwarfs, stars, and
538: lower-redshift quasars have significant emission in the $i$ band,
539: giving them bluer $i-z$ colours, while the emission features of cooler
540: dwarfs and higher-redshift quasars lie mostly redwards of the SDSS $z$
541: bandpass.
542:
543: The Co-add Catalog uses the asinh magnitude (or ``luptitude'') scale
544: \citep{lupton1999}, so it is possible to select objects based on color
545: even for objects that are not detected in one of the bands. The
546: version of the Co-add Catalog we are using is from SDSS Data Release 7
547: (DR7), and includes $20$ to $40$ epochs over $\sim 250~\deg^2$.
548:
549: Since we are interested in distinguishing cool brown dwarfs from
550: high-redshift quasars, we require $\sigma_{\mu}$ to be small
551: (\equationname\ \ref{eq:muerror}). We therefore cut our parent sample
552: to have $z<21~\mag$, leaving roughly 150 sources. This cut allows us
553: to reach, with moderate signal-to-noise, slightly fainter sources than
554: are detectable in the single-epoch images. In a future paper, we plan
555: to relax this cut, which should yield considerably more brown dwarf
556: candidates at smaller signal-to-noise levels. Of our 150 parent
557: candidates, some turn out to be caused by an imaging artifact or
558: transient in one of the $N$ epochs, and some turn out to be galaxies
559: or stars with mis-measured colors because of data artifacts or
560: inaccuracies in deblending nearby objects.
561:
562: Each of the catalog sources has a nominal position and a $z$-band
563: magnitude in the Co-add Catalog. For each $z$-only source, we cut out
564: $15\times 15~\pix^2$ patches of every SDSS image at the nominal
565: position. For each tiny image, we construct a tiny local
566: world-coordinate-system description of the astrometric calibration of
567: that patch using the SDSS pipeline astrometric calibration. We
568: subtract the local value of a smoothly fit sky level (M.~Blanton, in
569: preparation) and multiply each tiny image by a constant, based on the
570: pipeline calibration information, to place it on a common photometric
571: calibration scale in intensity units (energy per unit solid angle per
572: unit area per unit time per unit frequency). To the SDSS
573: pipeline-reconstructed point-spread function (PSF) in each tiny image
574: we fit a single-Gaussian approximate model, which is not a good fit to
575: the PSF at high precision, but which is sufficient for modeling
576: sources at low signal-to-noise.
577:
578: In this work, we create the $15 \times 15~\pix^2$ cutouts from the
579: same $20$ to $40$ epochs that are used in the Co-add Catalog; in
580: future work we plan to use the $\sim 70$ epochs that have become
581: available in DR7.
582:
583: We chose $15\times 15~\pix^2$ patches so that a source with proper
584: motion of $\sim 0.5~\arcsecperyr$ would remain in the patch. Our
585: method still works if the source leaves the patch---indeed, our
586: fastest-moving candidate does this---but we gain no information from
587: the epochs in which the source has left the patch, so the
588: signal-to-noise of our parameter estimates will be less than optimal
589: when this happens. We could choose to use larger cutouts; the only
590: difficulty is that if the patch contains more than one source, our
591: model will try to explain the brightest source (because this will
592: decrease $\chi^2$ the most). This could perhaps be remedied by adding
593: a prior on the source position, but since the SDSSSS data are from
594: well below the galactic equator, stellar density is low and we have
595: not found this to be necessary. Alternatively, in cases where the
596: source leaves the original patch we could produce new cutouts that
597: track the source motion.
598:
599: \figurename s~\ref{fig:example} through \ref{fig:examplecrap}
600: illustrate our approach by showing the results of the (moving)
601: point-source and (static) galaxy model fits to four sources in the the
602: SDSSSS data. In these figures we show all the individual $15\times
603: 15$ images from the individual epochs, and the best-fit point-source
604: and galaxy parameters. In these figures, we visualize the
605: distribution of acceptable parameters around the best-fit values
606: through sampling. We also show mean images and mean residual maps in
607: the static and moving coordinate systems. These figures demonstrate
608: heuristically that the hypothesis test is effective at separating
609: sources of different types, even when the source is not apparent at
610: high signal-to-noise at any individual epoch.
611:
612: In \figurename~\ref{fig:bubbles} we show the overall results from
613: application of our techniques to the $[i-z]>2$~mag sources in the
614: SDSSSS: We show proper-motion measurements and jackknife estimates of
615: our uncertainties as a function of $z$-band magnitude. Known quasars
616: and brown dwarfs are marked. Our measurements clearly separate the
617: known quasars and brown dwarfs on the basis of proper motion alone.
618: All known brown dwarfs in the sample obtain significant non-zero
619: proper motion measurements, and all known high-redshift quasars in our
620: sample obtain proper motion measurements consistent with zero. The
621: sources in our sample that have significant motions and have not been
622: previously identified as brown dwarfs are our new brown dwarf
623: candidates. In \figurename~\ref{fig:colormag} we show the UKIDSS and
624: SDSS $[z-J]$ colors of the sources for which we have UKIDSS $J$
625: measurements, with the known brown dwarfs and quasars and our new
626: brown dwarf candidates marked.
627: %Essentially all
628: Many of the sources in these \figurename s are undetectable (or not
629: detectable reliably) at individual epochs; the single-epoch $5$-sigma
630: detection limit is roughly $z=20.5~\mag$ in good seeing conditions
631: \citep{sdssdr7}.
632:
633: In \figurename~\ref{fig:info}, our jackknife estimates of our
634: measurement uncertainties are compared to approximate estimates of the
635: total information content in each source's data set, made with an
636: approximation to \equationname~(\ref{eq:muerror}). If our uncertainty
637: estimates are correct (as we demonstrate that they are, below), this
638: shows that we come close to attaining the accuracy available.
639:
640: \section{Tests on artificial data}
641:
642: To demonstrate that our jackknife error estimates are reasonable, and
643: that our code is optimizing the models correctly, we performed some
644: tests on synthetic data. We selected a subset of the SDSSSS candidate
645: objects for which we found reasonable fits to a moving point source
646: model. For each candidate, we generated a stack of images by
647: generating, for each image in the original stack, the image predicted
648: by our point-source model, given the WCS, point-spread function, time,
649: and noise amplitude of the image. This is a good test set because it
650: has the same imaging properties as the original data and the same
651: distribution of point-source parameters as the sources we want to be
652: able to discover. Since the synthetic images are generated using our
653: image model, this test shows how our algorithm would perform if our
654: modeling assumptions were exactly correct.
655:
656: After running our optimization code on these synthetic images, we
657: compare our errors---the differences between the true and estimated
658: moving-point-source parameters---to the jackknife estimates of our
659: uncertainties. In \figurename~\ref{fig:fake} we show that the errors
660: are consistent with the uncertainty estimates. This shows that when
661: our assumptions about the data are correct, we do measure the proper
662: motions as accurately as our jackknife errors indicate.
663:
664: \section{Discussion}
665:
666: We have shown that straightforward image modeling permits the
667: measurement of apparent motions, especially the proper motion and
668: parallax of a source in multi-epoch data, even when the source is too
669: faint to be reliably detected or centroided at any individual epoch.
670: The results of this project are not surprising; indeed what is
671: surprising is how rarely the measurements of stellar motions are made
672: by comprehensive data modeling.
673:
674: We demonstrated the technique on real and artificial data. In the
675: process of performing these tests we showed that spectrosopically
676: confirmed quasars and brown dwarfs can be perfectly distinguished with
677: proper motions measured by this technique. Working without proper
678: motions, but with Co-add Catalog sources and a significant amount of
679: near-infrared imaging follow-up, a group has followed up the $z$-only
680: sources most likely to be high-redshift quasars \citep{chiu08a,
681: jiang08a}. This project, even after infrared imaging, found---after
682: expensive spectroscopic follow-up---that some of the high-redshift
683: quasar candidates selected on the basis of visible and near-infrared
684: imaging are in fact nearby brown dwarfs. We have shown that all of
685: these spectroscopically confirmed brown dwarfs have significantly
686: measured ($>5$~sigma) non-zero proper motions by the technique shown
687: here (and are reported in \tablename~\ref{tab:movingsources}). None
688: of the spectroscopically confirmed high-redshift quasars do. Use of
689: this technique could have been used to substantially increase the
690: efficiency of either quasar or brown-dwarf searches in this data set.
691:
692: In performing this demonstration, we have independently identified
693: all 10 known brown dwarfs \citep{fan00a, geballe02a, hawley02a,
694: berriman03a, knapp04a, chiu08a, metchev08a} in our parent sample, and
695: we have discovered 9 \emph{new} candidate brown dwarfs, presented in
696: \tablename~\ref{tab:movingsources}. Based on our analysis, these
697: objects have a high probability of being brown dwarfs. It would be
698: desirable to separate disk dwarfs from halo dwarfs---the fastest
699: angular movers tend to be halo members (for example,
700: \citealt{lepine03a})---but the time cadence of the SDSSSS data is such
701: that parallaxes are not measured well. Two of the dwarfs we
702: rediscover---2MASS J010752.42+004156.3 and 2MASS
703: J020742.84+000056.4---have previously measured parallaxes
704: \citep{vrba04a}; the measurements are consistent with our upper
705: limits.
706:
707: Our tests show that the uncertainty in the proper-motion measurement
708: made by image modeling is consistent with the best possible
709: uncertainties given the angular resolution and photometric sensitivity
710: of the combination of all images in the multi-epoch data set. These
711: tests effectively show that such measurements can be made for objects
712: that are fainter than those available to traditional methods that
713: require source detection at every epoch. In imaging with $N$ equally
714: sensitive epochs, we are able to measure objects that are fainter by
715: $\Delta m$ magnitudes:
716: \begin{eqnarray}
717: \Delta m &=& -\log_{2.5}(\sn_i) + \log_{2.5}(\sntotal) \\
718: &=& \log_{2.5}(\sqrt{N}) \\
719: &\sim& 0.55\,\log N~\mag \quad .
720: \end{eqnarray}
721: This advantage amounts to $1~\mag$ for surveys with $6$ similar
722: epochs, and $1.6$ to $2.0~\mag$ in data with $20$ to $40$ epochs (such
723: as the data used here). In the $\sim 70$ epochs available in SDSS
724: DR7, it reaches $2.3~\mag$. Several of the high-redshift quasars and
725: brown dwarfs analyzed in this study were only detectable in the
726: combination of all of the multi-epoch images.
727:
728: The depth advantage of image modeling is most dramatic in surveys with
729: very large numbers of epochs, as is expected for LSST. In general the
730: number of interesting sources is a strong function of depth (factors
731: of $2$ to $4$ per magnitude), so the ``reach'' of the image-modeling
732: technique is a strong function of the number of epochs.
733:
734: One limitation of the work presented here is that we used the
735: zero-proper-motion image ``stack'' for source detection and therefore
736: will only have in the candidate list objects with small proper
737: motions. Faint stars and dwarfs with proper motions large enough that
738: they move the width of the PSF between epochs, or some significant
739: fraction of that, are harder to find, because they don't appear in the
740: stack at much higher signal-to-noise than they appear in any
741: individual-epoch image. In future work we hope to address the
742: detection and measurement of these fast-moving but very faint sources.
743: Approximations have been executed in the search for Solar System
744: bodies (for example, \citealt{bernstein04a}). Certainly a reliable
745: system for discovery in this regime would have a big impact on future
746: surveys like PanSTARRS and LSST.
747:
748: \acknowledgements We thank Jon Barron, Mike Blanton, Bertrand Goldman,
749: Linhua Jiang, Keir Mierle, Sam Roweis, Iain Murray, Ralf-Dieter
750: Scholz, Christopher Kochanek, and Rob Fergus for help, comments, and
751: software. We thank our anonymous reviewer for detailed and thoughtful
752: comments which greatly improved this paper. This project was
753: partially supported by the US National Science Foundation (grant
754: AST-0428465) and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
755: (grants NAG5-11669 and 07-ADP07-0099). During part of the period in
756: which this research was performed, DWH was a research fellow of the
757: German Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
758:
759: This project made use of the SDSS Southern Stripe Co-add Catalog, which
760: was constructed by Jim Annis, Huan Lin, Robert Lupton, and others, who
761: graciously made it available to us in advance of publication.
762:
763: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred
764: P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National
765: Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National
766: Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the
767: Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for
768: England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
769:
770: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
771: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
772: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
773: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve
774: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
775: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
776: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
777: Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
778: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National
779: Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy, the
780: Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics, New Mexico State University,
781: Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of
782: Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory,
783: and the University of Washington.
784:
785: This work is based in part on data obtained as part of the UKIRT
786: Infrared Deep Sky Survey. The United Kingdom Infrared Telescope is
787: operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the Science and
788: Technology Facilities Council of the U.K.
789:
790: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All
791: Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of
792: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis
793: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
794: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
795: Foundation.
796:
797: This research made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System and the
798: WFCAM Science Archive. This research has benefitted from the M, L,
799: and T dwarf compendium housed at \linebreak[4]
800: \code{DwarfArchives.org} and maintained by Chris Gelino, Davy
801: Kirkpatrick, and Adam Burgasser. This research made use of the
802: \code{idlutils} and \code{photoop} software suites (maintained by
803: David Schlegel, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Doug Finkbeiner, Mike Blanton, and
804: others) and the Python programming language and Python packages
805: \code{scipy}, \code{matplotlib} and \code{Django}.
806:
807: \begin{thebibliography}{70}
808:
809: % DR6
810: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy \etal(2008)]{adelman08a}
811: Adelman-McCarthy,~J.~K., \etal\ 2008, \apjs, 175, 297
812:
813: % DR7
814: \bibitem[Abazajian \etal(2009)]{sdssdr7}
815: Abazajian,~K., \etal\ 2009, \apjs (submitted); arxiv 0812.0649v1
816:
817: \bibitem[Barron \etal(2008)]{barron08a}
818: Barron,~J.~T., Stumm,~C., Hogg,~D.~W., Lang,~D., \& Roweis,~S.,
819: 2008, \aj, 135, 414
820:
821: \bibitem[Bernstein \etal(2004)]{bernstein04a}
822: Bernstein,~G.~M., Trilling,~D.~E., Allen,~R.~L., Brown,~M.~E.,
823: Holman,~M., \& Malhotra,~R., 2004, \aj, 128, 1364
824:
825: \bibitem[Berriman \etal(2003)]{berriman03a}
826: Berriman,~B., Kirkpatrick,~D., Hanisch,~R., Szalay,~A., \& Williams,~R.
827: 2003, Large Telescopes and Virtual Observatory: Visions for the Future, 25th meeting of the IAU, Joint Discussion 8, 17 July 2003, Sydney, Australia
828:
829: \bibitem[Bramich \etal(2008)]{bramich08a}
830: Bramich,~D.~M., \etal, 2008, \mnras, 386, 887
831:
832: \bibitem[Casali \etal(2007)]{casali07a}
833: Casali,~M., \etal, 2007, \aap, 467, 777
834:
835: \bibitem[Chiu \etal(2008)]{chiu08a}
836: Chiu,~K., \etal, 2008, \mnras, 385, L53
837:
838: \bibitem[Dehnen \& Binney(1998)]{dehnen98a}
839: Dehnen, W., \& Binney, J.~J.\ 1998, \mnras, 298, 387
840:
841: \bibitem[Fan \etal(2000)]{fan00a}
842: Fan,~X., \etal, 2000, \aj, 119, 928
843:
844: \bibitem[Fan \etal(2001)]{fan01a}
845: Fan,~X., \etal, 2001, \aj, 122, 2833
846:
847: \bibitem[Fuentes \etal(2008)]{fuentes2008}
848: Fuentes,~C.~I., George,~M.~R. \& Holman,~M.~J., 2008, arXiv 0809.4166
849:
850: \bibitem[Geballe \etal(2002)]{geballe02a}
851: Geballe, T.~R., \etal, 2002, \apj, 564, 466
852:
853: \bibitem[Gunn \etal(1998)]{Gunn:1998vh}
854: Gunn,~J.~E. \etal, 1998, AJ, 116, 3040
855:
856: \bibitem[Hambly \etal(2008)]{hambly08a}
857: Hambly,~N.~C., \etal, 2008, \mnras, 384, 637
858:
859: \bibitem[Hawley \etal(2002)]{hawley02a}
860: Hawley,~S.~L., \etal, 2002, \aj, 123, 3409
861:
862: \bibitem[Hewett \etal(2006)]{hewett06a}
863: Hewett,~P.~C., Warren,~S.~J., Leggett,~S.~K., \& Hodgkin,~S.~T., 2006,
864: \mnras, 367, 454
865:
866: \bibitem[Hogg \etal(2005)]{hogg05a}
867: Hogg,~D.~W., Blanton,~M.~R., Roweis,~S.~T., \& Johnston,~K.~V.,
868: 2005, \apj, 629, 268
869:
870: \bibitem[Irwin \etal(2008)]{irwin08a}
871: Irwin,~M., \etal, 2008, in preparation
872:
873: \bibitem[Jiang \etal(2008)]{jiang08a}
874: Jiang,~L., \etal, 2008, \aj, 135, 1057
875:
876: \bibitem[King(1983)]{king1983}
877: King,~I.~R., 1983, \pasp 95, 163
878:
879: \bibitem[Knapp \etal(2004)]{knapp04a}
880: Knapp,~G.~R., \etal, 2004, \aj, 127, 3553
881:
882: \bibitem[Lawrence \etal(2007)]{lawrence07a}
883: Lawrence,~A., \etal, 2007, \mnras, 379, 1599
884:
885: \bibitem[L{\'e}pine \etal(2003)]{lepine03a}
886: L{\'e}pine,~S., Rich,~R.~M., \& Shara,~M.~M., 2003, \aj, 125, 1598
887:
888: \bibitem[Levenberg(1944)]{levenberg44}
889: Levenberg, K., 1944,
890: The Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 2, 164
891:
892: \bibitem[Lourakis(2004)]{lourakis04}
893: Lourakis, M. I. A., 2004,
894: \texttt{http://www.ics.forth.gr/$\sim$lourakis/levmar}
895:
896: \bibitem[Lupton \etal(1999)]{lupton1999}
897: Lupton,~R.~H., Gunn,~J.~E. \& Szalay,~A.~S., 1999, \aj, 118, 1406
898:
899: \bibitem[Lupton \etal(2001)]{Lupton:2001zb}
900: Lupton,~R., Gunn,~J.~E., Ivezic,~Z., Knapp,~G.~R., Kent,~S.~M., \& Yasuda,~N., 2001,
901: ASPC, 238, 269
902:
903: \bibitem[Marquardt(1963)]{marquardt63}
904: Marquardt, D., 1963,
905: SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 11, 431
906:
907: \bibitem[Metchev \etal(2008)]{metchev08a}
908: Metchev,~S.~A., Kirkpatrick,~J.~D., Berriman,~G.~B., \& Looper,~D.,
909: 2008, \apj, 676, 1281
910:
911: \bibitem[Padmanabhan \etal(2008)]{padmanabhan08a}
912: Padmanabhan, N., \etal, 2008, \apj, 674, 1217
913:
914: \bibitem[Pier \etal(2003)]{Pier:2002iq}
915: Pier,~J.~R., Munn,~J.~A., Hindsley,~R.~B., Hennessy,~G.~S., Kent,~S.~M., Lupton,~R.~H., \& Ivezic,~Z., 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
916:
917: \bibitem[Skrutskie \etal(2006)]{skrutskie06a}
918: Skrutskie,~M.~F., \etal, 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
919:
920: \bibitem[Smith \etal(2002)]{Smith:2002pca}
921: Smith,~J.~A. \etal, 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
922:
923: \bibitem[Tse(2008)]{tse08}
924: Tse,~A., 2008,
925: \texttt{http://projects.liquidx.net/python/browser/pylevmar}
926:
927: \bibitem[Vrba \etal(2004)]{vrba04a}
928: Vrba,~F.~J. \etal, 2004, \aj, 127, 2948
929:
930: \bibitem[York \etal(2000)]{York:2000gk}
931: York, D.~G. \etal, 2000,
932: \aj, 120, 1579
933:
934: \end{thebibliography}
935:
936: \clearpage
937: \begin{table}
938: \tiny\begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrl}
939: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Name} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{RA} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Dec} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{flux} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{parallax} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{dRA/d$t$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{dDec/d$t$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{notes} \\
940: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{deg} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{deg} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$s/n$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{arcsec} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{arcsec\,yr$^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{arcsec\,yr$^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \hline
941: SDSS~J001608.47$-$004302.9 & $ 4.03537$ & $-0.71733$ & $ 46.4$ & $+0.007\pm0.058$ & $+0.134\pm0.015$ & $-0.020\pm0.007$ & 2 U BD \\
942: SDSS~J005212.29+001216.0 & $ 13.05131$ & $+0.20465$ & $ 29.6$ & $-0.053\pm0.069$ & $-0.165\pm0.014$ & $-0.211\pm0.010$ & 2 U BD \\
943: SDSS~J010407.68$-$005329.1 & $ 16.03195$ & $-0.89128$ & $ 59.1$ & $-0.041\pm0.068$ & $+0.460\pm0.010$ & $-0.017\pm0.008$ & 2 U BD \\
944: SDSS~J010752.59+004156.0 & $ 16.96899$ & $+0.69905$ & $ 59.0$ & $+0.044\pm0.070$ & $+0.644\pm0.014$ & $+0.085\pm0.013$ & 2 \makebox[\widthof{U}]{} BD \\
945: SDSS~J020333.28$-$010813.1 & $ 30.88881$ & $-1.13683$ & $ 18.6$ & $-0.019\pm0.063$ & $+0.354\pm0.019$ & $-0.005\pm0.012$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U BD \\
946: SDSS~J020742.85+000055.6 & $ 31.92867$ & $+0.01561$ & $ 27.8$ & $+0.078\pm0.072$ & $+0.163\pm0.017$ & $-0.029\pm0.010$ & 2 U BD \\
947: SDSS~J023617.95+004853.5 & $ 39.07492$ & $+0.81501$ & $ 74.4$ & $+0.025\pm0.021$ & $+0.134\pm0.006$ & $-0.166\pm0.005$ & 2 U BD \\
948: SDSS~J033035.23$-$002537.2 & $ 52.64687$ & $-0.42678$ & $ 76.5$ & $+0.040\pm0.026$ & $+0.390\pm0.007$ & $-0.360\pm0.008$ & 2 U BD \\
949: SDSS~J214046.48+011258.2 & $325.19385$ & $+1.21633$ & $ 28.3$ & $-0.064\pm0.143$ & $-0.085\pm0.012$ & $-0.215\pm0.007$ & 2 \makebox[\widthof{U}]{} BD \\
950: SDSS~J224953.45+004403.9 & $342.47285$ & $+0.73458$ & $ 44.4$ & $-0.003\pm0.142$ & $+0.084\pm0.010$ & $+0.011\pm0.009$ & 2 U BD \\
951:
952: \hline
953: SDSS~J001836.46$-$002559.9 & $ 4.65204$ & $-0.43315$ & $ 27.6$ & $+0.038\pm0.137$ & $+0.179\pm0.019$ & $-0.029\pm0.017$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
954: SDSS~J011014.40+010618.5 & $ 17.55990$ & $+1.10534$ & $ 32.0$ & $-0.017\pm0.089$ & $+0.542\pm0.023$ & $+0.013\pm0.015$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
955: SDSS~J011417.92$-$003437.9 & $ 18.57481$ & $-0.57704$ & $ 19.4$ & $+0.090\pm0.064$ & $-0.093\pm0.021$ & $-0.077\pm0.018$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
956: SDSS~J021642.94+004005.1 & $ 34.17907$ & $+0.66828$ & $ 52.0$ & $-0.021\pm0.023$ & $-0.069\pm0.011$ & $-0.093\pm0.009$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
957: SDSS~J023047.97$-$002600.4 & $ 37.69996$ & $-0.43332$ & $ 29.9$ & $-0.012\pm0.045$ & $+0.127\pm0.008$ & $-0.003\pm0.010$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
958: SDSS~J215919.95+003309.0 & $329.83326$ & $+0.55260$ & $ 21.5$ & $+0.120\pm0.158$ & $+0.155\pm0.025$ & $+0.100\pm0.018$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} \makebox[\widthof{U}]{} \\
959: SDSS~J234730.64$-$002912.0 & $356.87782$ & $-0.48653$ & $ 14.7$ & $+0.095\pm0.120$ & $-0.082\pm0.020$ & $-0.090\pm0.026$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
960: SDSS~J234841.38$-$004022.9 & $357.17250$ & $-0.67289$ & $ 39.7$ & $+0.161\pm0.084$ & $+0.097\pm0.025$ & $-0.125\pm0.035$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
961: SDSS~J235410.42+004315.9 & $358.54362$ & $+0.72131$ & $ 59.6$ & $-0.061\pm0.077$ & $+0.053\pm0.013$ & $-0.063\pm0.010$ & \makebox[\widthof{2}]{} U \\
962: \end{tabular}
963: \caption{Well-fit $[i-z]>2$~mag sources in the SDSS Southern Stripe
964: with proper motions \mbox{$>60~\masperyr$} measured at high
965: confidence ($>3.5$~sigma). RA, Dec positions have equinox J2000.0
966: but are computed for MJD 53000. The note ``2'' indicates that there
967: is a nearby entry in the 2MASS point-source catalog
968: \citep{skrutskie06a}, while ``U'' indicates a nearby source in the
969: UKIDSS catalog \citep{lawrence07a}. ``BD'' indicates objects that
970: are spectroscopically-confirmed brown dwarfs \citep{fan00a,
971: geballe02a, hawley02a, berriman03a, knapp04a, chiu08a, metchev08a}.
972: The 9 sources in the lower part of the table (not marked with
973: ``BD'') are new brown-dwarf candidates.\label{tab:movingsources}}
974: \end{table}
975:
976: \clearpage
977: \begin{table}
978: \tiny\begin{tabular}{rrrrrr}
979: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Name} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SDSS u} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SDSS g} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SDSS r} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SDSS i} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{SDSS z} \\
980: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} \\ \hline
981: SDSS~J001608.47$-$004302.9 & $ 24.26 \pm 0.29$ & $ 25.13 \pm 0.16$ & $ 23.88 \pm 0.18$ & $ 21.31 \pm 0.03$ & $ 19.23 \pm 0.01$ \\
982: SDSS~J005212.29+001216.0 & $ 24.35 \pm 0.26$ & $ 25.03 \pm 0.13$ & $ 23.88 \pm 0.10$ & $ 21.92 \pm 0.03$ & $ 19.62 \pm 0.02$ \\
983: SDSS~J010407.68$-$005329.1 & $ 25.02 \pm 0.23$ & $ 25.17 \pm 0.22$ & $ 24.12 \pm 0.13$ & $ 22.07 \pm 0.04$ & $ 19.83 \pm 0.02$ \\
984: SDSS~J010752.59+004156.0 & $ 24.31 \pm 0.21$ & $ 25.17 \pm 0.13$ & $ 24.09 \pm 0.11$ & $ 21.87 \pm 0.03$ & $ 19.11 \pm 0.01$ \\
985: SDSS~J020333.28$-$010813.1 & $ 24.60 \pm 0.24$ & $ 25.18 \pm 0.21$ & $ 24.60 \pm 0.14$ & $ 23.91 \pm 0.14$ & $ 20.85 \pm 0.04$ \\
986: SDSS~J020742.85+000055.6 & $ 24.43 \pm 0.25$ & $ 25.25 \pm 0.13$ & $ 25.04 \pm 0.13$ & $ 24.15 \pm 0.13$ & $ 20.43 \pm 0.04$ \\
987: SDSS~J023617.95+004853.5 & $ 24.83 \pm 0.20$ & $ 24.89 \pm 0.12$ & $ 23.85 \pm 0.09$ & $ 21.69 \pm 0.03$ & $ 19.01 \pm 0.01$ \\
988: SDSS~J033035.23$-$002537.2 & $ 24.66 \pm 0.25$ & $ 25.01 \pm 0.13$ & $ 23.06 \pm 0.05$ & $ 20.88 \pm 0.01$ & $ 18.79 \pm 0.01$ \\
989: SDSS~J214046.48+011258.2 & $ 24.60 \pm 0.29$ & $ 24.67 \pm 0.15$ & $ 23.55 \pm 0.11$ & $ 21.16 \pm 0.02$ & $ 19.11 \pm 0.01$ \\
990: SDSS~J224953.45+004403.9 & $ 24.01 \pm 0.21$ & $ 25.24 \pm 0.15$ & $ 23.79 \pm 0.11$ & $ 21.61 \pm 0.03$ & $ 19.53 \pm 0.01$ \\
991:
992: \hline
993: SDSS~J001836.46$-$002559.9 & $ 24.65 \pm 0.27$ & $ 25.09 \pm 0.14$ & $ 24.29 \pm 0.19$ & $ 23.23 \pm 0.11$ & $ 20.43 \pm 0.03$ \\
994: SDSS~J011014.40+010618.5 & $ 24.95 \pm 0.25$ & $ 25.27 \pm 0.13$ & $ 24.28 \pm 0.13$ & $ 22.29 \pm 0.05$ & $ 20.03 \pm 0.02$ \\
995: SDSS~J011417.92$-$003437.9 & $ 24.55 \pm 0.32$ & $ 25.10 \pm 0.13$ & $ 24.76 \pm 0.15$ & $ 22.46 \pm 0.09$ & $ 20.40 \pm 0.03$ \\
996: SDSS~J021642.94+004005.1 & $ 24.82 \pm 0.20$ & $ 24.98 \pm 0.12$ & $ 24.14 \pm 0.11$ & $ 22.16 \pm 0.04$ & $ 20.01 \pm 0.02$ \\
997: SDSS~J023047.97$-$002600.4 & $ 24.52 \pm 0.25$ & $ 24.89 \pm 0.12$ & $ 24.13 \pm 0.11$ & $ 22.36 \pm 0.04$ & $ 20.22 \pm 0.02$ \\
998: SDSS~J215919.95+003309.0 & $ 24.72 \pm 0.25$ & $ 24.89 \pm 0.15$ & $ 24.20 \pm 0.15$ & $ 22.59 \pm 0.09$ & $ 20.58 \pm 0.04$ \\
999: SDSS~J234730.64$-$002912.0 & $ 24.46 \pm 0.28$ & $ 25.03 \pm 0.14$ & $ 24.78 \pm 0.15$ & $ 22.93 \pm 0.08$ & $ 20.90 \pm 0.05$ \\
1000: SDSS~J234841.38$-$004022.9 & $ 24.76 \pm 0.29$ & $ 25.07 \pm 0.16$ & $ 23.93 \pm 0.12$ & $ 21.95 \pm 0.04$ & $ 19.93 \pm 0.02$ \\
1001: SDSS~J235410.42+004315.9 & $ 24.04 \pm 0.19$ & $ 25.03 \pm 0.22$ & $ 23.24 \pm 0.10$ & $ 21.17 \pm 0.07$ & $ 19.11 \pm 0.01$ \\
1002: \end{tabular}
1003: \vspace{12pt}
1004:
1005: \tiny\begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrr}
1006: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Name} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{UKIDSS y} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{2MASS J} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{UKIDSS J1} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{2MASS H} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{UKIDSS H} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{2MASS K$_{s}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{UKIDSS K} \\
1007: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{mag} \\ \hline
1008: SDSS~J001608.47$-$004302.9 & $ 17.69 \pm 0.02$ & $ 16.33 \pm 0.12$ & $ 16.30 \pm 0.01$ & $ 15.23 \pm 0.11$ & $ 15.35 \pm 0.01$ & $ 14.54 \pm 0.09$ & $ 14.50 \pm 0.01$ \\
1009: SDSS~J005212.29+001216.0 & $ 17.87 \pm 0.03$ & $ 16.36 \pm 0.11$ & $ 16.54 \pm 0.02$ & $ 15.56 \pm 0.13$ & $ 15.81 \pm 0.01$ & $ 15.46 \pm 0.16$ & $ 15.21 \pm 0.01$ \\
1010: SDSS~J010407.68$-$005329.1 & $ 17.87 \pm 0.03$ & $ 16.53 \pm 0.13$ & $ 16.54 \pm 0.01$ & $ 15.64 \pm 0.14$ & $ 15.80 \pm 0.02$ & $ 15.33 \pm 0.17$ & $ 15.24 \pm 0.02$ \\
1011: SDSS~J010752.59+004156.0 & & $ 15.82 \pm 0.06$ & & $ 14.51 \pm 0.04$ & & $ 13.71 \pm 0.04$ & \\
1012: SDSS~J020333.28$-$010813.1 & $ 18.99 \pm 0.08$ & & $ 17.70 \pm 0.04$ & & $ 16.89 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 16.26 \pm 0.03$ \\
1013: SDSS~J020742.85+000055.6 & $ 18.03 \pm 0.03$ & $ 16.80 \pm 0.16$ & $ 16.74 \pm 0.01$ & $ 16.40$ & $ 16.81 \pm 0.04$ & $ 15.41$ & $ 16.73 \pm 0.05$ \\
1014: SDSS~J023617.95+004853.5 & $ 17.18 \pm 0.02$ & $ 16.10 \pm 0.08$ & & $ 15.27 \pm 0.07$ & $ 15.14 \pm 0.01$ & $ 14.67 \pm 0.09$ & $ 14.56 \pm 0.01$ \\
1015: SDSS~J033035.23$-$002537.2 & $ 16.50 \pm 0.01$ & $ 15.31 \pm 0.05$ & $ 15.21 \pm 0.00$ & $ 14.42 \pm 0.04$ & $ 14.49 \pm 0.00$ & $ 13.84 \pm 0.05$ & $ 13.77 \pm 0.00$ \\
1016: SDSS~J214046.48+011258.2 & & $ 15.89 \pm 0.08$ & & $ 15.31 \pm 0.09$ & & $ 14.42 \pm 0.08$ & \\
1017: SDSS~J224953.45+004403.9 & $ 17.78 \pm 0.03$ & $ 16.59 \pm 0.12$ & $ 16.45 \pm 0.01$ & $ 15.42 \pm 0.11$ & $ 15.33 \pm 0.01$ & $ 14.36 \pm 0.07$ & $ 14.41 \pm 0.01$ \\
1018:
1019: \hline
1020: SDSS~J001836.46$-$002559.9 & $ 18.73 \pm 0.08$ & & $ 17.67 \pm 0.05$ & & $ 16.61 \pm 0.04$ & & \\
1021: SDSS~J011014.40+010618.5 & & & $ 16.90 \pm 0.02$ & & $ 16.34 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 15.73 \pm 0.02$ \\
1022: SDSS~J011417.92$-$003437.9 & $ 18.85 \pm 0.08$ & & $ 17.89 \pm 0.04$ & & $ 17.43 \pm 0.07$ & & $ 16.73 \pm 0.06$ \\
1023: SDSS~J021642.94+004005.1 & $ 18.41 \pm 0.05$ & & $ 17.31 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 16.97 \pm 0.04$ & & $ 16.51 \pm 0.04$ \\
1024: SDSS~J023047.97$-$002600.4 & & & $ 17.35 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 16.64 \pm 0.04$ & & $ 16.08 \pm 0.04$ \\
1025: SDSS~J215919.95+003309.0 & & & & & & & \\
1026: SDSS~J234730.64$-$002912.0 & $ 19.56 \pm 0.11$ & & $ 18.37 \pm 0.08$ & & $ 17.87 \pm 0.09$ & & $ 17.18 \pm 0.08$ \\
1027: SDSS~J234841.38$-$004022.9 & & & $ 17.50 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 16.89 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 16.40 \pm 0.04$ \\
1028: SDSS~J235410.42+004315.9 & $ 17.82 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 17.01 \pm 0.02$ & & $ 16.38 \pm 0.03$ & & $ 15.96 \pm 0.03$ \\
1029: \end{tabular}
1030: \caption[Photometric properties for the fast-moving objects.]
1031: {Photometric properties for the sources in
1032: \tablename~\ref{tab:movingsources}, by association with sources in
1033: SDSS, 2MASS, and UKIDSS. SDSS magnitudes are given in the SDSS
1034: system, which is very close to the AB system (See
1035: \url{http://www.sdss.org/dr7/algorithms/fluxcal.html\#sdss2ab});
1036: UKIDSS magnitudes are given as retrieved from the WFCAM science
1037: archive, \ie, they are Vega-based.\label{tab:photometry}}
1038: \end{table}
1039:
1040:
1041: %\clearpage
1042: %\begin{table}
1043: %\input{goldman.tex}
1044: %\caption{Predicted spectroscopic type classifications for the sources in
1045: %\tablename~\ref{tab:movingsources}.\label{tab:types}}
1046: %\end{table}
1047:
1048:
1049:
1050: \clearpage
1051: \begin{figure}
1052: % another option:
1053: % http://oven.cosmo.fas.nyu.edu:8888/faint/?n=174021
1054: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f1a.png}}\\[2ex]%
1055: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f1b.png}}\\[2ex]%
1056: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f1c.png}}
1057: \caption{[caption on next page]}
1058: \end{figure}
1059:
1060: \clearpage
1061: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
1062: \begin{figure}
1063: \caption{[on previous page] The results of fitting the SDSS Southern
1064: Stripe multi-epoch imaging data on SDSS J020333.28-010813.1, a
1065: spectroscopically confirmed brown dwarf (\citealt{knapp04a},
1066: L.~Jiang, private communication) and $[i-z]>2$~mag source. The
1067: top set of panels---labeled by observation MJD---show the
1068: individual epoch $15\times 15$-pixel sub-images; note that the
1069: source is not clearly detectable at every epoch. The middle
1070: diagrams show the output of fitting a moving source (left panel)
1071: or a resolved galaxy (right panel). On the moving-source diagram,
1072: the best fit path of the moving point source is shown as a thick
1073: black line, the thinner grey lines show alternative paths sampled
1074: from the jackknife-inferred posterior distribution of trajectories
1075: consistent with the data; that is, the grey lines effectively show
1076: the uncertainty interval. The thick black and thin grey lines
1077: contain wiggles with a period of one year (or the pixel distance
1078: of one year at that path's proper motion) because each is the
1079: realization of a trajectory with finite proper motion and
1080: parallax. It can be seen from this panel that this source has a
1081: well-measured proper motion but not a well-measured parallax,
1082: because the grey lines do not share a common parallax. The PSF
1083: FWHM sizes of the individual epoch images are shown as circles
1084: centered on the positions the point source would have on the
1085: best-fit path. On the galaxy diagram, the mean-PSF-convolved
1086: galaxy model is shown as a black ellipse, and the grey ellipses
1087: sample the jackknife-inferred distribution of galaxy models
1088: consistent with the data. Note that for this source, the
1089: point-source model is a much better fit than the galaxy model
1090: (with $\chi^2$ difference $169$), so the point-source model is
1091: favored. Along the bottom, the leftmost panel (data stack) shows
1092: the data co-added (weighted by per-pixel inverse variance). The
1093: second and third panels (star stack and galaxy stack) show the
1094: star and galaxy models co-added at zero lag (no proper motion
1095: compensation). The fourth panel (star resid) shows the residuals
1096: (data minus model) for the point-source model, and the fifth panel
1097: (galaxy resid) the residuals for the galaxy model, both co-added
1098: at zero lag. The sixth panel (data shifted) shows the data
1099: co-added with the best-fit proper motion compensated. The seventh
1100: (star shifted) shows the point-source model, co-added with the
1101: best-fit proper motion compensated. The final panel (shifted
1102: resid) shows the residuals for the point-source model co-added
1103: with the best-fit proper motion compensated. The
1104: motion-compensating shifts are rounded to the nearest pixel. Note
1105: that these co-added figures are only shown for purposes of
1106: illustration; our method \emph{never} co-adds
1107: images.\label{fig:example}}
1108: \end{figure}
1109:
1110: \clearpage
1111: \begin{figure}
1112: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f2a.png}}\\[2ex]%
1113: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f2b.png}}\\[2ex]%
1114: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f2c.png}}
1115: \caption{The same as \figurename~\ref{fig:example} but for
1116: SDSS~J020332.35+001228.6, a spectroscopically confirmed $z\sim 6$
1117: quasar \citep{jiang08a} and $[i-z]>2$~mag source. Here the
1118: point-source model is favored, but the inferred proper motion
1119: (best-fit value or any sample from the distribution) is very small;
1120: the wavy paths each span $\sim 100~\yr$ in time; they have different
1121: position angles because when the magnitude of the proper motion is
1122: constrained to be near zero, the direction is not well constrained.
1123: The galaxy model is disfavored by a small amount. The amount is
1124: small because the best-fit galaxy model is a non-moving compact
1125: source, which is not dissimilar to the nearly non-moving best-fit
1126: point source.\label{fig:exampleQSO}}
1127: \end{figure}
1128:
1129: \clearpage
1130: \begin{figure}
1131: % other options: 92563, 143457
1132: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f3a.png}}\\[2ex]%
1133: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f3b.png}}\\[2ex]%
1134: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f3c.png}}
1135: \caption{The same as \figurename~\ref{fig:example} but for a faint
1136: galaxy. Here the galaxy model is favored.\label{fig:examplegalaxy}}
1137: \end{figure}
1138:
1139: \clearpage
1140: \begin{figure}
1141: % other options:
1142: % - change junk example to object 103126, 193020, 174355, 153347, 188804, 177524, 113138, 113987 - these make Jester's cuts?
1143: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f4a.png}}\\[2ex]%
1144: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f4b.png}}\\[2ex]%
1145: \resizebox{\examplefigurewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f4c.png}}
1146: \caption{The same as \figurename~\ref{fig:example} but for a spurious
1147: source caused by a blinking artificial satellite. Here the ``junk''
1148: model is favored over the point-source and galaxy models. Note that
1149: the jackknife errors in the point-source and galaxy models are very
1150: large. This source actually can be removed by flag-checking in the
1151: SDSSSS Coadd Catalog, but we show it here for illustrative
1152: purposes.\label{fig:examplecrap}}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155: \clearpage
1156: \begin{figure}
1157: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f5a.png}
1158: \caption{Proper motion magnitude (angular speed) as a function of
1159: SDSSSS Coadd Catalog $z$-band magnitude for $[i-z]>2$~mag sources in
1160: the SDSS Southern Stripe that are preferentially described as point
1161: sources (by our $\chi^2$ hypothesis test). The uncertainty regions
1162: are shown as transparent ellipses. The spectroscopically confirmed
1163: high-redshift quasars \citep{jiang08a} and brown dwarfs
1164: \citep{fan00a, geballe02a, hawley02a, berriman03a, knapp04a,
1165: chiu08a, metchev08a} are shown in color. Every one of the brown
1166: dwarfs has a significantly measured proper motion; none of the
1167: quasars do. Other brown-dwarf candidates are clearly visible as
1168: significant movers (see also \tablename~\ref{tab:movingsources}).
1169: Note that the single-epoch detection limit is approximately
1170: $z=20.5~\mag$ in good seeing conditions.\label{fig:bubbles}}
1171: \end{figure}
1172:
1173: \clearpage
1174: \begin{figure}
1175: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f6a.png}
1176: \caption{UKIDSS and SDSSSS $[z-J]$ color plotted against SDSSSS
1177: $z$-band magnitude, for the sources in \figurename~\ref{fig:bubbles}
1178: that are detected in the UKIDSS $J$ band. All of the
1179: significantly-moving objects have the very red $[z-J]$ colors of
1180: brown dwarfs; the likely brown dwarfs could have been identified by
1181: their proper motions and SDSSSS Coadd Catalog colors alone. Note
1182: that the $z$ magnitude is in the AB system, while the $J$ magnitude
1183: is Vega-based.\label{fig:colormag}}
1184: \end{figure}
1185:
1186: \clearpage
1187: \begin{figure}
1188: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f7a.png}
1189: \caption{Comparison of the jackknife-estimated proper-motion
1190: uncertainties to ``best-case'' values estimated from general
1191: principles of information in the imaging: The information estimate
1192: is the mean (square-signal-to-noise-weighted) imaging point-spread
1193: function FWHM divided by the signal-to-noise of the flux measurement
1194: (taken to be a proxy for the total detection signal-to-noise),
1195: divided by the root-variance of the time span. This figure shows
1196: that the measurements are roughly as precise as they \emph{can be,}
1197: given the information content of the set of images; see
1198: \equationname~(\ref{eq:muerror}).\label{fig:info}}
1199: \end{figure}
1200:
1201: \clearpage
1202: \begin{figure}
1203: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f8a.png}
1204: \caption{Accuracy of jackknife uncertainty estimates for fits to
1205: artificial data made with known point-source properties. Errors in
1206: fit parameters (fit minus true) have been divided by jackknife
1207: uncertainties. The artificial data sets have identical imaging
1208: properties (noise amplitude, WCS, and PSF) to SDSS Southern Stripe
1209: sources, but contain artifical images made with point sources with
1210: true positions, fluxes and motions derived from the data as
1211: described in the text. The cloud of points is centered near
1212: $(0,0)$, is circularly symmetric, and appears roughly Gaussian: our
1213: estimates are unbiased, uncorrelated, and have the expected
1214: magnitude and distribution of error.\label{fig:fake}}
1215: \end{figure}
1216:
1217: \end{document}
1218: