1: \documentstyle[epsfig]{mn}
2:
3: \def\ho{$H_{0}$}
4: \def\sz{SZ}
5: \def\xray{X-ray}
6: \def\microJy{$\mu$Jy}
7: \def\milliJy{mJy}
8: \def\kl{k$\lambda$}
9: \def\ra#1h#2m#3.#4s{$\rm {RA} \ #1^h \ #2^m \ #3^s#4 \ $}
10: \def\dec#1d#2m#3s{$\rm {Dec.}\ +#1^{\circ} \ #2' \ #3''$}
11: \def\msolar{$M_{\odot}$}
12: \def\hounit{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}
13: \def\arcmin{\hbox{$^\prime$}}
14: \def\arcsec{\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}
15: \def\asca{\textit{ASCA}}
16: \def\rosat{\textit{ROSAT}}
17: \def\chandra{\textit{Chandra}}
18: \def\xmm{\textit{XMM}}
19: \def\COBE{\textit{COBE}}
20: \def\clean{\textsc{Clean}}
21: \def\eg{e.g.\ }
22: \def\ie{i.e.\ }
23: \def\lesssim{\mbox{\raisebox{-0.3em}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$}}}
24: \def\gtrsim{\mbox{\raisebox{-0.3em}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$}}}
25:
26:
27: \def\aj{{AJ}} % Astronomical Journal
28: \def\apjs{{ApJS}} % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement
29: \def\mnras{{MNRAS}} % Monthly Notices of the RAS
30: \def\apj{{ApJ}} % Astrophysical Journal
31: \def\apjl{{ApJ}} % Astrophysical Journal, Letters
32:
33:
34: \newenvironment{centre}
35: {\begin{center}}
36: {\end{center}}
37:
38: \title[Removal of radio sources in SZ observations]{A maximum-likelihood approach to
39: removing radio sources from SZ observations, with application to Abell 611}
40:
41: \author[W.~F.~Grainger et al.]{William F. Grainger, Rhiju
42: Das\thanks{Present address: Physics Department, Stanford University, CA, 94305-4060, USA.}, Keith Grainge, Michael E. Jones, \cr R\"udiger
43: Kneissl, G.\ G.\ Pooley, Richard Saunders \\
44: Astrophysics, Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK.}
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: \maketitle
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: We describe a maximum-likelihood technique for the removal of contaminating radio
51: sources from interferometric observations of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich
52: (\sz) effect. This technique, based on a simultaneous
53: fit for the radio sources and extended \sz\
54: emission, is also compared to techniques previously applied to Ryle
55: Telescope observations and is found to be robust. The technique is
56: then applied to new observations of the cluster Abell 611, and a
57: decrement of $-540 \pm 125$~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$ is found. This is
58: combined with a \rosat\ HRI image and a published \asca\ temperature to give an \ho\ estimate of
59: $52^{+24}_{-16}$~\hounit.
60: \end{abstract}
61: \begin{keywords}
62:
63: cosmic microwave background -- cosmology:observations -- X-rays -- distance
64: scale -- galaxies:clusters:individual:A611 -- methods: data analysis
65:
66: \end{keywords}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69: This paper is concerned with the subtraction of radio sources which
70: would otherwise contaminate or obliterate detections of the
71: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (\sz) effect \cite{sz1,sz2} towards galaxy
72: clusters. The work described here is in connection with the Ryle
73: Telescope (RT, see \eg Jones et al.\ 2001 and Grainge et
74: al.\ 2001b), but the issues are relevant to all
75: cm-wavelength \sz\ observations with interferometers (see \eg Reese et
76: al.\ 2000). For a massive cluster at moderate or
77: high redshift, the flux that the RT detects from the \sz\ effect at
78: 15~GHz is typically $-$500~\microJy\ on its shortest baselines. This
79: is sufficiently faint that radio sources will almost invariably be
80: present with comparable or greater amplitudes. Thus removing the
81: effects of radio sources is an essential step. We describe and compare
82: two past methods of measuring \sz\ decrements in the presence of
83: sources as well as a maximum-likelihood method. We then apply this to new RT
84: observations of cluster A611 which we combine with \xray\ data to
85: estimate \ho. All coordinates are J2000 and, except where otherwise
86: stated, we use an Einstein-de-Sitter world model.
87:
88: \section{Removing radio sources from \sz\ observations with the RT}
89:
90: As the RT is an interferometer with a wide range of baselines, it can
91: simultaneously measure the extended \sz\ flux and the fluxes and
92: positions of the small angular size radio
93: sources. Figure~\ref{fig:cluster} illustrates the variation of \sz\
94: flux with baseline for the RT when observing a massive Abell cluster
95: at $z=0.171$. The variation with redshift is slight over the range
96: $z=0.15$--$5$, as shown in Grainge et al.\ \shortcite{1413}. The \sz\
97: effect has effectively been completely resolved out for baselines
98: above $\simeq 1.5$~\kl, and so these ``long'' baselines can be used to
99: measure sources and so remove their effects from the \sz\ signal seen
100: on the ``short'' baselines. The measurements are simultaneous and, of
101: course, at the same frequency, and so the spectral index is
102: unimportant. Variability is unimportant if the telescope configuration
103: does not change; see Grainge et al.\ \shortcite{1413RT} for details. By
104: choosing an interferometer configuration such that there are more long
105: baselines than short, it is possible to optimise the observations to
106: achieve good signal-to-noise for the \sz\ effect without it being
107: dominated by noise from unsubtracted sources.
108:
109: \begin{figure}
110: \begin{centre}
111: \epsfig{height=8cm,angle=-90,file=modelflux.ps}
112: \caption{The flux density as a function of baseline for a spherical King-model
113: cluster with central electron density $=10^4 {\rm m}^{-3}, \beta=0.65,
114: \mbox{core radius} = 60\arcsec$, $T_e=7.8\times10^{7}~\mbox{K}$,
115: $z=0.171$ and \ho=50 \hounit, as observed
116: with the RT. (From Grainge 1996). The shortest RT
117: physical baselines are 870~$\lambda$; this becomes somewhat shorter
118: with projection.}
119: \label{fig:cluster}
120: \end{centre}
121: \end{figure}
122:
123: There are three methods of source subtraction that have been applied
124: to RT data:
125:
126: \begin{enumerate}
127: \item
128: using \textsc{Clean}, which has been used for the bulk of
129: published \sz\ measurements from the RT (\eg Grainge et al.\ 1996);
130: \item
131: the matrix method, which was first used by Grainge \shortcite{keiththesis}; and
132: \item
133: the \textsc{FluxFitter} method, first used by Das
134: \shortcite{rhijuthesis}, and used here in modified form.
135: \end{enumerate}
136:
137: This sequence began with \textsc{Clean}, the classical radio-astronomy
138: image deconvolution technique (see \eg Greisen 1994 and
139: Perley et~al.\ 1989). The matrix method is a linear
140: method for removing the effects of sidelobes, and \textsc{FluxFitter}
141: -- using maximum likelihood -- addresses the problem of simultaneously
142: fitting both radio sources and \sz\ decrement.
143:
144:
145: \subsection{The test data}
146: The three methods can be explained and compared with an
147: example of a simulated dataset containing both sources and an \sz\
148: effect. The simulation is of a 54 $\times$ 12-hour long observation of
149: a field at declination $44^{\circ}$. The $uv$ coverage is based on a
150: standard Cb configuration for the RT; in this configuration four
151: aerials are parked on an east-west rail-track at locations 36, 72, 90
152: and 108~m from the closest fixed aerial (see Grainge et al.\
153: 1996 for details). The point-source fluxes and positions
154: are shown in Table~\ref{tab:modelfluxes}, and the noise level was set
155: to 7~\milliJy~visibility$^{-1/2}$, corresponding to
156: 200~\microJy~day$^{-1/2}$, as expected for a standard RT observation
157: with five aerials. The \sz\ decrement is
158: based on Abell 2218, and is modelled as an isothermal ellipsoid with
159: a King electron density profile \cite{king} at the centre of the map
160: with a central electron density of $10^{4} {\rm m}^{-3}$, $\beta =
161: 0.65$, a temperature of $8.7\times10^{7}$~K
162: and core radii of 60\arcsec\ and 40\arcsec\ on the sky and 49\arcsec\ ($=\sqrt{60\times40}$)
163: along the line of sight. The central temperature decrement for this
164: cluster is 0.82~mK and, as observed with the RT, the cluster gives
165: $-$660~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$ on the shortest baseline.
166:
167: \begin{table}
168: \caption{The source fluxes and positions in the simulated data
169: set. The convention used in this and other tables is: positive
170: $\Delta$RA is an increase in the RA value, so the source is to the
171: East (to the left on conventional maps) and positive $\Delta$Dec is an
172: increase in Dec, i.e. to the North.}
173: \label{tab:modelfluxes}
174: \begin{tabular}{lll}
175: Source number &Flux & Offset from pointing centre \\
176: &(\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) & (arcseconds) \\
177: 1 & 2960 & $-$10, 10 \\
178: 2 & 910 & 35, 15 \\
179: 3 & 255 & $-$50, $-$40 \\
180: 4 & 170 & $-$120, 100 \\
181: 5 & 100 & 0, 0 \\
182: 6 & 80 & 60, $-$60 \\
183: \end{tabular}
184: \end{table}
185:
186:
187: \subsection[The \clean\ method]{The C{\footnotesize LEAN} method}
188:
189: For this method, a dirty (\ie un\clean ed) map of all the baselines
190: longer than 1.5~\kl\ is produced within \textsc{Aips} \cite{aips}.
191: Natural weighting is used to give the best possible signal-to-noise
192: ratio at the expense of larger sidelobes. The map is \clean ed in the
193: standard way by placing \clean\ boxes around the obvious sources.
194: After deconvolution, the source fluxes are measured, using the
195: \textsc{Aips} verb \textsc{Maxfit}, which interpolates the position
196: and value of the maximum flux density. The measured fluxes are then
197: removed from the visibility data using the task \textsc{Uvsub}.
198:
199: The sources and the positions found in the simulated dataset are
200: listed in Table~\ref{tab:cleanpositions}, and the \textsc{Clean}ed map
201: is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cleaned}. The noise in the map due to the
202: system temperature is 38~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$. The six model sources
203: are labelled; note that only four brightest were found.
204:
205: A map made with baselines longer than 1.5~\kl\ was consistent with noise after these four
206: sources had been subtracted. The \sz\ flux observed was
207: $-675 \pm 72$~\milliJy\ beam$^{-1}$, at a position ($-4$, $-2$) arcsec from the pointing
208: centre. The \sz\ values were measured with \textsc{Maxfit} from a map
209: made with the baselines shorter than 1.0~\kl.
210:
211: \begin{table}
212: \caption{Fluxes and positions as measured by \textsc{Maxfit} after
213: \clean ing with four \clean\ boxes. The noise on each flux is 38~\microJy. }
214: \label{tab:cleanpositions}
215: \begin{tabular}{lll}
216: Source number & Flux & Offset from pointing centre \\
217: & (\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) & (arcseconds) \\
218: 1 & 3040 & $-$9.6, 9.6 \\
219: 2 & 970 & 34.5, 15.8 \\
220: 3 & 270 & $-$49.9, $-$45.8 \\
221: 4 & 170 & $-$120.1, 91.9 \\
222: \end{tabular}
223: \end{table}
224:
225: \begin{table}
226: \caption{Fluxes and positions from the \clean\ method with six \clean\
227: boxes.}
228: \label{tab:clean2}
229: \begin{tabular}{lll}
230: Source number & Flux & Offset from pointing centre \\
231: & (\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) & (arcseconds) \\
232: 1 & 3020 & $-$9.6, 9.5 \\
233: 2 & 950 & 34.5, 15.8 \\
234: 3 & 240 & $-$47.6, $-$42.0 \\
235: 4 & 180 & $-$121.6, 98.4 \\
236: 5 & 85 & 12,$-$7 \\
237: 6 & 82 & 70,$-$70 \\
238: \end{tabular}
239: \end{table}
240:
241: \begin{figure}
242: \begin{centre}
243: \epsfig{file=cleanmodel.ps}
244: \caption{A \textsc{Clean}ed map of the simulated data made with
245: baselines longer than 1.5~\kl. Source 1 has had 2500\microJy\
246: beam$^{-1}$\ of flux already removed to aid identification of weaker
247: sources. The contour levels are $-$55$\times$(1, $\surd{2}$, 2)~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$\ (dashed),
248: 55$\times$(1, $\surd{2}$, 2, $\surd{8}$, 4,~\ldots)~\microJy\
249: beam$^{-1}$ (solid). The beamsize FWHM (45\arcsec\ $\times$ 26\arcsec\
250: at 4$^{\circ}$) is shown in the bottom left. The noise in the map due
251: to the system temperature is 38~\microJy~beam$^{-1}$.}
252: \label{fig:cleaned}
253: \end{centre}
254: \end{figure}
255:
256: A comparison of the sources found (Table~\ref{tab:cleanpositions}) and
257: the sources actually in the model (Table~\ref{tab:modelfluxes}) shows
258: the how well the \clean\ method works. The most glaring problem is
259: that only four out of the original six sources have been detected. As
260: lower-frequency surveys such as FIRST, NVSS or optical images often provide
261: information about the source envirnoment at 15~GHz, the long-baseline
262: map is rarely used in isolation. As such, a second test was performed,
263: placing the \clean\ boxes as before, but adding small \clean\ boxes
264: around the locations of the other two weaker sources. The positions
265: and fluxes of the six sources are shown in Table~\ref{tab:clean2}. The
266: noise on the long-baseline map is 38~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$. Thus
267: additional radio or optical information leads to the detection of the
268: two faintest sources.
269:
270:
271: \subsubsection{Source finding}
272:
273: Source finding is done in a non-linear, iterative manner. A
274: typical source-subtraction process may involve many iterations of map
275: making, running the subtraction algorithm on the sources found, mapping
276: residuals, finding another source and then adding that into the model.
277:
278: A high signal-to-noise source is easy to identify, and causes no
279: problems. However, the process becomes subjective around
280: signal-to-noise ratios of 4 to 3.5. This is the point at which the
281: non-Gaussian, correlated statistics in the image plane conspire with
282: the high RT sidelobes (when using a few antennas for source finding)
283: to make source identification more difficult.
284:
285: Radio sources in the clusters we observe have angular sizes
286: smaller than the maximum resolution used. However, the number of
287: \clean\ components is generally much larger than the number of sources
288: in the field. With the test data, only four sources were identified,
289: but \textsc{Aips} produced a model with 28 \clean\ components. Since
290: the real sources are evidently point sources, this is over-modelling
291: the data; and potentially biasing. There is also a degree of
292: subjectivity in the placing and sizing of \textsc{Clean} boxes.
293:
294: \subsection{The matrix method}
295:
296: The matrix method was initally developed by KG \cite{keiththesis}, and
297: we here describe it and assess its performance. In the matrix
298: method, sources are first identified from a un\textsc{Clean}ed
299: long-baseline map, and \textsc{Maxfit} used to measure the positions
300: and the fluxes of the sources. The convolution that occurs when
301: observing with an interferometer means that the flux on the dirty map
302: of the $j^{\rm th}$ source, $S_{\mathrm{dirty},j}$, is given by
303: %
304: \begin{equation}
305: S_{\mathrm{dirty},j} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} S_{{\rm sky},i}\,B_{i,j}\,P_{i},
306: \end{equation}
307: %
308: where $S_{{\rm sky},i}$ is the true flux on the sky of the $i^{th}$ point
309: source, $B_{i,j}$ is a factor due to the synthesised beam that depends
310: on the displacement (on the sky) between the source in question and
311: the $i^{th}$ source, and $P_{i}$ is the primary (envelope) beam
312: attenuation. The value of $B_{i,j}$ is directly measured from the
313: dirty beam produced by \textsc{Horus}.
314: There is thus a matrix equation linking the measured dirty fluxes with
315: the true sky fluxes, which is solved by inverting the matrix.
316: This method has the advantage over \textsc{Clean} in that
317: sources that are measured in the map to be point sources are modelled
318: with one flux and position. With the simulated test data, the four
319: sources identified with the \textsc{Clean} method were used. The
320: resulting matrix was
321: %
322: \begin{equation}
323: \left(
324: \begin{array}{c} 2875 \\ 473 \\ 105 \\ 585 \\
325: \end{array}
326: \right)
327: =
328: \left(
329: \begin{array}{cccc}
330: 1 & 0.13 & -0.03 & 0.16 \\
331: -0.13 & 1 & 0.02 & -0.04 \\
332: -0.03 & 0.02 & 1 & 0.12 \\
333: 0.16 & -0.04 & 0.12 & 1 \\
334: \end{array}
335: \right)
336: \left(\begin{array}{c} S_{{\rm sky},1} \\
337: S_{\mathrm{sky},2} \\
338: S_{\mathrm{sky},3} \\
339: S_{\mathrm{sky},4} \\
340: \end{array}
341: \right),
342: \end{equation}
343: where the vector on the left side of the equation is a measurement of
344: the dirty flux (in \microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) at each point. The value
345: $S_{{\rm sky},x}$ is the beam-attenuated flux on the sky of source
346: $x$, using the same labelling as for sources found in the \textsc{Clean}
347: method.
348:
349: The matrix method is linear, an apparent advantage over the \clean\
350: method. If after the first subtraction attempt some sources are still
351: present, then the additional terms for the matrix can then be measured
352: and the solution recalculated.
353:
354: \begin{figure}
355: \begin{centre}
356: \epsfig{file=matrixsub.ps}
357: \caption{Long -- i.e.\ greater than 1.5~\kl\ -- baseline map for the test
358: data after the sources in Table~\ref{tab:Matrixpositions} have been
359: subtracted. The greyscale range is from -200 (light) to 200 \microJy\
360: beam$^{-1}$.}
361: \label{fig:matrixsubbed}
362: \end{centre}
363: \end{figure}
364:
365: Table~\ref{tab:Matrixpositions} shows the fluxes found. A comparison
366: with the sources known to be in the model
367: (Table~\ref{tab:modelfluxes}) shows that the flux of source three is
368: significantly different. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, not
369: all the flux has been subtracted -- see Figure~\ref{fig:matrixsubbed}.
370: Secondly, the positions used have been determined from the
371: un\textsc{Clean}ed map, by searching for extrema with
372: \textsc{Maxfit}. Occasionally, the relative positions of sources are
373: such that one source is in the steepest part of a sidelobe of another,
374: and \textsc{Maxfit} does not find an extremum that corresponds to that
375: source. This has occurred in this case with source 4. In this
376: situation, \textsc{Maxfit} is not used, and the position from the
377: \textsc{Clean} method is used. The flux value from the
378: un\textsc{Clean}ed map in that position is then used. The reliance on
379: the \clean\ method combined positional problems and with
380: difficulties automating the process for large numbers of sources means
381: that the ``matrix method'' has only been applied in simple cases with
382: a few well separated sources.
383:
384:
385: \begin{table}
386: \caption{Source fluxes and positions from the matrix method.}
387: \label{tab:Matrixpositions}
388: \begin{tabular}{lll}
389:
390: Source number & Flux & Offset from pointing centre \\
391: & (\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) & (arcseconds) \\
392: 1 & 2970 & $-$9, 9.6 \\
393: 2 & 877 & 34, 15 \\
394: 3 & 8 & $-$47, $-$42.8 \\
395: 4 & 142 & $-$122, 99.9 \\
396: \end{tabular}
397: \end{table}
398:
399: \subsection[The \textsc{FluxFitter} method]{The F{\footnotesize
400: LUX}F{\footnotesize ITTER} method}
401: \label{sc:positiontest}
402: In an attempt to overcome the problems of the \textsc{Clean} and
403: matrix methods, the \textsc{FluxFitter} algorithm was introduced. The
404: algorithm that it uses is straightforward:
405:
406: \begin{enumerate}
407: \item
408: An initial model of the sky is made, using a set of
409: parameters that represents the positions and fluxes of each
410: source, including the \sz\ decrement. This model is determined from
411: the long-baseline RT maps (either raw or \clean ed) and, for the \sz\
412: parameters, from the \xray\ image.
413: \item
414: The flux that the RT would observe is calculated for every visibility
415: point.
416: \item
417: The misfit between the model and real $uv$ data is then calculated as
418: $\chi^2$.
419: \item
420: The parameters are then varied to minimise $\chi^2$.
421: \end{enumerate}
422:
423: The best-fitting parameter values are then used to subtract the radio
424: sources; this is done within \textsc{Aips}. There are two
425: advantages to this method. It works almost entirely in the aperture
426: plane; only the source identification and approximate position finding
427: is done in the image plane. Working in the aperture plane is preferred
428: because the noise distribution is known to be Gaussian. The second
429: advantage of this method is in point (i): a simultaneous fit to the
430: positions and fluxes of the point sources and the \sz\ decrement is a clear
431: improvement over either of the previous methods as there is no arbitrary
432: ``long'' and ``short'' baseline split, and
433: it allows full use of all visibility data, which increases the
434: signal-to-noise ratio for point-source measurements.
435:
436: The initial parameters for the sources are still estimated by iterating
437: the \textsc{Clean} method. In a complex situation with both bright and
438: faint sources, the map is \textsc{Clean}ed, and then positions
439: measured. These sources are then subtracted and the subtracted data then
440: mapped again. This loop can be performed many times to estimate the
441: number of sources and their approximate positions and fluxes. In a
442: less complex situation, \textsc{Clean} is not used, and sources are
443: approximately subtracted and then the data remapped. Again, this is
444: just to provide an initial guess for \textsc{FluxFitter}.
445:
446: Currently only the amplitude of the \sz\ decrement is varied. The
447: other parameters that describe the decrement -- position, core radius
448: and $\beta$-parameter for the cluster -- are all fixed in advance from
449: the \xray\ data. This is done as the radio data do not
450: constrain well the core-radius or $\beta$ value; with present telescopes,
451: the \xray\ measurements constrain the core radius, $\beta$ value and
452: position much better.
453:
454: \textsc{FluxFitter} was run twice on the simulated test data. The
455: fluxes and positions from the \clean\ method were used as an initial
456: guess for the first run. The fluxes and positions from this run are
457: shown in Table~\ref{tab:fluxfitterpositions1}; the errors are those
458: reported by \textsc{FluxFitter} -- see below. After subtraction with
459: \textsc{Uvsub}, the map of baselines greater than 1.5~\kl\ was
460: consistent with noise. For a second run, the fluxes and positions from
461: the \clean\ method were used, and the positions of the additional two
462: sources were also used. The fluxes and positions from this run are
463: shown in Table~\ref{tab:flux2}. This table shows that the two
464: additional sources are detected with good significance. That the
465: overall noise level of 30~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$\ is lower than that
466: for the \clean\ method is not surprising as all the baselines are
467: being used in the determination of the fluxes and positions. After
468: subtracting the six reported sources, a map of baselines shorter than
469: 1.0~\kl\ shows a decrement of flux $-700\pm65$~\milliJy\ beam$^{-1}$\
470: at an offset (9\arcsec,4\arcsec). \textsc{FluxFitter} itself finds a
471: central decrement of $0.87 \pm 0.08$~mK, close to the set value of 0.82~mK.
472:
473: As an additional check, a third run of \textsc{FluxFitter} was
474: performed, and the four sources found from the \clean\ method and two
475: random points were used as the initial guess. In this case,
476: \textsc{FluxFitter} reported that both of the two random ``sources''
477: had fluxes below the noise level and very large positional-errors.
478:
479:
480: \begin{table}
481: \caption{Source positions and fluxes as reported by
482: \textsc{FluxFitter} using the \clean\ model as an initial guess. The
483: formal error on each flux is 30~\microJy~beam$^{-1}$.}
484: \label{tab:fluxfitterpositions1}
485: \begin{tabular}{lll}
486:
487: Source number & Flux & Offset from pointing centre \\
488: & (\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) & (arcseconds) \\
489: 1 & 3031 & $-9.5 \pm 0.1$, $9.6 \pm 0.2$ \\
490: 2 & 966 & $34.5 \pm 0.3$, $15.3 \pm 0.5$ \\
491: 3 & 208 & $-47.5 \pm 1.2$, $-42.8 \pm 2.8$ \\
492: 4 & 184 & $-122.3 \pm 1.6$, $98.2 \pm 2.8$ \\
493: \end{tabular}
494: \end{table}
495:
496: \begin{table}
497: \caption{Source positions and fluxes as reported by
498: \textsc{FluxFitter} using additional information. The
499: formal error on each flux is 30~\microJy~beam$^{-1}$.}
500: \label{tab:flux2}
501: \begin{tabular}{lll}
502: Source number & Flux & Offset from pointing centre \\
503: & (\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) & (arcseconds) \\
504: 1 & 3024 & $-9.9 \pm 0.1$, $9.9 \pm 0.2$ \\
505: 2 & 970 & $34.9 \pm 0.5$, $15.6 \pm 0.7$ \\
506: 3 & 212 & $-47.8 \pm 1.8$, $-40.8 \pm 3.6$ \\
507: 4 & 155 & $-121 \pm 2.6$, $98.8 \pm 4.1$ \\
508: 5 & 140 & $7.9 \pm 3.8$, $-3.1 \pm 4.2$ \\
509: 6 & 132 & $67.4 \pm 3.3$, $-64.8 \pm 4.6$ \\
510: \end{tabular}
511: \end{table}
512:
513: \textsc{FluxFitter} also reports error bounds. As
514: Figure~\ref{fig:chiplots} shows, the $\chi^{2}$ contours are elliptical
515: and orientated along the variable axes, which shows that the
516: parameters are independent. The error on each parameter is
517: calculated by finding the parameter values at which the reduced $\chi^{2}$
518: increases by 1.
519:
520: \begin{figure}
521: \begin{centre}
522: \epsfig{width=5cm,angle=-90,file=VaryingFlux_y_Pos.ps}
523: \caption{$\chi^{2}$ contours for the flux and position in Dec for the
524: brightest source in the test field.The spacing between contour levels in each figure is such that the reduced $\chi^2$ value increases
525: by 1 between each contour.}
526: \label{fig:chiplots}
527: \end{centre}
528:
529: \begin{centre}
530: \epsfig{width=5cm,angle=-90,file=Moving_x_Pos_y_Pos.ps}
531: \caption{$\chi^{2}$ contours for position for the
532: brightest source in the test field. The spacing between contour levels
533: in each figure is such that the reduced $\chi^2$ value increases by 1
534: between each contour.}
535: \end{centre}
536: \end{figure}
537:
538: The error-bound reporting was checked by simulating a point source
539: with differing signal-to-noise ratio. 500 observations of a single
540: point source were simulated; the signal-to-noise was kept constant for
541: groups of 10 simulations, and the position was held constant for all
542: the simulations.
543: The visibilities were simulated with Gaussian noise. The
544: known position was then fed to \textsc{FluxFitter} as an initial
545: guess, and the best-fitting position and flux recorded. It was found
546: that the quoted error bar does enclose the position for 67\% of the
547: simulations. It was also found that the uncertainty of the position, that is the
548: size of $\sigma$, varies as the inverse of the signal-to-noise. This
549: result is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:snplot}. Note that this relation
550: holds down to very low signal-to-noise ratios.
551: The result is useful for determining whether a tentative source found
552: with the RT at low signal-to-noise has a position coincident with
553: higher significance data, for example from NVSS or POSS.
554:
555:
556: \begin{figure}
557: \begin{centre}
558: \epsfig{width=7cm,angle=-90,file=snplot.ps}
559: \caption{Signal-to-noise ratio \textit{verses} the uncertainty (in arcseconds) of the
560: position. Fitting a straight line to this data gives
561: $\textrm{uncertainity}/\textrm{arcsec} = (13.7\pm0.5) (\mathrm{signal/noise})^{-0.99\pm0.01}$}
562: \label{fig:snplot}
563: \end{centre}
564: \end{figure}
565:
566: \subsubsection{Possible improvements}
567:
568: Source recognition is clearly the biggest problem that still
569: remains. It is the only step that is still performed in the map plane
570: rather than aperture plane. There are computational issues involved
571: here: producing a map and identifying sources ``by hand'' is possible
572: and fairly cheap in computer time, but the noise in the map plane is
573: non-Gaussian. Minimising the misfit between the data and a given
574: number of sources is also cheap; but allowing the number of sources to
575: vary vastly increases the complexity of the problem and the time
576: required. It is possible that more advanced minimising techniques
577: such as simulated annealing (see \eg Press et al. 1993) or
578: using massive inference techniques will make this possible and robust
579: in the aperture plane.
580:
581: \subsection{Comparison of results}
582:
583: Tables~\ref{tab:clean2}, \ref{tab:Matrixpositions} and \ref{tab:flux2}
584: show the results of three different methods for source fitting. For
585: both the \clean\ and \textsc{FluxFitter} methods, the results with six
586: sources are considered. The positions and fluxes put into the model
587: are shown in Table~\ref{tab:modelfluxes}. The resultant position and
588: depth of the \sz\ decrements after subtraction are shown in
589: Table~\ref{tab:szresults}. The parameters are all measured from dirty
590: maps, made with baselines shorter than 1~\kl. Note that the matrix
591: method has a less deep \sz\ flux density, and that the
592: \textsc{FluxFitter} and \clean\ method values are statistically
593: consistent with the expected value for this model cluster ($-660$
594: \microJy\ beam$^{-1}$). Also, the positions of the \sz\ decrement are
595: fully consistent with the model as the beam size is around 180\arcsec.
596: It is not surprising that the flux of the \sz\ decrement from the
597: matrix method is less deep as the central 100~\microJy\ source has not
598: been subtracted. Also, the matrix method does an incomplete
599: subtraction of the sources it does find, resulting in more
600: contamination of the \sz\ signal. Note that this does not imply that
601: the matrix method will always will give a lower \sz\ decrement if the
602: source subtraction is incomplete.
603:
604: \begin{table}
605: \caption{Parameters for the resulting \sz\ decrements from the simulated
606: data.}
607: \label{tab:szresults}
608: \begin{tabular}{lll}
609: Subtraction & \sz\ flux & position \\
610: method & (\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$) & (arcseconds) \\
611: \clean & $-675 \pm 72$ & $-$4, $-$2 \\
612: Matrix & $-500 \pm 90$ & 18, 0 \\
613: \textsc{FluxFitter} & $-700 \pm 65$ & 9, 4 \\
614: \end{tabular}
615: \end{table}
616:
617: All three methods benefit from prior knowledge of the source
618: distribution on the sky. This can be estimated from looking at lower
619: frequency surveys such as NVSS or FIRST. Most falling-spectrum
620: sources, \ie with $\alpha > 0$ (where $S \propto v^{-\alpha}$ where
621: $v$ is the observing frequency and $\alpha$ is the spectral index)
622: will be detected in NVSS and or FIRST. However, as shown by
623: Cooray et al.\ \shortcite{cooray} in clusters and Taylor \shortcite{angela} generally, there are
624: rising spectrum sources, \ie with $\alpha < 0$ that are present at
625: 15~GHz and not detected in NVSS and FIRST.
626:
627: \section{Observations of Abell 611}
628:
629: \subsection{\xray}
630:
631: Abell 611 is a cluster at $z=0.288$ \cite{A611z} originally identified
632: by Abell \shortcite{Abell}. It has an 0.1--2.4 keV luminosity of
633: $8.63\times10^{44}$ W \cite{noras}, with a
634: temperature of $7.95^{+0.56}_{-0.52}\times 10^7$~K
635: \cite{WhiteTprofiles}. White derived this value from a 57-ks ASCA
636: exposure by considering both a single-phase and two-phase cooling
637: model. The temperature values found for the bulk of the gas are
638: statistically equivalent and a mass deposit rate of $0^{+177}_{-0}$
639: \msolar\ yr$^{-1}$ was found for the cooling model.
640:
641:
642: The 17-ks \rosat\ HRI observation from April 1996 is shown in
643: Figure~\ref{fig:xrayimage}. The image contains two bright pixels,
644: which, on comparison with the POSS image, are coincident with a large
645: galaxy. These pixels were removed. We calculate an \xray\ emissivity
646: constant of 1.29$\times 10^{-69}$ counts s$^{-1}$ from 1~m$^{3}$ of
647: $7.95\times10^7$-K gas of electron
648: density 1~m$^{-3}$ at a luminosity distance of 1~Mpc, assuming a
649: metallicity of $0.21\pm0.07$ solar and an absorbing H column of
650: $4.88\times10^{24}$~m$^{-2}$.
651:
652: The best-fitting model parameters were $\beta = 0.59$, core radii of
653: 26\arcsec\ and 24\arcsec\ with a position angle of the major axis of
654: 101$^{\circ}$ and a central electron density of $n_0 =
655: 11.6\times10^{3}$ m$^{-3}$ (assuming a core radius along the line of
656: sight of $25 = (24 \times 26)^{1/2}$ arcsec and \ho =
657: 50~\hounit). There is a degeneracy between the core radii fitted and
658: $\beta$ but this has no significant effect on \ho\ (see Grainge
659: et al.\ 2001b and Jones et al.\ 2001).
660: %
661: \begin{figure}
662: \begin{centre}
663: \epsfig{file=a611rosat.ps}
664: \caption{\rosat\ HRI image of A611. The exposure time is
665: 17 ks. The greyscale range is 0 to 32 counts.}
666: \label{fig:xrayimage}
667: \end{centre}
668: \end{figure}
669:
670: \subsection{RT observations}
671:
672: A611 was observed for 16 sets of 12 hours between November 1994 and
673: January 1995 with the RT in configuration Cb. Flux and phase
674: calibration and overall data reduction strategy are described in
675: Grainge et al.\ \shortcite{0016}. Three days of data -- taken in bad
676: weather -- were rejected after examining the 1-day maps and noise
677: levels. A map of the combined 13 days of data using baselines longer
678: than 1.5~\kl\ had a noise level of 70~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$, and only
679: one source was visible, with flux 299~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$ at
680: \ra8h0m57.1s \dec36d3m40s. This source was removed with
681: \textsc{Uvsub}, using the flux and position from the dirty map. A
682: long-baseline map of the subtracted data was consistent with noise,
683: with no other sources in the field.
684:
685: Table~\ref{tab:a611nvss} lists the sources found in the FIRST
686: catalogue around the pointing centre for A611. The NVSS catalogue
687: contains no sources in this region. Neither of the two FIRST sources
688: is detected at 15~GHz and the source that is present at 15~GHz is not
689: detected at lower frequencies.
690:
691: \begin{table}
692: \caption{The radio sources in the FIRST catalogue within 400\arcsec\
693: of the RT pointing centre for A611.}
694: \label{tab:a611nvss}
695: \begin{tabular}{lll}
696: & & Flux (\milliJy\ beam$^{-1}$) \\
697: RA & Dec & Peak \\
698: 8 1 20.248 & 36 5 9.3 & $1.25 \pm 0.13$\\
699: 8 0 54.948 & 36 9 6.1 & $1.10 \pm 0.13$\\
700: \end{tabular}
701: \end{table}
702:
703: \textsc{FluxFitter} was then run using the \xray\ data to provide a
704: model of the \sz\ decrement and using all the baselines. Again, the
705: initial guess was defined by the 1.5-\kl -only fitting. The source was
706: found to be at \ra8h0m57.1s $\pm 0.9$ \dec36d3m35s0 $\pm 8$ with a
707: flux of $188 \pm 65$~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$, which is lower than the long-baseline
708: only values. As the angular size of A611 is small, it is likely that
709: the \sz\ signal was contaminating the ``long''-baseline
710: map. Note that this source is not detected in the FIRST survey, and so
711: in this case prior knowledge from a lower frequency survey has not helped.
712: Figure~\ref{fig:a611short} shows a \clean ed map of baselines
713: shorter than 1~\kl\ after this source has been subtracted. The
714: decrement (as measured from the map) is $-540 \pm 125$~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$ at
715: \ra8h0m57.3s \dec36d2m38s. This location is 3\arcsec\ in RA and
716: 36\arcsec\ in Dec away from the \xray\ cluster location. Considering
717: the \clean\ beam used is 92\arcsec $\times$ 350\arcsec, this is a good
718: positional agreement between the \xray\ and \sz\ observations. The
719: slight extension to the south is not significant.
720:
721: \begin{figure}
722: \begin{centre}
723: \epsfig{file=a611cleaned.ps}
724: \caption{The \sz\ effect in A611. The contour levels are $-$480,
725: $-$360, $-$240 and $-$120~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$\ (solid) and
726: 120~\microJy\ beam$^{-1}$\ (dashed). The map has been
727: \textsc{Clean}ed; the restoring beam, which is 92\arcsec\ by
728: 350\arcsec\ FWHM at a position angle 3.4$^{\circ}$, is shown in the
729: bottom left.}
730: \label{fig:a611short}
731: \end{centre}
732: \end{figure}
733:
734: \subsection{\ho\ determination}
735:
736: From the source subtracted dataset and the \xray\ parameters of the
737: cluster, it is possible to estimate \ho, as described in Grainge et
738: al.\ \shortcite{1413}. The likelihoods for different \ho\ values are
739: calculated and are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:a611likes}. The best-fit
740: \ho\ for A611 is then $52^{+22}_{-14}$~\hounit. The error quoted is
741: due to the noise in the \sz\ measurement, and does not include any of
742: the other sources of error in the determination. The additional
743: sources of error are described fully in Grainge et al.\
744: \shortcite{1413}. For A611, the error from the \sz\ measurement is by
745: far the most important, and the final \ho\ value is
746: $52^{+24}_{-16}$~\hounit\ for an Einstein-de-Sitter world model. Assuming a
747: world model with $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$,
748: \ho=$59^{+27}_{-18}$~\hounit\ from this cluster.
749:
750:
751: \begin{figure}
752: \begin{centre}
753: \epsfig{file=a611-like.eps,width=5cm,angle=-90}
754: \caption{Likelihood plot for different \ho\ values from fitting to the
755: source-subtracted \sz\ data from A611.}
756: \label{fig:a611likes}
757: \end{centre}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: \section{Conclusions}
761:
762: The problem of radio source contamination in interferometric \sz\
763: observations and methods to remove it have been
764: investigated, demonstrating the following.
765:
766: \begin{enumerate}
767: \renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
768: \item
769: The non-linear \clean\ method can work well, but does not use all the
770: available information and can over-complicate the problem.
771:
772: \item
773: The matrix method, though linear, fails in typical situations such as the one
774: simulated here. The failure is mainly due to the high sidelobes from the
775: Ryle Telescope; they make it difficult to determine accurate positions,
776: and so fluxes, for sources close to each other on a map.
777:
778: \item
779: \textsc{FluxFitter} uses all the available information and produces
780: the simplest model. It solves simultaneously for sources and \sz\
781: decrement, and it works with with the visibilities, where noise is
782: known to be Gaussian, rather than in the map plane where the noise is
783: correlated.
784:
785: \item
786: All three techniques suffer from the problem of source
787: identification, which is currently performed in the image plane where
788: the noise characteristics are complex. Source identification can be
789: aided by prior information, for example from lower-frequency surveys.
790:
791: \item
792: The positional uncertainty, as determined in the aperture plane, is
793: found to vary as $\textrm{uncertainity}/\textrm{arcsec} \propto
794: (\mathrm{signal/noise})^{-0.99\pm0.01}$ even at signal-to-noise ratios
795: below nominal detection limits. The constant of proportionality will
796: be a function of the interferometer used.
797:
798: \item
799: Observations of the cluster A611 with the Ryle Telescope give a
800: 4.3-$\sigma$ detection of an \sz\ decrement, and combination with \xray\
801: data gives and estimate of \ho = $52^{+24}_{-16}$~\hounit, assuming an
802: Einstein-de-Sitter cosmology, and $59^{+27}_{-18}$~\hounit\ using
803: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$.
804:
805: \end{enumerate}
806:
807: \section{Acknowledgements}
808:
809: We thank the staff of the Cavendish Astrophysics group who ensure the
810: continued operation of the Ryle Telescope. Operation of the RT is
811: funded by PPARC. WFG acknowledges support from a PPARC
812: studentship. We have made use of the ROSAT Data Archive of the
813: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik (MPE) at Garching,
814: Germany.
815:
816:
817: \begin{thebibliography}{}
818:
819: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Abell}{\ }}{1957}]{Abell}
820: {Abell}~G.~O., 1957, \aj, 62, 2
821:
822: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{B{\"o}hringer} et~al.{\ }{2000}}]{noras}
823: {B{\"o}hringer}~H., {Voges}~W., {Huchra}~J.~P., {McLean}~B.,
824: {Giacconi}~R., {Rosati}~P., {Burg}~R., {Mader}~J., {Schuecker}~P.,
825: {Simi\c{c}}~D., {Komossa}~S., {Reiprich}~T.~H., {Retzlaff}~J.,
826: {Tr{\"u}mper}, J., 2000, \apjs, 129, 435
827:
828: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Cooray} et~al.{\ }}{1998}]{cooray}
829: {Cooray}~A.~R., {Grego}~L., {Holzapfel}~W.~L., {Joy}~M.,
830: {Carlstrom}~J.~E., 1998, \aj, 115, 1388
831:
832: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Crawford} et~al.{\ }}{1995}]{A611z}
833: {Crawford}~C.~S., {Edge}~A.~C., {Fabian}~A.~C., {Allen}~S.~W.,
834: {Bohringer}~H., {Ebeling}~H., {McMahon}~R.~G., {Voges}~W., 1995,
835: \mnras, 274, 75
836:
837: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Das}{\ }}{1999}]{rhijuthesis}
838: {Das}~R., 1999, M.Phil.\ thesis, Cambridge University
839:
840: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Grainge}{\ }}{1996}]{keiththesis}
841: {Grainge}~K., 1996, Ph.D.\ thesis, Cambridge University
842:
843: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Grainge} et~al.{\ }}{1996}]{1413RT}
844: {Grainge}~K., {Jones}~M., {Pooley}~G., {Saunders}~R., {Baker}~J.,
845: {Haynes}~T., {Edge}~A., 1996, \mnras, 278, L17
846:
847: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Grainge} et~al.{\ }}{2001a}]{0016}
848: {Grainge}~K., {Grainger}~W.~F., {Jones}~M.~E., {Kneissl}~R.,
849: {Pooley}~G.~G., {Saunders}~R., 2001a, \mnras, submitted
850:
851: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Grainge} et~al.{\ }}{2001b}]{1413}
852: {Grainge}~K., {Jones}~M.~E., {Pooley}~G., {Saunders}~R.,
853: {Edge}~A., {Grainger}~W.~F., {Kneissl}~R., 2001b, \mnras, submitted
854:
855: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Greisen}{\ }}{1994}]{aips}
856: {Greisen}~E. (ed.), 1994, \textsc{Aips} Cookbook, NRAO
857:
858: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Jones} et~al.{\ }}{2001}]{773}
859: {Jones}~M.~E., {Grainge}~K., {Grainger}~W.~F., {Pooley}~G., {Saunders}~R.,
860: {Edge}~A., {Kneissl}~R., 2001, \mnras, submitted
861:
862: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{King}{\ }}{1972}]{king}
863: {King}~I.~R., 1972, \apjl, 174, L123
864:
865: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Perley} et~al.{\ }}{1989}]{synth}
866: {Perley}~R.~A., {Schwab}~F.~R., {Bridle}~A.~H. (ed.), 1989, ASP
867: Conf. Ser. 6: Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy
868:
869: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Press} et~al.{\ }}{1993}]{numerical_recipies}
870: {Press}~W.~H., {Teukolsky}~S.~A., {Vetterling}~W.~T., {Flannery}~B.~P.,
871: {Lloyd}~C., {Rees}~P., 1993, Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN - the Art of
872: Scientific Computing, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press
873:
874: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Reese} et~al.{\ }}{2000}]{carlstrom0016}
875: {Reese}~E.~D., {Mohr}~J.~J., {Carlstrom}~J.~E., {Joy}~M., {Grego}~L.,
876: {Holder}~G.~P., {Holzapfel}~W.~L., {Hughes}~J.~P., {Patel}~S.~K.,
877: {Donahue}~M., 2000, \apj, 533, 38
878:
879: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Sunyaev} \& {Zel'dovich}{\ }}{1970}]{sz1}
880: {Sunyaev}~R., {Zel'dovich}~Y., 1970, Comments Astrophys.~Space Phys., 2, 66
881:
882: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Sunyaev} \& {Zel'dovich}{\ }}{1972}]{sz2}
883: {Sunyaev}~R., {Zel'dovich}~Y., 1972, Comments Astrophys.~Space Phys., 4, 173
884:
885: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{Taylor}{\ }}{2000}]{angela}
886: {Taylor}~A., 2000, IAU Symposium.~201, 5
887:
888: \bibitem[\protect\citename{{White}{\ }}{2000}]{WhiteTprofiles}
889: {White}~D.~A., 2000, \mnras, 312, 663
890:
891:
892:
893:
894: \end{thebibliography}
895:
896: \end{document}
897:
898:
899:
900: