1: \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{natbib}

3: %\usepackage{psfig}

4: \bibsep 0pt

5: %\documentstyle[referee,psfig]{laa}

6: %\documentstyle[referee]{laa}

7: %\documentstyle[psfig]{laa}

8: \def\EQN{Eqn. }

9: \def\158{$\lambda 158\mu$}

10: \def\63{$\lambda 63\mu$}

11: \def\etc{{\it etc.}}

12: \def\AVbar{$<$ A$_V$ $>$}

13: \def\EBV{E$_{B-V}$}

14: \def\HH{{\rm H}_2}

15: \def\nH2{{\rm n}({\rm H}_2)}

16: \def\NH2{{\rm N}({\rm H}_2)}

17: \def\pccc{{\rm cm}^{-3}} \def\pcc{{\rm cm}^{-2}}

18: \def\NCO{N(\rm CO)}

19: \def\Tstar#1 {\mbox{${\rm T}_{\rm #1}$}}

20: \def\Tsub#1 {\mbox{${\rm T}_{\rm #1}$}}

21: \def\TK  {\Tsub K }

22: \def\TB  {\Tsub B }

23: \def\DT  {\mbox{$\Delta{\rm T}$}}

24: \def\TC  {\Tstar C }

25: \def\TL  {\Tsub L }

26: \def\Tsp {\Tsub sp }

27: \def\TA  {\Tstar A }

28: \def\Tsys{\Tstar sys }

29: \def\TheT{\Tstar T }

30: \def\TheHUP{\mbox{h$\nu$/k}}

31: \def\Texc {\Tsub exc }

32: \def\vturb{\mbox{v$_{turb}$}}

33: \def\Tmb {\Tsub mb }

34: \def\Tcmb{\Tsub cmb }

35: \def\Tcont{\Tsub cont }

36: \def\Snu{S_{\nu}}

37: \def\arcsec{\mbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}} 

38: \def\arcmin{\mbox{$^{\prime}$}}

39: \def\omet{$(1-{\rm e}^{-\tau})$}

40: \def\ometov{$(1-{\rm e}^{-\tau({\rm v})})$}

41: \def\Romet{(1-{\rm e}^{-R\tau})}

42: \def\iomet{$\int{1-e^{-\tau}}dv$} \def\itau{$\int \tau dv$}

43: \def\degr{$^{\rm o}$}

44: \def\p{$^+$}

45: \def\cotw {\mbox{$^{12}$CO}}

46: \def\coth {\mbox{$^{13}$CO}}

47: \def\coei {\mbox{C$^{18}$O}}

48: \def\as{^{\prime\prime} }

49: \def\hcop{\mbox{{HCO\p}}} 

50: \def\chp{\mbox{CH\p}}

51:  \def\cth{\mbox{C$_3$H}}

52: \def\cch{\mbox{C$_2$H}}

53: \def\cfh{\mbox{C$_4$H}} \def\CnHm{\mbox{C$_n$H$_m$}} 

54: \def\hhco{\mbox{H$_2$CO}}

55: \def\h13cop{\mbox{{H$^{13}$CO\p}}}

56: \def\nnhp{\mbox{N$_2$H\p}}

57: \def\c3h2{\mbox{C$_3$H$_2$}}

58: \def\ad{^{\rm{o}} } \def\am{^{\prime}}

59: \def\Vphi{$V_\theta(R)$} \def\R0{R$_0$} \def\Jl{{{\rm J}_l}}

60: \def\oneskip{\vskip\baselineskip} \def\mc{\mu\rm m} \def\kpc{\rm kpc}

61: \def\eg{e.g.} \def\etal{\mbox{\it et al.}} \def\deg{{}^\circ}

62: \def\ddeg{{}^\circ\kern-.1em} \def\Rsun{{R_0}} \def\Lsun{{L_0}}

63: \def\Msun{{M_0}} \def\pc{\rm pc} \def\th{{\Theta}}

64: \def\thsun{{\Theta_0}}

65: \def\kms{\mbox{km\,s$^{-1}$}}

66: \def\ps{\mbox{s$^{-1}$}}

67: \def\bll{BL Lac}

68: \def\fight{10.8}

69: \def\E#1{\,10^{#1}}

70: \def\P#1,{$\nH2\TK~=~#1\times~10^4~\pccc$~K}

71: \def\ec#1,#2,#3,{#1\,(#2)\E{#3}}

72: \def\xe{x(e)}

73: \def\Cas{Cassiopeia }

74: \def\sac{`spiral-arm' clouds}

75: \def\zoph{$\zeta$ Oph}

76: \def\methCN{\mbox{CH$_3$CN}}

77: \def\H3{\mbox{H$_3$}}

78: \def\Lya{\mbox{Ly-$\alpha$}}

79: \def\ammon{\mbox{N\H3} }

80: \def\zcg{\mbox {$\zeta^\gamma_C$}}

81: \def\DLAS{Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems}

82: \sloppy

83: %

84: %

85: \shorttitle{Noise in the strong-signal limit}

86: 

87: \begin{document}

88: 

89: \title{Noise and the strong signal limit in radio astronomical measurement}

90: 

91: \author{H. Liszt}

92: \affil{NRAO, 520 Edgemont Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475}

93: \email{hliszt@nrao.edu}

94: %

95: %\institute{National Radio Astronomy Observatory,

96: %           520 Edgemont Road,

97: %          Charlottesville, VA,

98: %

99: %           USA 22903-2475}

100: %

101: 

102: %\date{received \today}

103: %\offprints{H. S. Liszt}

104: %\mail{hliszt@nrao.edu}

105: %

106: \begin{abstract}

107: The random error of radioastronomical measurements is usually computed in 

108: the weak-signal limit, which assumes that the system temperature is 

109: sensibly the same on and off source, or with and without a spectral 

110: line.  This assumption is often very poor.  We give examples of common

111: situations in which it is important to distinguish the system noise

112: in signal-bearing and signal-free regions.

113: \end{abstract}

114: 

115: \keywords{methods: data analysis; methods: statistics;

116:  instrumentation: miscellaneous}

117: 

118: \section{Introduction}

119: 

120: Few experiments are performed without some attempt at estimating

121: their errors, and the random errors of measurement in radio

122: astronomy are typically determined in one general way.  Some form

123: of comparison is performed whereby samples are taken toward and 

124: away from a signal source, or with and without a spectral line.  

125: Subsequent analysis 

126: proceeds under the assumption that random errors everywhere in the

127: dataset are as given by the statistical properties manifested in the 

128: signal-free regions.  No attempt is made to measure the variances of 

129: signal-bearing and signal-free samples separately during the experiment, 

130: and, after the fact, random errors of measurement in signal-bearing 

131: samples are obscured because the form of the signal is arbitrary.  

132: Discussions of fitting and profile analysis invariably assume that 

133: measurement variances are the same with or without the signal, as 

134: for instance the Zeeman analysis of \cite{Mar95} or the fitting of 

135: functions ($e.g.$ Gaussians) by \cite{KapSmi+66} or \cite{Rie69}. 

136: Textbook discussions contain no suggestion that system noise is 

137: influenced by the presence of a signal or that samples with 

138: different variances may be interleaved in the same datastream

139:  \citep{Kra86,BurGra01,RohWil00}.

140: 

141: Yet, such treatment has been flawed for a surprisingly long time.  

142: 100 K H I lines have been routinely observed with sub-100 K receiving 

143: systems for more than 30 years.  Continuum sources whose antenna temperatures

144: exceed the equivalent noise temperature of the receiving equipment

145: have been observed even longer.  The error of measurement in signal-bearing 

146: samples is often significantly different -- with current

147: receivers it could easily be a factor of 5 at the peak of a 

148: strong galactic H I emission line -- but the difference has been ignored.

149:      

150: Error estimates determine confidence levels and even data containing 

151: strong signals can be compromised by misunderstanding of their significance; 

152: for instance,

153: when two very strong signals are differenced to detect a smaller one

154: in H I emission-absorption experiments and searches for Zeeman splitting. 

155: Considering how slowly experimental errors typically improve with the 

156: amount of time invested in an experiment, it follows that changes 

157: in the acknowledged errors of an experiment are equivalent to much 

158: larger differences in the observing time required to reach them.  

159: $A~priori$ knowledge of errors is an important 

160: element in the design of experiments and these considerations may 

161: have a significant effect on the planning of an observing session.  

162: They should be implemented in the software which supports analysis.

163: 

164: The purpose of this work is to illustrate a variety of common situations 

165: where random error is dominated by the presence of a

166: signal.  In the following section some basics of radio astronomy 

167: measurement are sketched. These are used to analyse 

168: the statistics of noise and the errors of component fitting when 

169: signals are present in emission and absorption.  The final

170: section is a brief summary with an even briefer mention of the

171: extension of these notions to aperture synthesis.

172: 

173: \section{Power, temperature and noise}

174: 

175: \subsection{Basics}

176: 

177: A temperature scale is established whereby power is compared to the 

178: classical power spectral density kT (W Hz$^{-1}$) in a resistor in 

179: thermal equilibrium at temperature T \citep{Dic46,Kra86,RohWil00}.  

180: The output power level of the telescope system is then quoted as

181: a \lq system temperature\rq , $i.e.$, k\Tsys.  The actual power 

182: density  $ h\nu/(e^{h\nu/kT}-1)+h\nu/2$ \citep{CalWel51} 

183: reduces to kT only in the Rayleigh-Jeans limit and when zero-point 

184: fluctuations are ignored.

185: 

186: In our simplified discussion we assert \Tsys\ = \TheT + \TA.  

187: \TheT\ represents everything which does not depend on any particular 

188: source or input signal and we assume that it is a constant or 

189: constant function of frequency $\nu$: possible dependencies of 

190: \TheT\ are suppressed for convenience of notation.  Observing at a

191: frequency $\nu$ entails a minimum contribution of $h\nu/k$ to \Tsys, 

192: which is included in $\TheT$.

193: 

194: \TA\ represents a signal external to the telescope.  The  equivalent 

195: temperature of a signal is its \lq antenna temperature\rq\ which by 

196: convention is related to the incident flux density 

197: S$_\nu$ (W m$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1}$) as S$_\nu$$ = 2$ k\TA/A. The effective 

198: area A is proportional to the geometric area of the telescope aperture.

199: 

200: The signal may be confined in space or frequency, so we write 

201: \TA\ = \TA(v) where v is some combination of independent variables.

202: In the presence of signal the power density is 

203: k\Tsys(v) =  k\TheT\ + k\TA(v) and the dependence of \TA\ upon v 

204: makes \Tsys\ 

205: similarly dependent.  If v represents the pointing of the telescope,

206: added power comes and goes as the telescope moves. Alternatively, v 

207: may be velocity or frequency, and, as far as the receiver and square-law 

208: detector are concerned, the presence of  signal at some v=v\arcmin\ is 

209: not manifested at v $<>$ v\arcmin.  The passband may be translated or 

210: inverted by mixing, but the receiver 

211: and detector electronics are entirely linear in frequency.  The 

212: spectrum is not jumbled nor is it appreciably smoothed until it is 

213: integrated and channelized in the so-called \lq backend \rq 

214: \footnote{Even so, independence of adjacent 1 kHz slices of the 

215: spectrum, corresponding to 0.2 \kms\ at the H I line, requires a 

216: minimum integration time of order only 1 msec}.   In Sect. 

217: 2.7 we discuss an exception to this linearity, namely, quantization 

218: noise in digital correlator spectrometers.

219: 

220: \subsection{Passband or system noise as a measurement variance}

221: 

222: Eventually a datastream is formed from samples of \Tsys, each of duration 

223: t (say) taken over a spectral width $\Delta\nu$; this could be a spectrum, a 

224: continuum drift scan, {\it etc.}  Associated with measurement of the output 

225: power k\Tsys\ there is a variance given by the \cite{Dic46} or 

226: radiometer equation: 

227: 

228: $$\Delta{\rm T(v)}^2 = {{\Tsys^2({\rm v})}\over{{\rm N}}} = 

229:  {({\TheT + \TA({\rm v}))^2}\over{{\rm N}}} \eqno(1) $$ 

230: 

231: The dimensionless quantity N $\equiv \Delta\nu {\rm t}$ 

232: is the product of the bandwidth measured in Hz 

233: and the integration time in seconds.  Precise determination of 

234: the output power density kT within a band $\Delta \nu$ is done by averaging 

235: N independent samples.  Within a band of width $\Delta \nu$ about some 

236: frequency $\nu$, the contained frequency components beat each other down 

237: to a frequency range 0..$\Delta \nu$ so that all appear together 

238: summed within one channel of this width.

239: 

240: Radiometer noise in the output datastream is the measurement variance 

241: of the power, independent of whether that power was contributed by 

242: \TheT\ or \TA.  So the variance of the measured strength of an emission 

243: line, usually considered to be set only by \TheT, actually increases in 

244: proportion to the source strength itself, weakly for weak signals and more

245: strongly for very strong ones.

246: 

247: \subsection{Normalization and noise in real-world experiments}

248: 

249: As examples of the way that random error is affected by considerations 

250: of experimental design, we compare some common methods of data-taking.  

251: We consider that it is possible to take data ``on''- or ``off''-source; 

252: if the data are spectra, even the on-source data may have regions of 

253: the bandpass which are signal-free.

254: 

255: In the simplest case where data are taken while staring at

256: the source, the variance is given directly by \EQN 1

257: 

258: $$\Delta{\rm T(v)}^2 ~(on)~ = {({\TheT + \TA({\rm v}))^2}\over{{\rm N_{on}}}} .

259: \eqno(2a)$$ 

260: 

261: When on- and off-source data are differenced the rms is 

262: 

263: $$\Delta{\rm T(v)}^2 ~(on-off)~ = {({\TheT + \TA({\rm v}))^2 }\over{{\rm N_{on}}}} 

264:  +{{\TheT^2}\over{{\rm N_{off}}}} 

265: \eqno(2b)$$ 

266: 

267: and the rms in signal-free regions is increased relative to that at

268: the signal peak.

269: 

270: In some cases a quotient is formed from on- and off-source 

271: data: the mean off-source power level is equated to a number, 

272: $\TheT$, and data appear in the form $\TheT$(on/off) or 

273: $\TheT$(on-off)/off.  Both have the variance

274: 

275: $$\Delta{\rm T(v)}^2 ~(on/off)~ =  {({\TheT + \TA({\rm v}))^2}\over{{\rm N_{on}}}} 

276: + {({\TheT + \TA({\rm v}))^2}\over{{\rm N_{off}}}} 

277: \eqno(2c) $$ 

278: 

279: so formation of the quotient increases the rms in the 

280: signal-bearing regions relative to the case where simple 

281: differencing is done, and everwhere relative to the pure ``on'' 

282: spectrum.

283: 

284: Because of such considerations, it is not possible to calculate 

285: the random error in signal-bearing regions, even given the empirical rms

286: in the signal-free regions and the system properties which pertain to

287: them, unless it is also understood how the data were taken.

288: 

289: %\subsection{Variances of derived parameters} 

290: %

291: %\def\setxi{\lbrace x_i \rbrace}

292: %\def\ibar{\langle i \rangle} 

293: %\def\inbar{\langle i^n \rangle} 

294: %\def\meanin{\langle i^n \rangle}

295: %\def\meansqri{\langle i^2 \rangle}

296: %\def\somey{\meansqri - \ibar^2}

297: %

298: %In the simplest case, adjacent samples are independent and the 

299: %

300: %Variances of measured global properties like the 

301: %total intensity, intensity centroid, {\it etc.} follow from the usual rule 

302: %for propagation of errors of a function $F(\setxi)$ of a set of independent 

303: %random variables $\setxi$, each of which has variance $\sigma_i$ 

304: %as given for instance in the previous subsection.

305: %$var^2 (F(\setxi)) = \sum_i{\sigma_i^2} 

306: %({{\partial F(\setxi)}\over{\partial x_i}})^2 $.

307: %

308: %Defining $s \equiv \sum_i{x_i}$ and $\inbar \equiv \sum_i i^n {x_i}/s$ we 

309: %have  

310: %

311: %$$ var(s) = \sum_i {\sigma_i^2} \eqno(2a)  $$

312: %

313: %$$ var(\meanin) = 

314: % \sum_i{ {{\sigma_i^2}\over{s^2}} (i^n - \meanin)^2} \eqno(2b) $$

315: %

316: %$$ var(\ibar^n) = \sum_i{ {{\sigma_i^2 n^2}\over{s^2}} \ibar^{2(n-1)}

317: % (i-\ibar)^2} \eqno(2c) $$

318: %

319: %$$ var(disp(i)) = \sum_i{ {{\sigma_i}^2\over{4 s^2 disp(i)^2 }}

320: % (disp(i)^2-(i-\ibar)^2)^2 } \eqno(2d) $$

321: %

322: %$$ var(dsp(i)) = \sum_i{ {{\sigma_i^2 dsp(i)^2}\over{4 s^2}}

323: % (1-{{(i-\ibar)^2}\over{dsp(i)^2}})^2 } \eqno(2d) $$

324: %

325: %where $dsp(i) \equiv \sqrt{\somey}$:  \EQN\ 2d is for the 

326: %of the variance of the dispersion, which is defined as a 

327: %{\it square root}.  Derived quantities which are linear in the $\setxi$

328: %have the same variance even when the $\setxi$ are $not$

329: % independent.

330: 

331: \subsection{Emission line profiles}

332: 

333: One obvious example of the strong signal limit of a spectral line is

334: galactic atomic hydrogen.  Fig. 1 shows a typical low latitude galactic 

335: H I profile observed with a 25m telescope \citep{HarBur97} during the 

336: Leiden-Dwingeloo Sky Survey (LDSS).  In the lower panel, the scale is 

337: expanded to show how the $\pm 1 \sigma$ noise envelope varies for 

338: data taken in the form (on-off)/off with $\TheT = 36$K, a typical value 

339: during the survey.  The spectrum in Fig. 1 still has very 

340: high peak/rms signal-noise (465:1), but not nearly as good (1700:1)

341: as implied by the 0.06 K rms over the baseline regions:

342: the rms error of the integrated brightness is nearly twice

343: as high as that estimated from the baseline rms level. 

344: H I is now commonly observed with $\TheT = 15 - 25 $K.  If the 

345: same  profile were reobserved with \TheT\ = 18 K for one-fourth 

346: the amount of time (to reach the same baseline rms ), the 

347: line-generated rms error would be twice as high again.

348: 

349: From the LDSS, 

350: we find that some 41\% of the sky contains H I with a peak brightness 

351: $\TB \ge 20$K, 33\% has $\TB \ge 30$K and 27\% has $\TB \ge 40$K 

352: (for 0\degr $\le ~l~ \le $ 180\degr, 0\degr $\le ~b~ \le $ 90\degr).

353: 

354: \subsection{Profile fitting}

355: 

356: Discussions of profile fitting typically assume that the rms 

357: fluctuation is the same in every channel of a spectrum; to do otherwise

358: would introduce imponderables and greatly hinder general understanding.

359: %For instance, consider the discussion of Marshall (1995) concerning

360: %MEM reconstruction of Zeeman-splitting in strong H I spectra.  Analytic 

361: %expressions for the errors of fitting a Gaussian profile in the presence 

362: %of a constant rms are given by \cite{KapSmi+66} and \cite{Rie69}.   

363: However, datapoints having a higher rms should be accorded lower 

364: weight.

365: 

366: We did a numerical experiment, fitting pure Gaussian profiles

367: of fixed width (FWHM=$\Delta$V)and varying strength \TA(0), in the

368: presence of noise which varies following \EQN 1 (a pure ``on'' 

369: scan following the discussion of Sect. 2.3).  We constructed 

370: spectra with 1 \kms\ channels at an assumed observing frequency of 

371: 1420.40575 MHz (the $\lambda$21cm line), using \TheT = 20 K typical 

372: of modern H I receivers.  We assumed an observing time of 30 seconds, 

373: so that $\sqrt{N} = 376.9$ in \EQN  1 or $\Delta$T = 0.053 K when 

374: \TA\ = 0.  We then inserted gaussian lines having $\Delta V =

375: 10$ \kms\ and peak strengths \TA(0) = 2.5, 5.0, 10, 20, ... 160 K,

376: with the variance of the noise in accord with \EQN 1.  Ensembles

377: of such spectra were generated for each value of \TA(0) and 

378: fit to single Gaussians. The fitting was done twice for each spectrum, 

379: weighting by constant or (correctly) changing variance.

380: 

381: The results of this experiment are reported in Fig. 2.  The bottom

382: curve in each panel is the rms of the fitted parameter given by 

383: analytic formulae, which coincides with the mean {\it a posteriori} 

384: error estimate returned by fitting software which assumes a constant 

385: profile rms.  Stronger lines lead to linear 

386: improvements in fitting of the central velocity and width in this case, 

387: while the peak and profile integral fits are independent of strength; 

388: the fractional precision increases but fitting to the profile integral 

389: does not achieve higher precision than simply summing the channel values.  

390: %In the case of constant rms, all of the variances scale inversely as $\sqrt{N}$.

391: 

392: The uppermost curve in each panel is the actual rms of the parameter 

393: determination with weighting by a constant variance.  The 

394: shaded (middle) curve is the rms with proper weighting;

395: in this case, the fitting software returns accurate error estimates.  

396: Several phenomena are discernible in this diagram.  There are irremediable 

397: increases in the variances of the fitted parameters relative to the case of 

398: constant profile rms.  The precision of the fitted centroid and 

399: width improve only very slowly for strong signals, instead of linearly. 

400: Variances of the peak and integrated strengths increase in

401: absolute terms as well.  The fitting is only very slightly improved by 

402: correct weighting and the actual variances and the claimed error 

403: estimates diverge sharply if the behaviour of the noise 

404: is ignored.  This could be misconstrued as implying that the stronger 

405: lines are less purely Gaussian.

406: 

407: %$$ var^2(\TA(0)) = {\sqrt{{20\ln{2}}\over{\pi}}~

408: % {{h \DT^2}\over{\Delta V}}} \eqno(3a) $$

409: %

410: %$$ var^2(v_0) = {{1}\over{\sqrt{2\pi\ln{2}}}}~

411: % {{h \DT^2 \Delta V}\over{\TA(0)^2}} \eqno(3b) $$

412: %

413: %$$ var^2(\Delta V) = \sqrt{ {{32\ln{2}} \over{\pi}} }~ 

414: % {{h \DT^2 \Delta V} \over{\TA(0)^2} } \eqno(3c) $$

415: %

416: %$$ var^2(\int\TA dv)= \sqrt{{{9\pi}\over{8\ln{2}}}}~ h\DT^2\Delta V

417: % \eqno(3d) $$

418: 

419: %Not much intuitive meaning is usually attached to these formulae,

420: %but we see that all the variances involve the product $h\DT^2$

421: %which is essentially the inverse of the {\it time} spent on the 

422: %experiment. To measure the peak strength more precisely requires 

423: %longer time or a broader line and so forth.  The variance of the 

424: %line integral is limited by the inherent variance of the zeroth-moment 

425: %taken over the interval of the line.  Gaussian fitting by itself 

426: %cannot determine the line profile integral any better than simply 

427: %summing over the signal-bearing region (assuming an absence of other 

428: %problems).

429: 

430: %These formulae apply to fitting a single gaussian component in the 

431: %presence of constant rms error; in practice less weight must be 

432: %accorded to points with higher rms if the fitting is to achieve

433: %maximum precision.  To explore this issue we did a series of numerical 

434: %experiments whose results are reported in Fig. 2 and 3.  

435: 

436: %In each panel of Fig. 2, the uppermost curve is the variance of the

437: %fitted parameter ignoring the varying noise level.  The middle curve

438: %is the variance when the variation is recognized; the fitting is

439: %improved only slightly and variances in the data are irremidiably

440: %increased by the increased channel rms levels.  The biggest difference 

441: %comes in comparing the formal

442: %error estimates of the fits with the actual variances.  The bottom

443: %curve in each panel is the mean error estimate returned by the software

444: %when the noise variation is not recognized, and these are substantially 

445: %too small.  Such is not the case when the software models the noise

446: %in accordance with the construction of the synthetic spectra.

447: %

448: 

449: %Fig. 3 shows the $\chi ^2$ for the fits, in the case where the variation 

450: %of the noise variance is ignored (the reported $\chi ^2$ does not

451: %vary for the algorithm which properly models the noise and yields

452: %the slightly smaller variances in some panels of Fig. 2).  Judged in 

453: %these terms, the fits to stronger emission profiles are in fact reported 

454: %to be poor.    If taken seriously, they could be interpreted as implying 

455: %a progressive, significantly more non-gaussian shape for stronger lines, 

456: %(but this would be wrong).  Of course in the real world, H I lines this 

457: %strong would probably not be optically thin, or purely gaussian, in the 

458: %first place.

459: 

460: \subsection{Sensitivity of absorption measurements}

461: 

462: Staring at a continuum source characterized by an antenna temperature 

463: \TA\ = \TC\ results in a system temperature \Tsys = \TheT + \TC.  If 

464: the continuum is extinguished by a pure scatterer characterized by 

465: optical depth $\tau(v)$, it follows that

466: 

467: $$\Tsys({\rm v}) = \TheT  + \TC e^{-\tau(v)} \eqno(4) $$

468: 

469: $$\DT({\rm v}) = {{\Tsys({\rm v})}\over{\sqrt{{\rm N_{on}}}}} = 

470:  {{\TheT +\TC e^{-\tau(v)}}\over{\sqrt{{\rm N_{on}}}}} \eqno(5) $$

471: 

472: The system temperature is higher where there is no absorption.

473: \EQN 4 can be inverted to solve for the optical 

474: depth from the observed profile of \Tsys(v), $i.e.$ 

475: $\tau(v) = -\ln{((\Tsys(v)- \TheT )/\TC)}$.  Neglecting other effects,

476: the rms of the line/continuum ratio (the argument of the logarithm 

477: in this expression) is just $\sigma_{l/c} = \DT/\TC$.

478: $\sigma_{l/c}$ may be normally distributed but 

479: the logarithmic dependence of $\tau(v)$ makes its error

480: distribution noticeably asymmetric for moderate to large optical 

481: depth.  Change in the derived optical depth for a given

482: fluctuation  $\delta_{l/c}$ in the line/continuum ratio can be written

483: 

484: $$\delta\tau(v)_\mp = \tau(v) + \ln{ (e^{-\tau(v)} \pm \delta_{l/c}) } \eqno(6) $$

485: 

486: where $\pm$ and $\mp$ convey the sense of the variations.

487: Differentiation yields the rms of the derived optical depth

488: 

489: $$ \Delta\tau(v) = \sigma_{l/c} e^{\tau(v)} 

490:  [{ {\TheT+\TC e^{-\tau(v)}} \over {\TheT+\TC} }]. \eqno(7)  $$

491: 

492: %$$ var(\tau) = \sigma_{l/c} e^\tau 

493: % (1-{ {\TC(1-e^{-\tau})} \over {\TheT+\TC} }), \eqno(8). $$

494: 

495: The usual analysis sets $\tau(v) = 0$ on the right-hand side of \EQN 5

496: so that the term in brackets in \EQN 7 is unity. 

497: In Fig. 3 we plot $\delta\tau_+/\tau~ vs.~ \tau$ for different \TC,

498: taking  $\delta_{l/c} = \sigma_{l/c}$ in \EQN 6 and assuming \TheT = 20 K, 

499: $\sqrt{N} = 376.9$ as before.  In the usual analysis (upper panel) the 

500: fractional error in optical depth is minimized at $\tau \approx 1$ for

501: all \TC\ and sensitivity appears to saturate at rather small 

502: $\TC \approx \TheT$.  However, use of \EQN 7 shows that the sensitivity 

503: never saturates, in the sense that it is possible to achieve higher 

504: precision on ever-thicker lines (lower panel).  Furthermore, the error 

505: in optical depth at $\tau \approx 1$ is much smaller in the lower panel 

506: when \TC $>$ \TheT.    

507: 

508: %%3

509: %\begin{figure}

510: %\psfig{figure=tsysfig02.eps,height=4.8 cm}

511: %\caption[]{Mean and variance of $\chi^2$ for the naive fits 

512: %described in Fig. 1

513: %(see Sect. 2.2).}

514: %\end{figure}

515: 

516: Numerical experiments doing Gaussian fitting to absorption lines

517: showed (as before) that proper weighting gives slightly improved 

518: parameter variances, and much-improved error estimates.  Because

519: the rms is higher in signal-free regions, naive error estimates 

520: returned by unwitting software are too large.  Error in determining

521: the continuum level of the baseline regions of an absorption spectrum 

522: increases with \TC\ and may eventually become the limiting factor in 

523: determining the line/continuum ratio.

524: 

525: %These ideas are borne out by numerical experiments like those reported

526: %in Sec. 2.5, where large samples of fitted parameters are analyzed.  The 

527: %smaller noise in the line-bearing region greatly increases the sensitivity 

528: %when \TC/\Tsys\ is large.  Slightly smaller sample variances and 

529: %much-improved formal error estimates are obtained when fitting 

530: %is done with a realistic estimate of the channel-channel noise

531: %variations.  There is one important difference; whereas the reported

532: %$\chi^2$ increased artificially when the noise level was assumed constant

533: %in the emission simulation above, the opposite occurs for absorption

534: %because the noise is higher in the signal-free regions.  Put another

535: %way, if we compare the sample variances, the reported (formal) error 

536: %estimates from the fitting software and the computed $\chi^2$, all of

537: %these are in harmony when the fitting software accounts for the variable

538: %noise. When it does not, the sample variances are slightly higher 

539: %(the fitting process itself is less precise), the error

540: %estimates from the software are noticeably higher than the sample

541: %variances and the reported $\chi^2$ is much too small since it is

542: %normalized by the (larger) off-signal variance.

543: 

544: \subsection{Quantization noise}

545: 

546: Use of digital correlators represents a possible departure from the 

547: frequency-preserving character of the receiver and detector front-end, 

548: owing to the phenomenon of quantization noise \citep{Ben48,GwiCar+00}.  

549: Input to the 

550: correlator is bandpass filtered so that the sampling theorem may be 

551: applied to recovery of the data,  but digitization of the 

552: continuously varying input power results in a representation of the

553: signal which is very strongly {\it not} band-limited.  That portion of 

554: the power spectrum lying outside the original band is returned, in 

555: varying degree depending on the sampling rate,

556: as a form of noise.  For Nyquist sampling (sampling at 

557: a rate twice the bandwidth) all is returned. For faster sampling 

558: the return is reduced as sampling sidebands beat with weaker, 

559: further-out portions of the quantization 

560: noise spectrum.  As shown by \cite{Ben48} for a 16-level system,

561: quantization noise is steadily reduced until the sampling rate is 

562: 10 times Nyquist.

563: 

564: Thus, sampling and quantization schemes scatter input power

565: throughout the passband. Experiments using input thermal noise on

566: systems with (many) more bits than are used in radio astronomy show 

567: that the quantization noise is essentially white ({\it ibid}) but 

568: the spectral characteristics of quantization noise are very much

569: dependent on the form of the input.  Very strong, highly confined 

570: signals can produce distortions of the outlying passband.

571: Weaker signals will simply be dispersed with little

572: effect on either the noise level or shape of the passband.

573: 

574: Because of quantization noise,  even the blackest absorption line

575: will not reduce the rms to the level attained in the absence of 

576: all input signal.  \EQN 5, modified 

577: to account for quantization loss (1-$\epsilon$) in the case that strong 

578: absorption occupies a negligibly small fraction of the correlator 

579: bandpass (so that the quantization noise remains evenly distributed 

580: over the passband) is

581: 

582: $$ \Delta{\rm T} =  {{\TheT

583:   + \TC (\epsilon e^{-\tau}+(1-\epsilon))}

584: \over{\epsilon\sqrt{\rm N}}}. $$

585: 

586: Examples of quantization losses at Nyquist sampling rates are 

587: (1-$\epsilon$) =  0.36 (1-bit

588: or 2-level quantization), 0.12 (3-level) and 0.028 (9-level), so that 

589: minimum fractions $(1-\epsilon)/\epsilon$ = 0.57, 0.14 or 0.03 of the 

590: rms corresponding to the input \TC\ would unavoidably be present in 

591: each channel,  including those at the bottom of the line.  This 

592: complicates error analysis but the high efficiencies of modern 

593: correlators preserve at least some of the benefits discussed.  

594: Such considerations are another reason to prefer higher-level 

595: quantization and over-sampling schemes.

596: 

597: \section{Summary and extension to interferometry}

598: 

599: Radio astronomers frequently observe signals which 

600: are strong enough to dominate the random errors of their experiments.

601: Unfortunately, it is not always possible to recognize the effects 

602: which are induced and they are neglected.  Nonetheless, they have always 

603: been present in the data.

604: 

605: This discussion points up obvious deficiencies in extant data reduction

606: software and analysis techniques.  Perhaps less obvious is the need not

607: only for accurate calibration but also for reliable reporting on the part

608: of the telescope systems.   Measurement errors cannot be accurately assessed 

609: and accomodated in downstream data handling unless the system, continuum 

610: and line antenna temperatures are preserved, along with knowledge of the mode

611: of data-taking.  Synthesis instruments may be

612: particularly difficult in this regard.  Consider the use of the VLA

613: (say) to detect H I absorption against a continuum source at low galactic

614: latitude in the presence of an emission profile like that shown in Fig. 1.

615: The VLA does not return the total power or singledish spectra, or,

616: equivalently, the variation of \Tsys\ across the passband.  The

617: interferometer experiment {\it per se} can only succeed to the extent

618: that foreground emission disappears; only its added noise

619: contribution remains.

620: 

621: We began the discussion by pointing out that the noise contributed 

622: from sky signals in single-dish observations occurs -- ignoring 

623: sidelobes, quantization noise and the like -- at those places and/or 

624: frequencies where the sources themselves are located.  It is an 

625: interesting endeavour to try to understand the extent to which source 

626: noise in interferometer experiments is similarly localized in the output 

627: datastream.  For phased arrays it would seem possible to reproduce the 

628: single-dish mode.  For synthesis arrays \citep{AnaEke+89,CraNap89} the 

629: situation is much more complicated

630: and uncertain even in the weak signal limit.

631: 

632: %Synthesis maps are created by taking the transforms of weighted sums of 

633: %visibilities (voltage products between antenna pairs). The noise associated 

634: %with these products can be calculated on a sample-by-sample basis 

635: %(see Chap. 6 of \cite{ThoMor+01}) and the map-making procedure can be

636: %tracked (distributing noise appropriately over the region synthesized) to 

637: %derive the errors of any data product.  The cross-correlation of two

638: %independent measurements of the same signal has a slightly lower noise

639: %level than that which appears at the output of the square-law detector

640: %on a single dish: 

641: %$\Delta{\rm T(v)}^2 \propto (\TheT+\TA)^2+(f\times\TheT+\TA)^2$

642: %where f = 0 for cross-correlation and 1 for autocorrelation.

643: %The self-noise present in spectra line observations can be discussed in the 

644: %same terms, on a channel-by-channel basis.

645: 

646: \acknowledgements

647: 

648: The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by AUI, Inc. under a

649: cooperative agreement with the US National Science Foundation.  I thank

650: Darrel Emerson, Tony Kerr, Robert Lucas and A. R. (Dick) Thompson for 

651: helpful comments.  Barry Clark pointed out the relevance of quantization 

652: noise and Fred Schwab provided the reference to \cite{Ben48}. This paper was 

653: put in final form while the author was enjoying the hospitality of the IAP 

654: in Paris.

655: 

656: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

657: %\bibliography{mnemonic,absorption}

658: 

659: \begin{thebibliography}{13}

660: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

661: 

662: \bibitem[{{Anantharamaiah} {et~al.}(1989){Anantharamaiah}, {Ekers},

663:   {Radhakrishnan}, {Cornwell}, \& {Goss}}]{AnaEke+89}

664: {Anantharamaiah}, K.~R., {Ekers}, R.~D., {Radhakrishnan}, V., {Cornwell},

665:   T.~J., \& {Goss}, W.~M. 1989, in ASP Conf. Ser. 6: Synthesis Imaging in Radio

666:   Astronomy, ed. R.~A. {Perley}, F.~R. {Schwab}, \& A.~H. {Bridle}, 431--442

667: 

668: \bibitem[{{Bennett}(1948)}]{Ben48}

669: {Bennett}, W.~R. 1948, BSTJ, 27, 446

670: 

671: \bibitem[{{Burke} \& {Graham-Smith}(1997)}]{BurGra01}

672: {Burke}, B.~F. \& {Graham-Smith}, F. 1997, {An Introduction to Radio Astronomy}

673:   (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1997)

674: 

675: \bibitem[{{Callen} \& {Welton}(1951)}]{CalWel51}

676: {Callen}, H.~B. \& {Welton}, T.~A. 1951, Phys. Rev, 83, 1

677: 

678: \bibitem[{{Crane} \& {Napier}(1989)}]{CraNap89}

679: {Crane}, P.~C. \& {Napier}, P.~J. 1989, in ASP Conf. Ser. 6: Synthesis Imaging

680:   in Radio Astronomy, ed. R.~A. {Perley}, F.~R. {Schwab}, \& A.~H. {Bridle},

681:   139--165

682: 

683: \bibitem[{{Dicke}(1946)}]{Dic46}

684: {Dicke}, R. 1946, Rev. Sci. Inst., 17, 268

685: 

686: \bibitem[{{Gwinn} {et~al.}(2000){Gwinn}, {Carlson}, {Dougherty}, {Del Rizzo},

687:   {Reynolds}, {Jauncey}, {Tzioumis}, {Quick}, {McCulloch}, {Hirabayashi},

688:   {Kobayashi}, \& Y.}]{GwiCar+00}

689: {Gwinn}, C.~R., {Carlson}, B., {Dougherty}, S., {Del Rizzo}, D., {Reynolds},

690:   J.~E., {Jauncey}, D.~L., {Tzioumis}, A.~K., {Quick}, J., {McCulloch}, P.~M.,

691:   {Hirabayashi}, H., {Kobayashi}, H., \& Y., M. 2000, astro-ph0002064

692: 

693: \bibitem[{{Hartmann} \& {Burton}(1997)}]{HarBur97}

694: {Hartmann}, D. \& {Burton}, W.~B. 1997, Atlas of galactic neutral hydrogen

695:   (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.)

696: 

697: \bibitem[{{Kaper} {et~al.}(1966){Kaper}, {Smits}, {Schwarz}, {Takakubo}, \&

698:   {van Woerden}}]{KapSmi+66}

699: {Kaper}, H.~G., {Smits}, D.~W., {Schwarz}, U.~J., {Takakubo}, K., \& {van

700:   Woerden}, H. 1966, B. A. N., 18, 465

701: 

702: \bibitem[{{Kraus}(1986)}]{Kra86}

703: {Kraus}, J.~D. 1986, Radio astronomy (Powell, Ohio: Cygnus-Quasar Books, 1986)

704: 

705: \bibitem[{{Marshall}(1995)}]{Mar95}

706: {Marshall}, J. 1995, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 275, 217

707: 

708: %\bibitem[{{Perley} {et~al.}(1989){Perley}, {Schwab}, \& {Bridle}}]{Per89}

709: %{Perley}, R.~A., {Schwab}, F.~R., \& {Bridle}, A.~H., eds. 1989, ASP Conf. Ser.

710: %  6: Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy

711: 

712: \bibitem[{{Rieu}(1969)}]{Rie69}

713: {Rieu}, N. 1969, A\&A, 1, 128

714: 

715: \bibitem[{{Rohlfs} {et~al.}(2000){Rohlfs}, {Wilson}, \&

716:   {Huettemeister}}]{RohWil00}

717: {Rohlfs}, K., {Wilson}, T.~L., \& {Huettemeister}, S. 2000, Tools of radio

718:   astronomy (New York : Springer, 2000.\ (Astronomy and astrophysics Library))

719: 

720: \end{thebibliography}

721: 

722: \clearpage

723: 

724: \begin{figure}

725: \plotone{fg1.eps}

726: \caption[]{Top: H I emission observed at (l,b) = (60\degr,$+$1.5\degr)

727: with the 25m Dwingeloo telescope by \cite{HarBur97}.  Bottom: expanded

728: view of the $\pm 1 \sigma$ noise envelope assuming $\TheT = 36$ K.}

729: \end{figure}

730: 

731: %2

732: \begin{figure}

733: \plotone{fg2.eps}

734: \caption[]{Rms error of derived gaussian fitting parameters.  Top left,

735: central velocity.  Bottom left, the FWHM, $\Delta V$.  Top right, the

736: peak line strength.  Bottom right, the profile integral.  In each panel

737: the uppermost curve is the empirically-determined rms and the bottommost 

738: curve the expected or reported rms, all for weighting by a constant

739: profile variance.  The middle curve is the parameter rms when weighting

740: by the correct noise variance.  For the other

741: assumptions used to calculate these curves, see Sect. 2.5}

742: \end{figure}

743: \clearpage

744: %3

745: \begin{figure}

746: \plotone{fg3.eps}

747: \caption[]{Fractional rms error in optical depth when a nominal 20 K system 

748: is used to observe continuum sources of varying strengths 

749: \TC, occulted by a pure scattering medium of optical depth $\tau$.  

750: These plots correspond roughly to 30 second integrations

751: in 1 \kms\ channels at 1420 MHz.  At top, \Tsys\ is assumed independent

752: of $\tau$; at bottom the dependence of \Tsys\ on $\tau$ (\EQN 7) is 

753: included.}

754: \end{figure}

755: \clearpage

756: 

757: \end{document}

758: