1: % template.tex
2: %
3: % Template Tex file for MNRAS submissions (and similar), written by
4: % Rich Savage (29th June 2004). This template is based on the following:
5: %
6: % mn2esample.tex
7: %
8: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
9: %
10: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
11: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
12: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
13: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
14: %
15: % Previous versions of this sample document were
16: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
17: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
18: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
19: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
20:
21: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
22: \usepackage{epsfig}
23:
24: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
25: % remove the useAMS option.
26: %
27: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
28: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
29: % this guide for further information.
30: %
31: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
32: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
33: % preferably \bmath).
34: %
35: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
36: % cross-referencing.
37: %
38: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
39: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
40: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
41: % \usepackage{Times}
42:
43: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
44: \def\reff@jnl#1{{\rm#1\/}}
45:
46: \def\aj{\reff@jnl{AJ}} % Astronomical Journal
47: \def\araa{\reff@jnl{ARA\&A}} % Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys
48: \def\apj{\reff@jnl{ApJ}} % Astrophysical Journal
49: \def\apjl{\reff@jnl{ApJ}} % Astrophysical Journal, Letters
50: \def\apjs{\reff@jnl{ApJS}} % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement
51: \def\ao{\reff@jnl{Appl.Optics}} % Applied Optics
52: \def\apss{\reff@jnl{Ap\&SS}} % Astrophysics and Space Science
53: \def\aap{\reff@jnl{A\&A}} % Astronomy and Astrophysics
54: \def\aapr{\reff@jnl{A\&A~Rev.}} % Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews
55: \def\aaps{\reff@jnl{A\&AS}} % Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement
56: \def\azh{\reff@jnl{AZh}} % Astronomicheskii Zhurnal
57: \def\baas{\reff@jnl{BAAS}} % Bulletin of the AAS
58: \def\jrasc{\reff@jnl{JRASC}} % Journal of the RAS of Canada
59: \def\memras{\reff@jnl{MmRAS}} % Memoirs of the RAS
60: \def\mnras{\reff@jnl{MNRAS}} % Monthly Notices of the RAS
61: \def\pra{\reff@jnl{Phys.Rev.A}} % Physical Review A: General Physics
62: \def\prb{\reff@jnl{Phys.Rev.B}} % Physical Review B: Solid State
63: \def\prc{\reff@jnl{Phys.Rev.C}} % Physical Review C
64: \def\prd{\reff@jnl{Phys.Rev.D}} % Physical Review D
65: \def\prl{\reff@jnl{Phys.Rev.Lett}} % Physical Review Letters
66: \def\pasp{\reff@jnl{PASP}} % Publications of the ASP
67: \def\pasj{\reff@jnl{PASJ}} % Publications of the ASJ
68: \def\qjras{\reff@jnl{QJRAS}} % Quarterly Journal of the RAS
69: \def\skytel{\reff@jnl{S\&T}} % Sky and Telescope
70: \def\solphys{\reff@jnl{Solar~Phys.}} % Solar Physics
71: \def\sovast{\reff@jnl{Soviet~Ast.}} % Soviet Astronomy
72: \def\ssr{\reff@jnl{Space~Sci.Rev.}} % Space Science Reviews
73: \def\zap{\reff@jnl{ZAp}} % Zeitschrift fuer Astrophysik
74: \def\nat{\reff@jnl{Nature}} % Nature
75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
76: \title
77: []
78: {Statistical constraints on the IR galaxy number counts and
79: cosmic IR background from the Spitzer GOODS survey}
80:
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82: \author
83: [Richard S. Savage et al.]
84: {Richard S. Savage$^{1}$ \thanks{E-mail: r.s.savage@sussex.ac.uk},
85: Seb Oliver$^1$
86: \\
87: $^1$ Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex, UK\\}
88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89: \begin{document}
90: \date{Accepted *date*. Received *date*; in original form *date*}
91: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
92: \pubyear{2005}
93: \maketitle
94: \label{firstpage}
95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
96: \begin{abstract}
97: We perform fluctuation analyses on the data from the Spitzer GOODS
98: survey (epoch one) in the Hubble Deep Field North (HDF-N). We fit a
99: parameterised power-law number count model of the form
100: ${dN \over dS} =N_o S^{-\delta}$
101: to data from each of the four Spitzer IRAC bands, using Markov Chain
102: Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling to explore the posterior probability
103: distribution in each case. We obtain best-fit reduced chi-squared
104: values of (3.43 0.86 1.14 1.13) in the four IRAC bands. From this
105: analysis we determine the likely differential faint source counts down
106: to $10^{-8} Jy$, over two orders of magnitude in flux fainter than has
107: been previously determined.
108:
109: From these constrained number count models, we estimate a lower bound
110: on the contribution to the Infra-Red (IR) background light arising from faint
111: galaxies. We estimate the total integrated background IR light
112: in the Spitzer GOODS HDF-N field due to faint sources. By
113: adding the estimates of integrated light given by
114: \citet[][]{Fazio-04}, we calculate the total integrated background
115: light in the four IRAC bands. We compare our 3.6
116: micron results with previous background estimates in similar bands and
117: conclude that, subject to our assumptions about the noise
118: characteristics, our analyses are able to account for the vast
119: majority of the 3.6 micron background. Our analyses are sensitive to
120: a number of potential systematic effects; we discuss our assumptions
121: with regards to noise characteristics, flux calibration and
122: flat-fielding artifacts.
123:
124: We compare our results with the galaxy number counts
125: measured directly by \citet[][]{Fazio-04}. There is evidence of
126: a systematic difference between our results and these number counts,
127: with our fluctuation analysis preferring higher faint number counts.
128: This could be explained by a relative difference in flux calibration of 50\%.
129: Such a difference would leave our detection of excess faint number
130: counts intact, but substantially reduce our estimates of the IR background.
131: \end{abstract}
132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
133: \begin{keywords}
134: Cosmology: diffuse radiation
135: Galaxies: high-redshift
136: Galaxies: statistical
137: Infrared: galaxies
138: Methods: statistical
139: \end{keywords}
140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
141: \section{Introduction} \label{introduction}
142: A revolution is occurring in IR astronomy. With most
143: wave-bands unobservable from the ground, observations of the IR sky are
144: heavily reliant on space telescopes. The launch in August 2003
145: of the Spitzer space telescope marked the start of a period that will
146: see as many as five IR satellite telescopes launched by 2010. With ASTRO-F
147: (launching in early 2006) \citep[see e.g.][]{ASTROFsuperIRAS-2004},
148: Herschel (due to launch in 2007) \citep[][]{HerschelOverview-2004},
149: as well as the planned WISE \citep[][]{WISE-2004}
150: and SPICA \citep[][]{SPICA-2004}
151: missions, we are entering an epoch of unparalleled access to the IR sky.
152:
153: IR data are critically important to our understanding of
154: galaxy formation. The tight mass:light ratio of
155: the stellar populations, coupled with relatively minimal dust
156: obscuration at these wavelengths, make near-IR observations a powerful
157: tool for probing the mass of stars in a galaxy.
158:
159: The galaxy number counts at these wavelengths are therefore a powerful
160: probe of the relationship between stellar mass and galaxy evolution.
161: By measuring these number counts, we can constrain models of how
162: galaxies evolve and thus improve our understanding of the underlying physics.
163:
164: The Cosmic Infra-Red Background (CIRB) is formed at least in part by
165: the light from faint, source-confused galaxies. Measurements of the
166: faint galaxy number count distributions therefore provide us with
167: information about the CIRB, and vice versa. In recent years,
168: a number of direct measurements have been made of the CIRB
169: \citep[see e.g.][]{DwekArendt-98, Gorjian-00, WrightReese-00,
170: Matsumoto-05}. Comparison between such estimates and those arising
171: from determination of galaxy number counts can substantially enhance
172: our understanding of the nature of the CIRB.
173:
174: One potential limitation to any astronomical observation is that of
175: source confusion \citep[see e.g.][]{Scheuer-57, Scheuer-74, Condon-74}.
176: For any finite-resolution observations, sources sufficiently close to
177: one another on the sky will seem to overlap, or confuse one another. This
178: confusion limits the accuracy to which the flux and position of
179: individual sources can be measured, hence being a source of noise for
180: the observation.
181:
182: This limitation can be therefore particularly acute for IR
183: observations. The longer wavelength (relative to optical), combined
184: with the necessity for space-based instrumentation (with the implied
185: smaller telescope aperture) tend to lead to relatively poor
186: resolution, relative to that of ground-based optical observations.
187: For deep Spitzer observations in particular, confusion noise becomes the dominant
188: noise contribution. The Spitzer GOODS survey
189: \citep[][]{SpitzerGOODS-2004} in particular
190: is significantly confusion-limited. If we are to extract
191: maximum information from these observations, we must resort therefore to
192: statistical methods.
193:
194: The extraction of information from source confusion is not a new
195: problem in astronomy. As early as the
196: 1950s, radio astronomers were aware that finite resolution would lead
197: to confusion noise in their observations. It was realised, however,
198: that information about the confusing sources was contained in the
199: Probability Density Function (PDF) of this confusion noise. So-called fluctuation
200: analyses, fitting model source distribution PDFs to that of the data,
201: have been used in a number of different branches of astronomy over
202: the years \citep[see e.g.][]{radioPDAnalysis-82, XrayPDAnalysis-93,
203: XrayPDAnalysis-94, ISOpdAnalysis-97}.
204: allowing statistical information about the confusing population of
205: galaxies to be extracted when the individual galaxies cannot be
206: resolved.
207:
208: These fits have typically relied on chi-squared statistics to
209: fit model PDFs to the data, with a Gaussian form assumed for
210: the likelihood function in order to estimate errors. Modern statistics
211: however, can do more. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling \citep[see e.g.][]{GilksMCMC-book}
212: gives us a powerful tool for mapping the posterior distribution. By fully
213: mapping the posterior, we can estimate both the maximum likelihood
214: point and the uncertainties on our measurement, without needing to
215: make any assumptions as the Gaussianity of the error distribution of
216: the parameters under consideration.
217:
218: In this paper, we present a fluctuation analysis of the Spitzer GOODS survey,
219: in order to constrain the sub-confusion Spitzer galaxy number counts at
220: 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8 microns. In addition to a maximum
221: likelihood fit, we use MCMC
222: sampling to determine the uncertainties on our parameter estimates.
223:
224: The contents of this paper are therefore as follows.
225: \begin{description}
226: \item{In {\tt section \ref{section:SpitzerGOODSdata}}, we detail the Spitzer GOODS survey.}
227: \item{In {\tt section \ref{section:methods}}, we discuss fluctuation analysis, both in general terms and
228: in detail specific to the analysis presented in this paper.}
229: \item{In {\tt section \ref{section:analysisResults}}, we present the results of our analyses.}
230: \item{Finally, our conclusions are presented in section {\tt \ref{section:conclusions}}.}
231: \end{description}
232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
233: \section[]{The Spitzer GOODS data} \label{section:SpitzerGOODSdata}
234: The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) is a series of
235: observing programs that are creating a public multi-wavelength
236: data set for studying galaxy formation and evolution. It comprises
237: observations from the Spitzer, Hubble, Chandra and XMM-Newton space
238: observatories, with extensive follow-up from ground-based facilities.
239:
240: The Spitzer GOODS observing programme \citep[][]{SpitzerGOODS-2004}
241: comprises deep observations in the vicinity of the Hubble
242: Deep Field North (HDF-N) and the Chandra Deep Field South (CDF-S).
243: The observations cover a total of approximately 300 arcmin$^2$, using
244: all four IRAC bands \citep[][]{SpitzerIRAC-2004}
245: (3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8 microns), with 24 micron MIPS observations also planned.
246:
247: In this paper, we analyse the Spitzer GOODS super-deep epoch one data
248: release for the HDF-N. For each of the four IRAC bands, we analyse
249: the full image data from this field. This gives us ($9.2\times10^5,
250: 9.5\times10^5, 9.2\times10^5, 9.5\times10^5$) 'good' (i.e. unflagged)
251: pixels in the bands. As our measurement is a statistical inference,
252: we adopt a conservative flagging regime, retaining only pixels
253: containing 50\% or more of the model exposure time. This ensures we
254: use the best signal:noise data, as well as those pixels with the
255: best-defined noise estimates.
256:
257: The data release includes rms estimates of the shot noise component
258: due to the sky background and instrument noise. We use these as our
259: overall instrumental noise estimate, assuming that the noise for each
260: pixel is Gaussian and uncorrelated with that of its neighbours (true by
261: construction here, due to use of a point-kernel drizzle algorithm in
262: construction of the maps). We test the impact of any inaccuracy in these
263: assumptions by varying the noise estimates by 20\%; there is
264: negligible impact on the final results, so we conclude that this noise
265: treatment is sufficient.
266:
267: One other issue is that of the effect of flat-fielding. It is known
268: (Surace, private communication) that this process introduces a low
269: level of residual fluctuation into IRAC images such as the ones
270: analysed in this paper. These fluctuations are correlated on short
271: angular scales (of order that of the PSF), but should be uncorrelated
272: with the sky; as our analysis considers only the one-point statistics
273: of the data, this effect merely represents an additional source of noise
274: in the data (albeit one for which we have not explicitly accounted). However,
275: provided the resultant noise is Gaussian in nature, our above noise
276: tests show that our analysis is robust to their effects. We note that
277: this effect is known to be most significant in the shorter wavelength
278: IRAC bands.
279:
280: The data release images have already had a background subtraction run
281: on them. In addition, we also perform what amounts to a basic
282: background subtraction by subtracting the overall median from both the
283: data and model pixels, in order to properly match them.
284:
285: We also identify and mask out bright sources in the images. We do
286: this by simply identifying pixels above a flux threshold, then masking
287: out a surrounding region sufficient to remove the entire source. Due
288: to the large number of available pixels, we conservatively
289: overestimate the number of pixels that need to be masked, in order to
290: avoid bias in our results.
291:
292: The HDF-N field is an excellent data set for fluctuation analyses in
293: that the statistical errors are likely to be the sub-dominant part of
294: the uncertainty in the final results. Systematic effects such as
295: absolute calibration uncertainty and model mis-matching will be more
296: significant. It is therefore unnecessary to also analyse the southern
297: field.
298:
299:
300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
301: \section[]{Methods} \label{section:methods}
302:
303:
304: \begin{figure*}
305: \begin{minipage}{150mm}
306: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.numberCounts.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
307: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north2_results.ps.numberCounts.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
308: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north3_results.ps.numberCounts.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
309: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north4_results.ps.numberCounts.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
310: \caption{Plots of the fitted model number counts. In each case, the black line
311: denotes the best-fit model, the grey regions are generated by
312: plotting a sample of the MCMC models with the highest 68\% and 95\%
313: posterior probability values, respectively. Note that all models
314: are Euclidean normalised by multiplying by $flux^{2.5}$. The
315: plotted points are actual number counts, measured by
316: \citet[][]{Fazio-04}. Also plotted are model number count
317: predictions due to \citet[][]{Pearson-05} (dot-dash line) and
318: \citet[][]{Franceschini-05} (dotted line).
319: }
320: \label{fig:numberCountFits}
321: \end{minipage}
322: \end{figure*}
323:
324:
325:
326: Our aim is to extract statistical information about the
327: nature of the faint galaxy population contributing to the confusion noise in
328: the Spitzer GOODS survey. To achieve this, we will use a fluctuation
329: analysis.
330:
331: Fluctuation analyses uses the PDF of the data image pixels to constrain a
332: parameterised model of the faint source number counts. The model is fitted to
333: the data by comparing the PDF of the data image pixels with the
334: corresponding PDF predicted for the chosen
335: model. Various model-fitting techniques (in this case Markov-Chain Monte Carlo
336: sampling) can then be used to determine the most likely set of
337: parameter values for the model, given the data, as well as to
338: determine the uncertainties on these estimates.
339:
340:
341: \subsection{PDF estimation}
342: In order to carry out a fluctuation analysis, we need a method of
343: estimating the PDF of our data. The most straightforward way of doing
344: this is to take a histogram of the image pixels, and this has several advantages.
345:
346: Histograms are straightforward to implement and also to
347: determine a reasonably 'optimal' bin width \citep[see
348: e.g.][]{Scott_densityEstimation}. It is also easy to construct a
349: histogram such that the bins are essentially uncorrelated from one
350: another, giving the individual bins Poissonian errors. Furthermore,
351: for large numbers of pixels-per-bin, the errors tend towards
352: Gaussianity, a feature that simplifies the calculation of likelihoods.
353:
354: We note that there are a number of other possible choices of
355: PDF estimators. In particular, fixed and adaptive kernel methods
356: \citep[see e.g.][]{Vio-94} have become increasingly widely used in recent
357: years. The superior performance of these methods comes at the price
358: (in this context) of a more complicated error structure and
359: greater computational requirements. We will therefore not consider
360: them in this work.
361:
362:
363: \subsection{Generation of model PDFs}
364: Having estimated the PDF of our data, we need equivalent
365: model PDFs to fit to it. In previous work, these have typically been
366: generated from analytic solutions \citep[see e.g.][]{Condon-74}. In
367: this paper, however, we will adopt a slightly different approach,
368: designed to more explicitly reflect the effects for which we must
369: account.
370:
371: Our method of determining model PDFs is essentially a Monte Carlo
372: method, simulating a number of skies in order to find the required
373: PDF. However, in order to speed up the calculation, we implement
374: numerically-solved analytic solutions in order to determine the
375: distribution of fluxes arising from any pixel on the sky (before the
376: effect of the instrument point spread function), as well as the effect
377: of instrumental noise.
378:
379: Due to the nature of fluctuation analysis, we pay particular attention
380: to dealing with the instrumental noise. The data used in this paper
381: include pixel-by-pixel estimates of the noise variance. To properly
382: account for variations in noise across the map, we generate the
383: overall noise PDF by summing the Gaussian noise PDFs (characterised by
384: said variances) for each pixel (and re-normalising). The noiseless
385: model PDF is then convolved by this noise PDF and the resulting model
386: PDF re-binned to match the histogram bins of the data PDF.
387:
388: To test the robustness of our analyses to noise estimation, we ran
389: test analyses in which we increased or decreased the noise variances by
390: 20\%. In all cases, the results were essentially unchanged, an
391: outcome that is reasonable given that source confusion is the dominant
392: effect in these observations.
393:
394: We note that this method is all carried out on pixels of twice
395: the resolution of the data we will be analysing. This matches the
396: highest resolution publicly available point spread function for the
397: IRAC instrument, allowing us to use all available information about
398: the point spread function. The model resolution is halved by simple bin
399: averaging \emph{after} the point spread function convolution, but
400: \emph{before} convolution with the noise PDF.
401:
402:
403: \subsection{Model-fitting, mapping the posterior probability distribution}
404: For any analysis such as this, we are aiming to determine the most
405: likely set of model parameters, given our data (and choice of model).
406: From fundamental probability theory, we have Bayes theorem:
407:
408: \begin{equation}
409: P(\theta|D,H)=\frac{P(D|\theta,H)P(\theta,H)}{P(D|H)}\,,
410: \label{BayesTheorem}
411: \end{equation}
412:
413: Where $P(\theta|D,H)$ is the posterior probability of the model
414: parameters ($\theta$), given the data ($D$) and a hypothesis ($H$).
415: $P(D|\theta,H)$ is the likelihood of the data given a set of model
416: parameters, $P(\theta,H)$ represents any prior
417: knowledge we may have and $P(D|H)$ is the Bayesian Evidence.
418:
419: So, the posterior is the thing we want. Assuming uncorrelated,
420: Gaussian errors on the PDF histogram bins, the (unnormalised)
421: likelihood is given by the following equation.
422:
423: \begin{equation}
424: L=exp(-{Q^2\over2})
425: \end{equation}
426:
427: where $Q^2$ is given by
428:
429: \begin{equation}
430: Q^2=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{bins}}\left({{d_i-m_i}\over\sigma_i}\right)^2
431: \end{equation}
432:
433: and $d_i$ is the number of data in the $i^{th}$ histogram bin, $m_i$
434: is the corresponding model value and $\sigma_i$ is the standard
435: deviation associated with that histogram bin.
436:
437: For this analysis, we choose uninformative flat priors, so that we are
438: making minimal assumptions.
439:
440: For the analyses presented in this paper, we will ignore the
441: normalising Bayesian evidence term. However, we note that future work
442: in this will undoubtedly benefit from using the evidence to compare
443: the relative likelihood of different number count models being good
444: descriptions of the data.
445:
446: The information extracted by such an analysis is to be found in
447: the posterior probability function. This function tells us, given our
448: data (and any prior knowledge), the likely range of values of the
449: model parameters. We wish therefore to map this function, in order to produce the
450: results of our analysis.
451:
452: The analysis methods we have described in the previous subsections
453: allow us to determine the (unnormalised) posterior value for a given
454: point in parameter space. By using some suitably efficient method of
455: function mapping, we can hence obtain our results.
456:
457: We will use Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling \citep[see
458: e.g.][]{GilksMCMC-book} to do this. MCMC sampling is an efficient
459: way of drawing a set of samples from the posterior probability
460: distribution. It has a number of advantages over many more basic
461: methods. Firstly, it returns not only the most likely
462: solution, but also estimates of the uncertainties on all estimated
463: parameters. Secondly, it estimates these uncertainties without
464: needing to make any assumptions as to the functional form of the
465: likelihood (such as are required by methods such as Fisher matrix analysis). The
466: principal downside is that such an analysis can be computationally
467: very expensive; typically $5 \times 10^4$ to $10^5$ likelihood calculations
468: are needed, several orders of magnitude more than most function maximisers.
469:
470: In each of the four analyses we carry out, we use at least five MCMC
471: chains, each 10,200 samples in length. We remove the first 2,000
472: samples from each case as they represent a 'burn-in' phase, where the
473: chains are moving towards the region of highest likelihood. This
474: leaves us with over 40,000 samples for each analysis.
475:
476: Ideally, we would want more samples than this (a typical rule-of-thumb
477: for this type of analysis is $10^5$ or more samples), however we were
478: limited in this work by the amount of time taken to compute the
479: likelihood values; the analysis for each band took 3-4 weeks on a 3~GHz,
480: dual-processor Linux box.
481:
482:
483: \subsection{Choice of models}
484: In this paper, we will fit the usual class of power law
485: models for the differential source number counts, defined by the
486: following equation.
487:
488: \begin{equation}
489: {dN \over dS} = \left\{
490: \begin{array}{ll}
491: N_o S^{-\delta} & (S>S_{cut})\\
492: 0 & (S<S_{cut})\\
493: \end{array}
494: \right.
495: \end{equation}
496:
497: The fitted parameters are $\delta$, $S_{cut}$ and $A$, where $A$ is
498: given by the following equation.
499:
500: \begin{equation}
501: A = \int_{0}^{S_{max}} {dN \over dS} dS
502: \end{equation}
503:
504: $S_{max}$ is chosen to exclude small numbers of bright sources
505: at a level where the model will no longer be a fit to the observed
506: number counts. We note that in each analysis we have removed regions
507: of the data containing flux peaks bright enough to be due to sources
508: brighter than the corresponding value of $S_{max}$.
509:
510: The sources are assumed to be Poisson-distributed on the sky (i.e. we
511: assume they are not clustered). We note that this model is strictly
512: phenomenological. This approach, while not physically
513: motivated, does produce constraints on the likely number count
514: distribution of faint sources in the fields being analysed.
515:
516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
517: \section[]{Analysis and results} \label{section:analysisResults}
518:
519:
520: \begin{table*}
521: \begin{minipage}{150mm}
522: \caption{The results of fitting a one-power-law number count model to
523: the data. For each band, the best-fit log-likelihood, number of
524: histogram bins, best-fit mean source density, power law index, flux
525: cut-off are given, along with the 95\% confidence limits (determined
526: from the 1D marginalised likelihood functions(see figure
527: \ref{fig:1dLikelihoods}). Reduced chi-squared values are also
528: given.}
529: \label{table:onePowerLaw}
530: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
531: \hline
532: Band & Log(likelihood) & bins & source density ($10^{9}$ per sq. deg.) & index &
533: cut-off ($10^{-12}$ Jy) & reduced chi-squared \\
534: \hline
535: 3.6 microns & -162.7 & 98 & 1.62$^{+0.62}_{-0.62}$ & 1.70$^{+0.01}_{-0.05}$ & 15.0$^{+8.5}_{-8.5}$ & 3.43 \\
536: 4.5 microns & -41.0 & 99 & 2.14$^{+2.82}_{-1.24}$ & 1.67$^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & 4.01$^{+4.75}_{-2.70}$ & 0.86 \\
537: 5.8 microns & -54.1 & 98 & 1.44$^{+1.82}_{-0.85}$ & 1.53$^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & 0.24$^{+1.37}_{-0.22}$ & 1.14 \\
538: 8.0 microns & -54.3 & 99 & 0.09$^{+1.17}_{-0.03}$ & 1.33$^{+0.14}_{-0.02}$ & 0.54$^{+0.75}_{-0.53}$ & 1.13 \\
539: \hline
540: \end{tabular}
541: \end{minipage}
542: \end{table*}
543:
544: \begin{table*}
545: \begin{minipage}{150mm}
546: \caption{The integrated background light due to galaxy emission, for
547: each of the four IRAC bands. These values are estimated in two
548: parts. \emph{Faint} is found analytically by integrating the
549: best-fit model from our fluctuation analysis. \emph{Bright} is the
550: integrated light due to sources above the upper limit of our models
551: and are taken from \citet[][]{Fazio-04}. The total is the sum of
552: the previous two values. All errors shown are 95\% confidence
553: limits. \emph{Faint} errors are determined from the 1D marginalised
554: likelihood functions (see figure
555: \ref{fig:backgroundHistogram}). \emph{Bright} errors are not given in
556: \citet[][]{Fazio-04}, so the total error is found by scaling those for
557: \emph{Faint}.}
558: \label{table:integratedBackground}
559: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
560: \hline
561: Band & faint ($10^{-9} w m^{-2} sr^{-1}$) & bright ($10^{-9} w m^{-2}
562: sr^{-1}$) & total background ($10^{-9} w m^{-2} sr^{-1}$) \\
563: \hline
564: 3.6 microns & 5.23$^{+0.31}_{-0.96}$ & 5.4 & 10.6$^{+0.63}_{-1.95}$ \\
565: 4.5 microns & 2.85$^{+0.43}_{-0.48}$ & 3.5 & 6.4$^{+0.97}_{-1.08}$ \\
566: 5.8 microns & 1.79$^{+0.56}_{-1.18}$ & 3.6 & 5.4$^{+1.69}_{-3.56}$ \\
567: 8.0 microns & 1.23$^{+0.77}_{-0.74}$ & 2.6 & 3.8$^{+2.38}_{-2.29}$ \\
568: \hline
569: \end{tabular}
570: \end{minipage}
571: \end{table*}
572:
573: Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFits} shows the results of our analyses.
574: In each case, the solid black line denotes the best-fit model (whose
575: parameters are given in Table \ref{table:onePowerLaw}). The shaded
576: regions give the loci of 68\% and 95\% confidence regions, defined by
577: taking the corresponding percentage of MCMC samples with the highest
578: posterior probability values.
579:
580: On each plot, the number counts determined for the four IRAC bands by
581: \citet[][]{Fazio-04} are plotted. The values plotted are those
582: estimated for galaxy counts, with error bars denoting Poisson
583: uncertainty. All values have been corrected for incompleteness using
584: the estimates given in said paper. The plots also show the galaxy
585: number count models of \citet[][]{Pearson-05} (dot-dash line).
586:
587: In Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFluxScaled}, we re-plot the 3.6 micron
588: number counts with a flux scaling of 0.75, in order to show the effect
589: of a 25\% (decrease) error in flux calibration.
590:
591: Figure \ref{fig:dataPDFs} shows the data PDFs estimated for each of
592: the four IRAC bands (solid lines). Over-plotted (dashed lines) are the
593: best-fit model PDFs determined from our analyses.
594:
595: One of the great advantages of MCMC sampling is that it enables us to
596: recover much information about the posterior probability distribution.
597: Figure \ref{fig:1dLikelihoods} shows the 1D, marginalised likelihoods
598: for each of the three fitted parameters, for each of the four IRAC
599: bands. For any set of samples drawn from the posterior distribution,
600: marginalisation is straightforwardly achieved by taking a histogram of
601: the samples over the parameter of interest.
602:
603: The constrained faint number count models can be integrated to find
604: estimates of their contribution to the the infra-red background
605: light. Combining this with estimates of the contribution from bright
606: sources taken from \citet[][]{Fazio-04}, we can thus obtain overall
607: estimates of the integrated background light in the four IRAC bands.
608: We note that for the purposes of these analyses, we cut off our number
609: count models at the flux of the faintest Fazio et al point.
610:
611: Figure \ref{fig:backgroundFraction} shows the proportion of the total
612: background light resolved, as a function of flux. The result for the
613: best-fit model is shown (black line); also plotted are a subset of the
614: 68\% (dark grey) and 95\% (light grey) confidence region models, to
615: indicate the statistical uncertainty in the results.
616:
617: Figure \ref{fig:1dLikelihoods} shows the marginalised 1D posterior
618: probability distributions for the total integrated background light
619: due to our constrained models (i.e. not including the contribution
620: from brighter galaxies). These results are tabulated in table
621: \ref{table:integratedBackground} and combined with the contribution
622: from bright sources in order to provide estimates of the total
623: background light due to galaxies in the four IRAC bands.
624:
625:
626: \begin{figure}
627: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.numberCounts_0.75fluxScaling.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
628: \caption{Plot of the fitted 3.6 micron model number counts, with model
629: flux values scaled by $\times 0.5$, to simulate the effect of an
630: error in flux calibration. (Note that this also affects the
631: Euclidean normalisation). This shows that the difference between
632: our results and the \citet[][]{Fazio-04} number counts could be
633: explained by a 50\% relative difference in the flux calibration of the
634: two sets of observations.}
635: \label{fig:numberCountFluxScaled}
636: \end{figure}
637:
638: \begin{figure*}
639: \begin{minipage}{150mm}
640: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.dataPDF.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
641: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north2_results.ps.dataPDF.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
642: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north3_results.ps.dataPDF.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
643: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north4_results.ps.dataPDF.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
644: \caption{The pixel flux PDFs for the data (solid line) and the
645: best-fit model (dashed line; partially obscured by solid line).
646: The data PDF is estimated using a histogram of the image pixels from
647: a given band. The model PDF is calculated using the method
648: described in section \ref{section:methods}. The overall noise PDFs
649: are also plotted (dotted line). For ease of comparison, the noise PDFS are
650: appropriately scaled and offset so that their peaks are coincident
651: with the data PDFs.}
652: \label{fig:dataPDFs}
653: \end{minipage}
654: \end{figure*}
655:
656: \begin{figure*}
657: \begin{minipage}{150mm}
658: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.POWERLAWINDEX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
659: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.MEANSOURCEDENSITY.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
660: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.CUTOFFFLUX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
661: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north2_results.ps.POWERLAWINDEX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
662: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north2_results.ps.MEANSOURCEDENSITY.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
663: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north2_results.ps.CUTOFFFLUX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
664: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north3_results.ps.POWERLAWINDEX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
665: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north3_results.ps.MEANSOURCEDENSITY.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
666: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north3_results.ps.CUTOFFFLUX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
667: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north4_results.ps.POWERLAWINDEX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
668: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north4_results.ps.MEANSOURCEDENSITY.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
669: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north4_results.ps.CUTOFFFLUX.ps , angle=0, width=5cm}
670: \caption{The marginalised 1D posterior probability distributions for
671: the fitted model parameters. The distributions generated by taking
672: a histogram of the MCMC samples and are given in units of number of
673: counts per bin. The level of structure in the distributions
674: suggests that the MCMC chains have only borderline convergence
675: (longer chains were not possible, due to computational
676: constraints). This will not have a substantial impact on the broad
677: results of this analysis.}
678: \label{fig:1dLikelihoods}
679: \end{minipage}
680: \end{figure*}
681:
682: \begin{figure*}
683: \begin{minipage}{150mm}
684: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.backgroundEstimates.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
685: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north2_results.ps.backgroundEstimates.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
686: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north3_results.ps.backgroundEstimates.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
687: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north4_results.ps.backgroundEstimates.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
688: \caption{Estimates of the proportion of the IR background light that
689: is resolved, as a function of flux. The proportion is calculated
690: assuming that the 'total' IR background light is given by values
691: from Table \ref{table:integratedBackground}. Shown are the best-fit solution
692: (block line), along with a subset of the 68\% (dark grey) and 95\%
693: (light grey) confidence region solutions.}
694: \label{fig:backgroundFraction}
695: \end{minipage}
696: \end{figure*}
697:
698: \begin{figure*}
699: \begin{minipage}{150mm}
700: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north1_results.ps.backgroundHistogram.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
701: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north2_results.ps.backgroundHistogram.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
702: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north3_results.ps.backgroundHistogram.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
703: \epsfig{file=images/SpitzerGOODS_north4_results.ps.backgroundHistogram.ps , angle=0, width=8.5cm}
704: \caption{The PDFs of the integrated background light due to the
705: constrained number count models resulting from our analyses. These
706: estimates \emph{do not} include the contribution from brighter
707: sources. The overall estimated contribution from all sources is
708: given in Table \ref{table:integratedBackground}.}
709: \label{fig:backgroundHistogram}
710: \end{minipage}
711: \end{figure*}
712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
713: \section{Discussion and conclusions} \label{section:conclusions}
714:
715: Our analyses of the Spitzer GOODS HDF-N epoch one data have produced
716: constraints on the faint source counts in the four IRAC bands (3.6,
717: 4.5, 5.8, 8 microns). \citet[][]{Fazio-04} estimate the contribution
718: of stars to the counts at such faint fluxes to be be negligible. We
719: therefore can regard the results in Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFits}
720: as approximating the faint galaxy counts in these bands. The analyses
721: presented in this paper provide meaningful constraints on these
722: differential number counts down to $10^{-8} Jy$, over two orders of
723: magnitude fainter in flux than the faintest published number counts.
724:
725: The plotted number count points in Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFits}
726: are the result of source extraction from
727: other Spitzer observations, making them measurements that are independent of
728: the data used in this paper. The most noteworthy
729: discrepancy is that the fluctuation analyses seem to produce number
730: counts that are systematically higher than those measured by
731: \citet[][]{Fazio-04}. There are a number of possible explanations for
732: this effect.
733:
734: The first is suggested by Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFluxScaled}. A
735: relative difference between the flux calibration of the data used in
736: this paper and that of \citet[][]{Fazio-04} could make the results
737: consistent with one another.
738:
739: Another possibility is that the number count model we have fitted is an
740: over-simplification. Being strictly phenomenological,
741: it would not be hugely surprising to find at least some deviations of
742: this nature. Some non-power-law behaviour in
743: the real faint number counts (for example, a plateau) could cause such
744: an effect. Clustering of the real sources could also have an impact,
745: as it is known that source clustering changes the expected fluctuation
746: signal.
747:
748: There is also the possibility of fluctuations from non-point-like
749: sources, such as diffuse galactic emission. Fluctuation analysis is
750: likely to be sensitive to such effects in the data, should they be
751: present in substantial amounts.
752:
753: Balanced against this is the goodness-of-fit of the models (see the
754: reduced chi-squared values in Table \ref{table:onePowerLaw}). These
755: show that in all cases except the 3.6 micron band, the fitted models
756: are good representations of the data. Any statistically significant
757: deviation of the real number counts from a power law would show up as
758: an increase in the reduced chi-squared values.
759:
760: The 3.6 micron data is fitted substantially more poorly by the model,
761: so it is possible that we have detected non-power-law behaviour in
762: this case. Indeed, we would expect the 3.6 micron data to be most
763: sensitive to such deviations, as it has the lowest relative level of
764: instrumental noise (see Figure \ref{fig:dataPDFs})
765: However, the fact that this over-estimate (relative to the
766: Fazio counts) occurs in all four bands suggests that there is also
767: something else occurring.
768:
769: Other systematic effects in the Spitzer GOODS data may also play a part.
770: Any non-Gaussianity in the noise could be significant, although the
771: outlier rejection used to reduce the GOODS data guards against this.
772: Issues such as the residuals present from flat-fielding may also have
773: an impact, although if they add Gaussian noise, we have shown our
774: analysis to be robust to this. We
775: have also assumed a constant point spread function across the whole
776: image, which may not be the case. Effects of this nature may
777: contribute to an explanation of the observed discrepancy.
778:
779: Similarly, there may be systematic effects present in the Fazio number
780: counts. Faint source counts are, by their nature, very difficult to
781: measure to high precision, especially when the issue of incompleteness
782: is a factor (as it is here).
783:
784: Although the data used in this paper has been background-subtracted,
785: the possibility of some residual contamination from diffuse
786: backgrounds such as galactic cirrus remains. The exact
787: effect of this is unclear and it may be negligible. However, it may
788: have some impact on our results.
789:
790: Overall, it is clear that we expect some level of systematic
791: uncertainty in addition to the more easily quantified random
792: uncertainty. The level of consistency between the results from
793: fluctuation analyses and direct source counting give us a crude
794: measure of the level of these systematic uncertainties.
795:
796: Figure \ref{fig:1dLikelihoods} shows the 1D marginalised likelihoods
797: for the fitted parameters. Each of these histograms is formed from at
798: least 40,000 MCMC samples. This number is a little low for MCMC
799: sampling analyses and this is reflected in some of the plots, where a
800: degree of multiple peak structure can be seen. These features are more
801: likely to represent imperfect convergence of the MCMC chains than any
802: real feature, the result of the computational constraints on these
803: analyses. Despite this, the broad results such as best-fit and
804: confidence regions are still valid.
805:
806: Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFits} shows our results in comparison to
807: the galaxy number count models of \citet[][]{Pearson-05} and
808: \citet[][]{Franceschini-05}. Of particular note is the large excess of faint number
809: counts in our results over those predicted the models. This result
810: remains if the inconsistency between our results and the Fazio number
811: counts is explained by a difference in flux calibration. If this is
812: the case, this result indicates the presence of a significant amount
813: of faint fluctuations in the IR background.
814:
815: Constraint of the faint number counts allows us to estimate the
816: contribution of faint galaxies to the integrated background
817: light. One of the great advantages of MCMC analysis is that we can do
818: this for each MCMC sample, thus correctly propagating the statistical
819: uncertainty of our analyses to new quantities such as this. The plots
820: in Figure \ref{fig:backgroundFraction} show that the Fazio counts
821: reach a depth sufficient to resolve of order half of more of the
822: integrated background light. The fluctuation analysis presented in
823: this paper extends to fluxes over a factor of 100 fainter than this,
824: therefore covering virtually all of the integrated background light in
825: the four IRAC bands.
826:
827: We have estimated the total integrated background light in each of the
828: four IRAC bands (see Figure \ref{fig:1dLikelihoods} and Table
829: \ref{table:integratedBackground}). The IRAC 3.6 micron band is comparable
830: to the near-IR L-band (2.9 to 3.5 microns), for which there are
831: several existing estimates of the integrated background light due to
832: galaxies. In comparison to our 3.6 micron result of
833: $10.6^{+0.63}_{-1.95} \times 10^{-9} w m^{-2} sr^{-1}$,
834: \citet[][]{DwekArendt-98} obtain
835: $9.9 \pm 2.9 \times 10^{-9} w m^{-2} sr^{-1}$,
836: \citet[][]{Gorjian-00} obtain
837: $11.0 \pm 3.3 \times 10^{-9} w m^{-2} sr^{-1}$,
838: and \citet[][]{WrightReese-00} find
839: $12.4 \pm 3.2 \times 10^{-9} w m^{-2} sr^{-1}$.
840: We therefore conclude that our 3.6 micron results are consistent with
841: all three of these L-band results. We also note that our errors are
842: substantially smaller than for these measurements.
843:
844: Also of interest are the results of \citet[]{Matsumoto-05}, who
845: measure the near-IR integrated background light using the Infra-Red
846: Telescope in Space (IRTS). Their data extend from 1 to 4 microns. A
847: representative measurement they obtain of the integrated background is
848: (3.68 microns)
849: $13.1 \pm 3.7 \times 10^{-9} w m^{-2} sr^{-1}$. On the basis of our
850: 3.6 micron results, we therefore suggest that the longer wavelength
851: results from \citet[]{Matsumoto-05} can be explained by the emission
852: of faint, point-like objects, as seen in the Spitzer GOODS data. We
853: note that this is consistent with the interpretations
854: \citet[]{Matsumoto-05} have made using additional information from
855: power spectra and colour information.
856:
857: We also note the recent results of \citet[][]{Kashlinsky-05}, who detect an
858: excess in the IRAC-band infra-red background, which they attribute to
859: population III stars. While our analysis does not provide information
860: to specifically comment on this interpretation, it is instructive to
861: compare our findings. \citet[][]{Kashlinsky-05} detect an excess in the
862: infra-red background after subtracting a contribution from faint
863: galaxies which they determine by extrapolating the
864: \citet[][]{Fazio-04} number counts using a fitted power law number
865: count model. Our results likewise find a substantial excess over the
866: extrapolated Fazio number counts. Furthermore, our results show a
867: large excess over the faint number count model predictions shown in
868: Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFits}. Even if this were in part due to
869: calibration uncertainty, the differing power law slopes between our
870: results and the models mean that some excess will remain (see, for
871: example, Figure \ref{fig:numberCountFluxScaled}).
872:
873: The analyses in this paper are subject to a number of caveats (which
874: we have discussed above). We reach a number of conclusions (see below); these
875: are all subject to the assumptions we have made in this analysis. Model-wise, We
876: have assumed Gaussian instrumental noise (of known variance), a power
877: law number count model over the range of interest, and that the
878: sources are Poisson-distributed and point-like. Data-wise, we use
879: the best available flux calibration and point spread function. We
880: also assume that flat-fielding artifacts do not significantly bias
881: our results. In conclusion, in this paper we present the following results.
882:
883: \begin{enumerate}
884: \item{\tt Constraints on near-IR galaxy number counts.}
885: We use the Spitzer GOODS survey (HDF-N, data release one) to place
886: constraints on the faint number counts in the four near-IR
887: Spitzer IRAC wavebands. As the contribution due to stars at these
888: fluxes is predicted to be small, these number counts approximate to
889: galaxy number counts. We generate meaningful constraints on these
890: number counts down to $10^{-8}Jy$, over two orders of magnitude
891: fainter in flux than the deepest currently published number counts.
892: \item{\tt A discrepancy between our results and those of
893: \citet[][]{Fazio-04}.}
894: Our results systematically overestimate the differential number
895: counts with respect to the Fazio counts. We discuss a number of
896: possible causes of this.
897: \item{\tt Determination of the background light due to unresolved
898: point sources in each of the four IRAC bands.}
899: We estimate the proportion of background light dues to faint
900: galaxies that is resolved, as a function of flux. We concur with
901: the broad estimates of \citet[][]{Fazio-04} that over half the
902: background light is resolved by Spitzer into individual galaxies.
903: We demonstrate that almost the entirety of the remaining integrated
904: light is probed by our fluctuation analysis.
905: We also estimate the contribution of faint galaxies to the integrated
906: background light. By adding this to the estimate for bright sources
907: given by \citet[][]{Fazio-04}, we obtain estimates of the total
908: integrated background light. Our 3.6 micron result is found to be
909: consistent with the L-band results of \citet[][]{DwekArendt-98},
910: \citet[][]{Gorjian-00} and \citet[][]{WrightReese-00}. This result
911: is also consistent with the results from \citet[]{Matsumoto-05} at
912: the corresponding wavelength. We note that our analyses do not
913: impact on the substantial excess detected by \citet[]{Matsumoto-05}
914: at shorter wavelengths.
915: \item{\tt Consistency with the recent detection of excess infra-red
916: background reported by \citet[][]{Kashlinsky-05}.}
917: Although our analyses do not provide information of the
918: interpretation of the \citet[][]{Kashlinsky-05} result, we do detect a
919: clear excess over the \citet[][]{Fazio-04} number counts; the
920: \citet[][]{Kashlinsky-05} is also based on the existence of such an excess.
921: \end{enumerate}
922:
923: Fluctuation analyses are an invaluable way of probing galaxy
924: number count distributions well below the confusion limit of any given
925: instrument. Photometric surveys are now producing data sets where the
926: statistical errors on such analyses are sub-dominant to the systematic
927: uncertainties on such measurements. To improve the knowledge we can
928: extract from fluctuation analyses, we must therefore pay particular
929: attention to both understanding and accounting for the systematic
930: influences on our data.
931:
932:
933: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
934: \section*{Acknowledgments}
935: Richard Savage thanks the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research
936: Council (PPARC) for support under grant PPA/G/S/2002/00481.
937:
938: Seb Oliver thanks the Leverhulme Trust for support in the form of a
939: Leverhulme research fellowship.
940:
941: We thank Chris Pearson, Alberto Franceschini and Giulia Rodighiero for
942: their kind provision of the number count models shown in Figure
943: \ref{fig:numberCountFits}.
944:
945: This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer
946: Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
947: California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA.
948:
949: We particularly acknowledge the IRAC instrument and the Spitzer GOODS
950: legacy survey.
951:
952:
953:
954:
955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
956: \label{lastpage}
957: \bibliography{../bibtex_files/pd_analysis_refs,../bibtex_files/inference_refs,../bibtex_files/Spitzer_refs,../bibtex_files/IR_refs,../bibtex_files/ASTRO-F_refs,../bibtex_files/CIRB_refs}
958: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
959: \bsp
960: \end{document}
961: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
963: