Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Revisiting a flux recovery systematic error arising from common deconvolution methods used in aperture-synthesis imaging

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.00533 v2 pith:FE6I3PC3 submitted 2023-09-01 astro-ph.IM

classification astro-ph.IM
keywords effectoffsetsystematicalgorithmscausescentclean-styledeconvolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

The point-spread function (PSF) is a fundamental property of any astronomical instrument. In interferometers, differing array configurations combined with their $uv$ coverage, and various weighting schemes can produce an irregular but deterministic PSF. As a result, the PSF is often deconvolved using CLEAN-style algorithms to improve image fidelity. In this paper, we revisit a significant effect that causes the flux densities measured with any interferometer to be systematically offset from the true values. Using a suite of carefully controlled simulations, we show that the systematic offset originates from a mismatch in the units of the image produced by these CLEAN-style algorithms. We illustrate that this systematic error can be significant, ranging from a few to tens of per cent. Accounting for this effect is important for current and future interferometric arrays, such as MeerKAT, LOFAR and the SKA, whose core-dominated configuration naturally causes an irregular PSF. We show that this offset is independent of other systematics, and can worsen due to some factors such as the goodness of the fit to the PSF, the deconvolution depth, and the signal-to-noise of the source. Finally, we present several methods that can reduce this effect to just a few per cent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools