Galaxy depth and completeness using Mangle Mask » History » Version 22

Diego Capozzi, 11/27/2013 08:14 AM

1 1 Diego Capozzi
h1. Galaxy depth and completeness using Mangle Mask
2 1 Diego Capozzi
3 2 Diego Capozzi
Here I (Diego) describe the results of a study aiming at identifying homogeneous depth regions using the information contained in the Mangle mask, using SVA1 data. These regions will be constructed in the molygon space, so they won't necessarily be constituted by contiguous molygons.  In addition, relations between depths estimates measured with various types of magnitude (the one used for constructing the Mangle mask is a 2"-aperture magnitude, MAG_APER4) is explored so to be useful for data selection purposes, which can be different according to the science carried out. A first attempt to study these issues in detail has been carried out and described here: [[Some tests on depth with Mangle Mask]]. Here I implement the old tests with the selection cuts that have been discussed during the SVA1 telecons and in particular among Eli, Nacho and myself. These cuts also include the latest star/galaxy separation criteria described here: [[A Modest Proposal for Preliminary Star/Galaxy Separation]].
4 1 Diego Capozzi
5 2 Diego Capozzi
Galaxy completeness cannot be studied at the moment, but I use the surface brightness information to identify what could possibly be the magnitude at which the survey is complete. However, without having a deeper reference for a standard 10=tilings field, at which completeness level this magnitude value corresponds to cannot be inferred.
6 1 Diego Capozzi
7 1 Diego Capozzi
8 2 Diego Capozzi
I point out that the study described below is carried out only on the following fields: SPT (E & W); El Gordo; RXJ2248. As of today, there is no SVA1 data-based Mangle Mask for tew Bullet Cluster field. SN fields (as of now, a mangle mask is available only for SN_S) have been excluded on purpose, as my aim is to characterise a region with homogeneous depth for the standard 10-tilings Survey (from now on referred to as Wide Survey). In addition, I only considered tiles where the zero-point offsets are minimised according to Huan Lin's "galaxy-locus criteria":.
9 1 Diego Capozzi
10 2 Diego Capozzi
Finally, molygons with area>3 str and with i-band 2"-aperture mag=0 (the latter corresponding to regions that are masked by bright stars) have been excluded (see [[Some tests on depth with Mangle Mask]] for more details).
11 1 Diego Capozzi
12 1 Diego Capozzi
h2. 1. Studying galaxy depth via galaxy counts, using Mangle mask: comparing MAG_AUTO, MAG_DETMODEL & MAG_APER4 depths against molygon ones. 
13 9 Diego Capozzi
14 1 Diego Capozzi
15 1 Diego Capozzi
* Data Selection
16 1 Diego Capozzi
** Galaxy selection step 1 (from SVA1_COADD_GRIZY table):  
17 1 Diego Capozzi
### Contained in SPT (E & W), El Gordo & RXJ2248 fields
18 1 Diego Capozzi
### Contained in good tiles according to Huan Lin's "galaxy locus" zeropoint offsets criteria 
19 2 Diego Capozzi
### MAGERR_APER4_I<0.11
20 2 Diego Capozzi
21 2 Diego Capozzi
22 2 Diego Capozzi
23 2 Diego Capozzi
### DEC>-61 (avoid LMC)
24 2 Diego Capozzi
### FLAGS_I<4
25 2 Diego Capozzi
### (((SPREAD_MODEL_I+(3*SPREADERR_MODEL_I))>0.003) and ((MAG_AUTO_I>12 and MAG_AUTO_I<18 and CLASS_STAR_I<0.3) or (MAG_AUTO_I>18 and MAG_AUTO_I<25))) and MAG_PSF<30
26 1 Diego Capozzi
** Molygon selection step 1 (from MOLYGON table):
27 1 Diego Capozzi
### I-band molygons contained in SPT (E & W), El Gordo & RXJ2248 fields
28 1 Diego Capozzi
### I-band molygons in tiles according to Huan Lin's "galaxy locus" zeropoint offsets criteria 
29 1 Diego Capozzi
### MAG_LIMIT (i-band)>0 (Avoiding regions masked by bright stars)
30 1 Diego Capozzi
### AREA_STR<3 [Avoiding molygons with strangely large area (these are few outliers and reducing the cut to 1 or less won't change the extracted molygons)]
31 1 Diego Capozzi
** Galaxy selection step 2 (from COADD_OBJECTS_MOLYGON table): 
32 1 Diego Capozzi
### Contained in molygons selected in previous point (step necessary to extract information linking galaxies to the molygons they belong to)
33 1 Diego Capozzi
** Galaxy selection step 3:
34 1 Diego Capozzi
### Selecting properties from SVA1_COADD_GRIZY of galaxies identified in step 1 which are contained in the identified molygons using the information obtained in "Galaxy selection step 2"
35 1 Diego Capozzi
** Molygon selection step 2:
36 2 Diego Capozzi
### Checking the actual molygons used to identify the unique molygons ID values associated with the galaxy sample identified in "Galaxy selection step 3"   
37 1 Diego Capozzi
38 2 Diego Capozzi
* For the identified galaxy sample, values of magnitude (APER_MAG4 excluded, for which corrections are not available) and surface brightness have been corrected for zeropoint offset according to Huan Lin's tables.
39 1 Diego Capozzi
40 1 Diego Capozzi
41 3 Diego Capozzi
* The importance of what surface brightness measurement is used.
42 3 Diego Capozzi
In the previous study, the surface brightness measure that was used was model surface brightness [either effective (MU_EFF_MODEL) or that at the brightness peak (MU_MAX_MODEL)]. This measurement was always found to show a gausian-like distribution rather than the common steeply increasing distribution with a sharp drop at the faint end. This was proven to be independent on the depth inhomogeneity over the sky (see GEWG report on SVA1 for details). For this study I used MU_MAX, which is a model-independent measure of surface brightness. In the plot in Figure 1 below, I compare the distributions of MU_EFF_MODEL (whose shape is equivalent to the one of MU_MAX_MODEL) and MU_MAX for the galaxy catalogue identified above. One can see the great difference between the two distributions, and that the MU_MAX distribution is definitely closer to the expected distribution, despite its drop still lacking the expected sharpness. 
43 3 Diego Capozzi
44 3 Diego Capozzi
45 1 Diego Capozzi
46 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 1*
47 3 Diego Capozzi
48 3 Diego Capozzi
49 3 Diego Capozzi
50 5 Diego Capozzi
This comparison indicates that there is something going on with model-based measures of surface brightness. I point out that DC6 data did not show such a gaussian-like shape of model-dependent surface brightness measures, as shown in Figure 2 below. 
51 1 Diego Capozzi
52 1 Diego Capozzi
53 4 Diego Capozzi
54 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure2:* Distribution of model-dependent surface brightness measure. See black full line.
55 2 Diego Capozzi
56 1 Diego Capozzi
* I-band depth comparison. What has been done:
57 1 Diego Capozzi
** Binning molygons in mag_limit (2-arcsec aperture-magnitude depth associated with molygons as output of the Mangle masking process) bins of 0.2 mag. 
58 2 Diego Capozzi
** In each bin, distributions of MAG_APER4, MU_MAX, MAG_AUTO and MAG_DETMODEL are analysed. Bin size used for all these distributions: 0.05 mag
59 1 Diego Capozzi
** For each distribution the depth is found as the peak in the number counts [if the peak is not unique, but more than 1 with the same value are seen, then the first peak (corresponding to the brightest magnituded) is taken]. The presence of more peaks should only happen with smaller galaxy samples, i.e. for the brighter molygon-depth bins. In general, the peak should be one and at magnitude fainter than this peak, galaxy number counts should decrease.
60 1 Diego Capozzi
** Galaxy depth is measured. In general, the process for defining galaxy depth for galaxies in molygons within a given mag_limit bin, works as follows:
61 2 Diego Capozzi
### Find peak in the magnitude distribution. This peak is defined as the galaxy magnitude depth. 
62 2 Diego Capozzi
63 2 Diego Capozzi
** Approximate value for galaxy magnitude limit at which the sample is complete at an unknown completeness level is measured. In general, the process for defining this value for galaxies in molygons within a given mag_limit bin, works as follows:
64 2 Diego Capozzi
### Find peak in the surface brigthness (in this case MU_MAX) distribution. NOTE: the shape of this distribution does not show the typical sharp drop after the peak. The situation is definitely better than when using MU_MAX_MODEL (see below for more details).
65 1 Diego Capozzi
### Select galaxies with: reasonable lower limit<surface brightness values<surface brightness peak. In this study,  reasonable lower limit=16.
66 2 Diego Capozzi
67 2 Diego Capozzi
68 7 Diego Capozzi
Note that, as expected, the surface brightness strongly influences the galaxy completeness limit.
69 2 Diego Capozzi
70 8 Diego Capozzi
The following plots show the results obtained for molygons with 22.6<MAG_LIMIT<24.2.
71 2 Diego Capozzi
72 1 Diego Capozzi
73 8 Diego Capozzi
74 8 Diego Capozzi
upper left panel: 2-arcsec aperture-magnitude distribution for the identified galaxy sample within the selected molygons
75 8 Diego Capozzi
upper centre panel: MU_MAX distributions for the identified galaxies in: a) all the molygons selected in the "Data Selection" section; b) molygons in the the MAG_LIMIT bin analysed
76 8 Diego Capozzi
upper right panel: MAG_AUTO distributions for the identified galaxies in the molygons contained in the analysed MAG_LIMIT bin: with and without MU_MAX selection
77 8 Diego Capozzi
lower left panel: MAG_DETMODEL distributions for the identified galaxies in the molygons contained in the analysed MAG_LIMIT bin: with and without MU_MAX selection
78 8 Diego Capozzi
lower centre panel: MAG_APER4 distributions for the identified galaxies in the molygons contained in the analysed MAG_LIMIT bin: with and without MU_MAX selection
79 1 Diego Capozzi
lower right panel: comparison between MAG_AUTO, MAG_DETMODEL & MAG_APER4 distribution for galaxies selected also in MU_MAX
80 9 Diego Capozzi
81 9 Diego Capozzi
82 9 Diego Capozzi
83 11 Diego Capozzi
84 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 3*
85 9 Diego Capozzi
86 1 Diego Capozzi
87 1 Diego Capozzi
88 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 4*
89 1 Diego Capozzi
90 1 Diego Capozzi
91 11 Diego Capozzi
92 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 5*
93 1 Diego Capozzi
94 9 Diego Capozzi
95 11 Diego Capozzi
96 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 6*
97 9 Diego Capozzi
98 9 Diego Capozzi
99 11 Diego Capozzi
100 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 7*
101 1 Diego Capozzi
102 1 Diego Capozzi
103 11 Diego Capozzi
104 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 8* 
105 1 Diego Capozzi
106 9 Diego Capozzi
107 1 Diego Capozzi
108 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 9*
109 1 Diego Capozzi
110 9 Diego Capozzi
111 1 Diego Capozzi
112 1 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 10*
113 15 Diego Capozzi
114 1 Diego Capozzi
*Galaxy depth comparison:*
115 22 Diego Capozzi
116 15 Diego Capozzi
The galaxy depths measured via number counts in each MAG_LIMIT bin are compared with those given as the output of the mangle masking process in Figure 11 (left panel). The same is done for galaxy completeness limits (i.e., magnitude values at which the sample is complete at an unknown completeness level, calculated using also surface brightness cuts) in the right panel of Figure 11. I point out that the "Reliable" region inFigure 11 plots represents MAG_LIMIT bins where the galaxy sample is large enough not to show multiple peaks in the magnitude distributions.
117 1 Diego Capozzi
118 1 Diego Capozzi
Note that, as expected, the galaxy completeness values are brighter (~0.5 mag brighter) than depth ones, a results that also shows how surface brightness cuts influences the completeness of a catalogue. Another result to note is that, differently form the results of the previous study, the number-counts derived depth follows very closely the one given by the Mangle mask (based on finding the 10-sigma cut a  magnitude vs magnitude error plot). The main reason for this agreement (which should be anyway expected and is actually reassuring, given that two different methods for estimating depth are consistent with each other, as they should) is the use of magerr_aper4<0.11 in the catalogue selection. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the way the Mangle mask depth is calculated makes use of these mag_aper4 errors. 
119 1 Diego Capozzi
120 1 Diego Capozzi
!{width:400px}Depths_magerr_aper4_selection.jpg! !{width:400px}Completeness_magerr_aper4_selection.jpg!
121 1 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 11:* Case of MAGERR_APER4<0.11 used in sample selection. _Left panel_: Mangle Mask depth vs. number-counts depth; _right panel_: Mangle Mask depth vs. number-count vs. number-counts completeness
122 1 Diego Capozzi
123 1 Diego Capozzi
124 15 Diego Capozzi
The improved star/galaxy separation does not make a significant difference. In fact, when repeating the analysis using a catalogue selected as described in the _Data Selection_ Section but using magerr_auto<0.11 instead of magerr_aper4<0.11, one gets the same results as in the old analysis, i.e. number-counts depth values for APER_MAG4 are significantly different than those given by the Mangle mask, as shown in the left panel of Figure 12 (the distribution plots for the magerr_auto<0.11 are shown in the _Additional Plots_ Section). The improved star/galaxy separation has probably more effect for lower detection level (higher magnitude errors). [Eli, did you cut your sample to a 10-sigma level when doing your latest tests on star/galaxy separation?] 
125 1 Diego Capozzi
126 1 Diego Capozzi
!{width:400px}Depths_magerr_auto_selection.jpg! !{width:400px}Completeness_magerr_auto_selection.jpg!
127 1 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 12:* Case of MAGERR_AUTO<0.11 used in sample selection. _Left panel_: Mangle Mask depth vs. number-counts depth; _right panel_: Mangle Mask depth vs. number-count vs. number-counts completeness
128 15 Diego Capozzi
129 15 Diego Capozzi
130 15 Diego Capozzi
As expected, in all cases, the integrated-magnitude depth and completeness, as measured via MAG_DETMODEL or MAG_AUTO, are always ~0.5 mag shallower than the aperture-magnitude ones. It is also good news that MAG_DETMODEL and MAG_AUTO depths are always close to each other. 
131 15 Diego Capozzi
132 15 Diego Capozzi
It is important to notice that one can use the Mangle mask depth only when selecting a galaxy sample similarly to what done for the Mangle mask process (e.g., using MAGERR_APER4). If for any scientific purposes the galaxy sample selection is carried out differently, the Mangle mask cannot be used or can only be used by applying corrections (e.g., magnitude scaling corrections), even when using the same magnitudes (e.g., MAG_APER4), as Figure 12 demonstrates. For instance, if for studying the galaxy luminosity function one wants to select a galaxy catalogue out to the 10-sigma level depth for MAG_AUTO (or MAG_DETMODEL), one cannot use mangle mask depth values only corrected for flux differences between aperture and integrated magnitude, to trace the 10-sigma level depth for MAG_AUTO (or MAG_DETMODEL). A correction taking also into account that the 10-sigma level for the integrated magnitude is different from the one corresponding to the aperture magnitude. This fact is clear if one compares left panels of Figures 11 and 12. For instance, the sample selected as described in the _Data Selection_ Section (so using MAGERR_APER4<0.11), contains about 2 millions galaxies more than the one selected in the same way but using the MAGERR_AUTO<0.11 criterion. This difference in galaxy selection causes the difference in depth and completeness values (see Figures 11 and 12). 
133 15 Diego Capozzi
134 15 Diego Capozzi
We can probably model these magnitude differences so to calibrate them in the "Reliable" region identified in the plots in Figures 11 and 12.
135 15 Diego Capozzi
136 15 Diego Capozzi
h3. Additional plots (the MAGERR_AUTO<0.11 case)
137 15 Diego Capozzi
138 15 Diego Capozzi
139 15 Diego Capozzi
140 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 13*
141 15 Diego Capozzi
142 15 Diego Capozzi
143 19 Diego Capozzi
144 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 14*
145 15 Diego Capozzi
146 15 Diego Capozzi
147 15 Diego Capozzi
148 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 15*
149 15 Diego Capozzi
150 15 Diego Capozzi
151 15 Diego Capozzi
152 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 16*
153 15 Diego Capozzi
154 15 Diego Capozzi
155 15 Diego Capozzi
156 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 17*
157 15 Diego Capozzi
158 15 Diego Capozzi
159 15 Diego Capozzi
160 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 18* 
161 15 Diego Capozzi
162 15 Diego Capozzi
163 15 Diego Capozzi
164 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 19*
165 15 Diego Capozzi
166 15 Diego Capozzi
167 15 Diego Capozzi
168 15 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 20*
169 15 Diego Capozzi
170 15 Diego Capozzi
h2. Final Remarks
171 15 Diego Capozzi
172 15 Diego Capozzi
On average, molygons correctly tell us how the aperture magnitude depth varies over the surveyed area. However there are still suspicious molygons with too low a total exposure time for the depth value they are associated with. Below I report the tables obtained in the old analysis reporting the expected stellar magnitude in the i-band at several S/N levels (what we want to consider though is S/N~10 level) for two values of total exposure time. These are calculated by using the DECam Exposure Time Calculator for stellar photometry available on the "CTIO DECam webpage": I have considered the case of best observing conditions, i.e. when the sky brightness is the lowest possible (so to speak, with new moon). This choice is to show that even in the best observing scenario, the depth reached in some molygons doesn't seem realisitic. One has to take into account that the Exposure Calculator is made for stellar photometry, so one should roughly subtract 0.5/1 mag from the stellar magnitude value it provides, to get a realistic value for galaxies.
173 15 Diego Capozzi
174 15 Diego Capozzi
h3. Case of Total exposure time fixed at 540 s (i.e. 6 x pointings/90 s exposures)
175 15 Diego Capozzi
176 15 Diego Capozzi
|_.Stellar i-band magnitude limit (mag)      |_.Galaxy  i-band magnitude limit (mag)                  |_.S/N|
177 15 Diego Capozzi
|26                                                            |~25/25.5                                                                |1.9|
178 15 Diego Capozzi
|25.5                                                         |~24.5/25                                                                |3.1|
179 15 Diego Capozzi
|25                                                            |~24/24.5                                                                |4.9|
180 15 Diego Capozzi
|24.5                                                         |~23.5/24                                                                |7.7| 
181 15 Diego Capozzi
|24                                                            |~23/23.5                                                                |12.1| 
182 1 Diego Capozzi
|23.5                                                         |~22.5/23                                                                |19.1|
183 15 Diego Capozzi
|23                                                            |~22/22.5                                                                |30.0|
184 17 Diego Capozzi
185 16 Diego Capozzi
*Table 1*
186 15 Diego Capozzi
187 15 Diego Capozzi
h3. Case of Total exposure time fixed at 450 s (i.e. 5 x pointings/90 s exposures)
188 15 Diego Capozzi
189 15 Diego Capozzi
|_.Stellar i-band magnitude limit (mag)      |_.Galaxy  i-band magnitude limit (mag)                  |_.S/N|
190 15 Diego Capozzi
|26                                                            |~25/25.5                                                                |1.8|
191 15 Diego Capozzi
|25.5                                                         |~24.5/25                                                                |2.8|
192 15 Diego Capozzi
|25                                                            |~24/24.5                                                                |4.4|
193 15 Diego Capozzi
|24.5                                                         |~23.5/24                                                                |7.0| 
194 15 Diego Capozzi
|24                                                            |~23/23.5                                                                |11.1| 
195 1 Diego Capozzi
|23.5                                                         |~22.5/23                                                                |17.4|
196 15 Diego Capozzi
|23                                                            |~22/22.5                                                                |27.4|
197 17 Diego Capozzi
198 16 Diego Capozzi
*Table 2*
199 15 Diego Capozzi
200 15 Diego Capozzi
I also report some plots (Figures 21, 22 and 23) summarising the properties of the molygons identified in the _Data Selection_ Section (MAGERR_APER4<0.11 case), which can be inspected having the results of Tables 1 and 2 in mind.
201 15 Diego Capozzi
202 20 Diego Capozzi
203 20 Diego Capozzi
204 20 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 21*
205 20 Diego Capozzi
206 20 Diego Capozzi
207 20 Diego Capozzi
208 20 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 22*
209 20 Diego Capozzi
210 20 Diego Capozzi
211 20 Diego Capozzi
212 20 Diego Capozzi
*Figure 23*
213 20 Diego Capozzi
214 20 Diego Capozzi
215 20 Diego Capozzi
216 15 Diego Capozzi
h2. Next steps (to do list)
217 15 Diego Capozzi
218 15 Diego Capozzi
* Identify 3-4 different regions in the used footprint constituted by molygons with depth deeper than a minimum depth value and totalling, for each region, a reasonable area (at least ~100 sq. deg)
219 15 Diego Capozzi
* For each region, select galaxies out to the identified minimum depth value, so to homogenise depth over the identified region
220 15 Diego Capozzi
* Study Luminosity and Stellar Mass Functions (LF & MF) for the samples identified in the 3-4 identified regions
221 15 Diego Capozzi
* Study completeness as soon as this becomes possible and implement this into the study of LF and MF
222 15 Diego Capozzi
* Rescale MAG_DETMODEL values to i-band MAG_AUTO
223 15 Diego Capozzi
* Repeat all the analysis (including depth determination)