The quality of the images was validated according to the procedure described by Adams et al. 2022. The direction-dependent calibration allowed us to achieve a significant improvement of the quality of the individual images compared to the automatic pipeline without DD-calibration. This is illustrated in the Figure below.

Figure 2. Data quality DI and DD images 1:

The fraction of compound-beam images that pass the quality validation increased from 40 % using the default pipeline to 98 % with the new pipeline.

The completeness and reliability of the corresponding catalogs are estimated as described by Kutkin et al. (2022, 2023). 

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. Alexander Kutkin

    The images were validated according to the procedure described by Adams et al. 2022.

    The direction-dependent calibration allowed us to achieve a significant improvement of the quality of the individual images compared to the automatic pipeline without DD-calibration.

    This is illustrated in the Figure below.

    This is quantified by the fraction of compound-beam images that pass the Apertif quality validation, which increased from 40 % using the default pipeline to 98 % with the new pipeline.

    The completeness and reliability of the catalog was estimated as described by Kutkin et al. (2022, 2023). The former was found to be 0.3 mJy while the false-detection number does not exceed 1.5%. 


  2. Raffaella Morganti

    Also here I would put a link to the DR1 documentation or Betsey's paper and the active link to Alexander's papers.