| NEWSLETTER #12 - March 5,
2002 |
Persistency Checking of Gaussians
Steve Fulton
|
|
Thus far, approximately 20 million distinct Gaussians have
passed data
integrity testing. For these signals we standardized the score such that there were on
average an equal number of Gaussians in each workunit group with scores greater than or
equal to 1.0. (See "An
Explanation of Score Correction" below for details.) This standardization left
1.25 million Gaussians of interest to be examined further. From these signals we then
determine which Gaussians have been detected in the same location of the sky on multiple
occasions. This process is called persistency
checking. For our first pass through the data, we performed an analysis with very
restrictive bounds on matches. Gaussians were considered matches if they conformed to the
following criteria:
The right ascension and declination restrictions approximate the beam size at Arecibo. Barycentric frequency is used to
correct for the Doppler effects caused by Earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun.
The barycentric frequency divergence across a beam at Arecibo is approximately 125Hz. The
final bounds on the time remove the possibility of detecting multiple images of the
Gaussian from a single observation.
1,397 multiplets (multiply-detected Gaussians) meet the above criteria. Future analyses
will identify the best candidates from this group.
| The SETI@home feed at Arecibo moves at
varying rates as the opposing feed tracks objects in the sky. At faster rates, the
SETI@home client obtains fewer points over a fixed angular separation. With fewer data
points false detections are more likely, and hence the client detects more Gaussians and
higher scoring Gaussians as the rate of telescopic movement increases. (See Figure 18,
where Gaussian score is on the x-axis and the width of the Gaussian (sigma) is on the
y-axis.) This slew-rate detection dependence creates problems when looking for persistent
signals. Persistency detection assumes that there is an equal chance of detecting a
Gaussian each time the telescope passes a given point in the sky; the analysis uses this
assumption to rank persistent multiplets and reject temporal rfi. To fix the problem, we
corrected the factors used to calculate score such that the number of signals in a
workunit group with significant scores is constant across slew rate. |

Figure 1 (click to enlarge) |

Figure 2 (click to enlarge) |
Statistically, the score of a Gaussian
is defined as the peak-power/chi-square. The chi-square is a measure of the Gaussian's fit
(i.e., how well the signal matches a classic Gaussian curve, with a lower score
representing a better fit). Since both the peak-power and chi-square terms reported back
by the client were dependent on the telescope slew rate, a simple correction function was
needed for each of the terms. The resulting "flattened" peak power and
chi-square were used to define the new (corrected) score (Figure 2). The normalization
was set so that on average each workunit group would have 4 Gaussians with a score 1.0 or
greater. This score approximates a chi_square cutoff of 8.8 (uncorrected) at low slew
rates, which is the threshold used by the client. |
|
|