Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T19:38:35.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Cosmic Ray Rejection Algorithms on Single-Shot Exposures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Catherine L. Farage  and
Kevin A. Pimbblet
Catherine L. Farage
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia
Kevin A. Pimbblet*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia
*
BCorresponding author. Email: pimbblet@physics.uq.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To maximise data output from single-shot astronomical images, the rejection of cosmic rays is important. We present the results of a benchmark trial comparing various cosmic ray rejection algorithms. The procedures assess relative performances and characteristics of the processes in cosmic ray detection, rates of false detections of true objects, and the quality of image cleaning and reconstruction. The cosmic ray rejection algorithms developed by Rhoads (2000, PASP, 112, 703), van Dokkum (2001, PASP, 113, 1420), Pych (2004, PASP, 116, 148), and the IRAF task XZAP by Dickinson are tested using both simulated and real data. It is found that detection efficiency is independent of the density of cosmic rays in an image, being more strongly affected by the density of real objects in the field. As expected, spurious detections and alterations to real data in the cleaning process are also significantly increased by high object densities. We find the Rhoads' linear filtering method to produce the best performance in the detection of cosmic ray events; however, the popular van Dokkum algorithm exhibits the highest overall performance in terms of detection and cleaning.

Keywords

techniques: image processingcosmic rays
Type
Research Article
Information
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , Volume 22 , Issue 3: Featuring Gravity Workshop 2004 , 2005 , pp. 249 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Australia 2005

References

Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393 Google Scholar
Freudling, W. 1995, PASP, 107, 85 Google Scholar
Fruchter, A., & Hook, R. N. 1997, SPIE, 3164, 120 Google Scholar
Murtagh, F. D. 1992, ASPC, 25, 265 Google Scholar
Offenberg, J. D., Sengupta, R., Fixsen, D. J., Stockman, P., Nieto-Santisteban, M., Stallcup, S., Hanisch, R., & Mather, J. C. 1999, ASPC, 172, 141 Google Scholar
Pimbblet, K. A., & Bulmer, M. 2005, PASA, 22, 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimbblet, K. A., & Drinkwater, M. J. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pych, W. 2004, PASP, 116, 148 Google Scholar
Rhoads, J. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzberg, S., Chandar, R., Ford, H., Murthy, S. K., & White, R. 1995, PASP, 107, 279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. A., & Horne, K. 1992, ASPC, 25, 311 Google Scholar
van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420 Google Scholar
Windhorst, R. A., Franklin, B. E., & Neuschaefer, L. W. 1994, PASP, 106, 798 Google Scholar
Zhang, C. Y. 1995, ASPC, 77, 514 Google Scholar