1913
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On a Formula for Correcting Statistics for the Effects of a known Probable Error of Observation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
371
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 479 publications
(379 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
371
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More sources are intrinsically faint than bright, and therefore, more of those faint sources scatter towards higher flux densities than bright sources scatter down towards lower flux densities. This Eddington boosting (first described by Eddington, 1913) assumes that fainter sources are more numerous than brighter sources. The second form of boosting comes from confusion noise, as discussed in § 3.1, which is caused by sources below the detection threshold contributing flux to sources above the detection threshold.…”
Section: Estimating Deboosted Flux Densitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More sources are intrinsically faint than bright, and therefore, more of those faint sources scatter towards higher flux densities than bright sources scatter down towards lower flux densities. This Eddington boosting (first described by Eddington, 1913) assumes that fainter sources are more numerous than brighter sources. The second form of boosting comes from confusion noise, as discussed in § 3.1, which is caused by sources below the detection threshold contributing flux to sources above the detection threshold.…”
Section: Estimating Deboosted Flux Densitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both Duncan et al (2014) and Grazian et al (2015) utilize data collected from the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep ExtragaLactic Survey (CANDELS; Grogin et al 2011;Koekemoer et al 2011) GOODS South field with stellar masses directly obtained from SED fitting of combined optical and near-infrared space-based observations, and include the effects of both nebular line and continuum emission. In addition, Grazian et al (2015) include a detailed treatment of the effects of Eddington bias (Eddington 1913) on the normalization and slope of their derived mass functions. Whilst Song et al (2016) also utilize CANDELS infrared data, they instead carry out a hybrid SED stacking technique to derive a redshift dependent stellar mass-UV luminosity relation which is then combined with measured UV luminosity functions to estimate the galaxy stellar mass function.…”
Section: Model Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also correct  for Eddington (1913) bias, which can boost the [O III]λ4363 line flux for galaxies near the adopted S/ N = 3 limit. Since there is a direct relation between  and T e , this bias can result in higher T e .…”
Section: T E and Metallicity Determinationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For this reason, we determine upper limit  values by adopting [O III]λ4363 fluxes that correspond to S/ N = 2.5 for those with /  < 2 S N 3, 1.5 for /  < 1 S N 2, and 1.0 for / < S N 1. For the [O III]λ4363 non-detected sample, we do not apply the Eddington (1913) bias correction because the lack of a detection suggests that the bias is weak. The derived upper limits on T e span 0.8×10 4 -3×10 4 K, and are provided in Table 14.…”
Section: T E and Metallicity Determinationsmentioning
confidence: 99%