2013
DOI: 10.1007/s12036-013-9183-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Photometric Error Calibration for the Differential Light Curves of Point-like Active Galactic Nuclei

Abstract: Abstract. It is important to quantify the underestimation of rms photometric errors returned by the commonly used APPHOT algorithm in the IRAF software, in the context of differential photometry of pointlike AGN, because of the crucial role it plays in evaluating their variability properties. Published values of the underestimation factor, η, using several different telescopes, lie in the range 1.3 -1.75. The present study aims to revisit this question by employing an exceptionally large data set of 262 differ… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As emphasized in several independent studies, the photometric errors returned by APPHOT are significantly underestimated (by factors of η = 1.3-1.7; Gopal- Garcia et al 1999;Stalin et al 2004;Bachev et al 2005;Zhang et al 2018). Goyal et al (2013a) obtained η =1.54±0.05, using 262 steady star-star DLCs and involving intra-night observations with three different telescopes located in India. Thus, η =1.54 has been used in the present analysis to scale up the photometric magnitude errors returned by IRAF.…”
Section: Determination Of Microvariability Parameters In the Dlcsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As emphasized in several independent studies, the photometric errors returned by APPHOT are significantly underestimated (by factors of η = 1.3-1.7; Gopal- Garcia et al 1999;Stalin et al 2004;Bachev et al 2005;Zhang et al 2018). Goyal et al (2013a) obtained η =1.54±0.05, using 262 steady star-star DLCs and involving intra-night observations with three different telescopes located in India. Thus, η =1.54 has been used in the present analysis to scale up the photometric magnitude errors returned by IRAF.…”
Section: Determination Of Microvariability Parameters In the Dlcsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different values were calculated by different authors e.g Before subsequent analysis, we should estimate the scale factor η for each telescope. The method of Goyal et al (2013) is adopted. First, for each light curve, we calculate the χ 2 value of differential magnitudes of the check star by using the equation as follow:…”
Section: Error Scalingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We trace the cause of the difference to the re-sampling process in SWarp of sub-pixel shifted images for stacking that decreases background noise of the stacked image (Bertin et al 2002). Note that a similar factor has been introduced in other AGN variability studies (e.g., Goyal et al 2013b). Thus, we used Equation (4) to model the true photometry error σ cal , as…”
Section: Variability Of Agnmentioning
confidence: 91%