PROPER IMAGE SUBTRACTION—OPTIMAL TRANSIENT DETECTION, PHOTOMETRY, AND HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Open accessAbstract
Transient detection and flux measurement via image subtraction stand at the base of time domain astronomy. Due to the varying seeing conditions, the image subtraction process is non-trivial, and existing solutions suffer from a variety of problems. Starting from basic statistical principles, we develop the optimal statistic for transient detection, flux measurement, and any image-difference hypothesis testing. We derive a closed-form statistic that: (1) is mathematically proven to be the optimal transient detection statistic in the limit of background-dominated noise, (2) is numerically stable, (3) for accurately registered, adequately sampled images, does not leave subtraction or deconvolution artifacts, (4) allows automatic transient detection to the theoretical sensitivity limit by providing credible detection significance, (5) has uncorrelated white noise, (6) is a sufficient statistic for any further statistical test on the difference image, and, in particular, allows us to distinguish particle hits and other image artifacts from real transients, (7) is symmetric to the exchange of the new and reference images, (8) is at least an order of magnitude faster to compute than some popular methods, and (9) is straightforward to implement. Furthermore, we present extensions of this method that make it resilient to registration errors, color-refraction errors, and any noise source that can be modeled. In addition, we show that the optimal way to prepare a reference image is the proper image coaddition presented in Zackay & Ofek. We demonstrate this method on simulated data and real observations from the PTF data release 2. We provide an implementation of this algorithm in MATLAB and Python.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Palomar Transient Factory: System Overview, Performance, and First Results
Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., Ofek, E. O., Quimby, R. M., Nugent, P. E., Surace, J., Grillmair, C. C., Bloom, J. S., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. (2009) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1086/648598 · Cited by 1,141 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Tests on real images We tested the new method on imaging data available from the Palomar Transient Factory (PTF17; Law et al. 2009; Rau et al. 2009) data release 2.”
MethodSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope as a Near-Earth Object discovery machine
Jones, R. L., Slater, C. T., Moeyens, J., Allen, L., Axelrod, T., Cook, K., Ivezić, Ž., Jurić, M., Myers, J., & Petry, C. E. (2018) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.033 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Processing Images from the Zwicky Transient Facility
IPAC, C., Laher, R., Masci, F., IPAC, C., Groom, S., IPAC, C., Rusholme, B., IPAC, C., Shupe, D., IPAC, C., et al. (2018) · Robotic Telescopes, Student Research and Education Proceedings, Vol 1, No 1 · doi:10.32374/rtsre.2017.031 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zackay, B., Ofek, E. O., & Gal-Yam, A.
- Affiliations
- Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2016-10-04
- Volume
- 830
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2236726293
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 7.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Israel Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Astronomical Observations and Instrumentation
- Keywords
- image subtraction, transient detection, flux measurement, hypothesis testing, image registration errors, time-domain astronomy, detection significance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review