TRANSLIENT: Detecting Transients Resulting from Point-source Motion or Astrometric Errors
Open accessAbstract
Detection of moving sources over a complicated background is important for several reasons. First is measuring the astrophysical motion of the source. Second is that such motion resulting from atmospheric scintillation, color refraction, or astrophysical reasons is a major source of false alarms for image-subtraction methods. We extend the Zackay, Ofek, and Gal-Yam image-subtraction formalism to deal with moving sources. The new method, named the translient (translational transient) detector, applies hypothesis testing between the hypothesis that the source is stationary and that the source is moving. It can be used to detect source motion or to distinguish between stellar variability and motion. For moving source detection, we show the superiority of translient over the proper image subtraction, using the improvement in the receiver-operating characteristic curve. We show that in the small translation limit, translient is an optimal detector of point-source motion in any direction. Furthermore, it is numerically stable, fast to calculate, and presented in a closed form. Efficient transient detection requires both the proper image-subtraction statistics and the translient statistics: When the translient statistic is higher, then the subtraction residual is likely due to motion. We test our algorithm both on simulated data and on real images obtained by the Large Array Survey Telescope. We demonstrate the ability of translient to distinguish between motion and variability, which has the potential to reduce the number of false alarms in transients detection. We provide the translient implementation in Python and MATLAB.
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 3
- Authors
- Springer, O., Ofek, E. O., Zackay, B., Konno, R., Sharon, A., Nir, G., Rubin, A., Haddad, A., Friedman, J., Schein-Lubomirsky, L., Aizenberg, I., Krassilchtchikov, A., & Gal-Yam, A.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- European Southern Observatory (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Ofek, Eran O.
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Astronomical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2024-05-23
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 281
- ISSN
- 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-3881
- OpenAlex
- W4398238072
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astronomical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Israel Science Foundation (2298/23)
- United States - Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund (2020740)
- 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
- transient detection, astrometric errors, image subtraction, hypothesis testing, stellar variability, false alarm reduction, atmospheric scintillation, receiver operating characteristic
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