Paper detail

Performance analysis of the Least-Squares estimator in Astrometry

We characterize the performance of the widely-used least-squares estimator in astrometry in terms of a comparison with the Cramer-Rao lower variance bound. In this inference context the performance of the least-squares estimator does not offer a closed-form expression, but a new result is presented (Theorem 1) where both the bias and the mean-square-error of the least-squares estimator are bounded and approximated analytically, in the latter case in terms of a nominal value and an interval around it. From the predicted nominal value we analyze how efficient is the least-squares estimator in comparison with the minimum variance Cramer-Rao bound. Based on our results, we show that, for the high signal-to-noise ratio regime, the performance of the least-squares estimator is significantly poorer than the Cramer-Rao bound, and we characterize this gap analytically. On the positive side, we show that for the challenging low signal-to-noise regime (attributed to either a weak astronomical signal or a noise-dominated condition) the least-squares estimator is near optimal, as its performance asymptotically approaches the Cramer-Rao bound. However, we also demonstrate that, in general, there is no unbiased estimator for the astrometric position that can precisely reach the Cramer-Rao bound. We validate our theoretical analysis through simulated digital-detector observations under typical observing conditions. We show that the nominal value for the mean-square-error of the least-squares estimator (obtained from our theorem) can be used as a benchmark indicator of the expected statistical performance of the least-squares method under a wide range of conditions. Our results are valid for an idealized linear (one-dimensional) array detector where intra-pixel response changes are neglected, and where flat-fielding is achieved with very high accuracy.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.