Paper detail

The Contribution of Faint Galaxy Wings to Source-subtracted Near-infrared Background Fluctuations

The source-subtracted, 1.1 and 1.6 μm NICMOS images used in earlier analyses of the near-infrared Hubble Ultra Deep Field contained residual flux in extended wings of identified sources that contributed an unknown amount to fluctuation power. When compared to the original results, a reanalysis after subtracting this residual flux shows that mean-square and rms fluctuations decrease a maximum of 52 and 31 per cent at 1.6 μm and 50 and 30 per cent at 1.1 μm. However, total mean-square fluctuations above 0.5 arcsec only decrease 6.5 and 1.4 per cent at 1.6 and 1.1 μm, respectively. These changes would not affect any published conclusions based on the prior analyses. These results exclude previous suggestions that extended wings of detected galaxies may be a major contributor to the source-subtracted near-infrared background and confirm that most fluctuation power in these images must be explained by other means.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 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.