Issue 
A&A
Volume 510, February 2010



Article Number  A45  
Number of page(s)  19  
Section  Astronomical instrumentation  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/200912008  
Published online  05 February 2010 
Nonparametric deprojection of surface brightness profiles of galaxies in generalised geometries
D. Chakrabarty
School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Received 9 March 2009 / Accepted 12 November 2009
Abstract
Aims. We present a new Bayesian nonparametric deprojection
algorithm DOPING (Deprojection of Observed Photometry using an INverse
Gambit), that is designed to extract 3D luminosity density
distributions
from observed surface brightness maps I,
in generalised geometries, while taking into account changes in
intrinsic shape with radius, using a penalised likelihood approach and
an Markov Chain Monte Carlo optimiser.
Methods. We provide the most likely solution to the integral equation that represents deprojection of the measured I to .
In order to keep the solution modular, we choose to express
as a function of the lineofsight (LOS) coordinate z. We calculate the extent of the system along the zaxis,
for a given point on the image that lies within an identified isophotal
annulus. The extent along the LOS is binned and density is held a
constant over each such zbin. The code begins with a seed density and at the beginning of an iterative step, the trial
is updated. Comparison of the projection of the current choice of
and the observed I
defines the likelihood function (which is supplemented by Laplacian
regularisation), the maximal region of which is sought by the optimiser
(Metropolis Hastings).
Results. The algorithm is successfully tested on a set of test
galaxies, the morphology of which ranges from an elliptical galaxy with
varying eccentricity to an infinitesimally thin disk galaxy marked by
an abruptly varying eccentricity profile. Applications are made to
faint dwarf elliptical galaxy Ic 3019 and another dwarf elliptical
that is characterised by a central spheroidal nuclear component
superimposed upon a more extended flattened component. The result of
deprojection of the Xray image of cluster A1413  assumed triaxial 
the axial ratios and inclination of which are taken from the
literature, is also presented.
Key words: methods: statistical  galaxies: fundamental parameters
1 Introduction
An integral step in the construction of dynamical models of galaxies is the recovery of the intrinsic luminosity density from the surface brightness that is observed projected on the plane of the sky (Krajnovic et al. 2004; Magorrian et al. 1998; Kronawitter et al. 2000). Such deprojection is nontrivial and indeed offers no unique solutions except for very specific configurations of geometry and inclination. As demonstrated by Rybicki (1987), the deprojection is degenerate for axisymmetric systems viewed at inclination angles, i, other than edgeon (i=90). This is a consequence of the fact that the observed surface brightness cannot yield any information on a density term whose Fourier transform is nonzero only within a cone of half angle (the ``cone of ignorance''). Gerhard & Binney (1996) report a family of analytical konus densities. Kochanek & Rybicki (1996) found a family of konus densities that have arbitrary densities in the equatorial plane. van den Bosch (1997) finds that konus densities contribute at most a few percent of the total galactic mass to the centre of elliptical galaxies with nuclear cusps, implying that their dynamical influence is minimal. Magorrian (1999) suggests that nearly faceon disklike konus densities can be recognised via the unique signature they imprint on the lineofsight (LOS) velocity profiles.
These problems notwithstanding, a great deal of effort has been put into the development of methodologies aimed at deprojecting twodimensional photometric information. These include parametric formalisms designed by Palmer (1994), Bendinelli (1991) and Cappellari (2002), as well as nonparametric methods, such as the RichardsonLucy Inversion scheme (Lucy 1974; Richardson 1972) and a method by Romanowsky & Kochanek (1997) (hereafter, RK).
The parametric methods work by making series expansions of the density (or brightness) and fit the brightness (or density) to the coefficient of the expansions; convergence is defined at a preset accuracy level. In Bendinelli (1991), the density is derived via a Gaussian expansion of the surface brightness profile, an idea further developed by Cappellari (2002). In Palmer (1994), the density is expanded in terms of angular polynomials and the projections of these are then fit to the surface brightness. These methods suffer from the basic drawback that the answer depends on the choice of the basis functions. Thus, the solution is forced to conform to a subset of all possible solutions. Even more worrisome is the fact that the validity of the goodness of fit measures, or `` quantities'' that are employed in these schemes to identify acceptable fits, is questionable, particularly in the presence of inhomogeneous noise (Bissantz & Munk 2001). On the whole, the fitting of nonlinear functions, to what is usually noiseridden incomplete data, over large dynamical ranges, is worrisome.
Deprojection of surface brightness profiles has also been attempted with the Abel integral equation, under the assumption of sphericity or axisymmetry with an edgeon inclination (Gebhardt et al. 1996; Merritt & Tremblay 1993; Merritt et al. 1997).
An example of a nonparametric inversion scheme is the RichardsonLucy algorithm (Lucy 1974; Richardson 1972), which has been widely used in the stellar dynamical context. It is a simple deprojection scheme that works by iterating toward increasingly better approximations to the density that fits the data. However, absolute convergence is not sought in this framework  rather, the iterations are stopped when the density is judged to be a good fit to the observations. In lieu of this imposed clause in the code, progressive iterations would produce increasingly more unphysical densities. This lack of a robust convergence criterion is cause for dissatisfaction with the Richardson Lucy scheme. Moreover, implementations of the same, within Astronomy, have not incorporated either radial variations of intrinsic shape or deviations from sphericity.
The shortcomings of Lucy's algorithm are overcome by the analysis of RK in their incorporation of monotonicity and positivity into the sought solution and by their more satisfying convergence criterion. RK construct their density profile as a series of stacked blocks in the space of one quadrant of the meridional plane of their axisymmetric (by assumption) galaxy. The density values at radially adjacent locations are connected through linear interpolation. The summation of the projections of each of the density blocks along the LOS, give the surface brightness at a given location in the plane of the sky (where a brightness measurement is reported). This estimated brightness is then compared to the observed brightness; the algorithm attempts to minimise this statistic while imposing the smoothing condition through a bias function, thus providing a more satisfying convergence criterion than included in Lucy's algorithm. However, this scheme too fails to allow for deprojection in general triaxial geometries; specifically, it is designed to reproduce axisymmetric systems. Moreover, the validity of interpolation, in systems where local gradients can be steep, is also worrisome.
Magorrian (1999) also advances a scheme similar to RK's expect that he implements a penalty function in his definition of likelihood. The imposed penalty is achieves nearestneighbour smoothing. The fundamental shortcomings of this scheme are the same as what plagues RK's method. There is no apriori reason to belive that the galaxy under consideration is axisymmetric; triaxiality is a much more general model. Moreover, the requirement in this work, for density to behave like a powerlaw on local scales, implies that the method will fail in the presence of even moderate gradients in density; in this sense, the recovered answer could be sensitive to the binning details of the 2D grid on which the density structure is placed.
In this paper, we present a new, Bayesian nonparametric algorithm that implements an Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) optimiser, in order to tackle the deprojection of observed photometry of galaxies. Completely freeform solutions for the 3D density are provided with the constraint of positivity imposed by hand. The scheme is a penalised likelihood procedure. We refer to this algorithm as DOPING  an acronym for Deprojection of Observed Photometry using an INverse Gambit. The algorithm is easy to implement and each run typically takes a few minutes on a stateofthe art personal computer.
The most distinguishing feature of DOPING is that it can tackle deprojection in virtually any geometry, as long as we can express the intrinsic shape parameters (such as eccentricities) in analytical relations with the projected shape parameters. DOPING can be applied to deproject surface brightness maps of elliptical as well as disk galaxies. This is possible, while taking intrinsic shape variation into account^{}.
The first major application of this algorithm to galaxies (Chakrabarty & McCall 2009) is the study of the deprojected luminosity profiles of 100 early type galaxies observed as part of the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey (Côté et al. 2004). As these systems do not exhibit significant variations in position angle, the preliminary version of DOPING that is presented here, considers position angle to be a constant. However the code can account for changes in position angle and the skeletal scheme for the inclusion of a radially varying position angle is presented later in Sect. 5.6.
The following section begins with a discussion of the broad framework of our algorithm DOPING, a moves to an exposition of the technical details of the code in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, we talk about the application of DOPING to a test case and corroborate the robustness of the algorithm. Application to the real ACS photometry of the galaxy vcc9 is also discussed in Sect. 4. Section 3 explores the effects of varying ambient conditions such as inclination and the assumed geometry. Section 5 is devoted to discussions and conclusions that are to be drawn from the work. In the appendix, a discussion of the details of various aspects of DOPING is presented.
2 Overview of the algorithm
DOPING is a code designed to perform 3D modelling of systems, given their 2D images, in a variety of spatial geometries. We iterate over trial 3D luminosity density structures till the best match between the projection of the same and the measured 2D surface brightness is obtained. Since deprojection is nonunique unless the intrinsic spatial geometry of the system is pinned down, we begin this section with a discussion on the motivation and details of how the detailed description of the geometry is achieved.
In particular, the true shape and inclination of a system can be deciphered, using DOPING, if:
 the system has a regular geometry, (by which we imply that it bears an mfold symmetry) and;
 the relative extent of the system along any three mutually orthogonal axes are known,
 the system can be viewed at multiple inclinations, i.e. the inclination to the LOS can be varied at will, in which case;
 DOPING can perform in irregular geometries also.
In fact, for galaxy clusters, when SZe measurements are available, it is possible to measure the extent along all three observer coordinateaxes (two axes on the plane of the image and a third along the LOS). Thus, the true intrinsic shape and orientation of galaxy clusters can be predicted by inverting the Xray surface brightness map at benchmark deprojection geometries (Chakrabarty et al. 2008), under the assumption that one photometric axis is coincident with a principle axis of the system. Thus, the luminosity density of galaxy clusters can be uniquely determined. An example of this is discussed in Sect. 4.2.
However, for triaxial galaxies, the LOS extent is unknown; thus, for galaxies, the true 3D shape and orientation cannot be deciphered in principle. Therefore, for galaxies, we need to assume values for the polar inclination and the missing axial ratio. The recovery of the 3D luminosity density is undertaken, given these assumptions. Also, in this work, we hold the azimuthal inclination zero.
It merits mention that our assumptions are not overindulgent. Any deprojection invokes assumptions about the intrinsic geometry and inclinations of the system. Thus, when axisymmetry is assumed, it implies that one of the intrinsic axial ratios is held as unity, the polar inclination is also assumed and the azimuthal inclination is set to zero. This is similar to DOPING in that the user needs to assume one inclination and one intrinsic axial ratio for galaxies. However, when greater observational information is available, as for galaxy clusters, DOPING does not need to invoke any assumptions, in contrary to axisymmetryassuming algorithms.
The assumptions are designed to be given as inputs for a given run of DOPING (Sects. 2.1 to 2.10). Given that each run of DOPING takes a few minutes on a 3.2 GHz CPU processor, when started from a judicious initial guess for the density, it is possible to scan over a wide range of inclination and axial ratio values to record a range of corresponding 3D density distributions. The justification of assumptions is discussed in details in Sects. 5.5 and 5.3.
In order to design a recursive algorithm that can perform deprojection in varied geometries, the trial 3D density structure should preferably not be treated as function of a coordinate that characterises the geometry at hand. Instead, we need to express the 3D density as function of generic coordinates. However, a mapping between such generic coordinates and the system geometry is then required. This is what we aim for (Sect. 2.5). In fact, we express this mapping by calculating the extent of the system along the LOS, through any given point on the image. Such a calculation invokes values of all available shape and size related parameters  this is discussed in Sect. 2.5.
Once this is established, we then discuss (Sect. 2.11) details of how to iterate towards the best possible 3D density structure that projects to the observed surface brightness map.
2.1 Coordinates used
In any kind of deprojection problem, the two coordinate systems that suggest themselves readily are the body coordinate frame (X,Y,Z) and the observer's coordinate frame (x,y,z). Here the three principal axes of the ellipsoidal system are considered to be along the vectors. The LOS coordinate is z while the plane of the image is considered scanned by the xy coordinates, i.e the image plane is given by the equation z = 0. The Zaxis is considered to be at an inclination angle i relative to the lineofsight, i.e. the zaxis.
The X,Y,Z and x,y,z coordinate systems will be related by two
consecutive rotations. For triaxial galaxies, neither of these
rotational angles is an observable in general. Only when the galaxy
is highly flattened, can the inclination of its rotational axis to
the LOS be estimated. The general lack of information about
inclinations in triaxial systems will need to be compensated for by
assumptions  while the assumed value of one inclination angle is
provided as an input to the algorithm, the choice of the other
inclination angle in this unconstrained situation is chosen to be
such that our calculations are rendered easy: we assume that one of
the principle axes lies entirely in the plane of the image. In fact,
we choose this to be the Xaxis. Then, the Xaxis is also a
photometric axis. We align our observer coordinate system such that
the xaxis lies along the Xaxis, i.e.
.
Then,
is along the photometric major axis for an
oblate system but along the photometric minor axis in case of a
prolate system. If the system in hand is triaxial, then there exists
a scope for a degeneracy, depending on whether the xaxis is
considered the major or minor axis. When the input for the assumed
value of one inclination is i, the equations relating the
(X,Y,Z) system of coordinates to the (x,y,z) system are:
Thus, all 3D density distributions that are recovered by DOPING are obtained under the assumption that the azimuthal inclination is zero. The algorithm can in principle, also work for a choice of nonzero azimuthal inclinations; a range of 3D density distributions for a range of choices of this angle is achievable. However, in lieu of measured information, the specification of such a range is impossible. This is discussed in detail in Sect. 5.3.
2.2 Input data
The image or the projection of the galaxy on the plane of the sky is treated as built of concentric isophotes. Let the image be built of number of isophotes and the isophotal annulus between the k1th and kth isophotes be the kth isophotal annulus. Here, .
The observables that DOPING processes are the characteristics of the isophotes, namely, the surface brightness measurement and the shape parameters of a given isophote, along with the value of its extent along the photometric xaxis, i.e. in effect, the surface brightness map of the galaxy. Several routines are available for the production of such a data set; such as the IRAF implementation of the task ELLIPSE (Jedrzejewski et al. 1987).
If the isophotal shape characteristics vary over the extent of the image, then it is possible to flag their values according to the isophotal annulus that they are observed in; thus, the projected axial ratio in the kth isophotal annulus is q_{pk} and the semix axis extent of the kth isophote is a_{k}. Thus, the input data table in our work presents: an index for the isophotal annulus or k, the semix axis a_{k}, projected axial ratio q_{pk} and brightness values , for each k i.e. each isophotal annulus that the image is binned into. Now, the isophotes of elliptical galaxies are often seen to deviate from pure ellipses (e.g. Bender et al. 1988; van den Bosch et al. 1994; Ferrarese et al. 2006). Hence, the boxiness/diskiness parameters can also be included in the table. To keep the introduction of the algorithm simple, in the following discussion, we ignore the contribution of these deviations from the purely elliptical shape, knowing that these effects can be included easily into the isophotal equation as suggested by Jedrzejewski (1987). Even more severe deviations from the elliptical isophotal shape can be accommodated and these cases (that do not bear a strong relevance in astrophysics) are discussed later in Sect. 5.1. The representation of isophotes within DOPING is further discussed in Appendix A.
In the applications of the code discussed in this paper, the position angle of the isophotal semimajor axis is assumed constant, though scope exists within the algorithm to relax this. The overall scheme for such a relaxation is discussed later in Sect. 5.6 though the incorporation of the same being nontrivial, this will be presented within DOPING in a future contribution.
2.3 Bayesian formulation
We seek the 3D luminosity density
of the system, given the surface
brightness (surface brightness) maps as the input measurements. The probability of spotting the density ,
given the measurements, and all our background knowledge (assumptions) about the system (K) is:
(2) 
This is the Bayesian statement of the problem. The first term on the right side of the proportional sign is the likelihood while the second term is the prior.
In general, the prior that we can use is a uniform one:
=  
=  (3) 
by which we imply that the prior probability is unity only if is nonnegative everywhere.
However, it is possible that for disk galaxies, i can be established from observations. Thus, if the inclination is given as: , then assuming Gaussian errors, our prior will have an additional factor that is proportional to .
2.4 Methodology
A prescribed system geometry would imply that the coordinates x, y and z are related in terms of the shape parameters, i.e. z can be expressed in terms of x and y. For example, under the assumption of triaxiality, an analytical relation links the x and y to the z as x,y, z is a point on the surface of a homeoid; this relation takes into account the local values of the inclinations and intrinsic axial ratios of the system.
We attempt to express the 3D density at a point as function of the coordinates on the image plane (i.e. x and y) and the LOS coordinate (z) for that point. However, As x and y are coordinates on the image plane, they can be measured while z can be calculated for a given xy pair, from the aforementioned relation between x, y and z. Once z is established, a trial 3D density can be integrated along the LOS, over this established range of z values, and the projection compared to the value of surface brightness observed at the point (x, y, 0). However, for the aforementioned relation to be completely specified, the system geometry needs to be invoked. Here we describe how such a relation is specified in the astrophysical context.
For the deprojection of galactic surface brightness maps, if the galaxy is considered a singlecomponent system, we assume the galaxy to be a triaxial ellipsoid. For multicomponent galaxies, such as systems with a central component superimposed on an extended disky component, each component is typically ascribed a triaxial ellipsoidal geometry (Chakrabarty & McCall, in preparation). Isolated offcentred clumps can also be included in the modelling (see Sect. 4.3).
When the galaxy is modelled as triaxial, the details of system geometry are described in Appendix B. The crux of the matter is that to compensate for our ignorance about the two inclinations and one of the two projected axial ratios (q_{p} and ) of an observed galaxy, we assume a value for one inclination i, set the other inclination (angle between X and xaxis) to zero, assume a value for one intrinsic axial ratio q_{1} and calculate the other intrinsic axial ratio q_{2} from the relation that connects q_{2} to q_{1}, q_{p} and i. The assumptions made to facilitate deprojection under triaxiality are similar in number with those made when deprojection under axisymmetry is performed (see Sects. 2 and 5.5), although, for deprojection of galaxy clusters, DOPING does not need to make such assumptions (Chakrabarty et al. 2008). Importantly, the range of 3D luminosity density distributions recovered for various assumptions, can be gauged with DOPING.
The axial ratios mentioned above can all vary with distance away from system centre. Thus, the assumed axial ratio (q_{1}) can be described as any real function of x (as long as the function is nonsingular over the range covered in the measurements).
2.5 Mapping the LOS extent to the system geometry
As said before, our aimed deprojection requires evaluation of the characteristic extent along the zaxis of a point on the image plane. To accomplish this, we need to remind ourselves of all the relevant image characteristics of the given point on the image plane; this includes the surface brightness at this point, the local value of projected axial ratio at this point, etc. The determination of the zheight of a point on the image plane is discussed below and graphically represented in Fig.1.
Figure 1: Geometrical considerations adopted in the design of the algorithm. The system is represented as the ellipsoid. The X, Y and Z axes (in thin black lines) represent the three principle axes of the system while x and y mark the photometric axes and the zaxis is the LOS (in thicker black lines). A rectangular section of the image plane (i.e. the z = 0 plane) is represented by the tilted rectangle in the broken lines; this plane cuts the ellipsoid in an elliptical disk which is depicted by the translucent gray disk. Generic isophotal annuli on this disk are depicted in centrally increasing grayscale intensity. Two generic points, lying inside the intermediate isophotal annulus, are shown as the two black squares. The extent of the system along the positive zaxis, at these two marked points are represented by the lengths of the white rectangles that are oriented parallel to the LOS. In the text, one such point, generically considered to be inside the kth isophotal annulus, is referred to as (x_{j}^{k}, y_{j}^{k}, 0), while the tip of the white rectangle emanating from this point is ascribed coordinates . The extent along the negative zaxis is not shown in this diagram. The ellipsoidal shell that passes through is fully constrained (see Sect. 2.5). Using x_{j}^{k} and y_{j}^{k}, (coordinates of the known point on the image plane), the intrinsic shape parameters of the kth isophotal annulus (a_{k}, q_{1k}, q_{2k}) and the inclination i, the equation of this ellipsoid is solved to obtain the value of (and ). Thus, the zextent through which a trial 3D has to be projected, is ascertained, for all j and k. 

Open with DEXTER 
We put the system on a regular 3D Cartesian xyz grid. We flag grid points that lie on the image i.e. the z = 0 plane, according to the isophotal annulus that they lie in. We refer to the jth point inside the kth isophotal annulus as (x_{j}^{k}, y_{j}^{k}, 0). Here , where N_{k} is the number of grid points with z = 0, inside the kth isophotal annulus.
Through the point (x_{j}^{k}, y_{j}^{k}, 0), let the system extend along the zaxis, (i.e. the LOS), from to . To determine and , we pass a thin triaxial ellipsoidal shell through and . This ellipsoidal shell
 1.
 is centred at (0,0,0),
 2.
 projects at the assumed inclination i, to the kth elliptical annulus on the image, which in turn has an axial ratio of q_{pk} and semiaxis a_{k} along .
 3.
 has intrinsic axial ratios q_{1k} and q_{2k}.
 4.
 has the points and on it, of which the x and y coordinates are known grid points but and are undetermined.
 its extent along a principal axis  the extent along the xaxis, i.e. Xaxis is known (=a_{k}).
 the angle between the Zaxis and the LOS  i is known by assumption.
 its intrinsic axial ratios q_{1k} and q_{2k}. In the absence of measured , q_{1k} is known by assumption. q_{2k} is derived as follows.
This relation gives q_{2}^{k} (see Chakrabarty et al. 2008). In this way, we constrain all parameters that define the ellipsoidal shell that passes through the points and (points I to IV of first list in this subsection). The equation of such a fully characterised ellipsoid is
Here q_{1}^{k}, q_{2}^{k}, a_{k} and i are all known. x_{k}^{j} and y_{k}^{j} are known since the point x_{k}^{j}, y_{k}^{j}, 0 has been identified to lie inside the kth isophotal annulus. Thus, this quadratic equation is solved for z and its two solutions are and .
In this way, the extent of the system, along the zaxis, through any point on the 2D image is determined. A schematic of this procedure is presented in Fig. 1. We now continue with the nomenclature introduced in this section, to describe generic points lying inside generic isophotal annuli.
2.6 zhistograms
In order to keep the formalism flexible, we seek a form of the 3D density in terms of z.
Thus, we discretise the density structure where , . Actually, in our work, we bin the range , and find the luminosity density for only one half of the system (at positive z only). The density for the other half is given using the symmetry argument , which is valid under the assumption of triaxial geometry. In other words, we invert the projection integral instead of .
We do this by binning the zrange between and . The binning is logarithmic since the measurements of surface brightness values are typically obtained for an astronomical system at increasingly wider isophotal annuli. is held a constant over each zbin. Thus, the density structure along the zaxis, through the point (x_{j}^{k}, y_{j}^{k}, 0) on the image, looks like a 1D histogram. We refer to this construction as the histogram, corresponding to the point (x_{j}^{k}, y_{j}^{k}, 0). The zrange of a histogram spans the interval: and . Thus, this zrange depends on the point on the image through which the histogram is constructed.
2.7 Why histograms instead of histograms
We choose the basis of to be z instead of a function of the system shape such as the ellipsoidal radius . Reliance of the deprojection of the observed surface brightness map on the intrinsic shape would curb the reach of the algorithm in the following two ways:
 systems with different geometries that cannot be ascribed a general triaxial shape cannot then be tracked by the same code. An example of such a system within the astrophysical context could be a galaxy that is better described by a cylindrical intrinsic shape, such as the LMC. surface brightness of such a galaxy can however be deprojected under the flexible DOPING, with minimal changes imposed on the algorithm. In this nontriaxial geometry, the calculation of the intrinsic axial ratios from the measured projected axial ratios (and hence the calculation of the zheight of any point on the image) is different from the triaxial case; these calculations are performed within a modular subroutine, before the iterations begin. The rest of the algorithm (iterative search for the most likely density structure) is unaffected by the difference in the system geometry. Thus, the same code can be used to undertake deprojection in general geometries.
 luminosity density distributions of systems with imposed substructure or extra galactic components that are imposed on the background galactic structure (such as disk+bulge systems) cannot be obtained in a singlestep, integrated fashion if the algorithm is designed exclusively within the geometry of the background structure.
 the determination of the zheight of a given point on the image plane. This value robustly reflects the intrinsic geometry of deprojection.
 penalising all solutions for that do not adhere to a form in which there is maximum variance between densities that are at different ellipsoidal radii but minimum variance between densities at the same . This characteristic can be incorporated by introducing a penalty function that is proportional to the Laplacian of the current choice of , where the Laplacian operator involves differentiation w.r.t. . This is discussed in detail in the following subsection.
2.8 Laplacian regularisation
We understand that the sought solution for , as given by the assembly of zhistograms, is in need of regularisation. We choose to introduce this regularisation such that we achieve lowdimensional representation of higherdimensional information. In particular, we are interested to recover density that is a function of , i.e. we work with a penalty function that reflects the intrinsic geometric structure of the input space (Wang 2006; Haykin 2008) ^{}.
Such sought, similarity based smoothing is ensured by adopting a
penalty function
that is given in terms of the Laplacian
of the object function:
Here is a regularisation parameter, that reflects a tradeoff between maximising variance between at different and reinforcing the relevant deprojection geometry.
2.9 Density structure
DOPING works recursively, via an inverse approach. At every iterative step, a trial histogram is chosen for each grid point on the image, i.e. for a given j, k. Each such histogram is updated independently during an iterative step, to render the whole 3D density structure of the galaxy updated. Such updating of the histogram is done while maintaining positivity of .
Once updated, the density structure is projected on the z = 0 plane and this projection is compared to the surface brightness data. This comparison defines the likelihood function which is maximised for the best match. The likelihood is supplemented with a penalty that was discussed in the last paragraph. The global maxima of the likelihood function is sought by our MCMC algorithm to yield the most likely density structure, given the surface brightness data. However, we choose only those solutions which are ``smooth'', as dictated by the used regularisation scheme.
2.10 Likelihood
The probability of the data given the model  i.e. the observed surface brightness map, given a trial 3D density  is expected to be normal. This is reinforced on the basis of the following.
The likelihood or the probability of a measured surface
brightness map, given a choice of the 3D density structure, has to
be a function of the distance between the projection of the 3D
density on the image plane and the measured surface brightness. In
particular,
,
is such that when the
projection of
on the image plane is concurrent with
the measured surface brightness distribution,
.
Additionally, the further is
from the surface brightness
measurement
in the kth isophotal annulus, the
smaller is the likelihood; in fact, for
,
.
Since the likelihood is a function of the
absolute distance between
and
,
(for any k), for two different 3D densities
and
,
if
,
it implies that
,
i.e. the likelihood is symmetric about
.
Also, for two different surface brightness measurements,
and
,
if the likelihood corresponds to the
same value of
,
it implies that
.
Given these to be the only
constraints on our choice of the likelihood ,
it is
sufficient to consider the distribution
to be normal  proportional to a Gaussian of the form
,
where the denominator in the exponential is a scale that is invoked to
ensure a dimensionless term; the measurement offers a ready
scale. In, details, the
likelihood is
where N_{k} is the number of histograms for the kth isophotal annulus (see Sect. 2.12). represents the penalty function, defined along the lines of of Eq. (6):
=  
(8) 
Here ( x_{k}^{j}, y_{k}^{j}, z_{k}^{j}) is a point at which a value of the density is defined and is given by the lefthandside of Eq. (5), with z replaced by z_{k}^{j}.
2.11 Interval estimation of 3D density
We choose to implement MCMC optimisation with the MetropolisHastings algorithm (Metropolis et al. 1953; Gelman et al. 1995; Tierney 1994; Hastings 1970; Tanner 1996). The set of models identified by our optimiser in the maximal region of the likelihood is really an ensemble of all the histograms corresponding to each of the grid points on the image plane, i.e. the full 3D density structure. (see Appendix D for greater details of the optimisation procedure and the choice of the MCMC parameters). Thus, the dimensionality of the likelihood function is the product of the number of bins along each of three spatial axes. When the algorithm identifies the maximal region of the likelihood function, histograms corresponding to this maximal region are recorded. The 3D density distributions given by this set of histograms are (identified and for a given (x,y,z), the values of from these identified density distributions) are sorted. The 1 range of values of density, about the medial density at this point is recorded. Such a range of values of density, over all x, y and z then defines the most likely 3D density structure that we identify as corresponding to the surface brightness data at hand. The implementational details of our interval estimation of luminosity density at a given point (x,y,z) is discussed in Appendices D.1D.3.
2.12 Construction of seed or trial luminosity density
In the very first iterative step, the density is ascribed a arbitrary functional form  the final answer should be independent of this choice of the initial guess for the density or the seed density. We use crude estimates of the parameters that define to begin multiple runs.
3 Testing and applications
In this section, we present the results of our analysis done with simulated data sets that have been designed to mimic the brightness distributions of disklike and elliptical galaxies with rapidly varying eccentricity profiles, that achieve very high eccentricities indeed. Our examples include
 Test I: a system that resembles a razorthin disc with a small
(of scale length of 0
5 as compared to he extent of the system
which is about 100^{''}) round component resembling a tiny bulge
embedded in the centre. The eccentricity evolves from zero at the
centre to about 0.95 by 2
0 and by 3
0, is then maintained
at nearly unity. The radial run of the eccentricity of this system
is represented in filled circles in Fig. 2. Thus,
this system, if tested favourably with DOPING, will validate the
following characteristics of the algorithm:
 is able to deal with galaxies of varying morphologies, including disk galaxies.
 is robust even when eccentricity is as high as nearly unity.
 is able to deal with very rapid rise in eccentricity.
 Test II: a system that is rounder in the centre but the eccentricity of which rises to about 0.97, over a length scale of 40^{''}. Thus, this is an elliptical galaxy with widely varying intrinsic shape; the axial ratio changes from nearly 0 at the centre to about 7 at the outer edge of the system. The radial eccentricity profile of this galaxy with widely varying intrinsic shape, is shown in open circles in Fig. 2. This example reinforces DOPING's efficacy in describing systems with different morphologies.
The deprojection in this section is performed under the assumptions of oblateness and edgeon viewing, i.e. . Therefore, for the test galaxies, q_{1}^{k}=1 and q_{pk} = q_{2}^{k} , i.e. the projected and intrinsic eccentricities concur.
3.1 Recovery of a known density distribution
The surface brightness^{} and projected eccentricity
profiles which constitute our test data sets are discussed here. The
intrinsic eccentricity is as shown in Fig. 2. The run of
eccentricity with radius
is given as
follows:
where r_{c} is a scale length. The eccentricity is chosen to be function of the spherical radius r, rather than the major axis coordinate, in order to ease the calculation of the projection integral leading to the formulation of the test surface brightness. The analytical luminosity profile, from which the brightness data has been extracted, is
with e(r) given in equation Eq. (9). B is a scale length or core radius and A is the central density scaled by the factor B^{3}.
Figure 2: The chosen eccentricity profile of the test galaxy Test I, shown as a function of r, in filled circles. The same for Test II is shown in open circles. 

Open with DEXTER 
We integrate
along z, after plugging in the form of
e(r) from Eq. (9), into Eq. (10).
The result of this integration is the toy surface brightness data that
we want DOPING to invert.
In the toy data set Test I, the surface brightness profile is sampled at 64 locations along the galaxy semimajor axis, from 0 05 to about 100 , while for Test II, the binning is about 3 times finer. This is done to demonstrate that our code can be applied to a data set of any length without any additional modifications. The surface brightness forms the third column of the input data table (the first two columns are the semimajor axis and eccentricity). Two additional columns contain measurement errors in the brightness and eccentricity; it is possible to incorporate the measurement errors, assuming a Gaussian error distribution. However, such errors are typically negligible compared to the errors in the profiles recovered by DOPING (Sect. 2.11).
Figure 3: Performance of DOPING in the simulated test cases Test I (a disk galaxy with a round ellipsoidal centre that extends to only about 0 5) in the lower panels and Test II (an elliptical galaxy with varying eccentricity) in the upper panels. The chosen analytical density distributions is shown in red open circles, as a function of the major axis coordinate, in the right panels. This known density, along with the eccentricity profile shown in Fig. 2, implies the surface brightness distributions which are shown in red along different azimuths , (major axis, minor axis), in red filled circles, in the left and middle panels. The recovered density distributions along the major axis are overplotted on the known density profiles, in black, in the right panels. Projections of these recovered density distributions are shown in black, as functions of x along two different azimuths (, i.e. major axis and , i.e. minor axis), superimposed on the brightness data along these respective azimuths. The sharp rise of the eccentricity profiles in the two test cases (over length scales that are a factor of 80 apart) is indicated by the much sharper decline of the density along the minor axis, compared to the major. Higher regularisation is implemented in the recovery of the density distribution in the Test II case than in the case of Test I. In this figure, as well as in all subsequent figures, we assume that the surface brightness is measured in the SDSS zband for a galaxy at a distance of 17 Mpc. This is true unless otherwise stated. 

Open with DEXTER 
The robustness of the comparison between the test 2D brightness distribution of the test galaxies and the projections of the recovered density distributions is brought out in Figs. 4 and 5.
Figure 4: Left: the 2D surface brightness (in mag/arcsec^{2}) distribution of our flat test galaxy Test I, as a contour plot on the plane of the sky (xy plane). The contours in broken lines pertain to the toy brightness data that was fed into DOPING while the solid lines represent the projection of the 3D luminosity density that DOPING recovers. The gap around y = 0 occurs in the distribution of the projected density since the smallest (logarithmic) spatial bin is about 1pixel, i.e. 0^{''}.05. Right: same as for the left panel, except that in this case, the central rounder part of the test galaxy has been focused upon. 

Open with DEXTER 
The recovered density profile as well as its projection appear to tally very favourably with the known distributions.
3.2 Changing inclinations
In this section, we investigate the extent to which the recovered luminosity density is rendered uncertain by our ignorance of the inclination angle i, under a given assumption about the geometry of the system and for a given set of observables.
In order to track this uncertainty, we use the test surface brightness data given in Eq. (11), and constrain the projected eccentricity to be radially invariant: e_{p} = e_{p0}. Working with a constant e_{p} is preferred to a radially dependent projected eccentricity, on grounds of ease of interpretation of the results. The deprojection of the test galaxy is performed under the assumption that the galaxy is oblate in shape. For such a geometry, the inclination cannot be less than .
Figure 5: 2D surface brightness (in mag/arcsec^{2}) distribution of the elliptical test galaxy Test II, compared to the plane of the sky projection of the luminosity distribution recovered by DOPING for this system. 

Open with DEXTER 
We perform a suite of deprojections of the test surface brightness data with i set to , where i_{1} is the minimum inclination consistent with the observed projected eccentricity of e_{p0}, i.e. . Here e_{p0} is chosen to be one of the following 4 values: e_{p0} = 0, 0.71, 0.87, 0.95. These values of e_{p0} were chosen to span the range that early type galaxies are typically observed to bear. Deprojections were performed for each e_{p0}, at each of the 4 selected i. Thus, our experiments can track 4 test galaxies which are distinct in their flattening, each assumed oblate and viewed at a suite of different inclinations, the smallest of which is set by the projected eccentricity.
Figure 6 shows the density profiles recovered by DOPING by deprojecting the test surface brightness (Eq. (11)), for the choice of e_{p0} = 0.71. This corresponds to . For this configuration, deprojection is performed at four distinct values of the viewing angle, in the range of [45, 90], at . It is possible to obtain the given surface brightness map that manifests a given projected flatness ( e_{p0} = 0.71) at these 4 different inclinations, only by projecting the luminosity densities of 4 distinct oblate galaxies with intrinsic eccentricities of 0.99, 0.95, 0.87, 0.71.
Thus, deprojection of the observed brightness map, carried out at varying inclinations, is characterised by variation in amplitudes as well as shapes. However, it is only along the major axes (the semiaxis along ) that the deprojected profiles will appear similar in shape but different in amplitude. This owes to our definition of the toy surface brightness distribution (Eq. (11)). Along all other directions, the recovered density distributions will manifest differences in shape as well. It is for this reason that in Fig. 6 we present the recovered density profiles along the galaxy minor axes. The variation in shape across the set of deprojected density profiles is clear from this figure.
It is to be noted that the projections of the recovered density profiles coincide with the input surface brightness data in each case. However, once (for projected eccentricity = 0.71), the 3D density profiles become a sensitive function of i. As expected, the recovered density is maximum (at every radius) when the intrinsic eccentricity is highest (i.e., the inclination angle is lowest). When the galaxy is assigned an even higher projected eccentricity, the uncertainty in the obtained density shows up at even lower i, i.e. at inclinations closer to the faceon configuration.
Figure 7 presents the value of the recovered luminosity density at the innermost radial bin (about 0 05), plotted as a function of the assumed inclination, for varying values of the intrinsic eccentricity, under the assumption of oblateness. As expected, the central density values concur (within the error bars), for the edgeon configuration, while density is highest at the centre at i=0 , for the intrinsically most eccentric system.
Figure 6: Luminosity density distributions recovered by deprojecting the surface brightness profile given by Eq. (11), under the assumption of oblateness, given a projected eccentricity of 0.71, viewed at inclinations of about 46 (in black), 48 (in magenta), 55 (in green) and 90 (in red). The recovered density distributions are plotted along the minor axes. The true luminosity density of the test galaxy is shown in filled black circles. The profiles above were recovered from runs performed with various bin widths ad smoothing parameter values. The estimation of the error bars on the recovered density profiles is discussed in Appendix D.1. 

Open with DEXTER 
3.3 Changing geometry
In the last section we explored how our unfamiliarity with the inclination of a galaxy can lead to a nonzero range of possible density profiles that a single observed brightness profile can correspond to. This range had been investigated under an assumption for the geometry of the galaxy, namely oblateness. In this section, we attempt to gauge the effects of treating an intrinsically oblate system, (our test system of Eq. (10), conferred a constant e_{p} of 0.99) as triaxial (with the photometric major axis along and LOS extent set to half the photometric major axis), prolate and spherical, viewed at i = 90 (see Fig. 8).
Assuming this rather flat test system to be oblate implies that q_{1} is a constant, =1 and (where we have used our definition of q_{1} and q_{p}, as given in Appendix C). Then from Eq. (4) we get that for i = 90, . Similarly, when the system is assumed prolate, q_{1} = 1, and . When we assume the system to be triaxial as above, then for i = 90, and 7.1, 7.1 and q_{1} = 2.
When we input these different values of q_{2} in Eq. (5), we get values of from the oblate case that are different from what we get for the prolate case. In fact, for edgeon viewing, as in here, for a given k, the maximum zheight attained by any point in the kth isophotal annulus is higher for the oblate case than the prolate case. As a result, the density distribution that is recovered from the oblate case is lower in amplitude than that from the prolate case. The triaxial case result falls in between that from the oblate and prolate cases.
Figure 7: Central luminosity density, plotted as a function of inclination for four different values of the intrinsic eccentricity. When the intrinsic eccentricity is 0.71, the obtained central density points are shown in black. The colour coding for the other values of e is as follows: e = 0.87, 0.95 and 0.99 correspond to red, green and blue, respectively. The case of inclination = 0 obviously indicates the situation when the observed isophotes are circular, i.e. the observed projected eccentricity is zero. 

Open with DEXTER 
In the case of galaxy clusters, when information is available, DOPING can be called in to perform deprojection in the fully triaxial geometry without requiring to make any assumption about one of the intrinsic axial ratios (Chakrabarty et al. 2008).
Figure 8: Luminosity density of our oblate test galaxy of projected eccentricity 0.99 (shown in red), recovered by DOPING, under the assumptions of prolateness (in blue), oblateness (in black) and triaxiality with ratio between LOS extent and photometric major axis = 0.5 (in green). All the deprojections were carried out for an edgeon viewing. 

Open with DEXTER 
3.4 Effect of PSF
We hope to use DOPING to extract luminosity profiles of real galaxies, in particular, the ACS VCS galaxies. It therefore becomes important to gauge the effect of the ACS PSF on the recovered density. This is done by convolving the projection of the density in any iterative step with the ACS PSF and comparing this convolved profile to the observed surface brightness. The result is shown in Fig. 9. As indicated in the figure, the effect of the ACS PSF does not extend beyond the central few arcseconds (in fact, 10^{''}).
4 Applications to real systems
In this section, we demonstrate the application of DOPING to real galaxies. The efficacy of DOPING in dealing with galactic systems that vary over wide ranges of magnitudes and morphology  including a nucleated disky galaxy  is advanced with applications made to the observed galaxies Ic 3019 and Ic 3881. In addition, the recovery of the density for the cluster A1413, without resorting to assumptions about geometry and inclination, is also included.
4.1 Ic 3019  effect of smoothing
Here we apply DOPING to deproject the measured surface brightness map of the galaxy Ic 3019 (vcc9) which is observed within the ACS VCS (Ferrarese et al. 2006). In particular, the effect of the smoothing parameter is demonstrated in the context of this example galaxy. Thus, this section also brings out an application of DOPING to the analysis of real data. This galaxy is low on brightness and the reason for choosing it is to adduce evidence for the wide range of systems that DOPING can tackle.
The eccentricity of this galaxy has been measured to vary with radius, though not radically, under the ACSVCS observational program. In fact, eccentricity has been reported to be uniform at about 0.85 till about 2.5 , from which it drops abruptly to about 0.3 at about 6 , to undulate its way up to about 0.7 at about 200
The density distribution recovered for Ic 3019 is projected along the LOS and is plotted as a function of x in Fig. 10 in black, on top of the observed brightness data for vcc9. The three panels correspond to runs performed with three increasing values of the regularisation parameter , namely (i.e. no smoothing), and . Increasing beyond this value did not make a significant change in the estimated density. The procedure to choose is discussed in Appendix E.
Figure 9: Left: luminosity density of an oblate test galaxy with uniform eccentricity of 0.99, recovered by comparing the input brightness profile with the PSF convolved projection of the density in any iterative step. The PSF in question is the ACS PSF in the F850W filter. When the convolution with the PSF is ignored, the recovered density is shown in green. Right: difference between the density profiles obtained with and without convolving with the PSF. It is noted that inside the central 10^{''}, this difference is 2 orders of magnitude less than density while outside 10^{''}, the difference tends to zero. 

Open with DEXTER 
Figure 10: Effect of increasing the smoothing parameter , on the recovered density and hence its projection, which is plotted here in black, as a function of the major axis coordinate, over the brightness data for I3019 (vcc9), as was observed within the ACS VCS program (in red). As we proceed from left to right, goes as 0, 0.1 and 1. 

Open with DEXTER 
The projection of the recovered density distribution on the plane of the sky, is compared to the surface brightness map of IC 3019 in Fig. 11.
4.2 Galaxy cluster
In this section we discuss the results of applying DOPING to extract the Xray luminosity density of the cluster A1413. The important feature about recovering the 3D density of clusters with DOPING is that the true axial ratios and inclination can be constrained along the lines advanced by Chakrabarty et al. (2008), as long as of the system can be estimated from the available SZe measurements. The cluster A1413 was reported in Chakrabarty et al. (2008) to be a triaxial system with the intrinsic axial ratios of 0.96 and 1.64 and inclination lying between 66 and 71.
This configuration was identified upon deprojecting the Xray surface brightness at four benchmark deprojection scenarios, namely oblateness and , oblateness and , prolateness and , prolateness and . Here is the minimum inclination possible under the assumption of oblateness, given a projected axial ratio (= 1.473 for A1413). Intercomparison of the 3D density profiles recovered under these four scenarios leads us to the aforementioned prediction. Since the relative extent along three mutually orthogonal axes are known in this case, 3D modelling is possible, i.e. the true geometry of the system can be estimated. Thus, we do not need to assume any axial ratio or inclination value. The density profile recovered under deprojection in the identified system geometry is presented in Fig. 12.
4.3 2component galaxies
It is possible for DOPING to perform the deprojection of a bulge+disk galactic system in an integrated, single step fashion. This is made possible by ascribing two distinct seeds to the two components, namely the central bulge/nucleus and the more extended outer component upon which the central component is superimposed. The deprojection of the nucleated galaxies in the ACS VCS sample has been undertaken in Chakrabarty & McCall (2009, under preparation). An example of the deprojection of the surface brightness profile of such a 2component, nucleated galaxy is shown in Fig. 13.
5 Discussions and summary
In this paper, we have presented a fast new nonparametric algorithm, DOPING, that works via a penalised likelihood approach. It attempts to deproject the observed surface brightness profiles of galaxies, in general triaxial geometries, while taking into account intrinsic variation in shape.
The algorithm was successfully tested on toy galactic systems of varying morphologies, including an extreme system that was ascribed a small ellipsoidal bulgelike inner component that lay embedded in a highly flattened outer disk. Other experiments were best served by simulated galaxies with constant ellipticities. The code was also applied to a dwarf elliptical galaxy Ic 3019 (vcc9) and another dE, nucleated galaxy Ic 3381 (vcc1087) from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey (Côté et al. 2004). An application to a real galaxy cluster, A1413, is also included.
5.1 Superior design
The welldefined, inherent convergence criterion of DOPING, buffeted by the sophisticated MCMC optimiser renders it superior to other well used inverse deprojection scheme, namely the RichardsonLucy algorithm. Besides, the nonparametric inverse design of DOPING helps it avoid risky practises such as parametric fitting, interpolation, etc. Finally, none of these methods can perform deprojection under generalised triaxial geometries, like DOPING can.
Choosing the LOS coordinate or z as the basis for the density helps to keep the code modular. As a result, DOPING can handle deprojections in general geometries. The current version of DOPING relies on the determination of the intrinsic shape parameters (axial ratios) from measurements only of projected shape parameters. Such a relation is possible for unknown inclinations, only if the object shape bears a certain regularity. It is this that causes 3D modelling with DOPING to be restricted to only objects with mfold symmetries.
Thus, when the inclination is unknown but the relative extent along three mutually orthogonal axes are known, DOPING can handle an assortment of 3D shapes that resemble mwinged starfruitlike shapes, the 2D projections of which are mpronged starfishlike 2D shapes. Such generalised geometries can be described by the 3D extension of Gielis's ``superformula'' (Gielis 2003). The superformula is a 6parameter generalisation of the superellipse (which are the Lame' curves with unequal semiaxes). In fact, the product of two superformulae  one corresponding to a generalised superellipse in the Z = 0 plane and another in the Y = 0 plane  can give rise to the mwinged starfruitlike 3D shapes^{}.
Figure 11: As in Fig. 5, except that in this case, the plane of the sky brightness distribution of the galaxy IC 3019 is shown. 

Open with DEXTER 
Figure 12: Xray luminosity density profile of cluster A1413, recovered under the true system geometry ( q_{1} = 0.96, q_{2} = 1.64) and inclination = 68.5, i.e. the medial value of the identified range (as found by Chakrabarty, et al. 2008), is plotted in red. The other profiles mark the densities recovered under four distinct assumptions about the system geometry and incinations  the four benchmark deprojection scenarios (see text in Sect. 4.2) used in Chakrabarty et al. (2008). 

Open with DEXTER 
However, a more generalised version of DOPING that allows fast and robust three dimensional modelling in unrestricted geometries is also possible  only in situations in which the system can be viewed at multiple inclinations. Such configurations are not of astronomical context but bear strong application potential; this will be reported in a future contribution.
5.2 DOPING deals with substructure
Continuing on the issue of code generality, we recall that in Sect. 4.2 it was shown that DOPING can deal with galaxies, the light distribution of which betray a bulge+disk structure. In fact, DOPING is capable of deprojecting systems marked with multiple structures that may not necessarily be concentric. As long as the centres of each component are known, the algorithm can be employed for deprojection.
5.3 Why choose
In general, there will be two angles involved in the rotation matrix that connect the the two Cartesian coordinate frames. However, when we speak about inclinations of observed astronomical systems, we typically specify one angle of inclination for a given system. In other words, it is modelled that one of the two angles of inclinations is set to zero, while the angle between a principle axis of the system and the LOS is advanced as the inclination i. Given that the image plane is what is fixed by observations  and therefore the LOS  one of the system principle axes (one that we refer to as the Zaxis, say) can be at angle i with the LOS, i.e. can lie anywhere on the surface of a cone that has an axis along the LOS and a semiangle i. There is no observational constraint that can restrict our choice of the location of on the surface of this cone. For a given choice of this location, the XY plane is fixed accordingly. The choice that we make in this work, corresponds to .
It is true that the recovery of the 3D density distribution could be affected by a different choice for the location of on the surface of the cone. This is so because the system at hand is triaxial in general, rather than axisymmetric. At the same time, we need to appreciate that there is no observational information that would inspire a particular choice. Hence we adopt the choice that eases calculations, keeping in mind the fact that as a consequence of this, the recovered 3D density structure is one possible answer for a given surface brightness data. Of course, we could undertake deprojection for other nonzero values of . In fact, a band of uncertainties on the recovered 3D density can be derived, corresponding to varying choices of this angle, though no ``mostlikely'' region for the density can be identified within this band. However, given the state of equally poor constraint on the density, the solution corresponding to one given value of the azimuthal inclination is advanced here.
The other assumptions that we make about geometry and inclination  provided by the user as inputs into the code  can be varied and the corresponding range of recovered 3D density distributions can be recorded, with always assumed equal to . This is particularly easy, given the short runtimes of a typical run of DOPING. It is important to stress here that our assumptions are not invoked to cover for flaws in algorithm design but are essential in order to render the deprojection scenario unique, i.e. to ascertain the deprojection geometry and inclination. Our assumptions merely compensate for the lack of (observational) information about such deprojection scenarios.
Figure 13: Luminosity density of the twocomponent galaxy Ic 3881 along the axis ( right) and its projection ( left) in black with the observed surface brightness data superimposed in red. 

Open with DEXTER 
Given the assumptions that we need to make, the question that may be asked is if the proposed ambition of DOPING to deproject in triaxial geometries is inane, in that it is driven by unconstrained assumptions. Such a worry has been addressed in the beginning of Sect. 2 and discussed later in Sect. 5.5. In the following section, we elucidate the follies of assuming axisymmetry, given observations on galactic systems, thus, reinforcing the need for invoking triaxiality.
5.4 The Folly of axisymmetry
A general nonirregular galaxy, whether elliptical or axisymmetric, can be approximated as a triaxial ellipsoid (the third axis is tiny in a disk system, compared to the other two intrinsic axis lengths). The modular structure of DOPING allows for deprojection of galaxies of both elliptical and disky morphologies. As discussed above, other deprojection methods can at most imply axisymmetry.
However, often, the assumption of axisymmetry (Magorrian 1999, RK) is not just a mild deviation from the truth but is plain wrong  this is clear in the cases of inclined, disklike systems. In these systems, while the extent along the perpendicular to the disk is much smaller than that along the other two axes in the disk, a nonzero projected ellipticity (), measured on the plane of projection implies that in general, both intrinsic axial ratios  and particularly the ratio of the principal axes in the disk  deviate from unity. A few examples of such systems from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey (Ferrarese et al. 2006, web site of ACS Virgo Cluster Survey Databases) include:
 NGC 4382 (or vcc 798, SA galaxy) in which ranges from 0.6 at the centre to 0.2 outside;
 NGC 4762 (or vcc 2095, SB) in which approximately increases to 0.4, starting from about 0;
 NGC 4442 (or vcc 1062, SB) in which increases outward to 0.6 from about 0.
5.5 Justification of assumptions
The solution that we will achieve for the most likely 3D density, given the surface brightness data, will depend on the assumptions that we use for the unconstrained inclination and the axial ratio. Of course, such assumptions will call for physical justification  however, the fundamental issue here is that for galaxies, there is no observational evidence that will constrain such assumptions. For galaxy clusters, the availability of the maximum extent along the LOS, (from SZe measurements), definitely helps to constrict the number of assumptions that we then need to make (see Appendix B). Similarly, for systems which can be viewed at selected inclinations, 3D modelling is rendered robust and fast. Again, for flattened systems, we can estimate one of the inclinations and therefore deprojection then entails one less assumption. However, the lack of sufficient physically relevant measurements means that assumptions invoked to characterise a general triaxial system cannot be justified to satisfaction. In lieu of this, all that DOPING can offer is a fast estimate of the range of density distributions obtained over the considered range of axial ratios and inclinations. Turning this argument around, we realise that the range of 3D density distributions that are recovered in Sects. 3.2 and 3.3, for distinct geometry+inclination inputs (assumptions) cannot be narrowed down for general triaxial galactic systems.
The question that then begs addressing is if deprojection in triaxial geometries is any improvement upon the existing deprojection routes that are currently in vogue. That the need for triaxiality over axisymmetry, is physically justified, was delineated in the last subsection. However, given the dearth of observational information  particularly for galaxies rather than galaxy clusters, as discussed in Sect. 2 and above  assumptions need to be invoked. The superiority of DOPING lies in the fact that when information about intrinsic morphology and inclination are less sparse than for galaxies (as for clusters or deposited nanoparticles), identification of the true triaxial geometry is possible (Chakrabarty et al. 2008) and deprojection can then be performed in this geometry, without invoking assumptions about i and q_{1} (as demonstrated for the Abell cluster A1413 in Sect. 4.2).
5.6 Position angle
Had the two angles of inclination been known to us, we would be in a position to predict the observed projected position angle as a function of these inclinations. However, given the projected position angle, constraining the inclinations requires an inverse approach, which is possible within DOPING in the triaxial geometry. We could then relax the assumption of while continuing to assume the polar inclination angle. In fact, the coordinate system (and the ensuing equations) used here is a limiting case of the assumption of a nonzero, radially varying position angle. In this more generalised version of DOPING, the angles between and the line of nodes will be nonzero and varying with radius (Simonneau et al. 1998). This will be dealt with in a future contribution.
When the position angle is included in the calculations the data table
is enhanced by another column yet  ,
where
is
the position angle of points in the kth isophotal annulus. Then,
the body coordinate system corresponding to the kth isophotal
annulus is rotated by
with respect to the
line,
i.e. the xaxis (by definition), so that the new body coordinate
system governing the triaxial shell  the largest projection (of the
same thickness as itself) of which is the kth isophotal annulus 
is given by X'Y'Z', where:
X'  =  (12)  
Y'  =  (13)  
Z'  =  Z.  (14) 
Having established this, the equivalent of Eq. (5) can be written down. The reformed equation is still a quadratic and is solved for the two solutions of z as before. In the present calculations, we avoided this extra complication in light of the small isophotal twist observed with the ACS VCS galaxies, which are the prime targets of the discussed code.
5.7 Effect of seed selection
Our starting luminosity density is motivated by crude estimates of the sought function (Gelman et al. 1995); we are guided by the requirement that the projection of the seed density be close to the given surface brightness data. The algorithm will indeed fail to converge for completely irrational choices of the initial parameters (steepness parameter 1, scale length different from the correct choice by more than 4 orders of magnitude). Importantly, under such circumstances, the projection of the recovered density will be found to deviate from the brightness data. This brings us to the important advantage that a deprojection scheme benefits from  the closeness of the seed to the sought answer can be checked by comparing the projection of the recovered solution and the data. Additionally, it may be remarked that it is reasonable to start with a steepness parameter that is close to unity and a scale length that is of the order of the core radius that characterises the surface brightness profile of the system. Given that a typical run is fast, it is feasible to restart the algorithm for a different choice of the initial guess, until convergence is reached.
5.8 Effect of data sampling
We also note that the spatial sampling of the data can have some effect on the density distribution recovered by DOPING. For instance, in Fig. F.1, the density profile best reproduces the data at small, rather than large radii. This is a consequence of the fact that, by construction, our simulated data set happens to have substantially more data points in the inner regions of the galaxy than on the outside, with the consequence that the innermost region has larger weight in driving convergence.
6 Conclusion
Thus, DOPING is advanced as a simple but powerful deprojection algorithm, that can be treated as a blackbox by the user, is fast and offers 3D density distributions in general geometries, without resorting to making unconstrained approximations to the form of the density or blindly accepting validity of commonly used goodness of fit measures in light of the inhomogeneous errors of measurement (Bissantz & Munk 2001).
The greatest novelty borne by DOPING is its applicability to general systems. Even though in the above examples, triaxial systems were investigated  ranging from razor thin discs to 2component or bulge+disk galaxies  even when inclination is unknown DOPING can deal with all systems that offer an analytical relation between the intrinsic and measured projected shape parameters. The class of geometries that bear an mfold symmetry allows for this. 3D modelling of images of systems with even more general geometries can also be performed with DOPING, as long as the system can be imaged at various known inclinations. That deprojection into the third dimension is possible in such general geometries, in a nonparametric way, is due to the fact that the representation of the sought density is modular, i.e. not dependent on a characteristic of the system geometry.
The recovery of the 3D density is performed iteratively, by searching for the most likely 3D density structure that projects to the observed 2D image. This search is robustly undertaken by an MCMC optimiser. Since the choice of the 3D density is constrained via its projection, distinct 3D density distributions will project to the same 2D image. To lift this degeneracy, in DOPING, the system geometry and orientation are specified completely. That axisymmetry is an invalid assumption  at least in real disclike galaxies  was shown above. Consequently, the description of galaxy geometry as triaxial is a suitable alternative. However, triaxiality entails two axial ratios and inclinations, not all of which can be specified, given the constricted level of achievable observed information. When observed information is available, DOPING can perform deprojection under triaxiality without invoking assumptions, while in lieu of the same, assumptions are invoked. The former case is demonstrated above via the example of deprojection of a galaxy cluster. A benefit of the speed of the algorithm is that a suite of 3D density models, corresponding to a range of assumed values, is achieved quickly.
Thus, the strengths of DOPING include generalised applicability, ability to incorporate substructure and nonparametric density recovery, along with logistical advantages such as high speed of runs and userfriendliness. Such characteristics render DOPING a very useful tool in three dimensional modelling. In particular, the all important estimation of galactic masses will be aided by a tool such as DOPING.
AcknowledgementsThis research was funded by a Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship. The author is delighted to acknowledge the contribution of Laura Ferrarese without whose comments and suggestions, the paper would not have been possible.
Appendix A: Representing isophotes
The shape parameters of the isophotes form the input information, so we can formulate smooth analytical approximations to the isophotes. Of course, it is the fitting of such smooth approximations to the surface brightness data that provides estimates of the isophotal parameters; in other words such approximations are readily available. It is to sort grid points on the image plane, into respective isophotal annuli, that we invoke these approximations. However, real isophotes can be irregular and not altogether smooth. To take this into account, we examine the isophotes first and estimate the typical length scale over which the irregularity in the isophotes occurs. Thus, for example, the isophotal contours of a distant galaxy could be imaged by a given instrument as more jagged than those of a nearby system. We discard grid points on the image plane that lie within this estimated spatial range corresponding to deviations from smoothness.
Appendix B: Specifying the system geometry for triaxial galaxies
The specification of triaxiality of an example galaxy entails knowledge of:
 2 constant intrinsic axial ratios q_{1} and q_{2} for systems with radially independent shape. Alternatively, for systems with radially varying intrinsic eccentricities  2 intrinsic axial ratios that vary as known functions of distance away from centre of system.
 2 position angles or inclinations.
 set one inclination angle to 0 by setting one photometric axis (along the axis) to be coincident with an intrinsic principal axis (see Sect. 2.1).
 assume a value for the other inclination i.
 derive the two intrinsic axial ratios from the two projected
axial ratios:
 1.
 ratio of the photometric semiaxes (q_{p}).
 2.
 ratio of the semiaxes along the LOS to that along the photometric major axis ( ).
 q_{p}=f_{1}(q_{1}, q_{2}, i) and
 ,
Appendix C: Axial ratios
We clarify that the axial ratios q_{2k}, q_{1k}, q_{pk} are defined such that the extent along is in the numerator. Thus,
 q_{pk} is the ratio of the semiaxis along of the kth isophotal annulus, to that along , on the image plane,
 q_{2k} is ratio of the semiaxis along to that along the ,
 q_{1k} is ratio of the semiaxis along , to that along the ,
In the examples shown later in the paper, we assume the system to be oblate, unless otherwise stated, i.e. then q_{1k} is a constant, (=1) and q_{2k} > 1. If we are considering a prolate system, then q_{1k} is again a constant, (=1) but then q_{2k} < 1.
Appendix D: Optimisation
We seek solutions for that correspond to the 1 neighbourhood of the global maxima of and employ an MCMC optimiser for this. The particular implementation of this in our work is the Metropolis Hastings algorithm. Once MetropolisHastings attains the equilibrium stage, it moves around in the maximal region of . During this stage the average of an ensemble of models should represent the distribution that is to be sampled; this is reflected in stationarity in the trace of the likelihood. Before recording the solutions, we typically allow for 5 times the period of burnin to lapse, mindful of the fact that burnin can continue much longer than suggested by the trace. Details of the optimisation are presented in Roberts et al. (1997); Roberts & Rosenthal (2001); Roberts & Sahu (1997); Gelman et al. (1996).
We use circular iterations, with the 1st to the th iterative step repeating in cycles. We define convergence as when inside the equilibrium stage, the likelihood attained in the ith step during the Mth cycle, falls below the likelihood attained in the i+1th step during the M1th cycle. It is expected that then the algorithm has indeed passed through the global maxima in the likelihood. The extent of wandering of Metropolis in this maximal region is a direct measure of the errors of the analysis.
D.1 Uncertainties
In fact, when we say that the errors of our analysis are quantified by the 1 spread across the ensemble of identified density values, we actually imply a as 68% interval. To expound on the procedure of quantifying the errors: at a point (x,y,z), the values of the luminosity density corresponding to the maximal region of the likelihood function are recorded. This vector of density values is sorted and values at the 16th, 50th and 84th centiles are noted. The interval estimate of the luminosity density at this given point (x,y,z) is then represented by the error band bound by values corresponding to the 16th and 84th centiles; the density value at the medial position within this interval is also shown within this error band.
D.2 Updating density
At the beginning of every step, each histogram is varied,
independently of each other, while maintaining the realistic
conditions of positivity. In general, the old value of the relevant
variable (X) in step i is related to a new value Y in the next
step: Y = X + Z, where Z is a random variable. A variety of
proposals to move from X to Y are described in the literature
(Mengersen & Tweedie 1996; Gelman et al. 1996). Of these, we choose that the algorithm
proposes to move from X to Y using the random walk jumping
distribution, i.e. Y=X + sU, where U is a Gaussian random
deviate and s is the scale parameter that determines the size of
the jump. If the amount of change is very small, the chain will
require a very large number of steps to become wellmixed and hence
efficiency will be compromised. If the stepsize is too large, the
worry is that the resulting configuration will miss the global
maximum and fall into regions of very low likelihoods, wasting a
number of steps in the process (William et al. 2000). Our chosen jump
proposal is adaptive in nature since the updating of
at a given z, depends on the density at that z.
The details of the density updating is as follows:
=  
=  (D.1) 
(x_{k}^{j}, y_{k}^{j}, z_{l}) in step n. Also, and scl_{1} is a scale that determines the extent of the jump in the shape of a histogram between two consecutive steps. Also, for this k, j, z_{l} is the lth zbin and . This updating is done , , to accomplish change of shape of the histogram corresponding to the j, k.
We still need to make a change to the overall amplitude of the new density distribution. This is done by scaling by another random deviate , ; here scl_{2} is another scale that determines the amount of change of amplitude that is brought about in the density structure, for a given j, k.
The values of scl_{1} and scl_{2} are arrived at experimentally, keeping the effect of large and small scales in mind.
We choose to work with equal binning along all three coordinate axes; this binning is logarithmic in nature. A good choice for the smallest bin size is of the order of the spatial resolution of the data. A typical run takes a few minutes on an Intel Xenon 3.2 GHz CPU processor.
D.3 Temperatures
The probability of accepting the proposed move from likelihood to is discussed here. Here A generically represents the domain of the likelihood function which is the set of the histograms and A^{'} is the new set of histograms to which a move has been proposed.
Anxiety over multimodality of the likelihood function has prompted us
to work both with highly dispersed initial values (or seeds) to
initiate multiple chains (Gelman & Rubin 1992) and also to use simulated
annealing in a single chain. When the latter is implemented, the transmission
probability is
(D.2) 
where and T is the temperature parameter.
We have implemented both a uniform temperature profile, as well as played with a cooling schedule that starts with an initial temperature T_{0} which is allowed to cool down to a final value of T_{f}, over a step number of . In practice, we choose T_{f}/T_{0} to be 0.1 while is typically set to double the number of steps that correspond to burnin, as judged from traces of system characteristics, such as the value of the density that is recovered at a fiduciary location. We find that the answer depends only very weakly on the details of the cooling schedule.
Appendix E: Choice of the regularisation parameter
Thomson et al. (1991) refer to the smoothing parameter as the compromise
between ``fidelity to the data and smoothness''. While different
methods are suggested by Thomson et al. (1991) and
Titterington (1988), to constrain the scalar ,
we choose
to accept a value that is achieved via an empirical implementation of
the minimisation of the total meansquared error. We define the total
meansquared error (TMSE), for a given value of as:
(E.1) 
where there are N grid points over which a density profile is recovered and is the density recovered at the medial level in the ith grid point, while and are the values recovered at the 1 and +1 error levels, respectively. We scan over a range of values and stop increasing when the smallest is achieved. Typically, beyond a given value, increasing maintains the corresponding value for TMSE. It is the smallest at which this trend is noticed that is chosen as the we use in the runs.
Appendix F: Choice of seed for density
The robustness of a recursive formalism is reflected in the extent to which the initial guess for the solution is irrelevant to the final result. With this in mind, we undertook extensive experimentation with seed density distributions used by DOPING as starting guesses. For this investigation, we use the same simulated data set of an oblate galaxy, viewed edgeon, as described above: analytical density of Eqs. (10) and a constant eccentricity of 0.99.
Figure F.1: Top row: robustness of DOPING to changes in the central density of the initial guess for the density distribution. Density profiles from two runs (in red and green, superimposed with errorbars), performed with values of the central density parameter that are apart by eight orders of magnitude, are shown in the right panel. Superimposed on these is the true density of the system, shown in black open circles. The initial seeds for the density distributions in the two runs are shown in dotted lines, in the corresponding colours. The left panel shows projections of the recovered density profiles in corresponding colours, with the input surface brightness data overplotted as open circles. Middle row: the scale length parameter of the initial guess is changed. The two runs correspond to (in red) and b =40^{''} (in green). Lower row: the steepness parameter of the initial guess is changed. The two runs correspond to n=1.1 (in red) and n=1.8 (in green). 

Open with DEXTER 
Typically, we use a seed density
,
where denotes the ellipsoidal radius. In fact, we choose a seed density that has a form akin to the Lorentzian distribution:
The three parameters in this distribution are:
 the scale length b which determines the width of the profile,
 the central density a and;
 an exponent n that defines the steepness of the fall of the tail of the profile.
The top panels of Fig. F.1 shows the projected surface brightness and three dimensional luminosity density profiles obtained from runs done with initial guess characterised by values of central density (a) that are 8 orders of magnitude different. While one of the runs (in solid red lines) was started with a central density of about /arcsec^{3}, the other (shown in dotted green lines) corresponds to /arcsec^{3}. The run shown in Fig. 3 was carried out with /arcsec^{3}.
The panels in the middle row of Fig. F.1 display the recovered density profiles and their projections when the initial guess is characterised by scale lengths (the parameter b discussed above) of 2 5 and 40^{''}. These values were chosen at two opposing ends of the value of b = 10^{''}, which was used in the run, the results from which are shown in Fig. 3. It appears that in spite of the shape of the initial guess being significantly different from the true profile, the algorithm converges to the true density profile.
In the lower panel of Fig. F.1, results obtained from runs done with a steepness parameter n=1.8 (in dotted red lines) and n=1.1 (in solid green lines) are shown; the plots in Fig. 3 were retrieved from a run done with n=1.4. The recovered density profiles from these runs are consistent with the true density distribution, within error bars. The implications of these results are discussed in full details in Sect. 5.
References
 Bendinelli, O. 1991, ApJ, 366, 599 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Bissantz, N., & Munk, A. 2001, A&A, 376, 735 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 van den Bosch, F. C. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 543 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Cappellari, M. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 400 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Chakrabarty, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2008, IJMP(D), 17, 195 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Chakrabarty, D., de Filippis, E., & Russell, H. 2008, A&A, 487, 75 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Côté, P., Blakeslee, J. P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2004, ApJS, 153, 223 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fabricant, D., Rybicki, G., & Gorenstein, P. 1984, ApJ, 286, 186 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Ferrarese, L., Côté, P., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2006, in Black Holes: from Stars to Galaxies  Across the Range of Masses, ed. V. Karas, & G. Matt Proc. IAU Symp., 238 [arXiv:astroph/0612139] [Google Scholar]
 Gebhardt, K., Richstone, D., Ajhar, E. A., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 105 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. Statistical Science, 7, 457 [Google Scholar]
 Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., et al. 1995, Bayesian Data Analysis (Chapman and Hall) [Google Scholar]
 Gelman, A., Roberts, G. O., et al. 1996, in Bayesian Statistics 5, ed. J. Bernardo et al. (Oxford University Press), 599 [Google Scholar]
 Gerhard, O. E., & Binney, J. J. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 993 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Gielis, J. 2003, Am. J. Bot., 90, 333 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97 [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Haykin, S. S. 2008, Neural Networks and Learning Machines (Prentice Hall) [Google Scholar]
 Jedrzejewski, R. I. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 747 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Jedrzejewski, R. I., Davies, R. L., & Illingworth, G. D. 1987, AJ, 94, 150 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Kochanek, C. S., & Rybicki, G. B. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 1257 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Krajnovi, D., Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., McDermid, R., de Zeeuw, P. T. 2004, MNRAS, 357, 1113 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Kronawitter, A., Saglia, R. P., Gerhard, O., et al. 2000, A&AS, 144, 53 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Lucy, L. B. 1974, AJ, 79, 745 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Magorrian, J. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 530 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Mengersen, K. L., & Tweedie, R. L. 1996, Ann. Statist., 24, 101 [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Merritt, D., & Tremblay, B. 1993, AJ, 106, 2229 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Merritt, D., Meylan, G., & Mayor, M. 1997, AJ, 114, 1074 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., et al. 1953, J. Chem. Phys., 21, 1087 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Palmer, P. L. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 697 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Richardson, W. H. 1972, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 62, 55 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Roberts, G., & S. Sahu 1997, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 59, 291 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Roberts, G., Gelman, A., & Gilks, W. 1997, The Annals of Applied Probability, 7, 110 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Roberts, G. O., & J. S. Rosenthal 2001, Statistical Science, 16 (4), 351 [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Romanowsky, A. J., & Kochanek, C. S. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 35 (RK) [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Rybicki, G. B. 1987, IAUS, 127, 397 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Sereno, M., De Filippis, E., Longo, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 170 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Simonneau, E., Varela, A. M., & MunozTunon, C. 1998, Il Nuovo Cimento, 113 B, 927 [Google Scholar]
 Strom, S. E., Strom, K. M., Wells, D. C., et al. 1981, ApJ, 245, 416 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Sha, F., & Saul, L. K. 2005, Proceedings of the Twenty Second International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML05), Bonn, Germany, 785 [Google Scholar]
 Sun, J., Boyd, S., Xiao, L., et al. 2006, SIAM Rev., 48, 681 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Tanner, M. A. 1996, Tools for statistical inference (New York: SpringerVerlag) [Google Scholar]
 Tierney, L. 1994, The Annals of Statistics, 22, 1701 [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
 Titterington, D. M. 1988, IMS Lecture NotesMonograph Series, ed. A. Possolo, (Hayward, CA: Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 1991), 20, 462 [Google Scholar]
 Thompson, A. M., Brown, J. C., Kay, J. W., et al. 1991, IEEE Transactions to Patten Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 13, 326 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Weinberger, K. Q., & Saul, L. K. 2006, Proceedings of the Twenty First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI06), Boston, USA [Google Scholar]
 Wang, A., Cherry, C., Lizotte, D., et al. 2006, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CONLL), NY, USA [Google Scholar]
 William, J. B., Draper, D., Down, D., et al. 2000, Computational Statistics, 15, 391 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Yong, K., Sahoo, Y., Roy Choudhury, K., et al. 2006, Nano Letters, 6, 709 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Footnotes
 ... account^{}
 Such a broad class of solid shapes are perhaps an overkill for astrophysical applications, but these shapes do indeed show up in nature, for example, the wide range of shapes of images of deposited nanoparticles (taken with Transmission Electron Microscope) indicate that these would require such a description (Yong et al. 2006).
 ... 2008) ^{}
 Such motivation is also found in Maximum Variance Unfolding that also implements Laplacian regularisation and has been studied by Sha & Saul (2005); Weinberger & Saul (2006); Sun et al. (2006).
 ... brightness^{}
 Note that although we will use units of magnitude for the surface brightness and density profile, DOPING works in linear units of intensity.
 ... shapes^{}
 Such geometries, though not relevant to astrophysics, occur in nature. For example, 2D images of grown nanoparticles, taken with a Transmission Electron Microscope, exhibit a wide variety of shapes that can be accommodated by the superformula (Yong et al. 2006).
All Figures
Figure 1: Geometrical considerations adopted in the design of the algorithm. The system is represented as the ellipsoid. The X, Y and Z axes (in thin black lines) represent the three principle axes of the system while x and y mark the photometric axes and the zaxis is the LOS (in thicker black lines). A rectangular section of the image plane (i.e. the z = 0 plane) is represented by the tilted rectangle in the broken lines; this plane cuts the ellipsoid in an elliptical disk which is depicted by the translucent gray disk. Generic isophotal annuli on this disk are depicted in centrally increasing grayscale intensity. Two generic points, lying inside the intermediate isophotal annulus, are shown as the two black squares. The extent of the system along the positive zaxis, at these two marked points are represented by the lengths of the white rectangles that are oriented parallel to the LOS. In the text, one such point, generically considered to be inside the kth isophotal annulus, is referred to as (x_{j}^{k}, y_{j}^{k}, 0), while the tip of the white rectangle emanating from this point is ascribed coordinates . The extent along the negative zaxis is not shown in this diagram. The ellipsoidal shell that passes through is fully constrained (see Sect. 2.5). Using x_{j}^{k} and y_{j}^{k}, (coordinates of the known point on the image plane), the intrinsic shape parameters of the kth isophotal annulus (a_{k}, q_{1k}, q_{2k}) and the inclination i, the equation of this ellipsoid is solved to obtain the value of (and ). Thus, the zextent through which a trial 3D has to be projected, is ascertained, for all j and k. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 2: The chosen eccentricity profile of the test galaxy Test I, shown as a function of r, in filled circles. The same for Test II is shown in open circles. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 3: Performance of DOPING in the simulated test cases Test I (a disk galaxy with a round ellipsoidal centre that extends to only about 0 5) in the lower panels and Test II (an elliptical galaxy with varying eccentricity) in the upper panels. The chosen analytical density distributions is shown in red open circles, as a function of the major axis coordinate, in the right panels. This known density, along with the eccentricity profile shown in Fig. 2, implies the surface brightness distributions which are shown in red along different azimuths , (major axis, minor axis), in red filled circles, in the left and middle panels. The recovered density distributions along the major axis are overplotted on the known density profiles, in black, in the right panels. Projections of these recovered density distributions are shown in black, as functions of x along two different azimuths (, i.e. major axis and , i.e. minor axis), superimposed on the brightness data along these respective azimuths. The sharp rise of the eccentricity profiles in the two test cases (over length scales that are a factor of 80 apart) is indicated by the much sharper decline of the density along the minor axis, compared to the major. Higher regularisation is implemented in the recovery of the density distribution in the Test II case than in the case of Test I. In this figure, as well as in all subsequent figures, we assume that the surface brightness is measured in the SDSS zband for a galaxy at a distance of 17 Mpc. This is true unless otherwise stated. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 4: Left: the 2D surface brightness (in mag/arcsec^{2}) distribution of our flat test galaxy Test I, as a contour plot on the plane of the sky (xy plane). The contours in broken lines pertain to the toy brightness data that was fed into DOPING while the solid lines represent the projection of the 3D luminosity density that DOPING recovers. The gap around y = 0 occurs in the distribution of the projected density since the smallest (logarithmic) spatial bin is about 1pixel, i.e. 0^{''}.05. Right: same as for the left panel, except that in this case, the central rounder part of the test galaxy has been focused upon. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 5: 2D surface brightness (in mag/arcsec^{2}) distribution of the elliptical test galaxy Test II, compared to the plane of the sky projection of the luminosity distribution recovered by DOPING for this system. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 6: Luminosity density distributions recovered by deprojecting the surface brightness profile given by Eq. (11), under the assumption of oblateness, given a projected eccentricity of 0.71, viewed at inclinations of about 46 (in black), 48 (in magenta), 55 (in green) and 90 (in red). The recovered density distributions are plotted along the minor axes. The true luminosity density of the test galaxy is shown in filled black circles. The profiles above were recovered from runs performed with various bin widths ad smoothing parameter values. The estimation of the error bars on the recovered density profiles is discussed in Appendix D.1. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 7: Central luminosity density, plotted as a function of inclination for four different values of the intrinsic eccentricity. When the intrinsic eccentricity is 0.71, the obtained central density points are shown in black. The colour coding for the other values of e is as follows: e = 0.87, 0.95 and 0.99 correspond to red, green and blue, respectively. The case of inclination = 0 obviously indicates the situation when the observed isophotes are circular, i.e. the observed projected eccentricity is zero. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 8: Luminosity density of our oblate test galaxy of projected eccentricity 0.99 (shown in red), recovered by DOPING, under the assumptions of prolateness (in blue), oblateness (in black) and triaxiality with ratio between LOS extent and photometric major axis = 0.5 (in green). All the deprojections were carried out for an edgeon viewing. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 9: Left: luminosity density of an oblate test galaxy with uniform eccentricity of 0.99, recovered by comparing the input brightness profile with the PSF convolved projection of the density in any iterative step. The PSF in question is the ACS PSF in the F850W filter. When the convolution with the PSF is ignored, the recovered density is shown in green. Right: difference between the density profiles obtained with and without convolving with the PSF. It is noted that inside the central 10^{''}, this difference is 2 orders of magnitude less than density while outside 10^{''}, the difference tends to zero. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 10: Effect of increasing the smoothing parameter , on the recovered density and hence its projection, which is plotted here in black, as a function of the major axis coordinate, over the brightness data for I3019 (vcc9), as was observed within the ACS VCS program (in red). As we proceed from left to right, goes as 0, 0.1 and 1. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 11: As in Fig. 5, except that in this case, the plane of the sky brightness distribution of the galaxy IC 3019 is shown. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 12: Xray luminosity density profile of cluster A1413, recovered under the true system geometry ( q_{1} = 0.96, q_{2} = 1.64) and inclination = 68.5, i.e. the medial value of the identified range (as found by Chakrabarty, et al. 2008), is plotted in red. The other profiles mark the densities recovered under four distinct assumptions about the system geometry and incinations  the four benchmark deprojection scenarios (see text in Sect. 4.2) used in Chakrabarty et al. (2008). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure 13: Luminosity density of the twocomponent galaxy Ic 3881 along the axis ( right) and its projection ( left) in black with the observed surface brightness data superimposed in red. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Figure F.1: Top row: robustness of DOPING to changes in the central density of the initial guess for the density distribution. Density profiles from two runs (in red and green, superimposed with errorbars), performed with values of the central density parameter that are apart by eight orders of magnitude, are shown in the right panel. Superimposed on these is the true density of the system, shown in black open circles. The initial seeds for the density distributions in the two runs are shown in dotted lines, in the corresponding colours. The left panel shows projections of the recovered density profiles in corresponding colours, with the input surface brightness data overplotted as open circles. Middle row: the scale length parameter of the initial guess is changed. The two runs correspond to (in red) and b =40^{''} (in green). Lower row: the steepness parameter of the initial guess is changed. The two runs correspond to n=1.1 (in red) and n=1.8 (in green). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Copyright ESO 2010
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.