Table 1
Comparison between injected and recovered parameters within 3re of the mock halos in Fig. 3.
| Scheme | Location | Spre (mJy) | Sinj (mJy) | Smeas (mJy) | Sfit (mJy) | I0inj (µJy arcsec−2) | I0,fit (µJyarcsec−2) | re,inj (arcsec) | re,fit (arcsec) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80.0 | 81.1 ± 8.8 | 84.0 ± 5.3 | 9.6 |  |
 |
||||
| Inj. | Centre | 0.4 | 40.0 | 40.6 ± 5.3 | 42.9 ± 4.4 | 4.8 |  |
40.7 |  |
| 16.0 | 16.6 ± 3.8 | 18.8 ± 4.1 | 1.9 |  |
 |
||||
| 80.0 | 79.8 ± 8.7 | 80.0 ± 4.4 | 9.6 |  |
 |
||||
| Inj. | Off-centre | −0.8 | 40.0 | 39.7 ± 5.2 | 39.6 ± 3.3 | 4.8 |  |
40.7 |  |
| 16.0 | 15.7 ± 3.7 | 13.0 ± 3.0 | 1.9 |  |
 |
||||
| 80.0 | 81.7 ± 8.8 | 82.6 ± 4.9 | 9.6 |  |
 |
||||
| Sub. & Inj. | Centre | 0.7 | 40.0 | 41.0 ± 5.2 | 41.3 ± 3.8 | 4.8 |  |
40.7 |  |
| 16.0 | 16.8 ± 3.7 | 15.2 ± 3.1 | 1.9 |  |
 |
||||
| 80.0 | 79.9 ± 8.6 | 81.0 ± 3.9 | 9.6 |  |
 |
||||
| Sub. & Inj. | Off-centre | ¯0.8 | 40.0 | 39.6 ± 5.1 | 39.8 ± 3.4 | 4.8 |  |
40.7 |  |
| 16.0 | 15.9 ± 3.6 | 13.7 ± 2.7 | 1.9 |  |
 |
||||
| 80.0 | 81.9 ± 8.8 | 82.9 ± 4.9 | 9.6 |  |
 |
||||
| Inj. & Sub. | Centre | 0.4 | 40.0 | 40.8 ± 5.2 | 41.0 ± 3.9 | 4.8 |  |
40.7 |  |
| 16.0 | 16.5 ± 3.7 | 15.1 ± 3.1 | 1.9 |  |
 |
||||
| 80.0 | 79.9 ± 8.6 | 80.7 ± 4.0 | 9.6 |  |
 |
||||
| Inj. & Sub. | Off-centre | −0.8 | 40.0 | 39.7 ± 5.1 | 40.0 ± 3.5 | 4.8 |  |
40.7 |  |
| 16.0 | 15.9 ± 3.6 | 14.4 ± 2.8 | 1.9 |  |
 |
Notes. Column 1 reports the adopted algorithm scheme discussed in the text. Columns 2 and 3 report the location of the injection and the flux density measured in the halo area before the injection (Spre). Columns 4-6 report the injected (Sinj = 0.8Sinj,tot), hand-measured (Smeas), and fitted (Sfit) flux densities. Columns 7–10 report the injected and fitted I= and re. Errors on Smeas are calculated as 
, where σ is the noise of the restored image, Nbeam is the number of beams within the considered region, and ξcal is the flux density scale uncertainty; we adopted ξcal = 10% (Shimwell et al. 2022). Errors on Sfit take into account the fitting uncertainties only, which depend on ∆re, fit and ∆I0, fit.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text 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 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.