next previous
Up: Discussion of the

3. Deep probing the residuals

As seen in the previous item, the quantity of data is overabundant, therefore it is possible to examine in detail the standing of the hypotheses implicitly adopted in building the Standard Weighted Global Solution. That is, the residuals from the solution behave as white noise, of null average and uniform variance.

Paper I brings the histograms of the residuals inside each subset. No important anomaly (skewness or curtosis) is apparent on the plots. In general, the central portion of the histograms depicts a normal distribution of zero average and uniform standard deviation.

There is, however, in the most critical cases - OCA at tex2html_wrap_inline2175 and tex2html_wrap_inline2177 of zenith distance - a significant tail of negative residuals. The fact corroborates the need to assign smaller weights to these subsets.

A possible time evolution of the residuals was also studied. Figures 1 (click here) to 14 (click here) show the plotting of the residuals against the Julian date of observation, for each subset. Altough some trends might be suggested, they do not repeat for neighbouring zenith distances nor for similar epochs. Their amplitude is allways smaller than the scattering inside a campaign (about 1.5 arcsec), thus, even if they were real their cause could hardly be disclosed and their effect is too small to trouble.

One of the most conspicuous of these trends is shown in Fig. 1 (click here). The downstepping of the average from 1983 onwards is probably associated with the tightening of the campaigns' scatter. The feature is believed to be due to an improvement of the observational routine and apparatus, leading to higher quality of the results. Figures 3 (click here) and 8 (click here) show a smooth downwards trend. Altough barely significant, vis-a-vis each campaign scatter, as discussed above, they might indicate a slow deformation of the corresponding prisms (tex2html_wrap_inline2179 and tex2html_wrap_inline2181). A longer time interval would be required to confirm the feature.

  figure250
Figure 1: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2183 / OCA

  figure255
Figure 2: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2185 / OCA

  figure260
Figure 3: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2187 / OCA

  figure265
Figure 4: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2189 / OCA

  figure270
Figure 5: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2191 / OCA

  figure275
Figure 6: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2193 / OCA

  figure280
Figure 7: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2195 / OCA

  figure285
Figure 8: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2197 / OCA

  figure290
Figure 9: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2199 / OCA

  figure295
Figure 10: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2201 / OCA

  figure300
Figure 11: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2203 / OCA

  figure306
Figure 12: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2205 / ON

  figure312
Figure 13: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2207 / OAM

  figure318
Figure 14: Residuals Distribution tex2html_wrap_inline2209 / OAM

In some of the plots, for tex2html_wrap_inline2211, specially in Figs. 5 (click here) and 7 (click here), it could be distinguished an upside loop for the residuals spanning the years 1985 to 1987 at the OCA. The changing in the method employed to measure the atmospheric parameters used for calculate the refraction could be a cause of such effect.

To check upon this possibility, we prepared a run of the Standard Weighted Global Solution, including as additional unknown an additive constant to the zenith distance. This new unknown applies for all the OCA subsets, between 1985 and 1987, for which tex2html_wrap_inline2213. The results are presented in Table 5. There are no important differences on the results compared to the Standard Solution displayed in Table 1. The general standard deviation, however, drops from tex2html_wrap_inline2215 to tex2html_wrap_inline2217, which is marginally significant and seems to confirm the effect. The additional unknown (tex2html_wrap_inline2219) takes the value of tex2html_wrap_inline2221 with standard deviation tex2html_wrap_inline2223, i.e. it is hightly significant. Even so, as the reference system and Earth's orbit orientation parameters are not changed by the inclusion of the additional unknown and as its definition is empirical, we choose to rather not include it in the Standard Weighted Global Solution.

 table325
Table 5: Global Solution tex2html_wrap_inline2225)

 table330
Table 6: The output from the modified models of the Standard Weighted Global Solution. The additional unknowns (U1, U2, U3, U4, see text) enter in each solution as follows:  1 - None, standard model.  2 - Unknown (i), constant of refraction for the three sites.  3 - Unknown (i), only for OCA.  4 - Unknown (ii)  5 - Unknown (iii), harmonic of azimuthal frequency 2Z.  6 - Unknown (iii), as solution 5, but only for OCA and z tex2html_wrap_inline2263 60tex2html_wrap_inline2265.  7 - Unknown (iii), harmonic of azimuthal frequency 3Z.  8 - Unknown (iii), harmonic of azimuthal frequencies 2Z and 3Z.  9 - Unknown (iii), as solution 8, but only for OCA and tex2html_wrap_inline2273.  10 - Unknown (iv)


next previous
Up: Discussion of the

Copyright by the European Southern Observatory (ESO)
web@ed-phys.fr