1. Edinburgh 11 th November 2005 UKIDSS Science Verification Summary/Highlights of SV effort to date Simon Dye Data characteristics Survey-specific SV Data characteristics Survey-specific SV

2. Data characteristics

3. Read noise CDS dark Median filtered diff. img. Difference image Subtracted diff. img.

4. Read noise & dark stability ArrayCDS r.o.n. CDS banding NDR r.o.n. NDR banding 119.5 e-16.2 e-13.0 e-11.0 e- 222.1 e-12.0 e-14.7 e-7.9 e- 323.1 e-12.1 e-16.3 e-10.8 e- 423.5 e-15.7 e-19.9 e-9.5 e- NDR mode reduces r.o.n. and banding level by ~30% cf. CDS r.o.n. in CDS darks practically independent of t_exp NDR darks seem less stable than CDS

5. Flatfields Average 1sigma variation in pixel response is ~14% Variation in array 4 is double that in array 1 Variation higher in shorter wavelength filters

6. Flatfields Field lens still dirty => K band thermal emission

7. Flatfields Variation in thermal emission seen between nights Variation of flatfield response, however, is small, ~1%, only marginally higher than Poisson noise 10/04/200511/04/2005

8. Flatfields Difference image

9. Persistence Persistence after filter change much reduced but still present Flare Nov 2004 April 2005

10. Background limit Fractional increase = sqrt[ counts(e-) + (r.o.n)^2 ] / sqrt[ counts(e-) ] - 1

11. Background limit Fractional increase = sqrt[ counts(e-) + (r.o.n)^2 ] / sqrt[ counts(e-) ] - 1

12. Calibration Use observation of standard GD153 on 10/04/2005

13. Calibration Relative to Vega, mags of GD153: FilterSynthetic mag UKIRT faint std Z13.76 Y13.97 J14.0514.08 H14.1614.17 K14.2614.27 Zero pt (ADU) Pipeline zero pt 22.8222.76 22.70 22.9622.98 23.2123.27 22.5822.56

14. Survey specific SV

15. LAS: SV target list

16. LAS: Manual vs. pipeline photometry 7 LAS SV targets observed on night of 10/04/05: 2 BDs, 2 CWDs, 3 QSOs

17. LAS: Manual vs. pipeline photometry Col-col diag for L3 BD & L4.5 BD CASU Manual

18. LAS: Manual vs. pipeline photometry Col-col diagram for 2 z=6.1 QSOs CASU Manual

19. LAS: Manual vs. pipeline photometry Calculate mag(pipeline) – mag(manual) for objects where detected in each filter: => Pipeline mags are consistent: 0.07 +/- 0.08

20. LAS: Pipeline vs synthetic colours (Nick Lodieu)

21. LAS: Number counts (Antony Smith, Sussex) YJ HK

22. LAS: Astrometry (Antony Smith, Sussex) Distance from DR4 spec. gals

23. GCS: Photometry (Tim Kendall, Herts) Comparison with 2MASS Systematics: point source/non point source MKO vs. 2MASS

24. GCS: Internal consistency (Nigel Hambly, Edinburgh)

25.  (  ), 5yr, K=18: 30mas/yr x2 better required  microstepping  PSF fitting

26. LAS: Internal consistency in K

27.  =1.53

28. LAS: K band, SExtractor vs. pipeline

31. UDS: Stacking tests (Omar Almaini, Seb Foucaud, Notts) ELAIS N1, Full stacked tile, 17K x 17K

32. UDS: Stacking tests (Omar Almaini, Seb Foucaud, Notts) ~ 1 array, 4K x 4K

33. UDS: Stacking tests (Omar Almaini, Seb Foucaud, Notts) sub array, 2K x 2K

34. UDS: Stacking tests (Omar Almaini, Seb Foucaud, Notts) Problems with persistence… … and cross-talk

35. UDS: Stacking tests (Omar Almaini, Seb Foucaud, Notts) Point source depth map shows generally reduced sensitivity in arrays 2 & 4 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5

36. DXS: Classification (Eduardo Gonzales-Solares, CASU) Point-like Extended

37. DXS: 2MASS cf. (Eduardo Gonzales-Solares, CASU)

38. DXS: Mag limits (Eduardo Gonzales-Solares, CASU) Variation of K mag limits across ELAIS N1 MSBs.

39. DXS: Spitzer gal cols (Eduardo Gonzales-Solares, CASU) Spitzer-WFCAM col-col diagram comparison with galaxy tracks.

40. SV2 Imminent!