Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
1 ASTRONOMY SESSION: A SUMMARY R. Coniglione, INFN - Laboratori Nazionali del Sud Astronomy session 2 Detector optimization: Kooijman for De Jong, Sapienza FoM for Galactic sources: Sapienza, Coniglione, Leisos •The reference detector: 2 blocks of 310 strings (20 floors/string 40m distant) with MultiPMT. Distance between strings 100m. Total volume 3.8 km3 •MC inputs: same (WPD document) •Codes: Sirene, HOU software, ANTARES code modified for KM3NeT (LNS code) P. Kooijman for M. de Jong Sirene Sirene is yet another program that simulates the detector response to muons and showers It uses a general purpose collections framework for PDF/CDF tables ‒ allows for optimisation of accuracy and speed of interpolations ‒ facilitates I/O It runs about 10 x faster than km3 3 NO reconstruction – no search analysis Analysis at trigger level number of events with ≥ 5 L1s from RXJ1713 per year (Kelner spectrum) L1 corresponds to two (or more) hits on same optical module within 10 ns procedure scaling factor applied to absorption length (0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2) vary horizontal spacing 80‒130 m and vertical spacing 30‒50 m determine optimal spacing for each absorption length dependence of performance figure on scaling factor P. Kooijman for M. de Jong Module • Scaling Factor: Absorption length wrt Km3 “standard” absorption length • Number of lines In a block events scaled to 640 lines (20 floors) • Number of floors Reduced floors gives more lines, 120 line blocks events / year scaling factor scaling factor = number of lines in a block number of floors Building block = smallest detector with optimal efficiency 80<Lines<120 and 15<floors<19 4 P. Kooijman for M. de Jong Example horizontal spacing events / year vertical spacing scaling factor 1.1 horizontal spacing [m] scaling factor 1.1 vertical spacing [m] There is a clear maximum For this scaling factor: 100m horizontal and 34-38 m vertical 5 P. Kooijman for M. de Jong Dependence on absorption length events / year optimal detector scaling factor For each absorption length optimize the detector There is a clear linear dependence 6 P. Kooijman for M. de Jong Conclusions 7 From detector optimization with SIRENE Typical numbers: Blocks: 80-120 lines Floors: 14-18 Horizontal distance: 80-110 m Vertical distance: 35-40 m Numbers vary within these limits for different absorption length Optimizing at each absorption length yields a linear dependence of number of events on absorption length. P. Sapienza The SNR RXJ1713 8 Event simulation performed with Antares code adapted for km3 detector Simulation for RXJ1713 with a Kelner spectrum in a flat disk of 0.6° RECO => Fit with a scanning procedure based on a 3°x3° grid plus rotations + Aart strategy Binned and unbinned search analysis values of FoM (years for 5s discovery) and sensitivity RXJ1713 P. Sapienza RXJ1713-39.46 sensitivity 1 y – DU distance 9 Two blocks of 310 strings 20 multi-PMT/string 40 m distance between multi-PMT 1.72 E (E) 1.68 1014 e TeV Proposed as public plot E 2.1TeV GeV 1s1cm 2 • Better performance for a 100m string distant detector • In one year, if no statistically significant excess will be found, upper limits lower the kelner model can be set P. Sapienza RXJ1713-39.46 5s – DU distance 10 Proposed as public plot Official result to quote: RXJ1713 5.8 years preliminary and binned Binned Significance Unbinned estimated 5sigma Years 5.8 Nsource 29.9 Nbackground 26.8 3sigma 2.1 10.1 8.5 100 m is a good distance for galactic sources Unbinned calculations provide a rather good improvement of the FoM P. Sapienza RXJ1713-39.46 labs dependence 11 L*abs = 1.1 Labs String Nsource/year Distance (m) Nback/year F.O.M. 90 5.30 37.2 6. 100 5.40 34.2 5.6 130 5.10 24.1 6 L*abs = 1 Labs String distance (m) Nsource/yea r Nback/year F.O.M. 90 5.01 34.4 6.3 100 5.04 30.0 5.8 130 4.66 20.9 6.5 Nsource and Nback = number of events in 1° around the source position (no cut applied) • 10% difference in Labs-> Difference of about 5% between FOM • Same string distance optimization at different Labs From A. Leisos HOU codes Unbinned search method The unbinned analysis and ANTARES code simulation gives 4.8y (estimated value) Agreement at about 10% 12 R. Coniglione 13 The Pulsar Wind Nebula Vela X R. Coniglione VelaX Gamma spectrum 14 New HESS paper appeared on ArXiv in October 2012 and now on Astronomy and Astrophysics 548 (2012) A38 with a higher flux measurement. (53h 2012/ 12h 2006 of observation) Observation up to 50 TeV d=-45.6° Extension: •Inner region 0.8° •Total 1.2° R. Coniglione Gamma spectra 15 Ecut (TeV) >1TeV (s-1cm2) 2.13 10-14 2.04 17.9 1.68 10-11 VelaX 2006* 1.03 10-14 1.45 13.8 1.28 10-11 VelaX 2012 total 1.46 10-14 1.32 14.0 2.10 10-11 Astronomy & Astrophysics L43 448 (2006) VelaX 2012 inner 1.16 10-14 1.36 13.9 1.6 10-11 N (GeV-1s-1cm-2) RXJ1713 dN N E exp( E E cut ) dE * F. Aharonian et al., R. Coniglione Neutrino spectra 16 R. Coniglione Simulation results 17 Source at d=-45.6° with a flat disk distribution of 0.8° (inner part of VelaX) Reconstruction with scanning 3°x3° Official value for public : no morphology in simulation VelaX about 3 years preliminary no atmospheric muons Years for discovery Years for discovery 5s 50% 3s 50% Vela X 2006 Kappes 7.5 2.6 VelaX 2006 Vissani 5.2 1.8 VelaX 2012 inner Vissani 2.8 1.1 A. Leisos HOU codes Unbinned search method 18 3.8 years with HOU codes to be compared with 2.8 years with ANTARES code and binned analysis Difference to be investigated. R. Coniglione 19 The SuperNova Remnant Vela junior Vela Junior gamma spectrum 20 SNR Vela Junior d=-46.37° F. Aharonian et al., Astrophys. Journal (2007) 236 data from December 2004 to May 2005 (33h of ON-source run) Observation up to ≈20 TeV no cut off observed Radial profile =2.24 N=1.9 10-14 Vela Junior gamma spectrum 21 SNR Vela Junior d=-46.37° Manuel Paz Arribas et al., ICRC 2011 Amount of data increased by a factor 2 data from 2004 to 2009 (72h of live time after data quality selection) Morphology analysis -> NO absolute flux values -> *N extracted from 2007 values N (GeV-1s-1cm-2) Ecut (TeV) >1TeV (s-1cm-2) VelaJ 2007 *1.89 10-14 2.24 - 1.52 10-11 VelaJ ICRC 2011 single region *1.69 10-14 2.11 - 1.52 10-11 VelaJ ICRC 2011 whole *1.86 10-14 2.22 - 1.52 10-11 Vela Junior neutrino spectrum 22 * dN dE N E exp( (E E cut )) ** dN dE N E exp((E E cut )) N (GeV-1s-1cm-2) Ecut (TeV) >1TeV (s-1cm-2) VelaJ Vissani 2007** 6.6 10-15 2.24 - 5.30 10-12 VelaJ Vissani ICRC 2011 single region** 2.64 10-15 2.11 - 5.71 10-12 VelaJ Kappes* 1.67 10-14 1.72 1.19 4.84 10-12 Simulation results Vela Junior 23 Source at d=-46.37° with a flat disk distribution of 1° Reconstruction with scanning 3°x3° no morphology no atmospheric muons Years for discovery 5s 50% Vela Junior Vissani 2007 >10 VelaJ Vissani ICRC 2011 2.9 VelaJ Vissani ICRC 2011 + cutoff 13 TeV 6 VelaJ Kappes >>10 No cutoff unrealistic With a supposed cutoff (not measured) 24 The Fermi bubbles The Fermi bubble 25 In the paper simulation for 2 x154 towers with multiPMT 180m spaced (≈6km3) Paper appeared in Astroparticle Physics Vol. 42 (feb 2013) 7-14. tower+multipmt detector @180m Discovery for E-2 with a cutoff@100 TeV spectrum in about 1 ÷1 ½ year Discovery for E-2 with a cutoff@30 TeV spectrum in about 5 ÷6 years strings+multipmt detector @100m (no muatm) Discovery for E-2 with a cutoff@100 TeV spectrum in about 1 ÷1 ½ year Discovery for E-2 with a cutoff@30 TeV spectrum in about 3÷4 years To be confirmed Summary 26 String distance optimization -> 100m No different optimal string distance at different Labs Discovery of RXJ1713 in about 5.8 years (agreement at about 10% with HOU results) Discovery of VelaX in about 3 years (difference with HOU results to be understood)