1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4:
5: \newcommand{\myemail}{mforot@cea.fr}
6:
7: \slugcomment{Draft version.}
8:
9: \shorttitle{Compton telescope with coded aperture mask}
10: \shortauthors{Forot et al.}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Compton telescope with coded aperture mask: \\
15: Imaging with the INTEGRAL/IBIS Compton mode }
16:
17: \author{M. Forot\altaffilmark{1}, P. Laurent\altaffilmark{1}, F. Lebrun\altaffilmark{1} and O. Limousin\altaffilmark{1}}
18: \altaffiltext{1}{Service d'Astrophysique, CEA Saclay, 91191, GIF sur YVETTE, France}
19:
20: \email{mforot@cea.fr}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: Compton telescopes provide a good sensitivity over a wide field of
24: view in the difficult energy range running from a few hundred keV
25: to several MeV. Their angular resolution is, however, poor and
26: strongly energy dependent. We present a novel experimental design
27: associating a coded mask and a Compton detection unit to overcome
28: these pitfalls. It maintains the Compton performance while
29: improving the angular resolution by at least an order of
30: magnitude in the field of view subtended by the mask. This
31: improvement is obtained only at the expense of the efficiency that
32: is reduced by a factor of two. In addition, the background
33: corrections benefit from the coded mask technique, i.e. a
34: simultaneous measurement of the source and background. This design
35: is implemented and tested using the IBIS telescope on board the
36: INTEGRAL satellite to construct images with a $12'$ resolution
37: over a 29°x29° field of view in the energy range from $200$ keV to
38: a few MeV. The details of the analysis method and the resulting
39: telescope performance, particularly in terms of sensitivity, are
40: presented.
41:
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \keywords{gamma rays:observation -- instrument:Compton -- telescopes}
45:
46: \section{Introduction}
47:
48: The development of Compton telescopes began in the 1970's with
49: balloon flights\\ \citep{Schoenfelder1973,Herzo1975, Lockwood1979}
50: and culminated with the flight of COMPTEL \citep{Schoenfelder1993}
51: on board the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO). COMPTEL has
52: shown for more than 9 years the capabilities of a Compton
53: telescope to image the sky between 1 and 30 MeV thanks to the
54: Compton kinematics information \citep{Boggs2000}. The study of
55: astrophysical sites of nucleosynthesis, as illustrated by the
56: first $^{26}$Al skymap \citep{Diehl1995}, largely progressed with
57: the COMPTEL data. On the other hand, COMPTEL barely achieved a 5° deg
58: (FWHM) angular resolution at 1 MeV. Future Compton telescopes could
59: benefit from the very significant detector progress, particularly
60: in the semiconductor domain, to improve the spectral resolution,
61: thus the angular resolution \citep{Limousin2003}. The latter is,
62: however, intrinsically limited by what is referred to as the
63: electron Doppler broadening which results from the fact that the
64: scattering electron in a detector is bound. This limits the
65: angular resolution to about 5 deg at 511 keV in the best case \citep{Zoglauer2003}.
66:
67: One way to overcome this limitation is to adjoin a coded aperture
68: (mask) to a Compton telescope. This design, which has never been
69: used for gamma-ray space telescopes, maintains the advantages of a
70: Compton telescope (high-energy response, low background, wide
71: field of view) over most of the wide field of view, but it adds
72: the coded mask imaging properties (angular resolution, background
73: subtraction) in the solid angle subtended by the mask. Indeed, in
74: a coded mask system, source and background are measured
75: simultaneously and the energy independent angular resolution is
76: more than one order of magnitude better than in classical Compton
77: telescopes. With Coded Aperture Compton Telescopes (hereafter
78: CACT), we can obtain low background images in the 200 keV--10 MeV
79: energy range, with an angular resolution better than a fraction of
80: degree (e.g. 10 arcmin).
81:
82: Anyway, a CACT has generally a lower
83: efficiency than a classical coded mask telescope with, for instance,
84: a thicker detector layer. However, the background in the energy range
85: from $200$ keV to a few MeV is dominated by the telescope internal
86: emission, which increases with the detector volume. A thicker detector
87: will suffer thus an higher background. Therefore, the decision
88: to use only one layer or two layers in coincidence for detecting the photons
89: through the mask, is a trade-off
90: between the detector(s) background level and efficiency.
91:
92: In another hand,
93: CACT can be used to get the full energy deposit of an high energy photon,
94: even if imaging is done only using the mask projection on one layer. This
95: will enable the users to get an improved energy response of a coded mask telescope.
96:
97: Lastly, CACT are in general difficult to use at higher energy, near 10 MeV and above, as they would require a thick mask, even with tungsten, to stop the photons, which will result in a large vignetting effect for off-axis sources. Also, at those energies, Compton scatterings and pair creation in the mask will affect the system imaging properties, and may degrade its angular resolution which therefore becomes slightly energy dependant.
98:
99: In this paper, we present the general
100: principle of CACT, their application to the INTEGRAL mission, the
101: difficulties inherent to the use of CACT, the analysis method of
102: the IBIS Compton Mode and its resulting performance.
103: \clearpage
104: \begin{figure}[!h]
105: \epsscale{1}
106: \plotone{f1.eps.ps}
107: \caption{Forward scattering of a photon in the IBIS/Compton mode.
108: An incident photon in red is scattered in ISGRI and absorbed in
109: PICsIT (in blue). The energy and position measurements in A and C
110: allow the derivation of the two angles: $\theta_{com}$ and
111: $\theta_{sca}$.\label{CompSca}}
112: \end{figure}
113: \clearpage
114: \section{Principle of a Coded Aperture Compton Telescope}
115:
116: In a Compton telescope, consisting of two detector layers,
117: gamma-ray photons are Compton scattered in one detector and absorbed
118: in the second. The locations and energy deposits of each interaction
119: are measured, as illustrated in Figure \ref{CompSca} for the IBIS
120: detectors. The direction of the scattered photon, $\overrightarrow{u}_{sca}$,
121: is determined from the interaction locations
122: in the two detectors. The Compton scattering angle, $\theta_{com}$,
123: is measured from the energy deposits, $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$, recorded
124: in the two detectors and given by, for a forward scattering :
125: \begin{equation}
126: \cos \theta_{com} = 1-\frac{m_ec^2}{E_{2}} +
127: \frac{m_ec^2}{E_{1}+E_{2}}
128: \end{equation}
129: where $m_{e}c^{2}$ is the electron rest mass energy. In a
130: Compton telescope, the direction of the incoming gamma-ray photon
131: lies on the edge of a cone, the Compton cone, with axis $\overrightarrow{u}_{sca}$ and aperture
132: $\theta_{com}$. The density distribution of all the projected
133: event circles, intersection of the cone with the celestial sphere,
134: allows to reconstruct sky maps and to locate
135: sources. Source polarization can also be measured
136: since the scattering azimuth is related to the polarization
137: direction. The angular resolution of the telescope depends on the
138: accuracy of the $\theta_{com}$ and $\overrightarrow{u}_{sca}$ determinations
139: and thus depends on the energy resolution and pixel sizes in each
140: of the two detectors. Furthermore, background is hard to subtract
141: and, as in optical cameras, several effects distort images. Using
142: a coded mask to reconstruct sky images effectively addresses most
143: of these difficulties.
144:
145: In coded aperture telescopes, the source radiation is spatially
146: modulated by a mask of opaque and transparent elements. The
147: projection of the mask shadow recorded with a position sensitive
148: detector produces a shadowgram. This allows simultaneous
149: measurement of source plus background flux (shadowgram area
150: corresponding to the mask holes), and background flux (shadowgram
151: area corresponding to the opaque elements) \citep{Caroli1987}. The
152: background is removed in the deconvolution of the shadowgram using
153: the mask pattern. Mask patterns are designed to allow each source
154: in the field of view to cast a unique shadow on the detector in
155: order to avoid ambiguities in the reconstruction of the sky image.
156: The energy-independent angular resolution is given, in the thin mask limit
157: (see the discussion for thicker masks above), by $d\alpha =
158: arctan(\frac{C}{H})$, where $C$ is the size of a mask element and
159: $H$ is the distance between the coded mask and the detector. In
160: such a telescope the field of view is limited and depends on the
161: mask dimension, the detector dimension and the mask-detector
162: distance. The total field of view is divided in two parts:
163:
164: \begin{itemize}
165: \item FCFOV (Fully Coded Field Of View) for which the source
166: radiation is completely modulated by the mask. This field exists
167: only when the mask is larger than the detector.
168: \item PCFOV
169: (Partially Coded Field Of View) for which only a fraction of the
170: source radiation is modulated by the mask.
171: \end{itemize}
172:
173: The principle of a CACT takes advantage of both techniques. It is
174: composed of a coded mask and two detector planes between which
175: photons are Compton scattered. The flux on one detector is
176: spatially modulated by the mask pattern. The sky image is obtained
177: by a simple deconvolution of this shadowgram. Compton events that
178: are incompatible with a given source direction can be discarded
179: from the shadowgram, so CACT can be regarded as a coded mask
180: telescope where the Compton kinematics are used to reduce the
181: background.
182:
183: Then, two cases are possible: Either ones want to study a given source with a known position $\overrightarrow{u}_{sou}$
184: in the celestial sphere or ones wish to make an image of a given field of view.
185: In the first case, we can select, using Compton kinetics, events which fulfill the following condition:
186:
187: \begin{equation}
188: \overrightarrow{u}_{sou}.\overrightarrow{u}_{sca} = cos(\theta_{com})
189: \end{equation}
190:
191: within instrumental incertainties, as, by definition, $\theta_{com}$ is the angle between the source and the scattered directions. In the case of a isotropical background, Eq. 2 enable typically to remove more than $90\%$ of the Compton forward background events, while keeping $90\%$ of the Compton forward source events, in the 200 keV - 1 MeV energy range.
192:
193: When we want to study sources over a given field of view, the more conservative way of removing background events using the Compton kinetics, is to remove all events whose Compton cones, within uncertainties, do not intersect the field of view. This condition can be readily written in the plane containing the telescope axis and the source direction (for a forward scattering). Indeed, if we consider the case of a conical field of view of semi-angle $\theta_{FOV}$, the selection condition means that the angle between the source direction and the telescope axis $\overrightarrow{u}_{tel}$, called $\theta_{sou}$, should be greater than the angle $\theta_{FOV}$. $\theta_{sou}$ can be easily computed from the Compton angle and the scattered photon ones ($\theta_{sca}$ such as $cos(\theta_{sca}) = \overrightarrow{u}_{sca}.\overrightarrow{u}_{tel}$). The background rejection condition become then:
194:
195: \begin{equation}
196: \theta_{sou} = (\theta_{sca}-\theta_{com}) \geq \theta_{FOV}
197: \end{equation}
198:
199: A similar formula can be obtained in the backward scattering case.
200:
201:
202:
203:
204: \section{The INTEGRAL IBIS/Compton mode}
205:
206: \subsection{The IBIS telescope as a CACT}
207:
208: The IBIS instrument \citep{Ubertini2003} is one of the two major
209: coded aperture telescopes on board the ESA INTEGRAL gamma-ray
210: observatory launched on October $17$ $2002$. It consists of a dual
211: detection layer designed and optimized to operate in the energy
212: range between $\sim15~\hbox{keV}$ and $10~\hbox{MeV}$. The upper
213: detector layer, ISGRI, covering the energy range from $\sim
214: 15~\hbox{keV}$ to $1~\hbox{MeV}$, is made of $128\times128$
215: Cadmium--Telluride (CdTe) semiconductor detectors
216: \citep{Lebrun2003}. The lower detector layer, PICsIT, operating in
217: the energy interval from $\sim 190~\hbox{keV}$ to $10~\hbox{MeV}$,
218: is made of $64\times64$ Cesium--Iodide (CsI) scintillating
219: crystals \citep{Labanti2003}. Events from these two detection
220: layers are time stamped and an on board Hardware Event Processing
221: Unit (HEPI) can associate the ISGRI and PICsIT events if their
222: arrival times differ by less than a given time coincidence window
223: (actually 3.8 $\mu s$). In the following,
224: these events are referred to as tagged Compton events. The detector
225: spectral drifts (gain changes) can be monitored with a $^{22}Na$
226: On Board Calibration Unit (OBCU). The detector layers are actively
227: shielded, encased on all but the sky side by bismuth germanate
228: (BGO) scintillator elements. It is also passively shielded from
229: the low energy celestial background with tungsten and lead foils.
230: The coded mask is made of 16 mm thick tungsten elements of 11.2 mm
231: by side. This thickness guarantees a 50\% modulation at 1 MeV.
232: Placed $3.2~\hbox{m}$ above the CdTe detector plane, this mask
233: ensures a 12 arcmin angular resolution over a $29°\times29°$
234: PCFOV. Composed of two detector planes (ISGRI and PICSIT) able to
235: work in coincidence and covered with a coded mask, the IBIS
236: telescope is the first in flight CACT.
237:
238: \subsubsection{Event types} \label{Evtype}
239:
240: Tagged Compton events from the celestial source under study can be of two kinds:
241:
242: \begin{itemize}
243: \item true Compton events,
244: \item or spurious events, where two independent ISGRI and PICsIT events, one of them coming from the source, fall by chance in the Compton coincidence time window, and are recorded falsely as a true Compton event.
245: \end{itemize}
246: Below 500 keV, the vast majority of Compton scatters corresponds
247: to forward scattered events (ISGRI $\rightarrow$ PICSIT). With
248: increasing energy, photons can pass through ISGRI without any
249: interaction, interact in PICSIT, and scatter back onto the ISGRI
250: detection layer. In some cases, more than one scattering occurs.
251: Multiple interactions in ISGRI are, however, discarded on board.
252: In this paper we will use only the events that underwent a forward
253: scattering in ISGRI with a single energy deposit in PICsIT.
254:
255: \subsubsection{spectral resolution}
256:
257: In standard Compton telescopes, the spectral resolutions of each
258: detector are key parameters since they directly affect the angular
259: resolution which, in turn, governs the sensitivity. For CACT, the
260: angular resolution is driven by the mask geometrical properties (C
261: and H), but the sensitivity strongly depends on background
262: rejection. The latter is based on measuring $\overrightarrow{u}_{sca}$ and
263: $\theta_{com}$. The uncertainty on $\theta_{com}$, $\delta\theta_{com}$
264:
265: \begin{equation}
266: \delta\theta_{com} = \frac{m_ec^2}{E^2sin\theta} +
267: \sqrt{\delta E_{1}^2+ \left(\frac{E_1^2}{E_2^2} + 2\frac{E_1}{E_2}\right)^2 \delta E_{2}^2}
268: \end{equation}
269:
270: where $\delta E_{1}$ and $\delta E_{2}$ are the energy resolution of the first and second detector layers, respectively, is larger in IBIS than that on
271: $\overrightarrow{u}_{sca}$ which relates to pixel size.
272: We have used the Compton data tagged as
273: calibration events by the On Board Calibration Unit to measure the on board spectral resolution of the IBIS Compton mode.
274: The FWHM of the two lines of the
275: $^{22}$Na source (511 keV and 1274 keV) and the resulting energy
276: resolution are presented in Table \ref{Table1}.
277: \clearpage
278: \begin{table}[!h]
279: \caption{In flight IBIS Compton mode energy resolution}
280:
281: \label{Table1}
282: \[
283: \begin{array}{cc}
284: \hline
285: \noalign{\smallskip}
286:
287: \rm Energy (keV) & \rm Energy~ resolution~ (\% ~FWHM) \\
288: \hline
289: \noalign{\smallskip}
290: \rm 511 & 20 \\
291: \rm 1274 & 15 \\
292: \hline
293: \end{array}
294: \]
295: \end{table}
296: \clearpage
297: \section{Imaging the sky with the IBIS Coded Aperture Compton Telescope}
298:
299: In this section we focus on imaging analysis and performance of
300: the IBIS/Compton mode.
301:
302: \subsection{The IBIS Compton mode imaging analysis}
303:
304: \subsubsection{Events selection}
305:
306: The first step to analyze the IBIS Compton mode data is to apply
307: selections on the events: selection in energy
308: (generally between 200 keV and 1 MeV), and selection of ISGRI events in rise time
309: between 0.6 and 3.8 $\mu s$ (see Lebrun et al., 2003, for a description of ISGRI
310: data).
311:
312: Then, we remove background events using the Compton kinetics, as described
313: in paragraph 2. As discussed there, depending on the purpose, there are two types of
314: selection.
315: \begin{itemize}
316: \item {\em The field of view selection}: The IBIS field of view semi-angle being
317: $\theta_{FOV} \simeq
318: 15^{\circ}$, only photons with $\theta_{sca}-\theta_{com} < 15^{\circ}$ are kept.
319:
320: \item {\em The dedicated source selection}: for a source of known
321: direction $\overrightarrow{u}_{sou}$, a more restrictive selection given by Eq. 2
322: is applied. This condition can be rewritten as:
323: $|\overrightarrow{u}_{sou}.\overrightarrow{u}_{sca} - cos(\theta_{com})| < \delta_{lim}$ where $ \delta_{lim}$ is related to the instrumental error.
324: \end{itemize}
325:
326:
327: We compute values of $\delta_{lim}$ in order to maximize the source
328: signal to noise ratio, using ground calibration measures.
329: We have used the Compton
330: events obtained from three on-axis calibration sources, namely
331: $^{133}$Sn ($392$~keV), $^{22}$Na ($511$~keV), and $^{137}$Cs
332: ($662$ keV). In fact, for a on-axis source, the telescope axis
333: and source direction coincide, so
334:
335: \begin{equation}
336: \overrightarrow{u}_{sou} = \overrightarrow{u}_{tel}
337: \end{equation}
338:
339: then, from Equation 2, we get
340:
341: \begin{equation}
342: cos(\theta_{com}) = \overrightarrow{u}_{sou}.\overrightarrow{u}_{sca} = \overrightarrow{u}_{tel}.\overrightarrow{u}_{sca} = cos(\theta_{sca})
343: \end{equation}
344:
345: by definition of $\theta_{sca}$. Equation 2 then simplify to :
346:
347:
348: \begin{equation}
349: \Delta \theta = \theta_{com} -\theta_{sca}= 0
350: \end{equation}
351:
352:
353: Figure \ref{DeltaPhiCalAE} shows the angular shift $\Delta \theta$ diagrams. This distribution, centered on zero, is not a Dirac distribution because of instrumental incertainties. Also, this distribution narrows with energy due to a better
354: reconstruction of $\theta_{com}$, linked to a better Compton mode energy resolution at
355: high energy. Yet, this variation with energy is small and the optimal choice of $\delta_{lim}$ (related to the width of the distribution shown in figure 2) has been checked not to change much with energy between 200 keV and 1 MeV.
356:
357: Figure \ref{CompSelGain} illustrates how the signal to noise ratio varies with the allowed range of
358: $\Delta \theta \in [-\theta_{lim},\theta_{lim}]$ for the $^{133}$Sn calibration source. The best value of $\theta_{lim}$ at $392$~keV is around $10-12^{\circ}$.
359:
360: \clearpage
361: \begin{figure}[!h]
362: \epsscale{1.2}
363: \plotone{f2.eps.ps}
364: \caption{Distribution of Compton events with the angular shift
365: $\Delta \theta = \theta_{com}-\theta_{sca}$, after spurious events
366: removal, using on-ground
367: calibration data from $^{133}$Sn ($392 keV$), $^{22}$Na ($511
368: keV$), $^{137}$Cs ($662 keV$) sources ($\theta_{rec}$ in this figure is equal to $\theta_{sca}$ in the text). \label{DeltaPhiCalAE}}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: \begin{figure}[!h]
372: \epsscale{1.2}
373: \plotone{f3.eps.ps}
374: \caption{Evolution of the signal to noise ratio gain with
375: $\theta_{lim}$ for the $^{133}$Sn calibration source at 392 keV on
376: axis.\label{CompSelGain}}
377: \end{figure}
378: \clearpage
379:
380:
381: \subsubsection{Spurious events subtraction}
382:
383: Spurious events are generally neglected in standard Compton
384: telescopes. Their uniform distribution does not induce false
385: source detection. But the situation for CACT is different:
386:
387:
388: Indeed, spurious events are composed by random events on the two layers.
389: For a bright source, like Crab, the source low energy photons have a
390: important contribution in the detectors count rates. So, the probability
391: that one of these random events is in fact a detected low energy
392: photon from the source is quite high. As this photon has the mask signature
393: induced by the source, it is not subtracted during the deconvolution
394: process, and wrongly participate to the source flux determination.
395: So, we have to take into account the spurious events contribution with high
396: accuracy in order to get a correct estimate of the source flux.
397:
398: The dedicated source selection has the strong advantage of
399: largely reducing the number of spurious events, as most of
400: them does not obey Equation 2, but their remaining contribution
401: is not negligible. A statistical method must be applied to
402: evaluate and subtract them.
403:
404: To do so, we make use of the ISGRI and PICSIT single events recorded in
405: the same observation, that is possibly having the source signature, to
406: artificially associate them and create a sample of spurious
407: events, called hereafter the ``fake spurious events sample''.
408: We apply to this sample the same selections in energy, rise time, and
409: scattering angle as described above in order to produce a fake
410: shadowgram. The latter is scaled, by a scaling factor called hereafter
411: ``spurious factor'' or ``$\alpha$'', to the number of spurious
412: events recorded during the observation and then subtracted from the
413: Compton data shadowgram.
414:
415: The spurious count rate, $N_{Sp}$ scales with the
416: width of the time coincidence window ($\sim 2 \Delta T_{e}$), the total
417: number of PICSIT events ($N_{PICSIT} = N_P + N_{OBCU}$ from PICSIT
418: simple and multiple detections, and from calibration events), and
419: the total number of ISGRI events ($N_{ISGRI} = N_I +N_{Sp}$ from ISGRI
420: single events and spurious events). The calibration
421: events in ISGRI are tagged and discarded on board. Using
422: Poisson statistics in the coincidence window, one obtains the number of
423: spurious events:
424:
425: \begin{equation}
426: N_{Sp} =(1 - e^{-(2\Delta T_e -\delta T)(N_{PICSIT})})N_{ISGRI}
427: \end{equation}
428: where $\delta T$ is the on-board time resolution, of the order of 250 ns. Yet, one
429: measures only $N_I$, so the scaling factor is
430: \begin{equation}
431: N_{Sp}/N_I = (e^{(2\Delta T_e -\delta T)(N_{PICSIT})}-1)
432: \end{equation}
433:
434: One has to further correct this factor for the multiple PICSIT
435: events in order to get the scaling factor for the single
436: spurious events only. For a proportion of PICSIT single events
437: of
438:
439: \begin{equation}
440: \beta =
441: \frac{N_{P}^{simple}+N_{OBCU}}{N_{P}^{simple}+N_{P}^{multiple}+N_{OBCU}}
442: \end{equation}
443:
444: ($\beta$ is of the order of $80 \%$ between 200 keV and 1 MeV for IBIS), one gets the spurious factor
445:
446: \begin{equation}
447: \alpha = \beta (e^{(2\Delta T_e -\delta T)(N_{PICSIT})}-1)
448: \end{equation}
449:
450: Figure \ref{SpurFact} shows the evolution of the spurious factor
451: for Crab observations through the mission lifetime. It varies from
452: $2.82~ \%$ early in the mission (revolution $39$) when $\Delta T$
453: was about $5.0 ~\mu s$, to around $1.1~ \%$
454: after revolution $102$ when $\Delta T_e$ was decreased to $1.9 ~\mu
455: s$. $\alpha$ is quite constant for a given coincidence window
456: during a short time, but rises on longer periods (Rev.
457: $102-103-170-239$), due to the increase of the background flux,
458: following the solar cycle.
459: \clearpage
460: \begin{figure}[!h]
461: \epsscale{1.2}
462: \plotone{f4.eps.ps}
463: \caption{Evolution of the spurious factor for different values of
464: the time coincidence window as derived from Crab pulsar
465: observations.\label{SpurFact}}
466: \end{figure}
467: \clearpage
468: The next step is to correct the resulting shadowgram (after
469: subtraction of the spurious events) for its non-uniformity and to
470: deconvolve it.
471:
472: \subsubsection{Uniformity correction}
473:
474: Compton mode shadowgrams are not spatially flat. The count rate
475: falls near the edges because we lose the events which scatter
476: at the edge of ISGRI and miss PICSIT. This
477: non-uniformity is magnified by the decoding process so, if not corrected,
478: strong systematic structures may result in the deconvolved images with
479: spatial frequencies similar to those originally present in the
480: shadogram. The shadowgram, D, consists of a source
481: component, with count rate S and a spatial response map $R_S$, and
482: a background component, with count rate B and response map $R_B$, thus
483:
484: \begin{equation}
485: D = S \times R_{S} + B \times R_{B}
486: \end{equation}
487:
488: The modulation from the mask pattern is weak compared to the
489: larger scale deformations we study here. To compare $R_{S}$ and
490: $R_{B}$ in the same conditions, we need in-flight data from a
491: source strong enough as well as background. Whereas we have used the
492: in-flight background distribution, there is no such source
493: observed in-flight in Compton mode, so we used data from on-ground calibration
494: to determine $R_{S}$.
495: \clearpage
496: \begin{figure}[!h]
497: \epsscale{1.2} \plotone{f5.eps.ps}
498: \caption{Distribution of background events with distance from the
499: detector center, folded over the azimuthal direction. This distribution is well fitted by a 2D gaussian
500: shown in red.\label{unif}}
501: \end{figure}
502: \clearpage
503: Both the background and source response maps are well fitted by a
504: 2D gaussian function (see Figure \ref{unif}). The results are
505: presented in Table \ref{Table3} for the in-flight background
506: measurements and the on-ground calibration source data for on-axis
507: sources. The background and source response maps in several energy
508: bands are found to be consistent. Off-axis sources have also
509: been studied and display equivalent response maps.
510: \clearpage
511: \begin{table}
512: \caption{response maps gaussian fits}
513:
514: \label{Table3}
515: \[
516: \begin{array}{ccc}
517: \hline
518: \noalign{\smallskip}
519:
520: \rm Source~ & \rm Energy (keV) & \rm \sigma (pixels) \\
521: \hline
522: \noalign{\smallskip}
523: \rm ^{113}Sn & 392 & 73 \pm 3 \\
524: \rm ^{22}Na & 511 & 74 \pm 3 \\
525: \rm ^{137}Cs & 662 & 71 \pm 4 \\
526: \rm ^{54}Mn & 835 & 72 \pm 2 \\
527: \rm ^{54}Zn & 1120 & 73 \pm 3 \\
528: \rm Background & 200-5000 & 74 \pm 3 \\
529: \hline
530: \end{array}
531: \]
532: \end{table}
533: \clearpage
534: Residual background deformations on
535: smaller scales, similar what is observed in ISGRI images \citep{Terrier2003},
536: are still present; their correction is under study.
537:
538:
539: The final step is therefore to deconvolve the corrected shadowgram
540: $D/R$, renormalized to the total number of events, to
541: reconstruct the source flux, using standard deconvolution techniques.
542:
543:
544: \subsubsection{Image deconvolution}
545:
546: Representing the mask with an array M of 1 (transparent) and 0
547: (opaque) element, the detector plane by an array D, and denoting by
548: $G^{+}$ and $G^{-}$ the decoding arrays related to the coded mask (see \citep{Goldwurm2003}), the image
549: deconvolution in the fully coded field of view (FCFOV) can be
550: extended to the total (fully coded and partially coded) by
551: performing the correlation of D in a non cyclic form with the G
552: array extended and padded with 0 elements outside the mask \citep{Gros2003}. Since the number of correlated (transparent and opaque) elements in the
553: partially coded field of view is not constant as in the FCFOV, the
554: sum and subtractions for each sky position must be balanced and
555: renormalized. The sky flux map is given by :
556:
557: \begin{equation}
558: F = \frac{(WD*G^{+})-(WD*G^{-})\frac{(W*G^{+})}{(W*G^{-})}}{(W*G^{+}M)-(W*G^{-}M)\frac{(W*G^{+})}{(W*G^{-})}}
559: \end{equation}
560:
561: and the variance map by:
562:
563: \begin{equation}
564: V = \frac{(W^{2}D*G^{+2})+(W^{2}D*G^{-2})(\frac{(W*G^{+})}{(W*G^{-})})^{2}}{((W*G^{+}M)-(W*G^{-}M)\frac{(W*G^{+})}{(W*G^{-})})^{2}}
565: \end{equation}
566:
567: In the previous formulae, the W matrix removes dead or noisy pixels.
568:
569: In the FCFOV, the variance is quite uniform and equals the total
570: number of detector counts. All this analysis procedure can be
571: easily carried out by means of Fast Fourier transforms. The result
572: on a Crab pulsar observation is presented on Figure
573: \ref{CompCrabIma}.
574:
575: On Figure \ref{SpurCrabIma}, on the left, we show for comparison an ISGRI alone significance map, in the same energy range. As expected, due to its low thickness (2 mm), ISGRI is much less sensitive that the Compton mode between 200~keV and 500~keV, showing that the Compton mode is a real extension at high energy of the ISGRI capabilities. On Figure \ref{SpurCrabIma}, on the right, we show the significance map made with the fake spurious events sample, using the same algorithms as the ones used for Figure \ref{CompCrabIma}. It is clear there that this map is dominated by low energy events coming from the Crab, as described in part 4.1.2.
576:
577: \clearpage
578: \begin{figure}[!h]
579: \epsscale{1}
580: \plotone{f6.eps.ps}
581: \caption{Deconvolved significance map for the Crab pulsar using
582: the Compton mode between $200~keV$ and $500~keV$ for an exposure
583: time of $300~ks$.\label{CompCrabIma}}
584: \end{figure}
585: \clearpage
586: \clearpage
587: \begin{figure}[!h]
588: \epsscale{0.5}
589: \centering
590: \leavevmode
591: \includegraphics[width=200pt,angle=270]{f7.eps.ps}%
592: \caption{left: ISGRI significance map of the Crab pulsar between $200~keV$ and $500~keV$. right: Significance map computed from the fake spurious events sample, and computed with the same algorithms as used for the map shown in Figure \ref{CompCrabIma}. \label{SpurCrabIma}}
593: \end{figure}
594: \clearpage
595:
596: \subsubsection{Angular shift diagrams as a check for the analysis method}
597:
598: Angular shift diagrams illustrate the effectiveness of the
599: spurious event subtraction. One can use Compton tagged events from
600: an on-axis calibration source and analyze them in regularly spaced $\Delta
601: \theta$ bins. Then we select them in energy and rise time as above.
602: Their shadowgram are corrected for the spatial response and
603: deconvolved to get the total source count rate displayed in red in
604: Figure \ref{DeltaPhiCalib}. The corresponding constructed spurious event sample has
605: been analyzed in the very same way and its count rate per $\Delta
606: \theta$ bin, scaled by the measured $\alpha$ factor, is displayed
607: in blue, showing that the spurious factor is adequate. The angular
608: shift $\Delta \theta$ distribution of real Compton events
609: (after subtraction of the spurious ones) is well centered around
610: zero and fall to zero for $|\Delta \theta| \ge
611: 19^{\circ}$ whereas the spurious distribution is clearly offset to
612: negative values, as expected because most spurious events have a
613: low energy deposit in ISGRI.
614:
615: For celestial $\gamma$-ray sources above 200 keV, the spurious
616: rate dominates over the source rate. Several Crab on-axis observations have
617: been used to construct a $\Delta \theta$ diagram, using the
618: variance weighted sum of the flux at the source position in each
619: sky image. Thanks to the coded mask background subtraction
620: capabilities, only the true Compton and spurious contributions as defined in section \ref{Evtype}, are
621: visible on Figure \ref{DPhi300500}. The spurious component
622: severely dominates, its negative offset being well marked. True
623: Compton events are around zero, as foreseen, and the small flux excess
624: of events
625: for $\Delta \theta \sim 20^{\circ}-40^{\circ}$ is due to backward
626: scattered events.
627: \clearpage
628: \begin{figure}[!h]
629: \epsscale{1.2}
630: \plotone{f8.eps.ps}
631: \caption{Angular shift distribution of events for a calibration
632: source of $^{133}$Sn at 392 keV during on ground
633: calibration. Red data points represent all the Compton data (real Compton plus spurious data). Blue data points show the spurious contribution, which peaks at negative offset, and black data points are the derived Compton ones. The line is a gaussian fit ($FWHM \sim 19^{\circ}$) to this derived Compton data.\label{DeltaPhiCalib}}
634: \end{figure}
635:
636: \begin{figure}[!h]
637: \epsscale{1.2}
638: \plotone{f9.eps.ps}
639: \caption{Crab count rate between $200$ keV and $500$ keV in
640: different $\Delta \theta$ bins. The total observation time is
641: about $700$ ks. Red data points represent all the Compton data (real Compton plus spurious data). Blue data points show the spurious contribution, and black data points are the derived Compton ones. The line is a gaussian fit to the Compton data.\label{DPhi300500}}
642: \end{figure}
643: \clearpage
644: \subsection{The IBIS Compton mode sensitivity}
645:
646: The analysis method described above has been applied to evaluate the signal to
647: noise ratio of the Crab pulsar in different energy bands. The
648: sensitivity of the IBIS Compton mode is presented on Figure
649: \ref{Sensi}. It is greater than that of PICSIT for a
650: similar angular resolution.
651: Yet, unlike PICSIT, the Compton mode
652: has no major strong background problems, allows to study photons up
653: to a few MeV in very small energy bands, in particular
654: around spectral lines, with an angular resolution better than
655: that of SPI. It also allows to perform polarization
656: studies and imaging studies of compact objects with a good timing
657: resolution ($\sim 100 \mu s$).
658: \clearpage
659: \begin{figure}[!h]
660: \epsscale{1.2}
661: \plotone{f10.eps.ps}
662: \caption{Sensitivity of the IBIS Compton mode compared to the ISGRI
663: and PICSIT sensitivity.\label{Sensi}}
664: \end{figure}
665: \clearpage
666: The next step we foresee in our analysis is to incorporate
667: backward scattered events, PICSIT multiple events, and compute
668: background Compton correction maps (first order background
669: shadowgram from empty field observations and second order summed
670: sky images after source subtraction) to reduce the residual
671: structures in the response maps.
672:
673: An important goal of the IBIS Compton mode is also polarimetry. The
674: interest of the astrophysics community to such detection is
675: growing. It is in fact a powerful and a direct tool to constrain
676: theoretical model on GRB, pulsars, solar flares, etc.
677:
678: The calibration and results of the IBIS Compton mode polarimeter will
679: be presented in a forecoming paper.
680:
681: \section{Conclusions}
682:
683: The IBIS Compton mode is functional and provides a new efficient
684: means to observe the sky at energies beyond $\sim 190~\hbox{keV}$
685: up to a few MeV. With only forward scattered events and thus thanks
686: to the ISGRI shadowgram, we can reconstruct images with high spatial resolution
687: taking advantage of the coded mask aperture system. We have
688: devised a scheme for subtracting the large contribution from
689: spurious coincidences between the two detector planes. The
690: resulting sensitivity, evaluated with in-flight data from the Crab
691: pulsar, opens new perspectives for polarimetric and imaging
692: studies in the 0.2-5 MeV energy band.
693:
694: %\begin{acknowledgements}
695:
696: We thank the anonymous referee for interesting questions and helpful suggestions that significantly improved the whole paper.
697:
698: %\end{acknowledgements}
699:
700: \begin{thebibliography}{}
701:
702: \bibitem[Boggs \& Jean 2000]{Boggs2000} Boggs, S.E., \& Jean,
703: P.\ 2000, \aaps, 145, 311
704:
705: \bibitem[Caroli et al. 1987]{Caroli1987} Caroli, E., Stephen,
706: J.B., di Cocco, G., Natalucci, L., \& Spizzichino, A.\ 1987, Space Science
707: Reviews, 45, 349
708:
709: \bibitem[Diehl et al. 1995]{Diehl1995} Diehl, R., et al.\ 1995,
710: \aap, 298, 445
711:
712: \bibitem[Goldwurm et al. 2003]{Goldwurm2003} Goldwurm, A., et al.\
713: 2003, \aap, 411, L223
714:
715: \bibitem[Gros et al. 2003]{Gros2003} Gros, A., Goldwurm, A.,
716: Cadolle-Bel, M., Goldoni, P., Rodriguez, J., Foschini, L., Del Santo, M.,
717: \& Blay, P.\ 2003, \aap, 411, L179
718:
719: \bibitem[Herzo et al. 1975]{Herzo1975} Herzo, D., et al.\
720: 1975, Nucl. Inst. Meth., 123, 583
721:
722: \bibitem[Labanti et al. 2003]{Labanti2003} Labanti, C., et al.\
723: 2003, \aap, 411, L149
724:
725: \bibitem[Lebrun et al. 2003]{Lebrun2003} Lebrun, F., et al.\
726: 2003, \aap, 411, L141
727:
728: \bibitem[Limousin 2003]{Limousin2003} Limousin, O.\ 2003, Nuclear
729: Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 504, 24
730:
731:
732: \bibitem[Lockwood et al. 1979]{Lockwood1979} Lockwood, J.~A.,
733: Hsieh, L., Friling, L., Chen, C., \& Swartz, D.\ 1979, \jgr, 84, 1402
734:
735: \bibitem[Terrier et al. 2003]{Terrier2003} Terrier, R., et al.\
736: 2003, \aap, 411, L167
737:
738: \bibitem[Ubertini et al. 2003]{Ubertini2003} Ubertini, P., et al.\
739: 2003, \aap, 411, L131
740:
741: \bibitem[Sch{\"o}nfelder et al. 1993]{Schoenfelder1993} Sch{\"o}nfelder, V.,
742: et al.\ 1993, \apjs, 86, 657
743:
744: \bibitem[Sch{\"o}nfelder \& Lichti 1973]{Schoenfelder1973}
745: Sch{\"o}nfelder, V., \& Lichti, G.\ 1973, International Cosmic Ray
746: Conference, 4, 2709
747:
748: \bibitem[Zoglauer \& Kanbach 2003]{Zoglauer2003}
749: Zoglauer A., \& Kanbach G. \ 2003, SPIE, 4851, 1302
750:
751: \end{thebibliography}
752:
753:
754: \end{document}
755: