1: 

2: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}

3: 

4: % Draft 2--10/23/07

5: 

6: \shorttitle{{\it EXIST} GRB Sensitivity}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: \title{{\it EXIST}'s Gamma-Ray Burst Sensitivity}

11: \author{D. L. Band\altaffilmark{1,2}, J. E. Grindlay\altaffilmark{3},

12: J.~Hong\altaffilmark{3}, G.~Fishman\altaffilmark{4},

13: D.~H.~Hartmann\altaffilmark{5}, A.~Garson

14: III\altaffilmark{6}, H.~Krawczynski\altaffilmark{6},

15: S.~Barthelmy\altaffilmark{7}, N.~Gehrels\altaffilmark{7},

16: G.~Skinner\altaffilmark{1,8}}

17: %

18: \altaffiltext{1}{CRESST and Astroparticle Physics

19: Laboratory, Code 661, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,

20: Greenbelt, MD 20771}

21: %

22: \altaffiltext{2}{Center for Space Sciences and Technology,

23: University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop

24: Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250}

25: %

26: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for

27: Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA}

28: %

29: \altaffiltext{4}{NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, NSSTC,

30: VP-62, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805}

31: %

32: \altaffiltext{5}{Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634}

33: %

34: \altaffiltext{6}{Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings

35: Dr., CB 1105, St. Louis, MO 63130}

36: %

37: \altaffiltext{7}{Astroparticle Physics Laboratory, Code 661,

38: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771}

39: %

40: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy, University of

41: Maryland, College Park, MD 20742}

42: %

43: \email{David.L.Band@nasa.gov}

44: 

45: \begin{abstract}

46: 

47: We use semi-analytic techniques to evaluate the burst sensitivity of

48: designs for the {\it EXIST} hard X-ray survey mission.  Applying

49: these techniques to the mission design proposed for the Beyond

50: Einstein program, we find that with its very large field-of-view and

51: faint gamma-ray burst detection threshold, {\it EXIST} will detect

52: and localize approximately two bursts per day, a large fraction of

53: which may be at high redshift. We estimate that {\it EXIST}'s

54: maximum sensitivity will be $\sim 4$~times greater than that of {\it

55: Swift}'s Burst Alert Telescope.  Bursts will be localized to better

56: than 40~arcsec at threshold, with a burst position as good as a few

57: arcsec for strong bursts. {\it EXIST}'s combination of three

58: different detector systems will provide spectra from 3~keV to more

59: than 10~MeV.  Thus, EXIST will enable a major leap in the

60: understanding of bursts, their evolution, environment, and utility

61: as cosmological probes.

62: \end{abstract}

63: 

64: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts}

65: 

66: \section{Introduction}

67: 

68: In its quest to find black holes throughout the universe,

69: the {\it Energetic X-ray Imaging Survey Telescope (EXIST)}

70: will detect, localize and study a large number of gamma-ray

71: bursts, events thought to result from the birth of stellar-mass

72: black holes.  We present the methods used to calculate {\it

73: EXIST}'s capabilities as a gamma-ray burst detector; we use the

74: {\it EXIST} design evaluated by the National Research Council's

75: `Committee on NASA's Beyond Einstein Program:  An Architecture

76: for Implementation' (2007; see also Grindlay 2007).  The

77: combination of large detector area, broad energy coverage,

78: and wide field-of-view (FOV) will result in the detection

79: of a substantial number of bursts with a flux distribution

80: extending to fainter fluxes than that of previous missions.

81: Thus {\it EXIST} should detect high redshift bursts,

82: perhaps even bursts resulting from the death of Pop~III

83: stars. {\it EXIST}'s imaging detectors will localize the

84: bursts, while the combination of detectors, both imaging

85: and non-imaging, will result in well-determined spectra

86: from 3~keV to well over 10~MeV.

87: 

88: In this paper we first describe the {\it EXIST} mission design

89: (\S 2), emphasizing aspects relevant to burst detection.

90: Then we present the sensitivity methodology (\S 3), which

91: we apply to the individual coded mask sub-telescopes (\S

92: 4). {\it EXIST} will consist of arrays of these detectors

93: with overlapping FOVs, and the overall mission sensitivity

94: results from adding the sensitivity of the individual

95: sub-telescopes (\S 5).  Imaging using counts accumulated

96: over different timescales increases the sensitivity (\S 6).

97: Finally, we combine these different calculations to

98: evaluate {\it EXIST}'s overall capabilities to study bursts

99: (\S 7).

100: 

101: \section{Overview of the {\it EXIST} Mission}

102: 

103: The {\it EXIST} design analyzed here was proposed as the

104: Black Hole Finder Probe for

105: NASA's Beyond Einstein program.  In this design,

106: described in Grindlay (2007),

107: the mission consists of two arrays

108: of sub-telescopes.  The 19~High Energy Telescopes (HETs)

109: will use a Cadmium~Zinc~Telluride (CZT) detector plane,

110: while the 32~Low Energy Telescopes (LETs) will use a

111: silicon detector plane.  The spacecraft will be launched

112: into low Earth orbit ($\sim$500~km) by either a Atlas~V-551

113: (for an orbital inclination of $i\sim20^\circ$) or a

114: Delta~IV~4050H ($i\sim5^\circ$) for a 5 (minimum)--10

115: (goal) year mission. The CsI active shielding for the CZT

116: detectors will also be instrumented to provide spectral

117: coverage for gamma-ray bursts at higher energies.  Table~1

118: provides the detector parameters relevant to this study.

119: The spacecraft pointing will rock $\pm 15^\circ$

120: perpendicular to the orbit around the zenith, resulting in

121: nearly uniform sky coverage and sensitivity.

122: 

123: Both the HETs and LETs will image the gamma-ray sky using

124: the coded mask technique.  The detector plane `sees' the

125: sky through a mask with open and closed cells that is a

126: fixed distance above the detector plane.  Therefore a

127: source in the FOV casts a shadow with the mask's pattern on

128: the detector plane. The distribution of sources on the sky

129: is deconvolved from the counts detected by the position

130: sensitive detectors.  Sources in the central part of the

131: FOV, the `fully coded' region, illuminate the full detector

132: plane, while sources further out in the FOV, the `partially

133: coded' region, illuminate only a fraction of the detector

134: plane.  The dimensions of the detector plane and mask, and

135: the detector-mask distance, determine the FOV, while the

136: detector-mask distance and the dimensions of the mask cells

137: and detector pixels fix the angular resolution.

138: 

139: As for {\it Swift} and {\it GLAST}, {\it EXIST} will run

140: burst detection and localization software onboard (the Fast

141: Onboard Burst Alert System---FOBAS), and telemeter data to

142: the ground for further analysis.  In the current design,

143: FOBAS will run both rate and image triggers on the

144: datastream from both the HET and LET sub-telescopes. Rate

145: triggers will search for statistically significant

146: increases in the count rates from the sub-telescopes.  The

147: image triggers will form images from the counts from the

148: individual sub-telescopes, add the images, and search the

149: resulting sky image for a new, statistically significant

150: point source.  In the current design, images will be formed

151: with 3, 18, 108, 648 and 1296~s accumulation times. When a

152: burst is detected, {\it EXIST} will downlink the burst time

153: and location (as well as other basic burst parameters)

154: through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System

155: (TDRSS) within $\sim10$--20~s, as is done for {\it Swift}

156: and will be done for GLAST.

157: 

158: Data indicating the time, energy and pixel of every HET and

159: LET count, as well as other standard science and

160: housekeeping data, will be downlinked approximately every

161: four hours through a TDRSS Ku band link, as will be done

162: for GLAST. Ground software will calculate more accurate sky

163: positions and other parameters (e.g., durations and

164: spectra) for the bursts detected onboard, and will search

165: the datastream for bursts that FOBAS did not detect.

166: 

167: The active CsI shields behind the HET detector plane and in the

168: lower part of the HET collimators will be instrumented to provide 64

169: channel spectra between $\sim$300~keV to $\sim$10~MeV (see Garson et

170: al. 2006a). The current plan is that spectra accumulated every 1~s

171: will be downlinked.  By buffering the counts from the shields, the

172: count binning will be increased to every 0.1~s for the time period

173: 500~s before to 500~s after the trigger.

174: 

175: \section{Burst Detection Sensitivity}

176: 

177: A burst will be detected by {\it EXIST} when a statistically

178: significant new source is found in either an HET or LET image of the

179: sky. The same criterion applies to {\it Swift}'s BAT (a single CZT

180: coded mask detector) and therefore the sensitivity analysis we use

181: follows the methodology applied to the BAT in Band (2006).

182: 

183: Formation of the image in which the burst is detected may

184: be initiated by either a rate or image trigger.  A rate

185: trigger will search the count rates from the sub-telescopes

186: for a statistically significant increase.  An image trigger

187: will search for new sources in images of the sky that will

188: be formed continuously. The new source in an image trigger

189: may not be statistically significant, but will indicate

190: that a burst may be in progress. After either a rate or

191: image trigger, FOBAS (the burst flight software) will vary

192: the time and energy ranges over which counts are

193: accumulated to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio. An image

194: will then be formed from these counts.  The threshold for

195: these initial rate or image triggers will be sufficiently

196: loose to allow many triggers; the absence of a

197: statistically significant point source in the final image

198: will weed out the false positives. Note that the final

199: image in which the point source is most significant may be

200: formed from the counts in a different energy and time bin

201: than that of the counts that initially triggered FOBAS.

202: 

203: Regardless of the process leading to the final image, {\it

204: EXIST}'s burst sensitivity will be the minimum burst flux

205: that results in a statistically significant point source in

206: an HET or LET image.  This is the basis of our analysis. In

207: this section we calculate the sensitivity for a point

208: source in the center of the FOV of a single sub-telescope,

209: and in \S 5 we consider how this sensitivity varies across

210: the sub-telescope arrays' FOV.

211: 

212: Skinner (2007) derived the source detection sensitivity of

213: a coded mask system when standard assumptions are relaxed:

214: the fraction of the open mask pixels may differ from 1/2;

215: part of an open mask pixel may be occulted (e.g., by ribs

216: around each pixel to support the {\it EXIST} masks); the

217: detector pixels may not be small relative to the mask

218: pixels; the source strength may be comparable to the

219: background; and the closed mask pixels may be partially

220: transparent (e.g., at high energy).  Here we will consider

221: the background-dominated case.

222: 

223: Consider an image formed using counts accumulated over $\Delta t$

224: and $\Delta E$.  The burst spectrum is $N(E,t)$ (ph cm$^{-2}$

225: s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$).  Let $s$ be the source flux averaged over

226: $\Delta t$ and integrated over $\Delta E$. Thus

227: %

228: \begin{equation}

229: s = {1\over{\Delta t}} \int_{\Delta E} dE \int_{\Delta t}

230:    dt N(E,t) \quad.

231: \end{equation}

232: %

233: Let the average detector efficiency be

234: %

235: \begin{equation}

236: \epsilon_0 = { {\int_{\Delta E} dE

237:    \int_{\Delta t} dt \, \epsilon(E) N(E,t)}\over

238:    {\int_{\Delta E} dE \int_{\Delta t}

239:    dt N(E,t)}} \quad ,

240: \end{equation}

241: %

242: where $\epsilon(E)$ the detector efficiency.  At high

243: energy photons leak through the closed mask pixels.  Define

244: an effective detector efficiency for flux through the

245: closed mask pixels

246: %

247: \begin{equation}

248: \epsilon_1 = {{ \int_{\Delta E} dE

249:    \int_{\Delta t} dt \, \epsilon(E) N(E,t) e^{-\tau_m(E)}}\over

250:    {\int_{\Delta E} dE \int_{\Delta t}

251:    dt N(E,t)}} \quad ,

252: \end{equation}

253: %

254: where $\tau_m(E)$ is the optical depth through the closed mask

255: elements. Note that $\epsilon$ includes absorption by all material

256: over the entire detector, while $\tau_m(E)$ accounts only for

257: absorption through the closed mask pixels.

258: 

259: For the HETs Garson et al. (2006b,c) find that the photon

260: aperture flux from the Cosmic X-ray Background (CXB)

261: dominates the background below $\sim 100$~keV, while at

262: higher energy sources such as Earth albedo photons, charged

263: particles and activation dominate the background. For the

264: LETs the background results primarily from the CXB. The CXB

265: contribution can be modelled semi-analytically, while other

266: background sources require complex Monte Carlo

267: calculations.  Thus we model the total background count

268: rate per detector area as

269: %

270: \begin{equation}

271: B = (\Delta t)^{-1} \int_{\Delta E} dE \int_{\Delta t} dt

272:    \left[ \epsilon(E) \Phi(E) \Omega_a \left[f_{\rm mask}+

273:    (1 -f_{\rm mask}) e^{-\tau_m(E)} \right] + b(E) \right]

274: \end{equation}

275: %

276: where $f_{\rm mask}$ is the fraction of the mask area that

277: is open, $\Phi(E)$ is the CXB (Gruber 1992), $\Omega_a$ is

278: the projected solid angle subtended by the detector's

279: aperture averaged over the detector plane (calculated with

280: the corrected formulae of Sullivan [1971]), and $b(E)$

281: models the other sources of background.  The aperture flux

282: includes the leakage of the CXB through the closed mask

283: elements at high energy.

284: 

285: The significance of the burst's image in the

286: background-dominated case is

287: %

288: \begin{equation}

289: S_I = f_m  s {{(\epsilon_0-\epsilon_1)}\over 2} \sqrt{{A \Delta t}

290:    \over B} \quad ,

291: \end{equation}

292: %

293: where $A$ is the detector area, and $f_m$ includes the

294: factors resulting from the ribs around the mask pixels, the

295: fraction of the mask pixels that are open, and the finite

296: detector size.  For open mask pixels where the ribs cover

297: 0.2 of the pixel area and detector-to-mask pixel ratios of

298: 1/2 (HET) and 1 (LET), $f_m=0.737$ and 0.564, respectively.

299: 

300: It is convenient to parameterize the burst flux in terms of

301: %

302: \begin{equation}

303: F_T = (\Delta t)^{-1} \int_{\Delta E_0} dE \int_{\Delta t}

304:    dt N(E,t) = s \, {{\int_{\Delta E_0} dE \int_{\Delta t}

305:    dt N(E,t)}\over {\int_{\Delta E} dE \int_{\Delta t}

306:    dt N(E,t)}}  \quad.

307: \end{equation}

308: %

309: where $\Delta E_0$=1--1000~keV.

310: 

311: To understand the effect of transparency through the closed

312: mask pixels, we define the mask factors

313: %

314: \begin{equation}

315: g_s = {{1-e^{-\tau_m(E)}}\over 2} \quad,

316: \end{equation}

317: %

318: (relevant to the factor of $(\epsilon_0-\epsilon_1)/2$),

319: and

320: %

321: \begin{equation}

322: g_b = f_{\rm mask}+ (1 -f_{\rm mask}) e^{-\tau_m(E)}

323:    \quad.

324: \end{equation}

325: %

326: (relevant to the aperture flux).  A decrease in $g_s$

327: results in a decrease in the detection significance, while

328: an increase in $g_b$ indicates an increase in the aperture

329: flux.

330: 

331: The gamma-ray burst spectrum is modelled using the

332: four-parameter `Band' function (Band et al. 1993): a low

333: energy power law with an exponential rolloff ($N(E)\propto

334: E^\alpha \exp[-E/E_0]$) that merges smoothly with a high

335: energy power law ($N(E)\propto E^\beta$).  The break

336: between the two power laws is characterized by

337: $E_p=(2+\alpha)E_0$, which is the energy of the maximum of

338: $E^2N(E)\propto \nu f_\nu$ if $\beta<-2$, i.e., $E_p$ is

339: the photon energy where most of the energy is radiated.  We

340: use the flux $F_T$ (ph~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$) integrated over

341: the 1--1000~keV band to normalize the spectrum (see eq.~6).

342: Thus the spectrum is characterized by the normalization

343: $F_T$, the two spectral indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and

344: the energy $E_p$.

345: 

346: Eq.~5 can be inverted to find the threshold value of $F_T$

347: at the peak of the lightcurve for a given set of the

348: spectral parameters that determine the shape of the burst

349: spectrum---the spectral indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and

350: the peak energy $E_p$.  The result is a surface in the four

351: dimensional space given by these spectral parameters;

352: bursts with spectra on one side of this surface (with $F_T$

353: greater than the value on the surface) will be detected,

354: while bursts on the other side will not. Holding the

355: spectral indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ fixed projects this

356: surface into a sensitivity curve in the $F_T$-$E_p$ plane.

357: The curve also depends on the accumulation time $\Delta t$

358: (here $\Delta t=1$). The dependence of the sensitivity on

359: the accumulation time is discussed below (\S 6).

360: 

361: Note that the threshold value of $F_T$ at a given $E_p$ is

362: {\it not} the sensitivity of the detector at a photon

363: energy equal to $E_p$. The power of sensitivity curves in

364: the $F_T$-$E_p$ plane is that they show the detectability

365: of a burst with a given set of spectral parameters, and

366: thus the sensitivity of different detectors can be

367: compared, regardless of their specific energy response.  A

368: CZT-based detector that detects photons in the 10--150~keV

369: band can be compared to a scintillator-based detector that

370: detects photons in the 50--300~keV band.

371: 

372: \section{Single Sub-Telescope Energy Sensitivity}

373: 

374: \subsection{HET}

375: 

376: A single HET will have a 56~cm $\times$ 56~cm (an area of

377: 3136~cm$^2$) CZT detector plane that is 5~mm thick.  The platinum

378: and gold cathode pads on the CZT ($\sim 1000$~\AA\ each), the Mylar

379: thermal blankets (two~$\sim5$~mil blankets) and the Kevlar

380: micrometeriod shield ($\sim$5~mil) in the current design produce

381: negligible absorption $>10$~keV.  Figure~1 shows the efficiency of

382: the CZT detectors as a function of energy.

383: 

384: We calculate the mask factors (eqs.~7 and 8) using the

385: optical depth through a 5~mm thick, 107.9~cm $\times$

386: 107.9~cm plate of tungsten. Because of the supports

387: necessary for the closed mask pixels, we assume an open

388: fraction of $f_{\rm mask}$ = 0.4.  Figure~2 shows the

389: resulting mask factors as a function of energy for both the

390: nominal 5~mm thickness (solid curve) and for a mask with

391: half this thickness (dashed curve).

392: 

393: The linear dimensions of the detector and mask pixels will be

394: 0.125~cm and 0.25~cm, respectively.  For a detector to mask pixel

395: dimension ratio of 1:2 the factor compensating for the finite size

396: of the detector pixels is $f_m=0.737$ (see eq.~5).

397: 

398: The background is modelled (eq.~4) as the sum of the CXB aperture

399: flux and the continuum background from other sources (see Garson et

400: al. 2006b,c for details). Figure~3 shows the resulting background.

401: 

402: We assume that counts are accumulated over two energy bands

403: $\Delta E$ = 10--600 and 40--600~keV.  The 10--600~keV band

404: is sensitive to soft bursts, where the large number of low

405: energy burst counts compensates for the large aperture

406: flux, while the 40--600~keV band is particularly sensitive

407: to hard bursts where there are sufficient burst photons

408: above 40~keV. The required threshold significance is

409: assumed to be $S_I = 7$ (the same as the BAT's threshold).

410: 

411: Figure~4 shows the sensitivity curve for a single HET sub-telescope

412: for three sets of spectral indices and for $\Delta t$=1~s.

413: 

414: The survey will localize sources to better than 56~arcsec

415: (Grindlay 2007).  The survey's threshold will be

416: 5$\sigma$ whereas the burst threshold will be 7$\sigma$,

417: and typically localization is proportional to $\sim

418: (\sigma-1)^{-1}$.  Thus we estimate that the HET's

419: localizations will be better than 40~arcsec.

420: 

421: \subsection{LET}

422: 

423: As currently designed, a single LET will have a 20~cm $\times$ 20~cm

424: (an area of 400~cm$^2$), 1~mm thick Si detector plane with 0.02~cm

425: pixels.  Figure~1 also shows the LET efficiency.  The mask will be

426: 72~cm above the Si detector plane, with collimators extending from

427: the detector plane to the mask.  The 20~cm $\times$ 20~cm mask will

428: have a thickness of 0.05~mm and 0.02~cm pixels.  Again, because of

429: the need to support the closed mask pixels, we assume an open

430: fraction of $f_{\rm mask}$=0.4.  Over the LET's energy range (3 to

431: 30~keV) the closed mask pixels will be optically thick. With a mask

432: to detector pixel ratio of 1:1, the mask factor in eq.~5 is

433: $f_{m}$=0.564.

434: 

435: Although we include an internal background of $b(E)=10^{-5}$ cts

436: cm$^{-2}$ keV$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ in our calculation, the background is

437: almost entirely the result of the CXB aperture flux; see Figure~3.

438: 

439: We assume a threshold image significance of $S_I=7$ will be required

440: over a single trigger energy band of $\Delta E$= 3--30~keV. Figure~4

441: shows the resulting sensitivity.  Note that the LETs are less

442: sensitive than the HETs.  The slopes of the HET and LET sensitivity

443: curves are consistent with the energy dependence of the LET and HET

444: detectors.

445: 

446: The EXIST survey's localizations should be better than 11

447: arcsec (Grindlay 2007), and thus accounting for the

448: difference in survey and burst thresholds (5$\sigma$ vs.

449: 7$\sigma$), the LET's burst localizations should be better

450: than 8~arcsec.

451: 

452: \section{Off-Axis and Multi-Detector Sensitivity}

453: 

454: The arrays of HET and LET sub-telescopes will each cover a

455: very large total FOV. Any point in these total FOVs will be

456: in the fully- or partially-coded FOVs of a number of

457: sub-telescopes.  The resulting multi-detector sensitivity

458: across the arrays' FOVs will depend on how the images from

459: the different detectors will be added together; this

460: merging will depend on the exigencies of the available

461: computational power and the required data latency.

462: Specifically, burst detection and localization on-board the

463: {\it EXIST} spacecraft by radiation-hardened processors

464: will probably be less sensitive than on the ground, where

465: farms of high-speed processors will be available. In

466: addition, localization on-board must be rapid so that

467: telescopes on the ground can begin following the burst

468: afterglow.

469: 

470: The calculations above provide the on-axis sensitivity for

471: single HET or LET sub-telescopes.  Let $R$ be the ratio of

472: the actual sensitivity at a given point in the FOV to this

473: single sub-telescope on-axis sensitivity, where sensitivity

474: is proportional to $S_I$ (see eq.~5) or to the inverse of

475: the threshold peak flux $F_T$.  Thus larger $R$ means a

476: greater significance for a given peak flux or a smaller

477: threshold peak flux for a given significance.

478: 

479: The source flux falling on the detector plane is only a

480: fraction $f_c \cos\theta$ of the flux it would have

481: on-axis, where $f_c$ is the `coding fraction' which

482: accounts for the partial shadowing of the detector plane by

483: the collimators (the detector sides) and $\theta$ is the

484: inclination angle (the angle between the source direction

485: and the detector normal). The non-source flux that

486: contributes to the background around the source is

487: proportional to the `coding fraction' $f_c$.  In coded mask

488: imaging only the counts in the region of the detector plane

489: that is not shadowed for a given source contribute to the

490: image around the source. The source flux that impinges on

491: this region is foreshortened by the inclination angle (the

492: `$\cos\theta$' effect), but the background in this region

493: does not depend on the source's direction.  For a single

494: sub-telescope the ratio of the off-axis to on-axis

495: significance is therefore $R=f_c^{1/2} \cos\theta$.

496: 

497: The methodology by which the data from multiple detectors

498: will be combined is currently being studied.  First, the

499: images can be added.  Then the source flux is proportional

500: to $\sum f_{c,i} \cos\theta_i$, the background to $\sum

501: f_{c,i}$, and thus $R_I = [\sum f_{c,i} \cos\theta_i]

502: /\sqrt{\sum f_{c,i}}$.  Alternatively, forming images for

503: each sub-telescope and adding the significances for the

504: common point sources in quadrature gives $R_Q=\sqrt{\sum

505: f_{c,i} \cos^2\theta_i}$.  In practice for the HET and LET

506: arrays the sensitivity over the FOV for these two methods

507: differ very little, and we use $R_I$.

508: 

509: To calculate the sensitivity over the FOV, we work, and

510: plot results, in a coordinate system that is a projection

511: of the spherical sky directly onto a plane perpendicular to

512: the zenith, i.e., if a point on the sky has the coordinates

513: $x$,$y$,$z$ (where $\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}=1$), then we work in

514: the $x$-$y$ plane. In this coordinate system, $z$ is along

515: the spacecraft's zenith, $x$ is along the direction of

516: orbital motion, and the spacecraft nods (rocks) in the $y$

517: direction.  We calculate $R_I$ at different points on this

518: grid.

519: 

520: Figure~5 shows the burst sensitivity over the sky for the HET and

521: LET arrays; the maxima are just under twice the sensitivities (i.e.,

522: more sensitive than) of single HET and LET sub-telescopes. Figure~6

523: shows the amount of solid angle at a given sensitivity for both

524: arrays.  Thus different points in the overall FOV will have

525: different sensitivity thresholds, which must be considered when

526: analyzing the cumulative intensity distribution.  Figure~7 shows the

527: low end of the cumulative intensity distribution resulting from

528: variations in the threshold over the FOV; other effects that smooth

529: the threshold are ignored, and therefore the effect demonstrated by

530: this figure applies to any burst intensity distribution. Note that

531: the sensitivity of {\it Swift}'s BAT also varies over the FOV,

532: affecting the shape of the cumulative fluence or peak flux

533: distributions.

534: 

535: \section{Dependence on Accumulation Time $\Delta t$}

536: 

537: The HET and LET sensitivity curves presented in Figure~4 assumed

538: $\Delta t$=1~s, i.e., that the bursts were detected in images formed

539: over 1~s.  However, modern burst detectors (e.g., {\it Swift}'s BAT,

540: the GLAST Burst Monitor and {\it EXIST}) usually use a number of

541: different accumulation times.  For an imaging detector the relevant

542: $\Delta t$ is the accumulation time for the final image. An

543: accumulation time comparable to the burst duration will usually

544: maximize the source significance. A longer accumulation time will

545: dilute the signal with background, reducing the signal-to-noise

546: ratio, and therefore the significance of the detection.  On the

547: other hand, a shorter accumulation time will often exclude signal

548: that could have increased the significance of the burst detection.

549: 

550: Quantitative analysis of the dependence of burst sensitivity on the

551: accumulation time is difficult because of the large range of burst

552: durations and the great diversity of burst lightcurves.  Some bursts

553: consist of contiguous, overlapping pulses while others have widely

554: separated pulses.  Band (2002) ran a software rate trigger with a

555: wide range of $\Delta t$ values on the lightcurves of 100 bright

556: BATSE bursts, and determined that using a range of $\Delta t$ values

557: would increase the burst detection rate by $\sim$25\% over the rate

558: for $\Delta t$=1~s.  Band (2006) explained the larger fraction of

559: long duration bursts relative to short duration bursts in the {\it

560: Swift} data set compared to BATSE's as resulting in part from {\it

561: Swift}'s long accumulation times.

562: 

563: As a demonstration of the increase in sensitivity afforded by using

564: a variety of accumulation times, consider a burst lightcurve with an

565: exponential shape, $N(t)=N_0 \exp[-t/T]$; the traditional duration

566: of 90\% of the emission is $T_{90}=T\,\ln 10$. In this example the

567: accumulation time is assumed to begin at $t=0$.  Let $F_T(\Delta t)$

568: be the threshold peak flux averaged over 1~s (this is the quantity

569: plotted in Figure~4 for $\Delta t$=1~s) for a given $\Delta t$. Then

570: the ratio of threshold peak fluxes for two different accumulation

571: times $\Delta t_0$ and $\Delta t_1$ is

572: %

573: \begin{equation}

574: {{F_T(\Delta t_1)}\over{F_T(\Delta t_0)}} =

575:    \sqrt{{\Delta t_1}\over{\Delta t_0}}

576:    {{1-\exp[-\Delta t_0/T]}\over{1-\exp[-\Delta t_1/T]}} \quad .

577: \end{equation}

578: %

579: If a detector uses a set of $\Delta t$ values, then the

580: smallest value of $F_T(\Delta t)$ should be used for any

581: given value of $T$.  We assume we are in the

582: background-dominated case (eq.~5); the detectability of

583: very short bursts might be limited by a paucity of source

584: counts.

585: 

586: Figure~8 shows this ratio for $\Delta t_0$=1~s and different sets of

587: $\Delta t_1$.  Thus this figure shows how the sensitivity of a

588: mission such as {\it EXIST} to short and long duration bursts is

589: increased by using a variety of accumulation times.  The dashed

590: curve assumes $\Delta t_1$=1~s, and thus the ratio is equal to 1.

591: Currently {\it EXIST}'s planned imaging trigger (which is {\it not}

592: the final imaging step in {\it EXIST}'s burst detection process)

593: will use $\Delta t_1$=\{3, 18, 108, 648 and 1296\}~s; this is shown

594: by the solid curve.  Finally, $\Delta t_1$ may be varied to maximize

595: the signal-to-noise ratio, minimizing $F_T(\Delta t_1)$ to the

596: smallest possible value; this is shown by the dot-dashed curve.

597: 

598: If burst lightcurves could be described by the exponential shape of

599: this example (and bursts did not undergo spectral evolution, which

600: makes the duration energy-dependent), then the HET or LET threshold

601: peak flux of a burst of a given peak energy $E_p$ and duration

602: $T_{90}$ would be the product of $F_T$ from Figure~4 and the ratio

603: from Figure~8.

604: 

605: We emphasize that this is a highly idealized example meant to

606: demonstrate how the variable accumulation times of {\it EXIST}'s burst detection system will increase the sensitivity to long and short duration

607: bursts.  This is particularly relevant to high redshift bursts whose

608: durations will be time-dilated.

609: 

610: \section{Discussion}

611: 

612: From the preceding analysis, we can draw several

613: conclusions on {\it EXIST}'s impact on the study of

614: gamma-ray bursts.

615: 

616: First we estimate the {\it EXIST} burst detection rate. The

617: BATSE observations provide the cumulative burst rate as a

618: function of the peak flux value $\psi_B$ averaged over

619: $\Delta t=1$~s in the $\Delta E=$50--300~keV band (Band

620: 2002):

621: %

622: \begin{equation}

623: N_B \sim 550 \left[ {{\psi_B}\over \hbox{0.3 ph cm$^{-2}$

624:    s$^{-1}$}}

625:    \right]^{-0.8} \hbox{ bursts yr$^{-1}$ sky$^{-1}$ } \quad .

626: \end{equation}

627: %

628: The HET threshold sensitivity for a single sub-telescope on-axis is

629: %equivalent to a peak flux averaged over 1~s in the 50--300~keV band of

630: $\psi_B\sim 0.12$~ph~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ for $E_p > 100$~keV. Using

631: the BATSE rate in eq.~10 and integrating over the solid angle

632: distribution in Figure~6 gives a burst detection rate for the HET of

633: $\sim 400$ bursts per year. Note that this rate is over the

634: BATSE-specific values of $\Delta E$ and $\Delta t$, and {\it EXIST}

635: will use at least two different values of $\Delta E$ (see \S 4.1)

636: and a variety of $\Delta t$ values (see \S 6). Consequently this

637: rate should be increased by approximately 50\% to account for the

638: soft, faint, long duration bursts to which BATSE was less sensitive

639: than {\it EXIST}'s HET will be; we therefore expect the HET array to

640: detect $\sim 600$~bursts per year.

641: 

642: The value of $\psi_B$ for an LET varies more with the burst spectral

643: parameters than for an HET, and therefore estimates of the LET burst

644: detection rate based on the BATSE rate are much more uncertain.  For

645: a single LET $\psi_B\sim 0.3$~ph~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ on axis at

646: $E_p=100$~keV, which gives a burst detection rate of $\sim$180

647: bursts per year using eq.~10 and the LET distribution in Figure~6.

648: This rate should be increased by a factor of 2 to account for the

649: different energy band $\Delta E$ and accumulation times $\Delta t$.

650: We use a larger adjustment factor for the LETs than for the HETs

651: because the LETs' energy band will overlap less with BATSE's than

652: the HETs'.  We therefore expect the LET array to detect

653: $\sim350$~bursts per year.

654: 

655: Next we simulate the spectra that the {\it EXIST} suite of detectors

656: will observe.  Figure~9 shows a count spectrum (counts s$^{-1}$

657: keV$^{-1}$) for a moderately strong burst as it might be observed by

658: the LETs (lefthand set of curves), HETs (middle set) and the CsI

659: active shields for the HETs (righthand set; based on Garson et al.

660: 2006a). The solid curves show the signal count rate, while the

661: dashed curves provide the estimated background.  Thus {\it EXIST}

662: will facilitate spectral-temporal studies.

663: 

664: Particularly important to physical burst emission models is

665: determining $E_p$, which is typically of order 250~keV

666: (Kaneko et al. 2006).  In addition, correlations of $E_p$

667: with other burst properties, such as the `isotropic' energy

668: (the Amati relation---Amati 2006) or total energy (the

669: Ghirlanda relation---Ghirlanda, Ghisellini \& Lazzati 2004),

670: have been proposed. `Pseudo-redshifts' calculated from the

671: observables related to the burst-frame parameters in these

672: relations can be used in burst studies when spectroscopic

673: redshifts are not available, and can guide ground observers

674: in allocating telescope time to observing potential high

675: redshift bursts.  The recently proposed Firmani relation

676: (Firmani et al. 2006) correlates $E_p$, the peak

677: luminosity, and a measure of the burst duration, all of

678: which are related to observables in the gamma ray band.

679: Thus pseudo-redshifts will be estimated using the Firmani

680: relation based on {\it EXIST} data alone, independent of

681: observations by other facilities.

682: 

683: With well determined broadband spectra down to 3~keV, {\it

684: EXIST} will be capable of determining whether the Band

685: function (Band et al. 1993) suffices to describe burst

686: spectra.  For example, Preece et al. (1996) found evidence

687: in the BATSE data for the presence of additional emission

688: below 10~keV.

689: 

690: By scaling from the EXIST survey's source localization

691: (Grindlay 2007), we find that bursts should be

692: localized at threshold by the HETs and LETs to better than

693: 40~arcsec and 8~arcsec, respectively; this localization

694: should scale as $\sim(\sigma-1)^{-1}$.  Because the HETs

695: are more sensitive to the LETs, the HET localization is

696: relevant to the faintest bursts EXIST will detect.

697: 

698: {\it EXIST}'s burst capabilities calculated above will constitute a

699: major leap beyond current detectors, and should increase the number

700: of high redshift bursts detected.  On average, high redshift bursts

701: should be fainter, softer and longer than low redshift bursts

702: (although the broad burst luminosity function and great variety in

703: burst lightcurves and spectra obscure this trend).  Figure~10

704: compares the detector sensitivities of the HET (solid curve) and LET

705: (dashed curve) arrays to the BAT on {\it Swift} (dot-dashed curve)

706: and BATSE's Large Area Detector (LAD---dot-dot-dashed curve).  As

707: discussed above, the sensitivity is the threshold peak flux $F_T$

708: integrated over the 1--1000~keV band as a function of the spectrum's

709: $E_p$; $\alpha=-1$ and $\beta=-2$ are assumed. In addition, the

710: figure shows families of identical bursts at different redshifts

711: (the curves with the points marked by `+'). Each family is defined

712: by the value of $E_p$ in the burst frame; here again $\alpha=-1$ and

713: $\beta=-2$ are assumed. In each family the burst would be observed

714: to have $F_T$=7.5 ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ if it were at $z=1$. The

715: points marked by `+' are spaced every $\Delta z=1/2$; thus the

716: uppermost points are at $z=1$ and the lowermost points are at

717: $z=10$. The pulses in burst lightcurves become narrower (shorter) at

718: higher energy, an effect that is generally proportional to $E^{0.4}$

719: (Fenimore et al. 1995). Since the observed lightcurve originated in

720: a higher energy band, pulses should become narrower with redshift,

721: reducing the peak flux when integrated over a fixed accumulation

722: time; the plotted families include this effect.  Finally, in \S 6 we

723: showed that forming images on long timescales increases the

724: sensitivity to long duration bursts, as might result from

725: cosmological time dilation.

726: 

727: \section{Summary}

728: 

729: We presented our method for analyzing the gamma-ray burst sensitivity of

730: {\it EXIST}, and applied it to the design for the Beyond Einstein

731: program; this methodology will be used to guide and evaluate the

732: evolving mission design.

733: With two arrays of coded mask detectors covering the

734: 3--30~keV (Si) and 10--600~keV (CZT) bands and non-imaging

735: high energy CsI detectors (0.2--10~MeV), {\it EXIST} will

736: be a significant gamma-ray burst observatory.  {\it EXIST}

737: will detect and localize $\sim 2$ bursts per day, observing

738: their spectra from 3~keV to over 10~MeV.  For bursts with

739: comparable spectra and lightcurves {\it EXIST} will be

740: approximately four times more sensitive than {\it Swift}'s

741: BAT with a much larger FOV.  With these capabilities, {\it

742: EXIST} will accumulate a large sample of bursts with well

743: determined properties such as $E_p$ and redshift,

744: facilitating physical modelling and population studies, and

745: realizing the potential of gamma-ray bursts as cosmological

746: probes.

747: 

748: \begin{thebibliography}{}

749: 

750: \bibitem[a221]{a221}Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

751: 

752: \bibitem[a1]{a1}Band, D. 2002, ApJ, 578, 806

753: 

754: \bibitem[aa]{aa}Band, D. 2003, ApJ, 588, 945

755: 

756: \bibitem[ab]{ab}Band, D. 2006, ApJ, 644, 378

757: 

758: \bibitem[a5]{a5}Band,~D., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281

759: 

760: \bibitem[a511]{a511}Committee on NASA's Beyond Einstein

761: Program:  An Architecture

762: for Implementation, ``NASA's Beyond Einstein Program:  An Architecture

763: for Implementation,''National Research Council,

764: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record\_id=12006

765: 

766: \bibitem[a114]{a114}Fenimore, E. E., in't Zand, J. J. J. M.,

767: Norris,~J.~P., Bonnell,~J.~T., \& Nemiroff,~R.~J. 1995, ApJ, 448,

768: L101

769: 

770: \bibitem[a142]{a142}Firmani,~C., Ghisellini,~G.,

771: Avila-Reese,~V., \& Ghirlanda,~G. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 185

772: 

773: \bibitem[a113]{a113}Garson, A., III, Krawczynski, H.,

774: Grindlay,~J., Fishman,~G.~J., \& Wilson,~C.~A. 2006a, A\&A,

775: 456, 379

776: 

777: \bibitem[a115]{a115}Garson, A., III, Krawczynski, H., Weidenspointner,~G.,

778: Novikova,~E.~I., Grindlay,~J., Hong,~J., \& Jung,~I.~V.

779: 2006b, SPIE, 6319, 9

780: 

781: \bibitem[a116]{a116}Garson, A., III, Krawczynski, H., Weidenspointner,~G.,

782: Novikova,~E.~I., Grindlay,~J., Hong,~J., \& Jung,~I.~V.

783: 2006c astro-ph/0610049

784: 

785: \bibitem[a1161]{a1161}Ghirlanda,~G., Ghisellini,~G., \&

786: Lazzati,~D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 331

787: 

788: \bibitem[g1161]{g1161}Grindlay, J., 2007, AIPC, 921, 211

789: 

790: \bibitem[ay]{ay}Gruber, D. E. 1992, in The X-ray Background.

791: Collected Papers and Reviews from a Workshop held in Laredo, Spain,

792: September, 1990, eds. X.~Barcons \& A.~C.~Fabian, (Cambridge:

793: Cambridge University Press), 44

794: 

795: %\bibitem[ay12]{ay12}Hartmann,~D.~H., et al. 2007, in

796: % preparation

797: 

798: \bibitem[az]{az}Kaneko, Yuki; Preece, Robert D., Briggs,~Michael~S.,

799: Paciesas,~William~S., Meegan,~Charles~A., \& Band,~David~L.

800: 2006, ApJ, 166, 298

801: 

802: \bibitem[az1]{az1}Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Pendleton,~G.~N.,

803: Paciesas,~W.~S., Matteson,~J.~L., Band,~D.~L.,

804: Skelton,~R.~T., \& Meegan,~C.~A. 1996, ApJ, 473, 310

805: 

806: \bibitem[az22]{az22}Skinner, G. 2007, in preparation

807: 

808: \bibitem[bb]{bb}Sullivan, J. D. 1971, NIM, 95, 5

809: 

810: \bibitem[b1]{b1}http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/tab3.html

811: 

812: \end{thebibliography}{}

813: 

814: \clearpage

815: 

816: % Figure 1--HET_efficiency.eps

817: \begin{figure}

818: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Efficiency of the 5~mm thick CZT detectors

819: (solid curve) and the LET detectors (dashed curve) as a function of

820: energy.}

821: \end{figure}

822: 

823: \clearpage

824: 

825: % Figure 2--HET_mask.eps

826: \begin{figure}

827: \plotone{f2.eps} \caption{HET mask factors as a function of

828: energy for a tungsten mask that is 5~mm thick (solid

829: curves) and 2.5~mm thick (dashed curves). The set of curves

830: beginning at 0.4 at low energy is the mask factor $g_{b}$

831: (eq.~8), the fraction of the incident burst flux that

832: reaches the detector plane, whether through an open or

833: closed mask pixel.  The set beginning at 0.5 at low energy

834: is the mask factor $g_{s}$ (eq.~7), the fraction of burst

835: flux that will be attributed to the burst when an image is

836: formed.}

837: \end{figure}

838: 

839: \clearpage

840: 

841: % Figure 3--HET_LET_back.eps

842: \begin{figure}

843: \plotone{f3.eps} \caption{The background spectrum for the HETs

844: (solid and dashed-dot curves) and LETs (dashed curve). The cosmic

845: X-ray background (CXB) aperture flux (dashed curve for LET and

846: dot-dashed curve for HET) is based on the parameterization of Gruber

847: (1992) while the total HET background (solid curve) adds other

848: background components from Monte Carlo simulations (Garson et al.

849: 2006b,c).}

850: \end{figure}

851: 

852: \clearpage

853: 

854: % Figure 4--HET_LET_sensitivity.eps

855: \begin{figure}

856: \plotone{f4.eps} \caption{Maximum HET (lower set of curves) and LET

857: (upper set) detection sensitivities for $\Delta t=1$~s, the

858: threshold peak flux over 1--1000~keV as a function of the spectrum's

859: $E_p$. Solid line---$\alpha = -1$, $\beta = -2$; dashed

860: line---$\alpha = -0.5$, $\beta = -2$; dot-dashed line---$\alpha =

861: -1$, $\beta = -3$. Note that this figure shows the sensitivity for

862: detecting a burst with a spectrum characterized by $E_p$, and not

863: for detecting a photon with an energy equal to $E_p$. }

864: \end{figure}

865: 

866: \clearpage

867: 

868: % Figure 5--HET_total_response.eps,LET_total_response.eps

869: \begin{figure}

870: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps} \caption{Burst detection sensitivity over

871: the sky for the HET (left) and LET (right) arrays, in units of the

872: sensitivity of a single sub-telescope on-axis.  Greater sensitivity

873: results in a smaller threshold flux. }

874: \end{figure}

875: 

876: \clearpage

877: 

878: % Figure 6--HET_fov_dist.eps,LET_fov_dist.eps

879: \begin{figure}

880: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps} \caption{Solid angle at a given burst

881: sensitivity for the HET (left) and LET (right) arrays, in units of a

882: single sub-telescope. Greater sensitivity (larger value of $R$)

883: results in a smaller threshold flux (smaller $F_T$).}

884: \end{figure}

885: 

886: \clearpage

887: 

888: % Figure 7--EXIST_intensity_dist.eps

889: \begin{figure}

890: \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Effect of the variable detection threshold

891: across the FOV on the cumulative intensity distribution for the HET

892: (solid curve) and LET (dashed) arrays.  The assumed actual

893: distribution (dot-dashed curve) is a power law with an index of

894: -0.8. The intensity is given in units of the threshold value for a

895: single sub-telescope. }

896: \end{figure}

897: 

898: \clearpage

899: 

900: % Figure 8--EXIST_t_dependence.eps

901: \begin{figure}

902: \plotone{f8.eps} \caption{Normalized burst sensitivity as a function

903: of burst duration for different accumulation times $\Delta t$.  The

904: normalized burst sensitivity is the ratio of the peak flux averaged

905: over 1~s for $\Delta t$=1~s to the peak flux for different $\Delta

906: t$ values; a smaller value means the detector is more sensitive. The

907: lightcurve is assumed to be an exponential in time. When a detector

908: system employs more than one $\Delta t$ then the minimum normalized

909: sensitivity (resulting from the smallest peak flux) is used.  The

910: dot-dashed curve assumes $\Delta t$=1, and therefore is 1 for all

911: durations. The solid curve shows the accumulation times currently

912: planned for {\it EXIST}'s image triggers: $\Delta t$=3, 18, 108, 648

913: and 1296~s.  The dashed curve assumes all possible values of $\Delta

914: t$ and thus shows the smallest possible value of the normalized

915: sensitivity.}

916: \end{figure}

917: 

918: \clearpage

919: 

920: % Figure 9--exist_spectrum.eps

921: \begin{figure}

922: \plotone{f9.eps} \caption{Source count (solid curves) and background

923: (dashed curves) spectra for the LETs (left hand set of curves), HETs

924: (middle set) and CsI shields (right hand set).  The burst spectrum

925: has $\alpha=-1$, $\beta=-2$, $E_p=300$~keV and

926: $F_T=7.5$~ph~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$.  Based on the sub-telescopes' FOVs

927: in the current design, we assume spectra can be formed from the

928: equivalent of four HET and LET sub-telescopes, and the shields of

929: nine HET sub-telescopes.}

930: \end{figure}

931: 

932: \clearpage

933: 

934: % Figure 10--detector_comp_1_2.eps

935: \begin{figure}\plotone{f10.eps} \caption{Maximum detector

936: sensitivity for HET (solid curve), LET (dashed curve), {\it Swift}'s

937: BAT (dot-dashed curve) and BATSE's LAD (dot-dot-dashed curve)

938: assuming $\Delta t=1$~s, $\alpha = -1$, and $\beta = -2$.  The HET

939: and LET sensitivities assume burst detection by multiple

940: sub-telescopes. Also shown are tracks for identical bursts at

941: different redshifts. The bursts have different $E_p$ and $F_T$=7.5

942: ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ when at $z=1$. The points on the track are

943: spaced by $\Delta z=1/2$; the faintest bursts on each track are at

944: $z=10$. Burst pulses are assumed to narrow by $E^{-0.4}$. The

945: assumed cosmology is $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ ($H_0$

946: is irrelevant to this calculation). }

947: \end{figure}

948: 

949: \clearpage

950: 

951: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c}

952: \tablecolumns{3}

953: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

954: %\tablewidth{0in}

955: 

956: \tablecaption{\label{Table1}Parameters of the {\it EXIST} Detectors}

957: 

958: \tablehead{

959: %

960: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{High Energy Telescope (HET)} &

961: \colhead{Low Energy Telescope (LET)} }

962: %

963: \startdata

964: %

965: Number & 19 & 32 \\

966: %

967: Detector Material & CZT & Si \\

968: %

969: Detector Thickness & 0.5 cm & 0.1 cm \\

970: %

971: Detector Plane Dimensions & 56~cm $\times$ 56~cm & 20~cm $\times$ 20~cm\\

972: %

973: Detector Pixels & 0.125 cm & 0.02 cm \\

974: %

975: Mask Material & Tungsten & Tungsten \\

976: %

977: Mask Thickness & 0.5 cm & 0.05 cm \\

978: %

979: Mask Dimensions & 107.9~cm $\times$ 107.9~cm & 40~cm $\times$ 40~cm\\

980: %

981: Mask Pixels & 0.25 cm & 0.02 cm\\

982: %

983: Detector-Mask Distance & 140 cm & 72 cm \\

984: %

985: Angular Resolution (FWHM) & 6.86$^\prime$ & 1.35$^\prime$ \\

986: %

987: Localization (7$\sigma$, 90\% conf.) & $<40^{\prime\prime}$

988: &

989:    $<8^{\prime\prime}$ \\

990: %

991: Fully Coded FOV & $21^\circ \times 21^\circ$ & $16^\circ

992:    \times 16^\circ$ \\

993: %

994: Trigger Band $\Delta E$ & 10--600 keV& 3--30 keV \\

995:  & 50--600 keV & \\

996: %

997: $f_{\rm mask}$ & 0.4 & 0.4 \\

998: %

999: $f_m$ & 0.737 & 0.564 \\

1000: %

1001: \enddata

1002: %

1003: % \tablenotemark{i}

1004: % \tablenotetext{a}{}

1005: 

1006: \end{deluxetable}

1007: 

1008: \end{document}

1009: