1: %\documentclass [12pt]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[12pt]{aastex}

3: %\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

4: %\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

5: %\usepackage{multicolumn}

6: \usepackage{multirow}

7: \usepackage{graphics,graphicx}

8: %\usepackage{setspace}

9: %\doublespacing

10: 

11: \received{}

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \title{Chandra/ACIS Subpixel Event Repositioning. II. Further Refinements and Comparison between

15: Backside and Front-side Illuminated X-ray CCDs}

16: 

17: \author{Jingqiang Li\altaffilmark{1}, Joel H. Kastner\altaffilmark{1},

18: Gregory Y. Prigozhin\altaffilmark{2}, Norbert S.

19: Schulz\altaffilmark{2}, Eric D. Feigelson\altaffilmark{3},

20: Konstantin V. Getman\altaffilmark{3}}

21: 

22: \altaffiltext{1}{Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science,

23: Rochester Institute of Technology, 54 Lomb Memorial Dr.,

24: Rochester, NY 14623; JL's email: jxl7626@cis.rit.edu}

25: \altaffiltext{2}{Center for Space Research, Massachusetts

26: Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}

27: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,

28: Pennsylvania State University, 525 Davey Laboratory, University

29: Park, PA 16802}

30: 

31: 

32: \begin{abstract}

33: 

34: We further investigate subpixel event repositioning (SER)

35: algorithms in application to Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO) CCD

36: imaging. SER algorithms have been applied to backside illuminated

37: (BI) Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) devices, and

38: demonstrate spatial resolution improvements in Chandra/ACIS

39: observations. Here a new SER algorithm that is charge split

40: dependent is added to the SER family. We describe the application

41: of SER algorithms to frontside illuminated (FI) ACIS devices. The

42: results of SER for FI CCDs are compared with those obtained from

43: SER techniques applied to BI CCD event data. Both simulated data

44: and Chandra/ACIS observations of the Orion Nebular Cluster were

45: used to test and evaluate the achievement of the various SER

46: techniques.

47: \end{abstract}

48: 

49: \keywords{instrumentation: detectors --- methods: data analysis --- techniques:

50: image processing --- X-rays: general}

51: 

52: \section{Introduction}

53: Subpixel event repositioning (SER) algorithms can be used to

54: improve the spatial resolution of Chandra X-ray imaging with the

55: Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS), by reducing photon

56: impact position (PIP) uncertainties to subpixel accuracy.

57: Utilizing the extra information provided by the observation,

58: --- in particular, event charge split morphologies  and the

59: telescope pointing history --- SER techniques essentially change

60: the shape and decrease the size of the detector pixel. Therefore

61: the image quality degradation due to pixelization is reduced.

62: Tsunemi et al.\ (2001) first introduced SER methods for ACIS

63: imaging, describing a technique to reposition corner-split events.

64: In Li et al.\ 2003 (hereafter, paper I), SER algorithm

65: modifications were presented for back-illuminated (BI) devices, by

66: including single pixel events and 2-pixel split events to increase

67: the statistical accuracy as well as to improve detection

68: efficiency (from using $\sim$25\% of events to $\sim$95\% of

69: events). In this (static SER; hereafter SSER) formulation, the

70: repositioned event landing locations do not depend on energy.

71: 

72: Employing a high fidelity BI CCD model (Prigozhin et al.\ 2003),

73: we further modified SER by determining event PIPs according to

74: photon energies (energy-dependent SER; hereafter EDSER). Both CCD

75: simulations and real CXO observations demonstrate the improved

76: performance for SSER and EDSER compared to the Tsunemi et al. 2001

77: model (TSER), with EDSER displaying the best performance (Li et

78: al.\ 2003).

79: 

80: In paper 1 SER algorithms were discussed only for the BI devices.

81: Similar ideas can be applied to the FI devices, the details of the

82: implementation, though, are not same. The reason for that is that

83: photon absorption and charge spreading mechanisms differ

84: significantly for the two types of CCDs, especially at low X-ray

85: energies.

86: 

87: The collection of signal charge occurs near the front surface, the

88: same one that is illuminated by the incoming photons in the FI

89: CCD. Much larger fraction of photons interact close to the surface

90: of the device where electric potentials are influenced by the

91: grounded channel-stop layer, resulting in a very different charge

92: splitting pattern compared to the one in the BI devices. On

93: average charge clouds are formed closer to the collecting

94: potential wells and travel shorter distances, therefore having

95: less time to expand. Smaller charge clouds reduce the possibility

96: of forming split events.

97: 

98: A thicker dead layer covering vertical charge-splitting  pixel

99: boundaries of FI CCD is another factor contributing to reduction

100: of the share of split events. As a result TSER technique for FI

101: devices suffers seriously from low detection efficiency.

102: 

103: Mori et al. (2001) effectively modified TSER to SSER, by adding

104: single pixel and 2-pixel split events. However, they assume that

105: 2-pixel events land on the center of split boundary, for both BI

106: and FI devices. In Paper I we showed that this assumption for

107: 2-pixel split events impact position is inappropriate for BI CCDs,

108: and it follows that this assumption likely is not satisfactory

109: either for FI devices.

110: 

111: Here we describe modifications to SSER and EDSER algorithms for FI

112: devices. These modifications are based on a physical model of FI

113: CCDs (Prigozhin et al.\ 1998), as well as CXO observations with FI

114: ACIS CCDs. In addition, we describe a new SER technique that is

115: dependent on charge split proportion (CSDSER), and we apply this

116: method to both CCD types.

117: 

118: 

119: \section{Static SER for FI CCDs} \label{sec:sec2}

120: 

121: In the FI static SER method, as for static BI SER, single pixel

122: events and 2-pixel split events were added to corner split events,

123: in order to improve photon counting statistics. FI devices

124: generate far fewer corner split events, compared to BI devices

125: (see table \ref{branching}). Because the charge cloud has a

126: relatively small size, only photons that interact with silicon

127: close to boundaries result in split events in the case of FI

128: devices. Using detailed CCD model (Prigozhin et al.\ 1998b), we

129: simulated a distribution of events across the pixel and found that

130: for FI devices, single pixel events can occur almost everywhere

131: within a pixel except areas very close to corners and boundaries,

132: i.e., are constrained within an area only slightly smaller than a

133: CCD pixel. Two-pixel split events are generated by photons that

134: are absorbed in areas restricted to the pixel boundaries, while

135: the impact positions of corner split events are limited to the

136: diamond-shaped areas, diagonally oriented and heavily populated

137: towards pixel corners. Because the charge cloud size is very small

138: compared with ACIS pixel size, single-pixel events will have the

139: biggest position uncertainty in both dimensions, and corner split

140: events have the smallest uncertainty among all the events in both

141: dimensions. Two-pixel split events have relatively small landing

142: position uncertainties in the direction perpendicular to the split

143: boundary, and have uncertainties similar to those of single-pixel

144: events in the direction parallel to the split boundary. Thus,

145: properly repositioning both corner and 2-pixel split events will

146: essentially decrease the ACIS pixel size.

147: 

148: \begin{table}[!b]

149: \caption{Event branching ratios for CXO Orion Nebula Cluster

150:   observations$^{a}$.}\label{branching}

151:  \begin{center}

152:   \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

153:   \hline

154:   ACIS CCD type & Corner-split events & 2-pixel split events & Single pixel events& Total split events \\

155:   \hline

156:   BI$^{b}$ & 20.8-38.8\% & 38.4-50.3\% & 10.9-25.2\% & 69.6-83.8\%\\

157:   \hline

158:   FI$^{c}$ & 1.0-5.7\% & 15.0-23.3\% & 70.5-83.3\% & 16.5-29.0\%\\

159:   \hline

160:   \end{tabular}

161:   \end{center}

162: 

163:   Notes.---\\

164:   a). Table values are calculated from 20 and 32 individual bright sources with Gaussian

165:   shapes for BI and FI observations, respectively.\\

166:   b). CXO ObsID 04.\\

167:   c). Chandra Orion Ultrdeep Project data (see sec. \ref{sec:sec4})

168: 

169: \end{table}

170: In our initial FI SER implementation, we assume that corner split

171: events take place at the split corners instead of event pixel

172: centers, and 2-pixel split events occur at the centers of split

173: boundaries, 0.47 pixel away from the pixel centers. Single pixel

174: event PIPs remain at the event pixel centers. Note that the 0.47

175: pixel offset for 2-pixel split events here is different from BI

176: SSER, in which the shift is 0.366 pixel. These 2-pixel split event

177: shifts for FI and BI SSER were determined from FI and BI CCD model

178: simulations, respectively. As in Paper I, we refer to this

179: modified algorithm as {}``static'' (energy-independent) SER. The

180: algorithm's schematics can be found in Figure 1 of Paper I.

181: 

182: Simulations for BI CCDs show that a given type of event can be

183: formed in a fairly large area, and the mean offset of this event

184: type from pixel center is determined by the charge cloud size,

185: which is energy dependent. The same principles hold for FI devices

186: too, but differences exist; in particular, split events are much

187: less probable and occur closer to split boundaries, as shown in

188: Figure \ref{splitevent} for 1740 eV

189: photons. 

190: \begin{figure}

191: {\centering \resizebox*{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f1a.eps}}

192: \par \par}

193: {\centering \resizebox*{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{f1b.eps}} \par} 

194: \caption{The photon impact positions for 3

195: subgroups of 13 {}``viable'' event grades for BI (top) and FI

196: (bottom) devices. Plus signs stand for the PIPs of 2-pixel events

197: within a pixel, while triangles represent the PIPs of corner (3-

198: or 4- pixel) split events. The crosses are the PIPs of single

199: pixel events. All the photons have energy of 1.74 keV.}

200: \label{splitevent}

201: \end{figure}

202: 

203: The first three panels in Figure \ref{half_shift_compare} show the

204: improvement in determination of PIPs enabled by the modified SER,

205: using FI CCD simulated data at an energy of 1740 eV. For

206: comparison, the BI simulated data of same energy photons (shown in

207: Paper I) is included. In each panel, we show the differences

208: between actual PIPs and repositioned PIPs from various models in

209: chip coordinates, for all three subgroups \footnote{Note the

210: difference between three subgroups of events and three subgroups

211: of \emph{split} events. The three subgroups of events mean single

212: pixel events, 2-pixel split events, and corner (including 3- and

213: 4-) split events. The three subgroups of split events represent

214: 2-, 3- and 4-pixel split events.} of events. The plot axes are in

215: ACIS pixel units, i.e., 0.5 difference represents 12 $\mu$m, and

216: indicates photons that interacted near the pixel boundaries. The

217: first panel from left shows the difference of actual PIPs for a

218: random spatial distribution of events with unrandomized,

219: standard-processed PIPs which are assumed to lie at the event

220: pixel centers; one can see the expected uniform random

221: distribution within the pixel. The second panel is the difference

222: after applying TSER, in which only corner split events were

223: repositioned. A big improvement for the small fraction of events

224: that occur near corners can be seen. However, due to the small

225: proportion of corner split events, there is no correction for most

226: events. This fact is more obvious for the FI simulations. The

227: third panel shows the difference after the static SER correction,

228: in which the 2-pixel split events also were repositioned. For FI

229: devices, SSER results in a ``\#''-shape structure, because the

230: uncertainty of 2-pixel events can only be minimized in one

231: direction. However, the smaller PIP differences of the SSER method

232: relative to the Tsunemi et al.\ (2001) method are apparent, with

233: the improvement more obvious for BI devices. The other two panels

234: in the Figure will be discussed later.

235: 

236: Essentially, the PIP differences plotted in figure

237: \ref{half_shift_compare} represent the corrected PIP uncertainty

238: (or probability distribution) within a pixel, and therefore can be

239: considered as representing the ACIS pixel shape and size after SER

240: correction. Adopting this concept, one sees that the far left

241: panel reflects the ACIS pixel after standard CXO/ACIS processing,

242: i.e., a square pixel with 24 $\mu$m width. After TSER and SSER

243: correction, the effective ACIS pixel becomes smaller in size, and

244: no longer has uniform spatial response.

245: 

246: \begin{figure}

247: {\centering \resizebox*{7in}{!}{\includegraphics{f2a.eps}}\par \par} {\centering

248: \resizebox*{7in}{!}{\includegraphics{f2b.eps}}\par}

249: 

250: \caption{Differences between actual photon impact positions and

251: processed event assumed locations for 1.74 keV events, in Chip

252: coordinates. $1^{st}$ panel (from left): ACIS assumed PIP;

253: $2^{nd}$ panel: correction using corner events only (Tsunemi et

254: al. 2001); $3^{rd}$ panel: static SER correction; $4^{th}$ panel:

255: EDSER correction; $5^{th}$ panel: CSDSER correction. The panels

256: are in units of pixels. The top row panels are for BI devices,

257: while the bottom row panels are for FI devices, for 4000 (BI) and

258: 5000 (FI) photons with uniformly random landing positions.}

259: \label{half_shift_compare}

260: \end{figure}

261: \clearpage

262: 

263: 

264: 

265: \section{Further Modifications to SER Based on ACIS CCD Simulations}

266: \label{sec:sec3}

267: \subsection{Energy-dependent SER for FI CCDs}

268: In Paper I, an energy-dependent SER method was proposed for BI

269: devices, based on simulations for a BI CCD model. The advantages

270: of this method were demonstrated from both simulated data and real

271: observations. Figures \ref{split_percentage} and

272: \ref{shift_energy} show the motivation for ED SER from the

273: simulation, i.e., the branching ratio and the mean offset of the

274: split event position, and, hence, the mean shifts for each

275: subgroup of split events are strongly energy dependent. Therefore,

276: adjusting assumed PIPs according to energy should significantly

277: improve SER performance.

278: 

279: Figure \ref{split_percentage} shows the percentage of events of a

280: given split morphology as a function of photon energy, while

281: Figure \ref{shift_energy} shows the mean shift in position for

282: different split event types, for FI devices. For comparison, we

283: include the same plots for BI CCDs that were published in Paper I.

284: Note the differences between BI and FI devices. For BI CCDs, both

285: subgroup event percentage and mean PIP shift depends sensitively

286: on energy, at low energy (E $<$ 2 keV). The 3 subgroups of split

287: event percentages and PIP shifts are insensitive to energy for E

288: $>$ 6 keV. This reflects the fact that, for photons with energy

289: exceeding 6 keV, the characteristic penetration depth becomes

290: comparable to or larger than the thickness of the ACIS BI CCD,

291: which is only 45 microns. In contrast, ACIS FI CCDs are much

292: thicker, with larger depletion depth ($\sim$ 70 $\mu$m, Prigozhin

293: et al.\ 1998a). Therefore, the branching ratios and PIP shifts

294: depend sensitively on energy over most of the CXO/ACIS bandwidth.

295: 

296: EDSER consists of repositioning the split event PIPs by event

297: grade, using the mean PIP offset look-up table as a function of

298: photon energy derived from data shown in figure

299: \ref{shift_energy}. PIP determination benefits from applying the

300: mean energy-dependent shifts for different split event groups. The

301: fourth panels (from left) of Figure \ref{half_shift_compare}

302: demonstrate the PIP differences after EDSER for BI and FI devices.

303: Compared with static SER, the EDSER BI data displays a more

304: concentrated structure in the center, indicating the split events

305: were relocated more accurately, and the energy dependent SER

306: method will improve SER performance, via better PIP determination.

307: However, due to narrower confinement of split events to pixel

308: boundaries, one doesn't see the same improvement for FI data in

309: Figure \ref{half_shift_compare}, indicating that EDSER may not

310: yield much gain over SSER, for FI CCDs.

311: 

312: \begin{figure}

313: {\centering \resizebox*{4in}{4in}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}

314: \par}

315: \caption{The fraction of different event grades versus photon

316: energy. Results from simulations of FI (solid line) and BI (dotted

317: line) CCD model. The X-ray attenuation length in silicon is

318: overplotted, in units of 50 microns. } \label{split_percentage}

319: \end{figure}

320: 

321: \begin{figure}

322: {\centering \resizebox*{4in}{4in}{\includegraphics{f4.eps}} \par}

323: 

324: \caption{The mean shifts from pixel centers of the 3 subgroups of

325: split events, according to the photon energy. FI CCD model

326: simulations are plotted with solid line, while BI simulations with

327: dotted line.} \label{shift_energy}

328: \end{figure}

329: 

330: 

331: \clearpage

332: \subsection{Charge Split Dependent SER}

333: Simulations show that, for a split event, the proximity to the

334: split boundary of a photon impact position is related to the

335: proportion of the charge deposited in split pixels relative to the

336: total charge generated by the photon. This fact provides

337: motivation for an SER algorithm that is both energy and charge

338: split proportion dependent. Figure \ref{ECSPD} shows distances of

339: PIPs (relative to split boundaries) as a function of the charge

340: split proportion, for three types of split events. ACIS CCD models

341: were used for these simulations, at a photon energy of 1740 eV.

342: The simulated results are shown in the left and right columns, for

343: BI and FI devices respectively. The measured fraction is the

344: proportion of charge within a split pixel relative to the total

345: charge generated by the event, including all split charge that

346: exceeds the split threshold. For 3- and 4-pixel split events, the

347: charge fraction in both horizontal and vertical split pixels was

348: measured independently. The charge fraction in the diagonal split

349: pixel of the 4-pixel split events was not measured, since the

350: fractions from the other two split pixels already provide

351: information about photon landing locations.

352: 

353: The plot shows that, with only energy information, the PIP

354: uncertainty is relatively big since it includes all ``local''

355: uncertainties. By including charge split proportion information,

356: one can divide the uncertainty into local uncertainties, i.e., the

357: uncertainty at each split fraction. For example, for a 3-pixel

358: split in BI device (the middle panel of the left column), the

359: total uncertainty is about 0.4 pixel, while the local uncertainty

360: at 0.4 split fraction is only about 0.03 pixel. Therefore,

361: including charge split information, CSDSER will greatly reduce PIP

362: uncertainties. The function describing PIP offset in terms of

363: split charge fraction for horizontal and vertical directions is

364: assumed indistinguishable\footnote{Even though the pixel physical

365: boundaries are different in the two perpendicular directions,

366: i.e., one boundary is provided by channel stops, while the other

367: is caused by the gate with lower voltage, CCD simulations don't

368: show obvious split property differences for these different

369: boundaries.}, for a given split-event subgroups, at the same

370: energy.

371: 

372: The rightmost panels in figure \ref{half_shift_compare} show the

373: simulated PIP uncertainties after CSDSER correction for BI and FI

374: devices, at the energy of 1740 eV. The improvement in PIP

375: determination for those panels can be seen, especially for BI

376: devices, compared with EDSER correction. Figure

377: \ref{half_shift_compare} suggests an increasing degree of image

378: quality improvement can be achieved, by using SSER, EDSER and

379: CSDSER.

380: 

381: \begin{figure}

382: {\centering \resizebox*{6in}{!}{\includegraphics{f5a.eps}

383: {\includegraphics{f5b.eps}} \par}}

384: 

385: \caption{The distance of photon landing locations from the split

386:   boundaries as a function of charge split proportion for

387:   three split event types. The photons have energies of 1740 eV.

388:   Simulations were performed with MIT BI (left column) and FI (right column) ACIS models.

389:   The dots in the panels represent the PIP relative to split

390:   boundaries, while the red triangles are the local averages of the PIPs, and the

391:   blue lines are the polynomial regression curves of the local

392:   averages.} \label{ECSPD}

393: \end{figure}

394: \clearpage

395: 

396: %The PIP difference for the static SER model is more compact than

397: %or the TSER model, indicating that the modified PIPs are closer

398: %to their real locations. The fourth panel shows the difference

399: %after Energy-dependent SER correction, and we can see that the

400: %split events are moved closer and more compact. The most right

401: %panel shows the differences after Energy-dependent and charge

402: %split dependent SER correction, and illustrates the significant

403: %advantages by applying this method. The better PIP determination

404: %for this method than previous three algorithms can be seen, and

405: %ore obvious for BI devices. The ``\#'' structure in ED method

406: %turns to cross-structure, indicating that the uncertainty of

407: %photon impact positions for same type of event at same photon

408: %energy decreased by utilizing charge split information. Figure

409: %\ref{half_shift_compare} predicts the potential image quality

410: %improvement can be achieved, by using static, EDSER and CSDSER.

411: 

412: \clearpage

413: \section{Testing SER: End-to-end Simulations}\label{sec:sim}

414: MARX (Model of AXAF Response to X-rays) is a program suite that

415: can run in sequence to simulate Chandra on-orbit performance, with

416: FITS file and image output (MARX technical manual). The built-in

417: instrument models, including HRMA (High Resolution Mirror

418: Assembly) and focal plane detectors, enable MARX to perform a

419: ray-trace and thereby simulate Chandra CCD imaging spectroscopy of

420: a variety of astrophysical sources. Post-processing routines can

421: simulate aspect movement and ACIS photon pile up. However, ACIS

422: simulations within recent versions of MARX do not include a

423: high-fidelity CCD model. Therefore, SER related simulations must

424: rely on CCD models (such as those described in sections

425: \ref{sec:sec2} and \ref{sec:sec3}) to analyze the CCD charge

426: distribution and event grade formation and, therefore, SER

427: implementation.

428: 

429: To test the extent to which various SER techniques should improve

430: image performance for BI and FI CCDs, we have carried out

431: simulations combining MARX with MIT BI/FI CCD models. We performed

432: simulations of 50 point sources with realistic spectral

433: distributions at positions ranging from on-axis to $160''$

434: off-axis, in steps of $3''.2$ (see figure \ref{simulation} and

435: \ref{simulationFI}). The MARX telescope ``internal dither'' model

436: was used, with standard (default) values of 1000 and 707 second

437: dither periods in RA and DEC directions, respectively, and an 8

438: arcsec dither amplitude in both directions.

439: 

440: The BI and FI simulation spectra are based on the averaged spectra

441: of BI and FI ONC observations, respectively. The BI simulation

442: spectrum was calculated from 20 point-like sources\footnote{The

443: sources were listed in table 1 of Paper I, excluding source 5 and

444: 6, which may be affected by pileup.} of BI ONC (obsID 4), while

445: the FI simulation spectrum was calculated from an average spectrum

446: of 32 well-shaped X-ray sources from a deep CXO/ACIS-I observation

447: (see section \ref{sec:sec4}). These 32 sources were also used in

448: sections \ref{sec:sec2} and \ref{sec:sec4}, for source split event

449: branching ratios (table \ref{branching}) and various SER method

450: evaluations (figures \ref{fwhm_imp} and \ref{improve}),

451: respectively. The BI and FI spectra are plotted in figure

452: \ref{simulation} and \ref{simulationFI}, respectively.

453: 

454: The degree of improvement due to the SER algorithms was evaluated

455: numerically by calculating source FWHM before and after applying

456: SER. Tsunemi et al.\ (2001) and Paper I give the definition of

457: improvement; i.e., by assuming that {$\mit F_{B}$} and {$\mit

458: F_{A}$} are the FWHMs of a source before and after applying SER,

459: respectively, then the improvement $\Delta$ is defined as:

460: \begin{displaymath}

461: \Delta\,=\,\sqrt{{\mit F_{B}^{2}\,-\,F^{2}_{A}}}/F_{B}

462: \end{displaymath}

463: 

464: The results of the simulations are shown in Figures

465: \ref{simulation} and \ref{simulationFI} for BI and FI models,

466: respectively. %The MARX + BI simulations confirm the results of

467: %Paper I, in that they indicate that the modified SER algorithms

468: %have better improvement than the one proposed Tsunemi et al.

469: %(2001). In addition,

470: The progressively better performance of SSER , EDSER, and CSDSER

471: is apparent in BI simulations, as expected, due to better PIP

472: determination from addition photon and charge split information

473: (see table \ref{res_comp}). However, the performance of SSER,

474: EDSER and CSDSER is very comparable in the case of FI devices,

475: even though we might expect to see the improvement (e.g., of

476: CSDSER relative to SSER) theoretically. In comparison to BI

477: devices, the lack of improvement in imaging performance under the

478: refined SER approaches for FI CCDs is most likely due to the

479: following factors:

480: \begin{enumerate}

481:     \item FI devices generate fewer split events than BI

482:     devices, especially corner split events.

483:     Therefore single pixel events dominate over the better

484:     repositioned split events.

485:     \item For soft sources, such as those simulated here, the charge cloud size is relatively

486:     small. Therefore most split events in FI CCDs are very close to the split

487:     boundaries, not widespread as in BI devices. As a result, the positional

488:     uncertainties of two-pixel split events forms a long arm cross

489:     structure after applying SER. The uncertainty in the direction parallel to the split

490:     boundary is larger and remains unchanged.

491:     \item Because of the small charge cloud, the PIP determinations of

492:     EDSER and CSDSER do not provide significant advantages  over the static

493:     method, as for BI devices.

494:     \item The slight potential improvement offered by CSDSER is degraded by telescope PSF,

495:     which includes contaminations from both HRMA PSF and aspect blurring.

496: \end{enumerate}

497: \begin{table}

498:   \begin{center}

499:   \caption{Comparison of various BI and FI SER

500:   methods.}\label{res_comp}

501:   \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

502:    \cline{4-6}

503:    \multicolumn{3}{c}{} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Degree of improvement}\\

504:    \hline

505:    & Off-axis range & CCD type & CSD $>$ ED$^{a}$ & CSD $>$ SSER$^{b}$ & ED $>$ SSER$^{c}$\\

506: 

507:    \hline

508:    \multirow{2}{20mm}{50 sources} & \multirow{2}{20mm}{0---$158''.7$ } & BI & $68\%$ & $86\%$ & $80\%$ \\

509:    \cline{3-6}

510:    & & FI  & $56\%$ & $52\%$ & $56\%$\\

511:    \hline

512:    \multirow{2}{20mm}{25 sources} & \multirow{2}{20mm}{0---$78''.5$} & BI & $64\%$ & $96\%$ & $88\%$ \\

513:    \cline{3-6}

514:    & & FI & $56\%$ & $60\%$ & $64\%$ \\

515:    \hline

516:     \end{tabular}

517:     \end{center}

518: 

519:   Notes. ---\\

520:   a). Percentage of sources for which CSDSER FWHM improvement is

521:   larger than that of EDSER.\\

522:   b). Percentage of sources for which CSDSER FWHM improvement is

523:   larger than that of SSER.\\

524:   c). Percentage of sources for which EDSER FWHM improvement is

525:   larger than that of SSER..

526: 

527: \end{table}

528: 

529: Figures \ref{simulation} and \ref{simulationFI} show that SER

530: algorithms are highly source location dependent, i.e., all SERs

531: have better performance for on-axis sources, and the improvement

532: decreases when off-axis angle increases. This is because the

533: telescope PSF increases in size with off-axis angle and,

534: therefore, the influence of the event repositioning decreases.

535: 

536: 

537: \begin{figure}

538: {\centering\resizebox*{4in}{!}

539: {\includegraphics{f6a.eps}} \par}

540: {\centering

541: \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f6b.eps}} \par}

542: {\centering

543: \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f6c.eps}} \par}

544: \caption{Improvement comparison of different BI SER algorithms,

545: from BI CXO/ACIS point-source simulations. Top: spectrum used in

546: the simulations (see text). Middle: improvement in source FWHM as

547: function of source off-axis angle. Bottom: histogram of FWHM

548: improvements.} \label{simulation}

549: \end{figure}

550: \begin{figure}

551: {\centering

552: \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f7a.eps}} \par}

553: {\centering

554: \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f7b.eps}} \par}

555: {\centering

556: \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f7c.eps}} \par}

557: \caption{As in Fig. \ref{simulation}, improvement comparison of

558: different FI SER algorithms from FI CXO/ACIS point-source

559: simulations.} \label{simulationFI}

560: \end{figure}

561: 

562: \clearpage

563: \section{Application of the SER Algorithms to X-ray sources in Orion}

564: \label{sec:sec4}

565: 

566: The steps involved in implementing SER on real Chandra

567: observations were discussed in paper I, and BI SER algorithms

568: (TSER, SSER and EDSER) were evaluated from data obtained for the

569: ONC (Orion Nebula Cluster, Schulz et al.\ 2001). Here we compare

570: CSDSER with other SER algorithms for BI data (top panels in

571: figures \ref{fwhm_imp} and \ref{improve}). The same implementation

572: steps hold for FI CCDs, except the chip orientation differences

573: within eight FI chips. Similar plots for applications of SER

574: methods on FI Chandra Orion Ultradeep Project (COUP) data are

575: shown in the bottom panels.

576: 

577: The Chandra Orion Ultradeep Project combines six consecutive

578: observations of the Orion Nebula Cluster taken in January 2003

579: with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer on board the Chandra

580: X-ray Observatory (Weisskopf et al.\ 2002). The total exposure

581: time of $0.84$ Ms and over 1600 sources are detected.

582: 

583: COUP data reduction started with the Level 1 event files provided

584: by the Chandra X-ray Center. Only events on the four CCDs of the

585: ACIS I-array were considered.  Event energies and grades were

586: corrected for charge transfer inefficiency (CTI) using the

587: procedures developed by Townsley et al.\ (2001 ApJL).  The data

588: were cleaned from a various potential problem events with the

589: grade, status, and good-time intervals filters as described in the

590: Appendix of Townsley et al.\ (2003).  Sequences of single pixel

591: cosmic ray afterglow events were identified but not removed from

592: the dataset at this time.  Bad pixel columns with the energies $<

593: 700$ eV and the background events with the energies $> 10500$ eV

594: were removed.

595: 

596: Event positions were adjusted slightly in three ways.  First,

597: individual corrections to the absolute astrometry of each of the

598: six COUP exposures was applied based on several hundred matches

599: between a preliminary catalog of Chandra sources and near-infrared

600: sources in a forthcoming catalog from the ESO Very Large

601: Telescope.  Second, the sub-arcsecond broadening of the PSF

602: produced by the Chandra X-ray Center's pipeline randomization of

603: positions was removed. Third, the tangent planes of five COUP

604: exposures were re-projected to match the tangent plane of the

605: first observation (ObsID 4395).  The six exposures were then

606: merged into the single data event file used in this paper.

607: 

608: \subsection{Results}

609: 

610: Based on the above steps, we have plotted the FWHM of 22 bright

611: point-like sources in BI ONC data, obtained by Chandra/ACIS-S3.

612: The sources were selected to represent a range in off-axis angle

613: from $2''.72$ to $136''.8$, and in count rate from $0.0052$ to

614: $0.2791$ s$^{-1}$ (Paper I). The top panel in figure

615: \ref{fwhm_imp} shows that after applying SER technique to these

616: data, all SER algorithms (sec. \ref{sec:sec3}) improved the FWHM

617: for every source (except that source 1 has no improvement after

618: applying the Tsunemi et al.\ [2001] method). The bottom panel

619: displays 32 point-like sources (could be different with BI

620: sources) chosen from Chandra/ACIS-I COUP observation, with count

621: rate from $0.0027$ to $0.0799$ s$^{-1}$, and in off-axis angle

622: from $0''.35$ to $125''.8$. Both abscissa axes are source number,

623: sorted with the FWHM of original point sources, before applying

624: SER but after removing randomization. Furthermore, COUP data

625: process includes CTI correction (Townsley et al.\ 2002), to reduce

626: charge transfer problem in ACIS-I CCDs and to recover event grade

627: information.

628: 

629: The source size, represented by FWHM, was apparently smaller after

630: applying SER approaches on BI devices, from TSER to SSER, then to

631: EDSER and to CSDSER, as predicted by BI simulation, demonstrating

632: the capability to improve the spatial resolution of BI

633: Chandra/ACIS imaging. At the same time, FI devices illustrate more

634: modest improvements, by applying SER techniques. The better

635: performance of static SER than TSER is evident, but from SSER to

636: EDSER and CSDSER, the improvement is less clear, for the reasons

637: discussed in section \ref{sec:sim}. However, a small improvements

638: in effective FI Chandra/ACIS PSF still can be seen after

639: application of SER techniques.

640: 

641: \clearpage

642: \begin{figure}

643: {\centering \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f8a.eps}}

644: \par}

645: {\centering \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f8b.eps}}

646: \par}

647: \caption{FWHM of BI and FI ONC point like sources before and after

648: applying various SER algorithms described in this paper.}

649: \label{fwhm_imp}

650: \end{figure}

651: \clearpage

652: 

653: Using the definition of improvement given in section

654: \ref{sec:sim}, we quantitatively evaluate the performance of

655: different SER methods on ONC data. The top and bottom part of

656: figure \ref{improve} shows this metric of the improvement for all

657: SER algorithms for BI and FI Chandra/ACIS sources, respectively.

658: As expected from MARX simulations, BI data shows superior

659: improvement for CSDSER and EDSER, while FI data only shows

660: improvement for modified SERs, and there is no favorite among the

661: three modified methods. Improvement for most sources in FWHM range

662: is from 40\% to 70\%, and from 20\% to 50\%, for BI and FI CCDs,

663: respectively, with the improvement statistically dependent on

664: off-axis angle.

665: 

666: \clearpage

667: \begin{figure}

668: {\centering \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f9a.eps}}

669: \par}

670: {\centering \resizebox*{4in}{!}{\includegraphics{f9b.eps}}

671: \par}

672: \caption{Comparison of image FWHM improvements using Tsunemi et

673: al.\ (2001) model, static, energy-dependent SERs, ED and CSD SER

674: on BI and FI CXO ONC data.} \label{improve}

675: \end{figure}

676: \clearpage

677: 

678: \section{Summary}

679: A study of potential improvements to subpixel event repositioning

680: (SER) for CXO/ACIS data was conducted here, for BI and FI devices.

681: We formulate modified SER algorithms at three levels of

682: improvement for both CCD types: (1) inclusion of single-pixel

683: events and two-pixel split events ({}``static'' SER); (2) in

684: addition to event grade/split morphology, accounting for the mean

685: energy dependence of differences between apparent and actual

686: photon impact positions, based on the results of CCD simulations

687: ({}``energy-dependent'' SER); (3) dependence of the actual PIPs

688: according to the split charge proportion in the split pixel(s),

689: event type, and event energy, based on CCD model simulation

690: results {''charge split dependent'' SER).

691: 

692: All three modified SER methods produce improvements in spatial

693: resolution over those possible using a static SER algorithm

694: employing only corner-split events (Tsunemi et al.\ 2001), for

695: both BI and FI devices. BI and FI CCDs exhibit different

696: performance and, overall, BI applications benefit more from

697: angular resolution improvement after applying SER techniques. In

698: addition, BI data demonstrate the superiority of energy and/or

699: charge split dependent SER methods, while FI data show only

700: marginal differences between the various modified SER methods.

701: 

702: \acknowledgements{This research was supported by NASA/CXO grant

703: G02-3009X to RIT.}

704: 

705: 

706: \begin{references}

707: 

708: \reference{} Kastner J., Li J., Vrtilek S., Gatley I., Merrill K.,

709: \& Soker N. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1225

710: 

711: \reference{} Li J., Kastner J., Prigozhin G., \& Schulz N. 2003,

712: ApJ, 590, 586

713: 

714: \reference{} Mori K., Tsunemi H., Miyata E., Baluta C., Burrows

715: D., Garmire G., \& Chartas G. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 251, New

716: Century of X-ray Astronomy, ed. H. Inoue \& H. Kunieda (San

717: Francisco:APS), 576

718: 

719: \reference{} Prigozhin G., Bautz M., \& Ricker G. 2003, Proc. SPIE

720: 4851

721: 

722: \reference{} Prigozhin G., Gendreau K., Bautz M., Burke B., \&

723: Ricker G. 1998a, {}``The Depletion Depth of High Resistivity X-ray

724: CCDs'', IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol.45, No.3, pp.

725: 903-909

726: 

727: \reference{} Prigozhin G., Rasmussen A., Bautz M., \& Ricker G.

728: 1998b, {}``A model of the X-ray response of the ACIS CCD'', SPIE

729: Proceedings, vol. 3444, pp. 267-275

730: 

731: \reference{} Schulz N., Canizares C., Huenemoerder D., Kastner J.,

732: Taylor S., \& Bergstrom E. 2001, ApJ, 549, 441

733: 

734: \reference{} Townsley L., Broos P., Nousek J., \& Garmire G. 2002,

735: NIM-A 486, 751

736: 

737: \reference{} Townsley L., Feigelson E., Montmerle T., Broos P.,

738: Chu Y., \& Garmire G. 2003, ApJ, 593, 874T

739: 

740: \reference{} Tsunemi H., Mori K., Miyata E., Baluta C., Burrows

741: D.N., Garmire G.P., \& Chartas G. 2001, ApJ, 554, 496

742: 

743: \reference{} Weisskopf M., Brinkman B., Canizares C., Garmire G.,

744: Murray S., \& Van Speybroeck L. 2002, PASP, v114, 791

745: \end{references}

746: \end{document}

747: