1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'
2: % CP 2006/04/26
3:
4: \documentclass{elsart}
5:
6: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing
7: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}
8:
9: % if you use PostScript figures in your article
10: % use the graphics package for simple commands
11: % \usepackage{graphics}
12: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands
13: \usepackage{graphicx}
14: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands
15: \usepackage{epsfig}
16:
17: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols
18: \usepackage{amssymb}
19:
20: % \linenumbers
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \begin{frontmatter}
24:
25: \title{Detector Time Offset and Off-line Calibration in EAS Experiments}
26:
27: \author[label11] {H.H. He\corauthref{cor1}},
28: \corauth[cor1] {Corresponding author. Tel: +86 10 88233167; Fax: +86 10 88233086} \ead{hhh@ihep.ac.cn}
29: \author[label3] {P. Bernardini},
30: \author[label3] {A.K. Calabrese Melcarne},
31: \author[label11] {S.Z. Chen}
32:
33: \address[label11] {Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics,
34: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, Beijing, China}
35: \address[label3] {Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a del Salento and INFN, 73100 Lecce, Italy}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: %%
39: In Extensive Air Shower (EAS) experiments, the primary direction
40: is reconstructed by the space-time pattern of secondary particles.
41: Thus the equalization of the transit time of signals coming from
42: different parts of the detector is crucial in order to get the
43: best angular resolution and pointing accuracy allowed by the
44: detector. In this paper an off-line calibration method is proposed
45: and studied by means of proper simulations. It allows to calibrate
46: the array repeatedly just using the collected data without
47: disturbing the standard acquisition. The calibration method is
48: based on the definition of a Characteristic Plane introduced to
49: analyze the effects of the time systematic offsets, such as the
50: quasi-sinusoidal modulation on azimuth angle distribution. This
51: calibration procedure works also when a pre-modulation on the
52: primary azimuthal distribution is present.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \begin{keyword}
56: extensive air showers \sep timing calibration \sep Characteristic
57: Plane \sep quasi-sinusoidal modulation \sep geomagnetic effect
58:
59: \PACS 96.50.sd \sep 06.20.Fn \sep 06.30.Ft
60:
61: \end{keyword}
62: \end{frontmatter}
63:
64: % main text
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: In EAS experiments, the space-time information of the secondary
69: particles is used to reconstruct the primary direction \cite{kaska,eas,auger}.
70: The space information refers to the detector unit position while the time
71: information is achieved usually by TDC (Time to Digital Converter).
72: The former is easy to measure and stable in a long period, while
73: the latter depends on detector conditions, cables, electronics, etc,
74: and usually varies with time and environment. The time offsets are
75: the systematic time differences between detector units, which lead
76: to worse angular resolution, and more seriously, to wrong reconstruction
77: of the primary direction. As a consequence the azimuthal distribution
78: is deformed according to a quasi-sinusoidal modulation \cite{Elo99}.
79: Thus the correction of these systematic time offsets \cite{ASgamma} is
80: crucial for the primary direction reconstruction, much more when the EAS
81: detector is devoted to gamma ray astronomy and the pointing accuracy is
82: required in order to associate the signals with astrophysical sources.
83: %%
84: Usually manual absolute calibration by means of a moving probe
85: detector is used in EAS arrays, but this method takes time and
86: manpower. The difficulty increases taking into account that
87: periodical checks are necessary to correct possible time-drift of
88: the detector units due to change in the operation conditions.
89: Furthermore the number of detector units in current EAS arrays is
90: getting larger and larger. As a conclusion, effective off-line
91: calibration procedures are greatly needed because they do not
92: hamper the normal data taking and can be easily repeated to
93: monitor the detector stability.
94:
95: Here a new off-line calibration procedure is presented. It does not depend on
96: simulation and is very simple in the case of a uniform azimuthal distribution.
97: It works also when some small modulation of the azimuthal distribution is expected,
98: for istance due to the geomagnetic field. %% or to a slightly sloping array.
99: The correctness of this calibration method has been checked by means of simple
100: simulations both in the case of uniform and modulated azimuthal distribution.
101:
102: \section{Characteristic Plane}
103:
104: In EAS experiments, for an event $i$ the time $t_{ij}$ is measured on each
105: fired detector unit $j$, whose position ($x_j$, $y_j$) is well known.
106: %%
107: The primary direction cosines
108: %%
109: $l_i = \sin\theta_i \cos\phi_i$, $m_i = \sin\theta_i \sin\phi_i$
110: %%
111: ($\theta_i$ and $\phi_i$ are zenith and azimuth angles) can be reconstructed by
112: a least squares fit. Taking into account the time offset $\Delta_j$ typical of
113: the detector unit and assuming that the shower front is plane and the time-spread
114: due to its thickness is negligible, the plane-equation is
115: %%
116: \begin{equation}
117: \label{rp} c (t_{ij} - \Delta_j - t_{0i}) = l_i x_j + m_i y_j
118: \end{equation}
119: %%
120: where $c$ is the light velocity, and $t_{0i}$ is another parameter of the fit.
121: But the time offset $\Delta_j$ is unknown and the goal of the calibration is just to
122: determine it.
123: %%
124: A traditional off-line calibration method is based on the study of the time-residuals
125: but their removal does not guarantee the removal of the complete offset. Therefore
126: one can assume that the time offset $\Delta_j$ is the sum of two terms: the residual
127: term and another unknown term. Being unaware of $\Delta_j$ the plane-equation goes like:
128: %%
129: \begin{equation}
130: \label{fp} c \left(t_{ij} - t'_{0i}\right) = l'_i x_j + m'_i y_j
131: \end{equation}
132: %%
133: giving the fake direction cosines
134: %%
135: $l'_i=\sin\theta'_i \cos\phi'_i$, $m'_i=\sin\theta'_i \sin\phi'_i$.
136: %%
137: From Eq.s~\ref{rp} and \ref{fp} and neglecting the residuals, it results:
138: %%
139: \begin{equation}
140: \label{cp} \Delta_j = a_i \frac{x_j}{c} + b_i \frac{y_j}{c} + \delta_{0i}
141: \end{equation}
142: %%
143: where $a_i = l'_i - l_i$, $b_i = m'_i - m_i$, and $\delta_{0i} = t'_{0i}-t_{0i}$
144: is an irrelevant time-shift equal for all the units. One can conclude that the
145: offset $\Delta_j$ is correlated with the position of the detector unit. The
146: quantities $a_i$, $b_i$ define a Characteristic Plane (CP) in the
147: ($x$, $y$, $\Delta$) space, depending only on the fired unit pattern, representing the
148: difference between the reconstructed plane without
149: considering the time offset (FP: Fake Plane) and the real one (RP: Real Plane). Events
150: firing different sets of units have different CPs, while events firing the same set
151: of units have the same CP, that is the difference between the FP and RP is the same.
152: We define the CP of an EAS array like the average difference between FPs and RPs, i.e. the
153: systematic deviation between FP and RP (the pointing accuracy). The CP is fully determined
154: by the direction cosines
155: %%
156: \begin{equation}
157: \label{eq:a} a = \left\langle l' \right\rangle -\left\langle l \right\rangle =\sin\theta_0
158: \cos\phi_0,
159: \ \ \ \ \ \ \
160: b = \left\langle m' \right\rangle -\left\langle m \right\rangle =\sin\theta_0
161: \sin\phi_0
162: \end{equation}
163: %%
164: associated to the angles $\theta_0$, $\phi_0$.
165:
166: \subsection{\label{sec:sinusoidal}Quasi-Sinusoidal Modulation}
167:
168: If the probability density function (PDF) of the primary azimuth angle is $f(\phi|\theta)$,
169: one can deduce that the presence of the CP introduces a quasi-sinusoidal modulation of the
170: reconstructed azimuth angle distribution :
171: %%
172: \begin{equation}
173: \label{f_phi0} f'(\phi'|\theta) = f(\phi|\theta)
174: \left[1+\frac{r}{\sqrt{1-r^2\sin^2(\phi'-\phi_0)}}\cos(\phi'-\phi_0)\right]
175: %%%[1+\frac{r}{\sqrt{1-r^2\sin^2(\phi'-\phi_0)}}\cos(\phi'-\phi_0)]
176: \end{equation}
177: %%
178: where $r = \sin\theta_0/\sin\theta$. The PDF of the reconstructed azimuth angle is
179: a combination of multi-harmonics of odd orders with the the amplitude approximately
180: proportional to $r^{2n+1}$ ($n = 0, 1, 2...$) when $r<<1$. The time offset
181: does not introduce even order modulations into the reconstructed azimuth angle distribution.
182: When $f(\phi|\theta) = 1/2\pi$, the first harmonic becomes dominant and the PDF
183: of the reconstructed azimuth angle goes as
184: %%
185: \begin{equation}
186: \label{f_phi1} f'(\phi'|\theta) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\left[1+r \cos(\phi'-\phi_0)\right]
187: \end{equation}
188: %%
189: One can observe that the modulation parameters depend on the angles $\theta_0$ and
190: $\phi_0$ connected to the CP (see Eq.s~\ref{eq:a}). The phase is just $\phi_0$, while
191: the amplitude is proportional to $r$.
192: %%
193: By integrating $f'(\phi'|\theta)$ over $\theta$ it results
194: %%
195: \begin{equation}
196: \label{f_phi2} f'(\phi') =
197: \frac{1}{2{\pi}}\left[1+\sin\theta_0 \left\langle \frac{1}{\sin\theta} \right\rangle \cos(\phi'-\phi_0)\right]
198: \end{equation}
199:
200: A fast Monte Carlo simulation was done to check the above conclusion. The azimuth angle was sampled
201: uniformly over $[0, 2\pi]$ and the zenith angle from a typical distribution modulated according to
202: $\cos^6\theta$ (the mode value is $\sim 22^\circ$ and $\left\langle 1/\sin\theta \right\rangle = 3.44$).
203: CPs with different $\theta_0$ and $\phi_0$ were assumed, subtracting $\sin\theta_0 \cos\phi_0$ and
204: $\sin\theta_0 \sin\phi_0$ from the original direction cosines, respectively, in order to get the new
205: direction cosines. Fig.~\ref{toymc} shows the reconstructed azimuth distributions for two different
206: CPs with $\theta_0=0.02\ rad$, $\phi_0=0.4\ rad$ and $\theta_0=0.20\ rad$, $\phi_0=1.2\ rad$, respectively.
207: The first distribution is well reproduced by a best-fit function like that of the Eq.~\ref{f_phi2} as
208: expected for small values of $\theta_0$. Also the fit parameters are in agreement with the simulation
209: parameters. The higher order harmonics must be taken into account in order to well reproduce the second
210: distribution ($A2$ and $A3$ are the amplitudes of 2nd and 3rd harmonics) because in this case $\theta_0$
211: and $r$ are larger.
212:
213: \begin{figure}[ht]
214: \begin{center}
215: \includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{modulation.eps}
216: \caption{Azimuth angle distributions fitted with harmonic functions (see the text for comments).}
217: \label {toymc}
218: \end{center}
219: \end{figure}
220:
221: %% \clearpage
222: %% \newpage
223:
224: \section{Characteristic Plane Method}
225:
226: According to Eq.~\ref{rp}, if $l_i$ and $m_i$ were exactly known, then any
227: event can be used to relatively calibrate all the detector units hit by that
228: shower, while $l'_i - a$ and $m'_i - b$ can be taken as unbiased estimate
229: of $l_i$ and $m_i$. Therefore the time correction is determined by $a$ and $b$,
230: i.e. the CP of the EAS array, according to Eq.~\ref{cp}.
231:
232: Suppose that the primary azimuth angle is independent on the zenith angle and distributes
233: uniformly, then $\left\langle l \right\rangle=0$, $\left\langle m \right\rangle=0$. Thus
234: $a=\left\langle l' \right\rangle-\left\langle l \right\rangle=\left\langle l' \right\rangle$,
235: $b=\left\langle m' \right\rangle-\left\langle m \right\rangle=\left\langle m' \right\rangle$,
236: which means that the CP of an EAS array can be determined by the mean values of the
237: reconstructed direction cosines. Then the time offsets can be calculated by means of
238: the off-line analysis of the collected data.
239:
240: \subsection{A simple simulation as a check of the CP method \label{sec:simple}}
241:
242: Another fast geometrical simulation was implemented in order to
243: check the CP method. One million of showers were extracted from
244: the same distributions of $\theta$ and $\phi$ used in
245: Sec.~\ref{sec:sinusoidal}. The arrival primary directions were
246: reconstructed by an array of detector units ($10 \times 10$ units
247: on a surface of $40 \times 40\ m^2$). The times measured by each
248: unit were shifted by systematic time offsets (first plot of
249: Fig.~\ref{fig:prima}). As a consequence the primary directions
250: were reconstructed with respect to a CP with $a=3.97 \times
251: 10^{-3}$ and $b=7.34 \times 10^{-3}$ (mean values of the
252: reconstructed direction cosines). From the Eq.s~\ref{eq:a} it is
253: trivial to estimate $\theta_0 = 8.3 \times 10^{-3}\ rad$ and
254: $\phi_0 = 1.07\ rad$.
255:
256: The reconstructed azimuth distribution is fitted according to Eq.~\ref{f_phi2} (see the
257: first plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:nuova}). As expected the modulation coefficient $p1$ and the
258: phase $p2$ are compatible with $\sin\theta_0 \left\langle 1/\sin\theta \right\rangle = 0.029$
259: and $\phi_0$, respectively. The angles between reconstructed and "true" direction are
260: shown in the first plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:seconda}.
261:
262: The calibration based on the CP method allows to correct the time measurements, removing
263: the effect of the time offset on each detector unit. In the second plot of
264: Fig.~\ref{fig:prima} the offset-calibration differences are almost null and the RMS is
265: lower than $2.3 \times 10^{-2}\ ns$. As an effect of the CP calibration the modulation
266: disappears in the azimuth distribution (second plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:nuova}) and the
267: reconstructed directions are very close to the "true" ones (see the second plot of
268: Fig.~\ref{fig:seconda}). Then the validity of the CP method is fully confirmed.
269:
270: \clearpage
271: \newpage
272:
273: \begin{figure}[ht]
274: \begin{center}
275: \mbox{\epsfig{file=offset_2.eps,height=4.65cm}}
276: \mbox{\epsfig{file=diff_calib_2.eps,height=4.65cm}}
277: \caption{First plot: systematic time offsets introduced
278: in the simulation of the time measurement. Second plot:
279: differences between systematic offset and calibration
280: correction. \label{fig:prima}}
281: \end{center}
282: \end{figure}
283:
284: \vspace{0.5cm}
285:
286: \begin{figure}[ht]
287: \begin{center}
288: \mbox{\epsfig{file=azim_1.eps,height=4.65cm}}
289: \mbox{\epsfig{file=azim_2.eps,height=4.65cm}}
290: \caption{Azimuth distribution (first plot: before CP calibration,
291: second plot: after CP calibration). In the first plot the
292: sinusoidal fit is superimposed. \label{fig:nuova}}
293: \end{center}
294: \end{figure}
295:
296: \vspace{0.5cm}
297:
298: \begin{figure}[ht]
299: \begin{center}
300: \mbox{\epsfig{file=before_2.eps,height=4.62cm}}
301: \mbox{\epsfig{file=after_2.eps,height=4.62cm}}
302: \caption{Angles between "true" and reconstructed directions
303: (first plot: before CP calibration, second plot: after CP
304: calibration). \label{fig:seconda}}
305: \end{center}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308: \clearpage
309: \newpage
310:
311: \subsection{\label{sec:pre-modulation}Pre-modulation on the primary azimuth angle}
312:
313: The assumption for the CP method is that the mean values of the primary direction
314: cosines are null. Generally this is not true for EAS experiments. The possible primary
315: anisotropy, the detection efficiency depending on the azimuth angle, the geomagnetic
316: effect, and so on, introduce pre-modulation into the azimuth angle distribution. Assuming
317: %% for simplicity
318: that the $\phi$-distribution is independent on $\theta$,
319: the pre-modulation can be described typically as:
320: %%
321: \begin{equation}
322: \label{f_modulation}
323: f(\phi) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\left[1+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{g_n \cos(n\phi + \phi_n)}\right].
324: \end{equation}
325: %%
326: Only $g_1 \cos(\phi+\phi_1)$ contributes to the mean values of the primary direction cosines. Therefore
327: they result
328: \begin{equation}
329: \label{null}
330: \left\langle l \right\rangle = + \frac{g_1}{2} \cos \phi_1 \left\langle \sin\theta \right\rangle,
331: \ \ \ \ \ \ \
332: \left\langle m \right\rangle = - \frac{g_1}{2} \sin \phi_1 \left\langle \sin\theta \right\rangle.
333: \label{llmm}
334: \end{equation}
335: %%
336: The CP method annulls $\left\langle l \right\rangle$ and $\left\langle m \right\rangle$
337: leaving a sinusoidal modulation on the distribution of the new $\phi''$ azimuth angle.
338: When $g_1$ and $g_2$ are small enough and the higher order harmonics can be ignored (see
339: Sec.~\ref{sec:sinusoidal}) the distribution approximately is
340:
341: \begin{equation}
342: \label{f_phi3}
343: f''(\phi'')=\frac{1}{2\pi} \left[ 1 + g_1' \cos \left(\phi'' + \phi_1 \right)
344: + g_2 \cos \left(2 \phi'' + \phi_2 \right) \right]
345: \end{equation}
346: %%
347: where
348: %%
349: \begin{equation}
350: \label{f_phi4} g_1' = g_1 \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2}\left\langle
351: \sin\theta \right\rangle \left\langle \frac{1}{\sin\theta}
352: \right\rangle \right].
353: \end{equation}
354: %%
355: On the basis of this result one can conclude that the calibration with the CP method does not
356: remove completely the pre-modulation on the primary azimuthal distribution. The $g_1$, $g_2$
357: amplitudes and the $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ phases can be determined from the reconstructed azimuth
358: angle distribution according to Eq.s~\ref{f_phi3} and \ref{f_phi4}. Then the direction cosines
359: of the real CP can be determined by subtracting the pre-modulation term (Eq.s~\ref{llmm}).
360:
361: Fast simulations have been used also to check the calibration method in the case of pre-modulation with
362: one and two harmonics ($g_1=0.05$, $\phi_1=0.3\ rad$ and $g_2=0.02$, $\phi_2=1.2\ rad$). The
363: results are very similar to those of Sec.~\ref{sec:simple} confirming that the method works also
364: when a pre-modulation is present. In Fig.~\ref{fig:prem_HHH} the "true" azimuthal distribution
365: and the distribution after the first step of the calibration are shown. As expected the second
366: distribution is well reproduced by Eq.s~\ref{f_phi3} and \ref{f_phi4}.
367:
368: \begin{figure}[ht]
369: \begin{center}
370: \includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{prem_HHH.eps}
371: \caption{The pre-modulation "true" azimuth angle distribution is fitted by the function
372: $f(\phi) = k \left[ 1 + g_1\ \cos (\phi + \phi_1) + g_2\ \cos (2\phi + \phi_2) \right]$.
373: The after-calibration azimuthal distribution is fitted according to Eq.s~\ref{f_phi3}
374: and \ref{f_phi4}. The fit-parameter values are in full agreement.}
375: \label{fig:prem_HHH}
376: \end{center}
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: \subsection{Geomagnetic Effect}
380:
381: The geomagnetic field inflects the charged primaries and leads to the
382: well known East-West effect (with the modulation period of $\pi$ which
383: does not modify the mean values of the reconstructed direction cosines
384: and does not invalidate the CP method), while the secondary charged
385: particles of EAS are separated in the geomagnetic field with the lateral
386: distribution getting wider and flatter, thus affecting the detection
387: efficiency \cite{Ivanov99}. A non-vertical geomagnetic field destroys
388: the uniformity of the detection efficiency along the azimuth angle which
389: will further leads to quasi-sinusoidal modulation on the azimuth angle
390: distribution %% resulting that the mean values of the direction cosines are not zero
391: \cite{ARGOCalibrationHHH-ICRC05-3}. The geomagnetic effect on the secondaries
392: is typically the most significant pre-modulation (as described in
393: Sec.~\ref{sec:pre-modulation}) with amplitude of the order of few percent
394: and very slight variations with the zenith angle. This is just the case
395: discussed in the above section and the modulation can be determined according
396: to Eq.~\ref{f_phi3}, after which the time can be off-line calibrated using
397: the CP method.
398:
399: \section{Conclusion}
400: The definition of the CP makes it easier to understand the effects of the detector
401: time offsets in EAS experiments, and makes the off-line calibration possible.
402: %%
403: One can successfully correct the time offsets and remove the quasi-sinusoidal
404: azimuthal modulation (with $\phi$ depending on $\theta$).
405: %%
406: The calibration procedure has been analytically defined and checked
407: by means of fast simulations. The CP calibration is very simple when the "true"
408: azimuthal distribution is uniform (this feature can be also achieved by selecting
409: special event sample). The CP method works also when a "true" pre-modulation (with
410: $\phi$ independent on $\theta$) of the azimuth distribution is present.
411: %%
412: The improvement in the pointing accuracy is well shown in Fig. \ref{fig:seconda}
413: for the simulation of Sec.~\ref{sec:simple}. In real cases, the pointing accuracy
414: will depend on the detector performances and on quality and statistics of the data
415: used for the CP calibration.
416:
417: This method has been successfully applied to calibrate EAS detectors~\cite{ARGOCalibrationHHH-ICRC05-2}.
418: It has been also checked~\cite{ARGO05} by Monte Carlo full simulation and by
419: sampling manual calibration. The experimental results of the CP method application
420: will be the topic of a future paper.
421:
422: \section{Acknowledgements}
423: We are very grateful to the people of the ARGO-YBJ Collaboration, in
424: particular G. Mancarella, for the helpful discussions and suggestions.
425: This work is supported in China by NSFC(10120130794), the Chinese
426: Ministry of Science and Technology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
427: the Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, CAS, and in Italy by
428: the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN).
429:
430: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
431:
432: \bibitem{kaska} T. Antoni et al., Astrophys. Journal, 608 (2004): 865-871
433:
434: \bibitem{eas} M. Aglietta et al., Astroparticle Physics, 3 (1994): 1-15.
435: M. Aglietta et al., Astroparticle Physics, 21 (2004): 223-240
436:
437: \bibitem{auger} J. Abraham et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A, 523 (2004): 50-95
438:
439: \bibitem{Elo99} A.M. El\o\ et al., Proceedings of the 26th ICRC, Salt Lake City,
440: 5 (1999): 328-331
441:
442: \bibitem{ASgamma} M. Nishizawa et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A, 285 (1989): 532-539
443:
444: \bibitem{Ivanov99} A.A. Ivanov et al., JETP Letters, 69 (1999): 288-292
445:
446: \bibitem{ARGOCalibrationHHH-ICRC05-3} H.H. He et al., Proceedings of the 29th ICRC,
447: Pune, 6 (2005): 5-8
448:
449: \bibitem{ARGOCalibrationHHH-ICRC05-2} P. Bernardini et al. for the ARGO-YBJ
450: Collaboration, Proceedings of the 29th ICRC, Pune, 5 (2005): 147-150
451:
452: \bibitem{ARGO05} Z. Cao et al. for the ARGO-YBJ Collaboration, Proceedings of the
453: 29th ICRC, Pune, 5 (2005): 299-302
454:
455: \end{thebibliography}
456:
457: \end{document}