Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
update
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
bkhelifi committed Nov 8, 2024
1 parent 81d1404 commit b4b08dd
Showing 1 changed file with 27 additions and 9 deletions.
36 changes: 27 additions & 9 deletions VOHE-Note.tex
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -526,17 +526,35 @@ \subsubsection{The unfolding problem}
%techniques such as forward-folding fitting \citep{mattox:1996} are needed to estimate the physical properties of the
%source from the observables.

Because particles detected by \gls{HE} astrophysics experiments are ionizing, they typically interact with the materials of the telescope and detector ({\em e.g.\/}, by exciting K-shell electrons) so the relationship between the observables and the source's physical properties of interest is typically complex. Recovering the physical properties from the observables is sometimes termed ``the unfolding problem.''

For example, for instruments that detect photons, the observed source spectrum can be related to the physical source spectrum very generally as follows:
\gls{HE} and \gls{VHE} astrophysics experiments are using complex detection techniques from the interaction of the radiation
and the matter. For X-rays, photons interact with the materials of the telescope and detector ({\em e.g.\/}, by exciting K-shell electrons).
Very high energy gamma-rays or neutrinos are interacting first for the atmosphere or the Earth to create particle cascades,
whose secondaries radiate Cherenkov light. These complex interactions render the relationship between the detector observables
and the source's physical properties of interest very complex. Recovering the physical properties from the observables
is sometimes termed ``the unfolding problem.''

Most of the time, the detected number of expected counts can be related to the physical source spectrum as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:phaspec}
M(E', \hat{p}', t) = \int_{E'} dE\, d\hat{p}\, R(E'; E, \hat{p}, t) A(E, \hat{p}', t) P(\hat{p}'; E, \hat{p}, t) S(E, \hat{p}, t)
M(E', \hat{p}', t) = \int_{E'} dE\, d\hat{p}\, R(E'; E, \hat{p}, t) A(E, \hat{p}, t) P(\hat{p}'; E, \hat{p}, t) S(E, \hat{p}, t) + B(E', \hat{p}', t)
\end{equation}
where $M(E', \hat{p}', t)$ is the expected observed channel distribution of detected source counts, $R(E'; E, \hat{p}, t)$ is the redistribution matrix that defines the probability that a photon with actual energy $E$, location $\hat{p}$, and arrival time $t$ will be observed with apparent energy $E'$ and location $\hat{p}'$, $A(E, \hat{p}', t)$ is the instrumental effective area (sensitivity), $P(\hat{p}'; E, \hat{p}, t)$ is the photon spatial dispersion transfer function ({\em i.e.\/}, the instrumental point spread function), and $S(E, \hat{p}, t)$ is the physical model that describes the physical energy spectrum, spatial morphology, and temporal variability of the source.

Missions that follow the OGIP standards (see section~\ref{sec:ogip}) generally record the redistribution matrix using the \gls{RMF} format and the instrumental effective area using the \gls{ARF} format. Other experiments combine the \gls{RMF} and \gls{ARF} into a single \gls{IRF}.

Low count statistics implies that the mapping from $S$ to $M$ is typically not invertible ({\em i.e.\/}, one cannot simply derive $S$ given $M$)\null. Methods such as forward-folding fitting \citep{mattox:1996} ({\em i.e.\/}, proposing a model for $S$, folding the model through equation~({\ref{eqn:phaspec}) to derive $M$ and optimizing the model parameters to minimize the deviations between $M$ and the actual observed data) are needed to estimate the physical properties of the source from the observables. A further added complexity is that the integrated responses may themselves be functions of the unknown $S$.
where $M(E', \hat{p}', t)$ is the detected source counts per bin in apparent energy $E'$, apparent location $\hat{p}'$ and
arrival time $t$, $R(E'; E, \hat{p}, t)$ is the redistribution matrix that defines the probability that a photon with
actual energy $E$, location $\hat{p}$, and arrival time $t$ will be observed with apparent energy $E'$, $A(E, \hat{p}, t)$ is the instrumental
effective area (sensitivity), $P(\hat{p}'; E, \hat{p}, t)$ is the photon spatial dispersion transfer function ({\em i.e.\/},
the instrumental point spread function), $S(E, \hat{p}, t)$ is the physical model that describes the physical energy spectrum,
spatial morphology, and temporal variability of the source, and $B(E', \hat{p}', t)$ the number of expected background\footnote{It can
originate from the intrument, atmospheric cosmic-rays, terrestrial phenomena, etc}.

Missions that follow the OGIP standards (see section~\ref{sec:ogip}) generally record the redistribution matrix using the
\gls{RMF} format and the instrumental effective area using the \gls{ARF} format. For \gls{VHE} experiments, $R$, $P$, $A$ and
$B$ form the four instrument response functions (IRFs) that are described into the \gls{GADF} format.

Low count statistics implies that the mapping from $S$ to $M$ is typically not invertible ({\em i.e.\/}, one cannot
simply derive $S$ given $M$)\null. Methods such as forward-folding fitting \citep{mattox:1996} ({\em i.e.\/}, proposing
a model for $S$, folding the model through equation~({\ref{eqn:phaspec}) to derive $M$ and optimizing the model parameters
to minimize the deviations between $M$ and the actual observed data) are needed to estimate the physical properties of
the source from the observables. A further added complexity is that the redistribution matrix and the photon spatial
dispersion transfer function can not be factorised in some cases.

\subsection{Data formats}
\label{sec:data_formats}
Expand Down

0 comments on commit b4b08dd

Please sign in to comment.