Dragonfly Pulsar analysis CristianPozo

From my_wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

General information

  • Name of the source: Dragonfly Pulsar
  • Brief description of the source:
- Object type : Pulsar
- RA, Dec in deg (ICRS): 83.63, 22.01

People involved in this analysis (LST-1 and new Fermi-LAT analysis)

  • Cristian Pozo González
  • Alvaro Mas-Aguilar
  • Ruben Lopez-Coto
  • Daniel Morcuende

Run selection

  • Run selection with the use of the notebook from Abelardo Moralejo [1]
  • Atmospheric transmission extracted from ELOG
  • In total 48 runs selected, obstime 13.51 hours
  • Summary of selection cuts:
- Zenith < 70 deg
- elapsed_time > 2 min
- transmission_cut > 0.60
- pedestal charge std dev < 1.9 p.e.
- Cosmic rate > 3000 ev/s
- Cosmic rate( > 10 p.e.) > 25-15 ev/s (depends on zd)
- Cosmic rate( > 30 p.e.) > 3-4 ev/s (depends on zd)


  • List of selected runs:
1  :  2022-06-28  :  [8948 8949 8950 8951 8952 8953 8954 8955 8956 8957 8958 8959]
2  :  2022-06-29  :  [8980 8982 8983 8985 8986 8987]
3  :  2023-05-16  :  [13062 13063 13064 13066 13067]
4  :  2023-05-18  :  [13096 13097 13098 13099]
5  :  2023-06-22  :  [13519 13520 13521 13522]
6  :  2023-06-25  :  [13588 13589 13590 13591]
7  :  2023-10-05  :  [14910]
8  :  2023-10-06  :  [14918 14919 14920 14921 14922 14923 14924]
9  :  2023-11-13  :  [15489 15490 15491 15495 15497]

DL1 data

- DL1a files produced by LSTOSA (lstchain v0.9.9)
- lstchain v0.9 tailcut8-4
- /fefs/aswg/data/real/DL1/{date}/v0.9/tailcut84/

DL2 data

- Data before August 2021: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/DL2_preAug/
- Data after August 2021: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/DL2_posAug/

IRFs

- Point-like
- IRFs for each MC node and for each intensity cut
- IRF path before Aug2021: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/IRF/IRF_cut80/eff_0.7/
- IRF path after Aug2021: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/IRF/IRF_cut50/eff_0.7/
  • IRF for different MC efficiency for extra checks: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/IRF/IRF_cut{int_cut}/eff_{eff}/

DL3 data

- General path for standard MC efficiency: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/DL3/eff_0.7/
- General path for different MC efficiency: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/DL3/eff_{eff}/
- Distribution of runs in AllSKy MC test nodes:
  • mc_node = [10,102.199]
 [2929,2930,2931,2950,2970,2971,2972,2973,2988,3095,3096,3273,3274,3275,3318,3319,3320,3338,9438,10001,
 10002,10880,10909,10981,11087,11120,11121,11374,11463,11464,11491,11492,11576,11577,11625,11626]
  • mc_node = [10,248.117]
 [2914,2932,2933,2934,2974,2975,2976,2989,2990,2991,3004,3005,3006,3276,3277,3278,3279,3321,3328,3329,
 3330,3339,3340,3355,3356,3598,3632,3672,3673,3674,3675,6872,6873,6874,6892,6893,7133,7161,7195,7196,
 7197,7227,7228,7253,7274,10881,10882,10910,10911,10946,10947,10948,10982,10983,11014,11088,11089,11122,
 11123,11402,11465,11466,11467,11493,11578,11579,11627,11628,11667]
  • mc_node = [14.984,175.158]
 [9436,9437,9907,9998,9999,10883,10912,10913,10949,10950,10984,10985,11015,11090,11091,11118,11119,11124,
 11125,11373,11432,11433,11468,11469,11489,11490,11575,11630,11631,11668,11669,11681,11682,11699]
  • mc_node = [23.63,100.758]
 [2949,2968,2969,3093,3094,3271,3272,6304, 9434, 9435, 9596, 9905, 9996,9997, 11117,11430,11431,11487,11488]
  • mc_node = [23.63,259.265]
 [2977,2992,3007,3008,3231,3243,3373,3599,3600,3615,3633,3634,3676,3677,3706,3707,4067,4086,6875,6894,7097,
 7098,7099,7199,7231,7254,7255,7256,7275,10914,10915,10986,10987,11016,11017,11092,11093,11470,11471,11560,
 11561,11562,11603,11604,11670,11671,11683,11700,11701,11738,11739,11763]
  • mc_node = [32.059,102.217]
 [2925,2966,2967,3090,3268,3269,3270,6016,6045,6072,6073,6302,9903,9904,11428,11429,11486]
  • mc_node=[32.059,248.099]
 [2959,3009,3010,3169,3232,3233,3244,3245,3601,3635,3636,3708,4068,4069,4087,4088,6895,6896,7100,7101,7136,7137,
 7200,7201,7232,7233,7234,7276,7277,7278,7301,7302,10916,10917,10918,10988,10989,11018,11019,11094,11095,11472,
 11473,11563,11605,11606,11673,11674,11684,11685,11702,11703,11740,11741,11742,11764,11765,11766,11923]
  • mc_node = [43.197,87.604]
 [2923,2924,2965,3088,3089,3266,3267,6043,6044,6071,6279,6301,6070,9274,11427]
  • mc_node = [43.197,262.712]
 [2919,2961,3011,3012,3143,3170,3171,3234,3382,3383,3384,3637,3638,3639,3711,3925,4007,4008,4031,4032,4070,4071,
 4089,4090,6897,7102,7138,7139,7168,7169,7235,7236,7237,7238,7279,7280,7303,7304,7465,10919,11510,11511,11675,
 11676,11743,11744,11767,11768,11828,11829,11890,11891,11926]
  • mc_node = [52.374,110.312]
 [2759,3264,3265,2922,3087,6013,6014,6041,6042,6069]
  • mc_node = [52.374,301.217]
 [3235,3236,3385,3712,3961,3980,4033,4034,4091,4125,4126,4073,4092,6898,7105,7106,7140,7170,7171,7281,7305,11512,11513,
 11708,11709,11745,11746,11769,11770,11830,11831,11892,11893,11927,11928]
  • mc_node = [60.528,99.126]
 [6012]
  • mc_node = [60.528,251.19]
 [3237,4074,7172]
  • Fixed cuts (before August 2021):
"intensity": [80, Infinity],
"width": [0, Infinity],
"length": [0, Infinity],
"r": [0, 1],
"wl": [0.1, 1],
"leakage_intensity_width_2": [0, 1.0],
"event_type": [32, 32]
  • Fixed cuts (after August 2021):
"intensity": [50, Infinity],
"width": [0, Infinity],
"length": [0, Infinity],
"r": [0, 1],
"wl": [0.1, 1],
"leakage_intensity_width_2": [0, 1.0],
"event_type": [32, 32]
  • Global gammaness and alpha cuts optimized on MC gamma efficiency of 70%, point-like source assumption
gh-efficiency 0.7 
alpha-containment 0.7

DL3 pulsar data

- Add phases using PINT-pulsar tools for LST-1 (https://github.com/alvmas/PulsarTimingAnalysis)
- Ephemeris file: /home/alvaro.mas/software/Pulsar_analysis/data/all.gro
- General path for standard MC efficiency: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/DL3_pulsar/eff_0.7/
- General path for different MC efficiency: /fefs/aswg/workspace/alvaro.mas/data/real/Crab/v0.9.9_final/DL3_pulsar/eff_{eff}/

High-level analysis

1D Spectral analysis

  • Performed with gammapy-v0.20.1
energy_axis = MapAxis.from_energy_bounds(
   0.01, 10, nbin=40, per_decade=False, unit="TeV", name="energy"
)
energy_axis_true = MapAxis.from_energy_bounds(
   0.05, 100, nbin=100, per_decade=False, unit="TeV", name="energy_true"
)

spectral_points_binning 
   e_min, e_max = 0.02, 0.7
   nbins = 8 
   logspace
   sqrt_ts>1.5
  • Phase Regions:
 Bkg: [0.52,0.87]
 P1: [0,0.026,0.983,1]
 P2: [0.377,0.422]
 P1+P2: [0,0.026,0.377,0.422, 0.983,1]
 P3: [0.08,0.24]
  • Spectral fitting of stacked LST dataset
  • Performed for point-like assumption
  • Stacked analysis
  • LST-1 data alone: Power-law spectral model
  • Fermi + LST-1 data: Power-Law Spectral Model, ExponentialCutOff, LogParabola


Results

Phaseogram

  • Phaseogram with all data

Phaseogram all 0.7.png

  • Phaseogram with zd<35

Phaseogram low50.png

  • Phaseogram with zd>35

Phaseogram above50.png

  • Phaseogram in different energy bins:

Phaseogram bin1 1.png Phaseogram bin2 1.png Phaseogram bin3 1.png Phaseogram bin4 1.png Phaseogram bin5 1.png Phaseogram bin6 1.png Phaseogram bin7 1.png

  • Evolution of the signal in time (without zd cut):

Time evolution lst.png

  • Fitting results
  • P1/P2 differential ratio (with Fermi-LAT). Until 200 GeV due to large uncertainties

P1p2 differential 2.png

  • P1/P2 integral ratio (with Fermi-LAT).

P1p2 ratio integral 2.png

LST-1 only fit and SED (zd<50)

  • P1

SED P1 1.png LST fit only P1 fine bin fermi.png LST fit only P1 fine wide fermi.png

Fitting sed p1.png


  • P2

SED p2 1.png LST fit only P2 fine bin fermi.png LST fit only P2 wide bin fermi.png

Fitting sed p2.png

P1 LST-1 + Fermi-LAT joint fit

    • Using a SubExponentialCutOffPL model:

P1 exponential model 3.png Exponential result fit P1.png

Total stat: -2logL = 32.56

    • Using a SmoothBrokenPowerLaw model

SmoothBrokenPL P1 2.png SmoothBPL results fit P1.png

Total stat: -2logL = 24.44

  • P1 for E>10 GeV:
    • Using a LogParabola model

P1 logParabolaModel 2.png LogParabola results fit P1.png

Total stat: -2logL = 7.34

    • Using a PowerLaw model

P1 PLmodel 2.png PL results fit P1.png

Total stat: -2logL = 7.83

P2 LST-1 + Fermi-LAT joint fit

    • Using a SubExponentialCutOffPL model:

P2 Exponential model.png Exponential results fit P2.png

Total stat: -2logL = 51.40

    • Using a SmoothBrokenPowerLaw model

SmoothBrokenPL P2.png SmoothBPL results fit P2.png

Total stat: -2logL = 34.74


  • P2 for E>10 GeV:
    • Using a LogParabola model

P2 logParabolaModel.png LogParabola results fit P2.png

Total stat: -2logL = 17.85

    • Using a PowerLaw model

P2 PLmodel.png PL results fit P2.png

Total stat: -2logL = 19.35

LST-1+ Fermi-LAT energy calibration

  • P1 in left and P2 in right (Using SmoothBrokenPowerLaw model in all energy range)

Energy factor fermi LST P1 3.png Energy factor LST fermi P2 3.png

  • P1 in left and P2 in right (Using PowerLaw model at E>10 GeV)

Energy factor fermi LST P1 PL 3.png Energy factor LST fermi P2 PL 3.png

In all the cases the energy factor that minimize the chi2 value is below 5%

Lightcurve

Lightcurve.png Lightcurve together.png

Systematics tests

Phaseogram and SED for different samples

  • Phaseogram Before August 2021

Histo preAug.png


sign(P1)/sqrt(Tobs) = 0.856 h^(-1/2)

sign(P2)/sqrt(Tobs) = 1.059 h^(-1/2)


  • Phaseogram After August 2021

Histo posAug.png

sign(P1)/sqrt(Tobs) = 1.063 h^(-1/2)

sign(P2)/sqrt(Tobs) = 1.183 h^(-1/2)

  • SED for P1:

Spectra P1 bothsamples.png

Difference in spectral index of ~10% and flux 60% (lacking some statistics for first sample)


  • SED for P2:

Spectra P2 bothsamples.png

Difference in spectral index of ~2% and flux of 15%

Phaseogram and SED with different efficiencies

Phaseogram different efficiencies.png

  • P1 SED:

SED different efficiencies.png Relative maximum error of 3.07% in spectral index and 35.4% in flux.

  • P1 SED:

SED different efficiencies P2.png Relative maximum error of 7.36% in spectral index and 29.2% in flux.

Effect on SED due to shift on MC true energy =

    • P1:

P1 energy factor SED 2.png

Relative maximum error of 1.01% in spectral index and 24.9% in flux.

    • P2:

Energy factor LST P2.png

Relative maximum error of 0.45% in spectral index and 16.4% in flux.

Final uncertainties

    • P1:

Relative error index P1.png Relative error flux P1.png Total uncertainty P1.png

    • P2:

Relative error index P2.png Relative error flux P2.png Total uncertainty P2.png

Retrieved from "https://www.lst1.iac.es/wiki/index.php?title=Dragonfly_Pulsar_analysis_CristianPozo&oldid=10864"