Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, FIRST RESULTS ON THE HIGH ENERGY COSMIC RAY ELECTRON SPECTRUM FROM FERMI LAT Alexander Moiseev CRESST/NASA GSFC and University of Maryland for the Fermi LAT Collaboration

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, : New results on high energy cosmic ray electrons and positrons Astrophysicists are excited: ATICPPB-BETSSpectral feature at ~ 620 GeV reported by ATIC and PPB-BETS suggests a nearby source (astrophysical or exotic) Pamela : Pamela : increase of positron fraction above 10 GeV also suggests new source or production process at high energy H.E.S.S. H.E.S.S. detects spectrum steepening above ~1 TeV : local source? Weaker re- acceleration? More than 100 papers More than 100 papers mentioning these results within a few months PAMELA Electron + positron results above 100 GeVPositron fraction model

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Fermi LAT Collaboration United States (NASA and DOE) California State University at Sonoma California State University at Sonoma Goddard Space Flight Center Goddard Space Flight Center Naval Research Laboratory Naval Research Laboratory Ohio State University Ohio State University Stanford University (HEPL, KIPAC and SLAC) Stanford University (HEPL, KIPAC and SLAC) University of California at Santa Cruz – SCIPP University of California at Santa Cruz – SCIPP University of Denver University of Denver University of Washington University of Washington France France CEA/Saclay CEA/Saclay IN2P3 IN2P3 Italy Italy ASI ASI INFN (Bari, Padova, Perugia, Pisa, Roma2, Trieste, Udine) INFN (Bari, Padova, Perugia, Pisa, Roma2, Trieste, Udine) INAF INAF Japan Hiroshima University Institute for Space and Astronautical Science / JAXA Institute for Space and Astronautical Science / JAXA RIKEN RIKEN Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo Institute of Technology Sweden Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Stockholm University Stockholm University 122 full members 95 affiliated scientists 38 management, engineering and technical members 68 post-doctoral members 105 graduate students

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Two instruments onboard Fermi: Large Area Telescope LAT Large Area Telescope LAT – main instrument, gamma-ray telescope, 20 MeV - >300 GeV energy range – scanning (main) mode - 20% of the sky all the time; all parts of sky for ~30 min. every 3 hours –~ 2.4 sr field of view, 8000 cm 2 effective area above 1 GeV –high energy (5-10%) and spatial (~3 0 at 100 MeV and <0.1 0 at 1 GeV) resolution –1 μs timing, <30 μs dead time GLAST Burst Monitor GBM GLAST Burst Monitor GBM 5-year mission (10-year goal), 565 km circular orbit, inclination Fermi Gamma-ray Observatory

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, The LAT Instrument Overview e+e+ e–e–  Pair-conversion gamma-ray telescope: 16 identical “towers” providing conversion of γ into e + e - pair and determination of its arrival direction (Tracker) and energy (Calorimeter). Covered by segmented AntiCoincidence Detector which rejects the charged particles background Silicon-stripped tracker: Silicon-stripped tracker: 18 double-plane single-side (x and y) interleaved with 3.5% X 0 thick (first 12) and 18% X 0 thick (next 4) tungsten converters. Strips pitch is 228 μm; total 8.8×10 5 readout channels Hodoscopic CsI Calorimeter Hodoscopic CsI Calorimeter Array of 1536 CsI(Tl) crystals in 8 layers. Segmented Anticoincidence Detector: Segmented Anticoincidence Detector: 89 plastic scintillator tiles and 8 flexible scintillator ribbons. Segmentation reduces self- veto effect at high energy. Electronics System Electronics System Includes flexible, robust hardware trigger and software filters. ~1.7 m ~1 m

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Launch from Cape Canaveral, June 11, 2008

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Being a γ–ray telescope, LAT intrinsically is an electron spectrometer. We only needed to teach it how to distinguish electrons from hadrons Being a γ–ray telescope, LAT intrinsically is an electron spectrometer. We only needed to teach it how to distinguish electrons from hadrons We found that: Photon reconstruction works perfectly for electronsPhoton reconstruction works perfectly for electrons All events above ~20 GeV are downlinkedAll events above ~20 GeV are downlinked Residual hadron contamination below 20% is confirmedResidual hadron contamination below 20% is confirmed Energy range can be extended to at least 1 TeVEnergy range can be extended to at least 1 TeV Advantages: Advantages: Large geometric factor (> 1 m 2 sr)Large geometric factor (> 1 m 2 sr) Continuous (high duty cycle) and long observationContinuous (high duty cycle) and long observation Huge statistics expected: ~ ~10M electrons above 20 GeV a yearHuge statistics expected: ~ ~10M electrons above 20 GeV a year No atmospheric correction is neededNo atmospheric correction is needed But: Can not separate electrons from positrons But: Can not separate electrons from positrons History of Cosmic Ray electrons topic for Fermi:

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Energy reconstruction: – optimized for energy < 300 GeV; we extended it up to 1 TeV Electron-hadron separation - achieved needed 10 3 – 10 4 rejection power against hadrons, with hadron residual contamination < 20% Validation of Monte Carlo with the flight data: –carefully compared MC and flight data Assessment of systematic errors: – uncertainty in the resulting spectrum is systematic dominated due to very large statistics Extensive MC simulations: – different particles, all energies and angles – comparison with beam test – accurate model of CR background High flight statistics: – ~10 M electrons above 20 GeV a year High precision 1.5 X 0 thick tracker: – powerful in event topology recognition – serves as a pre-shower detector Segmented ACD: – removes gammas and contributes to event pattern recognition Extensive beam tests: – SLAC, DESY, GSI, CERN, GANIL Main challenges: Our strong points: FERMI FLIGHT DATA ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRONS Segmented calorimeter with imaging capability: – fraction of mm to a few mm accuracy position reconstruction depending on energy

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Event energy reconstruction Beam Energy = 20 GeV Beam Energy = 100 GeV Beam Energy = 280 GeV CAL Layer Energy BT Data MC 1.Reconstruction of the most probable value for the event energy: - based on calibration of the response of each of 1536 calorimeter crystals - energy reconstruction is optimized for each event - calorimeter imaging capability is heavily used for fitting shower profile - tested at CERN beams with LAT Calibration Unit Very good agreement between beam test and Monte Carlo

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Energy resolution  we can be confident in MC  we have reasonable grounds to extend the energy range to 1 TeV relying on Monte Carlo simulations Agreement between MC and beam test within a few percent up to 280 GeV  we can be confident in MC  we have reasonable grounds to extend the energy range to 1 TeV relying on Monte Carlo simulations

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Electron-hadron separation 1.Goal 1 1.Goal 1 – keep residual hadron contamination at less than 20% of the number of electrons which pass event classification, over the whole energy range 2.Goal 2 2.Goal 2 – maximize the effective geometric factor for electrons 3.Approach - optimize and tune the selections to separate electrons from hadrons and photons (basic cuts + Classification Tree analysis ). It utilizes about 30 LAT ntuple variables from all the LAT subsystems - use MC-generated “background” runs which contain the best known fluxes of HE charged particles on Fermi orbit in order to optimize electron selections and determine residual proton contamination - use MC- generated uniform isotropic “all Electrons” runs in order to determine instrument response function (effective geometric factor)

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Achieved electron-hadron separation and effective geometric factor Candidate electrons pass on average 12.5 X 0 ( Tracker and Calorimeter added together) Simulated residual hadron contamination (5-21% increasing with the energy) is deducted from resulting flux of electron candidates Effective geometric factor exceeds 2.5 m 2 sr for 30 GeV to 200 GeV, and decreases to ~1 m 2 sr at 1 TeV Full power of all LAT subsystems is in use: tracker, calorimeter and ACD act together Geometric Factor Residual hadron contamination Key issue: good knowledge and confidence in Instrument Response Function

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Flight event display Electron candidate, 844 GeV Background event, 765 GeV

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Validation of the flight data Task: Task: compare the efficiency of all “cuts” for flight data and MC eventsApproach: - Plot from the flight data the histogram of each variable involved in the electron selections, one at a time, after applying all other cuts - check if the flight histograms match the simulated ones, and account for the differences in systematic errors for the reconstructed spectrum Example for the variable (shower transverse size) Analysis variables demonstrate good agreement between the flight data and MC

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Assessment of systematic errors Contributors: Uncertainty in geometric factor – comes from the residual discrepancy between Monte Carlo and the data. Carefully estimated for each variable used in the analysis 2. Uncertainty in determination of residual hadron contamination - comes mostly from the uncertainty of the primary proton flux (~ 20%) - we validated the hadronic interaction model with beam test data Contributors 1 and 2 result in total systematic error in the spectrum ranging from 10% at low energy end to 25-30% at high energy end (full width) 3. Possible bias in absolute energy determination - Included separately in the resulting spectrum as (+5, -10)% - estimated from MC simulations, calorimeter calibration and CERN beam test.

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Fermi-LAT electron spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV Submitted to PRL on March 19, 2009 Accepted April 21 Measurement of the Cosmic Ray e++e- Spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope Measurement of the Cosmic Ray e++e- Spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope A. A. AbdoA. A. Abdo et al. (Fermi LAT Collaboration) Published 4 May 2009 See accompanying Viewpoint Physics 2, 37 (2009)Physics 2, 37 (2009) Designed as a high-sensitivity gamma-ray observatory, the Fermi Large Area Telescope is also an electron detector with a large acceptance exceeding 2 m2 sr at 300 GeV. Building on the gamma-ray analysis, we have developed an efficient electron detection strategy which provides sufficient background rejection for measurement of the steeply falling electron spectrum up to 1 TeV. Our high precision data show that the electron spectrum falls with energy as E-3.0 and does not exhibit prominent spectral features. Interpretations in terms of a conventional diffusive model as well as a potential local extra component are briefly discussed. Total statistics collected for 6 months of Fermi LAT observations  > 4 million electrons above 20 GeV  > 400 electrons in last energy bin ( GeV) First public release on May 2, 2009 at April’s APS meeting in Denver

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, And finally we want to check – could we miss “ATIC-like” spectral feature? We validated the spectrum reconstruction by: – comparing the results for different path length subsets – varying the electron selections – simulating the LAT response to a spectrum with an “ATIC-like” feature: This demonstrates that the Fermi LAT would have been able to reveal “ATIC-like” spectral feature with high confidence if it were there. Energy resolution is not an issue with such a wide feature

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, with  2 per degree of freedom of 9.7 / 23 Profumo - 1/8 (χ 2 =9.7, d.o.f 24) astro-ph (May 4, 2009) Some interpretation… Spectrum can be fit by Diffuse Galactic Cosmic-Ray Source Model (electrons accelerated by continuously distributed astrophysical sources, likely SNR), with harder injection spectral index (-2.42) than in previous CR models (-2.54). All that within our current uncertainties, both statistical and systematic

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Fermi CRE data exacerbates the discrepancy between a purely secondary diffuse cosmic-ray origin for positrons and the positron fraction measured by Pamela Now – let’s include recent Pamela result on positron fraction: Harder primary CRE spectrum  steeper secondary-to- primary e+/e- ratio New “conventional” CRE models Old “conventional” CRE Model Profumo - 2/8 S. Profumo, APS,

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Need other contributors of electrons: Pulsars: Pulsars: Most significant contribution to high-energy CRE: Nearby (d < 1 kpc) and Mature (10 4 < T/yr < 10 6 ) Pulsars Example of fit to both Fermi and Pamela data with known (ATNF catalogue) nearby, mature pulsars and with a single, nominal choice for the e+/e- injection parameters Profumo - 4/8 S. Profumo, APS,

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, What if we randomly vary the pulsar parameters relevant for e+e- production? ( injection spectrum, e+e- production efficiency, PWN “trapping” time ) Under reasonable assumptions, electron/positron emission from pulsars offers a viable interpretation of Fermi CRE data which is also consistent with the HESS and Pamela results. Maybe too many degrees of freedom, but the assumption is plausible Profumo - 5/8 S. Profumo, APS,

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Dark matter: the impact of the new Fermi CRE data 1.Much weaker rationale to postulate a DM mass in the TeV range (“ATIC bump”) motivated by the CR electron+positron spectrum 2.If the Pamela positron excess is from DM annihilation or decay, Fermi CRE data set stringent constraints on such interpretation 3.Even neglecting Pamela, Fermi CRE data are useful to put limits on rates for particle DM annihilation or decay 4.We find that a DM interpretation to the Pamela positron fraction data consistent with the new Fermi-LAT CRE is a viable possibility. Profumo - 6/8 Origin of the local source is still unclear – astrophysical or “exotic”

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, H.E.S.S. astro-ph , May 1, 2009 The measured spectrum is compatible with a power law within our current systematic errors. The spectral index (-3.04) is harder than expected from previous experiments and simple theoretical considerations “Pre-Fermi” diffusive model requires a harder electron injection spectrum (by 0.12) to fit the Fermi data, but inconsistent with positron excess reported by Pamela if it extends to higher energy Additional component of electron flux from local source(s) may solve the problem; its origin, astrophysical or exotic, is still unclear Valuable contribution to the calculation of IC component of diffuse gamma radiation SUMMARY

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Positron spectrum, derivedFermi Pamela The last thing: Positron spectrum, derived from Fermi electron + positron spectrum and Pamela positron ratio

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, Future plans: Search for anisotropy in the electron flux – contributes to the understanding of the “extra” source origin Study systematic errors in energy and instrument response to determine whether or not the observed spectral structure is significant – also critical for understanding of the source origin, as well as models constrains Expand energy range down to ~ 5 GeV (lowest possible for Fermi orbit) and up to ~ 2 TeV, in order to reveal the spectral shape above 1 TeV Increase the statistics at high energy end. Each year Fermi-LAT will collect ~ 400 electrons above 1 TeV with the current selections if the spectral index stays unchanged

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, BACK-UPS

Alexander Moiseev NASA/GSFC Pamela workshop May 11, And finally we want to check – could we miss “ATIC-like” spectral feature? We validated the spectrum reconstruction by: – comparing the results for different path length subsets – varying the electron selections – simulating the LAT response to a spectrum with an “ATIC-like” feature: 6 month Fermi LAT spectrum with the added spectral feature reported by ATIC, scaled for the statistics to be obtained by LAT for the same observation time: Black points – LAT electron spectrum Blue points: LAT spectrum + “ATIC-like” bump. LAT ΔE/E (68%, FW) = 18%. The excess would be ~ 7,000 events on the top of “background” of ~ 14,000 events between 300 and 800 GeV Red points – the same but if LAT had twice worse energy resolution This demonstrates that the Fermi LAT would have been able to reveal “ATIC-like” spectral feature with high confidence if it were there. Energy resolution is not an issue with such a wide feature