1. Update on Beamtest 06 CU PSF study C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe Università di Perugia and INFN Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope Beam Test Worksop III Jun 28-30, 2006

2. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 2 Jan Conrad Study evts in the histogram rel. error rel. bias Fit (from Tobys fuction) 1k0.050.01 10k0.010.0007 100k0.0040.005 Count (from Landaus function) 1k0.0490.005 10k0.0150.005 100k0.005 Jan studied the statistical properties of the Fit (with Tobys function) and Counting (histogram quantiles) method for the PSF error estimation. He generated random data followinf Tobys and Landaus function and then applied the two methods: Fit for Tobys Function Counting for Landaus function Conclusion: The two methods give consistent results

3. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 3 Our Mc Data Tagged gammas: –4.5 M e- /angle (0, 20, 40 deg) –Beam Energy 1 GeV and 2.5 GeV do not cover all the energy range but we (almost) have the two ends of the energy spectrum

4. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 4 Tagger Resolution: Close End setup Align at close end (beam on Al window) Acceptance Range Beam EEminEmax 1000300750 25009001800 From L. Latronico, G. Spandre, A. Brez VRVS 20 Jun 2006 The range for 2500 MeV Beam has been extrapolated

5. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 5 Tagger Resolution: Far End setup Align at far end (beam away from Al frame) Acceptance Range Beam EEminEmax 1000200400 250012001800 From L. Latronico, G. Spandre, A. Brez VRVS 20 Jun 2006 The range for 2500 MeV Beam has been extrapolated

6. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 6 DirErr (angular deviation)

7. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 7 PSF Fit Tail Structure Thanks Benoit !!

8. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 8 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End Front Back Number of Gammas within the Energy Acceptance Range

9. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 9 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End Front Back 200k250k

10. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 10 PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close Enad Front Back

11. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 11 PSF95 – Beam 0 Deg – Close End Front Back

12. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 12 PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Close End 200k400k Front Back

13. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 13 PSF95 - Beam 40 Deg – Close End Front Back

14. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 14 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End Front Back

15. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 15 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End 200k250k Front Back

16. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 16 PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Far End 250k300k Front Back

17. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 17 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Close End 25k30k If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0 Front Back

18. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 18 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Close End 25k40k If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0 Front Back

19. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 19 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 0 Deg – Far End 25k30k Front Back If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0

20. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 20 If NumTracks>0 PSF68 - Beam 40 Deg – Far End 30k50k Front Back If the Trigger could Select only events with NumTracks>0

21. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 21 Statistics Summary Tables # gammas within energy range Close EndFar End FrontBackFrontBack 0 deg200k250k200k300k 40 deg200k400k250k300k # gammas within energy range NumTracks>0 Close EndFar End FrontBackFrontBack 0 deg25k30k25k30k 40 deg25k40k 50k Ask For 30-40k per Beam Energy ? Ask For 250-300k per Beam Energy ?

22. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 22 Jan Conrad Study II Jan is talking about events in the histograms therefore we have to compare his results with ours for NumTracks>0 Since we divided front and back events and we are dealing with real Mc Data, Jans estimation of 10k events to reach the 1% error level is in agreement with our result (events in histogram ~30k/2 ) As Jan anticipated the Fit and Counting method lead to similar errors

23. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 23 Beam Position Tower Center Tower Border Tower Crack

24. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 24 Tower Center – Tower Border Front Back PSF68 Beam 2.5 GeV – 0 deg

25. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 25 Tower Center – Tower Crack Front Back PSF68 Beam 2.5 GeV – 0 deg

26. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 26 Multiple gamma effetcts

27. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 27 MCS Options Comparison Front

28. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 28 Conclusions Number of needed gammas: – seems to be almost independent from the Beam Energy and the Tagger setup (close end, far end) – needed gammas within energy acceptance: 250 k 30 k if NumTracks>0 Beam Position: –Tower Border seems not to affect the PSF maybe our beem was too far from the Tower edge –Tower Crack affect performances smaller efficiency bigger amount of dead material spoil PSF Multiple gammas: – affect the PSF – way to select single gammas not found yet MCS: – small difference between Native G4 and OLD32 difference bigger than 1%

29. Beam Test Worksop 3Pisa, Jun 29th, 2006 C. Cecchi S. Germani M. Pepe 29 Final Remarks and Wishes From our experience different positions (except tower cracks) should not affect significantly the PSF Energy and angle dependency are rather smooth Angular error tails have complex structures (see also Emanueles Talk) –we would prefer to have few well measured points in order to study the tails accurately Minimal Configurations Proposal: –Tower Center –0 deg, 40 deg –Number of gammas in the energy acceptance 250k/ BeamEnergy 30k/ BeamEnergy if NumTracks>0 Extra useful configureations (peresonal priority order): –Higher number of gammas will allow to study the PSF tails more deeply –60 deg Beam (enahnce thick layers conversion and PSF tails…) –Tower Crack @ 0 deg