Next: Pileup experiments and determination
Up: Pileup Measurements and Modelling
Previous: Introduction
The simple model starts by defining any x-ray event detected with the
desired energy and grade to be ``good''. All other events (i.e., those
with different energy or grade) are defined as ``bad''.
Most practical x-ray line
sources are not monochromatic, and are typically a mixture of a
monochromatic line, other spectral features, and some continuum. The
pileup model quantifies this aspect by defining that for every
``good'' x-ray event there are
``bad'' events. Alternatively, if,
in the absence of pileup, the number of good incident x-rays is
Ni out of a total number of events NT, then the fraction
fB of good x-ray events is
. This model of a quasi-monochromatic beam
is a good representation of the x-ray sources used in the ACIS quantum
efficiency calibration.
Although for any CCD exposure the time history of event interactions is unknown, for the purposes of analysis we can picture the x-rays incident in one exposure as striking the CCD serially. The goal is to describe a function Nd(Ni) which represents the number of detected good x-rays as a function of the number of incident good x-ray events. By inverting this function, we can determine Ni from an experimental measurement of Nd. We begin construction of this function by examining the effect of a single x-ray.
Let
be the effective area of the CCD affected by the occurrence
of a ``good'' x-ray event (typically the desired energy is that of a
K
line the desired shapes are ASCA grades 0,2,3,4,and 6). In
general,
will be a function of energy; the energy
dependence is described in detail later. Similarly,
is the
average effective area corresponding to any other x-rays, i.e. those
with different energies and grades. The physical meaning of
is that if a second x-ray is absorbed near a prior x-ray event such
that the center of the second photoelectric absorption occurs within
the area
centered on the first x-ray, then an interaction occurs.
Specific interaction effects are described mathematically below.
We can derive the minimum size for
commensurate with our event detection criteria. All (standard) event
discrimination is based on the 3x3 pixel subarray surrounding a local
maximum of detected charge. Thus, any second x-ray landing within the
subarray invokes an interaction, and the area of 9 pixels forms a
lower limit for
. In all that follows,
we express
and
in units
of the area of one quadrant of an ACIS CCID17 detector.
In these units, a nine-pixel ``island'' has an area of
.
The mathematical model begins by schematically dividing the area of a
CCD as shown in Fig. 4.10. In our units, the total surface area of
the detector (one quadrant of a CCID17) is normalized to unity.
Let A1 be the total area occupied by all good
x-ray events (A1 can also be interpreted as a probability or cross section
for interaction; however the interpretation as an area is useful for
developing a model). The number of detected events is taken to be
. This assumption is approximate since two good x-ray events
could lie close enough together so that their
s overlap
while they do not interact. Let A2 be the total area occupied by
charge produced by all other events. Then 1-A1-A2 is the CCD area
unblemished by any interaction. The probability for an incident x-ray
to land on a previous good
x-ray event is A1; the probability for an incident x-ray to land on a
previous bad x-ray event is A2, and the probability for an incident x-ray
to land and be detected in unperturbed pixels is 1-A1-A2.
The effect of an incident x-ray landing in A1 is removal of one
previous x-ray from A1 while adding some area
to
A2, which must be between 1 and 2 times
. We assume that
any x-ray landing in A2 does not change either A1 or A2.
Finally, we assume that A1 can increase only by good interactions
in the unperturbed region 1-A1-A2.
Then the change of A1 and A2 with per unit change in
Ni can be described by the following pair of ordinary differential
equations:
| |
(18) |
| |
(19) |
The solution is obtained by combining the two equations to separate variables. This results in a second order differential equation with the following solution,
| (20) |
| |
(21) |
| |
(22) |
| |
(23) |
| |
(24) |
Equation 4.9 has the desired asymtotic limit of Ni = Nd for low flux, with the following useful expansion for the logarithm of the ratio:
| |
(25) |
In the limit where
and
then
![]()
Solutions to Eqn. 4.9 are plotted in Fig. 4.11
for two different flux
ranges and for
=0,2,4,...40 (x105) using
. Specifically, the cross-section
equals the fractional area of a CCD region of
interest, and Nd and Ni are the corresponding counts in that
region.
Note that
corresponds to a area of 26.2
pixels. The deviation from the line Ni = Nd increases as
increases. All the curves bend over for
significantly high pileup and should assymtote to 0 for high enough
Ni. This high pileup limit corresponds to severe charge cloud
overlap so that very few x-rays satisfy the event selection criteria.
![]() |
Mark Bautz