2006
DOI: 10.1117/12.672226
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monte Carlo processes for including Chandra instrument response uncertainties in parameter estimation studies

Abstract: Instrument response uncertainties are almost universally ignored in current astrophysical X-ray data analyses. Yet modern X-ray observatories, such as Chandra and XMM-Newton, frequently acquire data for which photon counting statistics are not the dominant source of error. Including allowance for performance uncertainties is, however, technically challenging in terms of both understanding and specifying the uncertainties themselves, and in employing them in data analysis. Here we describe Monte Carlo methods d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 3 lists the total number of Chandra counts in the combined observations in each of these features in order to give an indication of the significance at which they are detected and the degree of certainty with which we can discuss their properties. It should be noted that the number of counts obtained for some components of the system (> 10 4 ) puts us in the regime, discussed by Drake et al (2006), in which calibration uncertainties are likely to dominate over statistical ones. Methods to include calibration uncertainties in the analysis of Chandra data have been discussed by, e.g., Lee et al (2011) and Xu et al (2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Table 3 lists the total number of Chandra counts in the combined observations in each of these features in order to give an indication of the significance at which they are detected and the degree of certainty with which we can discuss their properties. It should be noted that the number of counts obtained for some components of the system (> 10 4 ) puts us in the regime, discussed by Drake et al (2006), in which calibration uncertainties are likely to dominate over statistical ones. Methods to include calibration uncertainties in the analysis of Chandra data have been discussed by, e.g., Lee et al (2011) and Xu et al (2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…We note that an in-depth evaluation of Chandra calibration uncertainties in the context of qLMXB NS M-R measurements based on the prescriptions by Drake et al (2006), Lee et al (2011), and Xu et al (2014) will be presented in a subsequent publication.…”
Section: Instrument Calibration Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following Guillot et al (2013), we adopt a 3% systematic error to account for the instrument response uncertainties. We note that an in-depth evaluation of Chandra calibration uncertainties in the context of qLMXB NS M − R measurements based on the prescriptions by Drake et al (2006), Lee et al (2011), andXu et al (2014) will be presented in a subsequent publication.…”
Section: Instrument Calibration Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We can obtain a first estimate of the effect of calibration expected from pure Poisson statistics by assuming that the "true" ARF is an unknown member of the library of ARFs. Following Drake et al (2006), one can then proceed by (i) either simulating a single spectrum with the nominal ARF and fitting it across all ARFs in the library, (ii) or by generating a single spectrum per ARF in the library and subsequently fitting it with the nominal ARF. Following Section 5 of Barret & Cappi (2019), we use the former method as it is able to capture more closely the perturbative nature of detector miscalibration in the recovery of best-fit parameter values; and we refer to Cucchetti et al (2018) for an implementation of the latter method.…”
Section: Overview Of the Effects Of A Nonoptimal Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%