4.7 Article

Real-time Likelihood Methods for Improved & gamma;-Ray Transient Detection and Localization

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 953, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd72

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a fast maximum-likelihood (ML) algorithm for real-time detection of gamma-ray transients on low-performance processors. The ML method is nearly twice as sensitive as algorithms based on excess counts, allowing detection of significantly more short gamma-ray bursts. We validate the algorithm through simulations and experimental data, demonstrating its improved sensitivity and accurate on-board localizations, while also suggesting improvements for off-line localization resolution.
We present a maximum-likelihood (ML) algorithm that is fast enough to detect & gamma;-ray transients in real time on low-performance processors often used for space applications. We validate the routine with simulations and find that, relative to algorithms based on excess counts, the ML method is nearly twice as sensitive, allowing detection of 240%-280% more short & gamma;-ray bursts. We characterize a reference implementation of the code, estimating its computational complexity and benchmarking it on a range of processors. We exercise the reference implementation on archival data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM), verifying the sensitivity improvements. In particular, we show that the ML algorithm would have detected GRB 170817A even if it had been nearly 4 times fainter. We present an ad hoc but effective scheme for discriminating transients associated with background variations. We show that the onboard localizations generated by ML are accurate, but that refined off-line localizations require a detector response matrix with about 10 times finer resolution than is the current practice. Increasing the resolution of the GBM response matrix could substantially reduce the few-degree systematic uncertainty observed in the localizations of bright bursts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据