Monte carlo design studies for the cherenkov telescope array
By K. Bernlöhr, A. Barnacka, Y. Becherini, O. B. Bigas, E. Carmona, P. Colin, G. Decerprit, F. Pierro, F. Dubois, C. Farnier and 29 more. 2012
223 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The Cherenkov Telescopes Array (CTA) is planned as the future instrument for very-high-energy (VHE) gamma-ray astronomy with a wide energy range of four orders of magnitude and an improvement in sensitivity compared to current instruments of about an order of magnitude. Monte Carlo simulations are a crucial tool in the design of CTA. The ultimate goal of these simulations is to find the most cost-effective solution for given physics goals and thus sensitivity goals or to find, for a given cost, the solution best suited for different types of targets with CTA. Apart from uncertain component cost estimates, the main problem in this procedure is the dependence on a huge number of configuration parameters, both in specifications of individual telescope types and in the array layout. This is addressed by simulation of a huge array intended as a superset of many different realistic array layouts, and also by simulation of array subsets for different telescope parameters. Different analysis methods - in use with current installations and extended (or developed specifically) for CTA - are applied to the simulated data sets for deriving the expected sensitivity of CTA. In this paper we describe the current status of this iterative approach to optimize the CTA design and layout.
Subfields: Nuclear and High Energy Physics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a129624925865eeb222d34b14a24ab92a0923113
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Nuclear and High Energy Physics
Citations in the corpus
- A Monte Carlo template based analysis for air-Cherenkov arrays (2014, result): “However, it must be noted that the simulations used in the ImPACT results and those in themodel results were produced with different simulation chains and there may be some systematic differences between the results of the two chains (typically at the 5% level in total Cherenkov yield [20]).”