F. LBTI Current Performance and Compliance with ORR Entrance Criteria Phil Hinz Principal Investigator

Current Performance Compliance This presentation summarizes the LBTI performance. Relationship to ORR Success Criteria: The presentation discusses the current performance numbers for comparison with the 12-zodi requirement. The efficiency is also discussed Concerns: None Liens: None F-2 1.a LBTI demonstrates 12-zodi sensitivity (1 , single star measurement, PLRA zodi model) Green 1.bIn-guide plan (available nights) and assumptions (efficiencies and current capability) for SVP and HOSTS are documented and the science scope (<2-zodi uncertainty on median) are all consistent Green

Compliance Matrix PLRA Section Success Criteria March 2014 Now (ORR) End of SVP In-Guide Plan (FY17) With Lien (FY18) L04.3 A: 10  better 2.8  better12  better24  better L04.3B: Inform missions 6 zodi median 1.13 zodi median 0.51 zodi median 0.50 zodi median L14.1.2C: 6-zodi, 1 σ 54 zodi12 zodi6 zodi L14.1.4D: 50 stars in 4 yrs L24.1.4E: 0.3 mJy sens. 0.4 mJy 0.3 mJy L F: 1.5  null stb 1800 ppm400 ppm150 ppm L24.1.4G: 30% efficiency 30%32%40% F-3 Red = not compliant Blue = compliant, assuming in-guide completion Orange = compliant with ORR criteria, but not PLRA Green = compliant with PLRA

Photometric Measurement Calculate SNR from frames during nulling sequence Use flux of star to calibrate measurement All measurements scaled to 10 minutes Current uncertainty is 0.4 mJy/pointing F-4

Null Uncertainty Measurement Feb observing sequence shows null uncertainty of 500 ppm F-5

Null Uncertainty vs. Sequence Time (1/2) From the list of raw nulls per CAL OB, draw 8 random values (repetition allowed). This is used as a calibrator pointing Do the same for SCI pointings Null uncertainty calculated with new bootstrapped data Repeat 100 times and use mean as final result Repeat whole procedure by drawing nulls per pointing to take into account possible systematic offsets between pointings Use maximum of the two errors (OB based and pointing based) as final error F-6 BASED ON FEBRUARY DATA

Null Uncertainty vs. Sequence Time (2/2) Scaling to standard HOSTS observing sequence results in 400 ppm nulling uncertainty F-7 BASED ON FEBRUARY DATA

Null Uncertainty for a 2Jy Star (1/2) Beta Leo is 7 Jy For each frame, take flux measured in BCKG region, multiply it by SQRT(7/2-1), and add it to the flux measured in the NULL region Run NSC pipeline and null calibration on degraded data CAVEAT: This approach doesn’t degrade the background bias (will be corrected a posteriori) F-8 BASED ON FEBRUARY DATA NULL BCKG NULL BCKG

Null Uncertainty for a 2Jy Star (2/2) F-9 BASED ON FEBRUARY DATA RAW NULLS FOR DEGRADED DATA Extrapolated over a full sequence, this is 0.049% Final error correcting for background bias is 0.068%

Typical Zodi Estimate Based on following limits: – 2 mJy photometric bias/pointing – 400 ppm level for beta Leo (F sci = 7 Jy) Noise floor is 350 ppm (bright star limit) The uncertainty for a general HOSTS stars is Result is compared to PLRA model – Example: 400 ppm for beta Leo is equivalent to a 6-zodi uncertainty Overall sample provides mean zodi-sensitivity: – 10.8 for sample of 32 stars – 12.8 for full sample of 50 stars F-10

Efficiency: Measurements Best times for “dwell” and “switch” time during an observing sequence are consistent with 25 minutes (15 dwell + 10 switch) per pointing Total Time (min) Pointings for 2/8/2015 F-11

Performance Summary We have demonstrated – 0.4 mJy photometric uncertainty – 400 ppm null uncertainty – 32% efficiency per pointing The analysis of mean zodi-sensitivity for the current instrument performance and HOSTS sample is 11 zodi for the in-guide plan F-12