text:
# Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays from Neutrino Emitting Acceleration Sources?

## I Introduction

In acceleration scenarios ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) with energies above $`10^{18}`$eV are assumed to be protons accelerated in powerful astrophysical sources. During their propagation, for energies above $`50`$ EeV ($`1EeV=10^{18}eV`$) they lose energy by pion production and pair production (protons only) on the cosmic microwave background (CMB). For sources further away than a few dozen Mpc this would predict a break in the cosmic ray flux known as Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff , around $`50`$EeV. This break has not been observed by experiments such as Fly’s Eye , Haverah Park , Yakutsk  and AGASA , which instead show an extension beyond the expected GZK cutoff and events above $`100`$EeV. However the new experiment HiRes  currently seems to see a cutoff in the monocular data . Taking into account that all old experiments except perhaps AGASA do not have sufficient statistics in the highest energy region to settle the question, the existence of a possible cutoff remains unclear at the moment. The apparent absence of a cutoff especially in the AGASA data has in recent years triggered many theoretical explanations ranging from conventional acceleration in astrophysical sources to models invoking new physics such as the top-down scenarios in which energetic particles are produced in the decay of massive relics from the early Universe . This enigma has also fostered the development of large new detectors of ultra-high energy cosmic rays which will increase very significantly the statistics at the highest energies .

In bottom-up scenarios of UHECR origin, in which protons are accelerated in powerful astrophysical objects such as hot spots of radio galaxies and active galactic nuclei , one would expect to see the source in the direction of arrival of UHECRs, but above the GZK cutoff in general no suitable candidates have been found within the typical energy loss distance of a few tens of Mpc for the known electromagnetically or strongly interacting particles . Even assuming significant deflection by large scale extragalactic magnetic fields requires at least several sources  whose locations have not been identified yet.

Moreover, recent observations of small scale clustering by the AGASA experiment  suggest that sources of UHECR are point-like . This fact together with the lack of nearby sources favors the possibility of sources much further away than 100 Mpc, at redshifts of order unity. An additional motivation for this possibility comes from recently reported possible correlations of the arrival directions of observed UHECR above $`50`$EeV with certain classes of sources such as compact radio galaxies  or BL Lacertae objects . In the latter case it is still possible that the sources are located at moderate distances $`z0.1`$. In this case photons with extremely high energies $`E>10^{23}`$ eV can propagate several hundred Mpc (constantly loosing energy) and can create secondary photons inside the GZK volume . However, this model requires both extreme energies of primary photons and extremely small extra galactic magnetic fields (EGMFs) $`B10^{12}`$ G. Moreover, if a correlation with any source at redshift $`z>0.2`$ is found, this model will be ruled out.

If sources of the highest energy cosmic rays are indeed at cosmological distances $`z1`$, the only known mechanism not involving new physics except for neutrino masses assumes neutrinos as messenger particles: Charged particles accelerated in such sources give rise to a secondary neutrino beam which can propagate essentially unattenuated. If this neutrino beam is sufficiently strong it can produce the observed UHECRs within 100 Mpc by electroweak (EW) interactions with the relic neutrino background . Specifically, if the relic neutrinos have a mass $`m_\nu `$, Z-bosons, whose decay products can contribute to the UHECR flux, can be resonantly produced by ultra high energy (UHE) neutrinos of energy $`E_\nu M_Z^2/(2m_\nu )4.2\times 10^{21}\mathrm{eV}(\mathrm{eV}/m_\nu )`$.

However, this “Z-burst” mechanism is severely constrained by at least two types of observational data: First, there are upper limits on the UHE neutrino flux, based on the non-observation of horizontal air showers by the old Fly’s Eye experiment  or by the AGASA experiment  and from the non-observation of radio pulses that would be emitted from the showers initiated by the UHE neutrinos on the moons rim . Second, even if the sources exclusively emit neutrinos, the EW interactions also produce photons and electrons which initiate an electromagnetic (EM) cascade which transfers the injected energy down to below the pair production threshold for photons on the CMB . The cascade thus gives rise to a diffuse photon flux in the GeV range which is constrained by the flux observed by the EGRET instrument on board the Compton $`\gamma `$ray observatory . Reproducing the observed UHECR flux by the Z-burst mechanism under these two constraints has been shown to in general require local relic neutrino over-densities in order to increase the local UHECR flux. These over-densities turn out to be much higher than values 2–3 which would be expected from the over-density in the local supercluster .

In order to avoid this difficulty one can suppose that the Z-burst mechanism is responsible only for part of the UHECR flux . In this case, one can reduce both primary neutrino and secondary photon fluxes and obey all existing limits. However, the price for this is to explain only a part of the UHECR events by the Z-burst mechanism and the necessity for a second source mechanism for UHECRs.

Furthermore, Ref.  claims that already the present data provides possible evidence for the relic neutrino background and starts to constrain the absolute neutrino mass, a possibility that has recently been discussed in principle in Ref. . This claim is based on tuning many unknown parameters such as the value of the EGMF, the universal radio background (URB) which governs pair production of UHE $`\gamma `$rays, and the neutrino source distribution. Also, Ref.  did not take into account propagation of UHE photons, instead assuming that all photons are down-scattered into the GeV region. In addition, simply due to the much larger statistics at lower energies, the quality of the fits performed in Ref.  is dominated by the low-energy background component. Finally, Ref.  assumed that the sources do not emit any $`\gamma `$rays, although the $`\gamma `$ray energy fluence produced by pion production of accelerated nuclei should be comparable to the produced neutrino fluence, as will be discussed in Sec. III.

In the present paper we show that for all neutrino masses in the range $`0.07\mathrm{eV}m_\nu 1\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ one can find parameters that fit the UHECR observations with comparable quality. We therefore conclude that, at least at the current state of knowledge, it is impossible to extract evidence for the relic neutrino background or even best fit values for absolute neutrino masses from UHECR data.

We do not consider in the present paper neutrino interaction channels with multiple $`W^\pm `$ and/or $`Z^0`$ production. These channels could be important in case of neutrino masses $`m3`$ eV , which however are strongly disfavored by considerations on large scale structure formation .

By detailed numerical flux calculations we show that a non-uniform source distribution allows the Z-burst mechanism to explain the UHECR flux without substantial relic neutrino over-densities. However, this only works if the sources exclusively emit neutrinos. Because isospin symmetry requires the energy fluence of neutrinos and $`\gamma `$rays produced by hadronic charged primary interactions in the source are comparable, this will require the photons to be down-scattered below the GeV range within the source.

## II Neutrino source

We assume in this section that a pure neutrino source model can somehow be constructed and start with this case. In the next section we relax this condition and include other primary particles into consideration.

Our simulations are based on two independent codes that have extensively been compared down to the level of individual interactions. Both of them are implicit transport codes that evolve the spectra of nucleons, $`\gamma `$rays, electrons, electron-, muon-, and tau-neutrinos, and their antiparticles along straight lines. Arbitrary injection spectra and redshift distributions can be specified for the sources and all relevant strong, electromagnetic, and weak interactions have been implemented. For details see Refs. . Specifically relevant for neutrino interactions in the current problem are both the s-channel production of Z bosons and the t-channel production of W bosons. The decay products of the Z boson were taken from simulations with the  Monte Carlo event generator using the tuned parameter set of the OPAL Collaboration . The main ambiguities in propagation concern the unknown rms magnetic field strength $`B`$ which can influence the predicted $`\gamma `$ray spectra via synchrotron cooling of the electrons in the EM cascade, and the strength of the URB which influences pair production by UHE $`\gamma `$rays . Photon interactions in the GeV to TeV range are dominated by infrared and optical universal photon backgrounds (IR/O), for which we took the results of Ref. . The resulting photon flux in GeV range in not sensitive to details of the IR/O backgrounds.

Predictions for the nucleon fluxes agree within tens of percents whereas photon fluxes agree only within a factor $`2`$ between the two codes. The latter mostly reflects the ambiguities in photon propagation mentioned above, but has no influence on the conclusions of this paper.

For the present investigation we parameterize the neutrino injection spectra per comoving volume in the following way:

$`\varphi _\nu (E,z)`$ $`=`$ $`f(1+z)^mE^{q_\nu }\mathrm{\Theta }(E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu E)`$ (2)
$`z_{\mathrm{min}}zz_{\mathrm{max}},`$
where $`f`$ is the normalization that has to be fitted to the data. The free parameters are the spectral index $`q_\nu `$, the maximal neutrino energy $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu `$, the minimal and maximal redshifts $`z_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and the redshift evolution index $`m`$. We assume for simplicity that all six neutrino species (three flavors including antiparticles) are completely mixed as suggested by experiments  and thus have equal fluxes given by Eq. (2). Finally we chose the Hubble parameter $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, as favored today.

For a given set of values for all these parameters we find the neutrino flux amplitude $`f`$ in Eq.(2) obeying all experimental bounds on photon and neutrino fluxes and explaining the UHECR flux at highest energies above some value $`E_{\mathrm{min}}`$ by the secondary UHE protons and photons by a maximum likelihood fit. The fit quality is characterized by a $`\chi ^2`$ value. Note that there are many different kinds of extragalactic sources which can contribute to the observed UHECR flux with energies below the GZK cutoff $`E_{\mathrm{GZK}}4\times 10^{19}`$ eV. Thus, one should take $`E_{\mathrm{min}}E_{\mathrm{GZK}}`$ if one wants to explain all UHECR data above the cutoff by the Z-burst model.

Fig. 1 illustrates how unrealistically high local neutrino background over-density could be avoided by assuming sources that are more abundant at low redshifts. In this figure we show primary neutrino and secondary proton and photon fluxes for the case $`m_\nu =0.5`$ eV. The following values have been assumed for the parameters of Eq. (2): spectral index $`q_\nu =1`$, maximal neutrino energy $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu =2\times 10^{22}\mathrm{eV}`$, minimal and maximal redshifts $`z_{\mathrm{min}}=0`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=3`$. Three cases, corresponding to the redshift evolution index $`m=3,0,3`$ are plotted as solid, dashed and dotted lines, respectively. A typical value, $`B=10^9`$G, is assumed for the EGMF as well as the minimal strength consistent with observations for the poorly known URB . The latter results in optimistic predictions for the UHE $`\gamma `$ray flux. The neutrino flux amplitude was fitted as described above for $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=2.5\times 10^{19}\mathrm{eV}`$. Thus we require that the Z-burst model contributes to 9 bins of non-vanishing flux in the AGASA data. For all three cases in Fig. 1 we obtained $`\chi ^2(9)4`$.

As one can see from Fig. 1, the value of the source evolution parameter $`m`$ mainly affects photons with GeV energies. The value $`m=3`$ which was chosen in previous work  is similar to evolution of active galaxies. The secondary photon flux for such a source distribution is in conflict with the diffuse GeV photon background observed by the EGRET experiment. The uniform source distribution, $`m=0`$, is already in agreement with the EGRET flux, while negative values of the flux, $`m=3`$, lead to GeV photon fluxes well below it. The latter case corresponds to sources which are more abundant now than at high redshifts. For example, BL Lacertae objects for which correlations with UHECRs were found in Ref. , are distributed in such a way. Note that the choice of unknown EGMF strength $`B`$ and the URB flux affect only the UHE flux of photons and is not important in the EGRET region which is only sensitive to the total injected EM energy.

Fig. 2 shows results for varying neutrino masses with the unknown parameters $`B`$, radio background strength, as well as $`f`$, $`q_\nu `$, $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu `$, $`z_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and $`m`$ chosen such as to produce fits to the UHECR data of comparable quality. We present in Fig. 2 two extreme cases of small $`m_\nu =0.1`$ eV and high $`m_\nu =1`$ eV neutrino masses. Because parameter space is huge, we fix some parameters to given values ($`z_{\mathrm{min}}=0`$, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=3`$, and minimal URB strength) and vary only the evolution parameter $`m`$, the EGMF strength $`B`$, and the maximum energy $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu `$ for every given neutrino mass. Again, we determine the neutrino flux amplitude $`f`$ from minimizing $`\chi ^2`$. For $`m_\nu =0.1`$ eV we get $`\chi ^2(6)=1.6`$, while for $`m_\nu =1`$ eV we have $`\chi ^2(9)=2.6`$, i.e. the fit qualities are comparable. For all intermediate masses we also find similar fit qualities. From this we conclude that no preferred values for the neutrino masses $`m_\nu `$ can be extracted. Instead, for every neutrino mass exists a large parameter region in which the Z-burst model with pure neutrino sources may work.

In Fig. 2a we show the case of small neutrino mass, $`m_\nu =0.1`$ eV, with $`m=3`$, $`B=5\times 10^{11}G`$, and $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu =10^{23}\mathrm{eV}`$. For small neutrino masses the resonance energy is large and thus secondary photons and protons are produced at higher energies, apart from the photons produced by t-channel leptons. Due to electro-magnetic cascades most of the EM energy ends up in the GeV region and thus the EGRET flux gives the most stringent bound. In particular, for $`m_\nu <0.1`$ eV, the parameter space for the Z-burst model shrinks, and even a $`m=3`$ distribution of sources is not consistent with the data. However, there is no pronounced cutoff for photons in this case (due to the $`\alpha <1`$ power law, see details in Ref. ). This allows to explain some fraction of the UHECR events by photons. Finally, the required neutrino flux is higher for small neutrino masses which makes the GLUE experiment bound on the UHE neutrino flux  a crucial constraint for the Z-burst model.

In Fig. 2b we present the case of large neutrino mass, $`m_\nu =1`$ eV, with $`m=0`$, $`B=10^{12}G`$, and $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu =10^{22}\mathrm{eV}`$. In this case the required flux of neutrinos is somewhat smaller. The available parameter space for the Z-burst mechanism is large and the EGRET bound on the GeV photon flux can be met even for a uniform distribution of sources.

## III Photon and neutrino source

It is well known that sources capable of accelerating UHECRs produce $`\gamma `$rays up to at least $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\gamma 100`$TeV . Since in acceleration scenarios both $`\gamma `$rays and neutrinos are produced as secondaries, the power $`f_\gamma 1`$ radiated in $`\gamma `$rays relative to neutrinos has to be of order unity. For the $`\gamma `$ray injection spectrum this implies

$`\varphi _\gamma (E,z)`$ $`=`$ $`6ff_\gamma (1+z)^m{\displaystyle \frac{g(q_\nu ,E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu )}{g(q_\gamma ,E_{\mathrm{max}}^\gamma )}}E^{q_\gamma }\mathrm{\Theta }(E_{\mathrm{max}}^\gamma E)`$ (4)
$`z_{\mathrm{min}}zz_{\mathrm{max}}.`$
Here, $`q_\gamma `$ is the $`\gamma `$ray spectral index, and $`g(q,E_{\mathrm{max}})_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^{E_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑EE^{1q}`$, where we have introduced some small low energy cut-off $`E_{\mathrm{min}}`$ for convergence.

In this section we consider the more realistic case where the sources also emit $`\gamma `$rays with a power comparable to the emitted neutrino power, $`f_\gamma =1`$, up to $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^\gamma =100`$TeV in Eq. (4). For all other parameters we chose values that minimize the tension with the observational upper limits on the UHE neutrino flux and the diffuse GeV $`\gamma `$ray flux. Fig. 3 shows that in this case the Z-burst scenario cannot be made consistent with observations. A possible solution to this problem is to down-scatter most of the EM energy into the sub-MeV range within the source. Only in this case can the EGRET bound be satisfied. This would requires a very strong photon field up to $``$keV within the source.

Even the scenario in Fig. 3 is still optimistic because it assumes that the source is completely opaque to the primary nucleons. While this may be achieved easier than containment of $`\gamma `$rays, for example, by magnetic fields, it is clear from Fig. 3 that even if only a small fraction of the primary nucleons leave the source, the nucleon flux between $`10^{18}`$eV and $`10^{19}`$eV would be much higher than observed, in agreement with the conclusions of Ref. . This problem could be avoided if the protons are deflected strongly enough so that they could not reach the Earth. However, this possibility also appears unrealistic as has been discussed in Ref. . This problem can only be solved if the protons are trapped in the source.

Finally we note that the Z-burst mechanism also poses extreme requirements on the acceleration mechanism itself since the primary protons have to be accelerated to energies $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^p10E_{\mathrm{max}}^\nu 4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{eV}(\mathrm{eV}/m_\nu )`$. In contrast, known mechanisms are usually limited to $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^p10^{22}`$eV .

Thus, the Z-burst model imposes the following requirements onto the sources: They should emit energy only in neutrinos and in sub-MeV $`\gamma `$rays, and should also trap most of the primary protons.

## IV Conclusions

The Z-burst mechanism where the highest energy cosmic rays are produced by neutrino beams interacting with the relic neutrino background only works with sources exclusively emitting neutrinos in the ultra-high energy regime. In order to avoid conflict with the known diffuse backgrounds of $`\gamma `$rays, these sources should emit photons only in the sub-MeV region. In addition, they should trap primary protons in order to avoid an excessive nucleon flux from the source, and should be able to accelerate these protons up to $`E_{\mathrm{max}}^p10^{23}\mathrm{eV}(\mathrm{eV}/m_\nu )`$. None of the astrophysical acceleration models existing in the literature seems to meet this requirement.

Under the assumption that such an extreme source class nevertheless exists we have shown that the Z-burst mechanism can work without unrealistically high local relic neutrino over-densities if the neutrino sources are typically more abundant at present than in the past. Especially neutrino masses $`m_\nu 0.5`$eV require a non-uniform source distribution $`(1+z)^m`$ with negative evolution factor, $`m<0`$, as is the case with BL Lacertae objects.

The contribution to the UHECR flux from such a speculative extragalactic neutrino source class due to the Z-burst mechanism would exhibit a GZK-cutoff for nucleons and would be dominated by $`\gamma `$rays at higher energies. Furthermore, the required UHE neutrino fluxes are close to existing upper limits and should be easily detectable by future experiments such as Auger , Euso , RICE , or by other radio detection techniques .

The space of parameters characterizing neutrino sources and their evolution is highly degenerate when fluxes are fit to the observed UHECR fluxes. Since evidence of relic neutrinos and extraction of absolute neutrino masses requires conservative assumptions about these unknown parameters, we conclude that the current state of knowledge does not allow to extract any meaningful information on neutrino masses from UHECR data.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Zoltan Fodor, Sandor Katz, Andreas Ringwald and Tom Weiler for detailed discussions on this subject. We are grateful to Otmar Biebel for providing us with Z-decay data and to Joel Primack and James Bullock for making available to us their results for the infrared/optical background in electronic form.


format: text

text:
# A Data Mining Framework for Optimal Product Selection in Retail Supermarket Data: The Generalized PROFSET Model

## 1 Introduction

Since almost all mid to large size retailers today possess electronic sales transaction systems, retailers realize that competitive advantage will no longer be achieved by the mere use of these systems for purposes of inventory management or facilitating customer check-out. In contrast, competitive advantage will be gained by those retailers who are able to extract the knowledge hidden in the data, generated by those systems, and use it to optimize their marketing decision making. In this context, knowledge about how customers are using the retail store is of critical importance and distinctive competencies will be built by those retailers who best succeed in extracting actionable knowledge from these data. Association rule mining  can help retailers to efficiently extract this knowledge from large retail databases. We assume some familiarity with the basic notions of association rule mining.

In recent years, a lot of effort in the area of retail market basket analysis has been invested in the development of techniques to increase the interestingness of association rules. Currently, in essence three different research tracks to study the interestingness of association rules can be distinguished.

First, a number of objective measures of interestingness have been developed in order to filter out non-interesting association rules based on a number of statistical properties of the rules, such as support and confidence , interest , intensity of implication , J-measure , and correlation . Other measures are based on the syntactical properties of the rules , or they are used to discover the least-redundant set of rules . Second, it was recognized that domain knowledge may also play an important role in determining the interestingness of association rules. Therefore, a number of subjective measures of interestingness have been put forward, such as unexpectedness , actionability  and rule templates . Finally, the most recent stream of research advocates the evaluation of the interestingness of associations in the light of the micro-economic framework of the retailer . More specifically, a pattern in the data is considered interesting only to the extent in which it can be used in the decision-making process of the enterprise to increase its utility.

It is in this latter stream of research that the authors have previously developed a model for product selection called PROFSET , that takes into account both quantitative and qualitative elements of retail domain knowledge in order to determine the set of products that yields maximum cross-selling profits. The key idea of the model is that products should not be selected based on their individual profitability, but rather on the *total* profitability that they generate, including profits from cross-selling. However, in its previous form, one major drawback of the model was its inability to deal with supermarket data (i.e., large baskets). To overcome this limitation, in this paper we will propose an important generalization of the existing PROFSET model that will effectively deal with large baskets. Furthermore, we generalize the model to include category management principles specified by the retailer in order to make the output of the model even more realistic.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we will focus on the limitations of the previous PROFSET model for product selection. In Section 3, we will introduce the generalized PROFSET model. Section 4 will be devoted to the empirical implementation of the model and its results on real-world supermarket data. Finally, Section 5 will be reserved for conclusions and further research.

## 2 The PROFSET Model

The key idea of the PROFSET model is that when evaluating the business value of a product, one should not only look at the individual profits generated by that product (the naïve approach), but one must also take into account the profits due to cross-selling effects with other products in the assortment. Therefore, to evaluate product profitability, it is essential to look at frequent sets rather than at individual product items since the former represent frequently co-occuring product combinations in the market baskets of the customer. As was also stressed by Cabena et al. , one disadvantage of associations discovery is that there is no provision for taking into account the business value of an association. The PROFSET model was a first attempt to solve this problem. Indeed, in terms of the associations discovered, the sale of an expensive bottle of wine with oysters accounts for as much as the sale of a carton of milk with cereal. This example illustrates that, when evaluating the interestingness of associations, the micro-economic framework of the retailer should be incorporated. PROFSET was developed to maximize cross-selling opportunities by evaluating the profit margin generated per frequent set of products, rather than per product. In the next Section we will discuss the limitations of the previous PROFSET model. More details can be found elsewhere .

### 2.1 Limitations

The previous PROFSET model was specifically developed for market basket data from automated convenience stores. Data sets of this origin are characterized by small market baskets (size 2 or 3) because customers typically do not purchase many items during a single shopping visit. Therefore, the profit margin generated per frequent purchase combination $`(X)`$ could accurately be approximated by adding the profit margins of the market baskets $`(T_j)`$ containing the same set of items, i.e. $`X=T_j`$. However, for supermarket data, the existing formulation of the PROFSET model poses significant problems since the size of market baskets typically exceeds the size of frequent itemsets. Indeed, in supermarket data, frequent itemsets mostly do not contain more than 7 different products, whereas the size of the average market basket is typically 10 to 15. As a result, the existing profit allocation heuristic cannot be used anymore since it would cause the model to heavily underestimate the profit potential from cross-selling effects between products. However, getting rid of this heuristic is not trivial and it will be discussed in detail in Section 3.1.

A second limitation of the existing PROFSET model relates to principles of category management. Indeed, there is an increasing trend in retailing to manage product categories as separate strategic business units . In other words, because of the trend to offer more products, retailers can no longer evaluate and manage each product individually. Instead, they define product categories and define marketing actions (such as promotions or store layout) on the level of these categories. The generalized PROFSET model takes this domain knowledge into account and therefore offers the retailer the ability to specify product categories and place restrictions on them.

## 3 The Generalized PROFSET Model

In this section, we will highlight the improvements being made to the previous PROFSET model .

### 3.1 Profit Allocation

Avoiding the equality constraint $`X=T_j`$ results in different possible profit allocation systems. Indeed, it is important to recognize that the margin of transaction $`T_j`$ can potentially be allocated to different frequent subsets of that transaction. In other words, how should the margin $`m(T_j)`$ be allocated to one or more different frequent subsets of $`T_j`$?

The idea here is that we would like to know the purchase intentions of the customer who bought $`T_j`$. Unfortunately, since the customer has already left the store, we do not possess this information. However, if we can assume that some items occur more frequently together than others because they are considered complementary by customers, then frequent itemsets may be interpreted as purchase intentions of customers. Consequently, there is the additional problem of finding out which and how many purchase intentions are represented in a particular transaction $`T_j`$. Indeed, a transaction may contain several frequent subsets of different sizes, so it is not straightforward to determine which frequent sets represent the underlying purchase intentions of the customer at the time of shopping. Before proposing a solution to this problem, we will first define the concept of a maximal frequent subset of a transaction.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`F`$ be the collection of all frequent subsets of a sales transaction $`T_j`$. Then $`XF`$ is called *maximal*, denoted as $`X_{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑥}}`$, if and only if $`YF:|Y||X|`$.

Using this definition, we will adopt the following rationale to allocate the margin $`m(T_j)`$ of a sales transaction $`T_j`$.

If there exists a frequent set $`X=T_j`$, then we allocate $`m(T_j)`$ to $`M(X)`$, just as in the previous PROFSET model. However, if there is no such frequent set, then one maximal frequent subset $`X`$ will be drawn from all maximal frequent subsets according to the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{T_j}`$, with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{T_j}(X_{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑥}})=\frac{\text{support}(X_{max})}{_{Y_{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑥}}T_j}\text{support}(Y_{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑥}})}$$

After this, the margin $`m(X)`$ is assigned to $`M(X)`$ and the process is repeated for $`T_jX`$. In summary:

| for every transaction $`T_j`$ do { |
| --- |
| while ($`T_j`$ contains frequent sets) do { |
| Draw X from all maximal frequent subsets |
| using probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{T_j}`$; |
| $`M(X):=M(X)+m(X)`$ |
| with $`m(X)`$ the profit margin of $`X`$ in $`T_j`$; |
| $`T_j:=T_jX`$; |
| } |
| } |
| return all $`M(X)`$; |

Say, during profit allocation, we are given a transaction

$$T=\{\text{cola},\text{peanuts},\text{cheese}\}.$$

Table 1 contains all frequent subsets of $`T`$ for a particular transaction database.

In this example, there is no *unique* maximal frequent subset of $`T`$. Indeed, there are two maximal frequent subsets of $`T`$, namely {cola, peanuts} and {peanuts, cheese}. Consequently, it is not obvious to which maximal frequent subset the profit margin $`m(T)`$ should be allocated. Moreover, we would not allocate the entire profit margin $`m(T)`$ to the selected itemset, but rather the proportion $`m(X)`$ that corresponds to the items contained in the selected maximal subset.

Now how can one determine to which of both frequent subsets of $`T`$ this margin should be allocated? As we have already discussed, the crucial idea here is that it really depends on what has been the purchase intentions of the customer who purchased $`T`$. Unfortunately, one can never know exactly since we haven’t asked the customer at the time of purchase. However, the support of the frequent subsets of $`T`$ may provide some probabilistic estimation. Indeed, if the support of a frequent subset is an indicator for the probability of occurrence of this purchase combination, then according to the data, customers buy the maximal subset {cola, peanuts} two times more frequently than the maximal subset {peanuts, cheese}. Consequently, we can say that it is more likely that the customer’s purchase intention has been {cola, peanuts} instead of {peanuts, cheese}. This information is used to construct the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{T_j}`$, reflecting the relative frequencies of the frequent subsets of $`T`$. Now, each time a sales transaction {cola, peanuts, cheese} is encountered in the data, a random draw from the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{T_j}`$ will provide the *most probable* purchase intention (i.e. frequent subset) for that transaction. Consequently, on average in two of the three times this transaction is encountered, maximal subset {cola, peanuts} will be selected and $`m(\{\text{cola},\text{peanuts}\})`$ will be allocated to $`M(\{\text{cola},\text{peanuts}\})`$. After this, $`T`$ is split up as follows: $`T:=T\{\text{cola},\text{peanuts}\}`$ and the process of assigning the remaining margin is repeated as if the new $`T`$ were a separate transaction, until $`T`$ does not contain a frequent set anymore.

### 3.2 Category Management Restrictions

As pointed out in Section 2.1, a second limitation of the previous PROFSET model is its inability to include category management restrictions. This sometimes causes the model to exclude even all products from one or more categories because they do not contribute enough to the overall profitability of the optimal set. This often contradicts with the mission of retailers to offer customers a wide range of products, even if some of those categories or products are not profitable enough. Indeed, customers expect supermarkets to carry a wide variety of products and cutting away categories/departments would be against the customers’ expectations about the supermarket and would harm the store’s image. Therefore, we want to offer the retailer the ability to include category restrictions into the generalized PROFSET model.

This can be accomplished by adding an additional index $`k`$ to the product variable $`Q_i`$ to account for category membership, and by adding constraints on the category level. Several kinds of category restrictions can be introduced: which and how many categories should be included in the optimal set, or how many products from each category should be included. The relevance of these restrictions can be illustrated by the following common practices in retailing. First, when composing a promotion leaflet, there is only limited space to display products and therefore it is important to optimize the product composition in order to maximize cross-selling effects between products and avoid product cannibalization. Moreover, according to the particular retail environment, the retailer will include or exclude specific products or product categories in the leaflet. For example, the supermarket in this study attempts to differentiate from the competition by the following image components: *fresh*, *profitable* and *friendly*. Therefore, the promotion leaflet of the retailer emphasizes product categories that support this image, such as fresh vegetables and meat, freshly-baked bread, ready-made meals, and others. Second, product category constraints may reflect shelf space allocations to products. For instance, large categories have more product facings than smaller categories. These kind of constraints can easily be included in the generalized PROFSET model as will be discussed hereafter.

### 3.3 The Generalized PROFSET Model

Bundling the improvements suggested in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 results in the generalized PROFSET model as presented below.

Let categories $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ be sets of items, $`L`$ the set of frequent itemsets, and let $`P_X`$, $`Q_i\{0,1\}`$ be the decision variables for which the optimization routine must find the optimal values. $`P_X`$ specifies whether an itemset $`X`$ will positively contribute to the value of the objective function, and $`Q_i`$ equals 1 as soon as any itemset $`X`$ in which it is included is set to 1 ($`P_X=1`$) by the optimization routine. Let $`\mathrm{Cost}_i`$ be the inventory and handling cost of item $`i`$. The objective of the following formula is to maximize all profits from cross-selling effects between products:

$$\text{max}\left(\underset{XL}{}M(X)P_X\underset{c=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{iC_c}{}\mathrm{Cost}_iQ_i\right)$$

which is subject to the following constraints

$`{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{iC_c}{}}Q_i=\text{ItemMax}`$ (1)
$`XL,iX:Q_iP_X`$ (2)
$`C_c:{\displaystyle \underset{iC_c}{}}Q_i\text{ItemMin}_{C_c}`$ (3)
Constraint 1 determines how many items are allowed to be included in the optimal set. The ItemMax parameter, specified by the retailer, will depend on the retail environment in which the model is being used. For instance, it may be the number of eye-catchers (products obtaining special display space) in the supermarket or the number of facings in a promotion leaflet. Constraint 2 is analogous to the one in the previous PROFSET model and specifies the relationship between the frequent sets and the products contained in them. Finally, constraint 3 specifies the number of categories and the number of products that are allowed, within each category, to enter the optimal set.

## 4 Empirical Study

The empirical study is based on a data set of $`\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}182}`$ market baskets obtained from a sales outlet of a Belgian supermarket chain over a period of 1 month. The store carries $`\mathrm{9\hspace{0.17em}965}`$ different products grouped in 281 product categories. The average market basket contains $`10.6`$ different product items. In total, $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}381}`$ customers own a loyalty card of the supermarket under study.

First, frequent sets and association rules were discovered from the market baskets with a minimum absolute support threshold of 30 transactions. The motivation behind this is that a product or set of products should have been sold at least, approximately, once a day to be called frequent. Slightly more than $`87\%`$ of the products are sold less than once a day.

The retailer in question is interested in finding the optimal set of eye-catchers such that the profit from cross-selling these eye-catchers is maximized. Hence, this should be represented by the objective function as described in the previous section. However, because of limited shelf-space for each product category, the retailer specified that each product category can only delegate one product to the optimal set, represented by the category constraint (i.e. constraint 3). Subsequently, it is the goal of the generalized PROFSET model to select the most profitable set of products in terms of cross-selling opportunities between the delegates of each category.

For 54 $`(24,7\%)`$ of the 218 product categories, the generalized PROFSET model selects a different product than the one with the highest individual profit ranking within each category. This suggests that for these products, there must be some cross-selling opportunity with eye-catchers from other categories which cause these products to get *promoted* in the profitability ranking.

Due to space limitations Table 2 shows the relative improvements in cross-selling profit for only some categories, expressed as the percentage of improvement in cross-selling profits by choosing the optimal products from the generalized PROFSET model instead of selecting the product with the highest individual profitability within each category.

It would lead us too far to discuss the profit improvements in detail for all categories. Therefore, we will highlight one of the most striking results to illustrate the power of the model. Analogous conclusions can be obtained for other categories. Note that N/A means that there is no alternative product available in that category that has enough support to be frequent, such that comparison with the product, selected by the generalized PROFSET model, is not applicable. For instance, for the category candy bars, the profit from cross-selling the selected eye-catcher of this category with eye-catchers of other categories would increase cross-selling profits by $`588\%`$. This can be observed in Table 3 (only relevant products are included).

Table 3 illustrates that product 4 in the candy bars category is ranked last when looking at its own profit. However, due to large cross-selling effects with eye-catchers of other product categories, this product becomes much more important when looking at the total profit. This illustrates that for the eye-catchers application, it is better to display product ‘Leo 10-pack 10+2’ than to display one of its competing products in the same category. In contrast, if the objective would be the selling volume of the individual product, then it would be better to select product 1 as eye-catcher, but since the retailer wants the customer to buy other products with it, product 4 will definitely be the best choice. The association rules discovered during the mining phase validate these conclusions.
milky way$``$vegetable/fruit
(sup=$`0.17\%`$, conf=$`50.82\%`$)
meat product and Leo 10-pack $``$cheese product
(sup=$`0.396\%`$, conf=$`55\%`$)
Note that the products included in the rules are all eye-catchers such as determined by the generalized PROFSET model. The reason that the other items contained in the association rules carry a rather abstract name, such as “cheese product”, is because this is a collective noun for products that do not have an own barcode, like for instance different cheese products that are weighed at the check-out after which they are grouped into an abstract product name such as “cheese product”.

Finally, for those product categories that do not contain frequent products, the generalized PROFSET model will choose the product with the highest individual profit in order to maximize the overall profitability of the eye-catcher set.

## 5 Further Research

The authors plan to test the proposed model in practice and externally validate its performance based on a real world experiment in cooperation with the Belgian supermarket chain. Furthermore, additional improvements to the model will be considered. More specifically, it will be studied how promotion coupons affect the composition of the optimal set of products and whether it is possible to measure the effect of the value price reduction on the cross-selling profitability of products.


text:
# Phase transition strengths from the density of partition function zeroes

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The characterisation of phase transitions, in particular of their order and strength, is among the hard numerical problems that are common to lattice field theory and spin model physics. Frequently applied techniques focus either on the finite-size scaling (FSS) behaviour of thermodynamic functions such as the specific heat, susceptibility or Binder parameter, or somewhat more “microscopically” on the limiting shape of the underlying probability densities of energy and magnetization as the thermodynamic limit is approached. A related and increasingly popular alternative approach are FSS analyses of zeroes of the partition function .

If $`t=T/T_c1`$ denotes the reduced temperature and $`h`$ the external field, then the FSS of the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ complex partition function zero for a $`d`$-dimensional system of linear extent $`L`$ is given by

$$t_j(L)\left(j/L^d\right)^{1/\nu d},$$
(1)
$$h_j(L)\left(j/L^d\right)^{(d+2\eta )/2d},$$
(2)
where $`\nu `$ and $`\eta `$ are the standard critical exponents. In (1) we assume $`h=0`$ and $`t_j(L)`$ are called Fisher zeroes. Conversely, in (2), $`t=0`$ is assumed and $`h_j(L)`$ are the Lee-Yang zeroes. The standard approach to FSS of zeroes is to fix the index to $`j=1`$ and extract an estimate for the critical exponents from a range of lattice sizes.

In recent years, however, there have also been some attempts  to extract the density of zeroes (a continuous function) from their (discrete) distribution for a finite and numerically accessible lattice. In view of the increasing importance attached to this approach, we recently suggested an appropriate way this should be done .

## 2 DENSITY OF ZEROES

The partition function for finite $`L`$ is $`Z_L(z)_j\left(zz_j(L)\right)`$, where $`z`$ is an appropriate function of temperature or field. We assume the zeroes, $`z_j`$, are on a line impacting on to the real axis at the critical point, $`z_c`$. Parameterising zeroes on this line by $`z_j=z_c+r_j\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )`$ we may define the density of zeroes as $`g_L(r)=L^d_j\delta (rr_j(L))`$. The cumulative distribution function of zeroes is then $`G_L(r)=_0^rg_L(s)𝑑s`$ which is $`j/L^d`$ if $`r(r_j,r_{j+1})`$. At a zero one may assume the cumulative density is given by the average $`G_L(r_j)=(2j1)/2L^d`$.

For a first-order phase transition this integrated density of zeroes is, in the thermodynamic limit, given by

$$G_{\mathrm{}}(r)=g_{\mathrm{}}(0)r,$$
(3)
so that the density is non-vanishing at the real axis . The slope at the origin in (3) is related to the latent heat (magnetization) in the Fisher (Lee-Yang) case via  $`g_{\mathrm{}}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }e`$.

For a second-order transition the corresponding expressions for Fisher and Lee-Yang zeroes are

$$G_{\mathrm{}}(r)r^{2\alpha }\mathrm{and}G_{\mathrm{}}(r)r^{2d/(d+2\eta )}.$$
(4)
Traditional FSS emerges quite naturally from this density approach. Equating $`G_L(r_j)`$ to (4) in the second-order Fisher case, gives the usual FSS formula for fixed index zeroes, $`r_j(L)L^{1/\nu }`$, where $`r_j`$ may be taken to be the imaginary part of the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ zero. Similarly, in the Lee-Yang case, one recovers the fixed index FSS formula $`h_j(L)L^{(d+2\eta )/2}`$. Moreover, considering (3) gives $`r_j(L)L^d`$, explaining also the usual identification of $`\nu `$ with $`1/d`$ for a first-order temperature driven phase transition.

A plot of $`G_L(r_j)`$ against $`r_j(L)`$ should thus (i) go through the origin, (ii) display $`L`$\- and $`j`$\- collapse and (iii) reveal the order and strength of the phase transition by its slope near the origin.

## 3 APPLICATIONS

Superimposing the behaviour (3) and (4) at first- and second-order transitions, the ansatz for the cumulative density can be written as

$$G(r)=a_1r^{a_2}+a_3,$$
(5)
where we also introduced an additional parameter $`a_3`$ signalising the absence of a phase transition: if $`a_3>0`$ the zeroes have already crossed the real axis (broken phase scenario) while for $`a_3<0`$ the zeroes have not yet reached the real axis (symmetric phase). For Fisher zeroes, a first-order transition is indicated if $`a_21`$ for small $`r`$, in which case the latent heat is proportional to the slope $`a_1`$. A value of $`a_2`$ larger than $`1`$ signals a second-order transition whose strength is given by $`\alpha =2a_2`$.

2D 10-State Potts Model: This is the paradigm for models exhibiting a strong first-order transition. Using the first six Fisher zeroes for $`L=4`$$`64`$ as listed in  we find the distribution of zeroes depicted in Fig. 1(a). The excellent data collapse for various $`L`$ and $`j`$ indicates that the interpolated $`G_L(r_j)`$ is the proper choice. Fitting (5) to the $`L=16`$$`64`$, $`j=1`$$`4`$ data points gives $`a_2=1.10(1)`$ and $`a_3=0.00004(1)`$, a strong indication of a first-order transition. Fixing $`a_3=0`$, $`a_2=1`$, a single-parameter fit close to the origin yields a slope corresponding to latent heat $`\mathrm{\Delta }e=0.698(2)`$ which compares well with the exact value of $`0.6961`$.

3D SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory: Here we consider the deconfinement transition for $`L_tL^3`$ lattices. The lowest Fisher zeroes for $`L_t=4`$ and spatial extent $`L=4`$$`24`$ are given in . Applying standard FSS analysis to the $`L14`$ data only yields $`\nu =0.35(2)`$, compatible with $`1/d=0.33`$ and thus indicative of a first-order transition, while fits for $`L8`$ suggest a continuous transition. Figure 1(b) shows the distribution of zeroes for all lattices, and the insert highlights $`L14`$. The figure, clearly supportive of a non-zero slope through the origin, justifies restricting the analysis to the largest lattices and thereby elucidating the procedure of deciding where FSS sets in. This slope is $`0.0121(3)`$, implying a latent heat of $`0.0760(19)`$ in agreement with the estimate $`0.0758(14)`$ using standard methods .

4D Abelian Surface Gauge Model: Being the dual of the 4D Ising model one expects for this model, up to logarithmic corrections, mean-field critical exponents $`\alpha =0`$, $`\nu =1/2`$. The first two Fisher zeroes for lattices of size $`L=3`$$`12`$ are listed in  where a conventional analysis applied to the first index zero yields the best estimate of $`\nu =0.469(17)`$ from the two largest lattices. A fit of (5) to the distribution in Fig. 2 yields $`a_2`$ incompatible with unity. Using the data near the origin gives $`a_2=1.90(9)`$ or $`\alpha =0.10(9)`$, compatible with zero.

2D XY Model: Here we demonstrate that the density technique is also applicable in the Lee-Yang case. Figure 3 depicts the distribution of these zeroes for the 2D XY model at the critical point, $`\beta _c=1.113`$, obtained for lattice sizes $`L=32`$$`256`$ . From (4), and with $`\eta =1/4`$, one expects $`G(r)r^{16/15}`$. A three-parameter fit (5) gives $`a_3=0`$, indicating that criticality has indeed been reached. A two-parameter fit now yields $`a_2=1.063(3)`$, compatible with expectation (taking logarithmic corrections into account).

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We have discussed a new method to extract the (continuous) density of zeroes from (discrete) finite-size data and demonstrated how this can be used to distinguish between phase transitions of first and second order as well as to measure their strengths. The method meets with a high degree of success in lattice field theory and statistical physics and lends new insights into the origins of finite-size scaling.


text:
# Can simulations reproduce the observed temperature–mass relation for clusters of galaxies?

## 1 Introduction

Reproducing the observed number density of rich galaxy clusters has long been thought to be one of the most reliable constraints on the matter power spectrum on short scales. It has been studied by many authors over the years (Evrard 1989; Henry & Arnaud 1991; White, Efstathiou & Frenk 1993; Eke, Cole & Frenk 1996; Viana & Liddle 1996, 1999; Henry 1997, 2000; Blanchard et al. 2000; Pierpaoli, Scott & White Pierpaoli et al.2001; Wu 2001), recent determinations typically yielding $`\sigma _80.9`$ to $`1.0`$ for the currently-favoured $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_00.3`$. However, recently evidence has begun to accumulate from a number of sources that this may be a significant overestimate, perhaps by tens of percent. For example, the required $`\sigma _8`$ estimated from the 2dF galaxy survey (Lahav et al. 2002; Verde et al. 2002), or from that survey combined with other probes (Efstathiou et al. 2002), is significantly lower, and there are now several papers using galaxy clusters that also give lower results (Borgani et al. 2001; Reiprich & Böhringer 2002; Viana, Nichol & Liddle Viana et al.2002).

A low value was also found recently by Seljak (2002), who used an observed relation between cluster temperature and mass (Finoguenov, Reiprich & Böhringer, Finoguenov et al.2001) rather than one derived from hydrodynamical simulations. This last result is particularly significant, and points to the increasingly evident result that traditional hydrodynamical simulations, which include only adiabatic gas heating during collapse, are unable to reproduce the observed properties of clusters. For example, the recent Chandra results of Allen, Schmidt & Fabian (Allen et al.2001, hereafter ASF01) indicate that, at least in the inner regions where data exists, clusters are considerably hotter for a given mass than predicted by adiabatic simulations.

Here we address the question of whether the inclusion of additional gas physics, both radiative cooling of the gas and preheating of the gas before cluster formation, is capable of bringing the simulations into agreement with observations. We concentrate only on the inner regions of clusters, for which temperature profiles have been measured by Chandra, and we find that indeed the observations can be reproduced. In itself this is not sufficient aid to theorists seeking to constrain $`\sigma _8`$, which requires an accurate description of clusters out to the virial radius, but this encouraging result suggests that simulations may soon be useful for this purpose. We will explore the cluster temperature–mass relation out to larger radii in a forthcoming paper.

## 2 Determining cluster masses

### 2.1 Using the Hydrostatic Equation to measure masses

The distribution of hot gas in a cluster can be used to measure its mass. The intracluster medium is generally assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium in a spherically-symmetric, static potential and the mass is determined by balancing pressure support against the gravitational attraction:

$$\frac{1}{\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}}\frac{\text{d}P_{\mathrm{gas}}}{\text{d}r}=\frac{GM(<r)}{r^2},$$
(1)
giving

$$M(<r)=\frac{kT_{\mathrm{gas}}(r)}{\mu m_\mathrm{H}G}\left|\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{ln}P_{\mathrm{gas}}}{\text{d}\mathrm{ln}r}\right|r,$$
(2)
where $`P_{\mathrm{gas}}=(k/\mu m_\mathrm{H})\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the pressure of the intracluster medium, $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}`$ its density, $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`G`$ the gravitational constant, and $`\mu m_\mathrm{H}1.0\times 10^{24}`$g the mean mass per particle.

Where $`P_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is simply the thermal pressure, then $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ corresponds to the gas temperature. One should really include all forms of pressure support for the gas: kinetic (i.e. turbulence), magnetic, coupled relativistic particles, etc.. We have checked in our simulations that the contribution from kinetic motions within the inner regions of clusters is small and so for clarity of presentation we stick with the thermal pressure in this paper.

Note that the determination of the mass within radius $`r`$ depends only upon the properties of the gas at that radius; in particular the mass determination is not affected by conditions in the outer parts of clusters where the properties are poorly determined. We show in Section 4.1 that the use of equation (2) leads to good estimates of the mass within regions accessible to Chandra observations. This lends credence to the mass determinations from X-ray observations that we use in this paper.

### 2.2 Observed and simulated temperature–mass relations

If we apply equation (2) to measure the mass, $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, within a radius, $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, for which the enclosed density is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ times the critical density, then

$$\frac{kT(r_\mathrm{\Delta })}{\text{keV}}8.3\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{200}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{𝒫_\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right)^1\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{10^{15}h^1\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}},$$
(3)
where $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Delta }=\text{d}\mathrm{ln}P_{\mathrm{gas}}/\text{d}\mathrm{ln}r`$ measured at $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For self-similar clusters, for which $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is independent of mass and $`T(r_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a constant multiple of the observed temperature, $`T_X`$, we recover a scaling relation $`T_XM_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}`$. In order to compare different results we will write

$$\frac{kT_X}{\text{keV}}=A_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{\Delta }}{10^{15}h^1\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^\alpha .$$
(4)
$`A_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ gives the relative normalization of the relations; if $`\alpha 2/3`$ then this comparison will be exact only for $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }=10^{15}h^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Theorists can most easily predict the mass within the virial radius of cluster, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }111`$ for our chosen cosmology, but X-ray observations do not extend to such large radii and so some degree of extrapolation (i.e. the extension of a mass-model beyond the range of the observational data) is usually required.

A useful summary of simulated and observational results is given in Afshordi & Cen (2002). The main simulated catalogues are by (Evrard et al.1996), Thomas et al. (2001) and Bryan & Norman (1998). The former two, using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH), found $`A_{200}8.0`$, whereas the latter, using an Eulerian grid-code found $`A_{200}7.0`$. In a more recent paper, in which they considered a variety of definitions of X-ray temperature for an ensemble of 24 highly-resolved SPH clusters, Mathiesen & Evrard (2001) agreed with this lower normalization. None of these simulations included radiative cooling.

By contrast the observational results using resolved surface-brightness and temperature profiles from ROSAT and ASCA have higher normalizations. Xu, Jin & Wu (2001) find $`A_{200}9.4`$, whereas Horner, Mushotzky & Scharf (Horner et al.1999) and (Finoguenov et al.2001) both find $`A_{200}11.2`$.

Despite the uncertainty in both the simulated and the observational results, it is clear that the observed normalization of the temperature–mass relation significantly exceeds the simulated one.

### 2.3 Observational determination of $`M_{2500}`$

In this paper, we attempt a partial resolution of the differences between simulations and observations discussed in the previous section. In doing this, we concentrate on the results of ASF01. The reasons for this are fourfold:

1. Chandra observations give the best available estimates of density and temperature profiles for the X-ray emitting gas.
2. The mass estimates are, mostly, backed up by observations and modelling of gravitationally-lensed background galaxies (arcs).
3. They present results for the mass-weighted temperature of the gas. The use of mass-weighted rather than emission-weighted temperatures greatly simplifies the comparison of simulations and observations.
4. They do not attempt to extrapolate their results beyond the radius that is accessible to observations.

ASF01 measured the mass and temperature of 5 clusters within $`r_{2500}`$. They found a best-fit slope for the mass-temperature relation that is consistent with the self-similar value of 1.5. We rewrite their relation here with mass as the ordinate as we are complete in mass rather than temperature in our simulations:

$$\frac{kT_{2500}}{\text{keV}}19.2\left(\frac{M_{2500}}{10^{15}h^1\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}},$$
(5)
where $`T_{2500}`$ is the mass-weighted gas temperature within $`r_{2500}`$.

## 3 Simulations

The simulations that we discuss in this paper were carried out using the Hydra $`N`$-body/hydrodynamics code (Couchman, Thomas & Pearce Couchman et al.1995; Pearce & Couchman 1997) on the Cray T3E computer at the Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre as part of the Virgo Consortium programme of investigations into structure formation in the Universe. They will be described fully in a longer paper (in preparation) and so we just summarize the properties here. Note that the simulations are very similar to those discussed in an earlier paper, Muanwong et al. (2001), but the parameters have been slightly adjusted so as to give a better fit to the observed luminosity–temperature relation of clusters.

In this paper we present results for a single cosmology with density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.35`$, cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.65`$, baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}=0.038`$, Hubble parameter $`h=0.71`$, cold dark matter density fluctuation parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.21`$, normalization $`\sigma _8=0.90`$ and gravitational softening $`s=25h^1`$kpc. 1603 particles each of gas and dark matter were used in a box of side 100$`h^1`$Mpc, giving particle masses of $`m_{\mathrm{gas}}2.6\times 10^9h^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{dark}}2.1\times 10^{10}h^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$, respectively.

Three simulations were undertaken, each with identical initial conditions so that the clusters that they produce are directly comparable, but with different cooling properties:

An adiabatic run included for testing and comparison purposes only. As discussed in Muanwong et al. (2001), the gas in the centres of the clusters extracted from this run has short cooling times and would not be present in real systems. This simulation vastly overestimates the X-ray luminosity of the clusters.

This run includes radiative cooling using the cooling tables of Sutherland & Dopita (1993) and assumes a time-varying metallicity $`Z=0.3(t/t_0)\mathrm{Z}_{}`$, where $`t/t_0`$ is the age of the Universe in units of the current time. Cooled material is permitted to form stars, removing low-entropy material with short cooling times from the centres of the clusters. As shown in Pearce et al. (2000), the inflowing gas which replaces it has a higher net entropy and hence a higher temperature. A drawback of this run is that the cooling is limited only by numerical resolution and is therefore very ad-hoc. In this run up to half the baryonic mass in clusters has cooled, much more than is observed.

This run also includes radiative cooling. Additionally, at $`z=4`$ the energy of each gas particle was increased by an amount $`kT=1`$ keV to crudely model energy injection at high redshift. This has the effect of strongly suppressing cooling so that by the end of the simulation under 1 per cent of the gas in clusters has cooled, much less than is observed.

The Radiative and Preheating runs both reproduce the observed luminosity–temperature relation whilst having very different amounts of cooled gas. One might hope, therefore, that their thermal properties also bracket those of real clusters. We justify this statement further in Section 4.3 below.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Hydrostatic equilibrium

Figure 1 compares measures of enclosed mass versus radius for the third-largest cluster in the Preheating simulation (similar results are obtained for the Non-radiative and Radiative simulations). This particular cluster was chosen because the two largest clusters both show signs of disturbance within $`r_{500}`$. The solid line shows enclosed mass as a function of radius. The dashed line shows the mass estimated from equation (2) using the thermal pressure; a similar result is obtained using the total (thermal plus kinetic) pressure but we have omitted this from the plot for clarity.

The estimated mass jiggles up and down because of variations in the local pressure gradient. This scatter could be much reduced by the fitting of a smooth curve to the pressure profile, but for the purposes of this paper we merely wish to make the point that the clusters are in approximate hydrostatic equilibrium within $`r_{2500}`$. This holds true also for the largest two clusters and for all others that we have tested. Note, however, that many of these other clusters show significant departures from equilibrium within $`r_{200}`$.

We conclude that the use of the Equation of Hydrostatic Support to measure masses from X-ray observations of the intracluster medium within $`r_{2500}`$ is likely to be accurate to within about 10 per cent with no systematic offset to high or low masses.

### 4.2 Temperature profiles

Figure 2 shows the projected temperature profiles within $`r_{2500}`$ of the third-largest cluster in each of the three simulations. Note how the inflow of higher entropy material has raised the temperature of the gas within $`r_{2500}`$ in both the Radiative and Preheating simulations relative to that in the Non-radiative simulation, an effect first noted by Pearce et al. (2000). The temperature profiles in this Figure differ from those shown in Figure 1 of ASF01 in that they decline slightly beyond 0.25 $`r_{2500}`$ rather than remaining isothermal. There are other clusters in our sample, however, for which the temperature profiles are very similar to those seen in the observations.

### 4.3 Entropy profiles

The differences between the three simulations are best described in terms of their entropy profiles. As Figure 3 shows, the entropy within $`r_{1000}`$ in the third-largest cluster is raised in the Radiative and Preheating runs relative to that in the Non-radiative run. This results in a higher gas temperature and a less-peaked density profile.

Although the Radiative and Preheating runs have very different cooled mass fractions, it is not surprising that they have similar entropy profiles as we have adjusted the numerical resolution and feedback parameters so as to reproduce the observed X-ray luminosity–temperature relation and it has been recognized for some time that this requires an excess of entropy in cluster cores (Evrard & Henry 1991; Kaiser 1991; Bower 1997). Once the entropy profile is fixed then, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, the cluster temperature profile is uniquely determined. As it happens, both the Radiative and Preheating runs give very similar entropy profiles and hence very similar temperature profiles for this cluster (and similar results are obtained for other clusters). This gives us confidence that other models that reproduce the luminosity–temperature relation, and in particular ones that give the correct cooled gas fraction, would have similar thermal properties to those discussed here.

### 4.4 Temperature–mass relation

The temperature–mass relation for the clusters extracted from the Non-radiative simulation is shown in Figure 4. The dashed line is the relation from the simulations of Mathiesen & Evrard (2001), extrapolated from their results for an overdensity of 500 as described in ASF01. Given this extrapolation our results are in good agreement with theirs over the range for which our temperatures coincide, $`kT>1.5`$ keV. By contrast, the relation for observed clusters obtained in ASF01, shown by the solid line, has a significantly lower mass normalization for a given temperature.

Figure 5 shows how this relation is modified once extra gas physics is incorporated. We see that the increase in temperature associated with radiative cooling and/or preheating is precisely enough to bring the simulated relation into agreement with the observed one.

In the Figures there are several clusters that lie well above the mean relation. These are mostly clusters for which there is significant velocity substructure; we indicate with open circles those clusters for which the mean gas and dark matter velocities within $`r_{2500}`$ differ by more than 10 per cent of the rms velocity dispersion of the dark matter.

## 5 Discussion

We have shown that simulations are capable of reproducing the observed relationship between mass and temperature in the inner regions of galaxy clusters. In particular, the mass-weighted temperature versus mass within a radius enclosing an overdensity of 2500 in our Radiative and Preheating simulations agrees with the observed relation of ASF01.

There are a number of caveats, however. The temperature range of the simulations and the observations barely overlap; we have one cluster above 6 keV, while ASF01 have only one below this temperature. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suppose that our results will not extend up to higher temperatures, though confirmation of this will have to await resimulations of clusters drawn from larger simulation boxes.

Perhaps more pertinently, none of our simulations presents a fully realistic model of clusters, the Radiative model producing too much cooled gas and the Preheating model too little. However they both match the observed X-ray luminosity–temperature relation, because they both have a higher entropy within $`r_{2500}`$ than does the Non-radiative simulation. This increase in entropy manifests itself as an increase in the temperature of the gas in the inner parts of the clusters. One might expect, therefore, that realistic clusters that share the same entropy profile would predict the same temperature–mass relation.

Unfortunately, the results presented in this paper and in ASF01 are of limited use to theorists who wish to predict the temperature function of clusters in order to constrain cosmology. This is because they need to relate the mass within the virial radius to the emission-weighted temperature of clusters. The prediction of masses at $`r_{500}`$ or larger radii from the X-ray observations is a harder problem than discussed here and will be investigated in a longer paper.

## Acknowledgements

The simulations used in this paper were carried out on the Cray-T3E at the EPCC as part of the Virgo Consortium programme of investigations into the formation of structure in the Universe. PAT is a PPARC Lecturer Fellow; OM is supported by a DPST scholarship from the Thai government, STK by PPARC, and ARL in part by the Leverhulme Trust.


text:
# Generating Function Associated with the Rational Solutions of the Painlevé II Equation

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we introduce a generating function associated with the rational solutions of the Painlevé II equation and characterize it explicitly in terms of the Airy function. Here the Painlevé II equation (PII) is a second order nonlinear ordinary differential equation with a parameter $`\alpha `$,

$$\frac{d^2v}{dx^2}=2v^34xv+4\alpha .$$
(1)
This equation has exactly one rational solution for $`\alpha `$ being an arbitrary integer  and has no rational solution if $`\alpha `$ is not an integer . It admits a Bäcklund transformation $`(v,\alpha )(v,\alpha )`$, which clearly maps rational solutions to rational solutions. Moreover the unique rational solution for $`\alpha =0`$ is the trivial solution $`v0`$. Hence $`\alpha `$ may be restricted to positive integers without loss of generality.

According to , any rational solution admits two types of determinant representation; one is the Jacobi-Trudi type and the other is the Hankel type, the latter being described as follows: For each positive integer $`N+1`$, the unique rational solution for $`\alpha =N+1`$ is given by

$$v=\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma _{N+1}}{\sigma _N}$$

where $`\sigma _N`$ is the Hankel determinant

$$\sigma _N=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}a_0& a_1& \mathrm{}& a_{N1}\\ a_1& a_2& \mathrm{}& a_N\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{N1}& a_N& \mathrm{}& a_{2N2}\end{array}\right|$$

with $`a_n=a_n(x)`$ being polynomials defined by the recurrence relation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_0& =& x,a_1=1,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill a_{n+1}& =& \frac{da_n}{dx}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}a_ka_{n1k}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
On one hand, the determinant representation of the Jacobi-Trudi type implies that the rational solutions can be described in terms of certain specializations of Schur polynomials . What, on the other hand, does the determinant representation of the Hankel type mean ? Or more simply we may ask: What is the sequence $`a_n`$ ?

As will be seen in this paper, an answer to the above question is very intriguing! The generating function for the sequence $`a_n`$ is essentially the Airy function. More precisely we have the following:

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`\theta (x,t)`$ be an entire function of two variables defined by

$$\theta (x,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2t^3/3\right)\mathrm{Ai}(t^2x)$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$ is the Airy function. Then there exists an asymptotic expansion

$$\frac{}{t}\mathrm{log}\theta (x,t)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n(x)(2t)^n$$
(4)
as $`t\mathrm{}`$ in any proper subsector of the sector $`|\mathrm{arg}t|<\pi /2`$.

The occurrence of the Airy function in Theorem 1.1 is quite suggestive to those who know that PII (1) has a particular solution

$$v=\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{Ai}\left(2^{1/3}x\right),\alpha =1/2.$$

As is well known, PII (1) admits (exactly) two classes of classical solutions, namely, the class of rational solutions and that of Airy function solutions . Theorem 1.1 might then be interpreted as asserting that all members of the former class are generated by a particular member of the latter; see §4 for further discussions.

## 2 Riccati Equation

We will find out a differential equation satisfied by the generating function

$$F(x,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n(x)(2t)^n,$$
(5)
which is thought of as a formal power series of $`t^1`$ with polynomial coefficients in $`x`$. To this end we have to deduce some other recurrence relations for $`a_n`$ from the original one (2) together with the data on the first three terms

$$a_0=x,a_1=1,a_2=x^2.$$
(6)
###### Lemma 2.1

The infinite sequence $`a_n`$ satisfies recurrence relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{da_{n+1}}{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`2na_{n1},`$ (7)
$`a_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`2(n1)a_{n2}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}a_ka_{nk1}.`$ (8)
Proof. Recurrence relation (7) was already mentioned in \[2, (58)\], but a proof is included here for the sake of completeness. The proof proceeds by induction on $`n`$. Assume that (7) holds for $`1,\mathrm{},n`$. Recurrence relation (2) and induction hypothesis lead to

$$a_{n+2}=a_{n+1}^{}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_ka_{nk}=2na_{n1}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_ka_{nk}$$

Differentiating both sides and using the initial condition (6), induction hypothesis and the recurrence relation (2), one finds

$`a_{n+2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2na_{n1}^{}+2a_n+{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}a_k^{}a_{nk}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}a_ka_{nk}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`2na_{n1}^{}+2a_n+{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}2(k1)a_{k2}a_{nk}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}a_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(nk1)a_{nk2}`$
$`=`$ $`2a_n+2na_{n1}^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}2na_ka_{nk2}`$
$`=`$ $`2a_n+2na_n`$
$`=`$ $`2(n+1)a_n.`$
Hence (7) holds for $`n+1`$ and the induction is complete. Recurrence relation (8) is obtained by substituting (7) into (2). $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 2.1 leads to a differential equation of the Riccati type.

###### Lemma 2.2

The generating function $`F(x,t)`$ satisfies a differential equation

$$t\frac{f}{t}+tf^2\left(4t^3+1\right)f+4xt^32t^2=0.$$
(9)
Proof. From (5) one has

$`tF^2`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_ka_{nk}\right)(2t)^n`$
$`=`$ $`tx^2+t{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_ka_{nk}\right)(2t)^n`$
$`=`$ $`tx^2+t{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(a_{n+2}2na_{n1}\right)(2t)^n`$
$`=`$ $`tx^2+4t^3{\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n(2t)^n+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)a_n(2t)^n`$
$`=`$ $`tx^2+4t^3\left\{Fx(2t)^1x^2(2t)^2\right\}+\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+1\right)F`$
$`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \frac{F}{t}}+\left(4t^3+1\right)F4xt^3+2t^2`$
where (6) was used in the second and fifth equalities and (8) in the third equality. Hence $`F`$ satisfies the differential equation (9). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The Airy Function

The Riccati equation (9) can be linearized in a standard manner.

###### Lemma 3.1

The change of dependent variable

$$f=\frac{}{t}\mathrm{log}\left\{u\mathrm{exp}\left(2t^3/3\right)\right\}$$
(10)
transforms the Riccati equation $`(\text{9})`$ into a linear equation

$$t\frac{^2u}{t^2}\frac{u}{t}4\left(t^5xt^3\right)u=0.$$
(11)
Furthermore the change of independent variable

$$z=t^2x$$
(12)
simplifies $`(\text{11})`$ into the Airy differential equation

$$\frac{^2u}{z^2}zu=0.$$
(13)
The proof is just by direct calculations.

It is well known  that the Airy equation (13) has the formal solutions

$$U_\pm (z)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm \frac{2z^{3/2}}{3}\right)z^{1/4}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1/6)_n(5/6)_n}{n!}\left(\pm \frac{4z^{3/2}}{3}\right)^n$$
(14)
and that the Airy function $`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$ admits an asymptotic representation

$$\mathrm{Ai}(z)U_{}(z)$$
(15)
as $`z\mathrm{}`$ in any proper subsector of the sector $`|\mathrm{arg}z|<\pi `$.

###### Lemma 3.2

Equation $`(\text{11})`$ admits a formal solution

$$U(x,t)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2t^3}{3}\right)t^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a_{n+1}(x)}{n}(2t)^n\right\}$$
(16)
If the branch $`z^{1/2}=t(1xt^2)^{1/2}=t(x/2)t^1+\mathrm{}`$ is taken for the square root of $`(\text{12})`$, then

$$U(x,t)=U_{}(z)$$
(17)
Proof. Observe that $`u=U(x,t)`$ defined by (16) satisfies the equation (10) with $`f=F(x,t)`$. Since $`F(x,t)`$ solves the Riccati equation (9), Lemma 3.1 implies that (16) solves the linear equation (11). Under the relation (12), $`U(x,t)`$ must be either $`U_+(z)`$ or $`U_{}(z)`$ since it is a formal solution of the Airy equation (13). Comparing the exponential factors of (14) and (16), we must choose the minus sign and hence have (17). $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 1.1. We are now in a position to establish Theorem 1.1. By (15) and (17) the function $`\mathrm{Ai}(t^2x)`$ has an asymptotic representation $`U(x,t)`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ in any proper subsector of the sector $`|\mathrm{arg}t|<\pi /2`$ (note that under the relation (12) a sector of central angle $`\theta `$ in the $`z`$ plane corresponds to one of central angle $`\theta /2`$ in the $`t`$ plane). This fact, through the transformation (10), leads to the asymptotic expansion (4). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Concluding Discussions

In this paper we have considered the infinite sequence of polynomials that appears in the Hankel determinant representation for rational solutions of the Painleve II equation. As a result we have constructed a generating function explicitly represented in terms of the Airy function, which by itself is a particular solution of the Painleve II equation.

It is natural to ask whether there are similar phenomena for other Painlevé equations. It is known that any other Painlevé equation, except for the first one PI, also admits two classes of classical solutions, namely, the class of rational solutions and that of special function solutions; Bessel for PIII, Hermite-Weber for PIV, Kummer for PV and Gauss for PVI . It is also known that all the rational solutions are represented in terms of Hankel determinants with entries from an infinite sequence of certain special polynomials . Now a natural question is whether this infinite sequence has a generating function expressible in a closed form by using the respective special functions. Moreover, how about generic (transcendental) solutions? Do they admit similar phenomena? Further, how about the discrete cases? These points, together with the mechanism behind these strange phenomena, are yet to be explored in the future.


text:
# The different clustering of red and blue galaxies: a robust signal from 𝜔(𝜃)

## References

Cabanac, R. A., de Lapparent, V., Hickson, P., 2000, A & A, 364, 349
Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Szapudi, I., Oegerle, W., 1998, ApJ, 506, 33
Lilly, S. J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., Crampton, D., 1996, ApJ, 460, L1
Loveday, J., Maddox, S. J., Efstathiou, G., Peterson, B. A., 1995, ApJ 442, 457


text:
# Observations of the Non-Thermal X-ray Emission from the Galactic Supernova Remnant G347.3-0.5

## 1. Introduction

The X-ray luminous Galactic supernova remnant (SNR) G347.3-0.5 (RX J1713.7-3946) was discovered during the Röntgensatellit ($`\mathrm{𝑅𝑂𝑆𝐴𝑇}`$) All-Sky Survey (Pfeffermann & Aschenbach 1996). Subsequent studies of this SNR’s X-ray properties (Koyama et al. 1997; Slane et al. 1999) revealed that most of its X-ray emission is non-thermal and very likely produced by the synchrotron process. G347.3-0.5 therefore becomes a member of a new class of young shell-type SNRs that feature non-thermal components to their X-ray emission. Other members of this class include Cas A (Allen et al. 1997), SN 1006 (Koyama et al. 1995, Allen et al. 2001) and G266.2-1.2 (Slane et al. 2001). TeV gamma rays have been detected from the X-ray luminous northwestern rim of this SNR (Muraishi et al. 2000), making G347.3-0.5 only the third SNR (besides SN 1006 and Cas A) where such high-energy emission is detected. The presence of this emission suggests that acceleration of cosmic-ray electrons is taking place along this rim, and that additional study of this SNR’s X-ray emission may lead to new insights on how SNRs act as cosmic-ray particle accelerators.

In order to analyze the X-ray properties of G347.3-0.5 in more detail, as well as to study how cosmic-ray particles are accelerated by this SNR, we observed this source using the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer ($`\mathrm{𝑅𝑋𝑇𝐸}`$). We supplemented the data from these observations with publicly available data from observations that were made of G347.3-0.5 by two other X-ray satellites, $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑂𝑆𝐴𝑇}`$ and the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics ($`\mathrm{𝐴𝑆𝐶𝐴}`$). Parameters for the X-ray observations used in this analysis are listed in Table 1. By combining the data from all three satellites, we have sampled the X-ray emission from this SNR over the energy range of 0.5 through 30 keV.

## 2. Analysis

Previous analyses of the X-ray emission from G347.3-0.5 have considered only the $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑂𝑆𝐴𝑇}`$ observations (Pfeffermann & Aschenbach 1996) or a combination of the $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑂𝑆𝐴𝑇}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑆𝐶𝐴}`$ observations (Slane et al. 1999). In the latter work, spectral fits were made to the X-ray luminous northwestern and southwestern rims as well as the entire SNR, and simple power-laws were found to adequately model both the emission from the rims as well as from the SNR itself.

After extracting spectra for the SNR as observed by all three satellites, spectral fitting was performed using the XSPEC software package. We first tried fitting the whole X-ray spectrum with the power-law fits obtained by Slane et al. 1999. We also used the SRCUT model (Reynolds 1996, Reynolds & Keohane 1999) to fit the data: this model fits a synchrotron spectrum from an exponentially cut-off power-law distribution of electrons in a uniform magnetic field. The corresponding relativistic electron energy spectrum can be expressed as

$$N_e(E)=KE^{(2\alpha +1)}e^{\frac{E}{E_{max}}},$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is a normalization constant derived from the observed flux density of the SNR at a frequency of 1 GHz, $`\alpha `$ is the observed radio spectral index of the SNR and $`E`$max is the cut-off electron energy. A crucial advantage of the SRCUT model is that two of the parameters – $`K`$ and $`\alpha `$ – are constrained by radio observations. In addition, the model returns a value for the break frequency $`\nu `$break of the electron energy spectrum, and an estimate for the maximum energy of the accelerated electrons can be made based on the value for this frequency.

Lastly, we note that G347.3-0.5 lies within the Galactic Ridge, which contributes a considerable amount of background emission to the $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑋𝑇𝐸}`$ observations. We modeled this emission using a two-component model (RAYMOND-SMITH and POWER LAW) with the parameters determined by Valinia & Marshall (1998) from their $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑋𝑇𝐸}`$ observations of this region ($`\mathrm{𝑘𝑇}`$ = 2.9 keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 1.8). To help improve the fit and search for thermal emission from the SNR, we included a thermal equilibrium ionization model (EQUIL) in the fitting process. See Figure 1 for the fit to the SNR’s diffuse emission.

## 3. Results and Conclusions

The results of this work may be summarized as follows:

1) Remarkably good fits (a reduced $`\chi `$2 of 1.9 for 487 degrees of freedom for all of the data sets in Table 1) to the X-ray spectrum of G347.3-0.5 as observed by the $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑂𝑆𝐴𝑇}`$, $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑆𝐶𝐴}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑋𝑇𝐸}`$ satellites have been obtained by using a combination of non-thermal and thermal models (SRCUT and EQUIL) in XSPEC (see Table 2). The X-ray spectrum of G347.3-0.5 at energies higher than 8 keV cannot be adequately fit by simply extending the power-law fits presented by Slane et al. 1999.

2) We have found evidence for modest thermal emission from this SNR. The energy of this thermal component is rather large ($`\mathrm{𝑘𝑇}`$ $``$ 1.4 keV) and appears to be associated with the diffuse emission from the SNR rather than the X-ray luminous rims. At an assumed distance of 6 kpc, the corresponding ambient density is $`n`$H $``$ 0.02 cm-3, consistent with the works of other authors (Slane et al. 1999, Ellison et al. 2001).

3) For the range of break frequencies determined for the different portions of G347.3-0.5 (1.5 through 2.9 $`\times `$ 1017 Hz), we follow the example of Reynolds & Keohane (1999) and calculate a maximum electron energy of $``$ 70 TeV, assuming an ambient magnetic field strength of 10 $`\mu `$G. This result is larger than the maximum electron energy calculated with different models for G347.3-0.5 by Ellison et al. 2001.

### Acknowledgments.

The authors acknowledge support from NASA LTSA grant NAG5-9237.

## References

Allen, G. E. et al. 1997, ApJ, 487, L97

Allen, G. E. et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, 739

Ellison, D. C. et al. 2001, astro-ph/0106257

Koyama, K. et al. 1995, Nature, 378, 255

Koyama, K. et al. 1997, PASJ, 49, L7

Muraishi, H. et al. 2000, A&A, 354, L57

Pfeffermann, E. & Aschenbach, B. 1996, in Röntgenstrahlung from the Universe, ed. H. U. Zimmerman, J. E. Trümper & Yorke, H. (MPE Rep. 263, Garching: MPE), 267

Reynolds, S. P. 1998, ApJ, 493, 357

Reynolds, S. P. & Keohane, J. W. 1999, ApJ, 525, 368

Slane, P. et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 357

Slane, P. et al. 2001, ApJ, 548, 814

Valinia, A. & Marshall, F. E. 1998, ApJ, 505, 134