text:
# Formation rates of core collapse SNe and GRBs

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are intense flashes of gamma-rays which, for a few seconds, light up an otherwise dark gamma-ray sky. They are detected about once a day and outshine every other gamma-ray source in the sky. Major advances have been made in the last few years including the discovery of slowly fading X-ray (Costa et al. 1997), optical (van Paradijs et al. 1997) and radio (Frail et al. 19997) afterglows of GRBs, the identification of host galaxies at cosmological distances and the evidence that many of them are associated with star forming regions and possibly supernovae (see Mészáros 2001 for a recent review). Given the twin requirements of enormous energy, about $`10^{53}`$ erg, and association with star forming regions, the currently favoured models all involve massive, collapsing stars and their end products, especially black holes.

Hyper-accreting black holes (0.01 to 10 $`M_{}`$ s-1) can arise from collapsars of various types (Woosley 1993; Fryer et al. 2001); white dwarf-black hole mergers (Frail et al. 1999; Belczynski et al. 2002a); helium core-black hole mergers (Fryer & Woosley 1998; Belczynski et al. 2002a); and merging neutron stars and black holes (Kluźniak & Lee 1998; Ruffert & Janka 1999; Lee & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002). Those models that involve merging neutron stars and black holes mostly transpire outside star forming regions and are not currently thought to be appropriate for long GRBs (Mészáros 2001). Of the other accretion-based models, black holes merging with both helium cores and white dwarfs have the advantage that they could occur in star forming regions (Belczynski et al. 2002a), produce adequate energy, and have sufficient angular momentum to form a disc. However, if the burst is to be beamed to less than 1% of the sky, the white dwarf model may provide an inadequate number of events (Fryer et al. 1999). The helium core model requires that a hydrogen envelope initially be present in order that the black hole (or neutron star) experience a common envelope evolution and merge with the core. Yet the same envelope must be absent when the burst occurs or prohibitive baryon loading will occur (MacFadyen et al. 2001). It may be that the merger peels off the envelope as the compact remnant goes in, but calculations to support this hypothesis are needed. It should be noted that the merger of a black hole with a massive helium core produces essentially the same conditions as in ordinary collapsars, except for a larger angular momentum. The beaming and energetics should also be comparable.

A collapsar forms when the evolved core of a massive star collapses to a black hole, either by fallback or because the iron core fails to produce an outgoing shock (Woosley 1993; Paczyński 1998; MacFadyen & Woosley 1999). Prompt and delayed black hole formation may occur in stars with a range of radii depending on the evolutionary state of the massive progenitor, its metallicity and its multiplicity. The two necessary ingredients for the collapsar are a failed or weak initial supernova (SN) explosion that produces a black hole and sufficient angular momentum to form a disc. Energy dissipated in the disc or the rotation of the black hole itself is assumed to power a jet of high Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }100`$ (Soderberg & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002) which escapes the stellar progenitor along the polar axis.

The traversal time for the relativistic jet through the hydrogen envelope of a typical massive star ranges from hundreds to thousands of seconds. At the time of the burst naked helium stars, which have radii of only a few light seconds, are required if the lifetime of the engine is not to be short when compared with the time it takes the jet to tunnel through the star (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999; Aloy et al. 2000; Wheeler et al. 2000; Mészáros & Rees 2001; Mészáros & Waxman 2001; Ramirez-Ruiz, Celotti & Rees 2002; Matzner 2003). This is aided if the stellar progenitor undergoes a Wolf-Rayet (WR) phase characterised by a strong stellar wind that causes the star to lose enough of its outer layers for the surface hydrogen abundance to become minimal (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999; Ramirez-Ruiz et al. 2001). The radius of a WR star is then sufficiently small for the jet to emerge before the engine ceases to operate. Break-out is further helped if the progenitor originates in a low-metallicity environment, when stars are smaller in radius, lose less mass and consequently have more massive cores. Both effects are thought to favour GRB formation (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999; Fryer et al. 1999).

Here we present population synthesis calculations which allow us to explore what effect initial mass, metallicity and membership in a binary system have on GRB production. In addition to all aspects of single-star evolution, our rapid evolution algorithm includes features such as mass transfer, mass accretion, common-envelope evolution, collisions, SN kicks and angular-momentum-loss mechanisms which enables us to model even the most complex binary systems. The binary-evolution algorithm is described in detail in Section 2. Section 3 contains the results of binary and single populations of core collapse SNe in solar metallicity environments. We also quantify the effects that mass loss, common-envelope evolution, and black-hole formation have on GRB production. The various kinds of companion remnants that are expected when the primary massive star collapses to a black hole are also discussed in Section 3. We present the results of population synthesis to examine the effects of metallicity in Section 4 and compare our model results with observations in Section 5. Our conclusions are then given in section 6.

## 2 Stellar evolution models

### 2.1 A field guide to stellar evolution

A fundamental tool in stellar evolution is the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD) which provides a correspondence between the observable stellar properties – the effective surface temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$and luminosity $`L`$. Fig. 1 shows the evolution of a collection of stars in the HRD from the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS), where a star adjusts itself to nuclear and hydrostatic equilibrium, until the end of nuclear burning. As stars take a relatively short time to reach the ZAMS after molecular cloud collapse, all ages are measured from this point. The span of a star’s life, its path on the HRD and its ultimate fate depend critically on its mass.

The immediate post-MS evolution towards the right in the HRD occurs at nearly constant luminosity and is very rapid. For this reason very few stars are seen in this phase, and this region of the HRD is called the Hertzsprung gap (HG) or the sub-giant branch. During this HG phase the radius of the star increases greatly causing a decrease in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. As the convective envelope grows in extent the star reaches the giant branch (GB). Eventually a point is reached on the GB where the core temperature is high enough for stars to ignite their central helium supply. When core helium burning (CHeB) begins the star descends along the GB until contraction moves the star away from the fully convective region of the HRD and back towards the MS in what is called a blue loop. During CHeB, carbon and oxygen are produced in the core. Eventually core helium is exhausted and the star moves back to the right in the HRD. Stars of very high mass ($`M_{\mathrm{zams}}>25\mathrm{M}_{}`$) reach high enough central temperatures on the HG for helium to ignite before reaching the GB.

Evolution after the exhaustion of core helium is very similar to that occurring after core-hydrogen exhaustion at the end of the MS – the convective envelope deepens again to begin what is called the asymptotic giant branch (AGB). On the AGB the star is now a dense core composed of carbon and oxygen surrounded by a helium burning shell which in turn adds carbon (and some oxygen) to the degenerate core. Initially the H-burning shell is weak so that the luminosity is supplied by the He-burning shell. During this phase, the stellar radius grows significantly.

The surface gravity of the star is lowered so the surface material is less tightly bound. Mass loss from the stellar surface becomes significant with the rate of mass loss increasing with time. Unfortunately our understanding of the mechanisms that cause this mass loss is poor with possible suggestions linking it to the helium shell flashes or to periodic envelope pulsations. Whatever the cause, the influence on the evolution of AGB stars is significant. Mass loss eventually removes all of the star’s envelope so that the H-burning shell shines through.

If the mass of the star is large enough, $`M_{\mathrm{zams}}7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (although the exact value depends on its metallicity and mass-loss history), the carbon-oxygen core is not very degenerate and carbon ignites as it contracts, followed by a succession of nuclear reaction sequences which very quickly produce an inner iron core. Any further reactions are endothermic and cannot contribute to the luminosity of the star. Photo-disintegration of iron, combined with electron capture by protons and heavy nuclei, then removes most of the electron degeneracy pressure supporting the core and it begins to collapse rapidly. When the density becomes large enough the inner core rebounds sending a shock wave outwards through the outer layers of the star that have remained suspended above the collapsing core. As a result the envelope of the star is ejected in a SN explosion so that the AGB is truncated soon after the start of carbon burning. The remnant in the inner core stabilises to form a neutron star (NS) supported by neutron degeneracy pressure unless its mass is large enough that complete collapse to a black hole occurs.

Stars with $`M_{\mathrm{zams}}25\mathrm{M}_{}`$ are severely affected by mass loss during their entire evolution and may lose their hydrogen envelopes, exposing nuclear processed material. If this occurs a naked helium star is produced and such stars (or stars about to become naked helium stars) may be WR stars. WR stars are massive objects which are found near the MS, are losing mass at very high rates and show weak or no hydrogen lines in their spectra. Naked helium stars can also be produced from less massive stars in binaries as a consequence of mass transfer (see Fig. 1b). Variation in composition affects the stellar evolution timescales as well as the appearance in the HRD and even the ultimate fate of the star. A more detailed discussion of the various phases of evolution can be found in Hurley at el. (2000).

### 2.2 Binary evolution

The evolution of binary stars does not differ from that of single stars unless they get in each other’s way. If the binary orbit is wide enough the individual stars are not affected by the presence of a companion so that standard stellar evolution theory is all that is required to describe their development. However if the stars become close they can interact, with consequences for the evolution. Models for binary evolution have been implemented in the past (e.g. Whyte & Eggleton 1985; Pols & Marinus 1994; Portegies Zwart & Verbunt 1996). Here we carry out computational simulations with the rapid-binary evolution algorithm first developed by Tout et al. (1997) and recently updated by Hurley et al. (2002). Amongst other improvements Hurley et al. (2002) incorporate the detailed single-star evolution formulae of Hurley, Pols & Tout (2000) which allow for a wider range of stellar types than the description of stellar evolution used by Tout et al. (1997). This requires an update of the treatment of processes such as Roche lobe overflow, common-envelope evolution and coalescence by collision (the reader is referred to Hurley et al. 2002 for further details).

As a result of Roche-lobe overflow it is possible for the binary components to come into contact and coalesce or for the binary to reach a common-envelope (CE) state. The most frequent case of common-envelope evolution involves a giant transferring mass to a main-sequence star on a dynamical timescale. Although the process is difficult to model, and therefore uncertain, it is envisaged that the secondary is not able to accept the overflowing material owing to its relatively long thermal timescale. The giant envelope overfills the Roche-lobes of both stars so that the giant core and the MS star are contained within a common-envelope. Owing to its expansion the envelope rotates slower than the orbit of the core and the MS star so that friction causes them to spiral together and transfer energy to the envelope. We assume that the cores spiral-in, transferring orbital energy to the envelope with an efficiency $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$, which is necessarily a free parameter due to uncertainty in its value. It is probably not a constant (Regős & Tout 1995) but generally $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}1`$ is used.

Throughout this paper we refer to one star as the primary, mass $`M_1`$, and the other as the secondary (or companion), mass $`M_2`$. At any time the primary is the star filling, or closest to filling, its Roche lobe. Numerical values of mass, luminosity and radius are in solar units unless indicated otherwise. The algorithm provides the stellar luminosity, radius, core mass, core radius, and angular momentum, for each of the component stars as they evolve. A prescription for mass loss from stellar winds is also included in the algorithm. The algorithm covers all the evolution phases from zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) up to and including the remnant stages and is valid for all masses in the range 0.1 to 100 $`M_{}`$ and metallicities from $`Z=10^4`$ to 0.03. This rapid binary-evolution algorithm is a natural extension of the single-star evolution algorithm. Our aim is to evolve a population of binaries according to chosen distributions of primary mass, secondary mass and orbital separation, in conjunction with a realistic birth rate function and, from this population, to calculate birth rates and expected numbers in the Galaxy for stars that explode as type Ib/c SNe, thought to be possible GRB progenitors.

### 2.3 Method

We first set up a grid of initial binary parameters (in the detailed single-star evolution the secondary is removed from the system) $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and separation $`a`$ within the limits:

$`M_1,M_2:`$ $`0.180.0\text{M}_{}`$ (1)
$`a:`$ $`3.010^4\text{R}_{}`$ (2)
with the $`n_\chi =100`$ grid points of parameter $`\chi `$ logarithmically spaced,

$$\delta \mathrm{ln}\chi =\frac{1}{n_\chi 1}\left[\mathrm{ln}\chi _{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{ln}\chi _{\mathrm{min}}\right].$$
(3)
For each set of initial parameters we evolve the binary system to an age of $`100`$ Myr. If a binary system $`j`$ evolves through a phase that is to be identified with a certain individual binary population $`i`$ then the system makes a contribution

$$\delta r_j=S\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{ln}M_{1j}\right)\phi \left(\mathrm{ln}M_{2j}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\mathrm{ln}a_j\right)\delta \mathrm{ln}M_1\delta \mathrm{ln}M_2\delta \mathrm{ln}a$$
(4)
to the rate $`r_i`$ at which that particular population is born. This rate depends on the star formation rate $`S`$, the primary mass distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{ln}M_1\right)`$, the secondary mass distribution $`\phi \left(\mathrm{ln}M_2\right)`$ and the separation distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\mathrm{ln}a\right)`$. A star formation rate of $`S=7.608\text{galaxy}^1\text{yr}^1`$ is used in this work which corresponds to one star with $`M>0.8\text{M}_{}`$ forming in the Galaxy every year (see Hurley et al. 2002). Such a rate is in rough agreement with the birth rate of white dwarfs in the Galaxy $`2\times 10^{12}`$ pc-3 yr-1 (Phillips 1989), noting that only stars with $`M>0.8\text{M}_{}`$ can possibly evolve to white dwarfs in the age of the Galaxy111The same assumptions regarding the star formation rate have been made previously (e.g. Iben & Tutukov 1984; Han 1998; Hurley et al. 2002) facilitating comparison with these results., and assuming an effective Galactic volume of $`5\times 10^{11}`$ pc3. The primary mass distribution $`\xi (m)`$ is the IMF of Kroupa, Tout & Gilmore (1993; hereafter KTG),

$$\xi \left(m\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & mm_0\hfill \\ a_1m^{1.3}\hfill & m_0<m0.5\hfill \\ a_2m^{2.2}\hfill & 0.5<m1.0\hfill \\ a_2m^{2.7}\hfill & 1.0<m<\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`\xi \left(m\right)dm`$ is the probability that a star has a mass, expressed in solar units, between $`m`$ and $`m+dm`$. The distribution is normalized according to $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\xi (m)𝑑m=1`$, so that, for $`m_0=0.1`$, $`a_1=0.29056`$ and $`a_2=0.15571`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{ln}M_1\right)=M_1\xi \left(M_1\right)`$. If the component masses are to be chosen independently, the secondary mass distribution is then $`\phi \left(\mathrm{ln}M_2\right)=M_2\xi \left(M_2\right)`$. However there is observational evidence (Eggleton, Fitchett & Tout 1989; Mazeh et al. 1992; Goldberg & Mazeh 1994) to support correlated masses: $`\phi \left(\mathrm{ln}M_2\right)=\frac{M_2}{M_1}=q_2`$, which corresponds to a uniform distribution of the mass-ratio $`q_2`$, for $`0<q_21`$ (the flat-q distribution). The separation distribution is taken to be $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\mathrm{ln}a\right)=\vartheta `$, a constant, between the limits 3 and $`10^4R_{}`$. Normalization gives $`\vartheta =0.12328`$.

### 2.4 Mass loss and rotation

The particular mass-loss prescriptions through the various phases, which have been found to fit the observations well, are described in detail by Hurley et al. (2000; 2002). On the GB phase and beyond we apply mass loss to the envelope according to the formula of Kudritzki & Reimers (1978), while for the AGB we apply the formulation of Vassiliadis & Wood (1993). For massive stars we model mass loss over the entire HRD using the prescription given by Nieuwenhuijzen & de Jager (1990),

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{NJ}}=\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{}}\right)^{1/2}9.6\times 10^{15}R^{0.81}L^{1.24}M^{0.16}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1$$
(6)
for $`L>4000\mathrm{L}_{}`$, modified by the factor $`Z^{1/2}`$ (Kudritzki et al. 1989). Numerical values of mass, luminosity and radius are in solar units, unless otherwise specified.

For small H-envelope mass, $`\mu <1.0`$, we include a Wolf-Rayet-like mass loss (Hamann & Koesterke 1998) which we have reduced to give

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{WR}}=10^{13}L^{1.5}\left(1.0\mu \right)\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1$$
(7)
where $`\mu `$ is given by

$$\mu =\left(\frac{M_{\text{env}}}{M}\right)\mathrm{min}[5.0,\mathrm{max}\{1.2,\left(\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^\kappa \}].$$
(8)
Here $`L_0=7.0\times 10^4\text{L}_{}`$ and $`\kappa =0.5`$ (Hurley et al. 2000). The reduction in $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{WR}}`$ is necessary in order to produce sufficient black holes to match the number observed in binaries (see Hurley et al. 2000).

As we plan to use the evolution routines to investigate GRB production, it is desirable to follow the stars’ angular momentum. To do this we must start each star with a realistic spin on the ZAMS. A reasonable fit to the $`\overline{v}_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ MS data of Lang (1992) is given by

$$\overline{v}_{\mathrm{rot}}\left(M\right)=\frac{330M^{3.3}}{15.0+M^{3.45}}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1$$
(9)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=45.35\frac{\overline{v}_{\mathrm{rot}}}{R_{\mathrm{zams}}}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(10)
The angular momentum is then given by

$$J_{\mathrm{spin}}=I\mathrm{\Omega }=kMR^2\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(11)
where the constant $`k`$ depends on the internal structure, e.g. $`k=2/5`$ for a solid sphere and $`k=2/3`$ for a spherical shell. In actual fact we find the angular momentum by splitting the star into two parts, consisting of the core (with mass $`M_\mathrm{c}`$) and the envelope (with mass $`M_{\mathrm{env}}`$), so that

$$J_{\mathrm{spin}}=\left(k_2\left(MM_\mathrm{c}\right)R^2+k_3M_\mathrm{c}R_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(12)
where $`k_2=0.1`$, based on detailed giant models which reveal $`k=0.1M_{\mathrm{env}}/M`$, and $`k_3=0.21`$ for an $`n=3/2`$ polytrope such as a white dwarf, neutron star or dense convective core. This works well for post-MS stars which have developed a dense core whose rotation is likely to have decoupled from the envelope while also representing the near uniform rotation of homogeneous MS stars which have no core. When the star loses mass its stellar wind carries off angular momentum at a rate given by

$$\dot{J}=k\dot{M}h$$
(13)
where $`h=R^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus

$$J_{\mathrm{spin}}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=J_{\mathrm{spin}}(t)\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }MR^2\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(14)
when the star loses an amount of mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, where we take $`k=2/3`$ because we assume that all the mass is lost uniformly at the surface of the star ie. from a spherical shell.

We also include magnetic braking for stars that have appreciable convective envelopes

$$\dot{J}_{\mathrm{mb}}=5.83\times 10^{16}\frac{M_{\mathrm{env}}}{M}\left(R\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^3\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{R}_{}^2\mathrm{yr}^2,$$
(15)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in units of years. Following Rappaport et al. (1983) we don’t allow magnetic braking for fully convective stars, $`M<0.35M_{}`$ but this restriction does not affect our results here.

### 2.5 Core collapse progenitors

Core-collapse SNe spectra may contain hydrogen absorption lines (type II) or show very weak or no hydrogen lines at all (type Ib/c) thought to indicate the lack of a hydrogen envelope around the imploding star. As in Hurley et al. (2002), we define a type Ib/c SN as one that produces a neutron star or black hole from a primary, naked helium star. All other SN progenitors that produce a neutron star or black hole are considered to be type II. The carbon-oxygen core mass $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ of a SN Ib/c progenitor has a maximum value of $`\mathrm{max}[M_{\mathrm{Ch}},0.773M_{\mathrm{He}}0.35\mathrm{M}_{}]`$ (Hurley 2000; hereafter H00), where $`M_{\mathrm{He}}`$ is the initial mass of the helium star and $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}=1.44\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is the Chandrasekhar mass. For masses above this, a SN explosion is assumed to take place. The expression for the maximum mass of the core of a SN II progenitor is similar with $`M_{\mathrm{He}}`$ replaced by the mass of the carbon-oxygen core at the base of the asymptotic giant branch. If

$$M_{\mathrm{CO}}>7.0\text{M}_{}$$
(16)
we assume a black hole forms (Woosley 1993). The mass of the neutron star (NS) or black hole (BH) formed is then given by (H00)

$$M_{\mathrm{NS}/\mathrm{BH}}=1.17+0.09M_{\mathrm{CO}}\mathrm{M}_{}$$
(17)
corresponding to neutron star baryonic masses in the range $`1.3\text{M}_{}`$ to $`1.8\text{M}_{}`$ and a minimum black hole mass of $`1.8\text{M}_{}`$.

A Wolf-Rayet stellar wind $`\dot{M}_{\text{WR}}`$ is used in the stellar models when the H-envelope mass $`M_{\text{env}}`$ is small $`\mu <1.0`$. Stars with $`\mu >1.0`$ are excluded from the Wolf-Rayet population.

We apply the condition that a star which is to be considered as a GRB progenitor must: (i) go through a Wolf-Rayet phase, as defined above, before ending its life as a type Ib/c SN; (ii) have a sufficiently massive core to form a black hole; and (iii) have enough angular momentum at the time of collapse to allow the formation of a disc. To decide whether a centrifugally supported accretion disc can form around a central black hole we compare the angular momentum of the progenitor star to that which a test particle would require at the last stable orbit (LSO) around a black hole (see e.g. Heger & Woosley 2002). In the case of a non-rotating, spherically symmetric black hole the last stable orbit has a radius $`r_{\mathrm{LSO}}=6GM_{\mathrm{BH}}/c^2`$. The condition that the matter does not spiral into the black hole is simply that the rotational energy of the matter should be greater or equal to half the gravitational potential energy: $`\frac{1}{2}J^2/I\frac{1}{2}GM_{\mathrm{BH}}m/r_{\mathrm{LSO}}`$, where $`J`$ is the angular momentum of the element mass $`m`$ and $`I=mr_{\mathrm{LSO}}^2`$ is its moment of inertia about the hole in the LSO. In other words, $`j>GM_{\mathrm{BH}}r_{\mathrm{LSO}}^{1/2}`$, where $`j`$ is the specific angular momentum $`j=J/m`$. The inner boundary condition is therefore that the angular momentum with which the material arrives at the stable orbit should be greater than or equal to this critical value.

## 3 Progenitors of Core Collapse SNe and GRBs

### 3.1 Supernovae

The effects of close binary evolution are observed in many systems, such as cataclysmic variables, X-ray binaries and Algols and by the presence of stars such as blue stragglers which cannot be explained by single star evolution. The fraction of star systems containing at least two gravitationally bound stars, i.e. the binary fraction, is at least 50% (see Larson 2001 for a recent review). In the case of Wolf-Rayet stars it is perhaps as high as 80%. Some uncertainty still exists due to small number statistics but multiplicity seems a crucial element of massive star evolution.

While many of the processes involved are not understood in detail we do have a qualitative picture of how binaries evolve and can hope to construct a model that correctly follows them through the various phases of evolution. In order to conduct statistical studies of complete binary populations, i.e. population synthesis, such a model must be able to produce any type of binary that is observed in enough detail.

For most of the individual binary populations, observational birth rates or numbers in the Galaxy are uncertain because of selection effects involved when undertaking surveys. However enough data exist overall to enable a meaningful comparison with the results. Cappellaro (2001) combined the results of five independent SN searches to obtain a sample of 137 SNe from which he derived the following birth rates for the Galaxy:

$`2.4\pm 1\times 10^3`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$ SNIb/c
$`14.9\pm 6\times 10^3`$ $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$ $`\text{SNII}.`$
The values reported above assume $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, and that the Galaxy has an average SN rate its morphological type (here assumed Sb-Sbc) and luminosity ($`2.3\times 10^{10}L_{B,}`$; see Cappellaro et al. 1999). Our predicted formation rates for SNe Ib/c and SNe II in single and binary stellar populations are shown in Table 1. Binary models have been evolved according to chosen distributions of primary (KTG distribution) and secondary (KTG or q-flat distribution) masses. Throughout this paper we refer to these distributions as KTG-KTG or KTG-q, respectively. The single star results are consistent with the observed rates, as are the binary type II SNe at $`Z=0.02`$. A discrepancy lies in the birth rates of type Ib/c SNe because the theoretical rates in the KTG-q case are high but not for the KTG-KTG case which are in good agreement. This can be reconciled by assuming a binary fraction smaller than unity (Hurley et al. 2002).

The SN II rate is a fairly robust number but the SN Ib/c rate is sensitive to many of the assumptions underlying the model (Hurley et al. 2002). In binary models the majority of type Ib/c SNe come from naked helium stars formed from relatively low-mass progenitors ($`1020\mathrm{M}_{}`$) stripped by the interaction, while single SNe Ib/c arise mainly from more massive stars $`>24\mathrm{M}_{}`$ which become Wolf-Rayet stars prior to explosion (see Fig. 2a). In a model containing only single stars with $`Z=0.02`$ the SN Ib/c rate is reduced to $`2\times 10^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$ which would be consistent with observations. These rates are sensitive to the assumed mass-loss rate for red supergiants (see Hurley et al. 2000), as well as to our assumption that black hole formation ignites a SN explosion, both of which are very uncertain. If mass-loss rates are lower or if black holes form without a SN, the SNIb/c rate from single stars would be lower.

### 3.2 Gamma-ray bursts

GRBs are thought to be produced when the evolved core of a massive star collapses to a black hole and the remaining star has too much angular momentum to fall in directly. Using the rapid binary code we are able to generate a series of large single and binary populations and evaluate the formation rate of interesting core collapse species. Rotating naked helium stars, presumed to have lost their envelopes to winds or companions, are evolved from the ZAMS ignition upto the formation of the final CO core.

The cumulative rate (above a threshold core mass, $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}`$) for stars of $`Z=Z_{}`$ that explode as type Ib/c SNe is shown in Fig. 2a. A fraction, $`f_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, of the above stars will form a central black hole after exploding (see Fig. 2b). By including angular momentum transport by non-magnetic processes, such as mass loss, mass transfer and mass accretion, we are able to roughly estimate the fraction $`f_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of SN Ib/c progenitors that end their lives with sufficient angular momentum to form a centrifugally supported disc (see Fig. 2c).

High angular momentum is a common requirement in all current GRB models that involve massive stars, including those that use a pulsar power source. Yet the actual angular momentum in a presupernova star is unknown. Without magnetic fields, and with our approximate treatment of angular momentum transport, we find that a naked helium star cannot retain enough angular momentum to form a centrifugally supported disc around the collapsed object, as required by the collapsar model of GRBs ($`f_\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ for single stars; see Fig. 2c). The main reason is that during the early phase of WR evolution, the progenitor star spins down significantly as it loses a large fraction of its mass quite rapidly (Fig. 3). This is even more so if magnetic fields couple the core effectively to the envelope – the magnetic interaction of the rapidly rotating helium core with its stationary envelope during the red supergiant phase will halt the core, making it unfit as a collapsar progenitor (Spruit & Phinney 1998; Spruit 2002; Heger & Woosley 2002; but see Livio & Pringle 1998). Either the description of the stellar model is inaccurate or some route other than single star evolution must be involved in making GRBs. The natural alternative is a close binary.

If either star fills its Roche lobe, then gas flows from the outer layers of the star through the inner Lagrangian point that connects the two Roche lobes. Some or all of this gas may be captured by the companion star so that mass transfer occurs and, as a result, the subsequent evolution of both stars takes a different course from that of isolated stars with important consequences for their orbit and spin (Fig. 4). If the hydrogen envelope is removed too early (or the two stars coalescence) mass loss from the WR star also reduces the angular momentum (Fig. 5). The effect that the companion mass has on the outcome of binary evolution is illustrated by comparing the evolution of the primary star in Figs. 4 and 5.

Finally, the expected birth rates of stars in the Galaxy that have both a massive enough core to form a black hole and an adequate rotation rate at the time of collapse to allow the formation of a disc are shown in Fig. 2d. These core collapse species may be the progenitors of the common (long-soft) GRBs.

### 3.3 Sensitivity to model parameters

To give an idea of how sensitive the final state of the system is to changes in the physical parameters that govern the evolution, we reconsider the example illustrated in Fig. 2. If the common-envelope efficiency of the component stars is taken to be $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=3`$, rather than $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=1`$, less energy is required to drive off the common envelope. The result is similar to a reduction in the envelope binding energy and so it is less likely that the process ends in coalescence of the cores. This increment in the common-envelope efficiency parameter slightly increases the GRB production rate (see Fig. 6). Wider systems are not brought within an interaction distance after the common-envelope phase. Thus systems that do interact when $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=1`$ do not do so when $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=3`$. However, the net increase is mainly because closer systems that would coalesce when $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=1`$ now remain detached.

At first sight this may seem an unphysical model given the definition but, as discussed by Iben & Livio (1993), an increase in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ can be possible if additional energy sources other than the orbital energy are involved. Processes with potential to supply such energy include enhanced nuclear burning in shell burning zones of giants, nuclear burning on the surface of a degenerate secondary, dynamo generation of magnetic fields and recombination of the hydrogen and helium ionization zones in giants. Possibly the common envelope absorbs ordinary nuclear energy in the process of swelling up, but this should occur on a thermal timescale. Unfortunately, the theoretical determination of reliable values for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ has proven difficult owing to a lack of understanding of the processes involved and our inability to model them.

An increase (or decrease) of the mass-loss rate has profound consequences for the WR population. At a given metallicity, the minimum initial mass for the formation of a WR star (lower for higher $`\dot{M}`$), the duration of the WR stage (greater for higher $`\dot{M}`$), the times spent in the different WR subtypes and the surface composition during these phases are all very sensitive to the mass-loss rates (Maeder 1991). There is no doubt that major changes to the outcome result if $`\dot{M}_{WR}`$ is altered by even a small fraction $`f_M`$. Inspection of Fig. 7 reveals that as the mass-loss is reduced, the threshold for the removal of the hydrogen envelope by stellar winds is raised and the loss of angular momentum is inhibited. This increases the mass of the CO core and favours black hole formation. Conversely, increasing the mass-loss rate promotes the loss of angular momentum and inhibits black hole formation (see Fig. 7).

It should be noted that the choice of the initial mass above which stars become black holes rather than neutron stars is not well constrained. The low-mass X-ray binary (LMXB) catalogue compiled by van Paradijs (1995) lists about 80 bright persistent sources in the Galaxy but makes no distinction as to whether the compact star is a neutron star or black hole. While this number is in fair agreement (H00) with the birth rates derived with the prescription for the remnant’s mass given in equation (17), the differences introduced by this choice in the overall evolution are small when compared with those resulting from varying the (very uncertain) initial distributions. The birth rate of persistent neutron star LMXBs derived by means of such a prescription is similar to the rate found by Portegies Zwart et al. (1996) in their standard model that includes velocity kicks. Measurements of black hole masses in binaries, although still highly uncertain, yield values between 3 and $`20M_{}`$ (Orosz et al. 2001; McClintock et al. 2001; Froning & Robinson 2001; Wagner et al. 2001; Table 1 of Fryer & Kalogera 2001 and references therein). For progenitors of $`40M_{\mathrm{zams}}/M_{}100`$, equation (17) gives final remnant masses in the range $`1.83.0M_{}`$ (Fig. 8). If the amount of mass that a black hole can accrete is limited by the Eddington limit (Cameron & Mock 1967) then a black hole is unlikely to accrete enough material to take its mass above $`5M_{}`$ and this model is inconsistent with the observations. There is, however, some uncertainty as to whether the Eddington limit should actually be applied because the energy generated in excess of the limit might be removed from the system in a strong wind or asymmetrically through a disc. Super-Eddington accretion rates may be crucial in allowing black holes in binaries to gain a significant amount of mass.

Imposing the Eddington limit significantly reduces our ability to grow black hole masses to the observed values and, for this reason, in addition to our somewhat arbitrary prescription (see equation 17) for neutron star and black hole masses, we also use the formalism developed by Belczynski, Kalogera & Bulik (2002b; hereafter B02). Based on the Hurley et al. (2000) formulae, they calculate the final CO core of a star and then use stellar models of Woosley (1986) to obtain a final FeNi core mass as a function of the CO core mass (see their equation ). To estimate the mass of the remnant formed, B02 follow the results of hydrodynamical core-collapse calculations (Fryer et al. 1999; Fryer & Kalogera 2001). Fig. 9 compares the black hole birth rates derived using the B02 formalism with those based on equation (17). The birth rate of black holes shows an increase for stars with low CO core masses. Comparing the birth rates of GRBs in both models reveals a variation by a factor of $`5`$. The relevance of the relative distribution of neutron stars and black holes on the birth rates of GRBs is further complicated by the fact that a rapidly rotating neutron stars with an ultrahigh magnetic field could, in principle, also serve as a trigger (Usov 1992; Thompson 1994).

These examples serve to demonstrate the sensitivity of binary evolution to the choice of model parameters.

### 3.4 Stellar companions

One of the most important questions relating to WR stars is whether they are all members of binary systems or rather do some truly single objects exist. Possibly the majority of stars are members of binary or multiple systems but most are sufficiently far from their companions that their evolution proceeds essentially as if they were single stars. However there is an important minority of stars which are close enough that their evolution is dramatically changed by the presence of a companion. The most dramatic effects occur when one of the stars in the system is a very compact object. Here we investigate the expected binary systems with black hole primaries which may be the sources of GRBs earlier in their evolution.

Table 2 shows the various types of companions to the GRB progenitor star at the time of collapse. For both secondary mass distributions the vast majority of companions are, without surprise, MS stars and thus likely donors of soft X-ray binaries (Lee et al. 2002). The typical orbital periods for these binaries at the time of explosion are in the 0.01 – 1 days range (Fig. 10). Most companions, being MS stars, have small mass-loss rates of $`10^8M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ or less and are thus unlikely to significantly enhance the density around the GRB progenitor. There is a small, interesting sub-class of binaries in which the companion star is a collapsed object (about 1% for the KTG-q distribution). In this case, the GRB, which is likely caused by the relativistic jet, expelled along the rotation axis of the collapsing stellar core, propagates within a SN remnant of about 1 Myr in age.

## 4 The role of metallicity

The assumption that all stars within the population are born with the same composition is somewhat naive: nucleosynthesis in successive generations of stars enriches the gas from which they form as the Galaxy evolves. Metallicity $`Z`$ influences the stellar evolution of massive stars mainly through bound-free and line opacities in the outer layers of massive stars owing to their influence on stellar wind mass loss rates. The numbers of WR stars in galaxies of different metallicities are an important test of the stellar models at various $`Z`$ and of the values of the final stellar masses. The theoretical predictions of the ratios of WR/O-stars, WC/WR and WC/WN are in good agreement with observations of the Local Group (Maeder 1991), which support the following dependence of the mass-loss rates on metallicity: $`(\dot{M_z}/\dot{M}_{})=(Z/Z_{})^{0.5}`$ (de Jager et al. 1988).

From our large binary population models with a variety of initial masses and metallicities we find that both the fraction of stars that form a central black hole and those that end their lives with sufficient angular momentum to form a disc significantly increase with decreasing metallicity (Figs. 1113). This is because low metallicity keeps the radius of the star smaller and reduces mass loss. Both properties inhibit the loss of angular momentum (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999; Heger & Woosley 2002) so low-$`Z`$ stars are likely to be rotating more rapidly. Also, the lower the metallicity, the higher the stellar mass for WR star formation. The latter increases the mass of the heaviest CO core and favours black hole formation which in turn could power a are more luminous burst because more energy can be extracted from the black hole via e.g. the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (Blandford & Znajek 1977; Lee et al. 2000; Wheeler, Meier & Wilson 2002).

The likely metallicity dependence of both black-hole formation and rotation suggests that the production of GRBs is likely to affected by the physical conditions in the local ISM – at high $`Z`$ gas opacities are larger in the outer stellar layers and so more momentum is transferred by radiation pressure, mass-loss is more intense and GRB formation is disfavoured.

What are the effects of a dependence of GRB luminosity on the metallicity of their progenitors? The most significant is a potential offset between the true star-formation rate and that traced by GRBs (Ramirez-Ruiz, Lazzati & Blain 2002). If GRBs in low-metallicity environments and in low-mass galaxies are more luminous then they are likely to be overrepresented in GRB samples. Low-mass galaxies are likely to have statistically lower metallicities and thus contain more luminous GRBs than high-mass galaxies. Because galaxy mass is expected to build up monotonically through mergers, it is possible that the highest-$`z`$ GRBs could be systematically more luminous due to the lower mass of their hosts. This effect is likely to be more significant than, but in the same direction as, the global increase in metallicity with cosmic time.

The most luminous GRBs of all could be associated with metal-free Population-III stars but their very high redshifts would make examples difficult to find even in the Swift222http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov catalogue of hundreds of bursts.

Star-formation activity is likely to be enhanced in merging galaxies. In major mergers of gas-rich spiral galaxies this enhancement takes place primarily in the inner kpc, as bar instabilities drive gas into the core (Mihos & Hernquist 1994). Metallicity gradients in the gas are likely to be smoothed out both by mixing prior to star formation and by SN enrichment during the burst of activity. GRB luminosities could be suppressed in such well-mixed galaxies making GRBs more difficult to detect in these most luminous objects.

Shocks in tidal tails associated with merging galaxies are also likely to precipitate the formation of high-mass stars, yet as such tails are likely to consist of relatively low-metallicity gas, it is perhaps these less intense sites of star-formation at large distances from galactic radii that are more likely to yield detectable GRBs. This might have the unfortunate consequence of making GRBs more difficult to use as clean markers of high-$`z`$ star-formation activity. More optimistically, the astrophysics of star formation in high-redshift galaxies could be studied using the intrinsic properties of a well-selected population of GRBs with deep, resolved host galaxy images. If there is a bias towards the discovery of GRBs in low-metallicity regions, then the GRB host galaxy luminosity function will be biased to low luminosities.

## 5 Comparison with observations

The high Lorentz factors and energies seen in GRBs are consistent with the catastrophic formation of a stellar black hole with mass of a few $`M_{}`$, with about 1 % of the rest mass energy going to a relativistic outflow. This could be the extreme example of the asymmetric explosion produced by supernovae (Khokhlov et al. 1999) in which, instead of halting at the neutron star stage, the collapse continues to the black-hole stage producing an even faster jet in the process (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999). GRBs arising from a small fraction of stars that undergo this type of catastrophic energy release are likely to produce collimated outflows.

Even if the outflow is not highly collimated some beaming is expected because energy would channeled preferentially along the rotation axis. Also, one would expect baryon contamination to be lowest near the axis because angular momentum flings material away from the axis and material with low-angular momentum falls into the black hole. The dynamics, however, are complex. While numerical simulations of collapse scenarios can address the fate of the bulk of the matter (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999; MacFadyen, Woosley & Heger 2001; Aloy et al. 2000, 2002; Zhang et al. 2003), higher resolution simulations of the outer layers of the stellar mantle seem to be required because even a very small number of baryons polluting the outflow could severely limit the attainable Lorentz factor. The entrained baryonic mass would need to be below $`10^4M_{}`$ to allow these high relativistic expansion speeds.

Although jets in GRBs were first suggested for GRB 970508 (Waxman, Kulkarni & Frail 1998), they were widely invoked for GRB 990123 to explain its spectacular energy release. Subsequent multi wavelength observations of GRBs have been interpreted as evidence for explosions with jet-like geometry (Stanek et al. 1999; Harrison et al. 1999; Castro-Tirado et al. 1999). The detection of polarization (e.g., Covino et al. 1999; Wijers et al. 1999) gave further credence to the jet hypothesis.

Because conical fireballs are visible to only a fraction $`f_b`$ of observers, the true GRB rate is $`R_t=<f_b^1>R_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ where $`R_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the observed GRB rate and $`<f_b^1>`$ is the mean of the beaming fractions. Frail et al. (2001) recently derived $`<f_b^1>500`$ for a comprehensive sample of GRB afterglows with known distances based on observed broadband breaks in their light curves333This estimate assumes that the breaks observed in many GRB afterglow lightcurves are due to a geometrical beam effect and not to either a transition to non-relativistic expansion or an environmental effect such as a sharp density gradient. An important feature produce by this jet collimation is the achromaticity of the afterglow break, which clearly distinguishes it from the steepening that may be produced by the passage of a spectral break through the observing band.. This implies, within the uncertainties and possible limitations of such a method, that only a small fraction of GRBs are visible to a given observer and therefore the true GRB rate is several hundred times larger than the observed one: $`R_{\mathrm{obs}}10^5R_{\mathrm{SNIb}/\mathrm{c}}`$ (Schmidt 2001). Fig. 14 shows our formation rates (as a function of $`Z`$) for GRB progenitors, stars that have both a massive enough core to form a black hole and adequate rotation at the time of collapse to allow the formation of a disc. Clearly these rates are highly sensitive to the assumed black hole formation model. Binary models in the KTG-q case are easily capable of supplying a sufficient number of progenitors even if the GRB rate is several hundred times larger than the observed rate. A discrepancy lies in the birth rates of collapsars when using an initial KTG-KTG distribution of binaries because the theoretical rates in the H00 case are low but not for the B02 case which are in good agreement. This can be reconciled by assuming a smaller mass threshold for black hole formation (see equation 16).

## 6 Conclusions

The primary purpose of this paper was to use the rapid binary-evolution algorithm to evaluate the formation rate of interesting individual species of WR stars that may be the progenitors of the common long-soft GRBs. Rotating naked helium stars, presumed to have lost their envelopes in winds or to companions, are followed from the ZAMS up to the formation of the CO core. Recognizing that the two essential ingredients for the collapsar model are a sufficiently massive core to form a black hole and enough rotation to form a disc, we have studied their effects on the results of binary populations synthesis and made a global comparison with GRB observations.

The framework we have used to determine a star’s angular momentum is a simple one. While many of the processes involved are not understood in detail, we do have a qualitative picture of how binaries evolve and we hope to construct a model that correctly follows them through the various phases of evolution. This method has led us to conclude that the resulting spin rates for single stars become too low to form a centrifugally supported disc to drive a GRB engine. Heger & Woosley (2002), including more realistic estimates of angular momentum transport, argue that some single stars may still be able to form a disc. However inclusion of magnetic torques in their calculations also results in too little angular momentum for collapsars. Either the stellar model description is inaccurate or some other evolutionary path must be involved in making GRBs. The obvious option is a close binary or merger (see also Fryer et al. 1999), where tidal interaction transfers orbital angular momentum to the stellar rotation. An important ingredient is the fact that the rapidly rotating new black holes that power the GRBs are typically accompanied by MS stars and so are likely donors of soft X-ray binaries (only those MS stars which remained gravitationally bound after the explosion).

For most of the individual binary populations we find that the expected formation rates of collapsars in the Galaxy are easily capable of supplying a sufficient number of progenitors, even if the true GRB rate is several hundred times larger than the observed rate because of beaming. An interesting conclusion of this work is that binary stars at low metallicity are important for the formation of a rapidly rotating, massive helium core at collapse. This effect could increase the GRB formation rates by a factor of 5–7 at $`Z=Z_{}/200`$. We finally note that the simple binary-evolution algorithm provides an adequate description of the observations although more stringent constraints to many of the evolution variables are needed in order to draw more accurate conclusions.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to M. J. Rees, P. Podsiadlowski, A. MacFadyen and J. Hurley for helpful conversations. We also thank the referee, K. Belczynski, for comments that led to improvements of this paper. ER-R acknowledges patronage from CONACYT, SEP and the ORS foundation. RGI thanks PPARC for support. CAT thanks Churchill College for a fellowship.


format: text

text:
# Control of chaos in Hamiltonian systems

## I Introduction

In this article, the problem we address is how to control chaos in Hamiltonian systems which are close to integrable. We consider the class of Hamiltonian systems that can be written in the form $`H=H_0+ϵV`$ that is an integrable Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ (with action-angle variables) plus a small perturbation $`ϵV`$.
The problem of control in Hamiltonian systems is the following one: For the perturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0+ϵV`$, the aim is to devise a control term $`f`$ such that the dynamics of the controlled Hamiltonian $`H_0+ϵV+f`$ has more regular trajectories (e.g. on invariant tori) or less diffusion than the uncontrolled one. In practice, we do not require that the controlled Hamiltonian is integrable since it is a too strong requirement, but only that it has a more regular behavior than the original system.
Obviously $`f=ϵV`$ is a solution since the resulting Hamiltonian is integrable. However, it is a useless solution since the control is of the same order as the perturbation.

For practical purposes, the desired control term should be small (with respect to the perturbation $`ϵV`$), localized in phase space (meaning that the subset of phase space where $`f`$ is non-zero is finite or small enough), or $`f`$ should be of a specific shape (e.g. a sum of given Fourier modes, or with a certain regularity). Moreover, the control should be as simple as possible in order to be implemented in experiments. Therefore, the control appears to be a trade-off between the requirement on the reduction of chaos and the requirement on the simplicity of the control.
In this article, we provide an algorithm for finding a control term $`f`$ of order $`O(ϵ^2)`$ such that $`H=H_0+ϵV+f`$ is integrable. This control term is expressed as a series whose terms can be explicitly and easily computed by recursion. It is shown on an example that truncations and approximations of this control term $`f`$ provides a simple and easy way to control the system.

## II Control theory of Hamiltonian systems.

In this section, we follow the exposition of control theory developed in Ref. Vittot (2003). Let $`𝒜`$ be the algebra of real functions defined on phase space. For $`H𝒜`$, let $`\{H\}`$ be the linear operator acting on $`𝒜`$ such that

$$\{H\}H^{}=\{H,H^{}\},$$

for any $`H^{}𝒜`$, where $`\{,\}`$ is the Poisson bracket. The time-evolution of a function $`V𝒜`$ following the flow of $`H`$ is given by

$$\frac{dV}{dt}=\{H\}V,$$

which is formally solved as

$$V(t)=e^{t\{H\}}V(0),$$

if $`H`$ is time independent, and where

$$e^{t\{H\}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{t^n}{n!}\{H\}^n.$$

Any element $`V𝒜`$ such that $`\{H\}V=0`$, is constant under the flow of $`H`$, i.e.

$$t,e^{t\{H\}}V=V.$$

Let us now fix a Hamiltonian $`H_0𝒜`$. The vector space $`\mathrm{Ker}\{H_0\}`$ is the set of constants of motion and it is a sub-algebra of $`𝒜`$. The operator $`\{H_0\}`$ is not invertible since a derivation has always a non-trivial kernel. For instance $`\{H_0\}(H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha })=0`$ for any $`\alpha `$ such that $`H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }𝒜`$. Hence we consider a pseudo-inverse of $`\{H_0\}`$. We define a linear operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`𝒜`$ such that

$$\{H_0\}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{H_0\},$$
(1)
i.e.

$$V𝒜,\{H_0,\{H_0,\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}\}=\{H_0,V\}.$$

If the operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ exists, it is not unique in general. Any other choice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{Rg}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{Ker}(\{\mathrm{H}_0\}^2)`$.
We define the non-resonant operator $`𝒩`$ and the resonant operator $``$ as

$`𝒩=\{H_0\}\mathrm{\Gamma },`$
$`=1𝒩,`$
where the operator $`1`$ is the identity in the algebra of linear operators acting on $`𝒜`$. We notice that Eq.(1) becomes

$$\{H_0\}=0,$$

which means that the range $`\mathrm{Rg}`$ of the operator $``$ is included in $`\mathrm{Ker}\{H_0\}`$. A consequence is that any element $`V`$ is constant under the flow of $`H_0`$, i.e. $`e^{t\{H_0\}}V=V`$. We notice that when $`\{H_0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ commute, $``$ and $`𝒩`$ are projectors, i.e. $`^2=`$ and $`𝒩^2=𝒩`$. Moreover, in this case we have $`\mathrm{Rg}=\mathrm{Ker}\{H_0\}`$, i.e. the constant of motion are the elements $`V`$ where $`V𝒜`$.
Let us now assume that $`H_0`$ is integrable with action-angle variables $`(𝐀,𝝋)B\times 𝕋^n`$ where $`B`$ is an open set of $`^n`$ and $`𝕋^n`$ is the $`n`$-dimensional torus, so that $`H_0=H_0(𝐀)`$ and the Poisson bracket $`\{H,H^{}\}`$ between two Hamiltonians is

$$\{H,H^{}\}=\frac{H}{𝐀}\frac{H^{}}{𝝋}\frac{H}{𝝋}\frac{H^{}}{𝐀}.$$

The operator $`\{H_0\}`$ acts on $`V`$ given by

$$V=\underset{𝐤^n}{}V_𝐤(𝐀)e^{i𝐤𝝋},$$

as

$$\{H_0\}V(𝐀,𝝋)=\underset{𝐤}{}i𝝎(𝐀)𝐤V_𝐤(𝐀)e^{i𝐤𝝋},$$

where the frequency vector is given by

$$𝝎(𝐀)=\frac{H_0}{𝐀}.$$

A possible choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }V(𝐀,𝝋)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐤^n}{\omega (𝐀)𝐤0}}{}\frac{V_𝐤(𝐀)}{i𝝎(𝐀)𝐤}e^{i𝐤𝝋}.$$

We notice that this choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ commutes with $`\{H_0\}`$.
For a given $`V𝒜`$, $`V`$ is the resonant part of $`V`$ and $`𝒩V`$ is the non-resonant part:

$`V={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}V_𝐤(𝐀)\chi (𝝎(𝐀)𝐤=0)e^{i𝐤𝝋},`$ (2)
$`𝒩V={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}V_𝐤(𝐀)\chi (𝝎(𝐀)𝐤0)e^{i𝐤𝝋},`$ (3)
where $`\chi (\alpha )`$ vanishes when proposition $`\alpha `$ is wrong and it is equal to $`1`$ when $`\alpha `$ is true.

From these operators defined for the integrable part $`H_0`$, we construct a control term for the perturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0+V`$ where $`V𝒜`$, i.e. we construct $`f`$ such that $`H_0+V+f`$ is canonically conjugate to $`H_0+V`$.

Proposition 1:  For $`V𝒜`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ constructed from $`H_0`$, we have the following equation

$$e^{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}(H_0+V+f)=H_0+V,$$
(4)
where

$$f(V)=e^{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}V+\frac{1e^{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}}{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}𝒩VV.$$
(5)
We notice that the operator $`(1e^{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}})/\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}`$ is well defined by the expansion

$$\frac{1e^{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}}{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{(n+1)!}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}^n.$$

We can expand the control term in power series as

$$f(V)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{(n+1)!}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}^n(n+1)V.$$
(6)
We notice that if $`V`$ is of order $`ϵ`$, $`f(V)`$ is of order $`ϵ^2`$.
Proposition 1 tells that the addition of a well chosen control term $`f`$ makes the Hamiltonian canonically conjugate to $`H_0+V`$.

Proposition 2 : The flow of $`H_0+V+f`$ is conjugate to the flow of $`H_0+V`$:

$$t,e^{t\{H_0+V+f\}}=e^{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}e^{t\{H_0\}}e^{t\{V\}}e^{\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V\}}.$$

The remarkable fact is that the flow of $`V`$ commutes with the one of $`H_0`$, since $`\{H_0\}=0`$. This allows the splitting of the flow of $`H_0+V`$ into a product.

We recall that $`H_0`$ is non-resonant iff

$$𝐀B,\chi \left(\omega (𝐀)𝐤=0\right)=\chi (𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎}).$$

If $`H_0`$ is non-resonant then with the addition of a control term $`f`$, the Hamiltonian $`H_0+V+f`$ is canonically conjugate to the integrable Hamiltonian $`H_0+V`$ since $`V`$ is only a function of the actions \[see Eq. (2)\].
If $`H_0`$ is resonant and $`V=0`$, the controlled Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V+f`$ is conjugate to $`H_0`$.
In the case $`V=0`$, the series (6) which gives the expansion of the control term $`f`$, can be written as

$$f(V)=\underset{s=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_s,$$
(7)
where $`f_s`$ is of order $`ϵ^s`$ and given by the recursion formula

$$f_s=\frac{1}{s}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V,f_{s1}\},$$
(8)
where $`f_1=V`$.

Remark : A similar approach of control has been developed by G. Gallavotti in Refs. Gallavotti (1982, 1985); Gentile and Mastropietro (1996). The idea is to find a control term (named counterterm) only depending on the actions, i.e. to find $`N`$ such that

$$H(𝐀,𝝋)=H_0(𝐀)+V(𝐀,𝝋)N(𝐀)$$

is integrable. For isochronous systems, that is

$$H_0(𝐀)=𝝎𝐀$$

it is shown that if the frequency vector satisfies a Diophantine condition and if the perturbation is sufficiently small and smooth, such a control term exists, and that an algorithm to compute it by recursion is provided by the proof. We notice that the resulting control term $`N`$ is of the same order as the perturbation.

## III Application to a forced pendulum model

We consider the following model with 1.5 degrees of freedom

$$H(p,x,t)=\frac{1}{2}p^2+\epsilon \left[\mathrm{cos}x+\mathrm{cos}(xt)\right].$$
(9)
Figure 1 depicts a Poincaré section of Hamiltonian (9) for $`\epsilon =0.034`$. We notice that for $`\epsilon 0.02759`$ there are no longer any KAM tori Chandre and Jauslin (2002).

In order to apply the control theory described above, we need to put Hamiltonian (9) in an autonomous form. We consider that $`t`$ is an additional angle whose conjugate action is $`E`$. The Hamiltonian becomes autonomous

$$H(p,x,E,t)=\frac{1}{2}p^2+E+\epsilon \left[\mathrm{cos}x+\mathrm{cos}(xt)\right],$$
(10)
where the actions are $`𝐀=(p,E)`$ and the angles are $`𝝋=(x,t)`$. The unperturbed Hamiltonian that will be used to construct the operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $``$ and $`𝒩`$ is

$$H_0(p,E)=\frac{1}{2}p^2+E.$$
(11)
The action of $`\{H_0\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $``$ and $`𝒩`$ on functions $`V𝒜`$ given by

$$V(p,x,E,t)=\underset{k_1,k_2}{}V_{k_1,k_2}(p,E)e^{i(k_1x+k_2t)},$$

is

$`\{H_0\}V={\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}i(pk_1+k_2)V_{k_1,k_2}(p,E)e^{i(k_1x+k_2t)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }V={\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi (pk_1+k_20)}{i(pk_1+k_2)}}V_{k_1,k_2}(p,E)e^{i(k_1x+k_2t)},`$
$`V={\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}\chi (pk_1+k_2=0)V_{k_1,k_2}(p,E)e^{i(k_1x+k_2t)},`$
$`𝒩V={\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}\chi (pk_1+k_20)V_{k_1,k_2}(p,E)e^{i(k_1x+k_2t)}.`$
The action of these operators on $`V(x,t)=\epsilon \left[\mathrm{cos}x+\mathrm{cos}(xt)\right]`$ is

$`\{H_0\}V=\epsilon \left[p\mathrm{sin}x+(p1)\mathrm{sin}(xt)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }V=\epsilon \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\mathrm{sin}x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p1}}\mathrm{sin}(xt)\right],`$
$`V=0,`$
$`𝒩V=V=\epsilon \left[\mathrm{cos}x+\mathrm{cos}(xt)\right],`$
for $`p0,1`$. Since $`V=0`$, the control term is given by Eq. (7) and the terms in the series are computed by recursion. In particular, the first term $`f_2`$ is given by

$$f_2=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }V,V\}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }V}{p}\frac{V}{x},$$

since $`V`$ is independent of $`p`$. The explicit expression of $`f_2`$ is given by

$`f_2(p,x,t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}\mathrm{cos}2x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p1)^2}}\mathrm{cos}2(xt)\right)`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p1)^2}}\right)\left(1+\mathrm{cos}t\mathrm{cos}(2xt)\right).`$
The main purpose of the control is to have a control term which is as simple as possible in order to be implemented in the experiment.
A possible simplification is to consider the region in between the two primary resonances located around $`p=0`$ and $`p=1`$. We develop the approximate control term around $`p=1/2`$. It thus becomes

$$f_2(p,x,t)=\epsilon ^2\left(\mathrm{cos}2x+\mathrm{cos}2(xt)+2\mathrm{cos}(2xt)\right),$$

up to a function that only depends on time. Furthermore, we only keep the main Fourier mode of this control term. In the region $`p=1/2`$ the two terms $`\mathrm{cos}2x`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2(xt)`$ which are associated with resonances approximately located at $`p=0`$ and $`p=1`$ have a much smaller influence than the term $`\mathrm{cos}(2xt)`$ which is associated with a resonance located at $`p=1/2`$. The control term we study is thus

$$f_2(p,x,t)=2\epsilon ^2\mathrm{cos}(2xt).$$
(13)
Figure 2 depicts a Poincaré section of the Hamiltonian (9) with the approximate control term (13) for the same value of $`\epsilon `$ used in Fig. 1, i.e. $`\epsilon =0.034`$. It clearly shows that a lot of KAM tori are created with the addition of the control term.

We notice that the perturbation has a norm (defined as the maximum of its amplitude) of $`6.8\times 10^2`$ whereas the control term has a norm of $`2.3\times 10^4`$ for $`\epsilon =0.034`$. The control term is small (less than 4% ) compared to the perturbation .
We can decrease the amplitude of the control term by considering

$$f_2(p,x,t)=\alpha \epsilon ^2\mathrm{cos}(2xt).$$

where $`\alpha 2`$ and still get a lot of KAM tori in the vicinity of the region $`p=1/2`$. For instance, the control is still effective with $`\alpha =0.8`$. Using the renormalization-group transformation Chandre and Jauslin (2002), we have looked at the domain of existence of the golden-mean KAM torus which is the rotational invariant torus with frequency $`(3\sqrt{5})/2`$. This rotational invariant torus only exists in the domain

$$\alpha [0.778,3.173].$$

Therefore, in this domain of $`\alpha `$ there are barriers in phase space that prevent diffusion of trajectories. The control is optimal for $`\alpha =2`$. Increasing the amplitude of the control does not improve the control which means that the control we devised is not ”brute force”. This control is robust since it is effective away from its reference value $`\alpha =2`$. There is also the possibility of reducing the control (by a factor larger than 2) and still get a significant effect of the control.
In order to see more precisely the effect of the control term, we have applied Laskar’s Frequency Map Analysis Laskar (1999) to this model. For initial conditions $`(x,p)`$ where $`x=0`$ and $`p[0.15,0.5]`$, we compute the main (rotational) frequency $`\omega (p)`$ of the trajectory integrated from 0 to $`T=2.5\times 10^3`$ following Laskar’s procedure. Figure 3 depicts the frequency $`\omega `$ as a function of $`p`$ for Hamiltonian (9) with $`\epsilon =0.034`$ with and without the addition of the approximate control term (13). An apparent continuous variation of the frequency is associated with a region with KAM tori. A flat variation is associated with a resonant island. A scatter of points is associated with a chaotic region.

Without control term, the region located between the stable regions of the resonances 1:4 and 1:2 is chaotic and does not contain any KAM tori since the frequency map does not show continuous regions. With control term, we clearly see that the frequency curve appears to be continuous and hence the region contains a lot of KAM tori.

## IV Conclusion

We have shown on a simple example the explicit construction of a control term. This term can be drastically simplified and still is able to reduce chaos in the system. The idea is to have a control term as simple as possible in order to be implemented in experiment. We notice that this approach has been applied to a model of transport for the $`𝐄\times 𝐁`$ drift Ciraolo et al. (2003a, b). It has been shown that the control drastically reduces the chaotic transport in this model.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge useful discussions with G. Gallavotti and J. Laskar.


text:
# 1 Neutrinos Associated with the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays

## 1 Neutrinos Associated with the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays

The flux of cosmic rays is summarized in Fig. 1a,b. The energy spectrum follows a broken power law. The two power laws are separated by a feature referred to as the “knee”; see Fig. 1a. There is evidence that cosmic rays, up to several EeV, originate in galactic sources. This correlation disappears in the vicinity of a second feature in the spectrum dubbed the “ankle”. Above the ankle, the gyroradius of a proton exceeds the size of the galaxy and it is generally assumed that we are witnessing the onset of an extragalactic component in the spectrum that extends to energies beyond 100 EeV. Experiments indicate that the highest energy cosmic rays are predominantly protons. Above a threshold of 50 EeV these protons interact with CMBR photons and therefore lose their energy to pions before reaching our detectors. This limits their sources to tens of Mpc, the so-called Greissen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff.

Models for the origin of the highest energy cosmic rays fall into two categories, top-down and bottom-up. In top-down models it is assumed that the cosmic rays are the decay products of cosmological remnants with Grand Unified energy scale $`M_{GUT}10^{24}\mathrm{eV}`$. These models predict neutrino fluxes most likely within reach of AMANDA, and certainly IceCube.

In bottom-up scenarios it is assumed that cosmic rays originate in cosmic accelerators. Accelerating particles to TeV energy and above requires massive bulk flows of relativistic charged particles. These are likely to originate from the exceptional gravitational forces in the vicinity of black holes. Examples include the dense cores of exploding stars, inflows onto supermassive black holes at the centers of active galaxies and annihilating black holes or neutron stars. Before leaving the source, accelerated particles pass through intense radiation fields or dense clouds of gas surrounding the black hole. This results in interactions producing pions decaying into secondary photons and neutrinos that accompany the primary cosmic ray beam as illustrated in Fig. 2.

How many neutrinos are produced in association with the cosmic ray beam? The answer to this question, among many others, provides the rationale for building kilometer-scale neutrino detectors. We first consider a neutrino beam produced at an accelerator laboratory; see Fig. 2. Here the target absorbs all parent protons as well as the muons, electrons and gamma rays produced. A pure neutrino beam exits the dump. If nature constructed such a “hidden source” in the heavens, conventional astronomy will not reveal it. It cannot be the source of the cosmic rays, however, because the dump would have to be partially transparent to protons. The extreme opposite case is a “transparent source” where the accelerated proton interacts once and escapes the dump after producing photons as well as neutrinos. Elementary particle physics is now sufficient to relate all particle fluxes because a fraction (1/6 to 1/2 depending on the energy) of the interacting proton goes into pion production. This energy is equally shared between gamma rays and neutrinos, of which one half are muon-neutrinos. Therefore, at most one quarter of the energy ends up in muon-neutrinos compared to cosmic rays. The flux of a transparent cosmic ray source is often referred to as the Waxman-Bahcall flux. It is easy to derive and the derivation is revealing.

Fig. 1b shows a fit to the observed cosmic ray spectrum assuming an extragalactic component fitted above the “ankle”. The energy content of this component is $`3\times 10^{19}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, assuming an $`E^2`$ energy spectrum with a GZK cutoff. The power required to generate this energy density in the Hubble time of $`10^{10}`$ years is $`3\times 10^{37}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ per (Mpc)3. This works out to

* $`3\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ per galaxy,
* $`3\times 10^{42}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ per cluster of galaxies,
* $`2\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ per active galaxy, or
* $`2\times 10^{52}`$ erg per cosmological gamma ray burst.

The coincidence between these numbers and the observed electromagnetic energy output of these sources explains why they have emerged as the leading candidates for the cosmic ray accelerators. The coincidence is consistent with the relationship between cosmic rays and photons built into the “transparent” source previously introduced. The relationship can be extended to neutrinos.

Assuming the same energy density of $`\rho _E3\times 10^{19}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in neutrinos with a spectrum $`E_\nu dN/dE_\nu E^\gamma \mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ that continues up to a maximum energy $`E_{max}`$, the neutrino flux follows from $`E_\nu 𝑑N/𝑑E_\nu =c\rho _E/4\pi `$. For $`\gamma =1`$ and $`E_{max}=10^8`$ GeV, the generic source of the highest energy cosmic rays produces 50 detected muon neutrinos per km2 per year. \[Here we have folded the predicted flux with the probability that the neutrino is actually detected given by the ratio of the muon and neutrino interaction lengths in ice, $`\lambda _\mu /\lambda _\nu `$.\] The number depends weakly on $`E_{max}`$ and $`\gamma `$. A similar analysis can be performed for galactic sources.

As previously stated, for one interaction and only one, the neutrino flux should be reduced by a factor $`4`$. On the other hand, there are more cosmic rays in the universe producing neutrinos than observed at earth because of the GZK-effect. The diffuse muon neutrino flux associated with the highest energy cosmic rays is estimated to be $`E_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dN/dE_\nu 5\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$, to be compared to the sensitivity achieved with the first 3 years of the completed AMANDA detector of $`10^7\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$. The analysis has not been completed but a limit has been published that is 5 times larger obtained with data taken with the partially deployed detector in 1997. On the other hand, after three years of operation IceCube will reach a diffuse flux limit of $`E_\nu ^2dN/dE_\nu =8.1\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$.

## 2 Neutrino Telescopes: the First Generation

While it has been realized for many decades that the case for neutrino astronomy is compelling, the challenge has been to develop a reliable, expandable and affordable detector technology to build the kilometer-scale telescopes required to do the science. Conceptually, the technique is simple. In the case of a high-energy muon neutrino, for instance, the neutrino interacts with a hydrogen or oxygen nucleus in deep ocean water and produces a muon travelling in nearly the same direction as the neutrino. The blue Cerenkov light emitted along the muon’s kilometer-long trajectory is detected by strings of photomultiplier tubes deployed at depth shielded from radiation. The orientation of the Cerenkov cone reveals the neutrino direction.

The AMANDA detector, using natural 1 mile deep Antarctic ice as a Cerenkov detector, has operated for more than 3 years in its final configuration of 680 optical modules on 19 strings. The detector is in steady operation collecting roughly four neutrinos per day using fast on-line analysis software. Its performance has been calibrated by reconstructing muons produced by atmospheric muon neutrinos.

Using the first of 3 years of AMANDA II data, the AMANDA collaboration is performing a (blind) search for the emission of muon neutrinos from spatially localized directions in the northern sky. Only the year 2000 data have been unblinded. The skyplot is shown in Fig. 3. 90% upper limits on the fluency of point sources is at the level of $`2\times 10^7\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ or $`3\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, averaged over declination . This corresponds to a flux of $`2\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ integrated above 10 GeV. The most significant excess is 8 events observed on an expected background of 2.1, occurring at approximately 68 deg N dec, 21.1 hr R.A; for details see Ref. . Unblinding the data collected in 2001, 2002 may reveal sources or confirm the consistency of the year 2000 skyplot with statistical fluctuations on the atmospheric neutrino background.

With this search the AMANDA II detector has reached a high-energy effective telescope area of 25,000$``$40,000 m2, depending on declination. This represents an interesting milestone: sources with an $`E^2`$ spectrum should be observed provided the number of gamma rays and neutrinos are roughly equal as expected from cosmic ray accelerators producing pions.

Overall, AMANDA represents a proof of concept for the kilometer-scale neutrino observatory, IceCube, now under construction. IceCube will consist of 80 kilometer-length strings, each instrumented with 60 10-inch photomultipliers spaced by 17 m. The deepest module is 2.4 km below the surface. The strings are arranged at the apexes of equilateral triangles 125 m on a side. The instrumented (not effective!) detector volume is a cubic kilometer. A surface air shower detector, IceTop, consisting of 160 Auger-style Cerenkov detectors deployed over 1 km2 above IceCube, augments the deep-ice component by providing a tool for calibration, background rejection and air-shower physics, as illustrated in Fig. 4.

The transmission of analogue photomultiplier signals from the deep ice to the surface, used in AMANDA, has been abandoned. The photomultiplier signals will be captured and digitized inside the optical module. The digitized signals are given a global time stamp with a precision of $`<10`$ ns and transmitted to the surface. The digital messages are sent to a string processor, a global event trigger and an event builder.

Construction of the detector is expected to commence in the Austral summer of 2004/2005 and continue for 6 years, possibly less. The growing detector will take data during construction, with each string coming online within days of deployment. The data streams of IceCube, and AMANDA II, embedded inside IceCube, will be merged off-line using GPS timestamps.

IceCube will offer great advantages over AMANDA II beyond its larger size: it will have a higher efficiency and superior angular resolution in reconstructing tracks, map showers from electron- and tau-neutrinos (events where both the production and decay of a $`\tau `$ produced by a $`\nu _\tau `$ can be identified) and, most importantly, measure neutrino energy. Simulations, backed by AMANDA data, indicate that the direction of muons can be determined with sub-degree accuracy and their energy measured to better than 30% in the logarithm of the energy. The direction of showers will be reconstructed to better than 10 above 10 TeV and the response in energy is linear and better than 20%. Energy resolution is critical because, once one establishes that the energy exceeds 1 PeV, there is no atmospheric muon or neutrino background in a kilometer-square detector and full sky coverage of the telescope is achieved. The background counting rate of IceCube signals is expected to be less than 0.5 kHz per optical sensor. In this low background environment, IceCube can detect the excess of anti-$`\nu _e`$ events from a galactic supernova.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OPP-0236449, in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896, and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.