text:
# Summary talk: How serious are the problems faced by CDM: cusps, thin disks, and halo substructure

## 1. Introduction

When the first high-resolution simulations of cold dark matter halos became available (e.g. Dubinski & Carlberg 1991), they had a central density profile approximately $`\rho (r)r^1`$, which has come to be known as the central “cusp.” It was soon pointed out by Flores & Primack (1994) and by Moore (1994) that this central behavior was inconsistent with the HI observations of dwarf galaxies that were then becoming available, which suggested that the central density is roughly constant. Flores & Primack (1994) pointed out that the first cluster lensing observations (Tyson et al. 1990) also appeared to be inconsistent with a $`r^1`$ central cusp. Many additional rotation curves of low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies were measured, and they also were claimed to imply that the central density of these galaxies is rather flat. It was subsequently pointed out that the HI observations of galaxies were affected by finite resolution (“beam smearing”), and that when this was taken into account the disagreement with simulations is alleviated (see e.g. van den Bosch et al. 2000, van den Bosch & Swaters 2001). More recently, high resolution H$`\alpha `$ and CO rotation curves have been obtained for a number of dwarf and LSB galaxies (e.g. de Blok et al. 2001, McGaugh et al. 2001, Swaters et al. 2003, Bolatto et al. 2002, and the papers presented at this Symposium), and there is hope that this will clarify the situation.

Meanwhile, theorists have done simulations with increasing resolution. On the basis of simulations with tens of thousands of particles per dark matter halo, Navarro, Frenk, & White (1996, 1997, NFW) showed that halos from galaxy to cluster scales have density profiles that are described fairly well by the fitting function

$$\rho _{NFW}(r)\rho _s(r/r_s)^1(1+r/r_s)^2$$

and that the halo concentration

$$cR_{200}/r_s$$

(where $`R_{200}`$ is the radius within which the average halo density is 200 times the critical density) is a declining function of the mass of the halo. Subsequently, James Bullock and Risa Wechsler improved our understanding of halo evolution in their dissertation research with me, which included analyzing thousands of dark matter halos in a high-resolution dissipationless cosmological simulation by Anatoly Klypin and Andrey Kravtsov. Bullock et al. (2001), defining the (virial) concentration

$$c_{vir}R_{vir}/r_s$$

(where $`R_{vir}`$ is the virial radius, see Bullock et al. 2001 and Bryan & Norman 1998), found that at fixed halo mass $`c_{vir}`$ varies with redshift $`z`$ as $`(1+z)^1`$, and developed an approximate mathematical model that explained the dependence on mass and redshift. (An alternative model was proposed in Eke et al. 2001, but it appears to be inconsistent with a recent simulation of small-mass halos by Colin et al. 2003.) Wechsler et al. (2002) determined many halo structural merger trees, and showed that the central scale radius $`r_s`$ is typically set during the early phase of a halo’s evolution when its mass is growing rapidly, while $`c_{vir}`$ subsequently grows with $`R_{vir}`$ during the later slow mass accretion phase (see also Zhao et al. 2003). Higher resolution simulations with roughly a million particles per halo gave central density profiles $`\rho (r)r^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha `$ as steep as -1.5 (Moore et al. 1999a, Ghigna et al. 2000, Klypin et al. 2001) although more recent very high resolution simulations are finding less steep central profiles with $`\alpha 1`$ or shallower (Power et al. 2002, Stoehr et al. 2003, Navarro these proceedings).

## 2. Cusps: Observations

The following remarks attempt to summarize the panel discussion.

* With the increasing availability of high resolution H$`\alpha `$ and CO observations, beam smearing is no longer a serious problem.
* Observational resolution of nearby dwarfs and LSBs has exceeded the theoretical resolution of simulations.
* Different observers often agree on $`V(r)`$ and on the index $`\alpha `$ of the same galaxy (where $`\rho (r)r^\alpha `$).
* Disagreement remains (Swaters et al. 2003, de Blok et al. 2003, and these proceedings) on the importance of systematic effects such as slit width, position, and alignment (all of which bias the slope of the inner rotation curve to appear shallower than it really is).
* Two-dimensional data is becoming available at galaxy centers, including data with exquisite resolution (e.g. Bolatto, these proceedings).
* Measured inner slopes $`\alpha `$ mostly lie in the range 0 to -1.
* A slope $`\alpha =1.5`$ is clearly inconsistent with the observations.
* The NFW value $`\alpha =1`$ is consistent with some galaxies, possibly consistent with others, and inconsistent with a significant number.

## 3. Cusps: Theory

* Recent high resolution simulations (see especially Navarro, these proceedings) have inner slopes inconsistent with $`\alpha =1.5`$ (as found by Moore et al. 1999a, Ghigna et al. 2000) and possibly even with the NFW value $`\alpha =1`$.
* The inner slopes are not converging to any $`\alpha `$, but appear to grow shallower at smaller radii (Navarro, these proceedings; Navarro et al. 2003). However, the simulations still do not have sufficient resolution to see whether $`\alpha `$ actually becomes shallower than -1 at small radii.
* Observing test particle motion in a triaxial halo from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulations results in a range of 2D velocity profiles similar to observed ones (Navarro, these proceedings).
* The mean density $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{V/2}`$ inside the radius $`r_{V/2}`$ (where the rotation velocity reaches half the maximum observed value) appears to be somewhat smaller than the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM prediction with $`\sigma _8=0.9`$, but more consistent with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM with $`\sigma _8=0.7`$ (Alam, Bullock, Weinberg 2002, Zentner & Bullock 2002) using the Bullock et al. (2001) model.111Note however that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM with $`\sigma _8=0.9`$ is consistent with the early ionization indicated by WMAP polarization (e.g. Ciardi, Ferrara, & White 2003), but a tilted model with $`\sigma _8=0.7`$ has too little early star formation to produce the observed optical depth unless there is some sort of exotic ionization (Somerville, Bullock, & Livio 2003).
* The scatter in the concentrations or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{V/2}`$ values indicated by the observations of LSB and dwarf galaxies appears to be greater than that of the simulations. (See e.g. Fig. 11 of Hayashi et. al. 2003.)

Although it was not discussed during this panel, I want to mention some new work on the central cusp problem for clusters. Sand, Treu, & Ellis (2002) measured the density profile in the center of cluster MS2137-23 with gravitational lensing and velocity dispersion, removed the stellar contribution with a reasonable M/L, and found $`\rho _{DM}(r)r^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 0.35`$, in apparent contradiction to the expected NFW $`\alpha =1`$ for CDM. (See also Treu, these proceedings, and Sand et al. 2003.) Similar results were found for Abell 2199 by Kelson et al. (2002). The apparent disagreement with CDM worsens if adiabatic compression of the dark matter by the infalling baryons is considered (Blumenthal et al. 1986). However, dynamical friction of the dense galaxies moving in the smooth background of the cluster dark matter counteracts the effect of adiabatic compression, and leads to energy transfer from the galaxies to the dark matter which heats up the central cuspy dark matter and softens the cusp. N-body simulations (El-Zant et al. 2003) show that the dark matter distribution can become very shallow with $`\alpha 0.3`$ for a cluster like MS2137, in agreement with observations.

## 4. Halo Substructure

* Many fewer satellite galaxies are seen around the Milky Way and M31 than the number of halos predicted (Kauffmann, White, & Guiderdoni 1993; Klypin et al. 1999 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM; Moore et al. 1999b SCDM).
* But for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM the discrepancy arises only for satellites smaller than LMC and SMC, and small satellites are expected to form stars very inefficiently (Bullock, Kravtsov, & Weinberg 2000, Somerville 2002, Benson et al. 2003a).
* Larger ratios of dwarfs/giants are predicted and observed in cluster cores, where a higher fraction of dwarf halos should have collapsed before the redshift of reionization, than in lower density regions like the local group (Tully et al. 2002, Benson et al. 2003a).
* It is important to check that such dwarf galaxies have expected properties. For example, at least some of their stars should be old.
* Concern: do the predicted radial distributions of halo substructures agree with observations? Observed satellites may be located at smaller radii than the subhalos found in simulations, but the observational and simulation data sets are still small.
* “Milli-lensing” by DM halo substructure appears to be required to account for anomalous flux ratios in radio lensing (see e.g. contributions by Mao, Schechter, and Schneider in these proceedings).222Mao & Schneider 1988 suggested that something was wrong with the magnification ratios of Q1422. Metcalf & Madau 2001 and Chiba 2002 pointed out that dark matter substructure should be detectible through magnification ratios of strong lenses, Metcalf & Zhao 2002 showed that the measured ratios do not agree with simple models, and Dalal & Kochanek 2002 attempted to use this to measure the density of substructure. Recent relevant papers include Schechter & Wambsganss 2002, Kochanek & Dalal 2003, Keeton et al. 2003, and Metcalf et al. 2003.
* Concern: is there enough halo substructure in the inner $`10`$ kpc, where it appears to be needed to account for such lensing?

## 5. Disk Thickening

Another concern is whether halo substructure will thicken disks more than observed? Although this was not discussed in the panel, a recent paper by Benson et al. (2003b) calibrates an analytic model against N-body simulations to calculate the heating of galactic disks by infalling satellites. It concludes that this is a small effect, with most of the disk thickening due to the gravitational scattering of stars by molecular clouds. The observed thicknesses of the disks of spiral galaxies would then be consistent with the substructure in dark matter halos predicted by the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. It would be desirable to check these results with higher-resolution simulations.

## 6. Conclusions

* Cusps: There has been tremendous progress on observed velocity fields, and also real progress in improving simulations. Observed simulations may agree with observed velocities in galaxy centers better than seemed likely a few years ago. But it is something of a scandal that there is still so little theoretical understanding of dark matter halo central behavior, although people are making progress on this problem (e.g. Dekel et al. 2003ab). It is likely that poorly understood gastrophysics will turn out to be relevant (e.g. Combes, these proceedings; Binney, these proceedings).
* Substructure: A challenge appears to be turning into a triumph for CDM, since it appears that roughly the amount of substructure predicted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM is required to account for the number of satellites seen and for the flux anomalies observed in radio lensing. The main remaining concern is whether the predicted radial distribution of substructure agrees with lensing and observed satellites. Much work remains to be done to test the theory quantitatively.
* Disk thickening: Not obviously a problem.

There are no better alternatives to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM that have yet been invented. Those that have been investigated in detail, such as warm dark matter (WDM) and self-interacting dark matter (SIDM), fare much worse despite having additional parameters (see e.g. Primack 2003). Invent new ones, if you can!

Acknowledegments: I must thank Ken Freeman and Mark Walker for organizing such an interesting symposium and inviting me to chair this discussion, Martin Weinberg and many partcipants at the symposium for helpful discussions, Ben Metcalf for discussions of gravitational lensing and dark matter substructure, and NSF and NASA for support at UCSC.

## References

Alam, S. M. K., Bullock, J. S., & Weinberg, D. H. 2002, ApJ, 572, 34

Benson, A. J., Frenk, C. S., Baugh, C. G., Cole, S., & Lacey, C. G. 2003a, MNRAS, 343, 679

Benson, A. J., Lacey, C. G., Frenk, C. S., Baugh, C. G., & Cole, S. 2003b, astro-ph/0307298

Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., & Primack, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 301, 27

Bolatto, A. D., Simon, J. D., Leroy, A., & Blitz, L. 2002, ApJ, 565, 238

Bryan, G., & Norman, M. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80

Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R. S., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., Primack, J. R., & Dekel, A. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559

Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517

Ciardi, B., Ferrara, A., & White, S. D. M. 2003, MNRAS, 344, L7

Colin, P., Klypin, A., Valenzuela, O., & Gottlober, S. 2003, astro-ph/0308348

Dalal, N., & Kochanek, C. S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 25

de Blok, W. J. G., McGaugh, S. S., Bosma, A., & Rubin, V. C. 2001, ApJ, 552, L23

de Blok, W. J. G., Bosma, A., & McGaugh, S. S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 657

Dekel, A., Arad, I., Devor, J., & Birnboim, Y. 2003a, ApJ, 588, 680

Dekel, A., Devor, J., & Hetzroni, G. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 326

Dubinski, J., & Carlberg, R. G. 1991, ApJ, 378, 496

Eke, V. R., Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2001, ApJ, 554, 114

El-Zant, A., Hoffman, Y., Primack, J. R., Combes, F., & Shlosman, I. 2003, astro-ph/0309412

Flores, R. A., & Primack, J. R. 1994, ApJ, 427, L1

Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., & Stadel, J. 2000, ApJ, 544, 616

Hayashi, E., Navarro, J. F., Power, C., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Springel, V.,Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2003, astro-ph/0310576

Kauffmann, G., White, s. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201

Kelson, D. D., Zabludoff, A. I., Williams, K. A., Trager, S. C., Mulchaey, J. S., & Bolte, M. 2002, ApJ, 576, 720

Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

Klypin, A. A., Kravtsov, A. V., Bullock, J. S., & Primack, J. R. 2001, ApJ, 554, 903

Keeton, C., Gaudi, B., & Petters, A. 2003, ApJ, 598, 138

Kochanek, C., & Dalal, N. 2003, astro-ph/0302036

Mao, S., & Schneider, P. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 587

McGaugh, S. S., Rubin, V. C., & de Blok, W. J. G. 2001, AJ, 122, 2381

Metcalf, R. B., & Madau, P. 2001, ApJ, 563, 9

Metcalf, R. B., & Zhao, H. 2002, ApJ, 567, L5

Metcalf, R., Moustakas, L., Bunker, B., & Parry, I. 2003, astro-ph/0309738

Moore, B. 1994, Nature, 370, 629

Moore B., Quinn T., Governato F., Stadel J., & Lake G. 1999a, MNRAS, 310, 1147

Moore, B., Ghigna, Se., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Tozzi, P. 1999b, ApJ, 524, 19

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Navarro, J. F., Hayashi, E., Power, C., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Springel, V., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2003, astro-ph/0311231

Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Springel, V., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14

Primack, J. R. 2003, in Proceedings of 5th International UCLA Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter (DM2002), Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., 124, 3 (astro-ph/0205391)

Sand, D. J., Treu, T., & Ellis, R. S. 2002, ApJ, 574, L129

Sand, D. J., Treu, T., Smith, G. P., & Ellis, R. S. 2003, astro-ph/0309465

Schechter, P. L., & Wambsganss, J. 2002, ApJ, 580, 685

Somerville, R. S. 2002, ApJ, 572, L23

Somerville, R. S., Bullock, J. S., & Livio, M. 2003, ApJ, 593, 616

Stoehr, F., White, S. D. M., Springel, V., Tormen, G., & Yoshida, N. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1313

Swaters, R. A., Madore, B. F., van den Bosch, F. C., & Balcells, M. 2003, ApJ, 583, 732

Tully, R. B., Somerville, R. S., Trentham, N., & Verheijen, M. A. W. 2002, ApJ, 569, 573

Tyson, J. A., Valdes, F., & Wenk, R. A. 1990, ApJ, 349, L1

van den Bosch, F., C., Robertson, B. E., Dalcanton, J. J., & de Blok, W. J. G. 2000, AJ, 119, 1579

van den Bosch, F. C., Swaters, R. A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1017

Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V., & Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52

Zentner, A. R. & Bullock, J. S. 2002, Phys Rev, D66, 043003

Zhao, D. H., Mo, H. J., Jing, Y. P., & B rner, G. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 12


format: text

text:
# The Cosmic Coalescence Rates for Double Neutron Star Binaries

## 1. INTRODUCTION

For almost 30 years, close double neutron star (DNS) binary systems have been known to exist in the Galaxy as a small subset of the observed radio pulsar population (Hulse & Taylor 1975; Wolszczan 1991). These systems lose orbital energy due to the emission of gravitational waves (Taylor & Weisberg 1989, 2003; Stairs et al. 1998); the associated orbital in-spiral continues until the binary system coalesces, resulting in a burst of gravitational waves. DNS in-spirals are prime targets for gravitational-wave detection by the ground-based interferometers Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO; Abramovici et al. 1992), GEO (Danzmann et al. 1995), and VIRGO (Caron et al. 1997). Event rate estimates are very important for the development of gravitational-wave interferometers (Thorne & Cutler 2002). They are based on estimates of Galactic rates and their extrapolation throughout a survey volume (Finn 2001), given the source strength and instrument sensitivity. For DNS binaries, Galactic rate estimates have been obtained using two very different methods. One is purely theoretical and involves models of binary evolution calibrated usually to the observationally determined supernova rate for the Galaxy. The other, more empirical, approach is based on the physical properties of the close DNS binaries known in the Galactic field and modeling of radio pulsar survey selection effects. For a review and details of both these approaches, see Kalogera et al. (2001, hereafter KNST) and references therein. The empirical method has generally provided us with better constraints on the coalescence rate (KNST), although the uncertainty still exceeds two orders of magnitude. This is primarily due to (1) the very small number (only two until recently) of close DNSs known in the Galactic field with merger times shorter than a Hubble time and (2) the implicit assumption that this small sample is a good representation of the total Galactic population (KNST).

Two recent developments make it appropriate to revisit the DNS merger rate calculations. First, the discovery of the 2.4 hr DNS binary PSR J0737–3039 in a large-area survey using the Parkes radio telescope (Burgay et al. 2003) brings the number of known DNS systems to merge in the Galactic field to three. With an orbital period of only 2.4 hr, J0737–3039 will coalesce in only 85 Myr, a factor of 3.5 shorter than the merger time of PSR B1913+16. This immediately hints towards a possible significant increase of the coalescence rate (Burgay et al. 2003). Second, a novel statistical method has been developed by Kim, Kalogera & Lorimer (2003, hereafter KKL) that automatically takes into account statistical biases inherent in small-number samples, like the relativistic DNS binaries, and in addition allows us to quantify our expectation that the actual DNS binary coalescence rate has a particular value, given the current observations.

In this Letter, we use this statistical method and investigate in detail the effect of this new DNS discovery on the estimates of Galactic DNS in-spiral rates and its implications for gravitational wave detection in this decade. We summarize the method in § 2 and discuss the resulting Galactic in-spiral rate in § 3. In § 4 we use our models to make predictions for the expected number of DNS binaries that the Parkes Multibeam (PMB) survey (e.g. Manchester et al. 2001) could detect when acceleration searches are completed, and in § 5 we discuss the implications of our results for the detection rates of upcoming gravitational-wave detectors.

## 2. METHOD FOR RATE CALCULATION

Until recently, estimates of DNS coalescence rates provided a range of possible values without any information on the likelihood of these values. KKL presented a newly developed statistical analysis that allows the calculation of a probability distribution for rate estimates and the determination of confidence intervals associated with the rate estimates. The method can be applied to any radio pulsar population (see KKL for the two close DNS known at the time and Kim et al. 2004 for close binaries with a pulsar and a massive white dwarf companion). Here we update the results of KKL, taking into account the recent discovery of the new DNS binary PSR J0737–3039 (Burgay et al. 2003).

The method is described in detail in KKL, but we briefly summarize the main elements here. The method involves the simulation of selection effects inherent in all relevant radio pulsar surveys and a Bayesian statistical analysis for the probability distribution of the in-spiral rate estimates. The small-number bias and the effect of the faint end of the pulsar luminosity function, previously identified as the main sources of uncertainty in rate estimates (KNST), are implicitly included in this analysis.

For a model Galactic pulsar population with an assumed spatial and luminosity distribution, we determine the fraction of the total population which are actually detectable by current large-scale pulsar surveys. In order to do this, we calculate the effective signal-to-noise ratio for each model pulsar in each survey, and compare this with the corresponding detection threshold. Only those pulsars which are nominally above the threshold count as detectable. After performing this process on the entire model pulsar population of size $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, we are left with a sample of $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ pulsars that are nominally detectable by the surveys. By repeating this process many times, we can determine the probability distribution of $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, which we then use to constrain the population and with a Bayesian analysis derive the probability expectation that the actual Galactic DNS in-spiral rate takes on a particular value, given the observations. More details are given in § 2 of Lorimer et al. (1993) and in KKL.

When this method was first developed (KKL), it was shown that, although the shape of the probability distribution of rate estimates is very robust, the rate value at peak probability systematically depends primarily on the characteristics of the radio pulsar luminosity function: its slope and the physical minimum luminosity of pulsars. Both of these are constrained by the general pulsar population (see Cordes & Chernoff 1997), but we explore the dependence of our results on the assumed values.

Here we consider the same set of pulsar population models as in KKL, but we choose model 6 as our reference model in view of the recent discovery of very faint pulsars (for a review, see Camilo 2003). With the addition of the new DNS binary PSR J0737–3039, our calculations differ from those in KKL in two main ways: (1) the latest Parkes survey that led to the discovery of the new system (Burgay et al. 2003) is included, and (2) we calculate and account for the effects of Doppler smearing for DNS binaries akin to J0737–3039 by creating fake time series for a variety of orbital phases (see KKL for details). Even for a $`4.5`$min integration (Burgay et al. 2003), this effect alone reduces the average signal-to-noise ratio of a 2.4-hr DNS binary by 35%.

The statistical analysis presented in KKL has been extended to account for three systems (see Kim et al. 2004). In our calculations we adopt a total lifetime for J0737–3039, defined as the sum of the current age and the remaining lifetime until the final coalescence, equal to $`100+85=185`$ Myr (Burgay et al. 2003). In the absence of detailed beam observations for the new binary, we adopt a beaming factor of $`6`$ equal to the average of the two observationally constrained beams of the previously known DNS binaries (KNST; see also Burgay et al. 2003). We do note, however, that studies of other known recycled pulsars (the majority of them strongly recycled, spinning faster compared to the DNSs by about an order of magnitude) have shown that beaming fractions can vary significantly (Kramer et al. 1998). It is important to keep in mind that any uncertainties in the beaming factor proportionally affect the rate estimates, but not the rate increase factors derived here.

## 3. GALACTIC IN-SPIRAL RATE

For our reference pulsar model (with a radio luminosity function consistent with current pulsar observations; Cordes & Chernoff 1997; Camilo 2003), we find the most likely value of the total coalescence rate to be $`=83`$ Myr-1. The ranges of values at 68% and 95% confidence intervals are 40–170 and 20–290 Myr-1, respectively. The width of these ranges are somewhat smaller than previous estimates (the ratio between upper and lower limits at 68% confidence interval is 4.4 cf. 5.7 found by KKL), confirming the expectation that a bigger observed sample would reduce the uncertainty in the rate estimates (KNST). The new value for $``$ is a factor of 6.4 higher than found by KKL. From the resulting probability distribution shown in Figure 1, it is clear that J0737–3039 dominates the total rate over the other two systems. This is due to two separate factors: (1) The estimated total number of DNS binaries similar to J0737-3039 (1700) is far higher than those of each of the other two systems (700 for B1913+16 and 500 for B1534+12). This is mainly due to the shorter pulsar spin and binary orbital period of J0737–3039, which results in a significant Doppler smearing and efficiently “hides” them in the Galaxy. (2) The total lifetime of J0737–3039 (185 Myr) is significantly shorter than those of the other two (365 Myr for B1913+16 and 2.9 Gyr for B1534+12).

We now explore our results for all other models considered in KKL. Our main results are shown in Table 1, where we have included a subset of models that reflect the widest variations of the rates (as shown in KKL, variations in the space distribution of pulsars are not important). The main conclusions that can be easily drawn are: (1) The increase factor on the in-spiral rate is highly robust against all systematic variations of the assumed pulsar models and is strongly constrained in the range 5–7; this is consistent with but somewhat lower than the simple estimate presented in Burgay et al. (2003). (2) The shape of the rate probability distribution also remains robust, but the rate value at peak probability depends on the model assumptions in the same way as described in detail in KKL (see Figs. 5–7 in KKL).

## 4. PREDICTIONS FOR FUTURE DISCOVERIES

As already mentioned, long integration times combined with very short binary orbital periods strongly select against the discovery of new binary pulsars. Specifically, in the large-scale PMB survey (e.g. Manchester et al. 2001) with an integration time of 35 min, the signal-to-noise ratio is severely reduced by Doppler smearing due to the pulsars’ orbital motion. Acceleration searches in the current re-analysis of the PMB survey (Faulkner et al. 2003) should significantly improve the detection efficiency to DNS binaries.

Following Kalogera, Kim & Lorimer (2003), we calculate the probability distribution that represents our expectation that the actual number of DNS pulsars with merger times shorter than a Hubble time ($`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$) that could be detected with the PMB survey takes on a particular value, given the current observations and assuming that the reduction in flux due to Doppler smearing is corrected perfectly. To illuminate the effect of the Doppler smearing we calculate the average number of expected new discoveries akin to each of the three known DNS binaries.

We have shown before (Kalogera et al. 2003) that the probability distribution of the expected observed number $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}^i`$ for each DNS pulsar sub-population $`i`$ (B1913+16, B1534+12, and J0737–3039) is given by:

$$P_i(N_{\mathrm{obs}})=\frac{\beta _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(1+\beta _i)^2}\frac{(N_{\mathrm{obs}}+1)}{(1+\beta _i)^{N_{\mathrm{obs}}}},$$
(1)
where the constants $`\beta _i`$ are a measure of how less likely it is to detect pulsars without acceleration searches relative to with acceleration searches. For each sub-population, the mean values of $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ can be calculated and we find them to be:

$$N_{\mathrm{obs}}_{1913}=0.9,N_{\mathrm{obs}}_{1534}=1.2,N_{\mathrm{obs}}_{0737}=1.9.$$
(2)
As expected, it is evident that the discovery of DNS pulsars in tight binaries like J0737–3039 would be most favored with acceleration searches.

Following Kalogera et al. (2003), we can also calculate the combined probability distribution of the expected number of DNS pulsars that can be detected with PMB acceleration searches in the future. The result is shown for our reference model in Figure 2. The average combined number is 4.0 and the discovery of up to 2 (or 4) DNS systems has a probability equal to $`30`$% ($`63`$%). We conclude that, if the acceleration search can correct the Doppler smearing effect perfectly, then the PMB survey could be expected to detect an average of 3-4 DNS pulsars with pulse profile and orbital properties similar to any of the three already known systems.

## 5. IN-SPIRAL EVENT RATES AND CONCLUSIONS

Estimates of DNS in-spiral rates have suffered from the small number of relativistic binaries known in our Galaxy, mainly because of the implicit assumption in all methods used so far that the observed sample represents the Galactic DNS population. Here we show that the recent discovery of the third relativistic binary in the Galactic field with binary properties (pulse-profile and orbital characteristics) significantly different from those of systems previously known reveals a new sub-population in the Galaxy. Consequently, it leads to a significant (by factors of 5–7) increase of the in-spiral rate estimates.

We now consider the implications of our revised rate estimates for the detection of these events by LIGO and the other upcoming gravitational wave interferometers. Since these instruments can detect DNS in-spirals out to $`20`$ Mpc for initial LIGO ($`350`$ Mpc for advanced LIGO; Finn 2001), it is necessary to extrapolate our Galactic event rate out to the Local Group. Using the standard extrapolation of our reference model out to extragalactic distances (Phinney 1991; KNST), we find the most probable event rates for our reference model are one per 30 yr and one per 2 day, for initial and advanced LIGO, respectively. At the 95% confidence interval, the most optimistic predictions for the reference model are one event per 8 yr and two events per day for initial and advanced LIGO, respectively. However, considering the full set of 27 models at 95% confidence interval indicates that the respective rates can reach up to one event per 3 yr and five events per day, respectively. These results are quite encouraging, since, for initial LIGO in particular, this is the first time that DNS coalescence rate estimates are within an astrophysically relevant regime. Within a few years of LIGO operations, it should be possible to directly test these predictions and, in turn, place better constraints on the properties of binary radio pulsars and the cosmic population and evolution of DNS binaries.

We also find that there is a significant probability (in excess of $``$80%) that when acceleration searches of the PMB survey are completed more than 2 binary pulsars could be detected. The increase of the observed sample is very important for the reduction of the uncertainties associated with the in-spiral rate estimates. We note, however, that the discovery of new systems that are similar to the three already known does not necessarily imply a significant increase in the rate estimates. Significant changes are expected in the case that new systems with pulse profiles or binary properties significantly different are discovered, as it is such systems that will reveal a new DNS sub-population in the Galaxy.

This work is partially supported by a David and Lucile Packard Science & Engineering Fellowship and a NSF Gravitational Physics grant (0121420) to VK. DRL is a University Research fellow funded by the Royal Society. He also acknowledges support by the Theoretical Astrophysics Visitors’ fund at Northwestern University. FC acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-02-05853 and a travel grant from NRAO.

NOTE FROM THE ERRATUM

In our original paper, we calculated the likely size of the Galactic DNS population in two stages. First, we simulated the DNS distribution in the Galaxy. At this stage, in addition to storing the spatial properties and luminosities of the model pulsars, we also computed their expected dispersion measures and pulse scatter-broadening times using a model for the electron density distribution. This information was stored to an intermediate file for subsequent analysis by our simulation code in which the simulated population was “searched” using detailed models of the various pulsar surveys. Unfortunately, while the scatter-broadening times created in the first part of the calulation were saved in units of milliseconds, the survey simulation code assumed them to be in seconds. This error led to an under-prediction of the number of pulsars in the model observed samples, which in turn resulted in an overestimate of the true number, and hence in-spiral rate, of DNS binaries in the Galaxy.

We have now repeated these calculations using the correct unit conversion and find the Galactic DNS in-spiral rate $``$ to be 83.0$`{}_{}{}^{+209.1}{}_{66.1}{}^{}`$ Myr-1 at a 95% confidence interval (model 6), a factor of $``$2.2 smaller than in the original paper (see Fig. 1). The corresponding detection rates for the initial and advanced LIGO detectors are: $`_{\mathrm{det},\mathrm{ini}}=(34.8_{27.7}^{+87.6})\times 10^3`$ yr-1 and $`_{\mathrm{det},\mathrm{adv}}=186.8_{148.7}^{+470.5}`$ yr-1, respectively. For all models we consider, the estimated DNS in-spiral rates range between $`4224`$ Myr-1.

However, we note that the increase rate factor (IRF) due to the discovery of J0737–3039 remains essentially unaffected as the unit error cancels out, since the IRF is a measure of relative changes in rate. The IRF is found to be in the range $`57`$ for all models under consideration. The revised results are summarized in Table 1.

This error also propagates through to our predictions for future DNS discoveries in the Parkes multibeam survey. Repeating the analysis in §4 of our original paper, we find that the average number of DNS with properties similar to those currently known to be detected using full acceleration search processing is about four. The revised probability distribution of expected detections is shown in Fig. 2.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has recently been proposed that the energy density perturbations could originate in a scalar field other than the conventional inflaton field, which is called curvaton. After inflation, the curvaton starts to oscillate in a radiation background. During this period the energy density of the curvaton grows to account for the cosmological curvature perturbation when it decays. This curvaton paradigm has attracted a lot of attention because it has an obvious advantage. The inflaton energy scale is decoupled from the magnitude of the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature fluctuations, which may cure the fine-tunings of inflation models. Along this line of thought, it seems attractive to suppose that the curvaton paradigm can also save the models of a low inflation scale.

The construction of a realistic model of low inflation scale is an interesting problem especially when the fundamental scale is (much) lower than the Planck scale, because in these models the Hubble parameter cannot become so large as the one in the conventional models of inflation. In the history of the string theory, originally the inverse of the size of extra dimensions as well as the fundamental scale was assumed to be as large as $`M_p`$. However, later observations showed that there is no reason to require such a tiny compactification radius. In models of large extra dimensions, the observed Planck mass is obtained by the relation $`M_p^2=M_{}^{n+2}V_n`$, where $`M_{}`$ and $`V_n`$ denote the fundamental scale of gravity and the volume of the $`n`$-dimensional compact space. In the new scenario of the string theory, the compactification radius and the fundamental scale are unknown parameters that should be determined by observations. However, in many cases the cosmology of the large extra dimension must be quite different from the conventional ones.222Finding crucial constraints on the compactification, or constructing successful models of the inflation with low (or intermediate) fundamental scale is a challenging issue. In the models of large extra dimensions, the difficulties of inflation are sometimes related to the stability of the compactified space or the mechanism of baryogenesis that must take place after inflation.

In spite of the above expectations, D.H.Lyth showed recently that there will be a strong bound for the Hubble parameter during inflation even if one assumes curvaton scenario. At the same time, a mechanism that evades the most serious constraint is also suggested in ref.. However, to achieve the bound $`H_I>10TeV`$, a huge curvaton mass ($`m_\sigma M_p`$) is required after the phase transition that takes place at the end of inflation. Moreover, since the obtained bound is rather restrictive ($`H_I>10TeV`$), it should be fair to say that many models of a low inflation scale are still not liberated by the curvaton.

In this paper we show that the constraints obtained in  are relaxed to a satisfactory level if there were multiple stages of inflation. No large hierarchy between the scales of each inflation is required. At least two stages of inflation are required in our scenario. Denoting the vacuum energy during the two kinds of inflation by $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$, the original constraint is reduced by the factor of $`ϵ^6`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the ratio of the scales, $`ϵ(V_2/V_1)^{\frac{1}{4}}`$. As a result, for example, if the original bound for single inflation is $`H_I>10^7GeV`$, we can reduce it as $`H_1>10^5GeV`$ for $`ϵ=10^2`$, where $`H_1`$ is the Hubble parameter during the first inflation. No sensible bound is obtained for the Hubble parameter during the second inflation.

## 2 Constraint on inflation scales

Here it may be helpful to begin with the review of the discussion in ref.. First we start with more general settings and try to reproduce the constraint showing how the original model in  is realized in the boundary condition of our settings. For simplicity, we assume that the curvaton field $`\sigma `$ is frozen at $`\sigma =\sigma _{osc}`$ from the epoch of horizon exit during first inflation to the epoch when the curvaton start to oscillate. At the time when the curvaton starts to oscillate, its density is $`\rho _\sigma m_\sigma ^2\sigma _{osc}^2`$. Denoting the total density of other fields by $`\rho _{tot}`$, the ratio $`r`$ at the time of curvaton oscillation is

$$\frac{\rho _\sigma }{\rho _{tot}}|_{H=H_{osc}}\frac{m_\sigma ^2\sigma _{osc}^2}{H_{osc}^2M_p^2}.$$
(2.1)
During the period when the total density $`\rho _{tot}`$ is radiation-dominated, the ratio $`r`$ grows and reaches finally at

$$r\frac{\sqrt{H_{osc}M_p}}{T_d}\frac{m_\sigma ^2\sigma _{osc}^2}{H_{osc}^2M_p^2}$$
(2.2)
when the curvaton decay. Here $`T_d`$ is the temperature just after curvaton decay. Now the curvature perturbation

$$\zeta \frac{r}{3}\frac{\delta \rho _\sigma }{\rho _\sigma }$$
(2.3)
is generated by the curvaton. Using the spectrum of the perturbation $`<\delta \sigma _{osc}^2>=(\frac{H_I}{2\pi })^2`$, the spectrum of the curvature perturbation is given by

$$𝒫_\zeta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{2r}{3}\frac{H_I}{2\pi \sigma _{osc}}.$$
(2.4)
Using the required value from the observations $`𝒫_\zeta ^{\frac{1}{2}}=5\times 10^5`$, one obtains that

$$\frac{2r}{3}\frac{H_I}{2\pi \sigma _{osc}}5\times 10^5.$$
(2.5)
Using (2.2) and (2.5), one finds the following constraint;

$$\frac{2}{3}\frac{H_I}{2\pi \sigma _{osc}}\frac{\sqrt{H_{osc}M_p}}{T_d}\frac{m_\sigma ^2\sigma _{osc}^2}{H_{osc}^2M_p^2}5\times 10^5.$$
(2.6)
Since the naive bound from nucleosynthesis is $`T_d>1MeV`$, one can obtain

$$\frac{2}{3}\frac{H_I\sigma _{osc}m_\sigma ^2}{2\pi H_{osc}^{\frac{3}{2}}M_p^{\frac{5}{2}}}5\times 10^{26}.$$
(2.7)
On the other hand, one can use the lower bound for the curvaton decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \frac{m_\sigma ^3}{M_p^2}`$ to obtain $`T_d\sqrt{M_p\mathrm{\Gamma }}M_p(m_\sigma /M_p)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$, which implies that

$$\frac{2}{3}\frac{H_I\sigma _{osc}m_\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2\pi H_{osc}^{\frac{3}{2}}M_p}5\times 10^5.$$
(2.8)
The four parameters ($`H_I,\sigma _{osc},H_{osc},m_\sigma `$), are the boundary condition that depends on which model one may choose. Here the Hubble parameter during inflation when the observable University leaves the horizon is denoted by $`H_I`$. Considering (2.5) and $`r<1`$, one finds

$$\frac{2}{3}\frac{H_I}{2\pi \sigma _{osc}}>5\times 10^5.$$
(2.9)
From eq.(2.9) and (2.7), one finds

$$H_I>10^{15}\times \frac{H_{osc}^{\frac{3}{4}}M_p^{\frac{5}{4}}}{m_\sigma }.$$
(2.10)
On the other hand, from eq.(2.9) and (2.8) one obtains the following constraint;

$$H_I>10^4\times \frac{H_{osc}^{\frac{3}{4}}M_p^{\frac{1}{2}}}{m_\sigma ^{\frac{1}{4}}}.$$
(2.11)
First let us consider a simple example of the boundary condition. We will assume that the mass of the curvaton $`m_\sigma `$ is a constant during the period we are interested in. Then the oscillation of the curvaton field starts when the Hubble parameter falls below the curvaton mass, $`H<m_\sigma `$, which means $`H_{osc}m_\sigma `$. As the inequality $`H_I>H_{osc}`$ always holds, we set a new parameter $`ϵ_H`$, which is defined as $`H_{osc}ϵ_H^2H_I`$. Now one can replace $`H_{osc}`$ and $`m_\sigma `$ in eq.(2.10) by $`H_I`$ to find

$$H_I>M_p\times 10^{12}\times ϵ_H^{\frac{2}{5}}10^6ϵ_H^{\frac{2}{5}}GeV.$$
(2.12)
Following the same arguments, one can find from (2.11),

$$H_I>10^8M_pϵ_H^210^{10}ϵ_H^2GeV$$
(2.13)
As is discussed in ref., the bound from eq.(2.13) becomes more strict than (2.12) when $`ϵ_H>10^2`$. Note that a tiny $`ϵ_H`$ does not relax the bound. The obtained bound $`H_I>10^7GeV`$ corresponds to the first constraint that was obtained in ref..

In the above arguments we showed that the bound obtained in ref. is derived from an initial condition that fixes the four parameters ($`H_I,\sigma _{osc},H_{osc},m_\sigma `$). Because some part of the initial condition is still model dependent, it is interesting to find models that evade the above constraint without introducing fine-tunings or large hierarchy. A way to relax the bound is already suggested in . We think it is instructive to reproduce the argument within our setups and show explicitly how the initial condition is modified in the model. In the “heavy curvaton” scenario, two differences appear in the initial condition. Assuming that there was a phase transition just after inflation, which makes the curvaton mass much larger than the one during inflation, the conditions are modified as follows;

$`H_{osc}m_\sigma `$ $``$ $`H_{osc}m_\sigma `$
$`H_{osc}<H_I`$ $``$ $`H_{osc}H_I.`$ (2.14)
Using the modified initial conditions and (2.10), one can easily find

$$H_I>10^{56}\frac{M_p^5}{m_\sigma ^4}.$$
(2.15)
One can also find another bound from (2.11),

$$H_I>10^{14}\frac{M_p^2}{m_\sigma }.$$
(2.16)
As is suggested in , it might be possible to obtain a preferable bound $`H_I>O(TeV)`$ if the curvaton mass becomes as large as the Planck mass. A huge curvaton mass may be allowed in a conventional supergravity, but is not preferable in the models of large or intermediate extra dimensions. Thus it is still an interesting problem to find models in which the bound is more relaxed.

## 3 Multiple inflation

In the followings we try to find another model whose initial condition significantly lowers the above bound for $`H_I`$. The most promising example will be to assume that the phase transition that induces the curvaton oscillation starts independently of the inflation that produces the spectrum of the perturbation $`\delta \sigma `$. The easiest way to realize the model is to introduce secondary weak inflation that triggers the required phase transition.333 In this paper we do not mention how to realize the multiple inflation. Some arguments are given in .

Here we introduce the parameter $`H_e`$ that denotes the Hubble parameter during the last inflation. The spectrum of the perturbation $`\delta \sigma `$ is produced during the first inflation, the Hubble parameter during which is denoted by $`H_I`$. More explicitly, the parameters follow the conditions, $`H_IH_e`$, $`m_\sigma H_{osc}`$ and $`H_{osc}H_e`$. The bound (2.10) now becomes

$$H_I>10^{15}\frac{H_e^{\frac{3}{4}}M_p^{\frac{5}{4}}}{m_\sigma }.$$
(3.1)
Of course, setting $`H_I=H_e=H_{osc}`$, one obtains (2.15) again. The bound (2.11) becomes

$$H_I>10^4\frac{H_e^{\frac{3}{4}}M_p^{\frac{1}{2}}}{m_\sigma ^{\frac{1}{4}}}.$$
(3.2)
Now let us consider a case when $`H_e=H_I\times 10^4`$. In this case, (3.2) becomes

$$H_I>10^{26}\frac{M_p^2}{m_\sigma }$$
(3.3)
which is about $`10^{12}`$ times smaller than (2.16). To see exactly what happened in the bound, here we consider a more generic situation. Introducing mass scales $`M_IV_I^{\frac{1}{4}}=H_I^2M_p^2`$ and $`M_eV_e^{\frac{1}{4}}=H_e^2M_p^2`$, and denoting the ratio by $`ϵ\frac{M_e}{M_I}`$, one finds from (3.1),

$$H_I>10^{56}ϵ^6\frac{M_p^5}{m_\sigma ^4}.$$
(3.4)
One can also find from (3.2),

$$H_I>10^{14}ϵ^6\frac{M_p^2}{m_\sigma }.$$
(3.5)
From eq.(3.4) and eq.(3.5), it is easy to understand why the bound is so sensitive to the ratio $`ϵ`$. If the scale of the vacuum energy during the first inflation is only $`10^2`$ times larger than the one during the second inflation, the bound is significantly reduced by the factor of $`(10^2)^6`$.

## 4 Conclusions and Discussions

In this paper we have examined the constraint on the Hubble parameter during inflation when the curvaton hypothesis is used to explain the observed density perturbation of the Universe. The constraint (2.6) that we have started from produces bounds for the Hubble parameter once the initial conditions are determined by the models. We have found an example of the model that significantly modifies the bound. At least two stages of inflation are required in our scenario. The first produces the spectrum of the perturbation $`\delta \sigma `$ while the other triggers the phase transition that produces the curvaton mass. Then the ratio of the vacuum energy $`ϵ`$ reduces the constraint by the factor of $`ϵ^6`$, which evades the bound that was discussed in .

## 5 Acknowledgment

We wish to thank K.Shima for encouragement, and our colleagues in Tokyo University for their kind hospitality.


text:
# Analysis of Burst Observations by GLAST’s LAT Detector

## 1 Introduction

The detection of the high energy emission from gamma-ray bursts is anticipated to be one of the spectacular observations by the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), NASA’s next general gamma-ray astrophysics mission. Scheduled to be launched into low Earth orbit in February, 2007, for 5–10 years of operation, GLAST will consist of two instruments: the Large Area Telescope (LAT) and the GLAST Burst Monitor (GBM).

A product of a NASA/DOE/international collaboration, the LAT builds on the success of CGRO’s EGRET. The LAT will be a pair conversion telescope: gamma rays will pair-produce in tungsten foils; silicon strip detectors will track the resulting pairs; the resulting particles will deposit energy in a CsI calorimeter; and an anticoincidence detector will veto charged particles. The anticoincidence detector will be segmented to limit the self-vetoing that plagued EGRET. The LAT will be 1.8 m$`\times `$1.8 m$`\times `$1m, and weigh $``$3000 kg.

The astrophysical photons will be only a small fraction of the total number of events detected by the LAT, most of which will result from charged particles. On board filtering of the events will reduce the $``$4 kHz trigger rate to the $``$30 Hz event rate that can be downlinked to the ground; ground processing will result in a $``$2 Hz photon rate.

The salient detector characteristics are: energy range of $`<`$20 MeV to $`>`$300 GeV; 1–10 GeV effective area of $`>`$8000 cm2 with half maximum at 55; angular resolution of $`<3.5^{}`$ at 100 MeV, $`<0.15^{}`$ at 10 GeV; field-of-view of $`>`$2 sr; deadtime $`20\mu `$s per event (current, $`<100\mu `$s required); and time resolution of $`2\mu `$s.

A descendant of CGRO’s BATSE, the GBM will detect gamma-ray bursts and extend GLAST’s burst spectral sensitivity to the $`<`$10 keV to $`>`$25 MeV band. Consisting of 12 NaI(Tl) (10–1000 keV) and 2 BGO (0.15–25 MeV) detectors, the GBM will monitor $`>`$8 sr of the sky, including the LAT’s field-of-view (FOV). Bursts will be localized to $`<15^{}`$ (1$`\sigma `$) by comparing the rates in different detectors.

Typically GLAST will survey the sky continuously. After a $`60`$ day checkout phase, GLAST will undertake a one year sky survey while the LAT team calibrates the instrument. In survey mode GLAST will rock $`35^{}`$ above and below the orbital plane about the zenith direction once per orbit. While pointed observations proposed by guest investigators will be feasible during subsequent years, continued survey mode operation will usually be most efficient, and is expected to predominate. Therefore most persistent sources will be observed at a variety of detector orientations; each count will be characterized by a different response function.

Both the GBM and the LAT will have burst triggers. The GBM will notify the LAT when it triggers. When either instrument triggers, a notice with a preliminary localization will be sent immediately to the ground through TDRSS and will then be disseminated by GCN. Additional data will be downlinked through TDRSS for an improved localization at the Mission Operations Center. Both Instrument Operations Centers will calculate “final” positions from the full downlinked data. GCN will disseminate all positions.

The LAT will determine whether the burst was intense enough for a followup 5 hour pointed observation at the burst location (interrupted by earth occultations). The threshold will be higher for bursts the GBM detected outside the LAT’s FOV.

## 2 Standard Source Analysis

The LAT PSF is large ($`3.5^{}`$) at low energy ($``$100 MeV), small ($`<0.15^{}`$) at high energy ($``$10 GeV). With the LAT’s large effective area, many sources will be detected; their PSFs will merge at low energy. Therefore the analysis must be 3 dimensional—2 spatial and 1 spectral—and time is an additional dimension for variable sources. Diffuse emission underlies the point sources. For a typical analysis the source model must include: all point sources within a few PSF lengths of the region of interest; extended sources (e.g., supernova remnants); spatially variable diffuse Galactic emission (which must be modeled); and isotropic extragalactic emission. Sources are defined by positions, spectra, and perhaps time histories. Initial values may be extracted from the point source catalog the LAT team will compile. Consequently the source model will have many parameters. In an analysis some will be fitted, some will be fixed.

The instrument response (PSF, effective area, energy resolution) will at least be a function of energy and angle to the LAT normal; other parameters may be relevant such as the azimuthal angle around the LAT normal or the conversion layer (the front or back of the LAT). Since the LAT will usually survey the sky, a source will be observed at different instrument orientations. Each count will be characterized by many observables, and therefore a very large data space results. Even with $`10^5`$ counts, this data space will be sparsely populated. Note that what high energy astrophysicists call a “count” is a “photon” to some particle physicists.

As was the case for EGRET1 (1) and earlier gamma-ray missions2 (2), likelihoods will be the foundation of our analyses (e.g., detecting sources, determining source intensities, fitting spectral parameters, setting upper limits). The likelihood is the probability of the data (the counts that were detected) given the model (the photon sources). The data consist of both the counts that were detected, and the regions of data space where counts were not observed. The calculation of the likelihood will be difficult because many counts will sparsely populate an enormous data space.

The likelihood will be calculated many times as the source model is changed (for example in fitting source parameters), and factors that are not model-dependent should be calculated once for a given analysis. Many of these quantities will have units of “exposure” (area$`\times `$time).

## 3 Burst Spectral Analysis

The duration of the $``$100 keV burst emission is (relatively) short—at most 10’s of seconds. Therefore, the LAT’s pointing will not change significantly during the burst, and all the counts can be treated as having one response function. Within a PSF radius of the burst position less than one non-burst count per minute is expected: \[$``$2 Hz cts over the FOV\] / \[2 sr FOV\] $`\times `$ \[$`\pi (3.5^{}\pi /180)^2`$ sr within PSF radius\] = $``$0.01 Hz cts within a PSF radius or 0.7 cts/minute within a PSF radius. Therefore, we can treat all counts within 1–2 PSF radii as burst photons.

Since a) all the counts within a PSF radius of the burst originated in the burst, and b) all the counts have the same response function, multi-source spatial analysis is unnecessary for spectral analysis! Spatial analysis might be necessary for localizing the burst. All the counts within a PSF radius and within a time range can be binned into a count spectrum (apparent energy is the single dimension), and traditional spectral analysis can be applied to the resulting series of LAT count spectra. The GBM data (also a list of counts) can be binned with the same time binning, and then joint fits can be performed.

The afterglow will most likely produce a small number of counts accumulated over timescales of tens of minutes to hours. Thus afterglow data must be analyzed with the general likelihood tool being developed for LAT data analysis.

The LAT team and the GLAST Science Support Center (GSSC) are developing a suite of tools to analyze both LAT and GBM data. These tools will use the HEAdas system supported on both Windows and LINUX platforms; most of the tools will be FTOOLS. Therefore the data will be in FITS files, and the tools will use IRAF-style parameter files. Here we describe the methodology for burst spectral analysis.

Extract LAT Counts: The user will extract the LAT counts from a specified time and region (here a circle around the burst position) from a GSSC database. The web-based extraction tool will return a FITS file with the requested counts and a second FITS file describing the instrument’s pointing and livetime during the burst. Users will have a tool to perform further selections.

Extract GBM Counts: The GSSC will provide GBM counts in a FITS file. Users will fit polynomial (in time) background models to data before and after the burst.

Bin Counts: An event binning tool will bin the LAT or GBM counts in both energy and time, resulting in a series of count spectra spanning the burst. The energy grid will be user specified. The time bins may be a) equally spaced, b) user specified, c) chosen to have equal signal-to-noise ratios in a user-specified energy band, or d) chosen by Bayesian Blocks3 (3). The LAT counts are assumed to have no background, while the expected GBM background in each bin will be calculated from the background model.

DRM Generation: The LAT response function will be collapsed into a Detector Response Matrix (DRM), the product of the effective area at the position of the burst and the energy redistribution matrix. The effective area will account for the size of the region from which the counts were extracted. GBM DRMs will be supplied for each burst, and users will have a tool to calculate their own GBM DRMs.

Spectral Fitting—Binned Spectra: The spectra can be fit using XSPEC, with scripts automating the fitting of series of spectra. Spectra from the LAT, GBM and other missions (e.g., Swift) may be fit separately or jointly. Of course, the relative calibration of the different instruments will have to be understood. The XSPEC team is adding the capability of saving the results of the spectral fitting, along with the model spectra.

Spectral Fitting—Spectra Unbinned in Energy: For a burst with few counts a likelihood treatment using a variant of the standard likelihood tool may be more powerful; see Fig. 1. In this case the likelihood function will be calculated for the apparent energy of LAT counts accumulated over a time period of interest. Assuming the LAT spectrum is an extrapolation to higher energy of the GBM-observed spectrum, the GBM spectral fits can be used as priors on the LAT parameters.