1:
2: %% The command below calls the preprint style
3: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
4: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
5: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
6: %%
7: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
8:
9: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
10:
11: %%%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
12: %%%\documentclass{emulateapj}
13:
14: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
15:
16: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
17:
18: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
19: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
20: %\usepackage[authoryear]{natbib}
21: %%\usepackage{comment}
22: \shorttitle{The 2006 Outburst of PKS\,2155$-$304}
23: \shortauthors{Sakamoto et al.}
24:
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28: \title{CANGAROO-III Observations of the 2006 Outburst of PKS\,2155$-$304}
29:
30: \author{
31: Y.~Sakamoto\altaffilmark{1},
32: K.~Nishijima\altaffilmark{2},
33: T.~Mizukami\altaffilmark{3},
34: E.~Yamazaki\altaffilmark{2},
35: J.~Kushida\altaffilmark{2},
36: R.~Enomoto\altaffilmark{4},
37: M.~Ohishi\altaffilmark{4},
38: G.V.~Bicknell\altaffilmark{5},
39: R.W.~Clay\altaffilmark{6},
40: P.G.~Edwards\altaffilmark{7},
41: S.~Gunji\altaffilmark{8},
42: S.~Hara\altaffilmark{9},
43: T.~Hattori\altaffilmark{2},
44: S.~Hayashi\altaffilmark{10},
45: Y.~Higashi\altaffilmark{3},
46: Y.~Hirai\altaffilmark{11},
47: K.~Inoue\altaffilmark{8},
48: C.~Itoh\altaffilmark{12},
49: S.~Kabuki\altaffilmark{3},
50: F.~Kajino\altaffilmark{10},
51: H.~Katagiri\altaffilmark{13},
52: A.~Kawachi\altaffilmark{2},
53: T.~Kifune\altaffilmark{4},
54: R.~Kiuchi\altaffilmark{4},
55: H.~Kubo\altaffilmark{3},
56: R.~Mizuniwa\altaffilmark{2},
57: M.~Mori\altaffilmark{4},
58: H.~Muraishi\altaffilmark{14},
59: T.~Naito\altaffilmark{15},
60: T.~Nakamori\altaffilmark{3},
61: S.~Nakano\altaffilmark{3},
62: D.~Nishida\altaffilmark{3},
63: A.~Seki\altaffilmark{2},
64: V.~Stamatescu\altaffilmark{6},
65: T.~Suzuki\altaffilmark{11},
66: D.L.~Swaby\altaffilmark{6},
67: T.~Tanimori\altaffilmark{3},
68: G.~Thornton\altaffilmark{6},
69: F.~Tokanai\altaffilmark{8},
70: K.~Tsuchiya\altaffilmark{3},
71: S.~Watanabe\altaffilmark{3},
72: Y.~Yamada\altaffilmark{10},
73: S.~Yanagita\altaffilmark{11},
74: T.~Yoshida\altaffilmark{11},
75: T.~Yoshikoshi\altaffilmark{4},
76: and Y.~Yukawa\altaffilmark{4}
77: }
78:
79: \email{kyoshi@tkikam.sp.u-tokai.ac.jp}
80:
81: \altaffiltext{1}{Graduate School of Science and Technology,
82: Tokai University, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan}
83: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, \
84: Tokai University, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan}
85: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science,
86: Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
87: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute for Cosmic Ray Research,
88: University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan}
89: \altaffiltext{5}{Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
90: Australian National University, ACT 2611, Australia}
91: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics,
92: University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia}
93: \altaffiltext{7}{Paul Wild Observatory, CSIRO Australia Telescope
94: National Facility, Locked Bag 194, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia}
95: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics, Yamagata University,
96: Yamagata, Yamagata 990-8560, Japan}
97: \altaffiltext{9}{Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences,
98: Ami, Ibaraki 300-0394, Japan}
99: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Physics, Konan University,
100: Kobe, Hyogo 658-8501, Japan}
101: \altaffiltext{11}{Faculty of Science, Ibaraki University,
102: Mito, Ibaraki 310-8512, Japan}
103: \altaffiltext{12}{National Institute of Radiological Sciences,
104: Chiba, Chiba 263-8555, Japan}
105: \altaffiltext{13}{Department of Physical Science, Graduate School
106: of Science, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima,
107: Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan}
108: \altaffiltext{14}{School of Allied Health Sciences,
109: Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan}
110: \altaffiltext{15}{Faculty of Management Information,
111: Yamanashi Gakuin University, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8575, Japan}
112:
113:
114: \begin{abstract}
115: We have used the CANGAROO-III imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes
116: to observe the high-frequency-peaked BL Lacertae (HBL) object
117: PKS\,2155$-$304 between 2006 July 28 (MJD 53944) and August 2,
118: triggered by the H.E.S.S.\ report that the source was in a high
119: state of TeV gamma-ray emission.
120: A signal was detected at the $4.8~\sigma$ level
121: in an effective live time of 25.1\,hours
122: during the outburst period.
123: The flux of Very High Energy gamma-rays from the CANGAROO-III observations
124: shows the variability on the time scale of less than
125: a few hours.
126: The averaged integral flux above 660~GeV is
127: $(1.6\pm0.3_{stat}\pm0.5_{syst})\times10^{-11}\,\mbox{cm}^{-2}\,\mbox{sec}^{-1}$
128: which corresponds to $\sim45\%$ of the flux observed
129: from the Crab nebula.
130: Follow-up observations between August 17 (MJD 53964) and 25
131: indicate the source activity had decreased.
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134: \keywords{Galaxies: active --- BL Lacertae objects:
135: Individual: PKS\,2155$-$304 --- Gamma rays: observations}
136:
137: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
138: \section{Introduction}
139:
140: The most astonishing contribution from the ground-based IACTs
141: has been the detection of AGNs at energies above several hundred GeV.
142: To date, 19 active galactic nuclei have been reported to emit
143: Very High Energy (VHE) gamma-rays \citep{Hin07},
144: most of them classified as
145: high-frequency-peaked BL Lacs (HBLs) \citep{Pad95}.
146: Some, such as Mrk~421 and Mrk~501, have been targets of
147: simultaneous multi-wavelength campaigns since their first
148: TeV detection \citep{Pun92, Qui96}, and are well studied.
149: The derived broadband spectral energy distributions (SEDs)
150: show that they have two components. The lower energy component
151: is believed to be synchrotron emission produced
152: by relativistic electrons in the jet, and the higher energy
153: component, although relatively poorly understood,
154: is probably explained by the inverse-Compton scattering
155: of seed photons (either synchrotron or ambient photons)
156: by the same population of electrons
157: \citep[see e.g.,][]{Jon74, Ulr97, Der93, Sik94}.
158:
159: Multi-wavelength observations of HBLs have also shown that
160: the fluxes are extremely variable, particularly
161: in the higher energy bands.
162: Flux variations on a wide range of time scales
163: from months to two minutes
164: are reported at TeV energies
165: \citep[e.g.,][]{Gai96, Kra01, Aha02, Aha05c, Bla05, Aha99, Gli06, Alb07a}.
166: Time variability is a very useful way to probe the emission mechanism
167: in the jet.
168: Characteristic time scales, which can be employed as a measure of
169: super-massive black hole mass at the center of HBL,
170: have been studied with X-ray data using statistical techniques
171: such as power spectra, structure functions, {\it etc\/}
172: \citep[e.g.,][]{Hay98, Zha99, Kat01, Cui04}.
173: A good correlation of the X-ray and the TeV fluxes
174: has also been reported
175: \citep[e.g.,][]{Buc96, Tak96, Dja99, Tak00, Sam00, Kra02, Alb07a}.
176: Recently, however, poor correlations or a total lack of correlation
177: between the X-ray and TeV fluxes of individual flares
178: have been observed
179: \citep[e.g.,][]{Bla05,Aha05c},
180: and even TeV flares with no X-ray counterpart have been found
181: \citep{Bla05, Kra04}.
182: Spectral hardening with flux in the TeV energy range
183: has been reported for
184: Mrk~421 \citep{Aha02, Kre02, Alb07a} and Mrk~501 \citep{Alb07b}.
185:
186: PKS\,2155$-$304 ($z=0.116$ \citep{Fal93}) is one of the brightest BL Lacs
187: in the X-ray \citep{Bri94,Kub98,Gio98,Ves99,Nic02,Zha05}
188: and EUV \citep{Mar93} bands.
189: Since the discovery of X-ray emission from
190: this object \citep{Gri79,Sch79},
191: it has been repeatedly observed
192: over a wide range of frequencies from radio to
193: Very High Energy (VHE) gamma-rays
194: \citep[e.g.,][]{Tre89,Ves95,Zha96,Pia97,Pin04,Dom04,Aha05a}.
195:
196: In 1997 November, a gamma-ray and X-ray outburst
197: from PKS\,2155$-$304 was detected by EGRET \citep{Sre97},
198: BeppoSAX \citep{Chi99} and RXTE \citep{Ves99}.
199: During this active phase, the Durham group observed
200: PKS\,2155$-$304 using their Mark~6 telescope,
201: and reported the first detection of VHE gamma-rays
202: at the 6.8\,$\sigma$ level above 300\,GeV \citep{Cha99a}
203: at the time of BeppoSAX observation.
204: However they found no evidence for TeV gamma-ray emission during
205: observations in 1998 \citep{Cha99b} when the X-ray flux level was low.
206: PKS\,2155$-$304 was observed with
207: the CANGAROO-I 3.8\,m telescope in 1997, though poor weather resulted in
208: minimal overlap with the Durham observations.
209: No gamma-ray signal above 1.5\,TeV was detected \citep{Rob99}.
210: PKS\,2155$-$304 was further observed in 1999, 2000 and 2001
211: with the CANGAROO-II telescope.
212: It remained in a low state of X-ray activity
213: in those periods,
214: and was not detected above the energy threshold
215: of 420\,GeV \citep{Nis01,Nis02,Nak03}.
216: PKS\,2155$-$304 was confirmed as a TeV gamma-ray source
217: by the H.E.S.S.\ group in 2004. They reported a 45\,$\sigma$
218: detection
219: at energies greater than 160\,GeV in July and October, 2002,
220: and June--September, 2003 \citep{Aha05a}.
221: The flux variability on time scales
222: of months, days, and hours were also reported,
223: and the monthly-averaged flux above 300\,GeV
224: was between 10\% and 60\% of Crab flux.
225: The energy spectrum was characterized by a steep power law
226: with a time-averaged photon index of $\Gamma\sim3.3$.
227: Multi-wavelength observations in 2003 in a low state showed
228: no correlation between the X-ray and the gamma-ray fluxes,
229: or between any other wavebands, even though the fastest ever
230: X-ray flare in this object, with a $1500$~sec timescale,
231: was detected \citep{Aha05b}.
232:
233: In July 2006, the H.E.S.S.\ group reported that PKS\,2155$-$304
234: had been detected at historically high TeV flux levels of up
235: to several crab
236: \citep{Ben06,
237: %\footnote{ATel 867 is available at:
238: %http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=867},
239: Rau06}.
240: They also presented very rapid flux variability
241: with one-minute time scale resolution
242: and found well-resolved bursts varying on timescales of
243: $\sim200$ seconds \citep{Aha07}.
244: The H.E.S.S.\ report triggered multi-wavelength
245: Target of Opportunity (ToO) observations,
246: including the observations with the CANGAROO-III telescopes
247: from 2006 July 28 (MJD 53944) described in this paper.
248: %\citet{Fos07} report the X-ray flux increased by a factor of 5
249: %and the optical/UV flux by a factor of 1.5,
250: %with a delay of roughly 1 day.
251:
252: Numerous multi-wavelength campaigns of PKS\,2155$-$304
253: have been carried out
254: \citep[e.g.,][]{Ede95,Urr97,Aha05b},
255: and many physical implications for the emission mechanisms have been
256: reported \citep[e.g.,][]{Chi99,Kat00,Ede01,Tan01,Zha02,Zha06}.
257: However, these models are still face challenges in
258: explaining the complex and different patterns of
259: multi-wavelength variations for each epoch.
260:
261: For objects like PKS\,2155$-$304 which show rapid and
262: complex time variability,
263: continuous monitoring is very important for modeling
264: the emission mechanisms.
265: The difference in longitude between
266: the H.E.S.S.\ and CANGAROO-III
267: sites is $\sim120^{\circ}$, corresponding to an
268: 8\,hour time difference. Thus the H.E.S.S.\
269: and the CANGAROO-III data complement one another.
270: Northern hemisphere blazars, such as Mrk~421, Mrk~501 and
271: 1ES~1959$+$650, have been observed at TeV energies
272: continuously with more than two geographically distant
273: telescope systems
274: \citep[e.g.,][]{Reb06,Gli06,Kra04},
275: providing greatly improved time coverage, but
276: PKS~2155$-$304 is the first object in the southern sky
277: for which such studies have been made.
278:
279: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
280: \section{Detector and Observations}
281:
282: The CANGAROO-III imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope
283: system which consists of four telescopes are
284: operated in Woomera, South Australia (longitude $136^{\circ}47'$\,E,
285: latitude $31^{\circ}06'$\,S, 160~m~a.s.l.).
286: They have parabolic reflectors of 10~m~diameter
287: with an 8~m~focal length. Each reflector
288: consists of 114 small spherical mirrors
289: of 80~cm~diameter, which are made of Fiber Reinforced Plastic.
290: The imaging cameras have 427 pixels of $0.17^{\circ}$ size and
291: a total field of view of $\sim4^{\circ}$.
292: These telescopes use altitude-azimuth mounts and are placed at the corners
293: of a diamond with 100~m~sides.
294: The details of the mirror, the camera,
295: and the total performance of the light collecting system
296: are described in \citet{Kaw01}, \citet{Kab03}, and \citet{Eno06a}.
297:
298: The CANGAROO-III observations of PKS\,2155$-$304
299: during this outburst period were made
300: on five moonless nights between July 28 (MJD 53944) to August 2 in 2006.
301: There were no observations on August 1, and the July 29 observations were
302: affected by cloud.
303: Three (T2, T3, T4) of the four telescopes were used in these observations.
304: For each telescope, when the number of hit pixels
305: exceeds four within a 20~nsec coincidence window, a local trigger
306: is sent to the stereo trigger system through an optical link.
307: In the stereo trigger system, determination of stereo events
308: is done by requiring that at least two local trigger signals
309: coinciding for at least 10~nsec within
310: a 650~nsec time window, taking the geometrical time delay,
311: % considering the geometrical time delay
312: %which depends on the telescope pointing direction \citep{Kub01,Nis05}.
313: which depends on the telescope pointing direction,
314: into consideration\citep{Kub01,Nis05}.
315:
316: These observations were made using wobble mode
317: in which pointing position of each telescope was shifted in declination
318: between $\pm0.5^{\circ}$ from the center of PKS\,2155$-$304 alternatively
319: every twenty minutes.
320: Due to a mechanical tracking problem with the T3 telescope during
321: this period, stereo observations
322: with three telescopes were done only after culmination.
323: Stereoscopic observations using T2 and T4, which are located on
324: the long diagonal of the diamond,
325: were performed before culmination from July 28 to July 31.
326:
327: The details of the CANGAROO-III observations of
328: PKS\,2155-304 are summarized in Table~\ref{mjd}.
329: The typical trigger rates, the mean zenith angle,
330: and the total observation time of two-fold coincidences of T2--T4
331: were $\sim$20~Hz, $26.6^{\circ}$, and 11.4\,hours, respectively.
332: The typical trigger rate of three-fold coincidences
333: was $\sim$12~Hz, with a mean zenith angle for these
334: observations of $20.4^{\circ}$
335: and a total observation time of 17.6\,hours.
336: The daily observation time $t_{obs}$, average zenith angle $z$,
337: and trigger rate $r_{tr}$ are shown
338: in Table~\ref{mjd} for both T2--T4
339: and three-fold data.
340: The zenith angles of observations ranged from
341: $52^{\circ}$ to $7^{\circ}$ for T2--T4 data, and from
342: $1^{\circ}$ to $46^{\circ}$ for three-fold data.
343:
344: Follow-up observations were made with the same system on six moonless
345: nights between August 17 (MJD 53964) and 25.
346: These data were taken only after
347: culmination using three-fold coincidences. The zenith angle during these
348: observations ranged from $1^{\circ}$ to $48^{\circ}$ with a mean of
349: $20.9^{\circ}$, and a total observation time of 19.1\,hours.
350: These observations are also summarized
351: in Table~\ref{mjd}.
352:
353: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
354: \section{Analysis}
355:
356: In order to calibrate the relative gain and the timing
357: for each pixel, the data taken by illuminating the focal plane
358: uniformly with LED photons were used.
359: Conversion factors from ADC value to photoelectrons
360: for each pixel are determined using the LED system
361: in the camera vessel,
362: and the timing jitter of the pulse signals are
363: calibrated using light from a LED mounted at the center of
364: the telescope dish.
365: Details of the standard CANGAROO-III calibration
366: methods are given in \citet{Kab03}.
367: These LED runs were performed at least once per night.
368: Five out of 427 pixels for T2 and two for T3
369: were identified as bad pixels which gave no signal or
370: false signals, and these were removed from the analysis.
371: There were no bad pixels in the T4 camera.
372:
373: We have cleaned the images to eliminate
374: night sky background photons and select shower images.
375: Each pixel is required to have a signal larger than 5.0\,p.e.\
376: with an arrival time within
377: $\pm$30\,nsec of the average shower arrival time.
378: Images containing at least five adjacent pixels
379: which pass the above requirements are selected.
380: The distributions of shower rate each minute are
381: shown in Fig.~\ref{shower_rate} for T2--T4 coincidence
382: (left panel) and three-fold coincidence(right panel),
383: respectively, and
384: the average shower rate $r_{sh}$ for each night
385: is listed in Table~\ref{summary}.
386: In order to ensure reliable arrival direction and
387: energy estimations, the data taken during periods
388: when shower rate was lower than $\sim$5~Hz
389: for three-fold coincidences and $\sim$10~Hz for T2--T4 coincidences
390: are not used, as they are probably affected by clouds.
391: In the following analysis, we further require
392: that none of the brightest 15 pixels of each image
393: should be in the outermost layer of the camera
394: in order to avoid deformation of the image.
395: This method improves the effective area
396: by more than 20\% compared to the previous simple edge cut \citep{Eno06a},
397: particularly above $\sim$2~TeV.
398: After taking into account the DAQ dead-time,
399: the effective total live time $t_{liv}$ is also summarized
400: in the same table.
401:
402: The moments of the shower image are then parameterized
403: using the {\it Hillas parameters\/} \citep{Hil85},
404: and the arrival directions are reconstructed
405: using the intersection of image axes.
406: The intersection point is obtained by minimizing
407: the sum of squared widths of the images
408: seen from the assumed point with a constraint on the distances
409: between images' center of gravity and assumed intersection point (IP-fit)
410: considering the $length$/$width$ ratio (see \citet{Kab07} for details),
411: which is similar to Algorithm 5 in \citet{Hof99}.
412: This method improves the signal to noise ratio by more than 10\%
413: compared to the procedure described in \citet{Eno06a} and
414: is confirmed by Monte Carlo simulations and observations of the Crab nebula.
415:
416: After event reconstruction, numerous cosmic ray
417: background events are rejected using
418: the Fisher Discriminant (FD) method \citep{Fis36}.
419: The FD value for each event is calculated as explained
420: in \citet{Eno06b} using the size-corrected $width$ and $length$
421: for each telescope, where the energy dependence of
422: the $width$ and $length$ are corrected to keep each parameter
423: at the same values in various energies.
424: In order to determine the optimum FD cut values,
425: a Monte Carlo simulation was carried out
426: assuming a single power-law spectrum, $dF/dE \propto{E^{-\Gamma}}$,
427: with an index of $\Gamma=3.3$,
428: as determined for PKS~2155$-$304
429: by the H.E.S.S.\ group \citep{Aha05a}.
430: Before applying the FD cuts, the data are divided into two data sets,
431: ''$2fold$'' which include the data taken by only T2--T4 coincidence
432: and ''$3fold$'' which required a three-fold coincidence between the
433: three telescopes.
434: Each dataset is further divided by zenith angle into two datasets,
435: ''$3fold$--$SZ$'' and ''$2fold$--$SZ$'' for $z<30^{\circ}$, and
436: ''$3fold$--$LZ$'' and ''$2fold$--$LZ$'' for $z>30^{\circ}$, respectively.
437: Considering the Point Spread Function (PSF) of $0.23^{\circ}$ (FWHM),
438: the ${\theta}^2$ (where $\theta$ is the angular difference
439: between the reconstructed arrival direction and the source position)
440: cuts were applied at $\theta^{2}<0.06~\mbox{deg}^2$
441: for the $3fold$ data,
442: and to keep the same efficiency for gamma rays as for
443: the three-fold analysis,
444: $\theta^{2}<0.14~\mbox{deg}^2$ was applied to the $2fold$ data.
445: Based on the Monte Carlo simulation assuming 100~\% Crab flux
446: of gamma rays above 600~GeV,
447: we could determine the best FD cut criteria
448: which yielded the highest significance for each dataset.
449: Following the results from the Monte Carlo study,
450: we select the events with $FD>-0.3$ for $3fold$--$SZ$,
451: $FD>-0.2$ for $3fold$--$LZ$, $FD>-0.1$ for $2fold$--$SZ$
452: and $FD>-0.2$ for $2fold$--$LZ$ datasets, as candidate gamma-ray events.
453:
454: The primary gamma-ray energy is estimated from the number of
455: detected photo-electrons, based on the Monte Carlo simulations
456: assuming a single power-law spectrum as mentioned above.
457: This relation depends on the zenith angle of observations,
458: so the simulations were done using the same variation of elevation
459: as the actual observations.
460: Although there is also some dependence on the impact parameter in the
461: energy determination, we do not incorporate that here, with the
462: resulting energy resolution estimated to be 30~\% around 1 TeV.
463: The effective detection area has been estimated
464: from the Monte Carlo simulation as a function of energy.
465: The detection energy threshold $E_{th}$ is taken to be
466: the energy of the peak of the distribution of triggered shower energies.
467:
468: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
469: \section{Results}
470:
471: In this section, we show the results of CANGAROO-III observations
472: of PKS\,2155$-$304 in 2006. A summary of the results are shown
473: in Table~\ref{summary}. Using these results, we present
474: the average integral flux, the average differential
475: energy spectrum, and the time variation.
476:
477:
478: \subsection{Average flux}
479:
480: After the data reduction described in previous section, the final
481: ${\theta}^2$ distribution
482: is obtained.
483: Fig.~\ref{theta2} (a) and (c) show the results in the outburst period
484: for $3fold$ and $2fold$ datasets, respectively.
485: The background level was estimated using off-source data
486: in the corresponding region in the other side of the field of view.
487: The distributions of the excess events against $\theta^{2}$,
488: i.e., with the off-source events subtracted from the on-source events,
489: are shown in Fig.~\ref{theta2}(b) and (d) for $3fold$ and $2fold$,
490: respectively.
491: There are clear excesses at small values of ${\theta}^2$
492: in both figures corresponding to the observed signal
493: from PKS\,2155$-$304.
494: The number of excess events are calculated using a circular region
495: of $\theta^{2}<0.06~\mbox{deg}^2$ for $3fold$ and
496: $\theta^{2}<0.14~\mbox{deg}^2$ for $2fold$
497: centered on the source position, respectively,
498: considering the PSF as mentioned in the previous section.
499: The hatched histograms in figure~\ref{theta2} (b) and (d)
500: indicate the expected PSF normalized to the number of
501: excess events in $\theta^{2}<0.25$.
502: The combined excess of all the data is
503: 322$\pm$67~events ($4.8\sigma$),
504: where only the propagation of statistical errors is considered.
505: Fig.~\ref{FD} shows the FD distributions after the $\theta^2$ cut
506: for on-source events, off-source events and the gamma-ray
507: candidate events (on-source$-$off-source) together with
508: the Monte-Carlo gamma-rays normalized to the number of
509: excess events.
510: The FD distributions are quite consistent for
511: the observed gamma-ray events and the Monte Carlo gamma rays.
512: The FD cut is not applied for this plot.
513: The time-averaged integral flux above 660~GeV is
514: calculated to be
515: $F(>~660~\mbox{GeV})~=~(1.6\pm0.3_{stat}\pm0.5_{syst})\times10^{-11}~\mbox{cm}^{-2}~\mbox{sec}^{-1}$.
516: This corresponds to $\sim45\%$ of the flux observed
517: from the Crab nebula \citep{Aha04}, and is a factor of five
518: more intense than the flux in the low state reported in \citep{Aha05a}.
519: The systematic error in the flux arises mainly from
520: energy scale uncertainties due to the absolute
521: light collection efficiency (20\%), FD cut criteria (22\%),
522: uncertainties in the probability density function of images
523: generated by Monte Carlo simulation (10\%), and the uncertainty of
524: a power law index (8\%).
525: At a higher energy threshold above 1.0 TeV, which corresponds
526: to the energy threshold for $3fold$--$LZ$ and $2fold$--$LZ$ data,
527: no significant excess above our sensitivity from PKS\,2155$-$304
528: is found in this period,
529: and the resulting $2\sigma$ flux upper limit is
530: $F(>~1.0~\mbox{TeV})<9.2\times10^{-12}~\mbox{cm}^{-2}~\mbox{sec}^{-1}$.
531:
532: For a cross-check, an alternative analysis using
533: the Fisher Discriminant with a fit \citep{Eno06b}
534: was performed on the same data.
535: Although this is our standard method of analysis,
536: the fine time binning and consequent small count statistics
537: make it difficult to estimate the systematic errors correctly.
538: The main source of error is the non-uniformity of
539: the Fisher Discriminant in the ring-shaped background region.
540: So we primarily took a conservative FD cuts method
541: using a single reflected background at the expense
542: of the statistics, and used FD fits
543: as a cross-check.
544: The difference of the integral flux between them
545: was less than $15\%$ comparing at the same threshold energy.
546:
547:
548: \subsection{Average differential energy spectrum}
549:
550: We obtained the time-averaged differential energy spectrum
551: from all the data except for large zenith angle dataset,
552: {\it i.e.\/} from $3fold$--$SZ$ and $2fold$--$SZ$,
553: since the large zenith angle data have
554: a higher energy threshold and
555: therefore lower energy bins have a different exposure
556: than higher energy one.
557: The differential flux is shown in Fig.~\ref{diff_spec}
558: as closed circles with 1$\sigma$ statistical error bars.
559: The best fit of a power law to the small zenith angle data yields
560: a photon index $\Gamma = 2.5\pm{0.5}_{stat}\pm{0.7}_{syst}$
561: and a flux normalization
562: $N_0(~1~\mbox{TeV})~=~(1.0\pm0.2_{stat}\pm0.3_{syst})\times10^{-11}~\mbox{cm}^{-2}~\mbox{sec}^{-1}\mbox{TeV}^{-1}$.
563: We estimate the systematic error considering
564: the same factors as mentioned in the previous section.
565:
566: \subsection{Time variations}
567:
568: We have searched for gamma-ray emission from PKS\,2155$-$304
569: on a night-by-night basis.
570: The live time, $t_{liv}$,
571: the number of on-source and off-source events,
572: $N_{ON}$ and $N_{OFF}$,
573: the number of excess events, $N$, and
574: significance, $s$, corresponding to each night are summarized
575: in Table~\ref{summary}.
576: Here the off-source data are summed up over the five nights
577: to reduce the statistical fluctuation,
578: and normalized to the live time of each night.
579: The nightly average integral fluxes $F$ above 660\,GeV,
580: using all the data are also shown in the same table,
581: and are plotted in Fig.~\ref{daybyday},
582: where the flux from $3fold$ and $2fold$ datasets are combined.
583: The light curve shows that the average flux
584: reached $\sim70~\%$~Crab in the night of July 30.
585: %then
586: %dropped rapidly by a factor of almost 3 during the same night
587: %on a time scale of $\sim2$~hours.
588: Assuming a constant average flux, a $\chi^2$ fit yields
589: a value of 13.9 for 4 degrees of freedom, which corresponds to
590: a $\chi^2$ probability of $\sim 0.8~\%$.
591: This means that there is a marginal time variations
592: of the average flux on a nightly basis between July 28 and August 2.
593:
594: We further divide the data into $\sim40$ minutes bins
595: for each night, and intra-night variation is investigated.
596: %Since the pointing position is alternatively shifted
597: Since the pointing offset from the source position
598: is alternated in sign every 20 minutes
599: in our observations, 40 minutes bin
600: is adopted as it offers a reasonable cancellation of
601: any asymmetric effects.
602: The light curve of PKS\,2155$-$304 expressed
603: by the integral flux of VHE gamma-rays above 660GeV
604: using $2fold$--$SZ$ and $3fold$--$SZ$ dataset is
605: shown in Fig.~\ref{light_curve}.
606:
607: Assuming a constant average flux for the data above 660\,GeV,
608: a $\chi^2$ fit yields a value of 96.4 for 30 degrees of freedom,
609: which corresponds to a $\chi^2$ probability of $7\times10^{-9}$.
610: The same calculation was done for the data of July 28 and 30,
611: and gave $\chi^2$ values of 29.2 and 22.1 for 6 degrees of freedom,
612: respectively.
613: The intra-night variations are apparent.
614: From figure~\ref{light_curve}, although it is difficult
615: to calculate the fractional
616: root mean square variability amplitude $F_{var}$
617: \citep{Vau03} because of the poor statistics,
618: $F_{var}=0.75\pm0.07$ on July 28 and $0.58\pm0.08$
619: on July 30 are obtained.
620:
621: The results in the follow-up observations between August 17 and 25
622: are also summarized in Table~\ref{summary}.
623: The 2$\sigma$ upper limit above 680\,GeV is
624: $F(>680\mbox{GeV})<6.8\times10^{-12}~\mbox{cm}^{-2}~\mbox{sec}^{-1} (<20\%~\mbox{Crab})$,
625: which shows TeV gamma-ray activity had subsided
626: compared to the outburst period.
627:
628:
629: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
630: \section{Discussion}
631:
632: From Figure~\ref{daybyday}, the fluxes on July 28 and 30
633: exceed $50\%$ of the flux from the Crab nebula,
634: and are the same level
635: as that at the end of July 27--28 (MJD 53944) observation
636: reported by the H.E.S.S.\ group \citep{Aha07},
637: taking into account the difference of energy threshold
638: and assuming a power law spectrum.
639: The flux in July 29 might be underestimated due to the presence
640: of clouds.
641: Therefore, our light curve suggests that the flux continuously
642: decreases on average following the large flare of July 28.
643: The preliminary H.E.S.S.\ light curve above 200\,GeV presented
644: by \citet{Rau06} indicates that a 5~crab flare occurred
645: between our observations of July 29 and 30. However we did not
646: detect a flare in this period, possibly due to the 10~hour gap
647: between the end of the H.E.S.S.\ observations and
648: the start of our observations.
649: For the shorter variability time scales, the July 28 and 30 data
650: indicate the intra-night variations.
651:
652: The derived values of the fractional root mean square variability amplitude,
653: $F_{var}=0.49$ for night by night variation and
654: $F_{var}=0.47$ for intra-night variation in July 28,
655: are comparable to the values from the intra-night variability
656: earlier on July 28 reported by H.E.S.S. \citep{Aha07}.
657: They are rather higher than the values for the X-ray variability
658: (e.g., 0.10--0.43 listed by \citet{Zha99}),
659: (although much higher, and energy dependent, values
660: of $F_{var}$ have been reported by MAGIC~\citep{Alb07b} for Mrk~501).
661:
662: In Figure~\ref{multiwave_lc}, our TeV light curve is
663: plotted together with the $Swift$ x-ray light curve~\citep{Fos07}.
664: Unfortunately, $Swift$ started observations two hours
665: after CANGAROO stopped observing each day, so
666: there are no simultaneous observations.
667: There is no evident correlation between the X-ray and the gamma-ray fluxes,
668: with a time lag of approximately 9~hours.
669: \citet{Fos07} reported the X-ray flux increased
670: by a factor of 5 in the 0.3--10\,keV energy band without
671: a large spectral change, and the highest peak
672: of the $Swift$ light curve corresponds to
673: the second large TeV flare observed by H.E.S.S.~\citep{Rau06}.
674: The X-ray flux in this outburst is not very high and
675: it is not possible to detect time variation of the flux
676: in the RXTE--ASM data.
677: For observations in 2002 and 2003,
678: no correlation between the X-ray and the gamma-ray
679: fluxes was reported by H.E.S.S.\ \citep{Aha05b}, however
680: a strong correlation during 2004 observations was presented
681: in a preliminary analysis by \citet{Pun07}.
682: On the other hand, Mrk~421 has displayed a good correlation
683: between the X-ray and the gamma-ray fluxes, although recently
684: no correlation results, including ``Orphan flares'',
685: were reported.
686: The simple one-zone SSC model is unable to explain
687: such complex behavior ~\citep[e.g.,][]{Bla05}.
688: Some models explaining ``Orphan flares'' have been proposed,
689: for example, by \citet{Kus06} for the leptonic model
690: and \citet{Bot05} for the hadronic model.
691:
692: During the outburst periods, the photon index may change
693: along with the flux variations, as is the case for Mrk~421 and Mrk~501
694: \citep[e.g.,][]{Aha02, Kre02, Alb07a, Alb07b}.
695: However, the average photon index we obtained here
696: does not differ from the value that H.E.S.S.\ reported
697: previously \citep{Aha05a} within errors,
698: and is consistent with those subsequently reported
699: by H.E.S.S.\ \citep{Aha07}
700: and MAGIC \citep{Maz07}.
701: The reason for this difference in the variation
702: of photon index between PKS~2155$-$304 and Mrk~421 is
703: still an open question.
704: Although the error on the spectrum is enormous,
705: a spectral index after correction for the absorption
706: by the extra-galactic background light
707: is calculated to be $\Gamma = 1.6\pm0.5$ and $\Gamma = 1.3\pm0.5$
708: using the baseline model and the fast evolution model
709: by \citet{Ste06}, respectively.
710: %Compared to the other blazars, these values are moderate
711: %\citep{Ste07}.
712:
713:
714: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
715: \section{Conclusion}
716:
717: We observed the southern HBL PKS~2155$-$304 from
718: 2006 July 28 (MJD 53944) to August 2 with the CANGAROO-III imaging
719: Cherenkov telescopes. During the VHE high state
720: we detected a signal at $4.8\sigma$ significance
721: above 660~GeV
722: in the total effective exposure time of 25.1~hours.
723: The time averaged integral flux above 660~GeV is
724: $(1.6\pm0.3_{stat}\pm0.5_{syst})\times10^{-11}\,\mbox{cm}^{-2}\,\mbox{sec}^{-1}$
725: which corresponds to $\sim45\%$ of the flux observed
726: from the Crab nebula.
727: The intra-night time variations of the flux
728: were seen in our observations.
729: Follow-up observations two weeks later
730: indicated the source activity had decreased to lower than
731: $\sim20\%$ Crab flux..
732:
733: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
734: \acknowledgments
735:
736: We thank Dr.\ W.\ Hofmann, Dr.\ S.\ Wagner, Dr.\ G.\ Rowell,
737: Dr.\ W.\ Benbow, Dr.\ B.\ Giebels, and L.\ Foschini
738: for providing details of the H.E.S.S. and the Swift
739: observations of PKS~2155$-$304.
740: This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by the
741: Japan Ministry for Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,
742: the Australian Research Council (Grants LE0238884 and DP0345983),
743: and Inter-University Research Program by the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research.
744: The support of JSPS Research Fellowship for T.N.\ and Y.H.\ is
745: gratefully acknowledged.
746: A part of this work was funded for Y.S. by the Sasagawa Scientific
747: Research Grant from The Japan Science Society.
748:
749: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
750: \begin{thebibliography}{}
751: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(1999)]{Aha99}
752: Aharonian, F., et al. 1999, \aap, 342, 69
753: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2002)]{Aha02}
754: Aharonian, F., et al. 2002, \aap, 393, 89
755: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2004)]{Aha04}
756: Aharonian, F., et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 897
757: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005a)]{Aha05a}
758: Aharonian, F., et al. 2005a, \aap, 430, 865
759: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005b)]{Aha05b}
760: Aharonian, F., et al. 2005b, \aap, 442, 895
761: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2005c)]{Aha05c}
762: Aharonian, F., et al. 2005c, \aap, 437, 95
763: \bibitem[Aharonian et al.(2007)]{Aha07}
764: Aharonian, F., et al. 2007, \apj, 664, L71
765: \bibitem[Albert et al.(2007a)]{Alb07a}
766: Albert, J., et al. 2007, \apj, 663, 125
767: \bibitem[Albert et al.(2007b)]{Alb07b}
768: Albert, J., et al. 2007, \apj, submitted (astro-ph/0702008)
769: \bibitem[Beilicke(2006)]{Bei06}
770: Beilicke, M. 2006,
771: presentation at the 3rd Workshop on the Nature of Unidentified
772: High-Energy Sources (Barcelona)
773: \bibitem[Benbow et al.(2006)]{Ben06}
774: Benbow, W., Costamante, L., \& Giebels, B. 2006, ATel \#867
775: \bibitem[Blazejowski et al.(2005)]{Bla05}
776: Blazejowski, M., et al. 2005, \apj, 630, 130
777: \bibitem[B\"ottcher (2005)]{Bot05}
778: B\"ottcher, M. 2005, \apj, 621, 176
779: \bibitem[Brinkmann et al.(1994)]{Bri94}
780: Brinkmann, W., et al. 1994, \aap, 288, 443
781: \bibitem[Buckley et al.(1996)]{Buc96}
782: Buckley, J. H., et al. 1996, \apj, 472, L9
783: \bibitem[Chadwick et al.(1999a)]{Cha99a}
784: Chadwick, P. M., et al. 1999a, \apj, 513, 161
785: \bibitem[Chadwick et al.(1999b)]{Cha99b}
786: Chadwick, P. M., et al. 1999b,
787: in Proc.\ 26th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Salt Lake City), 3, 338
788: \bibitem[Chiappetti et al.(1999)]{Chi99}
789: Chiappetti, L., et al. 1999, \apj, 521, 552
790: \bibitem[Cui (2004)]{Cui04}
791: Cui, W. 2004, \apj, 605, 662
792: \bibitem[Dermer \& Schlickheiser(1993)]{Der93}
793: Dermer, C. D., \& Schlickheiser, R. 1993, \apj, 416, 458
794: \bibitem[Djannati-Atai et al.(1999)]{Dja99}
795: Djannati-Atai, A., et al. 1999, \aap, 350, 17
796: \bibitem[Dominici et al.(2004)]{Dom04}
797: Dominici, T. P., et al. 2004, \aj, 128, 47
798: \bibitem[Edelson et al.(1995)]{Ede95}
799: Edelson, R. A., et al. 1995, \apj, 438, 120
800: \bibitem[Edelson et al.(2001)]{Ede01}
801: Edelson, R. A., et al. 2001, \apj, 554, 274
802: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006a)]{Eno06a}
803: Enomoto, R., et al. 2006a, \apj, 638, 397
804: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2006b)]{Eno06b}
805: Enomoto, R., et al. 2006b, \apj, 652, 1268
806: \bibitem[Falomo et al.(1993)]{Fal93}
807: Falomo, R. et al. 1993, \apj, 411, L63
808: \bibitem[Fisher(1936)]{Fis36}
809: Fisher, R. A. 1936, Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179
810: \bibitem[Foschini et al.(2007)]{Fos07}
811: Foschini, L., et al. 2007, \apj, in press(astro-ph/0701868)
812: \bibitem[Gaidos et al.(1996)]{Gai96}
813: Gaidos, J. A., et al. 1996, Nature, 383, 319
814: \bibitem[Giebels(2006)]{Gie06}
815: Giebels, B. 2006,
816: presentation at 2nd Workshop on TeV Particle Astrophysics (Madison)
817: \bibitem[Giommi et al.(1998)]{Gio98}
818: Giommi, P., et al. 1998, \aap, 333, L5
819: \bibitem[Gliozzi et al.(2006)]{Gli06}
820: Gliozzi, M., et al. 2006, \apj, 646, 61
821: \bibitem[Griffiths et al.(1979)]{Gri79}
822: Griffiths, R. E., et al. 1979, \apj, 234, 810
823: \bibitem[Hayashida et al.(1998)]{Hay98}
824: Hayashida, K., et al. 1998, \apj, 500, 642
825: \bibitem[Hillas et al.(1985)]{Hil85}
826: Hillas, A. M., et al. 1985
827: in Proc.\ 19th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (La Jolla), 3, 445
828: \bibitem[Hinton (2007)]{Hin07}
829: Hinton, J. 2007,
830: in Proc.\ of the 30th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Merida), Rapporteur Talk
831: \bibitem[Hofmann et al.(1999)]{Hof99}
832: Hofmann, W. et al. 1999, Astropart. Phys., 122, 135
833: \bibitem[Jones, O'dell \& Stein(1974)]{Jon74}
834: Jones, T. W., O'dell, S. L., \& Stein, W. A. 1974, \apj, 188, 353
835: \bibitem[Kabuki et al.(2003)]{Kab03}
836: Kabuki, S., et al. 2003, NIM, A500, 318
837: \bibitem[Kabuki et al.(2007)]{Kab07}
838: Kabuki, S., et al. 2007, \apj, 668, 968
839: \bibitem[Kataoka et al.(2000)]{Kat00}
840: Kataoka, J., et al. 2000, \apj, 528, 243
841: \bibitem[Kataoka et al.(2001)]{Kat01}
842: Kataoka, J., et al. 2001, \apj, 560, 659
843: \bibitem[Kawachi et al.(2001)]{Kaw01}
844: Kawachi, A., et al. 2001, Astropart. Phys., 14, 261
845: \bibitem[Krawczynski et al.(2001)]{Kra01}
846: Krawczynski, H., et al. 2001, \apj, 559, 187
847: \bibitem[Krawczynski et al.(2002)]{Kra02}
848: Krawczynski, H., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 721
849: \bibitem[Krawczynski et al.(2004)]{Kra04}
850: Krawczynski, H., et al. 2004, \apj, 601, 151
851: \bibitem[Krennrich et al.(2002)]{Kre02}
852: Krennrich, F., et al. 2002, \apj, 575, L9
853: \bibitem[Kubo et al.(1998)]{Kub98}
854: Kubo, H., et al. 1998, \apj, 504, 693
855: \bibitem[Kubo et al.(2001)]{Kub01}
856: Kubo, H., et al. 2001,
857: in Proc.\ 27th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Hamburg), 2900
858: \bibitem[Kusunose \& Takahara(2006)]{Kus06}
859: Kusunose, M., \& Takahara, F. 2006, \apj, 651, 113
860: \bibitem[Marshall, Carone, \& Fruscione(1993)]{Mar93}
861: Marshall, H. L., Carone, T. E., \& Fruscione, A. 1993, \apj, 414, L53
862: \bibitem[Mazin \& Lindfors(2007)]{Maz07}
863: Mazin, D., \& Lindfors, E. 2007,
864: in Proc.\ of the 30th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Merida), OG2.3, \#936
865: \bibitem[Nakase et al.(2003)]{Nak03}
866: Nakase, T. 2003,
867: in Proc.\ 28th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Tsukuba), 2587
868: \bibitem[Nicastro(2002)]{Nic02}
869: Nicastro, F. 2002, \apj, 573, 157
870: \bibitem[Nishijima(2002)]{Nis02}
871: Nishijima, K. 2002, PASA, 19, 26
872: \bibitem[Nishijima et al.(2001)]{Nis01}
873: Nishijima, K., et al. 2001,
874: in Proc.\ 27th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Hamburg), 2626
875: \bibitem[Nishijima et al.(2005)]{Nis05}
876: Nishijima, K., et al. 2005,
877: in Proc.\ 29th Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ (Pune), 15, 327
878: \bibitem[Padovani \& Giommi(1995)]{Pad95}
879: Padovani, P., \& Giommi, P. 1995, \apj, 444, 567
880: \bibitem[Pian et al.(1997)]{Pia97}
881: Pian, E., et al. 1997, \apj, 486, 784
882: \bibitem[Piner \& Edwards(2004)]{Pin04}
883: Piner, E., \& Edwards, P. G. 2004, \apj, 600, 115
884: \bibitem[Punch et al.(1992)]{Pun92}
885: Punch, M., et al. 1992, Nature, 358, 477
886: \bibitem[Punch et al.(2007)]{Pun07}
887: Punch, M., et al. 2007, presented at the 27th Int.\ Cosmic Ray
888: Conf.\ (Merida)
889: \bibitem[Quinn et al.(1996)]{Qui96}
890: Quinn, J., et al. 1996, \apj, 456, L83
891: \bibitem[Raue et al.(2006)]{Rau06}
892: Raue, M., et al. 2006, presented at the INTEGRAL Workshop on the keV
893: to TeV Connection(Rome)
894: \bibitem[Rebillot et al.(2006)]{Reb06}
895: Rebillot, P. F., et al. 2006, \apj, 641, 740
896: \bibitem[Roberts et al.(1999)]{Rob99}
897: Roberts, M. D., et al. 1999, \aap, 343, 691
898: \bibitem[Sambruna et al.(2000)]{Sam00}
899: Sambruna, R. M., et al. 2000, \apj, 538, 127
900: \bibitem[Schwartz et al.(1979)]{Sch79}
901: Schwartz, D. A., et al. 1979, \apj, 229, L53
902: \bibitem[Sikora, Begelman \& Rees(1994)]{Sik94}
903: Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., \& Rees, M. J. 1994, \apj, 421, 153
904: \bibitem[Sreekumar \& Vestrand(1997)]{Sre97}
905: Sreekumar, P., \& Vestrand, W. T. 1997, IAU Circular 6776
906: %\bibitem[Stecker et al.(2007)]{Ste07}
907: % Stecker, F. W., et al. 2007, \apj, submitted
908: \bibitem[Stecker \& Scully(2006)]{Ste06}
909: Stecker, F. W., \& Scully, S. T. 2006, \apj, 652, L9
910: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(1996)]{Tak96}
911: Takahashi, T., et al. 1996, \apj, 470, L89
912: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(2000)]{Tak00}
913: Takahashi, T., et al. 2000, \apj, 542, L105
914: \bibitem[Tanihata et al.(2001)]{Tan01}
915: Tanihata, C., et al. 2001, \apj, 563, 569
916: \bibitem[Treves et al.(1989)]{Tre89}
917: Treves A., et al. 1989, \apj, 341, 733
918: \bibitem[Ulrich, Maraschi, \& Urry(1997)]{Ulr97}
919: Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., \& Urry, C. M., 1997, \araa, 35, 445
920: \bibitem[Urry et al.(1997)]{Urr97}
921: Urry, C. M., et al. 1997, \apj, 486, 799
922: \bibitem[Vaughan et al.(2003)]{Vau03}
923: Vaughan, S., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271
924: \bibitem[Vestrand \& Sreekumar(1999)]{Ves99}
925: Vestrand, W. T., \& Sreekumar, P. 1999, Astropart.\ Phys., 11, 197
926: \bibitem[Vestrand, Stacy, \& Sreekumar(1995)]{Ves95}
927: Vestrand, W. T., Stacy, J. G., \& Sreekumar, P. 1995, \apj, 454, L93
928: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(1999)]{Zha99}
929: Zhang, Y. H., et al. 1999, \apj, 527, 719
930: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2002)]{Zha02}
931: Zhang, Y. H., et al. 2002, \apj, 572, 762
932: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2005)]{Zha05}
933: Zhang, Y. H., et al. 2005, \apj, 629, 686
934: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2006)]{Zha06}
935: Zhang, Y. H., et al. 2006, \apj, 651, 782
936: \bibitem[Zhang \& Xie(1996)]{Zha96}
937: Zhang, Y. H., \& Xie, G. Z. 1996, \aap, 116, 289
938:
939: \end{thebibliography}
940:
941: \clearpage
942:
943: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
944: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
945: \tablewidth{0pt}
946: \tabletypesize{\small}
947: \tablecaption{Summary of observations for PKS\,2155$-$304 from 2006 July
948: 28 (MJD 53944) to August 2 (MJD 53944) and the follow-up observations
949: from August 17 (MJD 53964) to 25 (MJD 53972)
950: \tablenotemark{a}
951: \label{mjd}}
952: \tablehead{
953: \colhead{} &
954: \colhead{} &
955: \colhead{Begin} &
956: \colhead{End} &
957: \colhead{$t_{obs}$} &
958: \colhead{$z$} &
959: \colhead{$r_{tr}$} \\
960: \colhead{Date} &
961: \colhead{$N_{tel}$} &
962: \colhead{[MJD]} &
963: \colhead{[MJD]} &
964: \colhead{[hrs]} &
965: \colhead{[${}^{\circ}$]} &
966: \colhead{[Hz]}
967: %\colhead{[Hz]}
968: }
969: \startdata
970: July 28 & 2 & 53944.514 & 53944.663 & 3.6 & 29.8 & 18.7 \\
971: & 3 & 53944.668 & 53944.830 & 3.9 & 20.4 & 12.1 \\
972: July 29 & 2 & 53945.522 & 53945.660 & 3.1 & 27.6 & 14.9 \\
973: & 3 & 53945.679 & 53945.762 & 2.0 & 12.1 & 6.2 \\
974: July 30 & 2 & 53946.535 & 53946.656 & 2.9 & 26.1 & 20.1 \\
975: & 3 & 53946.668 & 53946.833 & 4.0 & 22.2 & 12.5 \\
976: July 31 & 2 & 53947.576 & 53947.653 & 1.8 & 19.5 & 19.8 \\
977: & 3 & 53947.666 & 53947.827 & 3.9 & 21.7 & 11.6 \\
978: Aug. 2 & 3 & 53949.658 & 53949.822 & 3.9 & 21.5 & 11.9 \\
979: July 28--Aug.2 & 2 & & & 11.4 & 26.6 & 18.2 \\
980: & 3 & & & 17.6 & 20.4 & 11.4 \\
981: Aug. 17--25 & 3 & & & 19.1 & 20.9 & 10.9 \\
982: \enddata
983: \tablenotetext{a}{Observation date, the number of used telescopes,
984: $N_{tel}$, begin and end time of each observation in MJD,
985: are summarized from the first column to the fourth column.
986: In the following three columns,
987: observation time, $t_{obs}$, average zenith angle, $z$, and
988: average trigger rate, $r_{tr}$ are shown.
989: Combined data between July 28 and August 2 are also shown.
990: For the follow-up observations, only combined data are summarized.}
991: \end{deluxetable}
992: \clearpage
993:
994: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
995: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
996: \tablewidth{0pt}
997: \tabletypesize{\small}
998: \tablecaption{Summary of results for PKS\,2155$-$304 from 2006 July
999: 28 (MJD 53944) to August 2 (MJD 53944) and the follow-up observations
1000: from August 17 (MJD 53964) to 25 (MJD 53972)
1001: \tablenotemark{a}
1002: \label{summary}}
1003: \tablehead{
1004: \colhead{Date} &
1005: \colhead{$N_{tel}$} &
1006: \colhead{$r_{sh}$[Hz]} &
1007: \colhead{$t_{liv}$[hrs]} &
1008: \colhead{$N_{ON}$} &
1009: \colhead{$N_{OFF}$} &
1010: \colhead{$N$} &
1011: \colhead{$s$[$\sigma$]} &
1012: \colhead{$F$($>$660GeV)}\tablenotemark{b}
1013: }
1014: \startdata
1015: July 28 & 2 & 12.4 & 3.4 & 675 & 545 & $130\pm29$ & 4.6 & $3.3\pm0.7$ \\
1016: & 3 & 8.0 &3.5 & 157 & 132 & $25\pm14$ & 1.8 & $1.0\pm0.6$ \\
1017: July 29\tablenotemark{c} & 2 & 10.2 &2.2 & 338 & 340 & $-2.4\pm20$ & -0.12 & $-0.10\pm0.8$\\
1018: & 3 & 4.1 &0.9 & 39 & 32 & $7.1\pm6.1$ & 1.2 & $1.3\pm1.1$ \\
1019: July 30 & 2 & 13.2 &2.8 & 434 & 423 & $11\pm23$ & 0.48 & $0.31\pm1.0$ \\
1020: & 3 & 8.1 & 3.5 & 235 & 135 & $100\pm16$ & 6.1 & $3.9\pm0.6$ \\
1021: July 31 & 2 & 13.0 & 1.7 & 229 & 224 & $4.8\pm17$ & 0.29 & $2.9\pm1.0$ \\
1022: & 3 & 7.6 & 3.6 & 156 & 135 & $21\pm15$ & 1.4 & $0.81\pm0.57$ \\
1023: Aug. 2 & 3 & 7.8 & 3.5 & 142 & 133 & $9.4\pm14$ & 0.66 & $0.38\pm0.57$ \\
1024: July 28--Aug.2 & 2 & 12.1 & 10.1 &1676 & 1532 & $144\pm56$ & 2.5 & $1.3\pm0.5$ \\
1025: & 3 & 7.4 & 15.0 & 729 & 551 &$178\pm36$ & 5.0 & $1.7\pm0.3$ \\ \hline
1026: Aug. 17--25 & 3 & 7.4 & 17.1 & 625 & 637 &$-12\pm36$ & $-0.34$ & $-0.12\pm0.34$\tablenotemark{d}
1027: \enddata
1028: \tablenotetext{a}{Following the observation date and the number of
1029: telescopes, average shower rate, $r_{sh}$, and live time, $t_{liv}$,
1030: are shown in the third and fourth columns, respectively.
1031: $N_{ON}$ and $N_{OFF}$ in the fifth and sixth columns are
1032: the number of on-source and off-source events, respectively,
1033: where the off-source data from July 28 through August 2
1034: were summed up for five nights and normalized to the live time.
1035: Seventh column indicates the number of excess events derived
1036: by subtraction of off-source events from on-source events,
1037: and their significance are shown in the eighth column.
1038: Integral flux above 660\,GeV are calculated and are shown
1039: in the last column. Combined results from July 27 to August 2
1040: and from August 17 and 25 are also presented, respectively.}
1041: \tablenotetext{b}{in unit of $\times10^{-11}\,\mbox{cm}^{-2}\,\mbox{sec}^{-1}$}
1042: \tablenotetext{c}{affected by clouds}
1043: \tablenotetext{d}{Threshold energy is 680\,GeV.}
1044: \end{deluxetable}
1045: \clearpage
1046: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
1047:
1048: \begin{figure}
1049: \epsscale{}
1050: \plotone{f1.eps}
1051: \caption{Distributions of shower rate after image cleaning
1052: for $2fold$(left panel) and $3fold$(right panel).
1053: Solid and hatched histograms show ones for zenith angles
1054: less than $30^{\circ}$ and larger than $30^{\circ}$, respectively.
1055: From our analysis we exclude the data whose shower rate are
1056: lower than 10~Hz, 8~Hz, and 5~Hz for $2fold$--$SZ$, $2fold$--$LZ$,
1057: and $3fold$, respectively.
1058: \label{shower_rate}}
1059: \end{figure}
1060:
1061:
1062: \begin{figure}
1063: \epsscale{}
1064: \plotone{f2.eps}
1065: \caption{Distributions of squared angular distances $\theta^2$ of
1066: $2fold$ and $3fold$ data for PKS\,2155$-$304 in the outburst period,
1067: obtained after the FD cut.
1068: (a):On-source data (error bars) and off-source data (hatched histogram)
1069: for $2fold$ are overlaid, where the latter is normalized to the live time
1070: (b):Closed circles show the excess events of the on-source above
1071: the off-source level for $2fold$. The hatched histogram represents
1072: a PSF normalized to the number of excess events in $\theta^2<0.25$.
1073: (c):Same as (a) for $3fold$.
1074: (d):Same as (b) for $3fold$.
1075: \label{theta2}}
1076: \end{figure}
1077: \clearpage
1078:
1079:
1080: \begin{figure}
1081: \epsscale{}
1082: \plotone{f3.eps}
1083: \caption{Fisher Discriminant (FD) distribution for all events
1084: after $\theta^{2}$ cut in the outburst period.
1085: Closed circles with error bars are on-source
1086: events ($\theta^2<0.06$ for $3fold$ data and $\theta^2<0.14$ for
1087: $2fold$),
1088: and a solid histogram indicates off-source events.
1089: The closed squares show the distribution of on$-$off events
1090: which are gamma-ray candidates, and a dashed histogram is
1091: an expected distribution from Monte Carlo gamma-ray events
1092: normalized to the number of excess events.
1093: \label{FD}}
1094: \end{figure}
1095: \clearpage
1096:
1097:
1098: \begin{figure}
1099: \epsscale{}
1100: \plotone{f4.eps}
1101: \caption{Time-averaged differential energy spectrum
1102: of PKS\,2155$-$304 between July 28 and August 2.
1103: Data plotted by closed circles are obtained from all the data
1104: at smaller zenith angle $z<30^{\circ}$ ($3fold$--$SZ$ and $2fold$--$SZ$).
1105: The solid line represents the best fit to these data
1106: assuming a single power law spectrum.
1107: For comparison, the time average differential energy spectra
1108: in early July 28 in 2007 reported by \citet{Aha07}
1109: during a giant flare and in 2002 and 2003 reported by \citet{Aha05a}
1110: at a low state are drawn by dashed and dotted lines, respectively.
1111: \label{diff_spec}}
1112: \end{figure}
1113: \clearpage
1114:
1115:
1116: \begin{figure}
1117: \epsscale{}
1118: \plotone{f5.eps}
1119: \caption{Daily average integral flux of PKS\,2155$-$304 using
1120: all the data above 660\,GeV between 2006 July 28 and August 2.
1121: Dashed line indicates an averaged integral flux during
1122: this observation period ($\sim45~\%$~Crab flux level).
1123: \label{daybyday}}
1124: \end{figure}
1125: \clearpage
1126:
1127:
1128:
1129: \begin{figure}
1130: \epsscale{}
1131: \plotone{f6.eps}
1132: \caption{Light curve of PKS\,2155$-$304 using all the data at zenith angle less than $30^{\circ}$
1133: between 2006 July 28 and August 2, expressed by
1134: the integral flux above 660\,GeV.
1135: Closed triangles and closed circles indicate the results
1136: from $2fold$--$SZ$ and $3fold$--$SZ$ datasets, respectively.
1137: Dashed line indicates an average integral flux during this
1138: observation period.
1139: The bin width is 40 minutes.
1140: The shaded areas indicate the H.E.S.S.\ observation periods.
1141: \label{light_curve}}
1142: \end{figure}
1143: \clearpage
1144:
1145:
1146: \begin{figure}
1147: \epsscale{}
1148: \plotone{f7.eps}
1149: \caption{Comparison of the light curves between VHE gamma-ray
1150: and X-ray bands.(a) A nightly average integral flux
1151: of PKS\,2155$-$304
1152: above 660~GeV obtained by the CANGAROO-III
1153: given in unit of $\mbox{cm}^{-2}\mbox{s}^{-1}$,
1154: which is the same as in Fig.~\ref{daybyday}.
1155: An upper limit of the integral flux between August 17 and 25
1156: is also plotted, which is an extrapolate value from the actual
1157: upper limit above 680~GeV.
1158: (b)~X-ray~[0.3--10~keV] counts in unit of $\mbox{count}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$
1159: from the XRT on $Swift$ \citep{Fos07}.
1160: \label{multiwave_lc}}
1161: \end{figure}
1162: \clearpage
1163:
1164:
1165: \end{document}
1166: