1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 2005 December 5

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: %%

18: 

19: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

20: \documentclass{emulateapj}

21: 

22: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

23: 

24: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

25: 

26: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

27: 

28: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

29: 

30: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

31: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

32: %% use the longabstract style option.

33: 

34: %\documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

35: 

36: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

37: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

38: %% the \begin{document} command.

39: %%

40: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

41: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

42: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

43: %% for information.

44: 

45: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

46: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}

47: 

48: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

49: 

50: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}

51: \slugcomment{Draft Version}

52: %\journalinfo{The Astrophiscal Journal, 677:000-000, 2008 February 20}

53: %\submitted{Received 2008 May 20; Accepted 2008 October 17}

54: 

55: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

56: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

57: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

58: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

59: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

60: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

61: 

62: \shorttitle{MULTI-TeV GAMMA-RAY OBSERVATION FROM THE CRAB}

63: \shortauthors{Amenomori et al.}

64: 

65: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

66: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

67: 

68: \begin{document}

69: 

70: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

71: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

72: %% you desire.

73: 

74: \title{MULTI-TeV GAMMA-RAY OBSERVATION FROM THE CRAB NEBULA \\

75: USING THE TIBET-III AIR SHOWER ARRAY \\

76: FINELY TUNED BY THE COSMIC-RAY MOON'S SHADOW}

77: 

78: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

79: %% author and affiliation information.

80: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

81: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

82: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

83: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

84: 

85: \author{

86: M.~Amenomori\altaffilmark{1}, X.~J.~Bi\altaffilmark{2}, D.~Chen\altaffilmark{3}, S.~W.~Cui\altaffilmark{4},

87: Danzengluobu\altaffilmark{5}, L.~K.~Ding\altaffilmark{2}, X.~H.~Ding\altaffilmark{5}, C.~Fan\altaffilmark{6},

88: C.~F.~Feng\altaffilmark{6}, Zhaoyang Feng\altaffilmark{2}, Z.~Y.~Feng\altaffilmark{7},

89: X.~Y.~Gao\altaffilmark{8}, Q.~X.~Geng\altaffilmark{8}, H.~W.~Guo\altaffilmark{5}, H.~H.~He\altaffilmark{2},

90: M.~He\altaffilmark{6}, K.~Hibino\altaffilmark{9}, N.~Hotta\altaffilmark{10}, Haibing~Hu\altaffilmark{5},

91: H.~B.~Hu\altaffilmark{2}, J.~Huang\altaffilmark{2,3}, Q.~Huang\altaffilmark{7}, H.~Y.~Jia\altaffilmark{7},

92: F.~Kajino\altaffilmark{11}, K.~Kasahara\altaffilmark{12}, Y.~Katayose\altaffilmark{13},

93: C.~Kato\altaffilmark{14}, K.~Kawata\altaffilmark{3}, Labaciren\altaffilmark{5}, G.~M.~Le\altaffilmark{15},

94: A.~F.~Li\altaffilmark{6}, J.~Y.~Li\altaffilmark{6}, Y.-Q.~Lou\altaffilmark{16}, H.~Lu\altaffilmark{2},

95: S.~L.~Lu\altaffilmark{2}, X.~R.~Meng\altaffilmark{5}, K.~Mizutani\altaffilmark{12,17}, J.~Mu\altaffilmark{8},

96: K.~Munakata\altaffilmark{14}, A.~Nagai\altaffilmark{18}, H.~Nanjo\altaffilmark{1},

97: M.~Nishizawa\altaffilmark{19}, M.~Ohnishi\altaffilmark{3}, I.~Ohta\altaffilmark{20},

98: H. Onuma\altaffilmark{17}, T.~Ouchi\altaffilmark{9}, S.~Ozawa\altaffilmark{12}, J.~R.~Ren\altaffilmark{2},

99: T.~Saito\altaffilmark{21}, T.~Y.~Saito\altaffilmark{22}, M.~Sakata\altaffilmark{11},

100: T.~K.~Sako\altaffilmark{3}, M.~Shibata\altaffilmark{13}, A.~Shiomi\altaffilmark{23},

101: T.~Shirai\altaffilmark{9}, H.~Sugimoto\altaffilmark{24}, M.~Takita\altaffilmark{3},

102: Y.~H.~Tan\altaffilmark{2}, N.~Tateyama\altaffilmark{9}, S.~Torii\altaffilmark{12},

103: H.~Tsuchiya\altaffilmark{25}, S.~Udo\altaffilmark{12}, B.~Wang\altaffilmark{2}, H.~Wang\altaffilmark{2},

104: X.~Wang\altaffilmark{12}, Y.~Wang\altaffilmark{2}, Y.~G.~Wang\altaffilmark{6}, H.~R.~Wu\altaffilmark{2},

105: L.~Xue\altaffilmark{6}, Y.~Yamamoto\altaffilmark{11}, C.~T.~Yan\altaffilmark{3}, X.~C.~Yang\altaffilmark{8},

106: S.~Yasue\altaffilmark{26}, Z.~H.~Ye\altaffilmark{15}, G.~C.~Yu\altaffilmark{7}, A.~F.~Yuan\altaffilmark{5},

107: T.~Yuda\altaffilmark{9}, H.~M.~Zhang\altaffilmark{2}, J.~L.~Zhang\altaffilmark{2},

108: N.~J.~Zhang\altaffilmark{6}, X.~Y.~Zhang\altaffilmark{6}, Y.~Zhang\altaffilmark{2}, Yi~Zhang\altaffilmark{2},

109: Zhaxisangzhu\altaffilmark{5} and X.~X.~Zhou\altaffilmark{7} \\

110: (The Tibet AS$\gamma$ Collaboration)

111: }

112: 

113: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Hirosaki University, Hirosaki 036-8561, Japan.}

114: \altaffiltext{2}{Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.}

115: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8582, Japan.}

116: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050016, China.}

117: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Mathematics and Physics, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China.}

118: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.}

119: \altaffiltext{7}{Institute of Modern Physics, SouthWest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China.}

120: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China.}

121: \altaffiltext{9}{Faculty of Engineering, Kanagawa University, Yokohama 221-8686, Japan.}

122: \altaffiltext{10}{Faculty of Education, Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya 321-8505, Japan.}

123: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Physics, Konan University, Kobe 658-8501, Japan.}

124: \altaffiltext{12}{Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan.}

125: \altaffiltext{13}{Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan.}

126: \altaffiltext{14}{Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan.}

127: \altaffiltext{15}{Center of Space Science and Application Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, China.}

128: \altaffiltext{16}{Physics Department and Tsinghua Center for Astrophysics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.}

129: \altaffiltext{17}{Department of Physics, Saitama University, Saitama 338-8570, Japan.}

130: \altaffiltext{18}{Advanced Media Network Center, Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya 321-8585, Japan.}

131: \altaffiltext{19}{National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan.}

132: \altaffiltext{20}{Sakushin Gakuin University, Utsunomiya 321-3295, Japan.}

133: \altaffiltext{21}{Tokyo Metropolitan College of Industrial Technology, Tokyo 116-8523, Japan.}

134: \altaffiltext{22}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, M\"unchen D-80805, Deutschland.}

135: \altaffiltext{23}{College of Industrial Technology, Nihon University, Narashino 275-8576, Japan.}

136: \altaffiltext{24}{Shonan Institute of Technology, Fujisawa 251-8511, Japan.}

137: \altaffiltext{25}{RIKEN, Wako 351-0198, Japan.}

138: \altaffiltext{26}{School of General Education, Shinshu University, Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan.}

139: 

140: 

141: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

142: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

143: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

144: %% affiliation.

145: 

146: %%\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.

147: %%CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science

148: %%Foundation.}

149: %%\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}

150: %%\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,

151: %%    60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

152: %%\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}

153: %%\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}

154: 

155: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

156: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

157: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

158: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

159: %% editorial office after submission.

160: 

161: \begin{abstract}

162: The Tibet-III air shower array, consisting of 533 scintillation

163: detectors, has been operating successfully at Yangbajing in Tibet, China since

164: 1999.  Using the dataset collected by this array from 1999 November

165: through 2005 November, we obtained the energy spectrum of

166: $\gamma$-rays from the Crab Nebula, expressed by a power law

167: as $(dJ/dE) = (2.09\pm0.32)\times10^{-12} (E/{\rm

168:   3~TeV})^{-2.96\pm0.14} {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm TeV}^{-1}$ in

169: the energy range of 1.7 to 40~TeV. This result is consistent

170: with other independent $\gamma$-ray observations by imaging air Cherenkov

171: telescopes. In this paper, we carefully checked and tuned the

172: performance of the Tibet-III array using data on the moon's shadow in

173: comparison with a detailed Monte Carlo simulation. 

174: The shadow is shifted to the west of the moon's apparent position as an effect

175: of the geomagnetic field, although the extent of this displacement depends 

176: on the primary energy positively charged cosmic rays. This finding enables us to estimate

177: the systematic error in determining the primary energy from its

178: shower size. This error is estimated to be less than $\pm$12\% in

179: our experiment.  This energy scale estimation is the first attempt among cosmic-ray

180: experiments at ground level.  The systematic pointing error is also

181: estimated to be smaller than $0\fdg011$. The deficit rate and position

182: of the moon's shadow are shown to be very stable within a statistical

183: error of $\pm$6\% year by year.  This guarantees the long-term stability

184: of point-like source observation with the Tibet-III array. These systematic errors are

185: adequately taken into account in our study of the Crab Nebula.

186: \end{abstract}

187: 

188: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

189: %% example has been keyed in A style. See the instructions to authors

190: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

191: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

192: 

193: \keywords{cosmic rays --- gamma rays : observations --- magnetic fields --- Moon --- pulsars : individual (Crab pulsar) --- supernova remnants : individual (Crab Nebula)}

194: 

195: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

196: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

197: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

198: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

199: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

200: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

201: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

202: %% each reference.

203: 

204: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

205: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging

206: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}.  Each macro takes the

207: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket 

208: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification

209: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.  The text appearing 

210: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper. 

211: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked

212: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers  

213: %%

214: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,

215: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first

216: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).

217: %%  Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error. 

218: 

219: \section{INTRODUCTION}

220: 

221: The Crab~Nebula is a standard source of

222: radiation in the northern sky across a wide energy band, from radio to near 100~TeV

223: $\gamma$-rays. It is well known that the multi-wavelength

224: non-thermal energy spectrum is dominated by synchrotron radiation

225: at energies lower than 1~GeV and by the inverse-Compton

226: scattering above 1~GeV \cite{Jag96,Ato96}.

227: 

228: TeV $\gamma$-rays from the Crab~Nebula were first clearly detected

229: by the Whipple collaboration using an imaging air Cherenkov

230: telescope (IACT) in 1989 \cite{Wee89}.  Since then,

231: IACT has become the standard telescope for high-energy

232: $\gamma$-ray observations by virtue of its excellent angular resolution

233: and efficiency. Many IACTs have been constructed and are operating around

234: the world, detecting about 70 $\gamma$-ray sources in total up to

235: the present. On the other hand, air shower arrays have been constructed to

236: search for $\gamma$-rays from point sources at high altitude. The

237: merit of this technique is that it can be operated for 24 hours

238: every day, regardless of weather, with a wide field of view of about

239: 2~sr. The energy threshold of the $\gamma$-rays detected is higher

240: than that of IACTs, say about 3~TeV at high altitude.  Among these

241: instruments, the Tibet AS$\gamma$ Collaboration achieved the first successful

242: observation of the Crab~Nebula at a multi-TeV region in

243: 1999, using a so-called HD (high density) array in which 109 scintillation detectors

244: were deployed at 7.5~m spacing lattice intervals in an area of

245: 5,175~m$^2$ \cite{Ame99a}.  The Milagro group also reported the

246: detection of TeV $\gamma$-ray signals from the Crab~Nebula using a

247: water Cherenkov pool \cite{Atk03}.

248: 

249: Recently, IACTs have obtained updated information on the Crab~Nebula.  The

250: HEGRA experiment has extended the nebula's energy spectrum

251: up to 80~TeV with an approximate power-law shape, after patient observation

252: for almost 400 hours in total \cite{Aha04}.  In contrast, the MAGIC

253: experiment, equipped with the world's largest tessellated reflector (17~m

254: in diameter), has successfully observed the lower energy part of the spectrum down to

255: 77~GeV \cite{Alb08}.  The H.E.S.S. group examined the energy spectra

256: of the Crab~Nebula obtained from various IACTs (Whipple, HEGRA, CAT

257: and H.E.S.S.) to evaluate the systematic errors of these instruments

258: \cite{Aha06}.  Their fluxes are well in agreement with one another

259: within the statistical and systematic errors at the moderate energy

260: region, although the cutoff energy and spectral index seem to

261: differ somewhat.  Thus, the Crab~Nebula has been well studied by

262: various techniques and has been used as a standard calibration source

263: among the ground-based $\gamma$-ray experiments in the TeV region.

264: 

265: The energy of a primary cosmic-ray particle is estimated by observing

266: the number of secondary particles in an air shower experiment as well as the

267: number of Cherenkov photons for IACTs, and then by comparing these values against the results of detailed Monte

268: Carlo simulations, including the detector structure and response.  The

269: most conventional method for estimating the absolute energy scale of

270: primary particles may be to compare the flux values between the direct

271: (satellite/balloon-borne) and indirect observations. The cosmic-ray

272: flux, however, depends inevitably on the detection technique,

273: analysis method, detector simulation, and so on.  Therefore, it is

274: very important to develop a new method for directly estimating

275: the absolute energy scale in an air shower experiment at TeV energies.

276: 

277: Clark \cite{Cla57} anticipated in 1957 that the sun and the moon, each with

278: a finite size of $0\fdg5$ in diameter, cast shadows in the high-energy 

279: cosmic-ray flux, respectively.  Actually, the shadowing effect of the sun and

280: the moon (hereafter, we call these the sun's shadow and the moon's

281: shadow, respectively) was observed by air shower experiments in

282: the 1990s \cite{Ale91, Ame93}, and the sharpness of the observed

283: shadows was used to estimate their angular resolutions experimentally.  In

284: particular, the Tibet air shower array, with its high event trigger rate

285: and good angular resolution, enables us to use the geomagnetic field as

286: a magnetic spectrometer for primary cosmic rays at multi-TeV energies.

287: As almost all primary cosmic rays are positively charged, they are

288: bent eastward by the geomagnetic field at Yangbajing in Tibet.  The

289: moon's shadow should then be observed in the

290: west of the moon's apparent position, although the position of the shadow

291: in relation to that of the moon depends on the

292: cosmic-ray energy \cite{Ame00a}. Hence, the position and the

293: shape of the moon's shadow allow us to estimate the possible

294: systematic error in the absolute energy scale of observed showers.

295: Until now, the pointing accuracy and angular resolution of the

296: Tibet-III array have been checked by monitoring the moon's shadow

297: continuously month by month \cite{Ame03}.  It is also worthwhile to

298: note that the moon's and sun's shadows provide information about

299: the cosmic-ray $\bar{p}/p$ flux ratio \cite{Ach05,Ame07a} and the

300: global structure of the interplanetary magnetic field between the sun

301: and the earth \cite{Ame93,Ame94,Ame99b,Ame00a}.

302: 

303: In this paper, we first discuss the systematic uncertainties of the

304: Tibet-III array and a new method for calibrating the absolute energy

305: of primary particles in the multi-TeV energy region using the moon's

306: shadow data.  Based on the results, we report on the $\gamma$-ray

307: observation of the Crab~Nebula and search for pulsed $\gamma$-ray

308: emissions from the Crab pulsar using the dataset obtained by the

309: Tibet-III array.

310: 

311: \section{EXPERIMENT}

312: 

313: \subsection{Tibet-III Air Shower Array}

314: 

315: 

316: The Tibet-III array shown in Figure~\ref{fig1} was completed on the

317: basis of the success of the Tibet-I, II and II/HD experiments

318: \citep{Ame92, Ame99a,Ame00b} in the late fall of 1999.  This array

319: consists of 533 scintillation detectors of 0.5~m$^{2}$, and the detectors

320: on the inner side of the array are placed on a lattice with 7.5 m

321: spacing, covering 22,050~m$^2$.  A lead plate 0.5 cm thick is placed on

322: top of each detector to improve the angular resolution.  Using this

323: array, we succeeded in observing $\gamma$-ray flares from Mrk~421 and

324: found a correlation between TeV $\gamma$-ray and X-ray intensities

325: \cite{Ame03}.  In 2002 and 2003, the inside area of the

326: Tibet-III array was further enlarged to 36,900~m$^2$ by adding 256

327: detectors. This full Tibet-III array has been successfully operating

328: since 2003.  In this paper, to keep the form of the data the same throughout the

329: observation period from 1999 to 2005, we reconstructed air shower data

330: obtained from the detector configuration shown in Figure~\ref{fig1}

331: even for the full Tibet-III array.

332: 

333: \begin{figure}

334: \epsscale{1.10}

335: \plotone{f1.eps}

336: \caption{ Schematic view of the Tibet-III array operating at

337:   Yangbajing.  Open squares: FT detectors equipped with a fast-timing (FT)

338:   photomultiplier tube (PMT); filled squares: FT detectors with a wide

339:   dynamic-range PMT; filled circles: density detectors with

340:   a wide-dynamic range PMT. We have selected air shower events whose cores

341:   are located within the detector matrix enclosed by the dotted line.}

342: \label{fig1}

343: \end{figure}

344: 

345: 

346: \subsection{Event Reconstruction}

347: 

348: The raw data obtained from the Tibet-III array system mainly consist

349: of the following: a trigger time stamp for each event from a global positioning system (GPS)

350: clock supplemented by a computer clock; timing and charge information from

351: each hit PMT, digitized by a time-to-digital converter

352: (TDC) and a charge-sensitive analog-to-digital converter (ADC); and

353: calibration data taken every 20 minutes.  The ADC and TDC counts are then

354: converted to the number of particles and the relative timing for each

355: detector, respectively, using the calibration data. An air

356: shower event is reconstructed as follows.

357: 

358: The core position of each air shower is estimated using the lateral

359: distribution of the number of shower particles observed in the

360: array. The density-weighted position of the air shower core on the surface

361: of the Tibet-III array is calculated as $(X_{\rm core}, Y_{\rm

362:   core})~=~\left(\frac{\sum_{i}~\rho_{i}^{2}~x_{i}}{\sum_{i}~\rho_{i}^{2}},

363: \frac{\sum_{i}~\rho_{i}^{2}~y_{i}}{\sum_{i}~\rho_{i}^{2}}\right)$,

364: where $x_{i}$ and $y_{i}$ are the coordinates of the {\it i}-th detector and

365: $\rho_{i}$ is the number density (m$^{-2}$) of detected particles.  In

366: this analysis, we regard the shower size $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ as the

367: primary energy reference, where size $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ is

368: defined as the sum of the number of particles per m$^2$ for each FT

369: detector.  For $\gamma$-ray-induced air showers, overall core position resolutions

370: are then estimated as 12~m and 4~m at median for $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} < 100$ and

371: $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} > 100$, respectively.

372: 

373: 

374: The arrival direction of each shower is estimated assuming that the front of

375: the air shower is conical shape.  The apex of a cone is then taken to be

376: the estimated core position $(X_{\rm core}, Y_{\rm core})$.  The

377: average delay time $T$ (ns) of shower particles is expressed as a

378: function of the distance $R$ (m) from the core position as $T = 0.075

379: R$, which is optimized by simulations.  This gives a

380: cone slope of $1\fdg3$ with respect to the plane perpendicular to the

381: air shower arrival direction.

382: 

383: 

384: \subsection{Event Selection} \label{s-2.3}

385: 

386: An event trigger signal is issued when an any-fourfold coincidence

387: appears in the FT detectors that have each recorded more than 0.6 particles within a

388: coincidence gate width of 600~ns, resulting in a trigger rate of

389: about 680~Hz.  We collected 2.0$\times$10$^{10}$ events during 1318.9

390: live days from 1999 November 18 through 2005 November 15 after some

391: quality cuts and event selection based on three simple

392: criteria: (1) each shower event should fire four or more FT detectors

393: that have each recorded 1.25 or more particles; (2) among the 9 hottest FT detectors

394: in each event, 8 should be contained in the fiducial area enclosed by

395: the dotted line in Figure~\ref{fig1}.  If fewer than 9 detectors have been hit,

396: they should all be contained in the fiducial area;

397: and (3) the zenith angle of the event arrival direction should be less

398: than 40$\degr$.  After these criteria have been met, the

399: overall angular resolution and the modal energy of air shower events,

400: thus obtained, are better than 1~degree and about 3~TeV, respectively

401: \cite{Ame03}, thereby covering the upper portion of the energies measured by

402: IACTs.

403: 

404: 

405: \section{MOON'S SHADOW AND PERFORMANCE OF THE TIBET-III AIR SHOWER ARRAY}

406: 

407: \subsection{Analysis} \label{s-3.1}

408: 

409: 

410: Using the dataset described in $\S$\ref{s-2.3}, we further select the

411: events within a circle of the radius 5$\degr$ centered at the moon;

412: this circle is defined as the on-source field. An equatorial coordinate

413: system is defined, fixing the origin of coordinates at the moon's

414: center.  To estimate the background against deficits in the moon's

415: shadow, we adopt the equi-zenith angle method \cite{Ame03,Ame05}, which

416: is also used for the Crab~Nebula observation described in

417: $\S$\ref{s-4.1}.  Eight off-source fields are symmetrically aligned on

418: both sides of the on-source field, at the same zenith angle. In order

419: to avoid deficit events that are affected by background event contamination 

420: of the on-source field, the nearest two off-source fields

421: are each set at an angular distance $9\fdg6$ from the on-source field.  Other

422: off-source fields are located every $3\fdg2$ from the nearest

423: off-source fields.  The position of each observed event in

424: an on-/off-source field is then specified by the angular distance

425: $\theta$ and the position angle $\phi$, where $\theta$ and $\phi$ are

426: measured from the center and from the north direction, respectively.

427: Using $\theta$ and $\phi$, the on-/off-source fields are meshed by

428: $0\fdg05$$\times$$0\fdg05$ cells, and we count the number of events in

429: each cell.  To maximize the $S/N$ ratio, we group the cells into new

430: on-/off-source bins according to the angular resolution, which depends

431: on the shower size $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$.  The angular resolution

432: becomes worst at a threshold energy of around 1~TeV. This value is,

433: however, smaller than half of the angular distance between two

434: adjoining off-source bins, i.e., $\sim1\fdg6$, so that off-source

435: bins never overlap mutually in this background analysis.

436: 

437: We calculate the statistical significance of deficits or signals using

438: the formula \cite{Li83} $(N_{\rm ON} - \epsilon N_{\rm

439:   OFF}) / \sqrt{\epsilon (N_{\rm ON} + N_{\rm OFF})}$, where $N_{\rm

440:   ON}$ and $N_{\rm OFF}$ are the number of events in the

441: on-source bin and the number of background events summed over 8

442: off-source bins, respectively, and  $\epsilon$ is the ratio of the on-source solid angle area to

443: the off-source solid angle area ($\epsilon$ = 1/8 in this work).

444: 

445: In order to investigate the energy dependence, the shower size

446: $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ is divided by 1/4 decades in 10$<$$\sum\rho_{\rm

447:   FT}$ $\leq$100, and by 1/3 decades in 100$<$$\sum\rho_{\rm

448:   FT}$$\leq$1000, where the lowest air shower size bin

449: is omitted from the analysis, because it is close to the energy

450: threshold of the Tibet-III array and the trigger efficiency is

451: estimated to be very low ($<$1\%).  Hereafter, this partition is

452: commonly used in observations of both the moon's shadow and the

453: Crab~Nebula.

454: 

455: Figure~\ref{fig2} shows the experimental significance map of the deficit event

456: densities observed with the Tibet-III array for 1318.9 live days.

457: This map is smoothed using the events with $\sum\rho_{\rm

458:   FT}$$>$10$^{1.25}$ ($>\sim$2~TeV) within a circle of radius

459: $0\fdg9$, corresponding to the overall angular resolution for these

460: events.  The maximum deficit reaches the significance level of

461: 45~$\sigma$ at the center.  It is seen that the center of the observed

462: moon's shadow is shifted to the west by about $0\fdg2$ due to the

463: effect of the geomagnetic field.

464: 

465: 

466: 

467: 

468: 

469: \subsection{Monte Carlo Simulation of the Moon's Shadow} \label{s-3.2}

470: 

471: 

472: \begin{figure}[t]

473: \epsscale{1.20}

474: \plotone{f2.eps}

475: \caption{ Significance map of the deficit event densities observed by

476:   the Tibet-III array for 1318.9 live days, made using the events with

477:   $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} >10^{1.25}$ ($>\sim$2~TeV), in the square area of

478:   6$\degr$$\times$6$\degr$ whose origin is at the apparent center of the moon.

479:   The scale at right shows the level of significance

480:   of the deficit event density in terms of the standard deviation

481:   $\sigma$.}

482: \label{fig2}

483: \end{figure}

484: 

485: 

486: \begin{figure}[t]

487: \epsscale{1.20}

488: \plotone{f3.eps}

489: \caption{ Deficit event density map obtained by the MC simulation.

490:   The events with $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} >10^{1.25}$ ($>\sim$2~TeV) are

491:   plotted in the square area of 6$\degr$$\times$6$\degr$.  The map is

492:   made in the same way as in Figure~\ref{fig2}, and the scale at right

493:   represents the deficit event density (degree$^{-2}$).}

494: \label{fig3}

495: \end{figure}

496: 

497: 

498: We have performed a detailed Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the moon's

499: shadow.  For the geomagnetic field, we adopt the International

500: Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) 9th generation model \cite{Mac03}

501: at an altitude $<$~600~km, and connect it to the dipole moment model at

502: an altitude $>$ 600~km.  For the primary particles, we use the chemical

503: composition obtained mainly from the data of direct observations

504: \cite{Asa98,San00,Apa01,Ame08} in the energy range of 0.3~TeV to

505: 1000~TeV.  The minimum energy of primary particles is set to 0.3~TeV,

506: which is low enough to cover the threshold energy of our trigger

507: condition.  Air shower events are generated at the top of the

508: atmosphere along the moon's orbit around the earth, using the CORSIKA

509: code \cite{Cor98} with QGSJET or SIBYLL interaction models.  The air

510: shower core of each simulated event is uniformly distributed over a

511: circular region with a 300~m radius centered at the array; this circle

512: sufficiently covers the area where cosmic-ray events are actually

513: triggered in our array.  Air shower particles generated by primary

514: particles in the atmosphere are traced until their energies reach

515: 1~MeV.  In order to treat the MC events in the same way as the events in the

516: experimental data, these simulated events are distributed among the detectors

517: in the same detector configuration as in the Tibet-III array by the

518: Epics code \cite{Ame08,Kas}, and are converted to the same format as

519: the experimental dataset, such as the ADC and TDC values at each

520: detector.  After air shower reconstruction analysis and data

521: selection, we assign the opposite charge to the remaining primary

522: particles.  These anti-particles are randomly shot back toward

523: directions within 20$\degr$$\times$20$\degr$ centered at the moon from

524: the first interaction point of the air shower. Hereafter, we call

525: this the initial shooting direction. The particle track

526: influenced by the geomagnetic field between the earth and the moon is

527: calculated by the Runge-Kutta method of order 4 based on the Lorentz

528: force.  If the primary particle hits the moon, its initial shooting

529: direction should be equivalent to the observed particle direction

530: shielded by the moon.  Otherwise, it is shot back in another

531: direction and the particle track is calculated again. This routine

532: continues until almost all particles have hit the moon.  Finally, these

533: initial shooting directions are smeared by the angular resolution

534: event by event.  In this way, the expected moon's shadow

535: is equivalent to the observed moon's shadow.  Figure~\ref{fig3}

536: shows the event map of the moon's shadow calculated by the MC

537: simulation for events with $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$$>$10$^{1.25}$

538: ($>\sim$3~TeV).  This map is smoothed using the events within a circle

539: of radius $0\fdg9$, corresponding to the overall angular resolution

540: for events with $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$$>$10$^{1.25}$.  The MC simulation

541: well reproduces the observed moon's shadow, as shown in

542: Figure~\ref{fig2}.

543: 

544: 

545: 

546: \subsection{Shape of the Moon's Shadow and Performance of the Tibet-III Array} \label{s-3.3}

547: 

548: 

549: 

550: The filled circles in Figure~\ref{fig4}~(a)--(f) show the observed

551: deficit counts around the moon projected onto the east-west axis for

552: each $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin, where $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ is the shower

553: size defined as the sum of the number of particles per m$^2$ for each

554: FT detector. The representative cosmic-ray energy in each

555: $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin is defined as be the logarithmic mean of the

556: energy $E$ divided by the atomic number $Z$, assuming the cosmic-ray

557: composition spectrum described in $\S$\ref{s-3.2}.  In these figures,

558: it is seen that the peak position of the deficit counts gradually shifts

559: to the west as primary energy decreases due to the

560: influence of the geomagnetic field.  Also, the deficit counts

561: become narrower as primary energy increases, since the angular

562: resolution increases roughly in inverse proportion to

563: $\sqrt{\sum\rho_{\rm FT}}$.  The MC results (histograms) are compared

564: with the experimental data at various size intervals in

565: Figure~\ref{fig4}, and are in good agreement with the experimental data.

566: 

567: 

568: In order to estimate the peak position of the observed moon's shadow,

569: we use the shadow shape obtained by the MC simulation.

570: We first express the MC shadows shown in Figure~\ref{fig4} with

571: the superposition of two Gaussian functions using the least $\chi^{2}$

572: method as,

573: \begin{eqnarray}

574: \nonumber

575: f_{\rm MC}(\theta) = G_{1}(\theta; a_1, m_1, \sigma_1) \\

576: + G_{2}(\theta; a_2, m_2, \sigma_2),

577: \label{equ1}

578: \end{eqnarray}

579: where $G_{i}(\theta; a_i, m_i, \sigma_i) = a_{i}e^{

580:   -(\theta-m_{i})^2/\sigma_{i}^2 }$ and $\theta$ is the angular

581: distance from the moon.  Here, $a_1$, $a_2$, $m_1$, $m_2$, $\sigma_1$ and

582: $\sigma_2$ are the fitting parameters denoting the amplitudes, means

583: and one-standard deviations of the double Gaussian, respectively.  It

584: is found that the shadows (e) and (f) can be expressed by a single

585: Gaussian, while the others are expressed by a double Gaussian.

586: 

587: Using these fitting parameters, we then estimate the peak position of

588: the observed shadow as follows. Keeping the form of function

589: $f_{\rm MC}(\theta)$, we express the observed shadow by the

590: equation,

591: \begin{eqnarray}

592: \nonumber

593: f_{\rm Data}(\theta)  =  G_{1}(\theta;A_1, M_1, \sigma_1) \\

594: + G_{2}(\theta; A_1\times(a_2/a_1), M_1+(m_2-m_1), \sigma_2), &

595: \label{equ2}

596: \end{eqnarray}

597: where $A_1$ and $M_1$ denote the amplitude and mean of the Gaussian,

598: respectively, and are free parameters, while the others are the

599: coefficients calculated by fitting equation~(\ref{equ1}).  Using

600: equation~(\ref{equ2}), we can estimate the peak position of the moon's

601: shadow.

602: 

603: We also confirm that the east-west component of the geomagnetic field strength

604: is negligible in the part of the sky where the moon is visible by

605: the Tibet-III array. This means that the north-south displacement of the moon's shadow

606: observed by the Tibet-III array does not depend on the geomagnetic field.

607:  The displacement of the peak of the moon's shadow in the north-south 

608: direction then enables us to estimate

609: the magnitude of the array's systematic pointing error.  Figure~\ref{fig5}

610: shows the energy dependence of the displacement of the moon's shadow

611: in the north-south direction.  The filled circles denote the

612: experimental data, and the open squares are the MC results. 

613: The MC simulation well reproduces the experimental data.  A

614: $\chi^{2}$ fitting to the data gives $0\fdg008\pm0\fdg011$ assuming a

615: constant function independent of energy.  From this, the systematic

616: pointing error is estimated to be smaller than $0\fdg011$.

617: 

618: \begin{figure*}[!t]

619: \epsscale{1.10}

620: \plotone{f4.eps}

621: \caption{Filled circles show experimental data for deficit counts

622:   around the moon projected to the east-west axis for each

623:   $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin.  We use the events contained in the angular

624:   band, centered at and parallel to the east-west axis, comparable to

625:   the $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$-dependent angular resolution:

626: (a): $\pm1\fdg4$ for 2.94~TeV/$Z$ in $10^{1.25} < \sum\rho_{\rm FT} \le 10^{1.50}$;

627: (b): $\pm1\fdg0$ for 4.20~TeV/$Z$ in $10^{1.50} < \sum\rho_{\rm FT} \le 10^{1.75}$;

628: (c): $\pm0\fdg7$ for 6.46~TeV/$Z$ in $10^{1.75} < \sum\rho_{\rm FT} \le 10^{2.00}$;

629: (d): $\pm0\fdg5$ for 11.4~TeV/$Z$ in $10^{2.00} < \sum\rho_{\rm FT} \le 10^{2.33}$;

630: (e): $\pm0\fdg3$ for 21.6~TeV/$Z$ in $10^{2.33} < \sum\rho_{\rm FT} \le 10^{2.67}$;

631: (f): $\pm0\fdg2$ for 45.4~TeV/$Z$ in $10^{2.67} < \sum\rho_{\rm FT} \le 10^{3.00}$.

632: The solid histograms denote the moon's shadow simulation

633: assuming the primary cosmic-ray composition based on direct

634: observations \cite{Asa98,San00,Apa01,Ame08}.}

635: \label{fig4}

636: \end{figure*}

637: 

638: 

639: 

640: \subsection{Calibration of Primary Particle Energy and Systematic Errors} \label{s-3.4}

641: 

642: 

643: \begin{figure}

644: \epsscale{1.20}

645: \plotone{f5.eps}

646: \caption{Dependence of shower size on the displacement of the moon's

647:   shadow in the north-south direction.  The filled circles and open

648:   squares represent experimental data and the MC simulation,

649:   respectively.  The solid line denotes the fitting to the

650:   experimental data assuming a constant function, resulting in

651:   $0\fdg008\pm0\fdg011$. The upper scale indicates the logarithmic mean

652:   of $E/Z$ (TeV/$Z$) in each $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin. }

653: \label{fig5}

654: \end{figure}

655: 

656: \begin{figure}

657: \epsscale{1.20}

658: \plotone{f6.eps}

659: \caption{Dependence of shower size on the displacement of the moon's

660:   shadow in the east-west direction. The filled circles show the

661:   experimental data, and open squares represent the MC

662:   simulation. The solid curve is fitted to the MC events, and dashed

663:   curves show a $\pm$10\% deviation from the solid curve,

664:   respectively.  The upper scale indicates the logarithmic mean of $E/Z$

665:   (TeV / $Z$) in each $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin. }

666: \label{fig6}

667: \end{figure}

668: 

669: 

670: 

671: Figure~\ref{fig6} shows the shower size dependence of the displacement

672: of the moon's shadow in the east-west direction, obtained by fitting Figure~\ref{fig4}. In this figure, the

673: open squares show the MC results using the QGSJET model, and are quite

674: consistent with the experimental data. The upper scale indicates the

675: logarithmic mean of the energy $E$ divided by the atomic number $Z$

676: (TeV$/$$Z$), i.e., $<\log(E/Z)>$, in each $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin.

677: One can see that the position of the moon's shadow gradually shifts to

678: the west as the primary energy decreases due to the influence

679: of the geomagnetic field.  Hence, the absolute energy scale of cosmic

680: rays observed by the Tibet-III array can be directly checked by using

681: the geomagnetic field as a magnetic spectrometer, as we now discuss.

682: 

683: First, the MC simulation points are fitted by the function

684: $\kappa(\sum\rho_{\rm FT}/100)^{\lambda}$ to define a standard

685: curvature function, resulting in $\kappa = -0.183$ and $\lambda = -

686: 0.720$, as shown by a solid curve in Figure~\ref{fig6}, where the MC

687: statistical errors are negligible compared with the experimental data.

688: 

689: Second, the experimental data (filled circles) are fitted by this

690: standard curvature function with the $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ shift term

691: \begin{equation}

692: -0.183~[(1 - \Delta R_{\rm S})(\sum\rho_{\rm FT}/100)]^{-0.720},

693: \label{equ3}

694: \end{equation}

695: to estimate the possible shift in the $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ between the

696: experimental data and the MC simulation, as shown by the solid curve in

697: Figure~\ref{fig6}, where $\Delta$$R_{\rm S}$ is the $\sum\rho_{\rm

698:   FT}$ shift ratio, resulting in $\Delta$$R_{\rm S} = (-4.9 \pm

699: 9.5)\%$.  We should then convert $\Delta$$R_{\rm S}$ to the energy

700: shift ratio $\Delta$$R_{\rm E}$ as a final result.  To determine the

701: relationship between $\Delta$$R_{\rm S}$ and $\Delta$$R_{\rm E}$, and to

702: confirm that this method is sensitive to energies, we prepare six

703: kinds of MC event samples in which the energy of the primary particles is

704: systematically shifted event by event in the moon's shadow

705: simulation. These six $\Delta$$R_{\rm E}$s are $\pm$20\%, $\pm$15\%

706: and $\pm$8\%, respectively.  In each MC event sample, the $\sum\rho_{\rm

707:   FT}$ dependence of the displacement of the moon's shadow is

708: calculated in the same way, and the $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ shift ratio

709: $\Delta$$R_{\rm S}$ is estimated by fitting the data to

710: equation~(\ref{equ3}).  Finally, we get the relation $\Delta$$R_{\rm E}$

711: = $(-0.91\pm0.05)$ $\Delta$$R_{\rm S}$ assuming a linear function.

712: Hence, the systematic error in the absolute energy scale

713: $\Delta$$R_{\rm E}$ with statistical error $\sigma_{\rm stat}$ is

714: estimated to be $(+4.5 \pm 8.6_{\rm stat})\%$.

715: 

716: Furthermore, we investigate two kinds of systematic uncertainties with

717: the proposed method.  One is that the position of the moon's shadow by the MC

718: simulation depends on the assumed primary cosmic-ray composition.  In

719: this simulation, the chemical composition ratio of primary cosmic rays

720: is estimated based mainly on the data obtained by direct observations.

721: These datasets should also have statistical and systematic errors.

722: The position of the moon's shadow is dominated by the light component,

723: so that the proton ratio is artificially varied by $\pm$10\% from a

724: standard chemical composition without changing their spectral index,

725: while the other components heavier than helium are varied by $\mp$10\%

726: in total.  Figure~\ref{fig7} shows the results for the composition

727: dependence of primary cosmic rays.  The downward triangles are the

728: results obtained by the proton-rich model (75\% protons after triggering by the

729: Tibet-III array), while the upward triangles are the ones for the

730: heavy-rich model (P:55\%).  These models are fitted by

731: equation~(\ref{equ3}). We then obtain $\sigma_{\rm syst1}$ = $\pm$6\%

732: for the systematic error due to the difference in chemical composition,

733: as shown by the dashed curves in Figure~\ref{fig7}.  Another

734: systematic uncertainty is caused by the difference between hadronic

735: interaction models.  Figure~\ref{fig8} compares the results for the

736: hadronic interaction model dependence by QGSJET with those obtained by SIBYLL.  It

737: is found that the results by the SIBYLL model can be well fitted by

738: equation~(\ref{equ3}) obtained using the QGSJET model.  We then

739: obtain $\sigma_{\rm syst2}$ = 6\% difference between two models.

740: Finally, the difference in the energy dependence of the moon's shadow

741: between the experimental data and the MC events is estimated to be

742: $+4.5\%~(\pm 8.6_{\rm stat} \pm 6_{\rm syst1} \pm 6/2_{\rm syst2})\%$.

743: This value is within the statistical and systematic errors.  Hence,

744: the absolute energy scale error in the Tibet-III array is estimated to

745: be smaller than 12\% = $\sqrt{\Delta R_{\rm E}^2 + \sigma_{\rm stat}^2

746:   + \sigma_{\rm syst1}^2 + (\sigma_{\rm syst2}/2)^2}$ in total

747: averaged from 3 to 45 (TeV$/$$Z$).

748: 

749: 

750: \begin{figure}[t]

751: \epsscale{1.20}

752: \plotone{f7.eps}

753: \caption{Dependence of shower size on the displacement of the moon's

754:   shadow in the east-west direction by the MC simulation for the

755:   different primary composition models. The filled circles and open

756:   squares show the experimental data and MC simulation, respectively.  The

757:   solid curve denotes the best-fit curve for the same standard

758:   composition ratio as in Fig.~\ref{fig6} (65\% P after triggering by

759:   the Tibet-III array, where P means protons). The dashed curves show

760:   a 6\% shift, corresponding to $\sigma_{\rm syst1}$, from the solid

761:   curve (see text).  The downward and upward triangles are the

762:   simulated results for the proton-rich model (P:75\%), and for the

763:   heavy-rich model (P:55\%), respectively. }

764: \label{fig7}

765: \end{figure}

766: 

767: \begin{figure}[t]

768: \epsscale{1.20}

769: \plotone{f8.eps}

770: \caption{Dependence of shower size on the displacement of the moon's

771:   shadow in the east-west direction by the MC simulation for different

772:   hadronic interaction models.  The open squares and cross marks are

773:   the results obtained by the QGSJET and SIBYLL models, respectively.  The solid

774:   and dashed curves are the best-fit results assuming the QGSJET and

775:   SIBYLL models, respectively.}

776: \label{fig8}

777: \end{figure}

778: 

779: 

780: 

781: \subsection{On the Energy Estimation of $\gamma$-Ray Showers} \label{s-3.5}

782: 

783: We established a new calibration method of the absolute energy scale

784: for cosmic rays based on the moon's shadow analysis as described

785: above.  The air shower induced by the primary cosmic ray consists of

786: high-energy hadronic and electromagnetic cascades. Although several

787: plausible hadronic interaction models are prepared in the MC

788: simulation, there still remain dependence between these

789: models. Therefore, the energy reconstruction from the air-shower size

790: depends on hadronic interaction models and also the primary chemical

791: composition models. These systematic errors were adequately taken into

792: account in the absolute energy scale error in this paper.  On the

793: other hand, the air shower induced by the primary $\gamma$-ray is

794: predominated by the theoretically well-known electromagnetic cascades,

795: because the photon cross section for hadronic interactions is

796: approximately two orders of magnitude smaller than that for the pair

797: creation process. Hence, we naturally expect that the absolute energy

798: scale error for $\gamma$-rays is smaller than 12\% which is deduced

799: from the moon's shadow observed in the cosmic rays described in

800: $\S$\ref{s-3.4}. In the next section, we will provide reliable results

801: on the multi-TeV $\gamma$-ray observation from the Crab~Nebula with

802: the Tibet-III air shower array finely tuned by the cosmic-ray moon's

803: shadow.

804: 

805: 

806: 

807: \section{MULTI-TeV $\gamma$-RAY OBSERVATION FROM THE CRAB}

808: 

809: \subsection{Analysis} \label{s-4.1}

810: 

811: 

812: \begin{figure}

813: \epsscale{1.20}

814: \plotone{f9.eps}

815: \caption{Number of observed air shower events with $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}

816:   >10^{1.25}$ ($>$ $\sim$1~TeV) after event reduction for the

817:   observation time of 1318.9 detector live days as a function of

818:   angular distance from the Crab~Nebula in the azimuthal direction. }

819: \label{fig9}

820: \end{figure}

821: 

822: 

823: \begin{figure}

824: \epsscale{1.20}

825: \plotone{f10.eps}

826: \caption{Contour map of significance distribution around the Crab~Nebula 

827:   ($\alpha =83\fdg63$, $\delta = 22\fdg02$) for events with

828:   $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} >10^{1.25}$ ($>$ $\sim$1~TeV). A clear peak

829:   excess is seen at the center position

830:   $\Delta\alpha$cos($\Delta\delta$) = $\Delta\delta$ = 0\degr, where

831:   $\Delta\alpha$ and $\Delta\delta$ are the relative right accension and

832:   declination, respectively, from the Crab~Nebula.

833:   The cross mark indicates the pointing error by a point spread function fitting.}

834: \label{fig10}

835: \end{figure}

836: 

837: 

838: In order to extract an excess of TeV $\gamma$-ray events coming from

839: the direction of the Crab~Nebula ($\alpha = 83\fdg63$, $\delta =

840: 22\fdg02$), we adopt the same method as used in the Mrk~421 analysis in

841: our previous work \cite{Ame03}.  We call it the equi-zenith angle

842: method, which is used also for the moon's shadow analysis described in

843: $\S$\ref{s-3.1}.  The background is estimated by the number of events

844: averaged over eight off-source bins with the same angular radius as

845: the on-source bin, at the same zenith angle, recorded at the same time

846: intervals as the on-source bin. The nearest two off-source bins are

847: set at an angular distance $6\fdg4$ from the on-source bin to avoid a

848: possible signal tail leaking into these off-source bins.  Other

849: off-source bins are located every $3\fdg2$ step from the nearest

850: off-source bins.  The search window radius is expressed by $6.9/\sqrt{

851:   \sum\rho_{\rm FT} }$ degrees as a function of $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$,

852: which is shown to maximize the $S/N$ ratio by MC study of

853: $\gamma$-ray observation \cite{Ame03}.

854: 

855: The number of events after the event reduction is plotted in

856: Figure~\ref{fig9} as a function of angular distance from the

857: Crab~Nebula in the azimuthal direction. A clear peak of $\gamma$-ray

858: signals from the Crab~Nebula is seen at 6.3~$\sigma$ statistical

859: significance above the flat cosmic-ray background.  Figure~\ref{fig10}

860: is a significance map around the Crab~Nebula. The peak excess is seen

861: at the Crab~Nebula position.  The pointing error as shown by a cross

862: mark in Figure~\ref{fig10} is estimated to be

863: $\Delta\alpha=+0.13\pm0.08$ and $\Delta\delta=+0.01\pm0.09$ by the

864: point spread function fitting.  This is consistent with the Crab's

865: position within statistical error.  As difference between $\gamma$-ray

866: induced air showers and cosmic-ray induced ones does not affect the

867: pointing accuracy essentially, we estimate our pointing accuracy to

868: to be $0\fdg011$ deduced from the moon's shadow analysis described in 

869: $\S$\ref{s-3.3}.

870: 

871: 

872: 

873: \subsection{Monte Carlo Simulation of $\gamma$-Ray Observation from the Crab~Nebula}

874: 

875: 

876: \begin{figure}

877: \epsscale{1.20}

878: \plotone{f11.eps}

879: \caption{Scatter plot of the shower size $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$

880:   and the energy of primary $\gamma$-rays, where a differential

881:   power-law spectrum of the form $E^{-2.6}$ starting at 0.3~TeV is

882:   assumed for primary $\gamma$-rays. For details, see text.}

883: \label{fig11}

884: \end{figure}

885: 

886: \begin{figure}

887: \epsscale{1.18}

888: \plotone{f12.eps}

889: \caption{Distribution of excesses as a function of the opening angle

890:   relative to the Crab~Nebula direction $\theta$. The filled circles

891:   and shaded histograms stand for the experimental data and the MC

892:   events with $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} >10^{1.25}$ ($>$ $\sim$1~TeV),

893:   respectively.}

894: \label{fig12}

895: \end{figure}

896: 

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: The performance of the Tibet-III array has been studied by a full MC

901: simulation using the CORSIKA code \cite{Cor98} for event generation in

902: the atmosphere and the Epics code \cite{Kas} for the response of

903: the scintillation detector \cite{Ame03}.  These procedures

904: are essentially the same as in the case for the moon's shadow described

905: in $\S$\ref{s-3.2}.  In the simulation for $\gamma$-ray observation from the Crab~Nebula, primary

906: $\gamma$-rays, assuming the energy spectrum of a power-law type in the

907: energy region of 0.3~TeV to 1000~TeV, are thrown along the diurnal

908: motion of the Crab~Nebula in the sky.  The air shower events generated are

909: uniformly distributed over circle with a 300~m radius centered at the

910: Tibet-III array.  Shown in Figure~\ref{fig11} is the scatter plot of

911: shower size $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ and the energy of $\gamma$-rays coming

912: from the Crab direction.  The filled circles and error bars stand for

913: the logarithmic mean of the energy and one-standard deviation of the 

914: logarithmic Gaussian, respectively.

915: The one-event energy resolution is estimated to be approximately

916: $(-40/+70)\%$ at 10~TeV, and approximately $\pm$100\% in the region of

917: a few TeV.

918: 

919: The Crab~Nebula can be treated as a point-like source at the TeV energy

920: region.  To investigate the point spread function of the Tibet-III array, we

921: compared the $\theta$ distribution of the Crab~Nebula between the

922: experimental data and the MC events, where $\theta$ is the opening angle

923: relative to the Crab~Nebula direction.  Figure~\ref{fig12} shows the

924: distribution of the excess events as a function of $\theta$ for events

925: with $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} >10^{1.25}$. The experimental data agree well

926: with the MC simulation assuming the point-like source.

927: 

928: 

929: 

930: 

931: \subsection{Energy Spectrum of $\gamma$-Rays from the Crab Nebula}

932: 

933: \begin{figure}[t]

934: \epsscale{1.21}

935: \plotone{f13.eps}

936: \caption{Differential energy spectrum of $\gamma$-rays from the

937:   Crab~Nebula obtained using the data collected from 1999 November to

938:   2005 November with the Tibet-III array in comparison with the

939:   results from IACTs: Whipple \cite{Hil98}, HEGRA \cite{Aha04},

940:   CANGAROO~III \cite{Eno06}, H.E.S.S. \cite{Aha06} and MAGIC \cite{Alb08}.

941:   The Tibet-III upper limit is given at the 90\%

942:   confidence level, according to a statistical prescription

943:   \cite{Hel83}.  }

944: \label{fig13}

945: \end{figure}

946: 

947: \input{tab1}

948: 

949: 

950: The $\gamma$-ray flux from the Crab~Nebula is estimated by assuming a

951: power-law spectrum $f(E) = \alpha E^{\beta}$.   The best-fit values 

952: $\alpha_{0}$ and $\beta_{0}$  are given by minimizing a $\chi^{2}$ function,

953: changing $\alpha$ and $\beta$:

954: \begin{equation}

955: \chi^{2} = \sum_{i=1}^{6} \left(\frac{N^{\rm obs}_i - N^{\rm sim}_{i}(\alpha, \beta)}{\sigma^{\rm obs}_{i}} \right)^2,

956: \label{equ4}

957: \end{equation}

958: where $N^{\rm obs}_{i}$, $\sigma^{\rm obs}_{i}$ and 

959: $N^{\rm sim}_{i}(\alpha, \beta)$ are the observed number of excess counts,

960: its error and the number of remaining MC events after the analysis

961: assuming the spectrum $f(E) = \alpha E^{\beta}$, respectively, in the

962: {\it i}-th $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin among the six $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$

963: bins between $10^{1.25}$ and 10$^{3.00}$ defined in $\S$\ref{s-3.1}.

964: In order to estimate $N^{\rm sim}_{i}(\alpha, \beta)$ in the same way

965: as experimental data, simulated secondary particles are inputted to

966: the detector response simulation.  Then, we obtain the expected

967: $N^{\rm sim}_{i}(\alpha, \beta)$ for the {\it i}-th $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ 

968: bin after the event reconstruction and event selections in the

969: same way as experimental data.  Here, the expected 

970: $N^{\rm sim}_{i}(\alpha, \beta)$ includes the energy resolution 

971: effect by the detector response simulation.

972: 

973: Subsequently, the differential $\gamma$-ray flux for the {\it i}-th 

974: $\sum\rho_{\rm  FT}$ bin is calculated by the following equation:

975: \begin{equation}

976: f_{i}(E_{i}) = \frac{N^{\rm obs}_{i}}{N^{\rm sim}_{i}(\alpha_{0}, \beta_{0})}~\frac{N_{\rm all}^{\rm sim}(\alpha_{0}, \beta_{0})}{\displaystyle 

977: \int_{E_{\rm min}^{\rm sim}}^{\infty} E^{\beta_{0}}~dE}~\frac{E_{i}^{\beta_{0}}}{~S_{\rm sim}~T_{\rm obs}},

978: \end{equation}

979: where $N_{\rm all}^{\rm sim}(\alpha_{0}, \beta_{0})$ denotes the total

980: number of MC events generated at the top of the atmosphere along one

981: diurnal motion assuming the spectrum $f(E) = \alpha_{0} E^{\beta_{0}}$, 

982: $\int_{E_{\rm min}^{\rm sim}}^{\infty} E^{\beta_{0}}~dE$ 

983: is the normalization factor of 

984: $N_{\rm all}^{\rm sim}(\alpha_{0}, \beta_{0})$, $E_{\rm min}^{\rm sim}$ 

985: denotes the minimum energy of simulated air shower events (0.3~TeV), 

986: $S_{\rm sim}$ denotes the area of core location distribution by the simulation

987: (300~m $\times$ 300~m $\times$ $\pi$), $T_{\rm obs}$ denotes the

988: observation live time, and $E_{i}$ denotes the representative energy

989: defined as the logarithmic mean of the energy calculated by the MC

990: simulation for the {\it i}-th $\sum\rho_{\rm FT}$ bin.

991: 

992: Figure~\ref{fig13} shows the differential energy spectrum of the

993: Crab~Nebula observed by the Tibet-III array together with the spectra

994: obtained by IACTs, including Whipple \cite{Hil98}, HEGRA \cite{Aha04},

995: CANGAROO~III \cite{Eno06},\\ H.E.S.S. \cite{Aha06} and MAGIC

996: \cite{Alb08}.  The differential flux for each $\sum \rho_{\rm FT}$ bin

997: is presented in Table~\ref{tbl-1}.  Finally, this energy spectrum is

998: fitted by the least $\chi^{2}$ method assuming $f(E) = \alpha

999: (E/3~{\rm TeV})^{\beta}$, and then we obtain the differential

1000: power-law spectra as $(dJ/dE) = (2.09\pm0.32)\times10^{-12} (E/{\rm

1001:   3~TeV})^{-2.96\pm0.14} {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm TeV}^{-1}$ in

1002: the energy range of 1.7~TeV to 40~TeV.  

1003: Note that the absolute

1004: energy scale error in the Tibet-III array is experimentally estimated

1005: to be smaller than $\pm$12\% by the moon's shadow observation

1006: described in $\S$\ref{s-3.4}.  The energy scale uncertainty

1007: corresponds to $(-28/+46)\%$ in the absolute $\gamma$-ray flux,

1008: assuming the spectral index $-$2.96, which is our best-fit value.  

1009: Our energy spectrum in this work

1010: is consistent with other observations made by IACTs, such as HEGRA and

1011: H.E.S.S., in the same energy range between 1.7~TeV and 40~TeV.

1012: 

1013: The previous flux measurement \cite{Ame99a}, with the Tibet-HD array

1014: of 5,175~m$^2$ and an effective running time of 502.1 live days, is

1015: approximately double this measurement.  In order to properly estimate

1016: the difference between the previous work and the present one, we give

1017: a re-fit to both data points from 2.8~TeV to 20 TeV in the overlapping

1018: energy region assuming a power-law spectrum.  The previous (Tibet-HD)

1019: and present (Tibet-III) energy spectra are expressed as

1020: $(dJ/dE) = (5.04\pm0.94)\times10^{-12} (E/{\rm 3~TeV})^{-2.85\pm0.20} {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm TeV}^{-1}$ and

1021: $(dJ/dE) = (2.35\pm0.49)\times10^{-12} (E/{\rm 3~TeV})^{-3.00\pm0.25} {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm TeV}^{-1}$,

1022: respectively. The flux and spectral index differences between them are estimated to

1023: be (2.69$\pm$1.06) $\times$10$^{-12} {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm

1024: TeV}^{-1}$ and 0.15$\pm$0.32, respectively. As a result, the

1025: combined statistical deviation between them is calculated to be

1026: $\sqrt{(2.69/1.06)^2+(0.15/0.32)^2} \sigma = 2.6 \sigma$. Although we have

1027: updated the MC simulation in this analysis, we cannot find any

1028: systematics to explain this difference.  Hence, we conclude that the

1029: higher flux observed in our previous measurement may have been caused

1030: by a statistical signal fluctuation.  

1031: 

1032: 

1033: \subsection{Time Variability}

1034: 

1035: 

1036: \begin{figure}[b]

1037: \epsscale{1.20}

1038: \plotone{f14.eps}

1039: \caption{Time variability of the Crab~Nebula and the moon's shadow

1040:   observed by the Tibet-III array with $\sum\rho_{\rm FT} >10^{1.25}$

1041:   between 1999 November and 2005 November. (a): Differential flux of

1042:   the Crab~Nebula at 3~TeV.  (b): Daily deficit event rate averaged

1043:   over one phase of the moon's shadow. (c): North-south displacement of

1044:   the moon's shadow.}

1045: \label{fig14}

1046: \end{figure}

1047: 

1048: \input{tab2}

1049: 

1050: We divided our dataset from 1999 November to 2005 November into six

1051: phases, as summarized in Table~\ref{tbl-2}, to examine the time

1052: variability of the flux intensity.  Each phase corresponds to

1053: approximately one calendar year.  We used slightly different

1054: calibration parameters for each phase, because we usually calibrate

1055: the scintillation detectors of the Tibet air shower array late in the fall of 

1056: every year. Unfortunately, some of the blank periods seen in Table~\ref{tbl-2}

1057: mostly coincide with the detector calibration periods, periods 

1058: in which the air shower array was upgraded or when the data acquisition system 

1059: was experiencing problems. The upper panel (a) in Figure~\ref{fig14} shows the

1060: time variability of the $\gamma$-ray fluxes from the Crab~Nebula at

1061: 3~TeV. We found no evidence for the time variability of flux intensity

1062: from the Crab~Nebula, as we can give a good $\chi^{2}$ fit to these

1063: fluxes by a constant function ($\chi^{2} / d.o.f. = 6.55 / 5$), where

1064: $d.o.f.$ means degrees of freedom.  In order to check the possible

1065: systematics, the time variability of the deficit event rates of the

1066: moon's shadow is also demonstrated as shown by the middle panel (b) in

1067: Figure~\ref{fig14}.  The deficit event rates of the moon's shadow from

1068: 1999 November to 2005 November are very stable within a statistical

1069: error $\pm$6\% year by year.  A fitting to the daily deficit event

1070: rate averaged over a phase assuming a constant function is consistent

1071: with a flat hypothesis ($\chi^{2} / d.o.f.  = 4.82 / 5$).  The lower

1072: panel (c) in Figure~\ref{fig14} shows the time variability of the

1073: north-south displacement of the moon's shadow, which is a reference to

1074: the absolute pointing error described in $\S$\ref{s-3.2}.  It is also

1075: very stable within $\pm0\fdg04$ during our observation period, and is

1076: consistent with a flat hypothesis ($\chi^{2} / d.o.f. = 2.09 / 5$).

1077: These systematics, estimated from observations of the moon's shadow, are

1078: obviously negligible in the Crab~Nebula observation.

1079: 

1080: 

1081: \subsection{Search for $\gamma$-Rays from the Crab Pulsar}

1082: 

1083: 

1084: The rotation period of the Crab pulsar is 33~ms, as inferred from

1085: radio, optical and X-ray observations.  A pulsed emission with that

1086: rotation period at the GeV energy region has been detected by EGRET 

1087: on board the CGRO satellite \cite{Fie98}, whereas several observations

1088: have reported no evidence for pulsed emissions greater than 10~GeV

1089: \cite{Les00,Nau02,Aha04,Aha07,Alb08}.  The emission models of

1090: high-energy pulsed $\gamma$-rays are mostly based on the outer gap

1091: \cite{Che86} and the polar cap \cite{Dau82} models.  The upscattered

1092: pulsed $\gamma$-ray flux is also calculated by the inverse-Compton

1093: process and the photon-photon absorption process assuming infrared

1094: photon field models.  A model predicts an excessive flux around 1 $\sim$ 

1095: 10~TeV, depending on the infrared photon field models \cite{Hir01}.

1096: Here, we present a search for pulsed $\gamma$-rays from the Crab

1097: pulsar at energies from a few TeV to 100~TeV using the Tibet-III

1098: array.

1099: 

1100: The arrival time of each event is recorded using a quartz clock

1101: synchronized with GPS, which has a precision of 1~$\mu$s.  For the

1102: timing analysis, all arrival times are converted to the solar system

1103: barycenter frame using the JPL DE200 ephemeris \cite{Sta82}.  The Crab

1104: pulsar ephemeris is calculated using the Jodrell Bank Crab Pulsar

1105: Monthly Ephemeris \cite{JBC0,JBC1}.  The corrected arrival time of

1106: each event is calculated to the rotation phase of the Crab pulsar, which

1107: takes into account of the period derivative $\dot{P}$ of the period $P$ month by

1108: month.

1109: 

1110: Figure~\ref{fig15} shows the distribution of events for each phase in

1111: two rotation periods of the Crab pulsar.  The distribution is

1112: consistent with a flat distribution ($\chi^2/d.o.f. = 18.1/19$).

1113: No significantly pulsed signal is found in observations for

1114: events with $\sum \rho_{\rm FT} > 10^{1.25}$ ($>$ $\sim$1~TeV).  The

1115: phase analysis is performed for each $\sum \rho_{\rm FT}$ bin to

1116: examine the energy dependence.  Table~\ref{tbl-3} shows the

1117: statistical results by the $Z^2_2$ test \cite{Buc83}, $H$ test

1118: \cite{Jag94} and least $\chi^2$ test.  Almost all the statistical

1119: tests show that the phase distributions are uniform within a 3~$\sigma$

1120: significance level.  We estimate the 3~$\sigma$ flux upper limit

1121: on the pulsed emission from the Crab pulsar using the $H$ test

1122: \cite{Jag94} as

1123: \begin{eqnarray}

1124: \nonumber

1125: x_{3\sigma} & = & (1.5+10.7\delta)(0.174H)^{0.17+0.14\delta}\\

1126: \nonumber

1127:  & & \times  \exp \{(0.08+0.15\delta) \\

1128:  & & \times (\log_{10}(0.174H))^2\},

1129: \end{eqnarray}

1130: where $\delta$ is the duty cycle of the pulsed component, assuming

1131: $\delta$ is 21\% for the Crab pulsar.  Exposure from the Crab pulsar

1132: to the Tibet-III array is estimated using MC simulation, assuming

1133: the differential energy spectrum for $\gamma$-ray emission has a

1134: spectral index of $-$2.6.  Upper limits are compared to previous

1135: results inferred from other experiments, as shown in

1136: Figure~\ref{fig16}.

1137: 

1138: 

1139: 

1140: \begin{figure}

1141: \epsscale{1.20}

1142: \plotone{f15.eps}

1143: \caption{ Distribution of the event phase of the Crab pulsar.  Phase 0

1144:   is defined using the timing solution derived from the main pulse of

1145:   the radio observations.  Upper plot shows our result for events with

1146:   $\sum \rho_{\rm FT} > 10^{1.25}$ ($>$ $\sim$1~TeV).  Lower plot

1147:   shows the $\gamma$-ray phase histogram above 100~MeV, as measured by

1148:   EGRET \cite{Fie98}.}

1149: \label{fig15}

1150: \end{figure}

1151: 

1152: \begin{figure}

1153: \epsscale{1.20}

1154: \plotone{f16.eps}

1155: \caption{Upper limits on the pulsed $\gamma$-ray flux from the Crab

1156:   pulsar observed by the Tibet-III array (arrows with thick solid

1157:   line), together with results from Whipple \cite{Les00}, CELESTE

1158:   \cite{Nau02}, HEGRA \cite{Aha04}, H.E.S.S. \cite{Aha07} and MAGIC

1159:   \cite{Alb08}. The long-dashed curve and dashed curve represent the

1160:   fluxes expected from the outer gap and polar cap models,

1161:   respectively.}

1162: \label{fig16}

1163: \end{figure}

1164: 

1165: 

1166: \input{tab3}

1167: 

1168: 

1169: \section{SUMMARY AND PROSPECTS}

1170: 

1171: We have been successfully operating the Tibet-III air shower array at

1172: Yangbajing in Tibet, China since 1999. Using the dataset collected by this array from 1999

1173: November through 2005 November, we obtained the

1174: differential energy spectrum of $\gamma$-rays from the Crab~Nebula as

1175: $(dJ/dE) = (2.09\pm0.32)\times10^{-12} (E/{\rm 3~TeV})^{-2.96\pm0.14}

1176: {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm TeV}^{-1}$ in the energy range of

1177: 1.7~TeV to 40~TeV. This result is consistent with data

1178: obtained by IACTs, and is statistically consistent with our

1179: previous result within 2.6~$\sigma$.  No evidence is found for time

1180: variability of flux intensity from the Crab~Nebula at multi-TeV

1181: energies in comparison with the long-term stability of the moon's

1182: shadow.  We also searched, unsuccessfully, for pulsed $\gamma$-rays from the Crab

1183: pulsar at multi-TeV energies.

1184: 

1185: In this paper, we have carefully analyzed the moon's shadow observed with

1186: the Tibet-III array to calibrate the energy of primary cosmic rays

1187: directly.  In general, this energy is indirectly estimated by

1188: measuring shower size in air shower experiments. 

1189: The cosmic-ray beams coming

1190: from the moon's direction are bent by the geomagnetic field, so

1191: that the moon's shadow should shift to the west depending on the

1192: primary energy.  We tried to directly estimate the primary energy by measuring

1193: the displacement of the moon's shadow.  

1194: This energy scale estimation is the first attempt and obtained that the

1195: systematic error in the absolute energy scale observed by the

1196: Tibet-III array is estimated to be less than $\pm$12\% at energies

1197: around 10~TeV.  The array's systematic pointing error is also

1198: estimated to be smaller than $0\fdg011$. The long-term stability of

1199: the deficit rate of the moon's shadow was within

1200: a statistical error $\pm$6\% year by year, thus confirming the

1201: stability of the array operation. This calibration method is very

1202: unique and will be important to ground-based TeV $\gamma$-ray

1203: observations.

1204: 

1205: In the near future, we will set up a 10,000~m$^{2}$

1206: water-Cherenkov-type muon detector (MD) array in the ground beneath the

1207: Tibet air shower (AS) array \cite{Ame07b,Ame07c,Ame07d}.  

1208: This Tibet MD array will significantly improve

1209: $\gamma$-ray sensitivity of the Tibet air shower array above 10~TeV by

1210: means of $\gamma$/hadron separation based on counting the number of

1211: muons accompanying each air shower.  The energy spectrum of the

1212: Crab~Nebula can be surely measured up to several hundred TeV, if extended,

1213: with a low background level, using the Tibet AS+MD array. This new array

1214: will enable us to survey not only the known sources but also new

1215: sources in the northern sky above 10~TeV, and may be superior to

1216: IACTs for observing diffuse $\gamma$-ray sources \cite{Ame06,Abd07} and

1217: diffuse $\gamma$-rays from the galactic plane \cite{Ame02,Atk05},

1218: owing to its wide field of view and high rejection power for

1219: hadronic showers.

1220: 

1221: 

1222: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,

1223: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments

1224: %% command.

1225: 

1226: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the

1227: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]

1228: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,

1229: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the

1230: %% text to be printed in the second.

1231: \acknowledgments

1232: 

1233: The collaborative experiment of the Tibet Air Shower Arrays has been

1234: performed under the auspices of the Ministry of Science and Technology

1235: of China and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. This work was

1236: supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority

1237: Areas from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and

1238: Technology, by Grants-in-Aid for Science Research from the Japan Society 

1239: for the Promotion of Science in Japan, and by the Grants 

1240: from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the

1241: Chinese Academy of Sciences.

1242: 

1243: 

1244: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their

1245: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope

1246: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches

1247: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be

1248: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes

1249: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.

1250: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX

1251: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.

1252: 

1253: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the

1254: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research

1255: %% for the paper.  Each keyword will be checked against the master list during

1256: %% copy editing.  Individual instruments or configurations can be provided 

1257: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.

1258: 

1259: %{\it Facilities:} \facility{Nickel}, \facility{HST (STIS)}, \facility{CXO (ASIS)}.

1260: 

1261: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.

1262: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix

1263: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.

1264: 

1265: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.

1266: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix

1267: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.

1268: 

1269: %\appendix

1270: 

1271: %\section{Appendix material}

1272: 

1273: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.

1274: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.

1275: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of

1276: %% curly braces.  If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error

1277: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".

1278: %%

1279: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite

1280: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a

1281: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds

1282: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).

1283: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the

1284: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain

1285: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in

1286: %% place of the \cite commands.

1287: 

1288: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.

1289: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.

1290: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.

1291: 

1292: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly

1293: %% different from previous examples.  The natbib system solves a host

1294: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly

1295: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.

1296: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.

1297: 

1298: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[Abdo et al. 2007]{Abd07}

1301: Abdo, A. A., et al. 2007, \apj, 664, L91

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[Achard et al. 2005]{Ach05}

1304: Achard, P., et al. 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 411 

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[Aharonian et al. 2004]{Aha04}

1307: Aharonian, F., et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 897

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[Aharonian et al. 2006]{Aha06}

1310: ---------. 2006, \aap, 457, 899

1311: 

1312: \bibitem[Aharonian et al. 2007]{Aha07}

1313: ---------. 2007, \aap, 466, 543

1314: 

1315: \bibitem[Albert et al. 2008]{Alb08}

1316: Albert, J., et al. 2008, \apj, 674, 1037

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[Alexandreas 1991]{Ale91}

1319: Alexandreas, D. E. 1991, \prd, 43, 1735

1320: 

1321: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 1992]{Ame92} 

1322: Amenomori, M., et al. 1992, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2468

1323: 

1324: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 1993]{Ame93}

1325: ---------. 1993, \prd, 47, 2675

1326: 

1327: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 1994]{Ame94}

1328: ---------. 1994, \apjl, 415, L147

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 1999a]{Ame99a}

1331: ---------. 1999a, \apjl, 525, L93

1332: 

1333: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 1999b]{Ame99b}

1334: ---------. 1999b, Advances in Space Research, 23, 611

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2000a]{Ame00a}

1337: ---------. 2000a, \apj, 541, 1051

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2000b]{Ame00b} 

1340: ---------. 2000b, \apj, 532, 302

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2002]{Ame02} 

1343: ---------. 2002, \apj, 580, 887

1344: 

1345: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2003]{Ame03} 

1346: ---------. 2003, \apj, 598, 242

1347: 

1348: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2005]{Ame05}

1349: ---------. 2005, \apj, 633, 1005

1350: 

1351: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2006]{Ame06}

1352: ---------. 2006, Science, 314, 439

1353: 

1354: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2007a]{Ame07a}

1355: ---------. 2007a, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 137

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2007b]{Ame07b}

1358: ---------. 2007b, Astrophysics and Space Science, 309, 435

1359: 

1360: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2007c]{Ame07c}

1361: ---------. 2007c, Proc. 30th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., in press

1362: 

1363: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2007d]{Ame07d}

1364: ---------. 2007d, Proc. 30th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., in press

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[Amenomori et al. 2008]{Ame08}

1367: ---------. 2008, \apj, 678, 1165

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[Apanasenko et al. 2001]{Apa01}

1370: Apanasenko, A. V., et al. 2001, Astroparticle Physics, 16, 13

1371: 

1372: \bibitem[Asakimori et al. 1998]{Asa98}

1373: Asakimori, K., et al. 1998, \apj, 502, 278

1374: 

1375: \bibitem[Atkins et al. 2003]{Atk03}

1376: Atkins, R., et al. 2003, \apj, 595, 803

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[Atkins et al. 2005]{Atk05}

1379: ---------. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 251103

1380: 

1381: \bibitem[Atoyan \& Aharonian 1996]{Ato96}

1382: Atoyan, A. M., \& Aharonian, F. A., 1996 \aaps, 120, 453

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[Buccheri et al. 1983]{Buc83}

1385: Buccheri, R., et al. 1983, \aap, 128, 245

1386: 

1387: \bibitem[Cheng et al. 1986]{Che86}

1388: Cheng, K. S., Ho, C., \& Ruderman, M. 1986, \apj, 300, 500

1389: 

1390: \bibitem[1957]{Cla57}

1391: Clark, G. W. 1957,  Physical Review, 108, 450

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[Daugherty \& Harding 1982]{Dau82}

1394: Daugherty, J.~K. \& Harding, A.~K. 1982, \apj, 252, 337

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[De Jager 1994]{Jag94}

1397: De Jager, O. C. 1994, \apj, 436, 239

1398: 

1399: \bibitem[De Jager et al. 1996]{Jag96}

1400: De Jager, O. C., et al. 1996, \apj, 457, 253

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[De Naurois et al. 2002]{Nau02}

1403: De Naurois, M., et al. 2002, \apj, 566, 343

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[Enomoto et al. 2006]{Eno06}

1406: Enomoto, R., et al. 2006, \apj, 638, 397

1407: 

1408: \bibitem[Fierro et al. 1998]{Fie98}

1409: Fierro, J.~M., Michelson, P. F., Nolan, P. L., \& Thompson, D. J. 1998, \apj, 494, 734

1410: 

1411: \bibitem[Heck et al. 1998]{Cor98}

1412: Heck, D., Knapp, J., Capdevielle, J. N., Shatz, G., \& Thouw, T. 1998, 

1413: CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo Code to Simulate Extensive Air Showers (FZKA 6019)(Karlsruhe: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe)

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[Helene 1983]{Hel83}

1416: Helene, O. 1983, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., 212, 319

1417: 

1418: \bibitem[Hillas et al. 1998]{Hil98}

1419: Hillas, A. M., et al. 1998, \apj, 503, 744

1420: 

1421: \bibitem[Hirotani \& Shibata 2001]{Hir01}

1422: Hirotani, K. \& Shibata, S. 2001, \apj, 558, 216

1423: 

1424: \bibitem[Kasahara]{Kas}

1425: Kasahara, K., 

1426: \url{http://cosmos.n.kanagawa-u.ac.jp/EPICSHome/index.html}

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[Lessard et al. 2000]{Les00}

1429: Lessard, R. W., et al. 2000, \apj, 531, 942

1430: 

1431: \bibitem[Li \& Ma 1983]{Li83}

1432: Li, T.-P., \& Ma, Y.-Q. 1983, \apj, 272, 317

1433: 

1434: \bibitem[Lyne et al. 1993]{JBC0}

1435: Lyne, A.~G., Pritchard, R.~S. \& Smith, F.~G. 1993, \mnras, 265, 1003

1436: 

1437: \bibitem[Lyne et al.]{JBC1}

1438: Lyne, A.~G., Roberts, M.~E. \& Jordan, C.~A,

1439: JODRELL BANK CRAB PULSAR MONTHLY EPHEMERIS,

1440: \url{http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/\~{}pulsar/crab.html}

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[Macmillan et al. 2003]{Mac03}

1443: Macmillan, S., et al. 2003, Geophys. Journal Inter., 155, 1051

1444: \url{http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/IAGA/vmod/igrf.html}

1445: 

1446: \bibitem[Sanuki et al. 2000]{San00}

1447: Sanuki, T., et al. 2000, \apj, 545, 1135

1448: 

1449: \bibitem[Standish et al. 1982]{Sta82}

1450: Standish, E.~M., Jr. 1982, \aap, 114, 297

1451: 

1452: \bibitem[Weekes et al. 1989]{Wee89}

1453: Weekes, T. C. et al. 1989, \apj, 342, 379

1454: 

1455: \end{thebibliography}

1456: 

1457: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include

1458: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

1459: %% To embed the sample graphics in

1460: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and

1461: %% \includegraphics commands

1462: %%

1463: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or

1464: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the

1465: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,

1466: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the

1467: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,

1468: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.

1469: %%

1470: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of

1471: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check

1472: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to

1473: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from

1474: %% journal to journal.

1475: 

1476: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to

1477: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption

1478: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be

1479: %% available in the electronic journal.

1480: 

1481: 

1482: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,

1483: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color

1484: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates

1485: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.

1486: 

1487: 

1488: %%\begin{figure}

1489: %%\plottwo{f2.eps}{f2_color.eps}

1490: %%\caption{A panel taken from Figure 2 of

1491: %%See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color version 

1492: %%of this figure.\label{fig2}}

1493: %%\end{figure}

1494: 

1495: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame

1496: %% for an mpeg animation.

1497: 

1498: 

1499: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may

1500: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the

1501: %% User Guide for details.

1502: %%

1503: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,

1504: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage

1505: %% after every seventh one.

1506: 

1507: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before

1508: %% each one.

1509: 

1510: 

1511: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables:  the

1512: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX

1513: %% table environment.  Use of deluxetable is preferred.

1514: %%

1515: 

1516: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,

1517: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.

1518: 

1519: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}

1520: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.

1521: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to

1522: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the

1523: %% reduced font size.

1524: %%

1525: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed

1526: %% inside the \tablecaption.

1527: 

1528: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full

1529: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic

1530: %% edition.

1531: 

1532: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text

1533: %% that appears after it.

1534: 

1535: \end{document}

1536: 

1537: %%

1538: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

1539:   

1540: