1:
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4:
5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
6:
7: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8:
9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10:
11: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12: % \documentclass{emulateapj}
13:
14: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
15: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
16: %% the \begin{document} command.
17: %%
18: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
19: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
20: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
21: %% for information.
22:
23: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
24: \newcommand{\myemail}{tsuchiya@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp,enomoto@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp}
25:
26: \slugcomment{To appear in ApJ Letters.}
27:
28:
29: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
30:
31: %\slugcomment{To be submitted to ApJL.}
32:
33: \shorttitle{Sub-TeV Gamma-rays from the Galactic Center}
34: \shortauthors{Tsuchiya, Enomoto et al.}
35:
36: \begin{document}
37:
38: \title{Detection of sub-TeV Gamma-rays from
39: the Galactic Center Direction by CANGAROO-II}
40:
41: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
42: %% author and affiliation information.
43: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
44: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
45: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
46: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
47:
48: \author{
49: K.~Tsuchiya\altaffilmark{1},
50: R.~Enomoto\altaffilmark{1},
51: L.T.~Ksenofontov\altaffilmark{1},
52: M.~Mori\altaffilmark{1},
53: T.~Naito\altaffilmark{2},
54: A.~Asahara\altaffilmark{3},
55: G.V.~Bicknell\altaffilmark{4},
56: R.W.~Clay\altaffilmark{5},
57: Y.~Doi\altaffilmark{6},
58: P.G.~Edwards\altaffilmark{7},
59: S.~Gunji\altaffilmark{6},
60: S.~Hara\altaffilmark{1},
61: T.~Hara\altaffilmark{2},
62: T.~Hattori\altaffilmark{8},
63: Sei.~Hayashi\altaffilmark{9},
64: C.~Itoh\altaffilmark{10},
65: S.~Kabuki\altaffilmark{1},
66: F.~Kajino\altaffilmark{9},
67: H.~Katagiri\altaffilmark{1},
68: A.~Kawachi\altaffilmark{1},
69: T.~Kifune\altaffilmark{11},
70: H.~Kubo\altaffilmark{3},
71: T.~Kurihara\altaffilmark{8},
72: R.~Kurosaka\altaffilmark{1},
73: J.~Kushida\altaffilmark{8}
74: Y.~Matsubara\altaffilmark{12},
75: Y.~Miyashita\altaffilmark{8},
76: Y.~Mizumoto\altaffilmark{13},
77: H.~Moro\altaffilmark{8},
78: H.~Muraishi\altaffilmark{14},
79: Y.~Muraki\altaffilmark{12},
80: T.~Nakase\altaffilmark{8},
81: D.~Nishida\altaffilmark{3},
82: K.~Nishijima\altaffilmark{8},
83: M.~Ohishi\altaffilmark{1},
84: K.~Okumura\altaffilmark{1},
85: J.R.~Patterson\altaffilmark{5},
86: R.J.~Protheroe\altaffilmark{5},
87: N.~Sakamoto\altaffilmark{6},
88: K.~Sakurazawa\altaffilmark{15},
89: D.L.~Swaby\altaffilmark{5},
90: T.~Tanimori\altaffilmark{3},
91: H.~Tanimura\altaffilmark{3},
92: G.~Thornton\altaffilmark{5},
93: F.~Tokanai\altaffilmark{6},
94: T.~Uchida\altaffilmark{1},
95: S.~Watanabe\altaffilmark{3},
96: T.~Yamaoka\altaffilmark{9},
97: S.~Yanagita\altaffilmark{16},
98: T.~Yoshida\altaffilmark{16},
99: T.~Yoshikoshi\altaffilmark{17}}
100:
101: \altaffiltext{1}
102: {ICRR, Univ.\ of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan; \myemail}
103: \altaffiltext{2}
104: {Fac.\ of Management Information, Yamanashi Gakuin Univ.,
105: Yamanashi 400-8575, Japan}
106: \altaffiltext{3}
107: {Dept.\ of Phys., Grad.\ School of Sci., Kyoto Univ.,
108: Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
109: \altaffiltext{4}
110: %{Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National
111: {RSAA, Australian National Univ., ACT 2611, Australia}
112: \altaffiltext{5}
113: %{Dept. of Phys. and Mathematical Phys., Univ. of
114: {Dept.\ of Physics, Univ.\ of
115: Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia}
116: \altaffiltext{6}
117: {Dept.\ of Phys., Yamagata Univ., Yamagata 990-8560, Japan}
118: \altaffiltext{7}
119: {ISAS/JAXA, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8510, Japan}
120: \altaffiltext{8}
121: {Dept.\ of Phys., Tokai Univ., Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan}
122: \altaffiltext{9}
123: {Dept.\ of Phys., Konan Univ., Hyogo 658-8501, Japan}
124: \altaffiltext{10}
125: {Ibaraki Prefectural Univ.\ of Health Sci., Ibaraki 300-0394, Japan}
126: \altaffiltext{11}
127: {Fac.\ of Engineering, Shinshu Univ., Nagano 480-8553, Japan}
128: \altaffiltext{12}
129: {STE Lab., Nagoya Univ., Aichi 464-8602, Japan}
130: \altaffiltext{13}
131: {NAOJ, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
132: \altaffiltext{14}
133: {School of Allied Health Sci., Kitasato Univ., Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan}
134: \altaffiltext{15}
135: {Dept.\ of Phys., TIT, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan}
136: \altaffiltext{16}
137: {Fac.\ of Sci., Ibaraki Univ., Ibaraki 310-8512, Japan}
138: \altaffiltext{17}
139: {Dept.\ of Phys., Osaka City Univ., Osaka 558-8585, Japan}
140:
141:
142: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
143: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
144: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
145: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
146: %% editorial office after submission.
147:
148: \begin{abstract}
149:
150: We have detected sub-TeV gamma-ray emission from the direction of
151: the Galactic Center (GC)
152: using the CANGAROO-II Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope
153: (IACT).
154: We detected a statistically significant excess
155: at energies greater than 250\,GeV.
156: The flux was one order of magnitude lower than that of Crab
157: at 1~TeV
158: with a soft spectrum $\propto E^{-4.6\pm0.5}$.
159: The signal centroid is consistent with the GC direction and
160: the observed profile is consistent with a point-like source.
161: Our data suggests that
162: the GeV source 3EG~J1746$-$2851 is identical with this TeV source and
163: we study the combined spectra to determine the possible origin
164: of the gamma-ray emission.
165: We also obtain an upper
166: limit on the cold dark-matter density in the Galactic halo.
167: \end{abstract}
168:
169: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
170: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
171: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
172: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
173:
174: \keywords{gamma rays: observation --- Galaxy: center}
175:
176: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
177: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
178: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
179: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
180: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
181: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
182: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
183: %% each reference.
184:
185: \section{Introduction}
186:
187: Many observations have been made of
188: the Galactic Center (GC) region over a wide range of wavelengths
189: \citep[e.g.,][]{pauls76,sofue86,pedlar89,koyama96,buckley97,
190: purcell97,mh98,maeda02}.
191: At the dynamical center of the Galaxy is the source Sgr~A$^*$,
192: containing a 4$\times 10^6$\,M$_\sun$ black hole, which is
193: a strong, variable, radio source
194: \citep[e.g.,][]{zhao03}
195: and
196: a weak, but occasionally flaring, infra-red \citep{genzel}
197: and X-ray \citep{baganoff} source.
198: Surrounding Sgr~A$^*$ are
199: the (presumed) supernova remnant Sgr~A~East, and
200: a number of filamentary radio structures,
201: including one known as the Arc, extending over tens of parsecs.
202: One filamentary structure was recently found to be a non-thermal X-ray
203: source \citep{sakano}.
204: The radio emission is interpreted as synchrotron radiation
205: from high-energy electrons in the ambient magnetic fields.
206: The observed magnetic fields are as high as
207: several
208: mG, although whether
209: they are distributed over the whole GC region or are localized is not
210: known \citep{morris}.
211:
212: The bright EGRET source 3EG~J1746$-$2851 is listed as unidentified
213: in the third EGRET catalog \citep{hartman99}, but as the position,
214: given in 3EG as
215: ($l=0.11, b=-0.04$) with an 95\% confidence contour radius of 0.13 degrees,
216: is consistent with the GC, it has been considered as
217: the gamma-ray counterpart to GC region \citep{mh98}.
218: Three different source scenarios were suggested by
219: \cite{mh98}: emission from one or more pulsars, inverse Compton radiation
220: from relativistic electrons in the Arc, or Cold Dark Matter (CDM)
221: annihilation.
222: N-body simulations suggest a significant
223: enhancement of the CDM density around galaxy cores \citep{navarro96}.
224: Better constraints on CDM can be obtained
225: by high-energy gamma-ray observations of the GC region.
226: More recently, 3EG~J1746$-$2851 has been associated with Sgr~A~East,
227: with the gamma-ray emission arising from the decay of neutral pions
228: produced by high-energy protons,
229: accelerated in the remnant, interacting with the ambient matter \citep{fm03}.
230: Time variability was reported,
231: although its amplitude is not large \citep{no03}.
232:
233: Spectra derived from the EGRET data
234: \citep[][shown in Fig. 3]{mh98,hartman99} are not well fit
235: by a single power-law: the spectra are quite hard at low energies but
236: flatten, or possibly turn over, at high energies.
237: Simple extrapolations of the high energy spectra, however,
238: suggest a potentially detectable TeV flux.
239:
240: We have observed the GC region with the
241: CANGAROO-II Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope (IACT).
242: The 10\,m diameter CANGAROO-II telescope \citep{kawachi}
243: detects gamma-rays above several hundred GeV
244: by detecting optical
245: Cherenkov radiation generated by relativistic secondary particles in
246: the cascades produced when high-energy gamma-rays (and background cosmic rays)
247: interact with the Earth's upper atmosphere.
248: The optical images provide information on the
249: direction and energy of gamma-ray events.
250: The telescope is located near Woomera, South Australia
251: (136$^\circ$47$'$\,E, 31$^\circ$06$'$\,S) and thus the GC
252: culminates within $\sim$2$^\circ$ of the zenith, enabling
253: observations with a lower energy threshold.
254: Observations with the Whipple IACT from Mt Hopkins (31$^\circ$58$'$\,N)
255: yielded an 2\,$\sigma$ upper limit of
256: $0.45\times 10^{-11}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ at 2\,TeV \citep{buckley97}.
257:
258: The angular resolution of CANGAROO-II is 0.24$^\circ$
259: (36\,pc at a distance of 8.5\,kpc) with an energy
260: threshold of 400\,GeV in the case of a Crab-like energy spectrum
261: ($\propto E^{-2.5}$).
262: For the softer spectrum, $\propto E^{-4.6}$, we find (see \S\,4),
263: the angular resolution becomes 0.32$^\circ$ (47\,pc at 8.5\,kpc) and
264: the energy threshold is lowered to 250\,GeV.
265: With this angular resolution we cannot resolve
266: Sgr~A$^*$ ($\sim$1\,pc in size) and the elliptical Sgr~A~East
267: (major axis of 10.5\,pc),
268: which surrounds Sgr A$^*$ \citep{yusef,maeda02}.
269: The location of the EGRET source 3EG~J1746$-$2851
270: is also too close to the GC for us to resolve it.
271:
272: \section{Observations}
273:
274: The observations were carried out during 2001 July 12--24 (13 nights), and
275: between 2002 July~4 and August~11 (20 nights).
276: The telescope tracked Sgr~A$^*$
277: ($\alpha =$266.42$^\circ$, $\delta =-$29.01$^\circ$, J2000 coordinates).
278: The field of view (FOV) of the camera is 2.76$^\circ \times$2.76$^\circ$.
279: The brightest star in the FOV (SAO 185755) has a visual magnitude of 4.7.
280: Most stars in this region are reddened, and the camera
281: is sensitive to UV light, however this region is brighter
282: than our typical on-source FOV.
283: As a result, we used a higher trigger threshold,
284: requiring 4 triggered pixels rather than the usual 3 \citep{cito},
285: which reduced the trigger rate from 17 to 6\,Hz.
286: Lights from the detention center located several kilometers from
287: the telescope had little effect on these observations as the telescope
288: was pointed close to the zenith \citep{cito}.
289: This was checked from the azimuthal angle dependence of the shower rate
290: (see \S\,3).
291: Each night was divided into two or three periods, i.e., ON--OFF,
292: OFF--ON--OFF, or OFF--ON observations. ON-source observations were timed
293: to contain the meridian passage of the target,
294: as was done by %the same procedure with
295: \cite{nature}.
296: In total, 7300 min.\ of ON- and 7100 min.\ of OFF-source data
297: were obtained.
298:
299: \section{Analysis}
300:
301: First, `cleaning' cuts on camera images were applied,
302: requiring (0.115$^\circ$-square) pixel pulse-heights of greater than
303: 3.3 photoelectrons, and Cherenkov photon arrival times within $\pm$40~ns
304: of the median arrival time.
305: Clusters of at least five adjacent triggered pixels
306: were required in each event
307: (in contrast to our usual acceptance of clusters of at least four pixels)
308: to minimize the effects of the bright star field.
309: After these pre-selection cuts, the shower rate was stable on a
310: run-to-run basis for observations in the same year.
311: Events due to background light were reduced by 99.8\%
312: at this level.
313: A difference of $18\pm14$\% in the average
314: shower rates for 2001 and 2002 was apparent at this stage.
315: We interpret this as being due to a deterioration of the mirror reflectivity
316: and/or camera sensitivity, of $-10.2\pm4.6$\%. This was
317: taken into account in further analysis and included in
318: the final systematic errors in Table \ref{table1}.
319: The systematic difference of the run-by-run acceptance within the
320: same year is
321: expected to be less than 8.4\%.
322: The ON/OFF shower rate difference was ($3\pm9$)\%.
323: By examining the event rates within each run
324: we were able to reject periods affected by cloud,
325: dew forming on the mirrors,
326: instrumental abnormalities,
327: etc.
328: Only data taken at elevation angles greater than 60$^{\circ}$ were accepted.
329: After these cuts, 4000 min.\ of ON- and 3400 min.\ of OFF-source
330: data survived.
331:
332: Trigger rates for each pixel per 700\,$\mu$s were monitored by a
333: scaler circuit in real-time and recorded each second.
334: These data were used to exclude `hot' pixels (generally due to
335: the passage of a star through the FOV of a pixel) in off-line
336: analysis.
337: Hillas parameters were then calculated to discriminate gamma-rays
338: from cosmic-rays based on the image shape and orientation \citep{hillas}.
339: Further we masked
340: a small number of
341: pixels which showed deformed ADC spectra,
342: possibly due to a hardware fault.
343: Discrimination of the cosmic-ray background from gamma-rays
344: was carried out using the likelihood method of \cite{enomotoapp}.
345:
346: Crab nebula data were analyzed with the same code, with
347: the derived flux and morphology consistent with
348: the previous measurements and the point-spread function, respectively.
349: The distributions of the Hillas parameters for the excess events
350: were checked and found to be consistent with Monte Carlo
351: simulations for gamma rays. The OFF-source data
352: were compared with the Monte Carlo simulations of protons,
353: and found to be consistent.
354:
355: \section{Results}
356:
357: The resulting distributions of the image orientation angle, $\alpha$,
358: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} for both years and for the combined data-set.
359: The normalizations between the ON- and
360: OFF-distributions were carried out using data with
361: $\alpha>30^\circ$.
362: The numbers of excess events ($\alpha <15^\circ$)
363: were 800$\pm$100 (in an observation time of 1400 min.), 860$\pm$140
364: (2600 min.), and 1660$\pm$170 (4000 min.) in 2001, 2002,
365: and the combined data, respectively, where the quated errors include only
366: statistical ones.
367: A difference in the excess rates for 2001 and 2002 is apparent,
368: with the (2001/2002) ratio being 1.60$\pm$0.34.
369: We note that a flare was observed at 1.3\,mm from Sgr~A$^*$ in July 2001
370: \citep{yuan}.
371: However the shower rate (effectively energy threshold)
372: difference described above could affect this ration at the 20\% level.
373: We are, thus, unable to infer that the TeV emission is from a variable source.
374: Nightly signal rates were also checked during both years,
375: even though these have poorer statistics.
376: The largest deviation occurred on 2002 Aug 11, UT,
377: with a rate $1.8\pm0.6$ times larger than the average for that year,
378: again not statistically significant.
379:
380: Our Monte Carlo simulations predict, for a point-source,
381: that gamma-ray events with
382: $\alpha<15^\circ$ should constitute 73.5\% of those with $\alpha<30^\circ$.
383: The experimental data yielded
384: $80.8\pm 6.7$\%, consistent with the point-source assumption.
385: As a further check on the spatial distribution of the signal,
386: we derived the ``significance map'', as shown by the thick contours in
387: Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
388: The contours were
389: calculated from the distribution of the detection significance
390: determined at each location from the difference in the $\alpha$ plots
391: (ON- minus OFF-source histogram) divided by the statistical errors.
392: The centroid is consistent with
393: 3EG\,J1746$-$2851, within
394: our possible systematic uncertainty of 0.1$^\circ$,
395: and so we identify the GeV source as the likely
396: origin of the TeV emission.
397: Our angular resolution was estimated to be 0.32$^\circ$,
398: slightly larger than the radius of the 65\% contour, consistent
399: with the point-source assumption.
400: The acceptance of the CANGAROO-II telescope is a smoothly
401: decreasing function with an offset from the tracking center, falling to
402: 50\% at a 0.9$^\circ$ offset \citep[see][for details]{cito}.
403:
404: After correcting for this acceptance, the differential fluxes
405: listed in Table~\ref{table1} were derived.
406: As both statistical and systematic errors are included,
407: the energy bins overlap somewhat, particularly at low energies.
408: The systematic uncertainty for the energy determination
409: ($\sim$20\%), which is an overall factor,
410: dominates the errors in the energies.
411: The Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig3}
412: together with the EGRET data \citep{mh98,hartman99}.
413: The cross-hatched area indicates the CANGAROO-II data reported here.
414: The derived spectrum has a power-law index
415: of $-4.6\pm0.5$, much softer than that of the Crab nebula ($-$2.5).
416: When considered together with the EGRET data it is clear the
417: flux falls off steeply in the TeV region.
418:
419: Various checks on the signal level and position were carried out, by
420: varying thresholds, clustering cuts, Hillas parameter values, etc:
421: these yielded consistent fluxes within the systematic
422: errors given in Table \ref{table1}.
423:
424: \section{Discussion}
425: Due to the complex structure of the GC region different scenarios for
426: the origin of the EGRET gamma-ray flux have been considered
427: \citep[see, e.g.,][and references therein]{mh98}.
428: As mentioned in \S1,
429: \cite{fm03} have recently attributed the GeV emission to
430: $\pi^0$ decay resulting from
431: high-energy protons interacting with the ambient matter in
432: Sgr~A East.
433: They argued that due to synchrotron cooling in the high average
434: magnetic field, primary (accelerated) and secondary leptons would
435: have a steep spectrum, and their contribution to the high energy
436: gamma-ray flux via inverse Compton emission and bremsstrahlung would be
437: small.
438: The leptonic contribution to the TeV gamma-ray flux would be even smaller.
439: Indeed, the synchrotron cooling
440: time can be estimated as $\tau_s=16\times B_{mG}^{-2}
441: E_{e,TeV}^{-1}$~yr. Thus for leptons of a few TeV, which might contribute to
442: the sub-TeV gamma-ray flux, the cooling time
443: in a mG magnetic field is even less than those
444: considered by \cite{fm03}. Another factor which will reduce the amount
445: of secondary TeV leptons, the key products from {\it pp} interactions, is
446: the presence of a cut-off in the accelerated proton spectrum at a few
447: TeV, suggested by this observation (see below).
448: In the case of Sgr~A$^*$, an even higher magnetic field
449: is expected, which would lead to the same conclusion.
450:
451: In Fig.~\ref{fig3} we reproduce the $\pi^0$ decay emission to fit both
452: the EGRET data and ours. The input proton spectrum was assumed to be
453: proportional to $E^{-\gamma}e^{-E/E_{max}}$. The number density of
454: the ambient gas ($n$) was taken to be $\sim 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$
455: \citep{maeda02}, however this affects only the estimation of the
456: total proton cosmic-ray energy, as $E_c\propto n^{-1}$.
457: The various lines shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3} are for differing values
458: of $\gamma$ and $E_{max}$. The GeV spectrum given in the 3EG
459: catalog \citep{hartman99} differs from that of the dedicated analysis
460: of \cite{mh98}, however, in both cases
461: the EGRET and CANGAROO-II data can
462: be relatively smoothly connected, with a cutoff energy of 1--3\,TeV.
463: The spectra for $\gamma=2.4$ yield slightly worse fits to the
464: data at the lowest energies.
465: The inferred total cosmic-ray energy greater than 1\,GeV (see Fig.~\ref{fig3})
466: corresponds to $\leq 10$\%
467: of a typical supernova energy, a quite plausible conversion efficiency.
468: The details, however, are dependent on the EGRET flux. In the
469: case of a lower gas density ($n$), the cosmic ray energy
470: exceeds that of a single
471: supernova, and we should consider the possibility of
472: other sources in the GC region, such as Sgr A$^*$ itself,
473: contributing to the gamma-ray flux. Our
474: data determine the maximum energy to which cosmic rays are accelerated
475: in this region, which does not depend upon other physical parameters.
476: For example, the range of values
477: is consistent with recent theoretical predictions for shock
478: acceleration in supernova remnants \citep{pz03}.
479:
480: Thus, identifying the TeV source with 3EG\,J1746$-$2851, and
481: associating these in turn with Sgr~A~East and/or Sgr A$^*$, we find that the
482: gamma-ray fluxes and spectra can be naturally explained as arising
483: due to $\pi^0$ decay.
484:
485: We can, in addition, use our observations to
486: derive upper limits to the CDM abundance in the GC region,
487: assuming the GeV and TeV emission is centered on Sgr~A$^*$ and
488: following the
489: method of
490: \cite{enomoto253}.
491: The emission region is assumed to be a sphere with a radius
492: of 47\,pc.
493: The annihilation mode of $\chi \chi \rightarrow q\bar{q}$
494: was first considered.
495: The cross section ($\sigma$) multiplied by the
496: relative velocity ($v$) and the branching fraction ($B$)
497: is a free parameter that was normalized to $10^{-26} cm^3s^{-1}$.
498: The experimental data of $e^+e^-\rightarrow q\bar{q}\rightarrow \gamma X$
499: was used for the gamma-ray multiplicity \citep{lep}.
500: The derived 2\,$\sigma$ upper limits for
501: the CDM densities
502: ($\rho_{CDM}^{47pc}\sqrt{\sigma vB/10^{-26} cm^3s^{-1}}$)
503: are 9300, 7300, 5800, 5300, and 5800\,GeV/cm$^3$
504: for an assumed WIMP mass of 0.7, 1, 2, 4, and 6\,TeV, respectively.
505: Here, although we took the EGRET flux as an upper limit, above 0.6\,TeV
506: it is the CANGAROO-II data that dominates these results.
507: \cite{navarro96} and subsequent analyses
508: \citep{fukushige,moore,ghigna,jing,power}
509: adopted a cusp structure, i.e.,
510: the density profile proportional to
511: $r^{-\beta}(1+r/r_s)^{\beta-3}$, where $r_s$ is a free parameter
512: and $\alpha$ ranges from 1 to 1.5.
513: In the case of $\beta$=1.3,
514: the upper limits of local densities
515: ($\rho_{CDM}^{\odot}\sqrt{\sigma vB/10^{-26} cm^3s^{-1}}$)
516: are of the order of several GeV/cm$^3$.
517: Higher upper limits are obtained when
518: the decay mode of $\chi \chi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ was assumed
519: with $\sigma vB_{\gamma \gamma}=10^{-29} cm^3s^{-1}$.
520:
521: \acknowledgments
522: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by
523: the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,
524: and by JSPS Research Fellowships.
525: This work was also supported by ARC Linkage Infrastructure Grant
526: LE0238884 and Discovery Project Grant DP0345983.
527: We thank the Defense Support Center Woomera and BAE Systems.
528:
529:
530:
531: \begin{thebibliography}{}
532:
533: \bibitem[Ackerstaff et al.(1998)]{lep}
534: Ackerstaff, K., et al. 1998, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C5, 411
535: \bibitem[Baganoff et al.(2001)]{baganoff}
536: Baganoff, F.K., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45
537: \bibitem[Buckley et al.(1997)]{buckley97}
538: Buckley, J.H., et al. 1997, Proc.\ 25th ICRC (Durban), 3, 237
539: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2002a)]{enomotoapp}
540: Enomoto, R., Hara, S., et al. 2002a, Astropart. Phys., 16, 235
541: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2002b)]{nature}
542: Enomoto, R., et al. 2002b, Nature, 416, 823
543: \bibitem[Enomoto et al.(2003)]{enomoto253}
544: Enomoto, R., Yoshida, T., Yanagita, S., \& Itoh, C. 2003, \apj, 596, 216
545: \bibitem[Fatuzzo \& Melia(2003)]{fm03}
546: Fatuzzo, M., \& Melia, F. 2003, \apj, 596, 1035
547: \bibitem[Fukushige \& Makino(2003))]{fukushige}
548: Fukushige, T., \& Makino, J. 2003, \apj, 588, 674
549: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(2003)]{genzel}
550: Genzel, R., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 934
551: \bibitem[Ghigna et al.(2000)]{ghigna}
552: Ghigna, S., et al. 2000, \apj, 544, 616
553: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(1999)]{hartman99}
554: Hartman, R.C., et al. 1999, \apjs, 123, 79
555: \bibitem[Hillas(1985)]{hillas}
556: Hillas, A.M., Proc.\ 19th ICRC (La Jolla), 3, 445
557: \bibitem[Itoh et al.(2003)]{cito}
558: Itoh, C., et al., 2003, \aap, 402, 443
559: \bibitem[Jing \& Suto(2000)]{jing}
560: Jing, Y.P., \& Suto, Y. 2000, \apj, 529, L69
561: \bibitem[Kawachi et al.(2001)]{kawachi}
562: Kawachi, A., et al. 2001, Astropart.\ Phys., 14, 261
563: \bibitem[Koyama et al.(1996)]{koyama96}
564: Koyama, K., et al. 1996, PASJ, 48, 249
565: \bibitem[Maeda et al.(2002)]{maeda02}
566: Maeda, Y., et al. 2002, \apj, 570, 671
567: \bibitem[Mayer-Hasselwander et al.(1998)]{mh98}
568: Mayer-Hasselwander, H.A., et al. 1998, A\&A, 335, 161
569: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{moore}
570: Moore, B., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1147
571: \bibitem[Morris(1994)]{morris}
572: Morris, M., 1994, The Nuclei of Normal Galaxies, eds R. Genzel \&
573: A.I. Harris, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 185
574: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk, \& White(1996)]{navarro96}
575: Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., \& White, S.D.M. 1996 \apj, 462, 563
576: \bibitem[Nolan et al.(2003)]{no03}
577: Nolan, P.L., Tompkins, W.F., Grenier I.A., \& Michelson P.F. 2003
578: \apj, 597, 615
579: \bibitem[Pauls et al.(1976)]{pauls76}
580: Pauls, T., Downes, D., Mezger, P.G., \& Churchwell, E. 1976, \aap, 46, 407
581: \bibitem[Pedlar et al.(1989)]{pedlar89}
582: Pedlar, A., et al. 1989, \apj, 342, 769
583: \bibitem[Power et al.(2003)]{power}
584: Power, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14
585: \bibitem[Ptuskin \& Zirakashvili(2003)]{pz03}
586: Ptuskin, B.S., \& Zirakashvili, V.N. 2003, A\&A, 403, 1
587: \bibitem[Purcell et al.(1997)]{purcell97}
588: Purcell, W.R., et al. 1997, \apj, 491, 725
589: \bibitem[Sakano et al.(2003)]{sakano}
590: Sakano, M., Warwick, R.S., Decourchelle, A., \& Predehl, P. 2003,
591: MNRAS, 340, 747
592: \bibitem[Sch\"odel et al.(2002)]{schodel02}
593: Sch\"odel R. et al., 2002, Nature, 419, 694
594: \bibitem[Sofue et al.(1986)]{sofue86}
595: Sofue, Y., et al. 1986, PASJ, 38, 475
596: \bibitem[Yuan \& Zhao(2002)]{yuan}
597: Yuan, F., \& Zhao, J.-H. 2002, astro-ph/0203050
598: \bibitem[Yusef-Zadeh \& Morris(1987)]{yusef}
599: Yusef-Zadeh, F. \& Morris, M. 1987, ApJ, 320, 545
600: \bibitem[Zhao et al.(2003)]{zhao03}
601: Zhao, J.-H., et al. 2003, \apj, 586, L29
602:
603: \end{thebibliography}
604:
605: \clearpage
606:
607: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
608: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
609:
610: \begin{figure}
611: \plotone{f1.eps}
612: \caption{Distributions of $\alpha$ (image orientation angle).
613: From left to right, the
614: a) 2001 data, b) 2002 data, and c) combined data,
615: are shown.
616: The points with error bars show the ON-source data
617: and the hatched histograms are the normalized OFF-source data.
618: }
619: \label{fig1}
620: \end{figure}
621:
622: \begin{figure}
623: \plotone{f2.eps}
624: \caption{
625: The ``significance map" obtained by the CANGAROO-II telescope
626: is shown by the blue contours.
627: The thin contours are a 12$\mu$ IRAS image.
628: The position of Sgr~A$^*$ (the telescope tracking center)
629: is given by the cross.
630: The inset is a 5\,GHz VLA image showing Sgr~A$^*$ and Sgr~A~East
631: \citep{yusef}.
632: The uncertainty in the position for 3EG~J1746$-$2851
633: analysed by \cite{mh98} is indicated by
634: the orange dashed contour.
635: % taken from \cite{mh98}.
636: \label{fig2}}
637: \end{figure}
638:
639: \begin{figure}
640: \plotone{f3.eps}
641: \caption{
642: Spectral energy distribution of the GC region.
643: The cross-hatched area is the 1\,$\sigma$ allowed region
644: for the TeV observations in the energy range of Table~\ref{table1}.
645: Here the energy uncertainties in Table~\ref{table1} were
646: assumed to be correlated bin by bin.
647: The arrow (W) is the Whipple 2\,$\sigma$ upper limit at 2~TeV
648: \citep{buckley97}.
649: The two analyses of the EGRET data are shown by the
650: black hatched region \citep{mh98} and the crosses \citep{hartman99}.
651: The lines are estimations for $\pi^0$ gamma-rays,
652: the details of which are given in the body of the figure and in the text.
653: \label{fig3}}
654: \end{figure}
655:
656: \clearpage
657:
658: \begin{table}
659: \begin{center}
660: \caption{Differential fluxes.}
661: \label{table1}
662: \begin{tabular}{cl}
663: \hline
664: \hline
665: Mean energy of bin [GeV] ~ ~ ~ & Flux [ph/cm$^2$/s/TeV]\\
666: \hline
667: 258$\pm$64 & (0.14$\pm$0.06)$\times$$10^{-8}$ \\
668: 299$\pm$66 & (0.82$\pm$0.22)$\times$$10^{-9}$ \\
669: 367$\pm$80 & (0.20$\pm$0.08)$\times$$10^{-9}$ \\
670: 540$\pm$102 & (0.54$\pm$0.19)$\times$$10^{-10}$ \\
671: 962$\pm$356 & (0.30$\pm$0.28)$\times$$10^{-11}$ \\
672: 2454$\pm$653 & (0.73$\pm$1.19)$\times$$10^{-13}$\\
673: \hline
674: \hline
675: \end{tabular}
676: \end{center}
677: \end{table}
678:
679: \end{document}
680: