arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1108.1202astro-ph.HE
收藏

第一个Fermi-LAT星表中非关联源源类的统计识别方法

A Statistical Approach to Recognizing Source Classes for Unassociated Sources in the First Fermi-LAT Catalog

LAT Collaboration

摘要:

费米大面积望远镜第一源目录(1FGL)使用统一的分析方法提供了大量伽马射线源的空间,光谱和时间特性。在与已知发射伽马射线的源类型的最完整目录相关联之后,这些源中有630个是“无关的”(即在其他波长上没有明显的对应物)。在这里,我们采用了两个统计分析的主要伽马射线特性,这些无关的源,努力将其伽马射线属性与活动星系核和脉冲星人口在1FGL。在此基础上,我们对1FGL非关联源中的221个类活动星系核源和134个类脉冲星源进行了分类。这些源“分类”的结果似乎符合预期的源分布,特别是在银河系高纬度地区。这些分析虽然有助于规划未来的多波长后续观测,但使用的投入有限,其预测不应被视为等同于这些来源的“可能来源类别”。我们讨论了多波长的结果和目录互相关的日期,并提供了新的源协会229费米-LAT源,没有关联的1FGL目录中列出。通过对这些新关联的源分类进行验证,我们发现新关联在约80%的源中与预测的源类别相匹配。

英文摘要:

The Fermi Large Area Telescope First Source Catalog (1FGL) provided spatial, spectral, and temporal properties for a large number of gamma-ray sources using a uniform analysis method. After correlating with the most-complete catalogs of source types known to emit gamma rays, 630 of these sources are "unassociated" (i.e. have no obvious counterparts at other wavelengths). Here, we employ two statistical analyses of the primary gamma-ray characteristics for these unassociated sources in an effort to correlate their gamma-ray properties with the AGN and pulsar populations in 1FGL. Based on the correlation results, we classify 221 AGN-like and 134 pulsar-like sources in the 1FGL unassociated sources. The results of these source "classifications" appear to match the expected source distributions, especially at high Galactic latitudes. While useful for planning future multiwavelength follow-up observations, these analyses use limited inputs, and their predictions should not be considered equivalent to "probable source classes" for these sources. We discuss multiwavelength results and catalog cross-correlations to date, and provide new source associations for 229 Fermi-LAT sources that had no association listed in the 1FGL catalog. By validating the source classifications against these new associations, we find that the new association matches the predicted source class in ~80% of the sources.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑