a very common statistical procedure is obtaining a confidence interval for a physics parameter of interest , when there are uncertainties in quantities such as the acceptance of the detector and/or the analysis procedure , the beam intensity , and the estimated background .
these are known in statistics as nuisance parameters , or in particle physics as sources of systematic uncertainty .
we assume that estimates of these quantities are available from subsidiary measurements . ; that is not enough information for a bayesian approach . alternatively
the data relevant for the physics and nuisance parameters could be bound up in the main measurement , and not require a subsidiary one . ] a variant of this procedure which is particularly relevant for particle physics is the extraction of an upper limit on the rate of some hypothesized process or on a physical parameter , again with systematic uncertainties .    to specify the problem in more detail , we assume that we are performing a counting experiment in which we observe @xmath0 counts , and that the acceptance has been estimated as @xmath1 and the background as @xmath2 . for a signal rate @xmath3 , @xmath0 is poisson distributed with mean @xmath4 . here
@xmath5 contains factors like the intensity of the accelerator beam(s ) , the running time , and various efficiencies .
it is constrained to be non - negative , but can be larger than unity .
we aim to study and compare different approaches for determining confidence intervals for this problem .
in general we are interested in pathologies in these areas :    * * coverage . * this is a measure of how often the limits that we deduce would in fact include the true value of the parameter .
this requires consideration of an ensemble of experiments like the one we actually performed , and hence is an essentially frequentist concept .
nevertheless , it can be applied to a bayesian technique .
+ coverage is a property of the technique , and not of the particular limit deduced from a given measurement .
it can , however , be a function of the true value of the parameter , which is in general unknown in a real measurement .
+ undercoverage ( i.e.  the probability of containing the true value is less than the stated confidence level ) is regarded by frequentists as a serious defect . usually coverage is required for all possible values of the physical parameter .
occur at values which are not fixed in @xmath3 , but which depend on the details of our experiment ( such as the values of @xmath5 and @xmath6 ) .
these details vary from experiment to experiment .
thus we could achieve ` no undercoverage for the ensemble of experiments measuring the parameter @xmath3 ' , even if the individual coverage plots did fall below the nominal coverage occasionally .
thus in some sense ` average coverage ' would be sufficient ( see for example reference @xcite ) , although it is hard to quantify the exact meaning of ` average ' .
it should be stated that this is not the accepted position of most high energy physics frequentists .
] in contrast , overcoverage is permissible , but the larger intervals result in less stringent tests of models that predict the value of the parameter . for measurements involving quantised data ( e.g.  poisson counting ) ,
most methods have coverage which varies with the true value of the parameter of interest , and hence if undercoverage is to be avoided , overcoverage is inevitable .
+ frequentist methods by construction will not undercover for any values of the parameters .
this is not guaranteed for other approaches .
for example , even though the bayesian intervals shown here do not undercover , in other problems bayesian 95% credible intervals could even have zero coverage for some values of the parameter of interest.@xcite it should also be remarked that , although coverage is a very important property for frequentists , on its own exact coverage does not guarantee that intervals have desirable properties ( for many examples , see refs . @xcite and @xcite ) . * * interval length .
* this is sometimes used as a criterion of accuracy of intervals , in the sense that shorter intervals have less probability of covering false values of the parameter of interest .
however , one should keep in mind that short intervals are only desirable if they contain the true value of the parameter .
thus empty intervals , which do occur in some frequentist constructions , are generally undesirable , even when their construction formally enjoys frequentist coverage .
+ intervals that fill the entire physically allowed range of the parameter of interest may also occur in some situations .
examples of this behavior are given in @xcite and @xcite .
an experimenter who requests a 68% confidence interval , but receives what appears to be a 100% confidence interval instead , may not be satisfied with the explanation that he is performing a useful service in helping to keep the coverage probability  averaged over his measurement and his competitor s measurements  from dropping below 68% . *
* bayesian credibility .
* in some situations it may be relevant to calculate the bayesian credibility of an interval , even when the latter was constructed by frequentist methods .
this would of course require one to choose a prior for all the unknown parameters .
the question is one of plausibility : given the type of measurement we are making , the resolution of the apparatus , etc .
, how likely is it that the true value of the parameter we are interested in lies in the calculated interval ? does this differ dramatically from the nominal coverage probability of the interval ?
in fact for different values of the observable(s ) , frequentist ranges are very likely to have different credibilities
. some examples of this behavior are noted in ref .  @xcite .
+ when calculating the bayesian credibility of frequentist intervals , `` uninformative '' priors appear advisable .
note that severe interval length pathologies will automatically produce a large inconsistency between the nominal coverage and the bayesian credibility of an interval .
except in a handful of very special cases , it is not possible to construct an interval scheme that has simultaneously constant bayesian credibility and constant frequentist coverage , even if one has total freedom in choosing the prior(s ) .
although it is not at all clear exactly how large a level of disagreement is pathological , nevertheless it may be instructive to know how severely an interval scheme deviates from constant bayesian credibility ( and how sensitive this is to the choice of prior ) . * * bias .
* in the context of interval selection , this means having a larger coverage @xmath7 for an incorrect value @xmath8 of the parameter than for the true value @xmath9 .
this requires plots of coverage versus @xmath8 for different values of @xmath9 . for upper limits ,
@xmath10 if @xmath11 is less than @xmath12 , so methods are necessarily biassed for low @xmath8 .
bias thus is not very interesting for upper limits .
it will be discussed in later notes dealing with two - sided intervals . * * transformation under reparametrisation .
* intervals that are not transformation - respecting can be problematic .
for example , it is possible for the predicted value of the lifetime of a particle to be contained within the 90% interval determined from the data , but for the corresponding predicted value of the decay rate ( equal to the reciprocal of the predicted lifetime ) to be outside the 90% interval when the data is analysed by the same procedure , but in terms of decay rate .
this would result in unwanted ambiguities about the compatibility of the data with the prediction . *
* unphysical ranges . *
the question here is whether the interval construction procedure can be made to respect the physical boundaries of the problem .
for example , branching fractions should be in the range zero to one , masses should not be negative , etc .
statements about the _ true _ value of a parameter should respect any physical bounds .
in contrast , some methods give _ estimates _ of parameters which can themselves be unphysical , or which include unphysical values when the errors are taken into account .
we do not recommend truncating ranges of _ estimates _ of parameters to obey such bounds .
thus the fact that a branching fraction is estimated as @xmath13 conveys more information about the experimental result than does the statement that it lies in the range 0.9 to 1 . * * behavior with respect to nuisance parameter .
* we would normally expect that the limits on a physical parameter would tighten as the uncertainty on a nuisance parameter decreases ; and that as this uncertainty tends to zero , the limits should agree with those obtained under the assumption that the `` nuisance parameter '' was exactly known .
( otherwise we could sometimes obtain a tighter limit simply by pretending that we knew less about the nuisance parameter than in fact is the case . )
these desiderata are not always satisfied by non - bayesian methods ( see @xcite and @xcite ) .
although we are ultimately interested in comparing different approaches to this problem , in this note we investigate a bayesian technique for determining upper limits .
our purpose is to spell out in some detail how this approach is used , and to discuss some of the properties of the resulting limits in this specific example .
we believe that , for variants of this problem ( e.g.  different choice of prior for @xmath3 ; alternative assumptions about the information on the nuisance parameters ; etc . ) , the reader could readily adapt the techniques described here ( and the associated software ) to their particular situation .
we will report on two - sided intervals and also compare with other methods ( e.g.  cousins  highland , pure frequentist , profiled frequentist ) in later notes .
before dealing with the problem of extracting and studying the limits on @xmath3 as deduced from observing @xmath0 events from a poisson distribution with mean @xmath4 in the presence of an uncertainty on @xmath5 , we recall the way the bayesian approach works for the simpler problem of a counting experiment with no background and with @xmath5 exactly known .
then @xmath0 is poisson distributed with mean @xmath14 , and bayes theorem s denote prior p.d.f.s , lower case @xmath15 s denote other p.d.f.s , upper case @xmath16 s denote prior probabilities , and upper case @xmath17 s denote other probabilities .
equation  ( [ eqn : bayesth ] ) is true for probabilities , p.d.f.s , or mixtures depending on whether @xmath18 and/or @xmath19 are discrete or continuous variables . ]
@xmath20 gives @xmath21 where @xmath22 is the prior probability density for @xmath3 ; @xmath23 is the posterior probability density function ( p.d.f . )  for @xmath3 , given the observed @xmath0 ; and @xmath24 is the probability of observing @xmath0 , given @xmath3 .
we assume a constant prior for @xmath3 , . ) ] and that @xmath24 is given by the poisson @xmath25 then of the discrete distribution ( [ eqn : poisson ] ) and the integral over @xmath3 of the continuous distribution ( [ eqn : poisson2 ] ) are both equal to unity .
this means that the probability @xmath24 and the probability density @xmath23 are correctly normalised . ]
@xmath26 the limit is now obtained by integrating this posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 until we achieve the required fraction @xmath27 of the total integral from zero to infinity .
if @xmath27 is @xmath28 , the upper limit @xmath29 is given by @xmath30 @xmath27 is termed the credible or bayesian confidence level for the limit .    for different observed @xmath0 ,
the upper limits are shown in the last two columns of table  [ ltablex ] , for @xmath31 and for @xmath32 respectively .
the gaussian approximation for the case @xmath31 , @xmath33 , would yield @xmath34 , which is roughly comparable to the corresponding @xmath35 of the table . for @xmath31
, it coincidentally turns out that , for this particular example , the bayesian upper limits are identical with those obtained in a frequentist calculation with the neyman construction and a simple ordering rule ( see later note on the frequentist approach to this problem ) . in general this is not so .
other priors sometimes used for @xmath3 are @xmath36 @xcite or @xmath37 @xcite . having a prior peaked at smaller values of @xmath3 in general results in tighter limits for a given
observed @xmath0 .
if the whole procedure is now repeated with a background @xmath6 and a flat prior , the upper limits not surprisingly decrease for increasing @xmath6 at fixed @xmath0 ( except for the case @xmath38 where the limits can trivially be seen to be independent of @xmath6 ) .
this is not inconsistent with the fact that the mean limit for a series of measurements increases with @xmath6 , i.e.  experiments with larger expected backgrounds have poorer sensitivity .    .upper
90% limits for @xmath0 observed events with @xmath6 background and @xmath39 ( @xmath40 and @xmath41 , as defined in section  [ submeas ] ) . also shown are limits for @xmath42 and @xmath43 with fixed @xmath44 .
[ ltablex ] [ cols= " > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > , > " , ]      next we can investigate the frequentist coverage @xmath45 when the poisson variable is generated with @xmath46 .
this differs from @xmath7 where the coverage is checked at @xmath47 when the generation value is @xmath9 . ] of this bayesian approach .
that is , we can ask what the probability is , for a given value of @xmath9 , of our upper limit being larger than @xmath9 , and hence being consistent with it . this is equivalent to adding up the poisson probabilities of eqn .
( [ eqn : poisson ] ) for those values of @xmath0 for which @xmath48 i.e. @xmath49 as @xmath9  increases through any of the values of @xmath29 of the last two columns of table  [ ltablex ] , the coverage drops sharply . for example , for the case of zero background and efficiency
known to be unity , the 90% bayesian upper limits will include @xmath50 for @xmath51 or larger .
but @xmath52 is no longer below the upper limit for @xmath51 .
thus one term drops out of the summation of eqn .
( [ csum ] ) for the calculation of the coverage at @xmath52 , while the remaining terms change but little for the small change in @xmath9 ; this produces the abrupt fall in coverage . the coverage is plotted in fig .  [ fig : bayes ] , where the drop at @xmath53 can be seen .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the calculation of @xmath45 can be done as follows : the identity @xmath54= -e^{-x}{x^n\over n ! } \qquad\mathrm{for}\qquad f(x)=e^{-x}\sum_{k=0}^n{x^k\over k!}\ ] ] allows us to write ( integrating @xmath55 ) @xmath56 from this , it follows that `` relevant @xmath0 '' is equivalent to any one of these inequalities : @xmath57 and our expression for the coverage becomes @xmath58 where @xmath59 means `` sum until the next term would cause the sum to exceed @xmath60 '' .
this result proves that @xmath61 for all values of @xmath9  in this simple example .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    it is seen that the coverage starts at @xmath62 for small @xmath9 .
this is because even for @xmath38 the bayesian upper limit will include @xmath9 , and this is even more so for larger @xmath0 .
bayesian methods can be shown to achieve average coverage . by this
we mean that when the coverage is averaged over the parameter @xmath3 , weighted by the prior in @xmath3 , the result will agree with the nominal value @xmath27 , i.e. @xmath63 a proof of this theorem is given in the second appendix , section  [ ac ] of this note .
for a constant prior , the region at large @xmath3 tends to dominate the average , while in general we will be interested in the coverage at small @xmath3 .
thus the `` average coverage '' result is of academic rather than practical interest , especially for the case of a flat prior .
indeed it is possible to have a situation where the average coverage is , say , @xmath28 , while the coverage as a function of @xmath3 is always larger than or equal to @xmath28 .
our actual problem differs from the simple case of section [ bayes ] in that + ( a ) we have a background @xmath6 , assumed for the time being to be accurately known ; and ( b ) we have an acceptance @xmath5 estimated in a subsidiary experiment as @xmath1 .
what we are going to do is to use a multidimensional version of bayes theorem to express @xmath64 in terms of @xmath65 and the priors for @xmath3 and @xmath5 .
the relationship is and +   + @xmath66 .
+   + so with @xmath67 , @xmath68 and @xmath69 identified with @xmath3 , @xmath5 and @xmath0 respectively , and with the prior for @xmath3 and @xmath5 factorising into two separate priors for @xmath3 and for @xmath5 , we obtain @xmath70 . ]
@xmath71    to obtain the posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 , we now integrate this over @xmath5 : @xmath72 and finally we use this to set a limit on @xmath3 as in eqn .
( [ eqn:0.9 ] ) .
the coverage for this procedure needs to be calculated as a function of @xmath9  and @xmath73 .
the average coverage theorem of the previous section must be generalized to @xmath74      to implement the above procedure we need priors for @xmath3 and @xmath5 . as in the simple example of section [ bayes ] , for simplicity
we assume that the prior for @xmath3 is constant .
it will be interesting to look at the way the properties of this method change as other priors for @xmath3 are used .
we assume that the prior for @xmath5 is extracted from some subsidiary measurement @xmath75 .
we do * not * assume that this implies that our belief about @xmath73  is represented by a * gaussian * distribution centred on @xmath76 , as this would give trouble with the lower end of the gaussian extending to negative @xmath5 .
instead , we specify some particular form of the subsidiary experiment that provides information about @xmath5 , and then assume that a bayesian analysis of this yields a posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath5 .
slightly confusingly , this posterior from the subsidiary experiment is used as the prior for the application of bayes theorem to extract the limit on @xmath3 ( see eqns.([eqn : extended ] ) and ( [ eqn : posterior ] ) ) .
somewhat arbitrarily , we assume that , for a true acceptance @xmath73 , the probability for the measured value @xmath76 in the subsidiary experiment is given by a poisson distribution @xmath77 where @xmath78 , @xmath79 and @xmath80 is a scaling constant and @xmath81 as the mean and variance of the posterior p.d.f .  of eqn .
( [ eqn : posterior_e ] ) . ] .
we interpret this as the probability for @xmath76 .
this is discrete because the observable @xmath82 is discrete , but the allowed values become closely spaced for large @xmath80 . for small @xmath83 ( i.e.  for large @xmath82 ) , these probabilities approximate to a narrow gaussian ( see fig .  [
fig : comparison ] ) .    given our choice of probability in eqn .
( [ eqn : pdf ] ) , the likelihood for the parameter @xmath5 , given measured @xmath76 , is @xmath84 this is the same function of @xmath5 and @xmath76 as eqn .
( [ eqn : pdf ] ) , but now @xmath82 is regarded as fixed , and @xmath5 is the variable . the likelihood is a continuous function of @xmath5 . it is compared with a gaussian in fig .  [
fig : comparison2 ] .    finally in the bayes approach , with the choice of a constant prior for @xmath5 , the posterior probability density for @xmath5 after our subsidiary measurement is @xmath85 which is obtained by multiplying the right - hand side of eqn .
( [ eqn : likelihood ] ) by unity .
this * posterior * probability density for @xmath5 will be used as our * prior * for @xmath5 in the next step of deducing the limit for @xmath3 .
the details of the necessary analytical calculations are presented in the appendix of this note . in this section
we investigate the behavior of the bayesian limits in this example , especially the shape of the frequentist coverage probability as a function of @xmath9 .
the posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 has the form @xmath861\,ds\ ] ] where the likelihood , the prior for @xmath5 , the ( constant ) prior for @xmath3 , and the marginalization integral over @xmath5 are all prominently displayed .
the posterior probability density for @xmath3 gives the complete summary of the outcome of the measurement in the bayesian approach .
it is therefore important to understand its shape before proceeding to use it to compute a limit ( or extract a central value and error - bars ) .
figure  [ pdfs ] illustrates the shape of the posterior for @xmath3 ( i.e.  marginalized over @xmath5 ) in the case of a nominal 10% uncertainty on @xmath5 , and an expectation of 3 background events .
plots are shown for 1 , 3 , 5 , and 10 observed events .
the posterior evolves gracefully from being strongly peaked at @xmath87 to a roughly gaussian shape that excludes the neighborhood near @xmath87 with high probability .
technically , the posterior would be described as a mixture of @xmath88 beta distributions of the 2nd kind '' ( i.e.  `` beta prime '' ) , `` inverted beta '' , `` pearson type  vi '' , `` variance - ratio '' , `` gamma - gamma '' , `` f '' , `` snedecor '' , `` fisher - snedecor''  . ] , giving it a tail at high @xmath3 that is heavier than that of a gaussian .      in this note ,
our main goal is to obtain a bayesian upper limit @xmath29 from our observation of @xmath0 events .
it is by integrating the posterior p.d.f .
out to @xmath89 that an upper limit is calculated : a @xmath90 upper limit is defined so that the integral of the posterior from @xmath87 to @xmath89 is 0.9 .
the probability ( in the bayesian sense ) of @xmath91 is then exactly @xmath27 .
table  [ ltablex ] shows the upper limits ( @xmath92 ) for @xmath9320 observed events with @xmath428 and @xmath39 .
( integer values of @xmath6 are chosen for illustration purposes only ; @xmath6 can , of course , take any real value @xmath94 . )
one notices that when @xmath93 , the limit is independent of the expected background @xmath6 .
this is required in the bayesian approach : we know that exactly zero background events were produced ( when no events at all were produced ) , and this knowledge of what _ did _ happen makes what might have happened superfluous .
an interesting corollary is , in the case of no events observed , uncertainties in estimating the background rate are of no consequence in the bayesian approach , and must not contribute any systematic uncertainty to the limit .
this reasoning does not hold in the frequentist framework , where what might have happened definitely does influence the limit .    for comparison ,
limits for fixed @xmath44 with @xmath42 or @xmath43 are also shown in table  [ ltablex ] .
it is interesting that these two columns start out equal at @xmath93 and differ by almost exactly 3 for @xmath95 .
in contrast , the difference between the @xmath42 and @xmath43 columns for @xmath39 is already greater than 3 at @xmath96 , and continues to grow as @xmath0 increases ; it is not clear whether the difference approaches a finite value as @xmath97 . in any case , the limits for @xmath44 exactly are all smaller than the corresponding limits for @xmath39 , as expected .
the main quantity of interest in this subsection is the frequentist coverage probability @xmath19 as a function of @xmath9  ( for fixed @xmath73  and @xmath6 ) .
because both the main and the subsidiary measurements involve observing a discrete number of events , the function @xmath45 will have many discontinuities . on the other hand
, @xmath98 will be continuous ( for fixed @xmath9 ) .
the explanation of this effect is as follows :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the measured data are @xmath0 events in the main measurement and @xmath82 events in the subsidiary measurement .
for each observed outcome @xmath99 there is a limit @xmath100 .
this limit includes the effect of marginalization over @xmath5 .
all @xmath99 with @xmath101 and @xmath102 are possible , and the probability @xmath17 of observing @xmath99 can be calculated as the product of two poissons .
( it will depend on @xmath9 , @xmath73 ,  ) if we look at all the possible limits we can obtain , @xmath103 and sort them in increasing @xmath29 , the @xmath29 are countably infinite in number and dense in the same way that rational numbers are dense in the reals .    to compute the coverage as a function of @xmath9 , we simply add up all the probabilities of obtaining @xmath99 with @xmath104 :
@xmath105 this sum is over a countably infinite number of terms .
if we increase @xmath106 slightly to @xmath107 and recalculate the coverage , we have to drop all the terms @xmath108 from the previous sum ( the @xmath109 for each term also changes continuously with @xmath106 , but this is no problem )
. if there are @xmath110 such terms , there are @xmath111 discontinuities in the coverage in the interval @xmath112 $ ] , since @xmath109 for each of these is finite , and we lose them one by one as we sweep across the interval @xmath112 $ ] .
but it seems that , in general , we can always find a solution to @xmath113 for finite @xmath114 by going out to larger and larger @xmath0 and @xmath82 .
so , although the discontinuity may be tiny , we can always find a finite discontinuity in any finite interval of @xmath106 .
on the other hand , if we keep @xmath106 fixed and vary @xmath115 , we always sum over the same set of @xmath99 , since the definition of @xmath116 does not involve @xmath73 , and @xmath109 is continuous in @xmath73 .
so the coverage is continuous as a function of @xmath73  for @xmath9fixed . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    plotting a curve that is discontinuous at every point is somewhat problematical .
the solution adopted here is to plot the coverage as straight line segments between the discontinuities , ignoring any discontinuities with @xmath117 .
figure  [ l100 ] shows @xmath45 for the case @xmath90 , @xmath118 , nominal 10% uncertainty of the subsidiary measurement of @xmath5 , and @xmath43 .
we observe that @xmath119 in this range , and it is not clear numerically whether @xmath120 as @xmath121 .
the same conclusions hold for fig .
[ l25 ] , which illustrates the same situation with a 20% nominal uncertainty for the @xmath5-measurement .
figure  [ ecov ] shows @xmath98 for @xmath90 , @xmath122 , @xmath40 , and @xmath43continuous as advertised .
the shape of the curve is quite similar to that of figs .
[ l100 ] and [ l25 ] , so it seems that the coverage probability ( with @xmath6 fixed ) is approximately a function of just the product of @xmath73  and @xmath9 .
this approximate rule is likely to fail in the limit as @xmath123 and @xmath121 , for example , but it seems to hold when @xmath73  and @xmath9  are at least of the same order of magnitude .    when @xmath124 is small , of order 1 or less , the coverage is @xmath125100% , as in the simple case of fig .
[ fig : bayes ] . otherwise , the behavior of coverage in figs .  [ l100][ecov ] is superior to that of fig .
[ fig : bayes ] , which has a much larger amplitude of oscillation .
another frequentist quantity that characterizes the performance of a limit scheme is the sensitivity , defined as the mean of @xmath29 .
figure  [ sens ] shows the sensitivity as a function of @xmath9  for the case of fig .
[ l100 ] ; @xmath126 is observed to be nearly linearly dependent on @xmath9 .
there is one complication here : when the subsidiary measurement observes @xmath127 events , and the prior for @xmath3 is flat , @xmath128 .
since the poisson probability of obtaining @xmath127 is always finite , @xmath129 is consequently infinite .
so we must exclude the @xmath127 case from the definition of @xmath129 .
( in fig .
[ sens ] the probability of obtaining @xmath127 is @xmath130 . )
a weakness of the bayesian approach is that there is no universally accepted method to obtain a unique `` non - informative '' or `` objective '' prior p.d.f .
reference  @xcite , for example , states :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ put bluntly : data can not ever speak entirely for themselves ; every prior specification has _
some _ informative posterior or predictive implications ; and `` vague '' is itself much too vague an idea to be useful .
there is no `` objective '' prior that represents ignorance . _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    nevertheless , ref
.  @xcite does derive a @xmath131 `` reference prior '' for the simple poisson case , which is claimed to have `` a minimal effect , relative to the data , on the final inference '' .
this is to be considered a `` _ default _ option when there are insufficient resources for detailed elicitation of actual prior knowledge '' .
reference  @xcite attempts to discover the optimal form for prior ignorance by considering the behavior of the prior under reparameterizations . for the case in question
, the form @xmath37 clearly has the best properties in this respect .
we are using an flat ( @xmath132 ) prior for this study , which seems to be the most popular choice , but the appendix works out the form of the posterior using an @xmath133 prior , so we can briefly here summarize the results for the @xmath37 and @xmath131 cases :    the @xmath37 prior leads to an unnormalizable posterior for all observed @xmath0 when @xmath134 .
the posterior becomes a @xmath135-function at @xmath87 , @xmath136 for any @xmath27 , and the coverage is consequently zero for all @xmath137 .
this clearly is a disaster .    the @xmath131 prior results in a posterior p.d.f .
qualitatively similar in shape to those of fig  [ pdfs ] , except that the p.d.f.is always infinite at @xmath87 . for @xmath138 ,
this produces an extremely thin `` spike '' at @xmath87 , which has a negligible contribution to the integral of the posterior p.d.f . a more significant difference ( for frequentists ) between the @xmath131 and the @xmath132 case
is that the coverage probability is significantly reduced : for the case of fig .
[ l100 ] the @xmath131 prior pushes the minimum coverage down to @xmath1250.87 .
so the @xmath131 prior leads to violation of the frequentist coverage requirement ; it undercovers for some values of @xmath9 .
one might also seek to further improve the coverage properties by adopting an intermediate prior .
for example , an @xmath139 prior would reduce the level of overcoverage obtained with the @xmath132 prior .
how acceptable this approach would be within the bayesian statistical community is an interesting question .
it should be noted that all the prior p.d.f.s considered in this note are `` improper priors''they can not be correctly normalized : in the case of the @xmath132 and @xmath131 priors , the integral from 0 to any value @xmath140 is finite , while the integral from @xmath140 to infinity is infinite .
the corresponding integrals of the @xmath37 prior are infinite on both sides for all @xmath141 .
improper priors are dangerous but often useful ; `` improper posteriors '' are generally pathological .
extra care must be taken when employing improper priors to verify the normalizability of the resulting posterior  when using a numerical method to obtain the posterior , it is very easy to miss the fact that its integral is infinite .
we summarize here the restrictions forced on the priors for @xmath3 and @xmath5see the appendix for the analytical causes .
the discussion below assumes @xmath134 .
the prior for @xmath3 being of the form @xmath133 , we must require @xmath142 , as discussed above .
as specified in this note , the prior for @xmath5 , being taken from the posterior from the subsidiary measurement with a flat prior , has been given no freedom .
should the subsidiary measurement observe @xmath127 events , the posterior for @xmath3 is not normalizable when @xmath143 : @xmath128 when @xmath127 and @xmath143 .
this behavior is due to a well known effect : the @xmath5 prior becomes @xmath144 when @xmath127 , which remains finite as @xmath145 .
all such cases is the standard example . ]
yield @xmath128 when @xmath143 ; any positive @xmath146 cuts off the posterior at large @xmath3 sufficiently rapidly to render it normalizable . from this point of view , a @xmath131 prior may seem preferable , but on the other hand , having @xmath128 when @xmath127 seems intuitively reasonable .
( in general , we have @xmath128 for @xmath147 , but @xmath148 are not popular choices . )    there is another approach possible to the gamma prior for @xmath5 : we may simply specify by fiat the form of the prior as @xmath149 where @xmath150 is no longer required to be an integer . in practice , one then might obtain @xmath150 and @xmath80 from a subsidiary measurement whose result is approximated by the gamma distribution . in such cases , one must require @xmath151 to keep the posterior normalizable . note that in this form , @xmath152 is the mean of the @xmath5 prior , @xmath153 is the mode , and @xmath154 is the variance . the subsidiary measurement is often analysed by other experimenters , who chose statistics to quote for their central value and uncertainty ( omitting additional likelihood information ) .
it is then important to obtain @xmath150 and @xmath80 in a consistent way from the information supplied by the subsidiary measurement .
if @xmath5 , for example , were estimated by a maximum likelihood method , one would identify the estimate with @xmath153 rather than @xmath152 .
results have been presented on the performance of a purely bayesian approach to the issue of setting upper limits on the rate of a process , when @xmath0 events have been observed in a situation where the expected background is @xmath6 and where the efficiency / acceptance factor @xmath155 has been determined in a subsidiary experiment .
we find that this approach , when using a flat prior for the rate , results in modest overcoverage .
plots of the expected sensitivity of such a measurement and of the coverage of the upper limits are given .
it will be interesting to compare these with the corresponding plots for other methods of extracting upper limits , to be given in future notes .
reference  @xcite provides the limit calculating software associated with this study in the form of c  functions .
here we present the details of the analytical calculation of the posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 . for generality
, we work through the calculation with a @xmath133 prior ; a flat prior is then the special case @xmath156 .
we measure @xmath0 events from a process with poisson rate @xmath157 , and we want the bayesian posterior for @xmath3 , given improper prior @xmath133 .
we compute the posterior for fixed @xmath5 and @xmath6 in this subsection ; the calculation with our prior for @xmath5 follows in the next subsection .
we have @xmath158 where all factors not depending on @xmath3 have already been absorbed into the normalization constant @xmath159 , which is defined by @xmath160 where we have performed the indicated change of variable .
expanding @xmath161 in powers of @xmath162 using the binomial theorem , we get @xmath163 recognizing this as of the general hypergeometric form , we write it as @xmath164\ ] ] to make the hypergeometric nature more explicit . using the modern notation@xcite for the falling factorial @xmath165 this
is expressed as @xmath166 where @xmath111 is the notation of @xcite .
( @xmath111 , a confluent hypergeometric function , is often written @xmath167 , and the relation given here is only valid for integer @xmath101 . ) note that @xmath168 is a polynomial of order @xmath0 in @xmath6 ( for @xmath0 a non - negative integer ) , and is related to the laguerre polynomials .
when @xmath156 , we get @xmath169 , which is related to the incomplete gamma function .
when @xmath170 , we get @xmath171 , which is infinite , so we require that @xmath142 .    our posterior probability density for fixed @xmath5
is then given by @xmath172      the subsidiary measurement observes an integer number of events @xmath82 , poisson distributed as : @xmath173 where @xmath80 is a real number ( connecting the subsidiary measurement to the main measurement ) whose uncertainty is negligible , so @xmath80 can safely be treated as a fixed constant .
@xmath80 might be thought of , for example , as based on a cross section that is exactly calculable by theory .
there is negligible ( i.e.  zero ) background in the subsidiary measurement .
the prior for @xmath5 is specified to be flat .
the bayesian posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath5
is then @xmath174 ( or @xmath175 instead of @xmath176 in the denominator if you prefer ) .
this is known as a gamma distribution .
the mean and rms of this posterior p.d.f .
summarize the result of the subsidiary measurement as : @xmath177 note that the observed data quantity in the subsidiary measurement is an integer @xmath82 , while the quantity being measured by the subsidiary measurement is a positive real number @xmath5 .
next we compute the joint posterior @xmath178 using the @xmath133 prior for @xmath3 and our gamma distribution prior ( i.e.  the posterior derived from the subsidiary measurement ) for @xmath179 @xmath180 where it is convenient to write @xmath150 for @xmath181 .
we have for the joint posterior p.d.f .
@xmath182 where @xmath183 we calculated @xmath159 above , so we have @xmath184 @xmath185 @xmath186 the marginalized posterior for @xmath3 can then be expressed as @xmath187ds= { s^{\alpha-1}\kappa^{\mu-\alpha}\mathcal{i}_\epsilon\over \gamma(\mu-\alpha)\gamma(\alpha+n)m(-n,1-n-\alpha , b)}ds\ ] ] where the integral @xmath188 is given by @xmath189 the same procedure that was used for the normalization integral can be applied here , producing @xmath190 @xmath191^k\ ] ] @xmath192 @xmath193 which has a particularly simple form when the background term is zero : @xmath194 a beta distribution of the 2nd kind .
note that we must require @xmath195 to obtain a normalizable posterior .
our posterior p.d.f .  for @xmath3 with @xmath5 ( and @xmath6 ) fixed is recovered exactly by taking the limit of @xmath196 as @xmath197 .
this means that the limit of @xmath198 as @xmath197 is identical to the value of @xmath198 when @xmath5 is known exactly .
this property may seem obvious , but it is violated by some frequentist methods of setting limits , so it is worth mentioning .
we need to integrate @xmath196 up to some limit @xmath29 , which can be done analytically as follows .
@xmath199 where the substitution @xmath200 has been performed .
re - expanding the polynomial @xmath111 and integrating term by term yields @xmath201 where @xmath202 is the standard notation for the incomplete beta function @xmath203 which also satisfies the following recursion : @xmath204      using the same technique as above , we can calculate the @xmath205th moment of the posterior p.d.f .  as @xmath206 where we utilize the rising factorial notation@xcite @xmath207    the expression for the mean of the posterior when
@xmath156 can be simplified using the identity @xmath208 obtaining @xmath209 note that the 2nd term is very small when @xmath138 .
the recurrence relation@xcite @xmath210 leads to a recurrence relation between moments @xmath211 the special case @xmath156 then yields @xmath212\ ] ] which leads to this approximation for the variance of the posterior @xmath213      here we very briefly consider the case where the background parameter @xmath6 also acquires an uncertainty .
this case is more general than the fixed @xmath6 case that is the main subject of this note : the fixed @xmath6 case will be the subject of additional studies employing various popular frequentist techniques , with the goal of comparing their performance .
we judge the more general case considered in this subsection to be more complicated than necessary for the purpose of comparing the various methods , but it is instructive to document the fact that the bayesian method can easily handle the more general case .
we assume a 2nd subsidiary measurement observing @xmath214 events ( poisson , as was the case for @xmath5 ) , which , when combined with a flat prior for @xmath6 , results in a gamma posterior for @xmath6 of the form @xmath215 where @xmath216 is a calibration constant ( analogous to @xmath80 in the subsidiary measurement for  @xmath5 ) .
the posterior for @xmath6 becomes the prior for @xmath6 in the measurement of @xmath3 . after determining the joint posterior @xmath217 by using our priors for @xmath3 , @xmath5 and @xmath6 , we marginalize with respect to @xmath5 and @xmath6 ,
resulting in @xmath218 where we write @xmath219 for convenience , and @xmath220 is the hypergeometric function@xcite .
as long as @xmath0 is a non - negative integer and @xmath142 , @xmath221 is a polynomial of order @xmath0 in @xmath222 ( closely related to jacobi polynomials ) .
this marginalized posterior for @xmath3 can then be integrated , with the result @xmath223    these two equations closely resemble the main results of sections [ postpdf ] and [ intpostpdf ] : to recover the fixed @xmath6 results , simply substitute @xmath224 for @xmath225 above , and take the limit @xmath226 .
in this appendix we prove that bayesian credible intervals have average frequentist coverage , where the average is calculated with respect to the prior density .
we start from the bayesian posterior density : @xmath227 for a given observed value of @xmath0 , a credibility-@xmath27 bayesian interval for @xmath3 is any interval @xmath228 $ ] that encloses a fraction @xmath27 of the total area under the posterior density . such an interval must therefore satisfy : @xmath229 or , using the definition of the posterior density : @xmath230 now for coverage . given a true value @xmath231 of @xmath3 , the coverage @xmath232 of @xmath233 $ ] is the frequentist probability that @xmath231 is included in that interval .
we can write this as : @xmath234                              s_\mathrm{l}(n)\le s\le s_\mathrm{u}(n ) } }    p(n\,|\,s_\mathrm{t } ) .
\label{eq : acbci2}\ ] ] next we calculate the average coverage @xmath235 , weighted by the prior @xmath22 :    @xmath236\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \int_{0}^{\infty}\sum_{\substack{\text{all $ n$ such that:}\\[1 mm ]                                                    s_\mathrm{l}(n)\le s\le s_\mathrm{u}(n ) } }                   p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\ , ds ,                & & \text{using equation ( \protect\ref{eq : acbci2 } ) , } \displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\;\int_{s_\mathrm{l}(n)}^{s_\mathrm{u}(n)}\ !
p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\,ds ,                & & \text{interchanging integral and sum,\protect\footnotemark}\displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta\ ; \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\;\int_{0}^{\infty}\ !
p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\,ds ,                & & \text{using equation ( \protect\ref{eq : acbci1 } ) , } \displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta\ ; \int_{0}^{\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty } p(n\,|\,s)\,\pi(s)\,ds ,                & & \text{interchanging sum and integral,}\displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta\ ; \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\pi(s)\ , ds ,                & & \text{by the normalization of } p(n\,|\,s ) , \displaybreak[0]\\[6 mm ]          & \;=\ ;   \beta ,                & & \text{by the normalization of } \pi(s ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this completes the proof .
we have assumed here that the prior @xmath22 is proper and normalized to 1 , but the proof can be generalized to improper priors such as those we considered in this note .
a constant prior for example , can be regarded as the limit for @xmath237 of the proper prior : @xmath238 where @xmath239 is @xmath240 if @xmath241 and @xmath242 otherwise .
we then _ define _ the average coverage for the constant prior as the limit : @xmath243 the previous proof can now be applied to the argument of the limit and leads to the same result .
the average coverage theorem remains valid when @xmath3 is multidimensional , for example when it consists of a parameter of interest and one or more nuisance parameters . in that case one needs to average the coverage over _ all _ the parameters .
m.  j.  bayarri and j.  o.  berger , `` the interplay of bayesian and frequentist analysis '' , statistical science 19 , p 58 ( 2004 ) , + projecteuclid.org/dienst/ui/1.0/summarize/euclid.ss/1089808273 , + www.isds.duke.edu/~berger/papers/interplay.html .
peter clifford , `` interval estimation as viewed from the world of mathematical statistics '' , cern yellow report cern 2000 - 005 , p 157 ( 2000 ) , _ proceedings of the workshop on confidence limits at cern , 1718 january 2000 _ , edited by l.  lyons , y.  perrin , and f.  james , + doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2000/2000-005/p157.pdf .
giovanni punzi , `` a stronger classical definition of confidence limits '' , hep - ex/9912048 , www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9912048 .
gnter zech , `` confronting classical and bayesian confidence limits to examples '' , cern yellow report cern 2000 - 005 , p 141 ( 2000 ) , _ proceedings of the workshop on confidence limits at cern , 1718 january 2000 _ , edited by l.  lyons , y.  perrin , and f.  james , doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2000/2000-005/p141.pdf .
d.  karlen , `` credibility of confidence intervals '' , in _ proceedings of the conference on advanced techniques in particle physics , durham , 1822 march 2002 _ , edited by m.  whalley and l.  lyons , p 53 , ( 2002 ) , + www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/workshops/02/statistics/proceedings/karlen.pdf .
gary feldman , `` multiple measurements and parameters in the unified approach '' , _ fermilab workshop on confidence limits 2728 march , 2000 _ , p 11 , + conferences.fnal.gov/cl2k/copies/feldman2.pdf , + huhepl.harvard.edu/~feldman/cl2k.pdf .
joel heinrich , `` user guide to bayesian - limit software package '' , cdf internal note 7232 , ( 2004 ) , + www-cdf.fnal.gov/publications/cdf7232_blimitguide.pdf ; + cdf statistics committee software page , + www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/statistics/statistics_software.html .
r.  l.  graham , d.  e.  knuth , and o.  patashnik , `` concrete mathematics : a foundation for computer science '' , 2nd ed . , ( addison - wesley , reading , ma , 1994 ) ; planetmath mathematics encyclopedia , + planetmath.org/encyclopedia/fallingfactorial.html .
m.  abramowitz and i.a .
stegun , editors , `` handbook of mathematical functions '' , ( united states department of commerce , national bureau of standards , washington , d.c .
1964 ; and dover publications , new york , 1968 ) , chapter 13 .    m.  abramowitz and i.a .
stegun , ibid . , chapter 15 ; william h. press , et al .
,  `` numerical recipes '' , 2nd edition , ( cambridge university press , cambridge , 1992 ) ,  5.14 and  6.12 , lib-www.lanl.gov/numerical/bookcpdf/c5-14.pdf , + lib-www.lanl.gov/numerical/bookcpdf/c6-12.pdf .     for bayes 90% limits , for the simple case of no background and no uncertainty on @xmath244 . the dotted line at @xmath245 is given to show that the coverage never falls below 90% ( in this simple case ) .
]         vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case ,
@xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302]-0.2 in   vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case , @xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302 ] +   vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case ,
@xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302]-0.2 in   vs @xmath3 for @xmath246 , 3 , 5 , 10 . in each case ,
@xmath43 and @xmath39 ( i.e.  @xmath40 and @xmath82=99).,title="fig:",width=302 ] +


supernova remnants ( i.e. remnants of supernova explosions ) are commonly considered to be cosmic particle accelerators . in this review paper
i will summarise experimental evidence , gathered through @xmath0-ray observations mainly in the vhe regime supporting this notion ( please note , that in the following @xmath0-ray will be used to stand for vhe @xmath0-rays ) .
typically , snrs were detected through radio observations  @xcite .
recent advances in the understanding of these objects has been made through x - ray observations with instruments such as asca , bepposax , xmm - newton and chandra and through @xmath0-ray observations with instruments such as hegra ( high energy gamma ray astronomy ) , and h.e.s.s .
( high energy stereoscopic system ) . based on morphological properties
, snrs can be classified into three broad categories : _ shell - like _ , _ plerionic _ ( also called pulsar wind nebulae or crab - like ) connected to a pulsar and _ composite _ ( in which both , a shell and a plerion are present ) , the later often showing markedly different radio and x - ray morphologies . for an excellent detailed review on plerionic snrs ,
see e.g.  @xcite .
snrs are thought to be responsible for the acceleration of cosmic rays up to energies around the `` knee '' ( @xmath1  ev ) at which the spectrum of cosmic rays significantly hardens from @xmath2 to @xmath3 .
this statement is backed by experimental facts , as well as by theoretical considerations .
_ experimental evidence _ is lent mainly by ( * 1 * ) x - ray observations of young shell - type snrs such as sn1006  @xcite , and cas  a  @xcite , in which sites dominated by hard non - thermal _ x - ray synchrotron _ emission were found , indicating an electron population extending up to @xmath4  tev , far beyond thermal energies .
( * 2 * ) _ very high energy ( vhe ) @xmath0-ray _ observations ( @xmath5  gev ) revealed sites of non - thermal particle populations  @xcite . through theoretical considerations
is has been known for a long time that supernova explosions release just about the right amount of energy into their surrounding to account for the energy budget of the cosmic rays ( assuming that they convert @xmath6 of their energy into kinetic energy of the cosmic rays )  @xcite .
furthermore well - established theoretical models exists explaining how particles can be accelerated in supernova shock waves to energies approaching the _ knee_. in shell - type snrs particles are accelerated in the expanding shock waves through diffusive shock ( also called first order fermi ) acceleration  @xcite . in plerionic snrs particles
are accelerated to non - thermal energies in the termination shock between the relativistic outflow of electrons from the pulsar surface and the outer nebula .
predictions on the @xmath0-ray visibility of snrs ( later confirmed by h.e.s.s .
@xmath0-ray observations although there is still an experimental ambiguity in the underlying particle population resonsible for the @xmath0-ray emission ) were given by  @xcite .
since charged particles below the knee at @xmath7  ev are deflected in ubiquitous magnetic fields on their way from the origin to us , we have to turn to neutral messengers to reveal the acceleration sites ( the gyroradius of 1  tev cosmic rays in a magnetic field of @xmath8g - scale is of the order of 0.1  pc , much smaller than the thickness of the galaxy of 200300  pc ) . since neutrino detectors have not yet proved to be sensitive enough to detect neutrinos from astrophysical sources ( apart from the sun and the direct supernova explosion sn  1987a ) , observations in the radio , x - rays and @xmath0-ray wavebands are so far our best access to non - thermal acceleration processes in snrs . @xmath0-rays ( and neutrinos ) are produced in hadronic interactions with subsequent pionic decay and can reveal the acceleration sites since they travel un - deflected from their origin .
however , @xmath0-rays not only reveal the sites of hadronic acceleration ; they also act as a tracer for energetic electrons that produce @xmath0-rays via ic scattering off background photon fields ( such as star - light or the cosmic microwave background ( cmbr ) ) .
an ambiguity or duality therefore exists in the responsible radiating particle population in most cases when detecting @xmath0-rays from astrophysical objects .    in spite of this ambiguity the detection of @xmath0-rays above
@xmath9 1  gev from snrs gives us direct access to particle acceleration processes and the advantage of @xmath0-rays in comparison to other wavebands is that these are not affected by dust obscuration , which is particularly important for the population of snrs located within the galactic plane . a large volumne of the galaxy can thus be probed for @xmath0-ray emission from snrs by observations through the galactic disk .
if snrs are indeed sites of particle acceleration , @xmath0-ray emission is expected and one of the puzzling aspects of previous @xmath0-ray observations of snrs was the rather low level of emission compared to model predictions  @xcite .
the history of soft @xmath0-ray ( or hard x - ray ) detection of snrs started with the detection of the crab nebula in 1964 with a scintillation counter detector flown on a balloon launched from palestine , texas  @xcite .
today hard x - rays up to 100  kev have been detected from various snrs both young shell - types such as cas  a  @xcite and sn  1006  @xcite and plerionic - types such as the vela - x pwn  @xcite and msh  15 - 5_2 _
thin x - ray filaments in young shell - type snrs detected with high - angular resolution instruments such as xmm - newton and chandra point to regions with high - magnetic fields ( up to 0.5 mg ) in which electrons rapidly lose energy through synchrotron emission  @xcite . in higher energies @xmath0-rays
comptel detected the radioactive @xmath10ti - line at 1.157  mev from the two shell - type snrs cas  a  @xcite and rxj0852.04622 ( vela junior )  @xcite .
however , it should be noted , that higher sensitivity integral observations provided a confirmation for this detection for cas  a , but could not detect this @xmath10ti - line in rxj0852.04622 .
therefore , these claims are still somewhat controversial .
egret at energies above 100  mev did not detect prominent young shell - type snrs such as tycho , kepler , cas  a or sn  1006 , noticed however several intriguing spatial coincidences of unidentified sources in the galactic plane with individual prominent radio snrs , such as w28 , and @xmath0-cygni  @xcite . the combination of source confusion especially in the galactic plane , caused by the rather poor angular resolution of the egret instrument and the ambiguity in existing counterparts prevented individual identifications .
however , a statistical assessment shows a 4 - 5@xmath11 effect when trying to correlate the population of egret unidentified sources with the population of radio snrs  @xcite .
also plerionic snrs have not been unambiguously identified with egret sources , although again intriguing associations of egret unidentified sources with prominent plerions such as psrb170644 , and the kookaburra complex exist  @xcite . from a population point - of - view pwn
are one of the best candidates to account for low - latitude slowly varying unidentified egret sources as proposed by @xcite . lately , using vhe @xmath0-ray source positions in the kookaburra region  @xcite the re - analysis of egret data provided strong evidence of correlation of the pwn detected in this region with the confused unidentified egret source 3egj14206038  @xcite .
this new approach might prove a useful template for connection future glast and vhe @xmath0-ray detections .
all these possible associations of source classes with unidentified egret sources will hopefully be tested following the launch of the upcoming glast satellite in late 2007 .
the history of vhe @xmath0-ray ( e@xmath12gev ) detections of snrs started again with the detection of the crab nebula , the first object to be reported in this waveband by the whipple collaboration  @xcite .
various claims of detections of shell - type snrs have been made before the advent of the h.e.s.s.telescope system .
cas  a was detected by hegra in a very deep ( @xmath13 hours ) exposure  @xcite .
detections of sn1006  @xcite and rxj1713.73946  @xcite have been reported by the cangaroo collaboration . with the advent of the h.e.s.s .
telescope system , for the first time a number of galactic snrs , both shell - type and plerionic in nature could be established . in the following
i will describe these populations of cosmic accelerators along with prospects for supernova remnant observations with the upcoming glast satellite .
the outline of this paper is as follows : section  [ sec::hess_shell ] provides a description of advances made through the vhe @xmath0-ray detections of shell - type supernova remnants , section  [ sec::hess_pwn ] provides the corresponding description for pulsar wind nebulae .
section  [ sec::hess_new ] describes supernova remnants found in @xmath0-rays and later identified as supernova remnants , while section  [ sec::glast ] summarises prospects for supernova remnant observations with the upcoming glast satellite .
by means of data taken with the h.e.s.s .  telescope system during the first few years of operation for the first time in vhe @xmath0-ray astronomy resolved images of shell - type snrs above 100  gev could be taken .
in particular the snrs rxj1713.73946 and rxj0852.04622 , with diameters of @xmath14 and @xmath15 respectively could be resolved with unprecedented detail in this energy band . on the other hand , sn1006 ,
one of the snrs most expected to emit @xmath0-rays in the energy band ( due to the strong non - thermal x - ray emission from the rims ) was not detected in deep h.e.s.s.observations  @xcite . the upper limit derived by this observations turned out to be an order of magnitude below the previously reported cangaroo detection .
a reanalysis of the cangaroo data along with newer data from the cangaroo - iii detector is consistent with the h.e.s.s .
upper limits  @xcite .
therefore in the following the h.e.s.s .
upper limits will be used in the discussion of @xmath0-ray emission from sn1006 . since several papers on both rxj1713.73946
@xcite and rxj0852.04622  @xcite have been published by the h.e.s.s .
collaboration , the main focus of this review will lie on similarities and differences between the two objects with the addition of comparisons to sn1006 as the most prominent non - detected snr where appropriate .
figure  [ fig::shell_morphology ] shows @xmath0-ray excess maps for rxj1713.73946 , rxj0852.04622 , and sn1006 .
both @xmath0-ray emitting objects show a shell - like structure with a surprising resemblance of their respective x - ray morphology ( the correlation coefficients between @xmath0-ray and x - ray counts are @xmath16 ) . for both objects
the x - ray emission is completely dominated by non - thermal x - ray emission without traces of line emission , exhibiting small filamentary structures that are interpreted as zones where the magnetic field is high ( @xmath17 g ) such that electrons rapidly lose energy through synchrotron emission in these areas  @xcite .
both objects appear rather faint in radio with typical fluxes below or in the several tenth of jansky - regime for the whole shell , certainly lower than what would be expected from equipartition arguments  @xcite .
the distance to both objects is somewhat uncertain , for rxj1713.73946 it seems that a distance of @xmath18kpc is preferred from the column density inferred from x - ray data .
this distance would make rxj1713.73946 most likely the remnant of the historical supernova event of ad393 .
for rxj0852.04622 distance estimates range from as close as the vela pulsar ( @xmath19pc ) to as far as the vela molecular ridge ( @xmath18kpc ) .
the age ranges from @xmath20 years in the close case to @xmath21 years in the far case .
morphologically their @xmath0-ray emission , in particular the width of the shells is rather different .
the apparent width of the shell for rxj1713.73946 comprises 45% of the radius of the snr , while the for rxj0852.04622 it approximates to 20% of the radius .
there is no apparent correlation between the dense molecular material surrounding rxj1713.73946 as measured by the nanten telescope and the vhe @xmath0-ray emission as measured by h.e.s.s . ,
but in fact , assuming a typical energy of @xmath22 ergs in accelerated protons , the density needed to explain the @xmath0-ray flux through hadronic interactions is only 1  @xmath23 .
sn1006 is somewhat distinct in its multi - frequency picture in that its surface brightness is higher in radio ( @xmath24 jy )  @xcite showing a pronounced shell - like structure .
the x - ray emission , especially in the shell is dominated by non - thermal emission up to @xmath25kev .
sn1006 was not detected in a deep ( 1000  ksec ) integral exposure above 20  kev  @xcite and was also not detected in sensitive h.e.s.s .
observations  @xcite .
the density surrounding the source was estimated from x - ray as well as optical observations and values as low as n@xmath26 @xmath23 have been invoked to explain the apparent absence of @xmath0-ray emission in a hadronic scenario . from the h.e.s.s .
non - detection assuming a leptonic @xmath0-ray emission scenario on the cmbr a lower limit on the post - shock magnetic field of @xmath27 g can be derived  @xcite .
higher values of the magnetic field in excess of 40@xmath8 g have been derived from x - ray observation and application of diffusive shock acceleration scenarios , so the lower limit on the magnetic field is not in contradiction to these values .        comparing the energy spectra of
the two @xmath0-ray detected snrs , strong similarities can be made out . the spectral energy distribution ( sed ) for the three shell - type snrs discussed here is shown in figure  [ fig::shell_spectra ] along with model spectra , showing typical leptonic and hadronic @xmath0-ray emission models . as can be seen from this plot rxj1713.73946 and rxj0852.04622 show a remarkably similar @xmath0-ray energy spectrum with a rather flat @xmath28-type distribution at lower energies with a deviation from this power - law at higher energies .
the flat spectrum at lower energies has advocated claims that the @xmath0-rays might be generated by pionic decays rather than inverse compton scattering  @xcite .
however , @xcite claim that the data can be well fitted in terms of a leptonic model when applying an unbroken electron spectrum along with the galactic radiation fields .
therefore , at the moment , no strong conclusions can be drawn from the spectral shape on the particle population responsible for the @xmath0-ray emission .
the upcoming glast satellite , measuring in the energy range between 30  mev and 300  gev might be able to distinguish between hadronic and leptonic @xmath0-ray production mechanisms . also interesting to note
is that the h.e.s.s .
@xmath0-ray upper limit for sn1006 is more than an order of magnitude below these @xmath0-ray detections and therefore starts to be rather constraining for the values of the magnetic field ( in a leptonic scenario ) or the ambient matter density ( in a hadronic scenario ) .
these first unambiguous detections of individual shell - type snrs allowed for important advances in the understanding @xmath0-ray emission from these objects .
however , the open question remains what differentiates non - detected snrs such as sn1006 from prominent @xmath0-ray emitters such as rxj1713.73946 .
pulsar wind nebulae ( pwn ) or plerions are objects powered by a relativistic particle outflow ( electrons and positrons ) from a central source  a pulsar .
this pulsar is a rapidly rotating neutron star generated in the supernova event .
the wind of relativistic particles flows freely out until the outflow pressure is balanced by that of the surrounding medium . at that point
a standing termination shock is formed at which particles are accelerated  @xcite .
the existence of electrons accelerated to energies @xmath29  tev in such pwn has been established by x - ray observations of synchrotron emission , e.g. in the crab nebula  @xcite .
vhe @xmath0-rays are generated in pwn from the high - energy electrons by non - thermal bremsstrahlung or inverse compton ( ic ) scattering on photon target fields , such as the cosmic microwave background ( cmbr ) or star - light .
apart from the crab nebula , no individual pwne have been unambiguously associated with egret sources , although several unidentified egret sources are located in close proximity to prominent pwn , such as in the kookaburra region , or msh155__2__. pwn are however one candidate for the population of slowly varying low - latitude unidentified sources .
glast will shed more light on this population and possibly establish pwn as emitters in the mev to gev range . in vhe @xmath0-rays
pwn make up the majority of the identified galactic sources detected so far  @xcite .
apart from the crab nebula ( the brightest steady vhe @xmath0-ray source ) several prominent pwn were identified in vhe @xmath0-rays in the last two years .
these detections include msh155__2 _ _
@xcite , vela  x  @xcite , the two sources in the kookaburra region  @xcite and lately hessj1825137  @xcite .
vhe @xmath0-ray emission from pwn comes in various disguises as shown in figure  [ fig::pwn_morphology ] : these include a ) point - like emission such as from the crab nebula  @xcite and from the composite snr g0.9 + 0.1 , where the @xmath0-ray emission was shown to originate from the central pwn  @xcite , b ) emission tracing the x - ray contours around a central pulsar such as in msh15 - 5__2 _ _ or c ) asymmetrically extending to one side and tracing the x - ray contours such as in vela  x and finally d ) the emerging new class of offset pwn exemplified by hessj1825137 where the @xmath0-ray emission shows a similar morphology to the x - ray emission but on a much larger scale  @xcite . calculating the efficiency of the energetic pulsars powering the pwn that is necessary to account for the vhe @xmath0-ray luminosity , values between 0.02% ( crab nebula ) and 7.5% ( hessj1825137 ) of the spin - down luminosity are found .
the broadband seds of the vhe @xmath0-ray pwn can typically be well described by leptonic models , although claims have been made for a hadronic component at the high - energy end of the spectrum  @xcite .
vela  x is the first vhe @xmath0-ray source in which the peak in the inverse compton energy flux has been detected within the h.e.s.s
.  energy range  @xcite .
figure  [ fig::pwn_spectra ] shows , that while the ranges of @xmath0-ray fluxes for the detected pwn is rather small , the differences in the x - ray energy fluxes span a large range .
this might be alluded to largely different magnetic fields , to different angular scales on which the x - ray emission has been measured or simply to the fact , that different populations of electrons are responsible for the x - ray and the @xmath0-ray emission .
the most prominent example of the new class of _ offset pwn _ is hessj1825137 .
this object can serve as a template for a whole new class of @xmath0-ray pwn in which a ) the @xmath0-ray emission is shifted away from the pulsar , possibly due to dense material on one side that prevents an isotropic expansion of the pwn and b ) the size of the vhe @xmath0-ray pwn is on a much larger scale ( @xmath30 ) than the x - ray pwn ( @xmath31 )  @xcite . concerning the offset morphology , asymmetric reverse shock interactions were first proposed to explain the offset morphology of the vela  x pwn based on hydro - dynamical simulations by  @xcite .
the different sizes for the @xmath0-ray and x - ray pwne can be explained by the difference in the synchrotron cooling lifetimes of the ( higher energy ) x - ray emitting and the ( lower energy ) ic-@xmath0-ray emitting electrons .
the @xmath0-ray sources that can be explained in this framework are typically extended , their emission region overlaps with energetic pulsars ( energetic enough to explain the @xmath0-ray flux by their spindown power ) and very importantly also show evidence for an x - ray pwn . so far only vela  x and hessj1825137 match this picture , several other unidentified vhe @xmath0-ray sources have been proposed to be offset pwn , but all these cases lack the detection of an x - ray pwn .
originally supernova remnants have been detected by means of radio observation sensitive to synchrotron emission in magnetic fields .
radio observations are particularly suited to detect supernova remnants in the inner galaxy since they are insensitive to the prevailing dust emission within the galactic plane .
the same holds for hard x - ray emission and is particularly true for @xmath0-rays .
a survey of the galaxy in the @xmath0-ray regime proved to be a good means to detect new @xmath0-ray snrs , that are inconspicuous in other wavebands .
h.e.s.s .
observations of the inner part of the galactic plane revealed @xmath32 new @xmath0-ray sources  @xcite . while some could be identified at other wavebands , such as the supernova remnants described in the previous sections or the microquasar ls5039
@xcite , most objects were left unidentified following their detection .
a programme of detailed mwl studies using existing radio and x - ray facilities is underway to establish positional counterparts of the @xmath0-ray sources .
a particularly interesting object found in the survey of the galactic plane is hessj1813178 . at
first flagged unidentified  @xcite , it was quickly found to be positionally coincident with : a ) a previously unpublished archival faint radio ( vla ) source ( 20 cm ) showing a shell - like morphology  @xcite b ) a previously unpublished archival bright x - ray asca source ( 210 kev )  @xcite , and c ) a hard x - ray integral source 10100 kev  @xcite .
, asca as well as integral lacked the spatial resolution to resolve the object .
the vla radio source showed a shell - like morphology , suggesting that the vhe @xmath0-ray emission originates in the shell of a supernova remnant .
however , in a 30  ksec xmm - newton x - ray observation non - thermal synchrotron emission was found not from a shell , but rather from an object embedded within the shell with a faint tail towards the north - east ( see figure  [ fig::new_1813 ] ) resembling in its shape a pwn  @xcite .
this detection reveals that hessj1813178 is connected to a composite snr similar to e.g. the @xmath0-ray source g0.9 + 0.1  @xcite . in hessj1813178 for the first time , an snr initially detected in vhe @xmath0-rays and subsequently confirmed with superior angular resolution radio and x - ray data .
this detection shows , that @xmath0-ray observations especially in the galactic plane are well suited to detect snr , that are otherwise hard to detect due to obscuration and dust absorption .
other objects tentatively connected to shell - type or composite snrs are hessj1640465  @xcite , and hessj1834087  @xcite .
the upcoming glast satellite , in its energy range between 30  mev and 300  gev the successor to egret will provide a unique tool for studying supernova remnants .
especially in crowded regions in the galactic plane dominated by diffuse emission , the improved angular resolution of the instrument in comparison to egret will be important for disentangling source confusion and identification of counterparts .
as obvious from figure  [ fig::shell_spectra ] , glast will provide spectral measurements in an energy regime in which differences between hadronic and leptonic production @xmath0-ray production mechanisms are significant .
thus glast might finally disentangle whether the @xmath0-ray emission detected by h.e.s.s .
is in fact the first direct evidence of accelerated hadrons in shell - type snrs , a question that directly relates to the origin of cosmic rays .
glast will provide a highly even sky - coverage on long timescales and therefore population studies of snrs will be possible .
since egret is thought to have just not been sensitive enough to single out individual pwne and enable us to conclude about their population , it is expected that these objects will appear as a source classin the glast sky .
population studies of snrs provides information not only on individual objects but on spatial - statistical aspects that can be used to understand the transition of source populations through the regime of gev - cutoffs as already evident in numerous egret sources .
already now snrs are an established source class in vhe @xmath0-ray astronomy .
observations in this wavebands provide an important tool to understand the acceleration processes within these galactic accelerators .
the author would like to acknowledge the support of their host institutions , and additionally support from the german ministry for education and research ( bmbf ) and from the department of energy ( doe ) .
the author would like to thank the whole h.e.s.s .
collaboration for their support , cospar for the financial support , the unknown referee(s ) for their valuable comments , and finally the organisers of the session e1.4 j.vink and p.  o. slane for the invitation to the conference .
aharonian , f. , atoyan , a. , & kifune , t. , `` inverse compton gamma radiation of faint synchrotron x - ray nebulae around pulsars '' , 1997 , mnras 291 , 162 aharonian , f. , et al .
, `` evidence for tev gamma ray emission from cassiopeia a '' , 2001 , a&a 370 , 112 aharonian , f. , et al . , `` high - energy particle acceleration in the shell of a supernova remnant '' , 2004 , nature , 432 , 75 aharonian , f. , et al . , `` upper limits to the sn1006 multi - tev gamma - ray flux from hess observations '' , 2005a , a&a 437 , 135 aharonian , f. , et al . , `` detection of tev @xmath0-ray emission from the shell - type supernova remnant rx j0852.0 - 4622 with hess '' , 2005b , a&a 437 , 7 aharonian , f. , et al . , `` discovery of extended vhe gamma - ray emission from the asymmetric pulsar wind nebula in msh 15 - 52 with hess '' , 2005c , a&a 435 , l17 aharonian , f. , et al .
, `` a possible association of the new vhe @xmath0-ray source hessj1825137 with the pulsar wind nebula g18.00.7 '' , 2005d , a&a 442 , l25 aharonian , f. , et al .
, `` very high energy gamma rays from the composite snr g0.9 + 0.1 '' , 2005e , a&a 432 , 25 aharonian , f. , et al . , `` a new population of very high energy gamma - ray sources in the milky way '' , 2005f , science 307 , 1938 aharonian , f. , et al . , ``
discovery of vhe gamma - ray emission from the x - ray binary ls 5039 '' , 2005 g , science 309 , 746 aharonian , f. , et al .
, `` a detailed spectral and morphological study of the gamma - ray supernova remnant rxj1713.73946 with hess '' , 2006a , a&a 449 , 223 aharonian , f. , et al . , `` primary particle acceleration above 100 tev in the shell - type supernova remnant rx j1713.7 - 3946 with deep h.e.s.s .
observations '' , 2006b , a&a in press ( astro - ph/0611813 ) aharonian , f.  a. , et al .
`` discovery of the two wings of the kookaburra complex in vhe gamma - rays with h.e.s.s '' , 2006c , a&a 456 , 245 aharonian , f. , et al .
, `` h.e.s.s .
observations of the supernova remnant rxj0852.04622 '' , 2006d , apj in press ( astro - ph/0612495 ) aharonian , f. , et al .
, `` first detection of a vhe gamma - ray spectral maximum from a cosmic source : hess discovery of the vela x nebula '' , 2006e , a&a 448 , 43 aharonian , f. , et al . , `` discovery of the two `` wings '' of the kookaburra complex in vhe @xmath0-rays with hess '' , 2006f , a&a 456 , 245 aharonian , f. , et al.,``energy dependent @xmath0-ray morphology in the pulsar wind nebula hessj1825137 '' , 2006 g , a&a 460 , 365 aharonian , f. , et al.,``observations of the crab nebula with hess '' , 2006h , a&a 457 , 899 aharonian , f. , et al .
, `` the h.e.s.s .
survey of the inner galaxy in very high - energy gamma - rays '' , 2006i , apj 636 , 777 aharonian , f. , et al.,``3.9 day orbital modulation in the tev gamma - ray flux and spectrum from the x - ray binary ls 5039 '' , 2006j , a&a in press ( astro - ph/0607192 ) allen , g.  e. , petre , r. , & gotthelf , e.  v. `` x - ray synchrotron emission from 10 - 100 tev cosmic - ray electrons in the supernova remnant sn 1006 '' , 2001 , apj 558 , 739 aschenbach , b. , `` discovery of a young nearby supernova remnant . '' , 1998 , nature 396 , 141 bamba , a. , yamazaki , r. , ueno , m. , & koyama , k. , `` small - scale structure of the sn 1006 shock with chandra observations '' , 2003 , apj 589 ( 2 ) , 827 bell , a.  r. , `` the acceleration of cosmic rays in shock fronts .
ii '' , 1978 , mnras 182 , 443 blandford , r.  d. , & ostriker , j.  p. , `` particle acceleration by astrophysical shocks '' , 1978 , apj 221 , l29 blandford , r. , & eichler , d. , `` particle acceleration at astrophysical shocks - a theory of cosmic - ray origin '' , 1987 , phr , 154 , 1 blondin , j.m . , chevalier , r.a . , & frierson , d.m .
, `` pulsar wind nebulae in evolved supernova remnants '' , 2001 , apj 563 , 806 brogan , c.  l. , et al .
, `` discovery of a radio supernova remnant and nonthermal x - rays coincident with the tev source hessj1813178 '' , 2005 , apj 629 , l105 buckley , j.  h. , et al .
, `` constraints on cosmic - ray origin from tev gamma - ray observations of supernova remnants '' , 1998 , a&a 329 , 639 cassam - chena , g. , decourchelle , a. , ballet , j. , sauvageot , j.  l. , dubner , g. , & giacani , e. , `` xmm - newton observations of the supernova remnant rxj1713.73946 and its central source '' , 2004 , a&a 427 , 199 clark , g.  w. , `` balloon observation of the x - ray spectrum of the crab nebula above 15 kev '' , 1965 , phys.rev.lett . , 14 , 91 drury , l.  o. , `` an introduction to the theory of diffusive shock acceleration of energetic particles in tenuous plasmas '' , 1983 , rep.prog.phys .
46 , 973 drury , l.  oc . , aharonian , f. , voelk , h.  j. ,  the gamma - ray visibility of supernova remnants . a test of cosmic ray origin , 1994 , a&a 287 , 959 enomoto , r. , et al .
, `` the acceleration of cosmic - ray protons in the supernova remnant rx j1713.7 - 3946 '' , 2002 , nature 416 , 823 esposito , j.  a. , hunter , s.  d. , kanbach , g. , & sreekumar , p. , `` egret observations of radio - bright supernova remnants '' , 1996 , apj 461 , 820 forot , m. , hermsen , w. , renaud , m. , laurent , p. , grenier , i. , goret , p. , khelifi , b. , & kuiper , l. , `` high - energy particles in the wind nebula of pulsar b1509 - 58 as seen by integral '' , 2006 , apj 651 , l45 funk , s. , `` status of identification of vhe @xmath0-ray sources '' , 2006 , apss , in press ( astro - ph/0609586 ) funk , s. , et al .
, `` xmm - newton observations of hess j1813 - 178 reveal a composite supernova remnant '' , 2006 , submitted to a&a ( astro - ph/0611646 ) funk , s. , et al .
, `` xmm - newton observations reveal the x - ray counterpart of the very - high - energy gamma - ray source hessj1640 - 465 '' , 2007 , submitted to apj ( astro - ph/0701166 ) gallant , y. , `` associations of very high energy gamma - ray sources discovered by h.e.s.s . with pulsar wind nebulae '' , 2006 , apss , in press ( astro - ph/0611720 ) gardner , f.  f. , & milne , d.  k. , `` the supernova of a.d .
1006 '' , aj 70 , 754 green , d.  a. , `` galactic supernova remnants : an updated catalogue and some statistics '' , 2004 , basi , 32 , 335 gaensler , b.  m. , schulz , n.  s. , kaspi , v.  m. pivovaroff , m.  j. , & becker , w.  e. , `` xmm - newton observations of psr b1823 - 13 : an asymmetric synchrotron nebula around a vela - like pulsar '' , 2003 , apj 588 , 441 gaensler , b.  m. , & slane , p.  o. , `` the evolution and structure of pulsar wind nebulae '' , 2006 , ara&a 44 ( 1 ) , 17 ginzburg , v.  l. , & syrovatskii , s.  i. 1964 , `` the origin of cosmic rays '' , macmillan hillas , m.  a. , `` can diffusive shock acceleration in supernova remnants account for high - energy galactic cosmic rays ? '' , 2005 , j.phys.g : nucl .
31 , r95 horns , d. , aharonian , f. , santangelo , a. , hoffmann , a.  i.  d. , & masterson , c. , `` nucleonic gamma - ray production in velax '' , 2006 , a&a 451 51 iyudin , a.  f. , et al . , `` comptel observations of ti-44 gamma - ray line emission from cas a '' , 1994 , a&a 284 , l1 iyudin , a.  f. , et al . ,
`` emission from @xmath10ti associated with a previously unknown galactic supernova '' , 1998 , nature , 296 , 142 iyudin , a.  f. , aschenbach , w. becker , k. dennerl and f. haberl , `` xmm - newton observations of the supernova remnant rxj0852.04622/groj08524642 '' , 2005 , a&a 429 , 225 - 234 jones , f.  c. , & ellison , d.  c. , `` the plasma physics of shock acceleration '' , 1991 , ssrv 58 , 259 kalemci , e. , et al .
, `` x - ray observations of sn 1006 with _ integral _ '' ,
apj , 644 , 274 kennel , c.  f. , coroniti , f.  v. , `` magnetohydrodynamic model of crab nebula radiation '' , 1984 , apj 283 , 710 koyama , k. , petre , r. , gotthelf , e. v. , hwang , u. , matsuura , m. , ozaki , m. , & holt , s. s. , `` evidence for shock acceleration of high - energy electrons in the supernova remnant sn1006 '' , 1995 , nature , 378 , 255 koyama , k. , et al .
, `` discovery of non - thermal x - rays from the northwest shell of the new snr rxj1713.73946 : the second sn 1006 ? '' , 1997 , pasj 49 , l7 lazendic , j.  s. , slane , p.  o. , gaensler , b.  m. , reynolds , s.  p. , plucinsky , p.  p. , & hughes , j.  p. , `` a high - resolution study of nonthermal radio and x - ray emission from supernova remnant g347.30.5 '' , 2004 , apj 602 , 271 lemoine - gourmard , m. , et al .
, `` morphological and spectral study of rxj1713.73946 & rxj0852.04622 '' , 2006 , apss , in press malkov , m.  a. , oc drury , l. , `` nonlinear theory of diffusive acceleration of particles by shock waves '' , 2001 , rep.prog.phys .
, 64 , 429 mangano , v. , massaro , e. , bocchino , f. , mineo , t , & cusumano , g. , `` the extended hard x - ray emission from the vela plerion '' , 2005 , a&a 436 , 917 marsden , d. , et al . , `` the x - ray spectrum of the plerionic system psrb150958/msh 1552 '' , apj 491 , l39 mineo , t. , cusumano , g. , maccarone , m.  c. , massaglia , s. , massaro , e. , & trussoni , e. , `` the hard x - ray emission from the complex snr msh 15 - 52 observed by bepposax '' , 2001 , a&a 380 , 695 porter , t.  a. , moskalenko , i.  v. , & strong , a.  w. , `` inverse compton emission from galactic supernova remnants : effect of the interstellar radiation field '' , 2006 , apj 648 ( 2 ) , l29 reimer , o. , & funk , s. , `` demystifying an unidentified egret source by vhe @xmath0-ray observations '' , 2006 , in press , ap&ss ( astro - ph/0611653 ) roberts , m.  s.  e. , romani , r.  w. , kawai , n. , `` the asca catalog of potential x - ray counterparts of gev sources '' , 2001 , apjs 133 , 451 roberts , m.  s.  e. , brogan , c.  l. , gaensler , b.  m. , hessels , j.  w.  t. , ng , c .- y . ; romani , r.   w. , `` pulsar wind nebulae in egret error boxes '' , 2005 , ap&ss 297 , 93 roger , r.  s. , milne , d.  k. , kesteven , m.  j. , wellington , k.  j. , & haynes , r.  f. , `` symmetry of the radio emission from two high - latitude supernova remnants , g296.5 + 10.0 and g327.6 + 14.6 ( sn 1006 ) '' , 1988 , apj 332 , 940 romero , g.  e. , benaglia , p. , & torres , d.  f. , `` unidentified 3eg gamma - ray sources at low galactic latitudes '' , 1999 , a&a , 348 , 868 slane , p. , et al .
, `` rxj0852.04622 : another nonthermal shell - type supernova remnant ( g266.21.2 ) '' , 2001 , apj 548 , 814 sturner , s.  j. , & dermer , c.  d. , `` association of unidentified , low altitude egret sources with supernova remnants '' , 1995 , a&a 293 ( 1 ) , l17 tamura , k. , kawai , n. , yoshida , a. , & brinkmann , w. , `` evidence for a pulsar jet producing a hot nebula in the supernova remnant msh 1552 '' , 1996 , pasj 48 , l33 tanimori , t. , et al . , `` discovery of tev gamma rays from sn 1006 : further evidence for the supernova remnant origin of cosmic rays '' , 1998 , apj , 497 , l25 tanimori , t. , et al .
, `` recent status of the analyses for stereoscopic observations with the cangaroo - iii telescopes '' , 2005 , in proc . of the 29th icrc , vol .
4 , ed . b.  s. acharya et al . ,
215 torres , d.  f. , romero , g.  e. , dame , t.  m. , combi , j.  a. , & butt , y.  m. , `` supernova remnants and @xmath0-ray sources '' , 2003 , phr , 382 , 303 ubertini , p. et al .
, `` integral igr j18135 - 1751 = hessj1813 - 178 : a new cosmic high - energy accelerator from kev to tev energies '' , 2005 , apj 629 , l109 uchiyama , y. , aharonian , f .. , takahashi , t. , `` fine - structure in the nonthermal x - ray emission of snr rxj1713.73946 revealed by chandra '' , 2003 , a&a 400 , 567 vink , j. , kaastra , j.  s. , bleeker , j.  a.  m. , preite - martinez , a. , `` the bepposax x - ray spectrum of the remnant of sn 1006 '' , 2000 , a&a , 354 , 931 vink , j. , laming , j.  m. , kaastra , j.  s. , bleeker , j.  a.  m. , bloemen , h. , & oberlack , u. , `` detection of the 67.9 and 78.4 kev lines associated with the radioactive decay of @xmath10ti in cassiopeia a '' , 2001 , apj , 560 , l79 vink , j. , laming , j.  m.,``on the magnetic fields and particle acceleration in cassiopeia a '' , 2003 , aj 584 , 758 weeks , t.  c. , et al .
, `` observation of tev gamma rays from the crab nebula using the atmospheric cerenkov imaging technique '' , 1989 , apj 342 , 379 weisskopf , m.  c. , et al .
, `` discovery of spatial and spectral structure in the x - ray emission from the crab nebula '' , 2000 , apj 536 , l81