Review (DD) Micro-quasar analysis of Salvatore Galata AWG – 16 nov

General comments: Analysis already presented in at least the last 3 collaboration meeting (Bamberg, Moscow, CERN…) + few AWG phone meeting Internal note ANTARES-PHYS (Final version circulating in the Collaboration since Nov 10 th ) + wiki page: => Received very few comments form the Collaboration (Thanks to Fabian…) 2 supervisors: Joern Wilms + DD

Part 1: selection of the sources/periods of interest Quite difficult task: peculiarity of each micro-quasar, availability of the data (X- ray, radio, gamma) => Sources well studied during the last 10 years but not so well understood. Cf Cygnus X1 Great effort during the last few weeks to clarify the methods to select the periods of interest in the LC: - One single method to handle the X-ray data (much robust and more sensitive) - One single method to handle the gamma-ray data (standard Fermi analysis) 2 separated analysis: hard state + transition state (testing different models of neutrino production) Review by Victoria Grinberg (Bamberg)+ Joern Wilms (today, small comments in the text (theoretical part), selection mainly OK, but use ASM data not fully calibrated)

Part 2: ANTARES data selection run selection according the DQ group (only missing 15d to be recovered for the final analysis; no change in the optimization): OK Reconstruction: AAFit + last calibration: OK data/MC comparison: huge effort to compare during all the studied period and also during each selected periods for each source. Check how the distributions in costheta and azimut change when you restricted your dataset to the selected periods (important for the background injection) OK Optimization for the best 5 sigma discovery potential assuming a E^-2 spectrum for the signal. How does this optimization change if you add a cut-off at few tens of TeV like all the other galactic sources ? Cuts similar to the one found in the PS analysis and the flare analysis OK

Part 3: Unbinned method Same likelihood method as in the Nickef PS analysis. (Only small difference is that the background in generated according to the local coordinates) OK PSF + Acceptance in agreement with the PS analysis. Check that the PSF is not varying according to the declination OK Few checks: as the time PDF for the background event is not used, check that the mean hypothesis is valid during each selected periods Systematic errors: same numbers as the ones used in the PS analysis OK