While considerable advance has been made to account for statistical uncertainties in astronomical analyses, systematic instrumental uncertainties have been generally ignored. This can be crucial to a proper interpretation of analysis results because instrumental calibration uncertainty is a form of systematic uncertainty. Ignoring it can underestimate error bars and introduce bias into the fitted values of model parameters. Accounting for such uncertainties currently requires extensive case-specific simulations if using existing analysis packages. Here we present general statistical methods that incorporate calibration uncertainties into spectral analysis of high-energy data. We first present a method based on multiple imputation that can be applied with any fitting method, but is necessarily approximate. We then describe a more exact Bayesian approach that works in conjunction with a Markov chain Monte Carlo based fitting. We explore methods for improving computational efficiency, and in particular detail a method of summarizing calibration uncertainties with a principal component analysis of samples of plausible calibration files. This method is implemented using recently codified Chandra effective area uncertainties for low-resolution spectral analysis and is verified using both simulated and actual Chandra data. Our procedure for incorporating effective area uncertainty is easily generalized to other types of calibration uncertainties.

A common problem in astrophysics is determining how bright a source could be and still not be detected. Despite the simplicity with which the problem can be stated, the solution involves complex statistical issues that require careful analysis. In contrast to the confidence bound, this concept has never been formally analyzed, leading to a great variety of often ad hoc solutions. Here we formulate and describe the problem in a self-consistent manner. Detection significance is usually defined by the acceptable proportion of false positives (the TypeI error), and we invoke the complementary concept of false negatives (the TypeII error), based on the statistical power of a test, to compute an upper limit to the detectable source intensity. To determine the minimum intensity that a source must have for it to be detected, we first define a detection threshold, and then compute the probabilities of detecting sources of various intensities at the given threshold. The intensity that corresponds to the specified TypeII error probability defines that minimum intensity, and is identified as the upper limit. Thus, an upper limit is a characteristic of the detection procedure rather than the strength of any particular source and should not be confused with confidence intervals or other estimates of source intensity. This is particularly important given the large number of catalogs that are being generated from increasingly sensitive surveys. We discuss the differences between these upper limits and confidence bounds. Both measures are useful quantities that should be reported in order to extract the most science from catalogs, though they answer different statistical questions: an upper bound describes an inference range on the source intensity, while an upper limit calibrates the detection process. We provide a recipe for computing upper limits that applies to all detection algorithms.

The likelihood ratio test (LRT) and the related $F$ test, do not (even asymptotically) adhere to their nominal $\chi^2$ and $F$ distributions in many statistical tests common in astrophysics, thereby casting many marginal line or source detections and non-detections into doubt. Although there are many legitimate uses of these statistics, in some important cases it can be impossible to compute the correct false positive rate. For example, it has become common practice to use the LRT or the $F$ test for detecting a line in a spectral model or a source above background despite the lack of certain required regularity conditions. In these and other settings that involve testing a hypothesis that is on the boundary of the parameter space, {\it contrary to common practice, the nominal $\chi^2$ distribution for the LRT or the $F$ distribution for the $F$ test should not be used}. In this paper, we characterize an important class of problems where the LRT and the $F$ test fail and illustrate this non-standard behavior. We briefly sketch several possible acceptable alternatives, focusing on Bayesian posterior predictive probability-values. We present this method in some detail, as it is a simple, robust, and intuitive approach. This alternative method is illustrated using the gamma-ray burst of May 8, 1997 (GRB 970508) to investigate the presence of an Fe K emission line during the initial phase of the observation.

Over the past 10 years Bayesian methods have rapidly grown more popular as several computationally intensive statistical algorithms have become feasible with increased computer power. In this paper, we begin with a general description of the Bayesian paradigm for statistical inference and the various state-of-the-art model fitting techniques that we employ (e.g., Gibbs sampler and Metropolis- Hastings). These algorithms are very flexible and can be used to fit models that account for the highly hierarchical structure inherent in the collection of high-quality spectra and thus can keep pace with the accelerating progress of new space telescope designs. The methods we develop, which will soon be available in the CIAO software package, explicitly model photon arrivals as a Poisson process and, thus, have no difficulty with high resolution low count X-ray and gamma-ray data. We expect these methods to be useful not only for the recently launched Chandra X-ray observatory and XMM but also new generation telescopes such as Constellation X, GLAST, etc. In the context of two examples (Quasar S5 0014+813 and Hybrid-Chromosphere Supergiant Star alpha TrA) we illustrate a new highly structured model and how Bayesian posterior sampling can be used to compute estimates, error bars, and credible intervals for the various model parameters.

GRB 990123 was the first burst from which simultaneous optical, X-ray and gamma-ray emission was detected; its afterglow has been followed by an extensive set of radio, optical and X-ray observations. We have studied the gamma-ray burst itself as observed by the CGRO detectors. We find that gamma-ray fluxes are not correlated with the simultaneous optical observations, and the gamma-ray spectra cannot be extrapolated simply to the optical fluxes. The burst is well fit by the standard four-parameter GRB function, with the exception that excess emission compared to this function is observed below ~15 keV during some time intervals. The burst is characterized by the typical hard-to-soft and hardness-intensity correlation spectral evolution patterns. The energy of the peak of the nu f_nu spectrum, E_p, reaches an unusually high value during the first intensity spike, 1470 +/- 110 keV, and then falls to \~300 keV during the tail of the burst. The high-energy spectrum above ~MeV is consistent with a power law with a photon index of about -3. By fluence, GRB 990123 is brighter than all but 0.4% of the GRBs observed with BATSE, clearly placing it on the -3/2 power-law portion of the intensity distribution. However, the redshift measured for the afterglow is inconsistent with the Euclidean interpretation of the -3/2 power-law. Using the redshift value of >= 1.61 and assuming isotropic emission, the gamma-ray fluence exceeds 10E54 ergs.

The serendipitous observation of GRB 780506 by co-aligned gamma-ray (HEAO 1 A-4 0.02 - 6 MeV) and X-ray (HEAO 1 A-2 2-60 keV) instruments during a six hour pointing at a blank section of the sky gave us unprecedented high signal-to-noise X-ray spectra and light curves of a gamma-ray burst and its afterglow. We observed two breaks in the initial spectrum, one consistent with a peak in nu-F-nu of ~45 keV, and one below 4 keV, consistent with strong absorption, followed by dramatic spectral variability. The initial strong turnover below a few keV evolved into a slight excess. The spectral shape varied widely outside low energy limits prescribed by current relativistic shock models. Two minutes after the burst ended, HEAO 1 A-2 detected a faint resurgence of 2-10 keV flux, rising to a peak ~seven minutes after burst onset, followed by irregular emission with best-fit decay time of half an hour. We estimated that this entire afterglow radiated between 3 and 30% of the >1 keV energy radiated during the burst.

The COMPTEL instrument on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory is used to measure the locations of gamma-ray bursts through direct imaging of MeV photons. In a comprehensive search, we have detected and localized 29 bursts observed between 1991 April 19 and 1995 May 31. The average location accuracy of these events is 1.25$\arcdeg$ (1$\sigma$), including a systematic error of $\sim0.5\arcdeg$, which is verified through comparison with Interplanetary Network (IPN) timing annuli. The combination of COMPTEL and IPN measurements results in locations for 26 of the bursts with an average ``error box'' area of only $\sim$0.3 deg$^2$ (1$\sigma$). We find that the angular distribution of COMPTEL burst locations is consistent with large-scale isotropy and that there is no statistically significant evidence of small-angle auto-correlations. We conclude that there is no compelling evidence for burst repetition since no more than two of the events (or $\sim$7% of the 29 bursts) could possibly have come from the same source. We also find that there is no significant correlation between the burst locations and either Abell clusters of galaxies or radio-quiet quasars. Agreement between individual COMPTEL locations and IPN annuli places a lower limit of $\sim$100~AU (95% confidence) on the distance to the stronger bursts.

We present an analysis of COMPTEL observations made between November 1991 and May 1994 of 2CG 135+01, a bright gamma-ray source located near the Galactic plane. At energies above 1 MeV, an excess consistent with the position of 2CG 135+01 is detected in the sum of the observations, at flux levels which are a factor of 10-100 below those published in the past. The detection significance of this excess, when the possible presence of underlying Galactic diffuse emission is neglected, is 6.6 sigma for 3 degrees of freedom. The differential photon spectrum in the 1-30 MeV energy range can be described by a power law with a spectral index of $1.95^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$. Due to the uncertainties involved in modelling the Galactic-disk diffuse emission underneath the source, the absolute flux levels must be considered uncertain by a factor of two. They are consistent with the extrapolation of the time-averaged spectrum of 2CG 135+01 measured with EGRET, thereby strengthening the identification. No significant temporal correlation between the gamma-ray emission and the monitored radio emission of the possible counterpart radio source GT 0236+610 (showing a 26.5 day modulation) is found.