text:
# Probing black hole X-ray binaries with the Keck telescopes

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Zel’dovich and Novikov (1966) were the first to propose the technique which is still in use for “weighing” black holes. They suggested that black holes could be detected indirectly from light emitted through the interaction with a donor star in an X-ray binary system. The motion of the donor star around the black hole would produce a radial velocity sinusoidal curve which could be detected from the Doppler shifts of the photospheric absorption lines of the donor star. The semi-amplitude ($`K`$) of the curve together with the binary period ($`P`$) determine the mass function of the black hole (a lower limit to its mass), using Kepler’s third law: $`f_x=PK^3/(2\pi G)`$. Indeed, X-ray binaries were found in the late 1960s and the first black-hole candidate, Cyg X-1, in 1971 (Oda et al. 1971). Efforts in measuring the mass of Cyg X-1 were affected by uncertainties in the evolution of the massive donor star, and with a low mass function ($`f_x=0.22\pm 0.01M_{}`$; Bolton 1975) this was not regarded as unequivocal evidence for a black hole (see Herrero et al. 1995 for the most recent work).

## 2 HUNTING FOR BLACK HOLES IN X-RAY NOVAE

In the 1980s the observational effort was turned to X-ray novae (XRNs, a sub-group of low-mass X-ray binaries). Unlike classical novae, XRNs are accretion-driven events that show disk outbursts with a typical rise of 8–10 mag in a few days and a subsequent decline over several months. After the XRN has subsided into quiescence, the accretion disk does not dominate the observed flux, rendering the companion star visible. The low-mass companion star allows the mass function of the black hole, a good approximation of the mass in a high-inclination system, to be determined. In the 1990s, X-ray satellites found 6 XRNs with identified companion stars in the optical (Nova Muscae 1991, Cheng et al. 1992; Nova Persei 1992, Casares et al. 1995a and references therein; Nova Sco 1994, Bailyn et al. 1995; Nova Vel 1993, Filippenko et al. 1999; GRO J1719-24, e.g., Ballet et al. 1993; XTE J1550-564, e.g., Smith et al. 1998).

The prototype target in the 1980s was A0620–00, but unfortunately its mass function was close to the maximum mass of a neutron star ($`f_x=3.2\pm 0.2M_{}`$; McClintock and Remillard 1986). It was not until 1992 that a mass function of a candidate black hole in the XRN 1989, GS 2023+338, was found to be much heavier than the maximum mass of a neutron star ($`f_x=6.08\pm 0.06M_{}`$; Casares et al. 1992). Since then, efforts have been directed toward measuring actual masses, thus producing the first observed mass distribution of black holes (Bailyn et al. 1998; Miller et al. 1998; for the theoretical distribution see Fryer 1999). The determination of the masses of stellar remnants after supernova explosions is essential for an understanding of the late stages of evolution of massive stars. Very recently, the first observational evidence for the progenitor, a supernova or hypernova with a mass $`>30M_{}`$, that produced the black hole of $`7.0\pm 0.2M_{}`$ in GRO J1655-40 was found with the Keck-I telescope (from high metal abundances that were presumably deposited onto the surface of the companion F5IV-star by the supernova explosion; Israelian et al. 1999).

## 3 RADIAL VELOCITY CURVES

Utilizing the Doppler effect produced by the shifting photospheric lines due to the orbital motion of the companion star around the black hole, but now with the 10-m Keck-I and Keck-II telescopes, Filippenko and his collaborators have produced the four most accurate mass functions ($`f_x=5.0\pm 0.1M_{}`$, $`1.2\pm 0.1M_{}`$, $`4.7\pm 0.2M_{}`$, $`3.2\pm 0.1M_{}`$, respectively for GS 2000+25, GRO J0422+32, Nova Oph 1977, Nova Vel 1993; Filippenko et al. 1995a, 1995b, 1997, 1999). Figures 1 and 2 show the great improvement that the large aperture of Keck offers in comparison to 4-m-class telescopes in extracting radial velocity curves of the motion of the donor star around the black hole by cross-correlating main-sequence template spectra with the observed spectra.

## 4 THE MAIN SEQUENCE COMPANION STAR

The line broadening function affecting the absorption lines of the object spectra consists of the convolution of the instrumental profile (full width at half-maximum = 108 km s-1) with the companion star’s rotational broadening profile (of width $`\upsilon \mathrm{sin}i`$), with further smearing due to changes in the orbital velocity of the companion star during a given exposure. The exposure time for each object spectrum ($`T_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ 25–40 min) resulted in orbital smearing of the lines up to $`2\pi K_\mathrm{c}T_{\mathrm{exp}}/P`$, which can range up to 242 km s-1; hence, the template spectra were subsequently smeared by the amount corresponding to the orbital motion through convolution with a rectangular profile and the resulting template spectrum was further broadened from 2 to 150 km s-1 by convolution with the Gray (1976) rotational profile. We scaled the blurred template spectrum by a factor $`0<f<1`$ to match the absorption-line strengths in the Doppler-corrected average spectrum. Finally, the simulated template spectrum (i.e., smeared and broadened) was subtracted from the Doppler-corrected average spectrum of Nova Oph 1977 and $`\chi ^2`$ was computed from a smoothed version of the residual spectrum. The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ gives the optimal $`\upsilon \mathrm{sin}i`$, $`f`$, and spectral type of the companion star (for more details see Harlaftis et al. 1996, 1997, 1999).

Figure 3 summarizes the procedure we follow to deconvolve the main-sequence spectrum from the target spectrum. The spectrum of a M2 V template (BD $`+44^{}2051`$) is shown at the bottom, binned to 124 km s-1 pixels (=4 pixels and similar to the instrumental resolution). This template was then treated so that its line profiles simulate those of the GRO J0422+32 spectra. The smearing in radial velocity due to the orbital line broadening while exposing are applied to individual copies of the M2 template, and these were subsequently averaged using weights identical to those corresponding to the GRO J0422+32 spectra. Next, a rotational broadening profile corresponding to $`\upsilon \mathrm{sin}i=50`$ km s-1 was applied; the result is the second spectrum from the bottom in Figure 3. The spectrum above is the Doppler-corrected average of the GRO J0422+32 data in the rest frame of the M2 V template. Finally, the residual spectrum is shown at the top after 0.61 times the simulated M2 V template ($`f=0.61\pm 0.04`$ for M2; Table 4) was subtracted from the Doppler-shifted average spectrum. The M-star absorption lines and TiO bands are evident in the Doppler-corrected average, and they are almost completely removed by subtraction of the template spectrum (e.g., the Na I D line). Emission from He I $`\lambda `$5876 becomes prominent after subtraction of the M2 V template and weak emission from He I $`\lambda `$6678 is also present. Note that there is no evidence for Li I $`\lambda `$6708 absorption, to an equivalent width upper limit of 0.13 Å ($`1\sigma `$) relative to the original continuum, except in GS 2000+25 (see Martín et al. 1994 for lithium in X-ray binaries).

## 5 THE MASS RATIO OF THE BLACK HOLE BINARIES

Determination of the mass ratio (from the rotational broadening of the photospheric lines in the companion star) and the inclination (inferred from the ellipsoidal modulations of the companion star), when combined with the mass function, can fully describe the system’s parameters and the masses of the binary components. The mass ratio $`q=M_2/M_1`$ is found by measuring the rotational broadening of the absorption lines of the companion, $`\upsilon \mathrm{sin}i`$, through the relation

$$\frac{\upsilon \mathrm{sin}i}{K_c}=0.46\left[(1+q)^2q\right]^{1/3},$$

which is valid since the binary period is so short that the companion star is tidally locked to the black hole. We determined mass ratios for the first time for binaries as faint as 21 mag using the $`\chi ^2`$ optimization technique described in the previous section to extract the rotational broadening of the absorption lines of the donor star (Harlaftis et al. 1996, 1997, 1999). The complete results of the analysis of the Keck data are given in Table 1.

## 6 THE ACCRETION DISK

The accretion disk in its quiescent state has mainly been undetected so far by X-ray satellites but can be studied in the optical. Double-peaked Balmer profiles are observed with “S”-wave components either from the companion star (Nova Oph 1977) or the bright spot (GS 2000+25) and an H$`\alpha `$ emissivity law is observed, similar to that seen in dwarf novae. An imaging technique, Doppler tomography, shows the accretion disks in GS 2000+25, Nova Oph 1977 and GRO J0422+32 to be present (Fig. 4). Further, mass transfer from the donor star continues vigorously to the outer disk as evidenced by the “bright spot,” the impact of the gas stream onto the outer accretion disk in GS 2000+25 (Fig. 4; Harlaftis et al. 1996).


format: text

text:
# Water Ice in 2060 Chiron and its Implications for Centaurs and Kuiper Belt Objects

## 1 Introduction

The Centaurs are a set of solar system objects whose orbits are confined between those of Jupiter and Neptune. Their planet-crossing orbits imply a short dynamical lifetime ($`10^610^7`$ yr). The current belief is that Centaurs are objects scattered from the Kuiper Belt that may eventually end up in the inner solar system as short-period comets. The first discovered and brightest known Centaur, 2060 Chiron, is relatively well studied. The object is firmly established as a comet, with a weak but persistent coma. It is well documented that Chiron possesses neutral colors (e.g., Hartmann et al. 1990, Luu and Jewitt 1990), and a low albedo of $`0.14_{0.03}^{+0.06}`$ (Campins et al. 1994). (It must be noted that most of these measurements were made when Chiron clearly exhibited a coma so that the measurements are likely to have been contaminated by dust scattering from the coma. The albedo, in particular, should be viewed as an upper limit). Chiron has a rotation period of $`6`$ hr (e.g., Bus et al. 1989) and a photometric amplitude that is modulated by the cometary activity level (Luu and Jewitt 1990, Marcialis and Buratti 1993, Lazzaro et al. 1997). Published optical and near-IR spectra of Chiron show a nearly solar spectrum, varying from slightly blue to completely neutral (Hartmann et al. 1990, Luu 1993, Luu et al. 1994, Davies et al. 1998), and devoid of specific mineralogical features.

As a group, the Centaurs display remarkable spectral diversity (e.g., Luu and Jewitt 1996). The Centaur 5145 Pholus is among the reddest bodies in the solar system (Mueller et al. 1992, Fink et al. 1992), and shows absorption features at 2.00 and 2.25 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ (see, e.g., Davies et al. 1993a, Luu et al. 1994). Cruikshank et al. (1998) interpreted the 2.0 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ feature as due to water ice, and the 2.27 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ due to methanol. They derived a best fit to the spectrum which consisted of carbon black and an olivine-tholin-water-methanol mixture. Pholus’s extreme red color and low albedo ($`0.044\pm 0.013`$, Davies et al. 1993b) strongly suggest that long-term irradiation of carbon- and nitrogen-bearing ices has resulted in an organic-rich, dark ”irradiation mantle” (e.g., Johnson et al. 1987). The spectral differences between Chiron and Pholus have been attributed to the presence of cometary activity in Chiron and the lack thereof in Pholus (Luu 1993, Luu et al. 1994). A continuous rain of sub-orbital cometary debris falling onto the surface of Chiron may have buried a more primordial irradiation mantle with unirradiated matter ejected from the interior. In this paper we show further evidence supporting this hypothesis, and that scattering effects by coma dust particles also eliminate spectral features seen in solid surface reflection.

## 2 Observations

(a) Keck observations. The Keck near-infrared observations were made on UT 1999 April 03, at the $`f`$/25 Cassegrain focus of the Keck I telescope, using the NIRC camera (Matthews and Soifer 1994). The NIRC detector is a 256 x 256 pixel InSb array that can be switched from direct imaging to slit spectroscopy. In imaging mode the pixel scale is 0.15 arcsec per pixel (38” x 38” field of view), and in spectroscopy mode the resolution is $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 100`$. We used a 0.68” $`\times `$ 38” north-south slit for all spectral observations. Uneven illumination of the slit and pixel-to-pixel variations were corrected with spectral flat fields obtained from a diffusely illuminated spot inside the dome.

Since the target was not visible during spectral observations, Chiron’s position was confirmed by centering it at the location of the slit and taking an image. The slit, grism, and blocking filter were then inserted in the beam for the spectroscopic observation. Spectra were made in pairs dithered along the slit by 13”. We obtained spectra in two different grating positions, covering the JH wavelength region (1.00 - 1.50 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$) and the HK region (1.4 - 2.5 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$). Non-sidereal tracking at Keck showed a slight drift with time, so we recentered Chiron in the slit every 15-20 minutes.

(b) UKIRT observations. The UKIRT observations were made on UT 1996 Feb 7 and 8 with the CGS4 infrared spectrometer mounted at the Cassegrain focus. The detector was a 256 $`\times `$ 256 pixel InSb array, with a 1.2” per pixel scale in the spatial direction. An optical TV camera fed by a dichroic beam splitter gave us slit viewing capability and thus we were able to guide on the target during all observations. The conditions were photometric and the image quality was $``$ 1” Full Width at Half Max (FWHM), so we used a 1.2” $`\times `$ 80” slit aligned North-South on the sky at all times. A 75 line per mm grating was used in first order for all observations, yielding a dispersion of 0.0026 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$/pixel in the H and K band ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 850`$). However, the detector was dithered by 1/2 pixel during each observation, so the spectra were oversampled by a factor of 2. The effective spectral coverage in the H band was 1.4 – 2.0 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ and in the K band 1.9 – 2.4 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$. Sky background removal was achieved by nodding the telescope 30” (23 pixels) along the slit. Dark frames and calibration spectra of flat fields and comparison lamps (Ar) were also taken every night.

Both the Keck and UKIRT observations were calibrated using stars on the UKIRT Faint Standards list (Casali and Hawarden 1992). At both telescopes, we took care to observe the standard stars at airmasses similar to those of Chiron (airmass difference $``$ 0.10), to ensure proper cancellation of sky lines.

The separate reflectance spectra from each night of observation are shown in Fig. 1.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 The spectra

The Chiron spectra (Fig. 1) show that: (a) Chiron is nearly neutral in the 1.0 – 2.5 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ region; (b) there is a subtle but definite absorption feature at 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ ($``$ 0.35 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ wide, $`10\%`$ deep) in spectra from 1996 and 1999, and a marginal absorption feature near 1.5 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ in the 1999 spectrum; and (c) the spectral slope and the strength of the 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ feature change with time.

Reflectivity gradients in the JHK region span the range $`S^{}`$ = -2 %/1000 Å to $`S^{}=`$ 1%/1000 Å (Table 2). In Fig. 2 we compare Chiron spectra from 1993 (from Luu et al. 1994) with the present observations. The flat and featureless 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ spectrum from 1993 stands in sharp contrast with the later spectra. The presence of the 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ feature in different spectra taken with different telescopes, instruments, and spectral resolutions provides convincing evidence that it is real.

The 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ and 1.5 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ features are clear signatures of water ice, and the shallowness of the features (compared to that of pure water ice) indicates that this ice is mixed with dark impurities (see Clark and Lucey 1984). We note that the Chiron spectra are very similar to spectra of minerals and water ice (compare the spectra in Fig. 2 with Fig. 14 and 15 of Clark 1981, respectively). In Fig. 3 we show that the Keck Chiron spectrum is well fitted by a model consisting of a linear superposition of a water ice spectrum and an olivine spectrum. The olivine spectrum is needed to provide the required continuum slope, and at the very small grain size used, the spectrum of olivine is essentially featureless. The water ice spectrum was calculated based on the Hapke theory for diffuse reflectance (Hapke 1993) and used a grain diameter of 1 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$. A description can be found in Roush (1994). However, we caution that the model is non-unique, and due to the many free parameters in the model (e.g., grain albedo, porosity, roughness), the $`1\mathrm{\mu m}`$ grain size should not be taken literally. Similarly, olivine could also be replaced in the fit by other moderately red, featureless absorbers.

The 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ feature in Chiron is clearly time-variable: it was not apparent in 1993 but changed to a depth of 8 - 10% in 1996 and 1999. Chiron’s lightcurve variations can be explained by the dilution of the lightcurve by an optically thin coma (Luu and Jewitt 1990). Based on this model, we estimate that the 1993 coma cross-section was $`1.5`$ times larger than in 1996 or now. The likeliest explanation for the time-variability of the $`2\mathrm{\mu m}`$ feature is the degree of cometary activity in Chiron. In 1993, Chiron’s activity level was high (Luu and Jewitt 1993, Lazzaro et al. 1997), resulting in a featureless spectrum dominated by scattering from the coma. By 1996, when the UKIRT observations were made, Chiron’s total brightness had dropped by $`1`$ mag to a minimum level (comparable to that of 1983–1985, Lazzaro et al. 1997), leaving spectral contamination by dust at a minimum.

### 3.2 Implications of water ice on Chiron

#### 3.2.1 Cometary activity in Centaurs

Considering (1) Chiron’s time-variable spectrum, (2) the presence of surface water ice, and (3) Chiron’s persistent cometary activity, we conclude that Chiron’s surface coverage is not dominated by an irradiated mantle but more probably by a layer of cometary debris. Occultation observations suggest that sublimation by supervolatiles (e.g., CO, N2) on Chiron occurs in a few localized icy areas (Bus et al. 1996). Dust grains ejected at speeds $`<100`$ m s-1 (the escape velocity) will reimpact the surface, building a refractory layer which tends to quench sublimation. Nevertheless, the outgassing is still sustained by the sporadic exposure of fresh ice on the surface. Sublimation experiments with cometary analogs illustrate this phenomenon: outgassing produces a dust layer, but fresh icy material can still be periodically exposed by avalanches and new vents created by impacts from large dust particles (Grün et al. 1993). If, in keeping with a Kuiper Belt origin, Chiron once possessed an irradiation mantle, we suspect that it has been either blown off by sublimation or buried under a dust layer thick enough to mask its features. If so, the present low albedo of Chiron would be due to cometary dust particles rather than irradiated material.

In contrast, the lack of cometary activity in the Centaur Pholus is consistent with an encompassing surface coverage by the irradiation mantle – witness the extreme red color and absorption features associated with hydrocarbon materials. Although water ice may exist locally on the surface (Cruikshank et al. 1998), Pholus’s spectral properties are still dominated by the organic irradiated crust. If this hypothesis is correct, cometary activity should be uncommon among Centaurs with very red colors (irradiated material), and more common among those with neutral (ice) colors. As the observational sample of Centaurs grows, this is a simple prediction that can be directly tested. However, it remains unclear why cometary activity was activated on Chiron and not on Pholus, even though the two Centaurs are at similar heliocentric distances. One possibility is that Pholus was recently expelled from the Kuiper Belt and has not yet been heated internally to a degree sufficient to blow off the irradiation mantle, but this hypothesis cannot be easily tested, given the chaotic nature of the orbits of Centaurs.

#### 3.2.2 Centaur and Kuiper Belt surfaces

We summarize the spectral properties of Centaurs and KBOs in Table 3. Thus far, water ice has been reported in 3 Centaurs (Chiron, Pholus, 1997 CU26) and 1 KBO (1996 TO66). The existing data are too sparse to establish whether a correlation exists between color and the abundance of water ice among Centaurs and KBOs. However, water ice is present in all three Centaurs for which near-IR spectra are available, and in 1 out of 3 studied KBOs. The preponderance of water ice among Centaurs makes us suspect that that the ”low” rate of detection of water ice in KBOs has more to do with the faintness of the targets and the resulting low-quality spectra than with the intrinsic water contents in KBOs. Considering the existing data and the high cosmochemical abundance of water ice, we predict that water ice is ubiquitous among all objects that originated in the Kuiper Belt, although the amount might vary from one object to another and thus determines the possibility for cometary activity in these bodies.

In short, it would be a good idea to re-observe those KBOs which show no apparent water ice feature (1993 SC and 1996 TL66) at higher signal-to-noise ratios. Water ice might be present after all.

## 4 Summary

1. The near-infrared reflectance spectrum of Chiron is time-variable: in 1996 and 1999 it shows an absorption feature at 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ due to water ice. Another absorption feature due to water ice at 1.5 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ is also marginally detected in 1999. The features were not present in spectra taken in 1993.
2. Chiron’s time-variable spectrum is consistent with variable dilution by the coma. During periods of low-level outgassing, surface features are revealed.
3. Chiron’s nearly neutral spectrum suggests the surface dominance of a dust layer created from cometary debris, consisting of unirradiated dust particles from the interior. Chiron’s original irradiation mantle has either been blown off or buried under this layer.
4. Chiron is the third Centaur in which water ice has been detected. This trend suggests that water ice is common on the surface of Centaurs. We predict that water ice is ubiquitous in all objects originating in the Kuiper Belt. The surface coverage of this water ice determines its detectability.

Note \- As we finished the preparation of this manuscript, we received a preprint by Foster et al. (1999) in which water ice is independently identified in spectra from 1998. Foster et al. also report an unidentified absorption feature at 2.15 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ that is not confirmed in our spectra.

Acknowledgements

The United Kingdom Infrared Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.

JXL thanks Ted Roush for his generosity in sharing his software and database, Dale Cruikshank for constructive comments, and Ronnie Hoogerwerf and Jan Kleyna for helpful discussions. This work was partly supported by grants to JXL and DCJ from NASA.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. Infrared reflectance spectrum of 2060 Chiron, normalized at 2.2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$. The date of each spectrum is indicated. The top panel shows the original spectra, while in the bottom panel the 1996 spectra have been smoothed by 3 pixels (the 1999 spectrum remains unsmoothed). There is a clear absorption feature at 2 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ in all three spectra, and a very weak absorption feature at 1.5 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ in the 1999 spectra.

Figure 2. Infrared reflectance spectrum of Chiron from 1993 (from Luu et al. 1994) compared with the 1996 and 1999 spectra. There was no apparent spectral feature in the 1993 spectra.

Figure 3. Chiron’s 1996 spectra fitted with a model consisting of a linear superposition of water ice and olivine spectra.


text:
# Constraints to the SSC model for Mkn 501

## 1. Introduction

The study of Blazars has been recently enriched by the detection of very high energy gamma rays (energy in the TeV range) from a handful of nearby sources. This discovery opens the possibility to effectively test and constrain the radiative mechanisms invoked to explain the emission from Blazars and to investigate the physical conditions in relativistic jets.

As discussed in Tavecchio et al. 1998 (hereafter T98), the knowledge of the simultaneous X-ray and TeV spectra of Blazars allows to univocally find the set of physical parameters necessary within a homogeneous Synchrotron–Self Compton model with an electron distribution described by a broken power-law. Here we apply the SSC model to recent high quality, simultaneous X-ray and TeV data of the well studied source Mkn 501 and discuss the results.

## 2. The data

TeV spectra measured by the CAT team during 1997 were recently reported in Djannati-Atai et al (1999). In particular the TeV spectra associated with $`Beppo`$SAX observations of April 16 and 7 (reported in Pian et al 1998) are also discussed. For the large flare of April 16, given the high flux level, it has been possible to obtain a good quality TeV spectrum from a single observation which partially overlaps with the $`Beppo`$SAX observation. On Apr 7, Mkn 501 was less bright and the TeV spectrum is obtained using different observations with similar TeV fluxes and hardness ratios (for more details see Djannati-Atai et al 1999). We combine these data with the X-ray spectra reported in Pian et al. (1998) for the same days constructing quasi simultaneous SEDs for two epoches. The TeV spectra of Mkn 501 are clearly curved. It was suggested that this curvature could be the ”footprint” of the absorption of TeV photons by the Infra Red Background (IRB, e.g Konopelko et al. 1999, but see the detailed discussion in Vassiliev 1999)

## 3. Spectral Fits with the SSC model

T98 obtained analytical relations for the IC peak frequency in Klein-Nishina (KN) regime adopting the step function approximation for the KN cross-section. A comparison between these approximate estimates and the detailed numerical calculations with the full KN cross section shows that the analytical formulae for the IC peak frequency given in T98 can overestimate its value by a factor of 3-10, depending on $`n_2`$, the index of the steeper part of the electron distribution. Therefore, although the analytical estimates are useful as a guideline, it is very important for the study of the TeV spectrum of Blazars to use precise numerical calculations, like those discussed in the following.

We reproduced the SED of Mkn 501 (reported in Fig.1) using the SSC model described in T98 and Chiappetti et al 1999. In a spherical region with radius R, magnetic field B and Doppler factor $`\delta `$, a population of electrons with energy distribution of the form $`N(\gamma )=K\gamma ^{n_1}(1+\gamma /\gamma _{break})^{n_1n_2}`$ emits synchrotron and IC radiation. The IC spectrum is calculated with the full Klein-Nishina cross-section, using the formula derived by Jones (1968). The seed photons for the IC scattering are those produced by the same electrons through the synchrotron mechanism. For the case of the high state of Mkn 501 we considered possible intervening absorption by the IRB adopting the prescriptions for the low model discussed in Stecker & De Jager (1998). In the calculation reported here we assume a typical radius of the emitting region of $`R10^{16}`$ cm and a Doppler factor $`\delta =10`$. With this choice the minimum variability timescale is of $`10`$ h (see Tab.1 for the parameters used).

It is useful to calculate the IC emission from electrons with different energy ranges. These ”slices” are reported in Fig. 2 (see figure caption for the detailed energy ranges). It is interesting to note that, because of the KN cut at the high energy emission, the peak of the IC component is produced by electrons with Lorentz factor below $`\gamma _{break}`$ while the peak of the Synchrotron component is produced by electrons at $`\gamma _{break}`$. This effect has important consequences for the study of the X-ray/TeV correlated variability (see also Maraschi et al. 1999).

## 4. Discussion and Conclusions

The parameters adopted for the model are reported in Table 1. Our model indicates a rather low value for the magnetic field and a high $`\gamma _{break}`$ (see Tab.1). The transition from the low state to the high state in Mkn 501 is consistent with an increase of a factor of 2 in both $`\gamma _{break}`$ and B and with an almost constant value of $`\delta `$ and $`R`$. These results are in agreement with a similar analysis of the April 16 flare by Bednarek & Protheroe (1999): for a minimum timescale of 2.5 h they found that the TeV spectrum can be well reproduced by $`B0.03`$ and $`\delta 15`$.

Although some authors (see Konopelko et al. 1999) have recently proposed that the curvature of the TeV spectrum of Mkn 501 provides evidence for absorption by IRB, the curvature could be intrinsic and related to the curved electron distribution necessary to fit the X-ray data. Our models show that a curved spectrum is a plausible explanation for the curvature. The introduction of the IRB does not dramatically change the inferred physical parameters. As shown in Fig.2 IRB/no IRB TeV spectra are very similar up to 15 TeV, while for higher energy the power-law spectrum of the no IRB case is changed in an exponential profile. Therefore spectral data above 10 TeV are needed in order to understand if IRB absorption affects Blazar spectra.

Finally we note that in the theory of particle acceleration by shocks (for a recent critical discussion see Henri et al. 1999) the maximum Lorentz factor of accelerated electrons, obtained equating acceleration time and cooling time, is given by $`\gamma _{max}10^7(B/0.02G)^{1/2}`$, where we used the value of B we found in the high state of Mkn 501. Therefore our fit suggests that during the high activity states of Mkn 501 the electrons can reach the maximum energy fixed by the balance between cooling and acceleration processes. In states of lower activity the acceleration time could be longer and the condition $`t_{esc}<t_{acc}`$ (where $`t_{esc}`$ and $`t_{acc}`$ are the escape time and the acceleration time respectively) could prevent the electrons for reaching the maximum energy.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank A. Djannati-Atai for sending us the TeV data of Mkn 501.

## REFERENCES

Bednarek, W., & Protheroe, R.J., 1999, MNRAS, in press, astro-ph/9902050

Catanese, M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 487, L143

Chiappetti, L., et al. 1999, ApJ, 521,552

Djannati-Atai, A., et al. 1999, submitted to A&A

Henri, G., et al., Astropart. Phys, in press (astro-ph/9901051)

Jones, F., 1968, Phys. Rev., 167, 1159

Konopelko, A.K., et al. 1999, ApJ, 518, L13

Maraschi, L., et al. 1999b, ApJ Letters, in press

Pian, E., et al. 1998. ApJ, 491, L17

Stecker, F.W., & de Jager, O.C., 1998, A&A, 334, L85

Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L. and Ghisellini, G., 1998, ApJ, 509, 608

Vassiliev, V.V., 1999, Astropart. Phys., in press

Weekes, T.C., et al. 1996, A&AS, 120, 603


text:
# 1 Model with 𝒰(1) flavor symmetry

## 1 Model with $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry

We introduce an anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry which, may arise in effective field theories from strings. The cancellation of its anomalies occurs through the Green-Schwarz mechanism . Due to the anomaly, the Fayet-Iliopoulos term

$$\xi d^4\theta V_A$$
(13)
is always generated , where, in string theory, $`\xi `$ is given by

$$\xi =\frac{g_A^2M_P^2}{192\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}Q.$$
(14)
The $`D_A`$-term will have the form

$$\frac{g_A^2}{8}D_A^2=\frac{g_A^2}{8}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_a|\phi _a|^2+\xi \right)^2,$$
(15)
where $`Q_a`$ is the ‘anomalous’ charge of $`\phi _a`$ superfield.

In  the anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry was considered as a mediator of SUSY breaking. In , the anomalous Abelian symmetries were exploited as flavor symmetries for a natural understanding of hierarchies of fermion masses and mixings, while in  the various neutrino oscillation scenarios with $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry were studied.

Assuming $`\mathrm{Tr}Q>0`$ ($`\xi >0`$) and introducing a superfield $`X`$ with $`Q_X=1`$, we can ensure that the cancellation of (15) fixes the VEV of the scalar component of $`X`$ to be

$$X=\sqrt{\xi }.$$
(16)
Further, we will assume that

$$\frac{X}{M_P}ϵ0.2.$$
(17)
The parameter $`ϵ`$ is an important expansion parameter for understanding the magnitudes of fermion masses and mixings.

Starting our considerations with the neutrino sector within the framework of MSSM (which is more general than some specific GUT model), let us consider the following prescription for the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges

$$Q_X=1,Q_{l_2}=Q_{l_3}=k,Q_{l_1}=k+n,Q_{h_u}=Q_{h_d}=0.$$
(18)
In order to obtain non-zero neutrino masses, we introduce two right-handed neutrino superfields $`𝒩_1,𝒩_2`$, which, by a judicious choice of $`𝒰(1)`$ charges 333For models in which $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry plays a crucial role for achieving maximal/large mixings, see refs. .

$$Q_{𝒩_1}=Q_{𝒩_2}=k,$$
(19)
will provide a texture similar to (1). From (18), (19), the relevant couplings will be:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{cc}𝒩_1& 𝒩_2\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\\ l_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^{2k+n}& ϵ^n& \\ ϵ^{2k}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \\ ϵ^{2k}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \end{array}\right)h_u,\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{cc}𝒩_1& 𝒩_2\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}𝒩_1\\ 𝒩_2\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^{2k}& 1& \\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& 0& \end{array}\right)M,\end{array}$$
(20)
where $`M`$ is some mass scale. Integration of $`𝒩_{1,2}`$ states yields the neutrino mass matrix

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \begin{array}{c}\end{array}\widehat{M}_\nu & \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^n& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\end{array}\right)m,m=\frac{ϵ^{2k+n}h_u^2}{M},& \end{array}$$
(21)
which resembles the texture (1), but differs from it by a nonzero (1,1) entry, and provides the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ splitting.

From (21) and (10) we have for the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation parameters (respectively)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=m^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$

$$𝒜(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )1,$$
(22)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^22m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2ϵ^n,$$

$$𝒜(\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau })=1𝒪(ϵ^{2n}).$$
(23)
We observe that the $`\mathrm{mass}^2`$ splitting for solar neutrinos is expressed in terms of the atmospheric scale $`m_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ and $`n`$-th power of $`ϵ`$.

From (23) we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\{\begin{array}{cc}10^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2\hfill & \text{for }n=10\hfill \\ 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2\hfill & \text{for }n=3\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
Therefore, $`n=10`$ corresponds to vacuum oscillations of solar neutrinos, while $`n=3`$ gives the large angle MSW solution. The MSSM does not constrain $`n`$ to be either $`10`$ or $`3`$, and so both scenarios are possible. To see this, let us consider the charged fermion sector. With the prescription

$$Q_{e_3^c}=p,Q_{e_2^c}=p+2,Q_{e_1^c}=p+5n,$$
(25)
the Yukawa couplings for charged leptons have the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}e_1^c& e_2^c& e_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\\ l_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^{n+2}& ϵ^n\\ ϵ^{5n}& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\\ ϵ^{5n}& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^{p+k}h_d,& \end{array}$$
(26)
providing the desirable hierarchies

$$\lambda _\tau ϵ^{p+k},\lambda _e:\lambda _\mu :\lambda _\tau ϵ^5:ϵ^2:1,$$
(27)
with

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta ϵ^{p+k}\frac{m_t}{m_b}.$$
(28)
As far as the quark sector is concerned, with

$$Q_{q_3}=0,Q_{q_2}=2,Q_{q_1}=3,Q_{d_3^c}=Q_{d_2^c}=p+k,$$

$$Q_{d_1^c}=p+k+2,Q_{u_3^c}=0,Q_{u_2^c}=1,Q_{u_1^c}=3,$$
(29)
the appropriate Yukawa couplings are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}d_1^c& d_2^c& d_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\\ q_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^{p+k}h_d,& \end{array}$$
(30)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}u_1^c& u_2^c& u_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\\ q_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^3& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}\\ ϵ^3& ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)h_u,& \end{array}$$
(31)
yielding

$$\lambda _bϵ^{p+k},\lambda _d:\lambda _s:\lambda _bϵ^5:ϵ^2:1,$$
(32)
$$\lambda _t1,\lambda _u:\lambda _c:\lambda _tϵ^6:ϵ^3:1.$$
(33)
From (30), (31), for the CKM matrix elements we find

$$V_{us}ϵ,V_{cb}ϵ^2,V_{ub}ϵ^3.$$
(34)
We see that the MSSM does not fix the values of $`n,p,k`$. However, specific GUTs can be more restrictive. To demonstrate this, we consider the simplest version of $`SU(5)`$ GUT, with three families of $`(10+\overline{5})`$-plets. Due to these unified multiplets:

$$Q_q=Q_{e^c}=Q_{u^c}=Q_{10},Q_l=Q_{d^c}=Q_{\overline{5}}.$$
(35)
The known hierarchies (34) of the CKM matrix elements now fix the relative charges of $`10`$-plets,

$$Q_{10_3}=0,Q_{10_2}=2,Q_{10_1}=3,$$
(36)
while (27), (32) dictate

$$Q_{\overline{5}_3}=Q_{\overline{5}_2}=k,Q_{\overline{5}_1}=k+2.$$
(37)
Comparing (35)-(37) with (18), (25) (29) we see that the minimal $`SU(5)`$ GUT fixes $`n`$ and $`p`$ to be

$$n=2,p=0,$$
(38)
From (23) (which now turns out to be predictive since $`n`$ is fixed) we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^210^4\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(39)
This value is close to the scale corresponding to the large angle MSW oscillations of the solar neutrinos. We see that our mechanism within $`SU(5)`$ GUT strongly suggests large angle MSW oscillations for solar neutrinos.

The same conclusion can be reached with $`SO(10)`$ GUT, since also in this case the prescription of the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges  would exclude the vacuum solution of the solar neutrino problem. Within this framework the large $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing remains unchanged.

Let us note that the conclusions presented above are valid if the anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ only acts as flavor symmetry and is not tied with SUSY breaking. In several models an anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry also acts as a mediator of SUSY breaking . This can be very useful for adequate suppression of FCNC  and dimension five nucleon decay . In this type of scenarios the soft $`\mathrm{mass}^2`$ for sparticles, which have non-zero $`𝒰(1)`$ charges, emerge from non-zero $`D_A`$-term and equal

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i}^2=m_S^2Q_{\varphi _i},$$
(40)
where $`m_S`$ is taken $`𝒪(10\mathrm{TeV})`$. Therefore, the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges of matter superfields must be positive in order to avoid $`SU(3)_c\times U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}`$ breaking. On the other hand, from (25) we see that the choice $`n=10`$ is excluded (!) \[since $`0\stackrel{<}{_{}}p+k\stackrel{<}{_{}}3`$ ($`1\stackrel{>}{_{}}\lambda _{\tau ,b}\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^2`$)\], which means that in this case the vacuum oscillation solution for solar neutrinos is not realized even within the MSSM framework. The cases $`n=2,3`$, which correspond to the large angle MSW solution, are still allowed. The interesting point is that the neutrino oscillation scenario is linked with SUSY breaking mechanism.

In conclusion, we have suggested a scenario for obtaining bi-maximal neutrino mixing. A crucial role is played by an anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry for obtaining the simple neutrino mass matrix texture in (1). The atmospheric neutrino puzzle is resolved by large/maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing, while the scenario for large angle $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ oscillations is model dependent: within the MSSM, both the large angle vacuum or the large angle MSW oscillations are possible, while the $`SU(5)`$ GUT (and also $`SO(10)`$) predicts the large angle MSW solution. If the anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry is also a mediator of SUSY breaking, then the solar neutrino vacuum oscillations are excluded and the large angle MSW solution is responsible for the solar neutrino deficit. Finally, the $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry also nicely explains the hierarchies between the charged fermion masses and the magnitudes of the CKM matrix elements.

This work was supported in part by the DOE under Grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40626.


text:
# Jupiter’s hydrocarbons observed with ISO-SWS: vertical profiles of C₂H₆ and C₂H₂, detection of CH₃C₂H

## 1 Introduction

Hydrocarbons in Jupiter are produced in a series of chemical pathways initiated by the photolysis of methane in the upper stratosphere. Vertical transport, mainly turbulent diffusion, redistributes the molecules throughout the stratosphere and down to the troposphere, where they are eventually destroyed. Hydrocarbons, and particularly the most stable of them, are therefore good tracers of the upper atmospheric dynamics. In addition, as they strongly contribute to the atmospheric opacity in the UV and IR, hydrocarbons act as major sources and sinks of heat, thereby participating to the stratospheric dynamics.

All these reasons have strongly motivated theoretical studies of the jovian stratospheric photochemistry (Strobel Strobel69 (1969); Yung & Strobel Yung80 (1980); and most recently Gladstone et al. Gladstone96 (1996)). Although nowadays very detailed, these models still need to be constrained by observations of minor species. However, prior to the ISO mission, only two molecules, acetylene ($`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$) and ethane ($`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$), had been detected, except in the auroral zones where several other minor species ($`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_4`$, $`\mathrm{C}_3\mathrm{H}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{C}_6\mathrm{H}_6`$) have been observed (Kim et al. Kim85 (1985)). Mean stratospheric mole fractions have been inferred for $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ by various authors, but no precise information on their vertical variations was made available. In this paper, we analyse the ISO-SWS spectrum of Jupiter between 7 and 17 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, in order to determine the vertical distributions of $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$, and to search for more complex (C3 and C4) molecules. Sect. 2 presents the observations. Our analysis of the spectrum is presented in Sect. 3. The results are compared with previous observations and theoretical predictions in Sect. 4.

## 2 Observations

Descriptions of the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) and of the Short Wavelength Spectrometer (SWS) can be found respectively in Kessler et al. (Kessler96 (1996)) and de Graauw et al. (deGraauw96 (1996)). A preliminary analysis of the Jupiter SWS spectrum can be found in Encrenaz et al. (Encrenaz96 (1996)). New ISO-SWS grating observations of Jupiter were obtained on May 23, 1997 UT using the AOT 01 observing mode. These observations have an average spectral resolution of 1500, and range from 2.4 to 45 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. However, the useful range is limited to 2.4–17 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, due to partial saturation at longer wavelengths. The instrument aperture, $`14\times 20`$ arcsec2 at $`\lambda <12.5`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and $`14\times 27`$ arcsec2 at $`\lambda >12.5`$ $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, was centered on the planet with the long axis aligned perpendicular to the ecliptic, thus roughly parallel to the N-S polar axis. It covered latitudes between 30S and 30N, and $`\pm 20^{}`$ longitude range from the central meridian. The absolute flux accuracy is $`20\%`$.

Instrumental fringing generates a spurious signal between 12.5 and 17 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, which amounts to $``$10% of the continuum level. This parasitic signal was for the most part removed by fitting the detector relative response function to the observed spectrum and then dividing it out. Residual fringes were further removed by selective frequency filtering.

## 3 Analysis

We analysed the ISO-SWS spectrum using a standard line-by-line radiative transfer code adapted to Jupiter’s conditions. We included the molecular absorptions by $`\mathrm{NH}_3`$, $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$, $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$, $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$, and $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ using the spectroscopic parameters of the GEISA97 databank (Jacquinet-Husson et al. Husson99 (1999)). We also considered $`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$ absorption, using a linelist provided by E. Arié (private communication) and band intensities from Koops et al. (Koops84 (1984)). Spectroscopic parameters for the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ S(1) line were calculated using molecular constants from Jennings et al. (Jennings87 (1987)) and Reuter & Sirota (Reuter94 (1994)). The H2-He collision-induced continuum was calculated following the work of Borysow et al. (Borysow85 (1985), Borysow88 (1988)). The $`\mathrm{NH}_3`$ vertical distribution was taken from Fouchet et al. (Fouchet99 (2000)).

### 3.1 Temperature profile

We first calculated synthetic spectra in the region of the $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ $`\nu _4`$ band. For $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$, we used a deep mixing ratio of $`2.1\times 10^3`$ (Niemann et al. Niemann98 (1998)) and the vertical profile derived by Drossart et al. (Drossart99 (1999)) from the $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ fluorescence emission at 3.3 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. The $`\nu _4`$ band allows one to retrieve 4 independent points on the temperature profile between 35 and 1 mbar. We also generated synthetic spectra of the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ S(1) rotational line at 17 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. This line probes a broad atmospheric layer at 3–30 mbar. The ortho-to-para ratio of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ was assumed to follow local thermodynamical equilibrium. The stratospheric temperature profile was adjusted in order to best match the absolute emission in the $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ band, and the line-to-continuum ratio of the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ S(1) line.

In practice, starting with the temperature profile measured in-situ by the Galileo Probe (Seiff et al. Seiff98 (1998)), it was necessary to cool it by 2 K between 30 and 5 mbar. At pressures lower than 5 mbar, the initial profile was warmed by 4 K up to $`165`$ K. The $`\nu _4`$ band is also somewhat sensitive to the temperature around the 10-$`\mu `$bar pressure level. We found that the temperature remains constant within a few degrees between 1 mbar and 1 $`\mu `$bar, as already observed by Seiff et al. (Seiff98 (1998)). At pressures lower than 1 $`\mu `$bar, we adopted the measurements of Seiff et al. (Seiff98 (1998)), vertically smoothed in order to remove oscillations due to gravity waves, noting that our measurements are essentially insensitive to this pressure range. The fit to the $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ emissions is presented in Fig. 1.

The 20% uncertainty on the absolute flux calibration directly results in an uncertainty of $`\pm 2`$K on the temperature profile inferred from the $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ emission. This uncertainty partly explains the minor disagreement between the modelled and observed $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ line. Indeed, our model, while giving an optimum fit to the $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ emission, slightly (5–10%) overpredicts the observed line-to-continuum ratio of the S(1) line. We also note that the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ ortho-to-para ratio could differ from the thermal equilibrium value, as observed in the troposphere by Conrath et al. (Conrath98 (1998)). For example, a synthetic spectrum calculated with a constant para fraction of 0.34, corresponding to the thermal equilibrium value at 115 K, would fully reconcile the $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ measurements.

### 3.2 Acetylene

The ISO-SWS observations in the vicinity of the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ emission at 13.7 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ were compared with synthetic spectra obtained with three distinct $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ vertical distributions (Fig. 2). All three profiles reproduce the emissions due to the P-,Q-, and R-branches of the main $`\nu _5`$ $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ band (Fig. 3). However, only one profile (Fig. 2, solid line) fits the observed spectrum in the Q-branches of the $`\nu _4+\nu _5\nu _4`$ band at 13.68 and 13.96 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Indeed, while the $`\nu _5`$ band probes atmospheric levels between 2 and 5 mbar, the hot band sounds warmer, higher levels around 0.3 mbar, allowing us to determine the slope of the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ profile between these two regions.

Error bars on the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ mixing ratio were estimated by taking into account instrumental noise and the uncertainty in the relative strengths of the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ lines. The resulting mixing ratios are $`q=(8.9_{0.6}^{+1.1})\times 10^7`$ at 0.3 mbar and $`q=(1.1_{0.1}^{+0.2})\times 10^7`$ at 4 mbar, giving a slope $`d\mathrm{ln}q/d\mathrm{ln}P=0.8\pm 0.1`$. The error on the temperature profile ($`\pm 2`$K) introduces an additional uncertainty on the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ mixing ratios of about 20%. This error, however, essentially equally applies to all pressure levels, and thus leaves the retrieved $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ profile slope mostly unaffected.

### 3.3 Ethane

Similarly to $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$, we compare in Fig. 4 the ISO-SWS spectrum in the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ $`\nu _9`$ band with synthetic spectra calculated with three distinct $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ vertical profiles (Fig. 2). Each of the profiles was designed to reproduce the observed emission in the $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{R}}\mathrm{Q}_{0}^{}`$ multiplet at 12.16 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, which probes the 1-mbar pressure level. The rest of the $`\nu _9`$ band consists of weaker multiplets, which sound deeper levels extending from 1 to 10 mbar. This combination of strong and weak multiplets makes this band sensitive to the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ vertical distribution. In addition, the pseudo-continuum level in between the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ emissions is also sensitive to the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ abundance in the lower stratosphere.

Our best-fit model (Fig. 2, solid line) has a slope $`d\mathrm{ln}q/d\mathrm{ln}P=0.6`$, but the steep-slope model (Fig. 2, dotted line) is also marginally compatible with the observations. This results in a relatively large uncertainty on the slope determination: $`q=(1.0\pm 0.2)\times 10^5`$ at 1 mbar, and $`q=(2.6_{0.6}^{+0.5})\times 10^6`$ at 10 mbar, giving $`d\mathrm{ln}q/d\mathrm{ln}P=0.6\pm 0.2`$. An additional error of 25% on $`q`$ comes from the uncertainty on the temperature. Again, it should not affect the retrieved slope.

### 3.4 Methylacetylene and diacetylene

The ISO-SWS spectrum exhibits a broad emission near 15.8 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, which coincides with the $`\nu _9`$ band of $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ (Fig. 5). Since the $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ lines are optically thin, no information on the vertical profile can be derived. Using a vertical profile similar to that calculated by Gladstone et al. (Gladstone96 (1996)), we found a column density of $`(1.5\pm 0.4)\times 10^{15}`$ molecule cm-2. The synthetic spectrum exhibits small-scale structures which are not seen in the observations. This mismatch is propably due to an imperfect data reduction. Indeed, the respective frequencies of the fringes and of the $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ features lie close to each other. It is therefore very difficult to fully remove the former without altering the latter. On the contrary, the broad emission is a low frequency signal and is therefore left unaffected by the frequency filtering. This explanation is admittedly not entirely satisfactory, but given the wavelength match of the emission with the $`\nu _9`$ mode of $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$, and in the absence of any other plausible candidates, we regard the detection of methylacetylene as unambiguous.

The $`\nu _8`$ band of $`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$ is not detected at 15.92 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. We inferred an upper limit of the $`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$ column density of $`7\times 10^{13}`$ molecule cm-2, using the Gladstone et al. (Gladstone96 (1996)) profile.

## 4 Discussion

Bézard et al. (Bezard95 (1995)) first showed from 13.4-$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ high-resolution spectroscopy that the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ mixing ratio increases with height in the stratosphere, and that most of the acetylene is concentrated above the $``$0.5-mbar level. Their distribution has a mixing ratio of about $`7\times 10^7`$ at 0.3 mbar, in reasonable agreement with our results. More recently, Bétremieux & Yelle (Betremieux99 (1999)), using UV observations, found an average $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ mixing ratio in the 20–60 mbar range of $`1.5\times 10^8`$, consistent with our value of $`1.9\times 10^8`$, extrapolated to this pressure range. Using height-dependent mixing ratio profiles to analyse high-resolution infrared observations, Sada et al. (Sada98 (1998)) derived mixing ratios of $`3.9_{1.3}^{+1.9}\times 10^6`$ for $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ at 5 mbar and $`2.3\pm 0.5\times 10^8`$ for $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ at 8 mbar. While the former value exactly agrees with our results, the latter is almost 3 times less than that extrapolated downwards from our $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ profile. Also from infrared observations, Noll et al. (Noll86 (1986)), using a slope of $`d\mathrm{ln}q/d\mathrm{ln}P=0.3`$, found a $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ mixing ratio of $`7.5\times 10^6`$ at 1 mbar, which compares reasonably well with our measurement at the same pressure level.

We also compared our retrieved mixing ratios with those calculated in the photochemical model of Gladstone et al. (Gladstone96 (1996)). For $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$, our results are in excellent agreement with their model both at 1 and 10 mbar (Fig. 2). For $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$, while the agreement is good at 4 mbar, their mixing ratio at 0.3 mbar is higher than ours by a factor of 4. Our $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ slope is then significantly lower than theirs ($`d\mathrm{ln}q/d\mathrm{ln}P=0.8\pm 0.1`$ vs. $`d\mathrm{ln}q/d\mathrm{ln}P=1.2`$). Note that our derived $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ slope is still steeper than that of $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ ($`d\mathrm{ln}q/d\mathrm{ln}P=0.6\pm 0.2`$), as expected. Indeed, $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$, being less subject to photolysis, has a longer lifetime in the jovian stratosphere than $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ (Gladstone et al. Gladstone96 (1996), their Fig. 6).

Hydrocarbons are formed from the photolysis of $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ around the homopause. Small-scale turbulence, parameterized in a photochemical model by the eddy diffusion coefficient ($`K`$), transports them downwards in the stratosphere. This process is approximately modelled for long-lived products by the equation $`K(z)n(z)\mathrm{d}q/\mathrm{d}z=P(z)`$, where $`n(z)`$ is the number density at altitude $`z`$ and $`P(z)`$ the vertically integrated net production rate above altitude $`z`$. A first hypothesis would attribute the difference between the observed and calculated $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ abundances to an overestimation of the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ production rate $`P(z)`$ in the Gladstone et al. model. Our two abundance measurements at 4 and 0.3 mbar allow us to calculate the mean $`\mathrm{d}q/\mathrm{d}z`$ over this pressure range. Comparing with the value of $`\mathrm{d}q/\mathrm{d}z`$ predicted by Gladstone et al. at 1 mbar, we found that $`P(z)`$ should be decreased by a factor of $``$3.

A second explanation would be that Gladstone et al. underestimated the eddy diffusion coefficient $`K`$ by a factor of $``$3 around 1 mbar. This underestimation at 1 mbar should also apply to the level and eddy diffusion coefficient ($`K_H`$) at the homopause. However, it is difficult to directly quantify the changes on the homopause parameters, because of the strong coupling between production rates and homopause level. Simply, we note that our analysis could imply an increase in $`K_H`$. It is consistent with Drossart et al. (Drossart99 (1999)), who, analysing $`\mathrm{CH}_4`$ fluorescence, found $`K_H=(7\pm 1)\times 10^6`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, higher than the value of 1.4$`\times 10^6`$ assumed in the Gladstone et al. model. In this case, the agreement on the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ slope would also imply that the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ production rate has been underestimated by Gladstone et al. (Gladstone96 (1996)). In fact, the most direct conclusion of our measurements is that Gladstone et al. have overestimated the $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$/$`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_6`$ production rate ratio.

The ISO-SWS spectrum enables the first detection of $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ in the equatorial region of Jupiter. We retrieved a column density of $`(1.5\pm 0.4)\times 10^{15}`$ molecule cm-2. Kim et al. (Kim85 (1985)) had previously detected $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ in the north polar auroral zone of Jupiter, and had retrieved a column density of $`(2.8_{1.1}^{+2.4})\times 10^{16}`$ molecule cm-2. At least a large part of the difference is explained by different modelling assumptions. Kim et al. (Kim85 (1985)) assumed a uniform vertical distribution throughout the stratosphere and used a temperature profile for the auroral region which is now known to be incorrect (Drossart et al. Drossart93 (1993)). For $`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$, we found only an upper limit of $`7\times 10^{13}`$ molecule cm-2, 65 times lower than the stratospheric column density predicted by Gladstone et al. (4.5$`\times `$1015 molecule cm-2). This is consistent with their overestimate of $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$ production, since the production of $`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$ is essentially quadratically dependent on the abundance of $`\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_2`$. As our $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ column density is 3.5 times larger than calculated by Gladstone et al., we derived a $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$/$`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$ ratio larger than 20, while they found a ratio of $`2`$. This discrepancy is all the more remarkable as, in the case of Saturn, where both $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$ are detected (de Graauw et al. deGraauw97 (1997)), the photochemical model of Moses et al. (Moses99 (2000)) gives, as observed, a $`\mathrm{CH}_3\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}`$/$`\mathrm{C}_4\mathrm{H}_2`$ ratio of about 10. This stresses that the C3 and C4 chemistry in Jupiter should be reassessed with a complete photochemical model of the jovian stratosphere.

###### Acknowledgements.

This study is based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the principal investigators countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), and with participation of ISAS and NASA.


text:
# Interplanetary Network Localization of GRB991208 and the Discovery of its Afterglow

## 1 Introduction

Many gamma-ray burst counterparts have now been identified using the rapid, precise localizations available from the BeppoSAX spacecraft , as well as from the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer , starting with GRB970228 (Costa et al. 1997; van Paradijs et al. 1997). Such detections occur at a low rate ($`8y^1`$), and they have been limited to the long–duration events so far, but they have confirmed the cosmological origin of at least this class of bursts. Since 1977, interplanetary networks of omnidirectional GRB detectors have provided precise triangulations of both short and long bursts at rates up to $``$ 1/week, but often the networks have been incomplete, or the data return from the interplanetary spacecraft has been slow. The present, 3rd IPN is now complete with Ulysses and NEAR as its distant points (Cline et al. 1999) and, in conjunction with numerous near-Earth spacecraft, can produce precise GRB error boxes within $``$ 1 d, making them useful for multi-wavelength follow-up observations. Here we present the observations of GRB991208, which was rapidly localized to a small error box, leading to the identification of its radio and optical afterglow, and eventually to the measurement of its redshift.

## 2 IPN Observations

GRB 991208 was observed by the Ulysses GRB (Hurley et al. 1992), KONUS-Wind (Aptekar et al. 1995), and NEAR X-ray/Gamma-ray Spectrometer (XGRS: Goldsten et al. 1997) experiments. Ulysses , in heliocentric orbit, NEAR, approaching rendezvous with the asteroid Eros, and Wind , were 2176, 937, and 1.5 light-seconds from Earth, respectively.

We focus here on the Ulysses and NEAR data; KONUS data will be presented elsewhere. The Ulysses and XGRS light curves are shown in figure 1. Although Ulysses recorded the first 57 s of the burst with 0.03125 s resolution in the triggered mode, the peak of the event occurred slightly later, and we have shown the 0.5 s resolution real-time data in the figure. The XGRS BGO anticoincidence shield is employed as the NEAR burst monitor, and the only time history data available from it are 1 s resolution count rates for the 100 - 1000 keV energy range. The burst can be characterized by a T90 duration of 68 s, placing it firmly in the “long” class of bursts (Hurley 1992; Kouveliotou et al. 1993). The event-integrated Ulysses spectrum is well fit between 25 and 150 keV by a power law, thermal bremsstrahlung, or blackbody spectrum. For the following analysis, we adopt the power law, which has a photon index 1.68 $`\pm `$ 0.19, and a $`\chi ^2`$ of 4.3 for 11 degrees of freedom (figure 2). The 25 - 100 keV fluence is $`4.9\times 10^5\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, with an uncertainty of $`\pm 10\%`$ due to count rate statistics and systematics. Since the XGRS shield provides only very low resolution (40 minutes) spectral data, we can only estimate the fluence in the XGRS energy range from its light curve to be about the equivalent of that observed by Ulysses . Thus the total fluence above 25 keV is $`10^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Bursts with this intensity or greater occur at a rate $`10\mathrm{y}^1`$. Since the peak of the event occurs when only the 0.5 s Ulysses data are available, we can estimate the peak flux only over this time interval; it is $`5.1\times 10^6\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, 25 - 100 keV ($`\pm 10\%`$), with a contribution in the 100 - 1000 keV energy range which is again probably equivalent.

A preliminary $``$ 14 sq. arcmin. IPN error box was circulated $``$ 44 h after the earth-crossing time of the event (04:36:53 UT: Hurley et al. 1999). The final error box is shown in figure 3, and nests within the preliminary one; it has an area of $``$ 1.3 sq. arcmin. Its coordinates are given in Table 1. Also shown in figure 3 is the position of the radio counterpart to the burst detected by Frail (1999). We note that this is the first time that a GRB position determined by the 3rd IPN alone (i.e., no Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory BATSE or BeppoSAX observations) has been successfully used for multiwavelength counterpart searches.

## 3 Observations with NRAO Very Large Array

Very Large Array (VLA)111The NRAO is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. observations were begun on 1999 December 10.92 UT, 2.73 days after the gamma-ray burst. In order to image the entire 14 sq. arcmin. initial IPN error box (Hurley et al. 1999) with the VLA at 8.46 GHz two pointings were required, each with a field-of-view at half power response of 5.3′. The full 100 MHz bandwidth was used in two adjacent 50-MHz bands centered at 8.46 GHz. A single pointing was also made at 4.86 GHz, but the bandwidth was halved in order to image the full 9′ field-of-view without distortion. The flux density scale was tied to the extragalactic sources 3C 48 (J0137+331), while the array phase was monitored by switching between the GRB and the phase calibrators J1637+462 (at 8.46 GHz) and J1658+476 (at 4.86 GHz).

There were three radio sources inside the initial IPN error box (figure 3). Of these, two were previously known from an earlier survey of this part of the sky (Becker, White & Helfand 1995). The third source, located at located at (epoch J2000) $`\alpha `$ = $`16^h33^m53.50^s`$ ($`\pm 0.01^s`$) $`\delta `$ = $`+46^{}27^{}20.9^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`\pm 0.1^{\prime \prime }`$) was near the center of the initial IPN error box. On the basis of its position, compactness ($`<0.8^{\prime \prime }`$), and a rising flux density between 4.86 GHz and 8.46 GHz (327 $`\pm `$ 45 $`\mu `$J and 707 $`\pm `$ 39 $`\mu `$J respectively) , Frail (1999) proposed that it was the afterglow of GRB 991208. Despite the proximity of this location to the Sun ($`70\mathrm{°}`$), numerous optical observations were carried out, and this suggestion was quickly confirmed by the independent detection of a coincident optical source, not visible on the Digital Sky Survey (Castro-Tirado et al. 1999).

In the week following the afterglow discovery, it was determined that the optical flux faded as a power-law with a rather steep temporal decay index $`\alpha 2.15`$ (where $`F_\nu t^\alpha `$) (Jensen et al. 1999; Garnavich and Noriega-Crespo 1999; Masetti et al. 1999). Optical spectroscopy emission lines from a presumed host galaxy, if identified with \[OII\] and \[OIII\] features, place GRB 991208 at a redshift $`z=0.707\pm 0.002`$ (Dodonov et al 1999), making this the third closest GRB with a spectroscopically-measured redshift. GRB 991208 has been no less interesting at radio wavelengths. It has the brightest radio afterglow detected to date and consequently it has been detected and is well-studied between 1 GHz and 350 GHz (Pooley 1999; Shepherd et al. 1999; Bremer et al. 1999).

## 4 Discussion

For a 25 – 1000 keV fluence of $`10^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and a redshift z=0.707, the isotropic energy of this burst would have been $`1.3\times 10^{53}\mathrm{erg}`$; for a peak flux of $`10^5\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the same energy range, the isotropic peak luminosity would have been $`1.3\times 10^{52}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. These estimates assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.2,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,\mathrm{and}\mathrm{H}_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. Rhoads (1997) has pointed out that one signature of beaming is a steep decay in the afterglow light curve, $`t^2`$. As the initial optical light curve for GRB991208 indeed appears to decay this steeply, the emission may well be beamed, reducing these estimates.

The current IPN now consists of Ulysses and NEAR in interplanetary space, and numerous near-Earth spacecraft such as Wind , BeppoSAX , and the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory . The Mars Surveyor 2001 Orbiter will join the network in mid-2001. The IPN currently observes $``$ 1 – 2 GRBs per week and is localizing many of them rapidly to small error boxes. These events tend to be the brighter ones, but apart from this, there is no bias towards any particular event duration; indeed, the IPN generally obtains its smallest error boxes for the short bursts. Neither is there any sun-angle restriction for the event locations, which means that bursts will be detected whose locations are close to the Sun, as this one was, making prompt radio observations of these positions important. The other advantages of radio observations over optical are the longer lifetime of the radio afterglow, the immunity from weather, and the freedom to operate at any part of the diurnal cycle. This should increase the rate of counterpart detections substantially over the next several years.

KH acknowledges support for Ulysses operations under JPL Contract 958056, for IPN operations under NASA LTSA grant NAG5-3500, and for NEAR operations under the NEAR Participating Scientist program. On the Russian side, this work was partially supported by RFBR grant # 99-02-17031. We are grateful to R. Gold and R. McNutt for their assistance with the NEAR spacecraft. RS is supported by NASA grant NCC5-380. We are indebted to T. Sheets for her excellent work on NEAR data reduction. Special thanks also go to the NEAR project office for its support of post-launch changes to XGRS software that made these measurements possible. In particular, we are grateful to John R. Hayes and Susan E. Schneider for writing the GRB software for the XGRS instrument and to Stanley B. Cooper and David S. Tillman for making it possible to get accurate universal time for the NEAR GRB detections.


text:
# Preparation information and optimal decompositions for mixed quantum states

## 1 Introduction

It is a distinctive feature of quantum mechanics that more information is required to prepare an ensemble of nonorthogonal quantum states than can be recovered from the ensemble by measurements. Whereas the von Neumann entropy of the density operator of the ensemble is bounded above by the logarithm of the dimension of Hilbert space, $`\mathrm{log}D`$, the preparation information for a uniform ensemble of pure states is of the same order as $`D`$ .

An ensemble of quantum states is defined by a list of states together with their probabilities, $`\{\widehat{\rho }_r,p_r\}`$. An ensemble can also be regarded as a decomposition of the average density operator, $`\widehat{\rho }=p_r\widehat{\rho }_r`$. Ensembles of quantum states of a system $`𝒮`$ arise in a natural way from the correlations of $`𝒮`$ with an environment $``$. Given the total state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}`$ of the joint system $`𝒮`$, any generalized measurement or POVM  on $``$ induces an ensemble on $`𝒮`$. In this paper, we give a precise definition of the preparation information of a state in the ensemble induced by $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}`$ and an environment POVM.

The concept of preparation information leads naturally to a definition of optimal ensembles or, equivalently, optimal density-operator decompositions. The average preparation information of a state in an optimal ensemble is then a property of $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}`$ alone (given the split of the total Hilbert space into $`𝒮`$ and $``$). The average preparation information characterizes the system-environment correlations by the information about the environment needed to obtain a given amount of information about the system.

Optimal decompositions in the sense defined here have been used for the investigation of optimal quantum trajectories in quantum optics . Quantum trajectories are defined as follows. In a typical quantum-optical experiment, the system consists of selected atoms and field modes inside an optical cavity, whereas the environment consists of the continuum of modes outside the cavity. The time evolution of the cavity state conditional on the results of, e.g., homodyne measurements outside the cavity defines a quantum trajectory . For an alternative concept of optimality see Ref. .

The average preparation information for an optimal ensemble has been proposed as a measure of quantum chaos . When a chaotic system interacts with its environment, one loses the ability to predict its time evolution. The preparation information quantifies the amount of information needed about the environment to keep the ability to predict the system state to a given accuracy. In conjunction with Landauer’s principle , this places a fundamental lower limit on the free-energy cost of predicting the time evolution of a dynamical system .

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 defines the concepts of preparation information and optimal ensembles, and derives some basic properties. In Sec. 3, we illustrate the theory through several examples. Some mathematical details are deferred to Sec. 4.

## 2 Preparation information and optimal ensembles

Let $`D`$ and $`D_{}`$ denote the Hilbert-space dimensions of the system $`𝒮`$ and the environment $``$, respectively. We will normally assume that $`D_{}D`$. Now consider a joint state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}`$ on $`𝒮`$. The state of the system alone, $`\widehat{\rho }`$, is then obtained by tracing out the environment,

$$\widehat{\rho }=\mathrm{tr}_{}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}).$$
(1)
The von Neumann entropy of the system is

$$H=\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{\rho }\mathrm{log}\widehat{\rho }),$$
(2)
where here and throughout this paper, $`\mathrm{log}`$ denotes the base-2 logarithm. We now perform an arbitrary measurement on the environment , described by a POVM, $`\{\widehat{E}_r\}`$, where the $`\widehat{E}_r`$ are positive environment operators such that

$$\underset{r}{}\widehat{E}_r=\text{1}\text{l}_{}=\text{(environment unit operator).}$$
(3)
The probability of obtaining result $`r`$ is given by

$$p_r=\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}\widehat{E}_r),$$
(4)
and the system state after a measurement that yields result $`r`$ is

$$\widehat{\rho }_r=\frac{\mathrm{tr}_{}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}\widehat{E}_r)}{p_r}.$$
(5)
By summing over $`r`$ and using the completeness of the POVM, we obtain

$$\underset{r}{}p_r\widehat{\rho }_r=\mathrm{tr}_{}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}})=\widehat{\rho }.$$
(6)
The ensemble $`\{\widehat{\rho }_r,p_r\}`$ forms a decomposition of $`\widehat{\rho }`$. To characterize the ensemble, we define the system entropy conditional on measurement outcome $`r`$,

$$H_r=\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{\rho }_r\mathrm{log}\widehat{\rho }_r),$$
(7)
the average conditional entropy,

$$\overline{H}=\underset{r}{}p_rH_r,$$
(8)
and the average entropy decrease due to the measurement, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}=H\overline{H}`$. These quantities obey the double inequality

$$0\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}H,$$
(9)
which follows from the concavity of the von Neumann entropy . The content of the first of these inequalities is that a measurement on the environment will not, on the average, increase the system entropy.

Now let $`\{\widehat{\rho }_r,p_r\}`$ be the ensemble induced by the POVM $`\{\widehat{E}_r\}`$. We denote by $`I(\widehat{\rho }_k|\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}},\{\widehat{E}_r\})`$ the conditional algorithmic information to specify $`\widehat{\rho }_k`$, given the ensemble (see  and references in ). The quantity $`I(\widehat{\rho }_k|\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}},\{\widehat{E}_r\})`$ defines the preparation information of the state $`\widehat{\rho }_k`$, given the total state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}`$ and the POVM. We also define the average preparation information

$$\overline{I}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}},\{\widehat{E}_r\})=\underset{r}{}p_r\mathrm{log}p_r.$$
(10)
This definition is justified, because the average algorithmic information can be bounded above and below as follows:

$$\underset{r}{}p_r\mathrm{log}p_r\underset{k}{}p_kI(\widehat{\rho }_k|\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}},\{\widehat{E}_r\})\underset{r}{}p_r\mathrm{log}p_r+1.$$
(11)
The average preparation information is never smaller than the average system entropy decrease $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$,

$$\overline{I}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}},\{\widehat{E}_r\})\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}.$$
(12)
This inequality is a consequence of a general theorem about average density operators .

The next step is to define a $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$-decomposition of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ as a decomposition for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, and an optimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$-decomposition of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$-decomposition with minimal average preparation information $`\overline{I}`$. The average preparation information for an optimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$-decomposition,

$$\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }H\mathrm{decompositions}}{inf}\overline{I},$$
(13)
is then a property of $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}`$, and characterizes the system-environment correlations. (If there is no $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ decomposition for which $`\overline{I}`$ is minimal, we will call any decomposition optimal for which $`\overline{I}<\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}+ϵ`$ for some given small constant $`ϵ`$.) The quantity $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the information about the environment needed to reduce the system entropy by $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$. A useful generalization results from taking the infimum in Eq. (13) over a restricted class of POVMs, as in the quantum-optical example of Ref. . This defines ensembles that are optimal with respect to a given class of environment measurements.

## 3 Examples

In this section, $`\{\widehat{P}_k^{},k=1,\mathrm{},D_{}\}`$ denotes a complete set of orthogonal environment projectors. In the three examples discussed below, we will restrict the class of environment measurements to orthogonal projections of the form

$$\widehat{E}_r=\underset{kK_r}{}\widehat{P}_k^{},$$
(14)
where $`K_r\{1,\mathrm{},D_{}\}`$. In all three examples, it seems intuitively clear that ensembles which are optimal with respect to this class of measurements are also, to a good approximation, optimal with respect to the class of all possible environment measurements. We have not, however, been able to prove this statement rigorously.

### 3.1 A trivial example

Here, the system is a qubit, for which the dimension of Hilbert space is $`D=2`$. Let $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ be orthogonal basis states for the qubit, define $`|\psi _1=|0`$, $`|\psi _2=|1`$, $`|\psi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1)`$ and $`|\psi _4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1)`$, and let

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\widehat{P}_k^{}$$
(15)
be the joint density operator of system and environment. The state of the system alone is then given by

$$\widehat{\rho }=\mathrm{tr}_{}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}})=\frac{1}{2}(|00|+|11|),$$
(16)
for which the system entropy in the absence of measurements is given by $`H=1`$.

Suppose we want to reduce the system entropy by $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=1`$bit, i.e., we want the conditional system state to be pure. The only environment measurement achieving this is given by $`\widehat{E}_r=\widehat{P}_r^{}`$, which results in the unique and therefore optimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=1`$ ensemble given by $`\widehat{\rho }_r=|\psi _r\psi _r|`$, $`p_r=1/4`$. The average preparation information for this ensemble is $`\overline{I}=2`$bits, and hence $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}=2`$bits.

For a different value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, consider the ensemble defined by $`\widehat{\rho }_1=\frac{1}{2}(|\psi _1\psi _1|+|\psi _3\psi _3|)`$, $`\widehat{\rho }_2=\frac{1}{2}(|\psi _2\psi _2|+|\psi _4\psi _4|)`$, $`p_1=p_2=1/2`$, which is induced by the POVM $`\widehat{E}_1=\widehat{P}_1^{}+\widehat{P}_3^{}`$ and $`\widehat{E}_2=\widehat{P}_2^{}+\widehat{P}_4^{}`$. For this ensemble, $`H_1=H_2=\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{\rho }_1\mathrm{log}\widehat{\rho }_1)0.81`$, and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}=HH_10.19`$. The average preparation information is $`\overline{I}=1`$. It is easy to see that, with respect to our restricted class of measurements, this is an optimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$-decomposition, and hence $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}=1`$. In this example, to obtain 0.19 bits of information about the system, 1 bit of information about the environment is needed.

### 3.2 Random vectors in Hilbert space

In the trivial example considered above, the average preparation information $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ for an optimal ensemble is significantly larger than the corresponding entropy reduction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$. In the present subsection, we show that $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ can vastly exceed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$.

Assume that $`\mathrm{log}D_{}\mathrm{log}D`$ and consider

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}=\frac{1}{D_{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{D_{}}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\widehat{P}_k^{},$$
(17)
where the $`|\psi _k`$ are distributed randomly in $`D`$-dimensional (projective) Hilbert space . Here, the system entropy in the absence of measurements is $`H\mathrm{log}D`$. It has been conjectured  that states of a similar form arise from the interaction of a chaotic system with a random environment. We will see that the complexity of the resulting system-environment correlations, as quantified by the average preparation information, is very large. This is in marked contrast to the third example discussed below.

Environment measurements of the form (14) correspond to grouping the vectors $`|\psi _k`$ into disjoint groups. We construct an approximation to an optimal measurement by grouping the vectors into Hilbert-space spheres of radius $`\varphi `$. (See Ref.  for a detailed argument.) We assume that $`D_{}`$ is sufficiently large so that the state vectors in each such sphere fill it randomly. Since all spheres are chosen to be of equal size, the average entropy $`\overline{H}`$ is equal to the entropy of one sphere, i.e., the entropy of a uniform mixture of states within a Hilbert-space sphere of radius $`\varphi `$, given by

$$\overline{H}=\left(1\frac{D1}{D}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \right)\mathrm{log}\left(1\frac{D1}{D}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \right)\frac{D1}{D}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{D}\right).$$
(18)
The volume contained within a sphere of radius $`\varphi `$ in Hilbert space is $`(\mathrm{sin}\varphi )^{2(D1)}V_D`$, where $`V_D`$ is the total volume of projective Hilbert space . The number of spheres of radius $`\varphi `$ in $`D`$-dimensional Hilbert space is thus $`(\mathrm{sin}\varphi )^{2(D1)}`$, so the information needed to specify a particular sphere is

$$\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{log}\left((\mathrm{sin}\varphi )^{2(D1)}\right)=(D1)\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ).$$
(19)
The information $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ slightly underestimates the actual value of $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$, because the perfect grouping into nonoverlapping spheres of the same size assumed by Eq. (19) does not exist.

As an example, let us choose a Hilbert-space dimension $`D=101`$ and a radius of $`\varphi 1.025`$. Equations (18,19) then give $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}=\mathrm{log}D\overline{H}1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}45.3`$, which means that here, to obtain 1 bit of information about the system, more than 45 bits of information about the environment are needed.

Using Eq. (19) to eliminate $`\varphi `$ from Eq. (18) gives a complicated expression for $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$ , which is a good approximation to the average preparation information for an optimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$ ensemble. Figure 1 shows this function for a Hilbert space dimension $`D=101`$. To obtain more insight into the properties of this curve, we consider the derivative

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}}{d\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}}=\frac{D}{\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \mathrm{ln}(1+D\mathrm{cot}^2\varphi )},$$
(20)
which is the marginal tradeoff between between information and entropy. For $`\varphi `$ near $`\pi /2`$, so that $`ϵ=\pi /2\varphi 1`$, the information becomes $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}=(D1)ϵ^2/\mathrm{ln}2`$, and the derivative (20) can be written as

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}}{d\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}}\frac{D}{\mathrm{ln}(1+Dϵ^2)},$$
(21)
which is proportional to $`D`$ with a slowly varying logarithmic correction. We have thus identified a situation where the average preparation information is of the same order as the dimension of Hilbert space $`D`$, despite the fact that the von Neumann entropy of a state cannot exceed $`\mathrm{log}D`$.

### 3.3 Random coherent states

In this example the system considered is a spin-$`j`$ particle, for which the dimension of Hilbert space is $`D=2j+1`$. As in the preceding section, we assume that the Hilbert-space dimension of the environment is much larger than $`D`$, $`D_{}D`$, and consider

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}=\frac{1}{D_{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{D_{}}{}}|\psi _k\psi _k|\widehat{P}_k^{},$$
(22)
but now we choose the $`|\psi _k`$ to be distributed randomly on the submanifold of angular-momentum coherent states (24). We will see that the resulting complexity of the system-environment correlations, as quantified by the average preparation information, is small.

The angular momentum coherent state $`|\theta ,\varphi `$ can be defined by rotating the $`\widehat{J}_z`$ eigenstate $`|j;j`$ through Euler angles $`\varphi `$ around the $`z`$-axis, and then by $`\theta `$ around the new $`y`$-axis. This gives

$$|\theta ,\varphi =\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|j;m\left(\begin{array}{c}2j\\ j+m\end{array}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^{j+m}(\theta /2)\mathrm{sin}^{jm}(\theta /2)e^{im\varphi }.$$
(23)
Each coherent states corresponds to a point on the surface of a three-dimensional sphere. Assuming that $`D_{}`$ is sufficiently large the state of the system alone is

$$\widehat{\rho }=\mathrm{tr}_{}(\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}})=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^{2\pi }_0^\pi |\theta ,\varphi \theta ,\varphi |\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi .$$
(24)
As in the previous section, environment measurements of the form (14) correspond to grouping the vectors $`|\psi _k`$ into disjoint groups. Approximately optimal measurements correspond to grouping the vectors into approximately equal, compact areas on the surface of the sphere. We choose the areas to be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })=\{\theta ,\varphi :\mathrm{arccos}[\underset{¯}{n}(\theta ,\varphi )\underset{¯}{n}(\theta _r,\varphi _r)]\mathrm{\Theta }\}$$
(25)
centered at points $`(\theta _r,\varphi _r)`$. The corresponding density operators

$$\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{_{\mathrm{\Omega }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })}|\theta ,\varphi \theta ,\varphi |\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi }{_{\mathrm{\Omega }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi },$$
(26)
can be used to construct a nearly optimal decomposition of $`\widehat{\rho }`$. The preparation information $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is then approximately given by

$$\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{log}\frac{4\pi }{2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })},$$
(27)
where the denominator is the area of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })`$

In the following section, we show that $`\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })`$, in the coordinates where $`(\theta _r,\varphi _r)=(0,0)`$, can be written in the diagonal form

$$\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })=\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|j;m\lambda _m^\mathrm{\Theta }j;m|,$$
(28)
where

$$\lambda _m^\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{(2j)!\mathrm{sin}^{2(jm)}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}}{(j+m)!(jm+1)!}F(jm,jm+1,jm+2,\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}),$$
(29)
and where $`F`$ is the hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$. Since all density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ in the decomposition of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ have the same entropy, the average entropy $`\overline{H}`$ can be written as

$$\overline{H}=\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}\lambda _m^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{log}\lambda _m^\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(30)
For the entropy of the system, Eq. (2), in the absence of measurements, $`\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{\rho }_r(\pi )`$, we have (see Eq. 45)

$$H=\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}\lambda _m^\pi \mathrm{log}\lambda _m^\pi =\mathrm{log}(2j+1)=\mathrm{log}D.$$
(31)
We can analyse $`\overline{H}`$ in detail for the important special value $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$, for which the measurement corresponds to a grouping into two disjoint hemispheres, and is therefore strictly optimal. For such a grouping, $`\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}=1`$. In the next section, we show that the eigenvalues $`\lambda _m^{\pi /2}`$ obey the bounds

$`0\lambda _m^{\pi /2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}}e^{\sqrt[3]{j}/3},`$ $`m<1j^{2/3},`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2j+1}}(1e^{\sqrt[3]{j}/3}4^j)\lambda _m^{\pi /2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}},`$ $`m>1+j^{2/3}.`$ (33)
Using these bounds we have derived the following asymptotic expression for the average entropy:

$$\overline{H}=\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}\lambda _m^{\pi /2}\mathrm{log}\lambda _m^{\pi /2}=\mathrm{log}j+O(\sqrt[3]{j}e^{\sqrt[3]{j}/3}),$$
(34)
and hence, in the limit $`j\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{\overline{I}_{\mathrm{min}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(2j+1)\overline{H}}1.$$
(35)
Figure 2 shows a parametric plot of the average preparation information $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ versus the average entropy reduction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}=H\overline{H}`$ for $`j=50`$, i.e., D=101. It can be seen that for moderate values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$. To reduce the system entropy by 1 bit, not more than approximately 1 bit of information about the environment is needed. This should be compared to the previous example, where the required environment information is of the same order as $`D`$. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$ approaching its maximum value $`H=\mathrm{log}D`$, the information $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ diverges. This is due to the fact that an infinite amount of information is needed to specify a general state exactly. The complexity of the system-environment correlations is characterized by the slope of the curve for small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}`$ rather than its asymptotic behaviour for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{H}\mathrm{log}D`$.

## 4 Mathematical details

Our task is to calculate the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ given by Eq. (29) and to derive the expression (33) for the case $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$. Choosing the coordinate system such that $`(\theta _r,\varphi _r)=(0,0)`$, we have

$$\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{_0^{2\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Theta }|\theta ,\varphi \theta ,\varphi |\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi }{2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })}.$$
(36)
Substitution of (23) and subsequent integration over $`\varphi `$ gives

$$\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{4}{1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|j;mj;m|\left(\begin{array}{c}2j\\ j+m\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Theta }(j+m,jm),$$
(37)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Theta }(p,q)=_0^{\mathrm{\Theta }/2}\mathrm{cos}^{2p+1}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^{2q+1}\vartheta d\vartheta .$$
(38)
Since $`\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is diagonal in the $`|j;m`$ basis, the task of finding the eigenvalues is equivalent to the problem of evaluating the integral $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Theta }(p,q)`$. Consider the integrand

$$\mathrm{cos}^{2p+1}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^{2q+1}\vartheta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^{2p}\vartheta (1\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )^q\frac{d\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta }{d\vartheta }.$$
(39)
Using the formula

$$(1+z)^n=F(n,b;b;z),$$
(40)
where $`F`$ is the hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{cos}^{2p+1}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^{2q+1}\vartheta =\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )^pF(q,b;b;\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )\frac{d\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta }{d\vartheta }.$$
(41)
We now use

$$\frac{d^n}{dz^n}[z^{c1}F(a,b;c;z)]=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(cn)}z^{cn1}F(a,b;cn;z),$$
(42)
with $`a=q`$, $`c=b+1`$ and $`z=\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta `$ to get

$$b(\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )^{b1}F(q,b;b;\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )=\frac{d}{d\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta }[(\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )^bF(q,b;b+1;\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )].$$
(43)
Comparing (41) and (43) we see that, choosing $`b=p+1`$, we find

$$\mathrm{cos}^{2p+1}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^{2q+1}\vartheta =\frac{1}{2(p+1)}\frac{d}{d\vartheta }[\mathrm{cos}^{2p+2}\vartheta F(q,p+1;p+2;\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )],$$
(44)
and hence, using

$$F(a,b;c;1)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)},\mathrm{}c>\mathrm{}(a+b),$$
(45)
one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Theta }(p,q)=\frac{p!q!}{2(p+q+1)!}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^{2p+2}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}}{2(p+1)}F(q,p+1;p+2;\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}),q>1.$$
(46)
To simplify the above equation we return to the definition (38) and split the integration to get

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Theta }(p,q)=_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{cos}^{2p+1}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^{2q+1}\vartheta d\vartheta +_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^{2p+1}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^{2q+1}\vartheta d\vartheta .$$
(47)
The first integral is proportional to the beta function and the second integral can be transformed into $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\pi \mathrm{\Theta }}(q,p)`$ by substitution $`\vartheta \pi /2\vartheta `$ so that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Theta }(p,q)=\frac{p!q!}{2(p+q+1)!}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\pi \mathrm{\Theta }}(q,p).$$
(48)
Using this formula Eq. (46) can be transformed into

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Theta }(p,q)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^{2q+2}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}}{2(q+1)}F(p,q+1;q+2;\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}).$$
(49)
Expression (37) for $`\widehat{\rho }_r(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ can now be rewritten in the compact form of Eq. (28).

To investigate the case $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$, we calculate directly

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(p,q)=_0^{\frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{cos}^{2p+1}\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^{2q+1}\vartheta d\vartheta .$$
(50)
Substitution of $`t=\mathrm{tan}^2\vartheta `$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(p,q)=\frac{1}{2}_0^1t^q(1+t)^{(p+q+2)}𝑑t.$$
(51)
Using the integral representation of the hypergeometric function ,

$$F(a,b;c;z)=\frac{1}{B(b,cb)}_0^1t^{b1}(1t)^{cb1}(1tz)^a𝑑t,\mathrm{}c>\mathrm{}b>0,$$
(52)
we find

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(p,q)=\frac{F(p+q+2,q+1;q+2;1)}{2(q+1)},q>1,$$
(53)
which is a rather compact expression. We can obtain additional insight in the following way. Consider the Gauss formula for the so-called contiguous functions $`F(a,b1;c;z)`$ and $`F(a,b;c+1;z)`$

$$c(1z)F(a,b;c;z)cF(a,b1;c;z)+(ca)zF(a,b;c+1;z)=0.$$
(54)
For the case $`b=c`$ and $`z=1`$ we get using (40)

$$F(a,b;b+1;1)=\alpha (b)F(a,b1;b;1)+\beta (b),$$
(55)
where

$$\alpha (b)=\frac{b}{ab},\text{ }\beta (b)=2^{1a}\alpha (b).$$
(56)
Iteration of (55) $`b1`$ times gives

$$F(a,b;b+1;1)=F(a,1;2;1)\underset{k=0}{\overset{b2}{}}\alpha (bk)+\underset{s=0}{\overset{b2}{}}\alpha (bs)\underset{k=0}{\overset{s1}{}}\beta (bk).$$
(57)
Noticing that

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}\alpha (bk)=\frac{b!(ab1)!}{(bs1)!(ab+s)!}$$
(58)
and substituting $`x=b1s`$, we obtain

$$F(a,b;b+1;1)=\frac{b!(ab1)!}{(a1)!}[(a1)F(a,1;2;1)2^{1a}\underset{x=1}{\overset{b1}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a1\\ x\end{array}\right)].$$
(59)
The value of $`F(a,1;2;1)`$ can be calculated using the integral representation (52)

$$F(a,1;2;1)=\frac{12^{1a}}{a1},$$
(60)
and hence we find

$$F(a,b;b+1;1)=\frac{b!(ab1)!}{(a1)!}[12^{1a}\underset{x=0}{\overset{b1}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a1\\ x\end{array}\right)].$$
(61)
Using this formula, Eq. (53) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(p,q)=\frac{1}{2(p+q+1)}\left(\begin{array}{c}p+q\\ p\end{array}\right)^1[12^{(p+q+1)}\underset{x=0}{\overset{q}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p+q+1\\ x\end{array}\right)].$$
(62)
Using (48) we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(p,q)=\frac{2^{(p+q+2)}}{p+q+1}\underset{x=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}p+q+1\\ x\end{array}\right),$$
(63)
and therefore

$$\lambda _m^{\frac{\pi }{2}}=\frac{2}{2j+1}\underset{x=0}{\overset{j+m}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}2j+1\\ x\end{array}\right)2^{(2j+1)}.$$
(64)
The sum on the right hand side is the univariate cumulative distribution function

$$G(y;n,p)=\underset{x=0}{\overset{y}{}}P(x;n,p)$$
(65)
for the binomial distribution

$$P(x;n,p)=\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ x\end{array}\right)p^x(1p)^{nx},$$
(66)
where $`n=2j+1`$, $`p=1/2`$ and $`y=j+m`$. In the limit $`j\mathrm{}`$, $`G(y;n,p)`$ approaches the step function

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}G(j+m;2j+1,1/2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & lim_j\mathrm{}\frac{m}{j}<0,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2},\hfill & m=0,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & lim_j\mathrm{}\frac{m}{j}>0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
To obtain the behaviour for large but finite values of $`j`$, we use the Chernoff bounds

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x<np(1ϵ)}{}}P(x;n,p)`$ $``$ $`e^{ϵ^2np/3},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x>np(1+ϵ)}{}}P(x;n,p)`$ $``$ $`e^{ϵ^2np/3},`$ (68)
which are valid for $`0ϵ1`$. Choosing $`ϵ=j^{1/3}`$, we obtain Eq. (33), in agreement with Eq. (67).

## 5 Acknowledgements

The authors profited from discussions with Jens G. Jensen. This work was supported in part by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.