text:
# Off-forward parton distributions and impact parameter dependence of parton structure

## 1 Introduction

Deeply virtual Compton scattering experiments in the Bjorken limit allow measuring generalized or off-forward parton distributions (OFPDs)

$$f_\zeta (x,t)\frac{dx^{}}{4\pi }p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0)\gamma ^+\psi (x^{})|pe^{ixp^+x^{}},$$
(1)
where $`x^\pm =x^0\pm x^3`$ and $`p^+=p^0+p^3`$ refer to the usual light-cone components and $`tq^2=(pp^{})^2`$ is the invariant momentum transfer. The “off-forwardness” (or skewedness) in Eq. (1) is defined to be $`\zeta \frac{q^+}{p^+}`$. From the point of view of parton physics in the infinite momentum frame, these OFPDs have the physical meaning of the amplitude for the process that a quark is taken out of the nucleon with momentum fraction $`x`$ and then it is inserted back into the nucleon with a four momentum transfer $`q^\mu `$ . OFPDs play a dual roles and in a certain sense they interpolate between form factors and conventional parton distribution functions (PDFs) : for $`\zeta =t=0`$ one recovers conventional PDFs, i.e. longitudinal momentum distributions in the infinite momentum frame (IMF), while when one integrates $`f_\zeta (x,t)`$ over $`x`$, one obtains a form factor, i.e. the Fourier transform of a coordinate space density (in the Breit frame!). One of the new physics insights that one can learn from these OFPDs is the angular momentum distribution , but apart from that people are just starting to explore what kind of new physics one can learn from studying these generalized parton distributions. The main reason, why the physical interpretation of OFPDs is still somewhat obscure is due to the fact that the initial and final state in Eq. (1) are not the same and therefore, in general, the OFPDs $`f_\zeta (x,t)`$ cannot be interpreted as a ‘density’ but rather their physical significance is that of a probability amplitude.

In this note, we will discuss the limit $`\zeta 0`$, but $`t0`$, where

$$f(x,t)f_{\zeta =0}(x,t)$$
(2)
does have a simple interpretation in terms of a density, namely as the Fourier transform of the light-cone momentum/impact parameter density w.r.t. the impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$.

## 2 Impact parameter dependent PDFs and OFPDs

PDFs are usually defined as matrix elements between plane wave states, which extend throughout space. Therefore, before we can introduce the notion of impact parameter dependent PDFs, we need to define localized wave packets. For our purposes, it is most suitable to consider a wave packet $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which is chosen such that it has a sharp longitudinal momentum $`p_z`$, but whose position is a localized wave packet in the transverse direction

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{d^2p_{}}{\sqrt{2E_\stackrel{}{p}(2\pi )^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{})|\stackrel{}{p}.$$
(3)
Although this definition is completely general, what we have in mind for the states $`|p`$ are for example nucleon states, which are of course extended objects, i.e. Eq. (3) describes wave packets of particles that are themselves already extended objects. We will come back to this point further below. Clearly,

$$F_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})\frac{dx^{}}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\overline{\psi }(0^{},\stackrel{}{b}_{})\gamma ^+\psi (x^{},\stackrel{}{b}_{})|\mathrm{\Psi }e^{ixp^+x^{}},$$
(4)
describes the probability to find partons with momentum fraction $`x`$ at transverse (position) coordinate $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$ in this wave packet. Note that in Eq. (4) we have implicitly assumed that we work in light-cone gauge $`A^+=0`$. In any other gauge, one needs to insert a (straight line) ‘gauge string’ connecting the points $`(0^{},\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$ and $`(x^{},\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$ in order to render Eq. (4) manifestly gauge invariant.

What we will show in the following is that, for a suitably localized wave packet, $`F_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$ can be related to OFPDs with $`\zeta =0`$. Using Eq. (3), one finds

$`f_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2q_{}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{b}_{}}F_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{})}{\sqrt{2E_\stackrel{}{p}2E_\stackrel{}{p}^{}}}𝑑x^{}e^{ixp^+x^{}}p^{}|\overline{\psi }(0^{},\stackrel{}{0}_{})\psi (x^{},\stackrel{}{0}_{})|p}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{})}{\sqrt{2E_\stackrel{}{p}2E_\stackrel{}{p}^{}}}f_\zeta (x,q^2)}.`$
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{}=\stackrel{}{p}_{}+\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$ and $`p_z^{}=p_z`$, i.e. $`\zeta =0`$.

The physics of Eq. (5) is the following: the non-trivial intrinsic structure of the target particle is expressed in the OFPD $`f_\zeta (x,q^2)`$. However, as the convolution of $`f_\zeta (x,q^2)`$ with the wave function reflects, the impact parameter dependent PD in the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ gets spread out in position space due to the fact that the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ does in general have a nonzero width in position space.

Intuitively, one would like to chose a wave packet that is point-like in position space (i.e. constant in momentum space) so that the $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$-dependence in Eq. (4) is only due to the intrinsic structure of the target particle but not due to the wave packet used to ‘nail it down’. However, one need to be careful in this step (and being able to properly address these issues was the sole reason for working with wave packets) because as soon as one localizes a particle to a region of space smaller than its Compton wavelength, its motion within the wave packet becomes relativistic and therefore the structure of the particle gets affected by Lorentz contraction as well as other relativistic effects.

### 2.1 Nonrelativistic limit

It is very instructive to consider the nonrelativistic (NR) limit first, where none of these complications occur. Formally, the simplification arises since $`E_\stackrel{}{p}=E_\stackrel{}{p}^{}=M`$ and therefore $`q^2=\stackrel{}{q}^2=\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2`$ First of all, this means that one can pull $`f(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2)`$ out of the integral in Eq. (5), yielding

$$f_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{})=f(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2)\frac{d^2p_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{})}{2M}.$$
(6)
In order to proceed further, we choose a wave packet that is very localized in transverse position space. Specifically, we choose a packet whose width in transverse momentum space is much larger than a typical QCD scale. That way, the $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$-dependence on the r.h.s. of Eq. (6) is mostly due to the matrix element and not due to the wave packet $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Therefore, by making the wave packet very localized in position space one obtains

$$f_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{})=f(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2).$$
(7)
The dependence on the detailed shape of the wave packet has disappeared once it is chosen localized enough and it is thus legitimate to identify the Fourier transformed (w.r.t. $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$) $`\zeta =0`$ OFPD with the impact parameter dependence of the parton distribution in the target particle itself.

### 2.2 Relativistic corrections

In order to have a unique definition of impact parameter dependent PDFs, i.e. a definition which does not depend on the exact shape of the wave packet, one would like to make the wave packet as small as possible in position space and certainly much smaller than the spatial extension of the hadron in the $``$ direction — otherwise Eq. (4) is dominated by the shape of the wave packet and not by the intrinsic $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$-dependence. However, once the wave packet is smaller than about a Compton wavelength of the target then relativistic corrections can no longer be ignored and may even become more important as the corrections due to the spatial extension of the wave packet.

This problem is well known from form factors, where the identification of the form factor with the Fourier transform of a charge distribution in position space is uniquely possible only for momenta that are much smaller than the target mass. One can also rephrase this statement in position space by saying that the identification of the Fourier transform of the form factor with a charge distribution works only if one looks at scales larger than about one Compton wavelength of the target. Details below this scale may depend on the Lorentz frame and are therefore not physical.

For OFPDs the problem is very similar. If one works for example in the rest frame then one faces the same kind of corrections that also affect the form factors, in the sense that the $``$ resolution is limited to about one Compton wavelength. More details can be found in Ref.  and are omitted here since the natural frame to interpret parton distribution functions is the infinite momentum frame (IMF), and as we will discuss in the next section, these relativistic corrections play no important role in the IMF.

### 2.3 Infinite momentum frame

In the following we chose a wave packet as in Eq. (3) but with $`p_zM`$, where $`M`$ is the target mass. Then one can for example expand 111Note that, by choice of the wave packet, $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{p}`$ is always transverse i.e. $`q_z=0`$.

$`E_{\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}}|p_z|+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^2+2\stackrel{}{p}_{}\stackrel{}{q}_{}+\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2}{2|p_z|}}`$ (8)
and therefore the energy transfer

$$E_{\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}}E_\stackrel{}{p}\frac{2\stackrel{}{p}_{}\stackrel{}{q}_{}+\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2}{2|p_z|}$$
(9)
vanishess as $`p_z\mathrm{}`$. A more detailed analysis works as follows: Let us denote the typical momentum scale in the wave packet by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{p}_{}`$ and the $``$ resolution that we are interested in by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$ (normally, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$ will be a typical hadronic momentum scale, i.e. on the order of $`1GeV`$). Then of course what we need to satisfy is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{p}_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$. At the same time we need $`|p_z|\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{p}_{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$, but this is no problem if we go to the IMF.

As a direct consequence of Eq. (9), the time-like component of the momentum transfer can be ignored, i.e. one can approximate $`q^2\stackrel{}{q}^2=\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2`$ and therefore one can again pull $`f_{\zeta =0}(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2)`$ out of the integral in Eq. (5), and one finds

$$f_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{})=f_{\zeta =0}(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2)\frac{d^2p_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{})}{\sqrt{2E_\stackrel{}{p}2E_\stackrel{}{p}^{}}}.$$
(10)
Finally making use of the fact that we chose a wave packet that is very localized, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{p}_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$, we can approximate $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{p}_{})`$ in Eq. (10) yielding

$$f_\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{})=f_{\zeta =0}(x,\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2).$$
(11)
As in the NR case, the dependence on the wave packet has disappeared and the identification has become unique.

We have thus accomplished to show that, OFPDs at $`\zeta =0`$ have in the IMF the simple physical interpretation as Fourier transforms of impact parameter dependent parton distributions with respect to the impact parameter. In other words, OFPDs, in the limit of $`\zeta 0`$, allow to simultaneously determine the longitudinal momentum fraction and transverse impact parameter of partons in the target hadron in the IMF.

## 3 The transverse center of momentum

In the previous chapter, when we introduced the notion of PDFs as a function of the impact parameter, we did not specify with respect to which point (or line) the impact parameter is defined. In NR scattering experiments, the impact parameter usually refers to the center of mass, but it is perhaps not a priori obvious how to generalize the concept of a $``$ center of mass to the IMF.

In the infinite momentum or light-front (LF) frame there exists a residual Galilei invariance under the purely kinematic $``$ boosts

$`x_i`$ $``$ $`x_i^{}=x_i`$
$`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_i^{}\stackrel{}{k}_i+x_i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{P}_{},`$ (12)
where we denote the longitudinal momentum fraction and $``$ momentum of the $`i`$-th parton in a given Fock component by $`x_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ respectively, the LF-Hamiltonian transforms covariantly, i.e. $`P^{}\frac{\stackrel{}{P}_{}^2}{2P^+}`$ remains constant, which resembles very much NR boosts

$$\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_i^{}=\stackrel{}{k}_i+m_i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{k}_i+\frac{m_i}{M}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{P},$$
(13)
with $`E\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{2M}`$ remaining constant. Because of this similarity between NR boosts and $``$ boosts in the IMF, many familiar results about NR boosts can be immediately transferred to the IMF.

For this work, the most important result concerns the physical interpretation of the form factor as the Fourier transform of the charge distribution in a frame where the center of mass

$$\stackrel{}{R}_{CM}\underset{i}{}\frac{m_i}{M}\stackrel{}{r}_i$$
(14)
is at the origin. One can also rephrase this result by stating that the Fourier transform of the form factor is the distribution of the charge as a function of the distance from $`\stackrel{}{R}_{CM}`$.

By comparing Eqs. (12) and (13) it becomes clear that in the IMF the momentum fractions $`x_i`$ play the role of the mass fraction $`\frac{m_i}{M}`$. Hence it is not very surprising that the IMF analog to the NR center of mass $`\stackrel{}{R}_{CM}`$ is given by the transverse center of momentum

$$\stackrel{}{R}_{}\underset{i}{}x_i\stackrel{}{r}_i,$$
(15)
i.e. a weighted average of $``$ positions, but where the weight factors are given by the (light-cone) momentum fractions and not the mass fractions 222Note that for NR systems the momentum fractions are given by the mass fractions..

The Fourier transform of the $`\zeta =0`$ (i.e. ‘unskewed’) OFPD

$$F(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})d^2q_{}e^{i\stackrel{}{b}_{}\stackrel{}{q}_{}}f_{\zeta =0}(x,\stackrel{}{q}^2)$$
(16)
can thus be interpreted as the (light-cone) momentum distribution of partons as a function of the $``$ separation from the $``$ center of energy-momentum $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}=_ix_i\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ of the target. 333The above results can be verified by starting with $`\zeta =0`$ OFPDs calculated from a LF Fock space expansion for the hadron state .

The above observation about the $``$ center of momentum has one immediate consequence for the $`x1`$ behavior of $`F(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$. Since the weight factors in the definition of $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}`$ are the momentum fractions, any parton $`i`$ that carries a large fraction $`x_i`$ of the target’s momentum will necessarily have a $``$ position $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ that is close to $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}`$. Therefore the transverse profile (i.e. the dependence on $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$) of $`F(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$ will necessarily become more narrow as $`x1`$, i.e. we expect that partons become very localized in $``$ position as $`x1`$. By Fourier transform, this also implies that the slope of $`f_{\zeta =0}(x,t)`$ w.r.t. $`t`$ at $`t=0`$, i.e.

$$\stackrel{}{b}_{}^24\frac{\frac{d}{dt}f_{\zeta =0}(x,t)|_{t=0}}{f_{\zeta =0}(x,0)}$$
(17)
should in fact vanish for $`x1`$!

## 4 Explicit example (model calculation)

In order to illustrate the results from the previous sections in a concrete example, we make a Gaussian ansatz for the $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ dependence of the light-cone wave function in each Fock component

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_{})\mathrm{exp}\left[a^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\left(\stackrel{}{k}_ix_i\stackrel{}{P}_{}\right)^2}{x_i}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x_i),$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_i)`$ is not further specified. The above model ansatz allows to carry out the $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ momentum integrals explicitly, yielding

$$f(x,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{a^2}{2}\frac{1x}{x}t\right]f(x),$$
(19)
i.e.

$$F(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})\frac{x}{1x}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2a^2}\frac{x}{1x}\stackrel{}{b}_{}^2\right]f(x).$$
(20)
Of course, the above model (18) clearly oversimplifies the actual complexity of the nucleon’s Fock space wavefunction, but the qualitative behavior of the final result (20) seems reasonable: as predicted in the previous section, the width of $`F(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$ in $``$ position space goes to zero as $`x1`$. For decreasing $`x`$, the distribution widens monotonically until it diverges for $`x0`$. Of course, the divergence of the $``$ width as $`x0`$ is probably an artifact of the model ansatz which seems is more suitable for intermediate to large values of $`x`$. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that the $``$ width increases with decreasing $`x`$ since for example the pion cloud, which is expected to contribute only at smaller values of $`x`$, should me more spread out than the valence partons, which are expected to dominate at larger values of $`x`$.

Notice also that both the above model calculation as well as the pion cloud picture suggest that the $`\stackrel{}{b}_{}`$-dependence in $`F(x,\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$ does not factorize, which of course also translates back into a lack of factorization of the $`t`$ dependence in $`f(x,t)`$. A similar lack of factorization was also observed in Ref. .

## 5 Practical aspects

From the experimental point of view, $`\zeta =0`$ is not directly accessible in DVCS since one needs some longitudinal momentum transfer in order to convert a virtual photon into a real photon. However, there seem to be several ways around this difficulty. First of all, one can perform DVCS experiments at finite (small) $`\zeta `$ and extrapolate to $`\zeta =0`$. Secondly, $`\zeta =0`$ can be accessed in real wide angle Compton scattering . Finally, the moments of $`F(x,b)`$ can be also obtained from information at $`\zeta >0`$. First we use that

$$p_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}_1^1𝑑xxf_\zeta (x,t)=p^{}\left|\overline{\psi }iD^+\gamma ^+\psi \right|p.$$
(21)
The matrix element of the local operator on the r.h.s. of Eq.(21) can be expressed in terms of invariant form factors. For example, for a spinless target one finds

$$p^{}\left|\overline{\psi }iD^\mu \gamma ^\nu \psi \right|p=\overline{p}^\mu \overline{p}^\nu A(t)+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^\nu B(t)+\text{traces},$$
(22)
where $`\overline{p}=p+p^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=p^{}p`$, i.e. the explicit $`\zeta `$-dependence has disappeared! One can now determine $`A(t)`$ and $`B(t)`$ from the OFPDs at nonzero values of $`\zeta `$. Once one has determined these invariant form factors, one can go back and evaluate the r.h.s. of Eq. (22), yielding

$$_1^1𝑑xxf_{\zeta =0}(x,t)=A(t).$$
(23)
For the slightly more complicated case of a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ target we consider the $`2^{nd}`$ moment of the spin-independent OFPD $`H(x,\xi ,t)`$ discussed in Ref. . For the exact definition we refer the reader to Ref. . Note that we switch here briefly to the definitions used in Ref. : Although similar, $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ differ, but the difference are not very important for this paper as $`\xi =0`$ corresponds to $`\zeta =0`$. Furthermore, for $`\xi 0`$, the definition of $`x`$ is different from ours, but again this does not matter here since the difference vanishes as well for $`\zeta =0`$.

As discussed in Ref. , the $`2^{nd}`$ moment of $`H`$ can also be expressed in terms of invariant form factors

$$_1^1𝑑xxH(x,\xi ,t)=A(t)+\xi ^2C(t).$$
(24)
By measuring $`𝑑xxH(x,\xi ,t)`$ for two different values of $`\xi `$ and the same value of $`t`$, one can determine $`A(t)`$ and $`C(t)`$ independently. The quantity of interest for extracting the $`2^{nd}`$ moment of the impact parameter dependent distribution is then obtained by evaluating Eq. (24) for $`\xi =0`$

$$_1^1𝑑xxH(x,0,t)=A(t).$$
(25)
The generalization of this method to higher moments is straightforward, but more and more form factors need to be introduced. However, the main lesson is that it should be possible to extract the lowest moments $`𝑑xx^nf_{\zeta =0}(x,t)`$ can be extracted from OFPDs with $`\zeta 0`$ which then allows one to extract also the moments of the impact parameter dependent distributions $`𝑑xx^nF(x,b)`$.

## 6 Summary and outlook

Off-forward parton distributions for $`\zeta 0`$, i.e. where the off-forwardness is only in the $``$ direction, can be identified with the Fourier transform of impact parameter dependent parton distributions w.r.t. the impact parameter $`b`$, i.e. the $``$ distance from the center of (longitudinal) momentum in the IMF. This identification is very much analogous to the identification of the charge form factor with the Fourier transform of a charge distribution in position space.

The $`\zeta 0`$ limit of OFPDs is difficult to access in DVCS. However, as we illustrated for the $`2^{nd}`$ moment in Sec.5, one can also measure $`x`$-moments for nonzero values of $`\zeta `$ and use those to construct moments for $`\zeta =0`$.

Knowing the impact parameter dependence allows one to gain information on the spatial distribution of partons inside hadrons and to obtain new insights about the nonperturbative intrinsic structure of hadrons. For example, the pion cloud of the nucleon is expected to contribute more for large values of $`b`$. Shadowing of small $`x`$ parton distributions, is probably stronger at small values of $`b`$ since partons in the geometric center of the nucleon are more effectively shielded by the surrounding partons that partons far away from the center. These and many other models and intuitive pictures for the parton structure of hadrons give rise to predictions for the impact parameter dependence of PDFs that reflect the underlying microscopic dynamics of these models. Through the experimental measurement of OFPDs using DVCS, it will for the first time become possible to obtain experimental information on the impact parameter dependence of parton structure and which will thus provide much more comprehensive tests on our understanding of nonperturbative parton structure.
Acknowledgements: this work was supported by a grant from the DOE (DE-FG03-95ER40965) and in part by TJNAF.


format: text

text:
# Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program

## 1 Introduction

The Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer NICMOS (Thompson, 1992; Thompson et al., 1998; Böker et al., 2000a), was installed onboard the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) during the second Servicing Mission in February 1997. NICMOS provides HST with infrared imaging and spectroscopic capabilities at wavelengths between 0.8 and $`2.5\mu \mathrm{m}`$. It offers three cameras with different image scales and adjacent, but not contiguous fields. Each of the three cameras is equipped with a NICMOS-3 type, $`256\times 256`$ pixel HgCdTe-detector manufactured by Rockwell.

Shortly after its on-orbit installation, it was discovered that the NICMOS dewar suffered from a thermal anomaly that led to a higher than expected sublimation rate of the solid nitrogen coolant, and thus a shortened lifetime of the instrument. After an intensified science program, operation of NICMOS for astronomical observations was suspended on Dec. 18, 1998. The cryogen was depleted on Jan. 4, 1999. Since then, the instrument has been inactive except for engineering telemetry data at the ambient temperature of the HST aft shroud ($`280\mathrm{K}`$).

Soon after the shortened NICMOS lifetime became apparent, NASA started investigations of possible means to continue NICMOS operation. As a result of this process, the NICMOS Cooling System (NCS, Cheng et al., 1998) will be installed during the next HST servicing mission late in 2001 in order to maintain an infrared capability on HST. The NCS is a mechanical cooler which uses a closed-loop reverse-Brayton cycle to maintain the NICMOS detectors at temperatures around $`75\mathrm{K}`$. The detectors when cooled by the NCS will therefore be $`1520\mathrm{K}`$ warmer than during the solid nitrogen period.

In preparation for NICMOS/NCS operation, a warm-up monitoring program was initiated immediately after the NICMOS science program was completed. The main goal of this program was to utilize the one-time opportunity of the instrument warm-up to monitor the performance of the NICMOS detectors as their temperatures passed through the range expected for operations under the NCS. A good understanding of the temperature dependence of NICMOS performance is crucial for designing the instrument calibration program following its re-commissioning in order to enable optimum NICMOS science.

The NICMOS warm-up monitoring program consisted of three elements which are summarized in Table 1:

1. Lamp flats were taken four times a day in a number of filters in all three cameras. The goal was to follow variations of the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) as a function of temperature and wavelength. Because of safety concerns, filter wheel motions were suspended when the temperature sensors on the detector mounting cups reached $`78.1\mathrm{K}`$. At this temperature, the sensor’s analog-to-digital converters (ADC) reached their dynamic range limit, so that accurate temperature monitoring was no longer possible. At this point, the BLANK filter was inserted into the beam of all three cameras, and only dark current measurements were performed.
2. Dark current exposures were taken in all three cameras during every orbit that was not otherwise used. This program was designed to allow monitoring of both the dark current of the detectors and possible temperature-induced electronic effects, such as bias drifts. The dark current monitoring remained active until NICMOS data taking was suspended on Jan. 11, 1999 at which point the detectors had a temperature of about $`115\mathrm{K}`$.
3. To check for possible focus variations due to changing mechanical stresses in the NICMOS dewar and fore optics, a star cluster was observed twice a week until the filter wheels were fixed in the BLANK position. This part of the program mainly addresses changes in the HST/NICMOS optics, and is not relevant to detector characterization. It is therefore not further discussed in this paper.

Except for a brief suspension of the NICMOS instrument on Dec. 24, 1998 for reasons unrelated to the warm-up, all programs executed nominally. The data, which are available from the HST archive, were analyzed in near real-time fashion, and correlated with continuous temperature readings from various sensors in the instrument. Details of the data analysis and preliminary findings are discussed in Böker et al. (1999).

In this paper, we concentrate on those results that relate to the properties of the NICMOS-3 detector arrays. In § 2, we briefly describe the methods for monitoring the instrument warm-up temperature profile. The data format and the results of the analysis are summarized in § 3. We show the dependence of DQE, detector bias, saturation levels, and dark current as a function of temperature. While the first three items showed a behavior consistent with expectations, the dark current exhibited an unexpected increase and subsequent decline between $`77\mathrm{K}`$ and $`85\mathrm{K}`$, which is discussed in § 4. This increase was large enough to compromise NICMOS sensitivity, if it had to be operated under these conditions. As a consequence, the NASA Independent Science Review Committee, which met in March 1999 at STScI, recommended suitable laboratory experiments to study further the cause of the anomaly, to decide whether it is likely to affect NICMOS operations under the NCS, and to investigate the possible impact on NICMOS capabilities111The final report of the committee is available online at http://www.stsci.edu/observing/nicmos\_cryocooler\_isr1999.html. Following this recommendation, STScI, in collaboration with the NICMOS Instrument Definition Team at Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, designed a laboratory test program to investigate one proposed explanation for the dark current anomaly. We describe the design of the experiment as well as its hardware, setup, and results in § 5.

## 2 Temperature profile of the warm-up

On Jan. 4th, 1999, NICMOS telemetry data showed a sharp rise in the temperature readings of all three detector mounting cup sensors as well as all other sensors distributed across the instrument. This event marked the complete exhaustion of the solid nitrogen coolant after which the NICMOS instrument was no longer in thermal equilibrium. The exact determination of the detector temperatures as a function of time warrants some further explanation.

All three NICMOS detectors have an on-chip temperature sensor. However, the use of these during normal NICMOS operations produces undesirable excess noise in the data. In addition, their accuracy is rather poor ($`2\mathrm{K}`$). Therefore, we did not make use of the on-chip temperature sensors until all data taking was suspended. The overall detector temperature profile was thus derived from a combination of three data sources:

* Temperature sensors attached to the detector mounting cups for temperatures up to $`78.1\mathrm{K}`$ when the ADC limit was reached.
* Detector bias readings from $`78.1\mathrm{K}`$ until NICMOS data taking was suspended.
* The on-chip sensors after the monitoring program ended.

Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program shows the temperature profile of the detectors in cameras NIC1 and NIC3. Both detectors - as well as the one in camera NIC2 which is not shown - experienced a very similar temperature profile. However, small differences exist, as is evident from the plot of the warm-up rates of NIC1 and NIC3, i.e. the gradient of the temperature profile in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program. In particular, there is a delay of about 2 hours between the profiles NIC1 (and NIC2) and that of NIC3. This delay can be explained by their different locations inside the NICMOS dewar: the NIC3 detector is mounted at the front end of the dewar, further away from the N2 ice, and therefore reacted earlier to the ice depletion than the other two cameras.

Except for this time delay, however, the rates of all sensors show a basically identical behavior: a steep increase to $`7\mathrm{K}\mathrm{day}^1`$ on Jan. 4 immediately following the ice depletion, a slowing of the warm-up to a rate of $`5\mathrm{K}\mathrm{day}^1`$ on Jan. 6, when a second rate increase to $`10\mathrm{K}\mathrm{day}^1`$ occurred. The most likely explanation for this second rate increase is outgassing from a charcoal getter inside the NICMOS dewar. The purpose of this getter was to adsorb any gas that might have permeated the NICMOS vacuum seals during the pre-launch cold period. Because the adsorption capacity of a charcoal getter is a strong function of temperature (and pressure), the getter is expected to have released nitrogen and oxygen throughout the NICMOS warm-up. The gas constitutes an additional heat conduction path towards the detectors, hence the increase in the warm-up rate.

## 3 Results of the monitoring program

### 3.1 Data format

All monitoring data were obtained with the MULTIACCUM readout sequences as described in the NICMOS data handbook (Böker et al., 2000a). Briefly, the MULTIACCUM scheme is a series of non-destructive detector reads which optimize the dynamic range and allow accurate removal of cosmic rays throughout the total exposure time. In addition, variations of the pixel reset levels (or bias) can be corrected by subtracting from all further reads a frame which is taken immediately after the detector reset. This frame is called the “0th read” in the usual NICMOS terminology. The time intervals - often referred to as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-times - between the successive reads of a MULTIACCUM sequence can be varied. The NICMOS flight software allows a number of pre-programmed MULTIACCUM sequences. A particularly important sequence which was used extensively throughout the dark current montoring program is called STEP64. It consists of a number of reads with logarithmically increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-times up to an integration time of $`64\mathrm{s}`$, and equally spaced $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-times of $`64\mathrm{s}`$ beyond that.

### 3.2 Bias levels

Throughout the warm-up, the bias levels were monitored to prevent the signal in the high-responsivity pixels from reaching the maximum of the dynamic range of the ADCs. A procedure was put in place to quickly adjust the bias offsets, in order to prevent a significant fraction of pixels in the flat field data from reaching the ADC limit of 32,768 counts. As Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program shows, the mean signal in the 0th read for all three detectors changed at a rate of $`280\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{K}^1`$, for a total change of about 15000 counts between 62 and $`118\mathrm{K}`$. This change did not necessitate any bias adjustments during the warm-up.

Pre-launch ground testing has shown the accurate linear relationship between bias level and detector temperature to hold to at least $`120\mathrm{K}`$. This justifies the use of the bias level as a thermometer to determine the detector temperature in the range where no direct readings of the mounting cup sensors are available, as described in § 2.

### 3.3 Amplifier glow

Amplifier glow is a well-known feature of NICMOS-3 arrays. It manifests itself as a spatially variable, but highly repeatable signal component in every detector read-out. The signal is highest in the corners of the array, i.e. closest to the read-out amplifiers, and gets fainter towards the center of the array. Typical values for the amplifier glow are 2 DN/read in the center of the array, and up to 15 DN/read in the corners. The signal is extremely repeatable and can be well modeled and removed during pipeline calibration.

The amplifier glow is measured by subtracting the first two reads in a STEP64 sequence which are only $`0.3\mathrm{s}`$ apart. The subtraction eliminates any contribution from the shading profile (see § 3.4), and the short integration time does not allow a significant signal from the linear dark current. The amplifier glow has been measured from the data of the dark current program throughout the instrument warm-up. In agreement with expectations, it is constant over the entire range of our measurements.

### 3.4 Shading profile

The shading profile is caused by bias variations of the read-out amplifiers throughout the sequential addressing of all pixels in a detector quadrant. These bias variations have been found to be well-correlated with the time interval between readouts ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-time), over the full temperature range of the warm-up. The top panel of Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program shows the variations of the shading profile in camera NIC2 with temperature throughout the warm-up. The median shading signal in columns 145 to 155 is plotted in the bottom panel of Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program as a function of detector temperature. It can be well modeled by a second order polynomial (dash-dotted line), a fact which will be used to remove the shading during pipeline calibration (Monroe & Bergeron, 1999). Since it is a noiseless contribution to the image, it can be completely removed by subtracting two reads with identical $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-times. Subtracting the first $`64\mathrm{s}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-time read from the last (after removing the accumulated amplifier glow, as described in § 3.3) therefore leaves only the signal component which is linearly accumulated during the $`1000\mathrm{s}`$ time interval between those two reads. This component, which is discussed in § 3.9, is usually referred to as the “true” or “linear” dark current in NICMOS data.

### 3.5 Detective quantum efficiency

The DQE changes as a function of temperature. The flat monitoring program was designed to determine the DQE of the NICMOS detectors at the NCS operating temperatures. Expectations were that most pixels would experience a significant increase in DQE, especially at shorter wavelengths. For the analysis, we used the data as processed by the CALNICA pipeline (“\_cal” files). To first order, this eliminates any effects caused by saturation, cosmic rays, and non-linearity. The temperature-dependent dark current and possible sky signal do not affect the analysis because each dataset consists of a pair of “lamp off” and “lamp on” exposures. Both are exposures of the (random) sky through a particular filter, but one has the additional signal from the flat field calibration lamp, which is located at the back of the Field Offset Mirror. Differencing these two exposures then leaves the true flat-field response from which the DQE increase relative to pre-warm-up can be derived. An additional complication is the fact that the pixel saturation levels also vary with temperature, as discussed in § 3.6. All pixels that showed signs of saturation during the MULTIACCUM sequence were excluded from the analysis.

For all pixels, the DQE increases roughly linearly between $`63\mathrm{K}`$ and $`78\mathrm{K}`$, with a usually small curvature term. In all cameras, the linear slope is higher than average for the low-sensitivity regions, and lower than average for the high sensitivity regions. This behavior effectively flattens out the DQE variations across the array, as can be seen in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program which compares flat field exposures of all cameras through the F110W filter at 62 and $`78\mathrm{K}`$. The histograms on the right hand side in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program clearly show a smaller spread in pixel values at the higher temperature.

Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program summarizes the average DQE changes for all three NICMOS detectors as a function of both wavelength and detector temperature. The DQE increase is a well-behaved function of both wavelength and temperature. Based on the data for camera NIC3, we have linearly interpolated the measured DQE increase between the wavelengths of the employed filters for a number of temperatures. The DQE improvements are very regular and predictable. At $`75\mathrm{K}`$, the expected NICMOS operating temperature under the NCS, the average responsivity increased by about 45% in J-, 33% in H-, and 17% in K-band.

Because of the regular behavior of the DQE, it is possible to create synthesized flat fields at arbitrary temperatures and wavelengths by interpolating the model fits for each detector pixel over both parameters. These synthetic flat fields have been extensively tested, and proven to reliably reproduce the DQE for the temperature range of interest. Because the routine pipeline calibration of NICMOS data at this time cannot take into account temperature changes of the detectors, the NICMOS group provides a web-based tool to create synthetic flat field exposures for all instrument filters at arbitrary temperatures222NICMOS users who wish to improve on the pipeline calibration of their data can access the tool from the NICMOS website under http://www.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/nicmos..

### 3.6 Saturation levels and dynamic range

The saturation level of a given detector pixel is defined by amount of charge “loaded” onto it during the detector reset. Since the reset voltage of the NICMOS detectors is sensitive to temperature changes, the pixel saturation levels are expected to be a function of temperature. The flat field exposures taken during the course of the monitoring program allow us to measure this effect. As summarized in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program for the NIC2 camera, the average pixel saturates earlier at higher temperatures. However, the intrinsic capacitance of the detector pixels is not expected to change over the temperature range discussed here ($`60\mathrm{K}80\mathrm{K}`$). Therefore, the resulting loss of dynamic range at higher temperatures can be compensated by an adjustment of the reset voltage such that full use of the pixel capacitance is ensured.

### 3.7 Readout noise

Each NICMOS detector has four independent readout amplifiers, each of which reads a $`128\times 128`$ pixel quadrant. The noise associated with the amplification process, commonly referred to as read noise, is not expected to be a strong function of temperature. The dark current monitoring data allow us to test this expectation. Subtracting the first two reads of a STEP64 sequence eliminates all effects of bias variations or shading. The effective integration time of this difference image is only $`0.3\mathrm{s}`$, too short for the linear dark current signal to become important. Therefore, the RMS deviation of the pixel values across the detector array is an accurate representation of the intrinsic read noise of the detectors. We plot the resulting read noise measurements as a function of temperature in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program. From these measurements, we can confirm that the read noise is indeed fairly constant over the full temperature range covered by our data.

We converted the read noise from DN to electrons by using the following conversion gains: $`5.4\mathrm{e}^{}/\mathrm{DN}`$ for NIC1 and NIC2, and $`6.5\mathrm{e}^{}/\mathrm{DN}`$. The fact that Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program shows camera NIC3 to have a slightly higher readnoise (in e-) than the other two cameras likely indicates that its true conversion gain is somewhat lower than assumed. In order to match the read noise levels of the other two cameras, the NIC3 gain would have to be $`5.9\mathrm{e}^{}/\mathrm{DN}`$.

### 3.8 Detector cosmetics

Throughout the warm-up, no evidence was found for any significant changes in the detector cosmetics, i.e. the number of hot/dead pixels remained constant, the position and amount of grot did not change, and no debonding or other mechanical pixel defects were observed.

### 3.9 Linear dark current

The linear dark current is measured after subtraction of amplifier glow and correction for shading. Special care was taken to minimize the impact of those measurements that were affected by high cosmic ray persistence after an HST passage through the South-Atlantic Anomaly. Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program shows some example exposures that demonstrate the varying structure of the dark current throughout the warm-up. All images are shown with an identical color stretch.

The median signal of all three NICMOS arrays for the whole temperature range of the warm-up is plotted in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program on both a linear and logarithmic scale. The notable increase and subsequent decline of the dark current between 77 and $`85\mathrm{K}`$ is an unexpected feature to which we refer as the “bump” for the remainder of this report. An increasing number of pixels with above average dark current is responsible for the “salt and pepper” appearance of the images in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program. Compared to NIC1 and NIC2, the NIC3 detector shows a much larger number of such “hot” pixels at temperatures above $`85\mathrm{K}`$. This explains the elevated median dark current of NIC3 compared to the other two detectors at temperatures above $`85\mathrm{K}`$ (Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program).

#### 3.9.1 Absence of the grot

An important observational fact is that the dark current images taken over the duration of the bump do not show any signs of “grot”. Grot is the commonly used term for a number of small flecks of black paint on the detector surfaces. These particles presumably were scraped off the baffles during mechanical contact with the filter wheel housing, the process that led to the shortened NICMOS lifetime. Because grot prevents incoming photons from reaching the detector material, it is clearly visible in all NICMOS flat field images as clusters of cold pixels, i.e. pixels with very low responsitivity. The dark current images obtained throughout the duration of the bump do not show any sign of the grot. This indicates that if NIR photons are indeed responsible for the bump, they must have come from within or behind the detector. Also, a transiently hot part inside the NICMOS dewar is inconceivable, because all temperature sensors showed a monotonic increase during the warm-up. In addition, in order to produce such a close match to flat field exposures, the signal must have been produced in or close to a pupil plane, which does not exist between the filter wheel and the detectors. One can therefore conclude that the bump signal can not be produced by NIR photons from outside the detector.

#### 3.9.2 Morphology of the dark current bump

Another important observational result is that the morphology of the excess signal that constitutes the dark current bump closely resembles the spatial variations of the DQE. This can be most easily seen when comparing the structure in the dark current images at the peak of the bump in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program to the flat field exposures shown in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program. This similarity between dark current and DQE is only seen over the temperature range of the bump signal. Any valid explanation for the dark current bump must account for this correlation, which we investigate in more detail in § 4.1.

One conclusion that can be drawn from the DQE-like bump morphology is that the electrons responsible for the bump signal are subject to the same spatial variations in material properties as “normal” signal electrons. Quantities such as impurity density, mean free path length, or recombination efficiency all affect the detection probability of a charge carrier. Therefore, the bump electrons are likely to originate at the same physical location as signal electrons produced by infrared photons.

We emphasize that a temporary rise in detector temperature can be ruled out as the source of the enhanced dark current. This is because the signal morphology at dark current levels comparable to the bump (between 90 and $`96\mathrm{K}`$, Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program) is very different, and certainly does not reflect the DQE structure. Moreover, as described in §3.2, the detector bias levels are very sensitive to temperature changes, but certainly show no evidence for a transient heating of the detectors in excess of the overall instrument warm-up (see Fig. Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program).

## 4 Discussion of the on-orbit dark current

The data described in the previous sections provide a comprehensive study of the performance of NICMOS-3 detectors as a function of their operating temperature. The NICMOS warm-up program offers a unique opportunity to study the effects of the space environment on HgCdTe detectors. A significant unexpected result was the elevated dark current level at temperatures between 77 and $`85\mathrm{K}`$. Because the bump is located at or close to the expected operating temperature for operations under the NCS, its nature needs to be understood for successful instrument calibration. In particular, it is important to determine whether the enhanced dark current will be observed during science operation in Cycle 11 and beyond. Long exposures in narrow-band filters at wavelengths below $`1.7\mu \mathrm{m}`$ are of particular concern, since for these, the NICMOS sensitivity is limited by the noise associated with the dark current signal. The dark current bump observed in NICMOS therefore warrants further investigation.

The theoretical expectation for the dark current at temperatures above $`140\mathrm{K}`$ is to follow the charge carrier concentration (Cooper et al., 1993), which, in turn, rises with temperature according to the Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{kT}}`$. At temperatures between 90 and $`140\mathrm{K}`$, a generation-recombination model described by Rogalski & Pietrowski (1988) provides the best agreement with the laboratory measurements of Cooper et al. (1993). The two regimes both produce a basically linear relation of log(dark current) vs 1/T, but with different slopes. At temperatures below $`90\mathrm{K}`$, poorly understood tunneling effects are known to cause a deviation from the generation-recombination model. Tunneling effects cause a flattening of the dark current curve at colder temperatures, eventually approaching an asymptotic dark current level. This behavior is also evident from Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program. However, none of the models predict an increase and subsequent decline in the temperature range between 77 and $`85\mathrm{K}`$.

As described in § 3.9, the warm-up observations rule out both a temporary increase in detector temperature as well as a radiative signal from outside the detector as the cause for the bump. One possible origin for the charge released over the duration of the bump is a population of electrons which was “trapped” inside the detector material as long as it was colder than about $`75\mathrm{K}`$. As the detectors warmed up above this threshold, the trapped charge was gradually released over the temperature range of the bump, until at about $`85\mathrm{K}`$ all traps were emptied. The additional charge diffuses to the pn-junctions, thus giving rise to the enhanced signal that constitutes the bump. However, this qualitative scenario leaves a number of questions open, such as the nature and number of the putative traps, the origin of the trapped charge, and the mechanism and time constants for releasing trapped charge. From the evaluation of the monitoring data, one can make a few comments that might illuminate these issues further.

### 4.1 The Bump - Flat Field correlation

The observed similarity of the bump morphology to the DQE variations suggests that the traps are distributed at a depth inside the bulk material of the detector roughly equal to the absorption length of infrared photons. To illustrate this point, we show in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program a cross section of the NICMOS-3 detector. Before infrared photons enter the active detector material, they pass through a transparent sapphire substrate. In order to improve the lattice match between the sapphire and the HgCdTe material, a narrow layer of CdTe is grown between the sapphire and the HgCdTe bulk material.

Although the insertion of the CdTe layer improves the lattice match considerably, it is far from perfect, and the CdTe-HgCdTe boundary is expected to contain a large number of interface traps. If trapped electrons were indeed released at the CdTe-HgCdTe boundary, a general match between the morphologies of the bump and the DQE would be explained naturally. This is because the electrons on their diffusion path towards the pn-junction are subject to variations in the carrier lifetime inside the HgCdTe layer which give rise to non-uniformities in the DQE across the detector.

A more detailed test can be conducted by comparing the bump morphology to flat field exposures taken at various wavelengths. To first order, one would predict that flat fields taken at shorter wavelengths produce a better match to the bump structure, because shorter wavelength photons do not penetrate as deeply into the detector material as longer wavelength photons. They are absorbed closer to the CdTe-HgCdTe interface, the suggested location of the traps. If, on the other hand, the traps were distributed uniformly over the detector material, a flat field taken over the full responsivity range of the detector (i.e. $`0.82.5\mu \mathrm{m}`$) should provide the best match to the bump morphology.

Discriminating between these two predictions requires flat field exposures taken over a broad range of wavelengths at the temperature of the bump peak at approximately $`82\mathrm{K}`$. Unfortunately, the flat field monitoring program obtained data in only a few broad-band filters (see Table 1) at only a number of temperatures below $`78\mathrm{K}`$. We have therefore used the well-behaved DQE dependency on temperature and wavelength described in § 3.5, to built a set of synthetic monochromatic flat fields for a temperature of $`82\mathrm{K}`$, covering the full sensitivity range of the NICMOS detectors. In Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program, we compare the morphology of these to that of the bump. More specifically, we show images of the ratio between the normalized bump signal (after subtraction of the linear dark current) and the synthetic flat field exposures, sorted by wavelength. A spatially uniform ratio image means a good match between the bump signal and the DQE morphology. Obviously, the agreement is better for shorter wavelengths.

This result is quantified better in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program which plots the standard deviation in the (ring-median filtered) ratio images as a function of their wavelength. The ring-median filtering eliminates pixel-to-pixel variations and emphasizes the large-scale structures in the ratio images. For the NIC2 and NIC3 detectors, the DQE structure and the bump signal match best at the shortest wavelengths. In NIC1, the standard deviation at the shortest wavelengths is dominated by a pattern of diagonal stripes in the ratio images. These are likely due to the illumination pattern of the flat field lamps.

In summary, the fact that the best match between bump morphology and DQE is obtained at the shortest wavelengths indicates that the excess charge detected over the course of the bump originated at or close to the CdTe-HgCdTe interface. If the excess charge is indeed due to a population of traps introduced during the manufacturing process, a similar behavior would be expected in all NICMOS-3 detectors, at least in those from the same lot. The laboratory test program recommended by the Independent Science Review Committee was designed to address this question. In what follows, we describe the motivation, design, and results of this test program.

## 5 The “Bump Test” - A Laboratory Experiment

One proposed scenario for filling the traps is via normal signal electrons produced by infrared radiation. To test this specific hypothesis, a controlled experiment was conducted at the NICMOS detector laboratory at Steward Observatory, University of Arizona. The goal of this program was to replicate the on-orbit warm-up profile described in § 2, and to measure the dark current of a NICMOS-3 detector as a function of temperature for two scenarios. In the first, the device was cooled down, and not exposed to any external illumination in the cold state. Since no signal electrons were produced that could fill the putative traps, the expectation is that the subsequent warm-up should not show the dark current bump. In the second scenario, the detector was flood-illuminated in the cold state, with levels exceeding the charge amount under the bump by about three orders of magnitude. In this case, one expects the putative traps to be filled before the warm-up starts, and hence the bump should be reproduced.

Details about the major elements of the laboratory equipment and the test procedures may be found in Böker et al. (2000b). Here, we only give a brief summary to illuminate some crucial aspects. The test detector - a NICMOS-3 flight spare array with characteristics that are very similar to the on-orbit detectors - was secured in a flight-like mount and installed in a dewar with a cold-shuttered optical window. The dewar contains two filter wheels which can be externally commanded and rotated for optical stimulation at selected wavelengths. A temperature-controlled stage accurately holds the array to any desired temperature. The thermal background inside the dewar produces a detector signal of about $`0.3\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This sets a lower limit to any dark current measurements, but is smaller than the actual detector dark current over most of the temperature range of interest.

In order to establish a baseline measurement of the dark current increase with temperature, the detector was cooled to $`63.4\mathrm{K}`$ without any prior illumination and allowed to thermally stabilize. After a series of dark exposures taken at this baseline temperature, the detector was warmed to $`88\mathrm{K}`$ through a sequence of 14 linear ramp segments. The ramp slopes were chosen to closely follow the on-orbit warm-up of the NICMOS flight detectors, and replicated the on-orbit warm-up profile with high accuracy. During the entire duration of the warm-up (about 5 days), STEP64 MULTIACCUM exposures were taken continuously, each with a total exposure time of $`1088\mathrm{s}`$. This data format is identical to that used during the on-orbit monitoring program.

Following this initial warm-up, the detector was re-cooled to $`63.4\mathrm{K}`$ and another set of baseline darks was obtained to provide a consistency check with the previous data. The cold detector was then exposed to a high level of incident NIR light. Four discrete passbands with a FWHM of $`0.1\mu \mathrm{m}`$ were used to cover the full range of spectral sensitivity of the array333In order to assure quantitative knowledge of the incident flux level, we chose not to perform the flooding unfiltered. Also, using a very broad bandpass would have saturated the detector in the shortest possible read time.. The primary goal of the flooding process was to expose the detector to broad-band illumination levels greater than the total charge released during the on-orbit bump anomaly, i.e. $`8\times 10^5\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{pixel}^1`$. However, the probability of a signal electron being “caught” in one of the putative charge traps is unknown. As a compromise between test duration and probability of filling the traps, we adopted a $``$1000 times higher integrated flood signal. The total accumulated signal achieved over the four passbands during the flood was $`1.7\mathrm{x10}^9\mathrm{e}^{}/\mathrm{pixel}`$, as detailed in Table 2. After the flood illumination, another series of baseline darks was taken. The warm-up profile and dark current measurements were then repeated identically as in the pre-flood phase. If the proposed scenario for charge traps was correct, this sequence should have reproduced the on-orbit dark-current bump.

We also investigated any systematic effects caused by the detector not being in thermal equilibrium during the warm-up. It is known, for example, that the thermal coupling between the array and its temperature sensor through the detector stage is not perfect. This will introduce some amount of thermal lag, so that the measured dark current is actually attributed to a slightly wrong detector temperature. To address these issues, the detector was again cooled to $`63.4\mathrm{K}`$ and allowed to thermally equilibriate. After another series of baseline darks, the detector was warmed through a number of thermal plateaus. At each of these (at temperatures of 63.4, 70, 77, 83, and $`88\mathrm{K}`$), the detector was held stable for 5 hours. After equilibration, ten dark current exposures were obtained at each plateau. These measurements were compared to those in the same temperature regimes, during the continuous warm-up. From this comparison, we obtained an empirical measure of the heat transfer efficiency between the detector and its temperature sensor which is discussed in the next section.

### 5.1 Data Reduction & Analysis

For all MULTIACCUM sequences obtained throughout the test program, we measured the dark current accumulation between reads 14 and 25. The 14th read was chosen as the reference frame because it is well beyond any device non-linearities introduced by the reset gradient (a.k.a.“shading”) of the device (Rieke et al., 1993). The signal difference between the two reads divided by the net integration time yields the linear dark current. We measured the three-sigma clipped mean and median dark current in each detector quadrant over a 70x70 pixel sub-array. The sub-arrays were used to avoid the bulk of the amplifier glow and other anomalies at the quadrant boundaries. The measured dark current was then related to temperature for both the pre- and post-flood test runs.

However, there is an additional complication to the interpretation of the measurements. The above measurement does not yield the true dark current, because the detector is not in thermal equilibrium. As the device warms up, the two reads - which are $`704\mathrm{s}`$ apart - are taken at different temperatures. This introduces a DC bias change. The DC bias, or zero point, can be measured from the 0th read in a MULTIACCUM sequence which is taken only $`0.2\mathrm{s}`$ after the reset. For a detector in thermal equilibrium, the zero point depends linearly on detector temperature. In other words, NICMOS-3 detectors make excellent thermometers. For the test detector, we found a DC shift rate of $`190\mathrm{ADU}\mathrm{K}^1`$. The apparent signal produced by this effect was removed via the following scheme.

Based upon the thermal slew rate at any given time during the warm-up, one can easily calculate the temperature difference between reads 14 and 25 of each MULTIACCUM sequence, and hence predict the excess signal in the absence of any other effects. However, one cannot simply subtract this predicted excess signal from each dark current measurement. As mentioned before, the thermal coupling between the detector and the sensor used to control the detector temperature is imperfect. Indeed, the predicted DC drift rate underestimates the true value. The magnitude of this effect, however, can be quantified by comparing the dark current measured with the detector in thermal equilibrium at different temperatures - as done during the last phase of the test - with those measured with the detector transitioning through the same temperatures. One can then empirically find a scaling factor, which should be proportional to the thermal impedance between the detector and its temperature sensor. This scaling factor is to be applied to the predicted DC drift contribution to the measured dark current. For our instrumental set-up, the scale factor was found to be $`3`$, as illustrated in Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program. The solid gray line shows the expected signal excess at each segment of the thermal ramps after scaling. When this model of the signal excess is subtracted from the measured dark current (dots), the corrected dark current (black line) exactly passes through the measurements obtained with the device in thermal equilibrium (squares).

As can be seen from Figure Properties of PACE-I HgCdTe Detectors in Space - the NICMOS Warm-up Monitoring Program, the measured and corrected dark current curves for the post-flood warm-up data show no evidence of any bump-like signal as seen in the on-orbit warm-up. Therefore, the proposed explanation of photoelectrons “stored” in charge traps that are intrinsic to the manufacturing process of the NICMOS detectors seems unlikely.

## 6 Alternative explanations

An alternative mechanism for producing charge traps - which uniquely applies to detectors in space - is displacement damage from high-energy protons in the low-earth orbit (LEO) environment. The HST orbits the earth in an altitude of about $`600\mathrm{km}`$ with an orbital period of about $`94\mathrm{min}`$. About half of its orbits pass through the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), a region where the van Allen radiation belts reach lower altitudes because of the asymmetry of the earth’s magnetic field. The charged particle flux onto the HST instruments during passage through the SAA is much higher than during “SAA-free” parts of the orbit. The total on-orbit radiation dosage of the NICMOS detectors is fairly uncertain. Our best estimate is based on data from the APEXRAD software (Gussenhoven et al., 1997). Assuming a total shielding of about $`10\mathrm{mm}`$ of Aluminum, we derive an upper limit of $`4\mathrm{J}\mathrm{kg}^1`$ over the entire NICMOS lifetime. For comparison, the average total signal integrated over the temperature range of the bump was $`5.810^5\mathrm{e}^{}/\mathrm{pixel}`$.

Another possible explanation for the bump signal, which is physically different from charge traps within the detector, is photoluminescence. Hunter et al. (1980) have shown that HgCdTe does show luminescence at energy levels within the band gap via band-to-band and donor-to-acceptor-transitions, as well as bound-exciton recombination. While the detailed mechanism remains to be identified, it is not inconceivable that luminescence - induced either by the thermal energy provided by the detector warm-up or by mechanical stress - can produce photons inside the detector material which are subsequently registered as the bump signal. Clearly, a more sophisticated test program is required to investigate this theory further.

Finally, it has been suggested that surface leakage associated with a transiently sublimed layer on the detector might be a viable explanation for the bump. In this context, the outgassing of the charcoal getter mentioned in § 2 might provide a source for the contaminant layer. None of the above scenarios can be explored further with the limited laboratory experiment described in this paper.

## 7 Summary

We have presented results of the NICMOS warm-up monitoring program. Detector parameters such as quantum efficiency, dark current, bias, and saturation levels have been measured over a wide temperature range. The measurements provide a unique database of the characteristics of PACE-I HgCdTe detector arrays in the space environment. The data of the NICMOS warm-up program are available from the HST archive.

We have found an unexpected increase in dark current in all three NICMOS flight detectors in the temperature range between 77 and $`85\mathrm{K}`$. We have discussed qualitative scenarios for its explanation, including the possible existence of a population of charge traps within the detector material.

We have reported on a laboratory experiment undertaken to measure the dark current as a function of temperature in a detector of the same manufacture, pedigree, and operating characteristics as the flight arrays. The program was specifically designed to investigate the trapped photoelectron hypothesis. The test results did not confirm predictions of this hypothesis. The origin of the NICMOS dark current anomaly is thus likely to be unique to the space environment, the way the NICMOS detectors are operated onboard HST, or a combination of both.

We are grateful to personnel at the Rockwell Science Center and at Ball Aerospace for their hospitality during valuable discussions on PACE-I technology and the NICMOS instrument, respectively. In particular, we would like to thank K. Vural and W. Tennant at Rockwell who helped to clarify a number of issues related to the NICMOS-3 arrays. We are indebted to W. Burmester of Ball Aerospace who not only provided his wealth of expertise on the NICMOS instrument and detectors, but also free lodging and skiing lessons for some of us. We also would like to thank M. Rieke, M. Stiavelli, and T. Casselman for helpful conversations on the possible origin of the bump.


text:
# High spatial resolution observations of CUDSS14A: a Scuba-selected Ultraluminous galaxy at high redshift

## 1 Introduction

The commissioning of SCUBA on the JCMT has revolutionized the field of observational cosmology and in particular the study of galaxy evolution, arguably making as big an impact as the release of the Hubble Deep Field did a few years earlier.

Something of the order of 50 galaxies have now been discovered in the various deep SCUBA surveys (Smail et al 1997, Hughes et al 1998 , Barger et al 1998, Eales et al 1999) and at least 30 percent of the far-infrared/submillimetre background discovered by COBE (Puget et al 1996, Fixsen et al 1998) has been resolved. Considerable effort is now being dedicated at ground-based telescopes in the radio, infrared and optical, as well as Satellite observatories such as the Hubble Space Telescope,XMM-Newton and Chandra, to following up these sources, making identifications and obtaining redshifts, so that the history of star-formation in the Universe can be properly characterised free of the obscuring effect of dust.

Accurate positions are of course essential for identifications and follow-up observations, and the 15 arcsec SCUBA beam at 850 $`\mu `$m allows an uncertainty of several arcseconds even on a high signal-to-noise detection. Deep VLA imaging has been quite successful at providing identifications and accurate positions of a number of SCUBA-selected sources (Smail et al 2000, Richards 1999). However, $`50\%`$ of SCUBA sources are detected with the VLA, even at $``$ 10$`\mu `$Jy sensitivity levels, and in some cases even with a VLA detection there may be some ambiguity in the identification (Richards 1999, Downes et al 1999). The only way to truly confirm the identification is to make a higher resolution millimetre or submillimetre image using an interferometric array (Frayer et al 1998,1999,2000; Downes et al 1999).

In this paper we present the results of an observation with the IRAM interferometer on Plateau du Bure of CUDSS14A, the brightest source discovered in the CUDSS as reported by Eales et al (1999), along with new high resolution J and K images obtained with the CFHT Adaptive Optics system PUEO which we combine with archive HST images at 606 and 814 nm (roughly V and I), and also new infrared spectroscopy obtained on the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT).

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 IRAM Observations

The IRAM data were taken on 25, 26 and 28 November 1998. The array was in the 5D configuration, and the source was tracked for 8.4, 3.3 and 10.6 hours on each night respectively. Flux calibration was performed against CRL618, 3C273 and MWC349 with 1637+574 and 1418+546 being used as phase calibrators. The observations were centred on the nominal SCUBA position of (J2000) 14 17 40.3 +52 29 08 and observations were made at 1.3 mm (238.5 GHz) and 2.8 mm (105 GHz) simultaneously. The data were correlated and reduced at the IRAM headquarters in Grenoble using the standard software.

The 1.3 mm map is shown in Figure 1 (we note that Bertoldi et al 2000 have produced an essentially identical map from the same data). The object is very clearly detected at a level of 6 $`\sigma `$, and the positional centroid is 14 17 40.37 +52 29 06.8, or 0.6 arcsec in RA and 1.2 arcsec in declination away from the nominal SCUBA position. We estimate the total uncertainty of the IRAM position to be $`\pm `$ 0.3 arcsec (see Downes et al 1999 for a detailed discussion of the different factors affecting the positional uncertainty of IRAM interferometer maps). There is no evidence for any extension beyond the beam. We also examined the data for any evidence of spectral line emission but found none, however this does not place any meaningful limits on the redshift.

There was no detection at 2.8 mm. The 1.3 mm flux and 2.8 mm upper limit are shown in Table 1, along with the SCUBA and ISO measurements. The overall flux distribution, which is very similar to other SCUBA-selected galaxies (e.g. Ivison et al 1999), is plotted in Figure 2.

### 2.2 New CFHT Observations

Observations were made with the PUEO Adative Optics system on CFHT during the nights of April 27-28 1999, using an R=15.3 guide star 26 arcsec WNW of the target. The detector was a 10242 HgCdTe array sampling the image at 0.035 arcsec/pixel. Secure detections were obtained in a total of 150 minutes integration in J and 100 in K’.

The new infrared images have been co-registered with archival HST images in F606W and F814W (the source is in the so-called ’Westphal’ survey field), resampling to a pixel scale of 0.1 arcsec/pixel. A montage of the F606W, F814W, J and K’ images is shown in Figure 3. The morphology of the source appears compact and indistinct. The FWHM of the images are about 0.4 arcsec in all of the bands, substantially larger than the PSF in the HST data. The PSF is poorly constrained in the Adaptive Optics images but is most likely substantially smaller than 0.4 arcsec.

The brightness of CUDSS-14A in F606W, F814W J and K’ in apertures of 1, 2 and 4 arcsec diameter are listed in Table 2. The colours are broadly consistent in the different apertures but with a trend to be bluer in larger apertures. This new photometry agrees well with earlier measurements in larger apertures by Lilly et al (1999). Optical spectroscopy was also attempted but no detection was made.

### 2.3 UKIRT Observations

CUDSS14A was observed with the CGS4 spectrometer on the nights of April 13 and 16 1999 using the 300 mm focal length camera and 40 lines/mm grating. The 2.4 arcsec slit was centred on the radio position, and the observing and data reduction procedures described by Eales and Rawlings (1993) were used. In the K and H bands we observed in first order ($`\lambda /\delta \lambda =400`$) for 160 minutes, and in J we observed in second order ($`\lambda /\delta \lambda =800`$) for 80 minutes.

Continuum was detected at K, but not at J or H. No spectral lines were seen in any of the bands and we estimate the upper limits on the lines as $`1.1\times 10^{19}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ in the region 2.02-2.3 $`\mu `$m, $`1.3\times 10^{19}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ in the region 1.5-1.8 $`\mu `$m, and $`2.8\times 10^{19}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$ in the region 1.1-1.3 $`\mu `$m. To derive these limits we have assumed that a spectral line would have a spectral width equivalent to a velocity dispersion of 200 km $`s^1`$. These limits are slightly more conservative than 3$`\sigma `$ limits, since we have enough spectral range that we might expect a 3$`\sigma `$ fluctuation by chance. The limits have been chosen to be slightly larger than the largest feature in each spectral range.

## 3 DISCUSSION

### 3.1 The identification

The IRAM position is 1.4 arcsec from the nominal SCUBA position and is also only 1.2 arcsec from the 5 GHz position of Fomalont et al (1991) and 1.5 arcsec from the optical ID (Lilly et al 1999). Since there is no other candidate in each band than the one we show and all the positions lie easily within their respective 2$`\sigma `$ astrometric uncertainties of each other (in fact the IRAM, radio and optical positions are only just outside their respective 1-$`\sigma `$ uncertainties) we believe the identification to be extremely robust.

### 3.2 The Redshift

In Lilly et al (1999) we suggested a redshift in the range z=2-3, based on the rather uncertain optical and infrared colours available at that time. We can now use our new data to provide further photometric constraints.

#### 3.2.1 Radio and Submillimetre

Carilli and Yun (1999; hereafter CY99) suggested that the strong radio-FIR correlation could be used to provide constraints on the redshifts of SCUBA survey sources. The original CY99 relationship is based on a model, but in a follow-up paper (Carilli and Yun 2000, hereafter CY00) they used observational data from 17 galaxies observed in the submillimetre by Lisenfield, Isaak and Hills (1999) to produce an empirical relationship, which tends to result in somewhat lower redshifts than their original one. Both these results have now been superseded however by Dunne et al (2000) who have made a SCUBA survey of 104 nearby galaxies. Using Dunne et al’s empirical relationship between 850 $`\mu `$m and 1.4 GHz flux density, including the intrinsic scatter to derive an uncertainty, the measured 1.3 mm to 850 $`\mu `$m spectral index of 3.2 and the 1.4 to 5 GHz radio spectral index of -0.2$`\pm `$0.3, we obtain z$``$2.2$`\pm `$0.5 for CUDSS14A. For completeness we note that CY00 would result in z$``$2.9$`\pm `$0.7 and CY99 in z$``$5.0$`\pm `$1.0. The rough consistency of the CY00 and Dunne et al results and the inconsistency of the CY99 prediction demonstrates both the uncertainty in this technique (see also Blain 1999) but also the manner in which it is rapidly improving.

We can also use the fact that we have upper limits at 450 $`\mu `$m and 2.8 mm to provide further constraints. To do this we take two extreme template spectra, namely the nearby starburst galaxy M82, which has a dust temperature of 48K and is optically thin throughout the FIR and submm region (Hughes et al 1994), and Arp220, which has a fitted dust temperature of 62K and is optically thick shortward of 200 $`\mu `$m (see e.g. Downes, Solomon & Radford 1993).

As demonstrated in Figure 4, CUDSS14A cannot be at low redshift, for either template, otherwise we would have detected it at 450 $`\mu `$m. Conversely it is unlikely to be at very high redshift, for either template, otherwise we would have detected it at 2.8 mm. In fact the detections and upper limits constrain the redshift to the range 2$`<z<5`$.

It would be possible to allow a lower redshift if the emitting dust were much colder. In order to be consistent with the 1.3 mm detection and 450 $`\mu `$m upper limit however, for z$``$1 the temperature would have to be $``$ 20K. Although this would reduce the source luminosity somewhat (depending on the unobserved FIR spectral shape), it also increases the required gas and dust mass to $`10^{11}M_{}`$, which is rather excessive. Interestingly, the 450/1300 $`\mu `$m flux constraint for CUDSS14A is identical to that found for HDF850.1 by Downes et al (1999) and they reach the same conclusion, that the source is unlikely to be at such low redshift. We also note that no sources as cold as 20K are known at low redshift and furthermore, that higher luminosity sources also tend to be warmer. Even at the lower end of any possible luminosity range it seems very unlikely to us that such a luminous object would be very cold.

#### 3.2.2 Optical and Infrared

CUDSS14A is an extremely red object (ERO) with $`(VK)_{AB}6`$ corresponding to a Vega-normalized colour of $`(VK)8`$. Other EROs have been identified with SCUBA sources (Smail et al 1999), and Barger, Cowie and Richards (2000) have shown that many very red radio source identifications are detectable with SCUBA. An interesting consequence of the very red colours of a source like CUDSS14A is that such galaxies would rapidly become extremely faint if placed at higher redshifts (Dey et al 1999). This is illustrated in Figure 5 where we show the expected V, I, J and K magnitudes as a function of redshift assuming that the real source is (a) at z=2 and (b) at z=4. In the former case, the source would become very hard to detect at wavelengths below 1$`\mu `$m at redshifts as low as 3. The implications of this are that SCUBA sources for which no optical identification can be found even to extremely faint levels such as reached by the Hubble Deep Field are not neccessarily at very high redshifts, z$``$3.

The IJK colours of CUDSS14A are consistent with an Sb galaxy at z=2.5 (as suggested in paper II), however the VIJ colours are also consistent with an Sa galaxy at z=1.5, and the overall spectrum is so extremely red it is not very different from a power law. Therefore we cannot make any firm conclusions based on the colours, but most probably z is less than 4.5 based on the V detection.

If CUDSS14A were at z $``$2.2-2.5 then H$`\alpha `$ would appear in the range 2.1 to 2.3 $`\mu `$m, and the \[OIII\] 5007 line would appear at 1.60 to 1.75 $`\mu `$m. No lines are observed. However we note that spectroscopic observations of nearby ULIRGs by Kim, Veilleux and Sanders (1998) imply the lines are suppressed compared to the level expected from the FIR-derived star-formation rates in these objects, and in fact if the ratio of optical/infrared line emission to FIR luminosity in SCUBA-selected galaxies is similar to that found in nearby ULIRGs then 8-10 m telescopes will be required to detect them. Therefore the non-detection of any lines cannot be used to rule out a redshift of 2-3.

The optical/infrared, radio and mm/submm data therefore all argue strongly for a redshift 2.0 $`<z<4.5`$ with some preference for a redshift around 2.2 to 2.5.

### 3.3 AGN Heating ?

A source at redshift z$`>`$2 with a dust temperature around 50K has a minimum possible source size of 0.1 arcsec to produce an observed flux of 2.9 mJy at 240 GHz, which at z$``$2-5 corresponds to roughly 1$``$2 kiloparsec, which is the typical size for circumnuclear starburst regions in local ULIRGs. Another way of looking at this is to say that if the emitting region in CUDSS14A is a typical circumnuclear star-forming region and it is at z$``$2-5, then the submm emission must be quite close to being optically thick.

Applying the same argument to the question of whether the FIR luminosity could be produced by AGN heating, we can say immediately that the submm-emitting dust cannot predominantly be heated directly by a central AGN, since in order to be at a temperature of 50K or below, for standard dust properties (e.g. Hildebrand 1983) the grains would have to be $``$ 5 kpc from a central AGN of luminosity 4$`\times `$1012 L and would therefore have been resolvable. Conversely if optically thin dust were only 1 kpc from such a central source its temperature would be $``$ 200K which is not consistent with the ISO and 450 $`\mu `$m non-detections. However we cannot rule out heating via radiative transfer through a large column of dust, with the observed mm/submm emission arising only close to the outer surface.

The launch of the Chandra and XMM X-ray satellites offer the opportunity to observe AGN emission directly in these sources if it is present and should help to solve this question definitively. Initial Chandra observations presented by Mushotsky et al (2000) suggest that the hard x-ray background has been resolved into heavily obscured active galaxies, for which the SCUBA-selected objects are a plausible counterpart. However the limited data so far available from Chandra on SCUBA sources (Fabian et al 2000) suggest that these are more like starburst galaxies, unless they are Compton-thick and the scattered X-rays are weak or also absorbed.

### 3.4 Source properties

We can derive a total luminosity for CUDSS14A of $``$3-6$`\times `$1012 L for 2$`<`$z$`<`$4.5. This luminosity estimate is for an Arp220-like spectrum where the total luminosity is completely dominated by the Submm/FIR. For an M82-like spectrum the total luminosity could in fact be considerably higher. For a standard initial mass function, this luminosity corresponds to an ongoing star-formation rate of $``$1000 M yr-1, which is hard to sustain for a cosmologically significant time, unless the IMF is very heavily biased towards massive stars.

We can also estimate a total gas mass using the techniques laid out in Hildebrand (1983) and Gear (1989) (see also Hughe, Dunlop and Rawlings 1997) to give roughly $``$1010 M. The uncertainty in this estimate is probably at least a factor 5 in each direction however, given the uncertainty in dust temperature, optical depth, grain properties, redshift and cosmology. A galaxy of this mass could only sustain the derived star formation rate for a period of around 10 million years. So these results are all consistent with CUDSS14A being a gas and dust-rich galaxy undergoing a short-lived period of extensive star-formation.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

JAS and DLC acknowledge the support of PPARC PDRAs. We thank R.Moreno and A.Dutrey for help with the IRAM data reduction. SJL’s research is supported by the NSERC of Canada and by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. We thank the referee for helpful comments.