text:
# A Deep ROSAT HRI Observation of NGC 1313

## 1 Introduction

One of the most significant discoveries using the Einstein Observatory was the existence in many nearby spiral galaxies of X-ray sources with luminosities in the range $``$1039-40 erg s-1. As the brightest Galactic X-ray binary has an X-ray luminosity of a few $`\times `$1038 erg s-1, these Einstein sources represented a new class. Some of these sources are located in the central regions of spirals (e.g., NGC 6946, IC 342, and the northern source in NGC 1313 (Fabbiano & Trinchieri, 1987); M33 (Markert & Rallis, 1983)), so they were originally believed to be low-activity active nuclei or starburst regions. Others, however, are well-separated from the galactic nucleus (e.g., the southern source in NGC 1313; Fabbiano & Trinchieri 1987) and could not be so easily explained.

With the more powerful X-ray observatory ROSAT, higher-sensitivity observations of many nearby galaxies have been possible. In NGC 6946 (Schlegel, 1994) and IC 342 (Bregman et al., 1993), the luminous nuclear regions have been resolved into an ensemble of discrete sources. In NGC 1313, the supposed nuclear source was shown to be located a full kiloparsec from the optical nucleus (Colbert et al., 1995; Colbert & Mushotzky, 1999). While spectroscopic observations using the X-ray observatory ASCA have shown that the central source in M33 is not an active nucleus (Takano et al., 1993), the nature of the NGC 1313 “central” source remains undetermined.

NGC 1313 is a barred spiral galaxy (SBd; deVaucouleurs et al. (1991)) in the southern hemisphere. Its distance is estimated to be 4.5 Mpc (deVaucouleurs, 1963). Numerous bright star-forming regions are present in the galaxy (Ryder et al., 1995). The only very luminous X-ray source optically identified is SN1978K, the first supernova identified as such on the basis of its X-ray emission (Ryder et al., 1993).

Using a set of ROSAT HRI observations obtained over the past 6 years, we have detected two additional highly luminous sources within 1 kpc of the nucleus. We find that all three central sources exhibit temporal variability, providing the first evidence that they are all compact. We also present the summed image of all of the individual observations which provides a deep look at NGC 1313.

## 2 Observations

Nine ROSAT HRI observations have been obtained over the years 1992-1998. Eight were collected as part of a monitoring program of SN1978K (Schlegel, Petre, & Colbert, 1996; Schlegel et al., 1999); the ninth was obtained to pursue the optical identification of a different source (Stocke et al., 1994, 1995). The summary of the complete data set is contained in Table 1. A single ROSAT observation was typically spread across several calendar weeks; the MJD listed in the table is the value near the center of the observing window.

The data have all been reduced identically. Each observation was processed with the “extended source” software described by Snowden (1998) and available at the US ROSAT Science Data Center at NASA-GSFC. The software accounts for the particle background, filtering out times of anomalously high background and other bad quality data. Each observation was also corrected for the aspect error described by Harris (1999). This error arose from incorrect times (the fractional portion) that are associated with each aspect record which led to incorrect positions for each event. The data were affected because the point spread function was broadened by $``$3′′. The correction was applied to the first seven observations; the last two were unaffected by the error (the eighth and ninth observations had zero or nearly zero fractional times, so the error was at the level of $``$0′′.1, well below detectability). Once the data were filtered and aspect-corrected, the images from all of the observations were registered (using the IRAF/STSDAS task “registration”) and stacked. Figure 1 shows the resulting stacked image.

The Chandra Observatory source detection task “wavdetect,” based on the wavelet code of Micela et al. (1996), was used to locate point sources using a detection criterion of $`>`$4.5 $`\sigma `$ (at most, $`<`$1 false source). The detection threshold varies with off-axis angle. At the center, the threshold is $``$2$`\times `$10-4 counts s-1 which corresponds to a luminosity of $``$5$`\times `$1037 ergs s-1 assuming a thermal spectrum of temperature 3 keV and absorbed by the known column density toward NGC 1313 (NH $``$6$`\times `$1020 cm-2 from an EB-V of 0.11 (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis, 1998) and using the NH-EB-V relation of Predehl & Schmitt 1995). At a radius of 10, the threshold is $``$2.5$`\times `$10-4 counts s-1 or $``$7$`\times `$1037 ergs s-1.

A total of 15 sources were found in the summed image; the detection task ignored any “source” within 2 of the edge of the field where the vignetting is severe. The detected sources are listed in Table 2 with their positions (J2000), total exposure time at the source’s position, detected counts, estimated flux and luminosity, and PSPC counterpart name (Colbert et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1998). The sources are ordered by decreasing right ascension. For this paper, we number the sources and use the numbers for the source name instead of the longer but complete ROSAT source number.

We extracted the counts for each source using an aperture of 40′′, taking care to exclude counts from nearby sources. The background was extracted from an annulus surrounding the entire galaxy. The counts from any source falling within the background annulus were excluded. The vignetting within $``$5 of the center is small ($``$5%) but the correction was applied to any source with an off-axis angle $`>`$1. No energy filtering was applied during the extraction, so the extracted counts represent the incident flux for the complete bandpass of the HRI (0.1–2.4 keV).

The HRI efficiency was relatively constant throughout the ROSAT mission. The HRI high voltage was increased to compensate for a loss of gain on 1994 June 21. As a consequence, the HRI flux sensitivity increased by $``$10%; any sources showing fluctuations at or below the 10% level were interpreted as constant. As we describe below, the variability of several sources is too large to be interpreted as resulting from the gain change. Note, in particular, that all observations but the first occurred after the gain change.

The luminosity of each source is estimated assuming it is located within NGC 1313; several of the sources are likely to be foreground (or background) objects, so the true luminosity will be lower (or higher). The unabsorbed luminosities (Table 2) in the 0.1–2.4 keV band were estimated by comparing the source count rates with that expected from a source with a thermal spectrum (kT = 2 keV) and a column density identical to the Galactic column. For a column density of 1.5$`\times `$1021 cm-2, the approximate mean value for NH obtained from fitting the PSPC data of sources 6 (=X-1) and 4 (=X-2) (Colbert et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1998), the unabsorbed luminosities decrease by $``$25%. The luminosities differ by $``$25% if the adopted temperature is instead set to 7 keV. The luminosities also differ by $``$10-15% assuming other adopted thermal models at a temperature of 2 keV but differ by $``$80% for an adopted power law model. The power law is particularly sensitive to the column density value.

Figure 1 shows the composite image of NGC 1313. Except in the crowded region near the nucleus, the appropriate Table 2 label is placed directly beneath each source.

## 3 The Summed Image

Figures 2a and 2b show X-ray contours superposed on an optical image111Image obtained via Skyview facility at NASA’s HEASARC; original digitized from the UK Schmidt Telescope Southern Sky Survey of NGC 1313. The first figure shows the entire galaxy with the gray scale set at two different values: a “high” scaling and a “low” scaling. The second image shows the center of the galaxy with the contrast set to show the inner region. None of the sources lie on the bar. Source 6 falls just east of the northern end of the bar. Source 7 lies just east and approximately midway along the bar. Source 9 is positioned on the northern side of the west trailing arm. Source 5 lies $``$1 east of the southern end of the bar. While all of the sources lie east of the bar, the positional match of source 11=SN1978K with its optical position ensures that the aspect solution is correct.

The deep image shows no evidence of diffuse emission across the face of the galaxy (diffuse emission may be present surrounding source source 6, which we will discuss shortly). An adaptively-smoothed image, generated using a box size requiring a minimum of 99 counts, showed a circularly-symmetric image that resembled the exposure map. In other words, the adaptively-smoothed image is consistent with the expected vignetting gradient. To assign an upper limit to the presence of diffuse emission, we extracted the counts in a circular aperture, centered on the galaxy, with a radius corresponding to half of its D25 diameter ($``$9, Tully (1988)). We excluded the counts for all point sources that fell within the aperture (sources 4 through 11). As a check on our procedure, we also extracted the blank region NW and S of NGC 1313. We corrected these off-axis regions for the difference in extracted areas and for the reduced exposure time resulting from vignetting. We corrected for the vignetting using the exposure map that is a product of the extended source software of Snowden (1998).

A net total of 297$`\pm `$243 counts was extracted within the on-galaxy aperture; the area encompassed on the sky is $``$55.8 arcmin2. For a mean exposure time of 182.6 ksec across this region, the net counts correspond to a count rate of 16.3$`\pm `$13.3$`\times `$10-4 cts s-1. Adopting the 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit of $``$4$`\times `$10-3 counts s-1, the 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit on the luminosity in the 0.1–2.4 keV band is $``$1$`\times `$1039 ergs s-1 or $``$1.5$`\times `$1037 ergs s-1 arcmin-2 across the extraction region. This limit is about a factor of 2 higher than the PSPC limit (Miller et al., 1998) of $``$7$`\times `$1036 erg s-1 cm-2 (correcting an arithmetic error in that paper). The factor of 2 lies within 30% of the expected difference based on a calculation of the instrumental backgrounds and sensitivities between the PSPC and the HRI.

In Figure 1, diffuse emission appears to be concentrated around source 6. To examine whether this emission is truly diffuse, we extracted the counts from sources 6 and 4 in annuli centered on each source and extending outward to $``$2. Extraneous sources falling within the annuli were excluded. Source 4 is believed to be a point source without any extended or nearby emission (Stocke et al., 1994, 1995). The resulting radial profiles are shown in Figure 3. The background counts were extracted from an annulus surrounding the entire galaxy and are shown as a dashed line in each figure. The solid line in each figure shows the calibrated point spread function (David et al., 1997) using the data from a long exposure of HZ 43. We fit the PSF curve to the data in the 5′′-10′′ and 30′′-50′′ range. The fit yielded a $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ of 1.28 for 39 degrees of freedom (the PSF is defined in (David et al., 1997), so the fit is for the scale factor) which corresponds to a significance of $``$85% for any deviations from the model PSF. A fit to the HZ 43 profile yeilded a similar significance.

Neither profile shows any evidence for extended emission when compared to HZ 43. The slight excess observed at the bend in the PSF at $``$15–18′′ is also visible in the HZ 43 data (David et al., 1997); the same few points near $``$18′′ that lie above the functional form of the PSF in sources 4 and 6 also do so in the HZ 43 data. Beyond about 20′′, the known HRI halo begins to dominate. The visual impression of diffuse emission surrounding source 6 results solely from the long exposure that reveals the instrumental halo.

The nucleus of NGC 1313 is also not detected. Its position at 03:18:17.5, -66:29:48 (J2000, Ryder et al. (1995)), corresponds to an offset of about 0.6 NW of source 8 in Figure 2b. We extracted the counts in an aperture centered on the nucleus and corrected them for the known halo surrounding source 6. These counts represent an upper limit on the flux at the nucleus and correspond to a 3$`\sigma `$ count rate of 3.7$`\times `$10-4 counts s-1 or a flux of $``$4$`\times `$10-14 ergs s-1 cm-2. At the distance of NGC 1313, the luminosity is $``$9$`\times `$1037 ergs s-1 in the 0.1–2.4 keV band.

## 4 The Sources

Before launching into a description of the individual sources, we first comment on the sources en masse. Sources 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, and 15 lie outside of the D25 region of NGC 1313 and are very likely not associated with the galaxy. We describe them briefly in the appendix. From the ROSAT log N-log S relation Hasinger et al. (1994), we estimate a total of $``$4-6 extragalactic sources lie within the HRI field-of-view. Within the D25 radius, we expect $``$0.2-0.4 extragalactic sources. Both estimates provide support for the comment that the seven sources are external to NGC 1313.

For the sources detected by both the PSPC and the HRI, the HRI positions agree to within $``$10′′ with the PSPC positions presented in Colbert et al. (1995); Miller et al. (1998). These positional uncertainties are typical of PSPC positions.

The luminosity estimated for source 11 (= SN1978K) agrees with the luminosity estimate obtained from the PSPC data to better than $``$15%. Source 11 is the only approximately constant source in NGC 1313 during the years of observation. The luminosity estimates for sources 4, 6, 10, and 14 differ by factors ranging from $``$0.2-0.3 (sources 4 and 6) to $``$0.5 (sources 10 and 14). We believe these differences are dominated by the variability of the sources (described below). For two of the weaker sources (7 and 8), the estimates differ by a factor of two. We estimate the fluxes can change by $``$25% if a model with an incorrect temperature is adopted.

The luminosity of source 9 differs from the luminosity measured in the two PSPC observations by a factor of $``$4. If we estimate the expected HRI count rate by reducing the PSPC count rate by the PSPC-to- HRI count conversion factor of $``$2.5, we estimate the summed HRI image should yield 109$`\pm `$21 counts. Instead, we detect only 38$`\pm `$11 counts; the difference is significant at the $`>`$99% level and establishes source 9 as a variable object. The PSPC data sets show essentially no differences in the count rates between the two observations in 1991 and 1993. The “variability” must then be a long-term change that operates over a scale of years.

We have searched for variability of the sources using the HRI data sets. In Table 3, we summarize the data and the results of this search. For each source we list the count rate or upper limit for each observation. For the weaker sources, we have added together adjacent observations to improve the significance of some of the detections. We have performed a chi-squared test against the hypothesis of constant source flux, using the average detected flux. By ignoring upper limits, we obtain a chi-squared that represents a conservative estimate of the likelihood of source variability. As can be seen from Table 3, sources 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11 all are variable with high probability ($`>`$97 percent).

Source 6 (= X-1 in Colbert et al. (1995); Miller et al. (1998)) is located near the northern end of the bar (Colbert et al., 1995). Studies by Ryder et al. (1995) and Peters et al. (1993) indicate that it lies north of the dynamical and photometric center of NGC 1313 by $``$1 kpc ($``$40′′). There is no known counterpart, in either the optical or the radio. Colbert & Mushotzky (1999), in a survey of nearby galaxies, show that about half of the nearby galaxies have a luminous source located just off of the dynamical center of the galaxy. Source 6 is the most luminous source in the ROSAT band in NGC 1313, with LX $``$2 $`\times `$1040 ergs s-1. It was one of the two sources detected in the 1980 Einstein IPC observation (Fabbiano & Trinchieri, 1987). There has been little evidence that it varies other than the two PSPC observations which were separated by more than two years (Miller et al., 1998). The HRI variability (Figure 4, top) is a crucial piece of evidence on the source size, namely, it must be compact having undergone a factor of 2 change in $``$60 days (near MJD 49850). From the light travel time, 60 days corresponds to a physical size $`<`$0.05 pc. The variability, luminosity, and spectrum (Colbert et al., 1995; Petre et al., 1994a, b) suggest it is an active nucleus-like source with a mass of $``$103-4 M while the lack of a counterpart and the displacement from the nucleus provide evidence against this hypothesis and simultaneously testifies to its unusual nature.

Source 4 (= X-2 in Colbert et al. (1995); Miller et al. (1998)), the other source detected in the IPC observation (Fabbiano & Trinchieri, 1987), has been thought by some to be a nearby Galactic source, perhaps a cooling neutron star (Stocke et al., 1994, 1995). The ASCA SIS data, however, indicate that the X-ray spectrum is not that expected for a cooling neutron star (T $``$106 K), but is more typical of a low-mass X-ray binary: a thermal spectrum with kT $``$ 2 keV (Petre et al., 1994a, b). Unlike source 6, intensity variability was detected from it between the 1980 IPC and the 1991 PSPC observation (Colbert et al., 1995). Colbert et al. argue that the source is a black hole candidate with a mass of $`>`$100 M based upon its PSPC + IPC spectrum and its super-Eddington luminosity.

The X-ray luminosity of SN1978K (= source 11 in this paper = X-3 in Colbert et al. (1995); Miller et al. (1998)); Ryder et al. (1993)) is formally variable at the 97% confidence level across the 9 HRI observations (Figure 4, bottom). The largest flux change from the mean of the 9 observations is $``$23%. Schlegel, Petre, & Colbert (1996), however, stated that SN1978K was constant within the errors. We reconcile these statements by recalling that the $`\chi ^2`$ estimate tests for variability within the observation set. For SN1978K, however, we are also interested in whether a trend exists for the entire data set. Essentially, the 97% variability can be considered as the “micro-variability;” the long-term trend would then be the “macro-variability.” The details of the fit to the light curve are described in Schlegel et al. (1999). Very briefly, the X-ray luminosity should decay as L $``$ tα. A fit to the data gives $`\alpha `$ = (-3.71$`\pm `$6.52)$`\times `$10-5 (90% confidence range). In other words, there is no decay, so the long-term luminosity is constant within the errors. The luminosity did increase by at least a factor of 5 from 1980, when it was not detected by the Einstein IPC (1.5 years after optical maximum) to its discovery in 1991 with the ROSAT PSPC (Ryder et al., 1995; Schlegel, Petre, & Colbert, 1996). We refer readers to the cited papers for details.

One other supernova has appeared in NGC 1313: SN1962M. At the position of SN1962M (03:18:15,-66:29:51 J2000), we extracted 29.5$`\pm `$11.6 counts which corresponds to a 3$`\sigma `$ flux of $``$2.5$`\times `$10-14 ergs s-1 cm-2 or a corresponding luminosity upper limit of $``$5$`\times `$1037 ergs s-1. There is no evidence that SN1962M has been detected.

The remaining sources may be accreting X-ray binaries similar to sources detected in M31 and M33. Source 8 appears to be a relatively steady X-ray source, perhaps a persistent X-ray binary with a luminosity of $``$6$`\times `$1038 ergs s-1 (Figure 4b). Miller et al. (1998) showed that the hardness ratio, defined as (H-S)/(H+S), with H = photons with energies $`>`$1 keV and S = photons with energies $`<`$1 keV, is +0.26. For a source with that hardness absorbed by the known Galactic column density, a thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum must have kT $``$2 keV.

Source 5 may be the most dramatic source (Figure 4b). No source was detected in the first HRI observation, but the exposure time was sufficiently short that the upper limit is not particularly restrictive. The second HRI exposure shows an easily detected source. This exposure occurred after the gain change. The increase in flux of source 5 is not only substantially larger than the $``$10% change in sensitivity, but it also is not matched by the other sources. Sources 4 and 6 became considerably fainter in the second observation; sources 7 and 11 brightened slightly (and perhaps consistently with the increased sensitivity from the gain change). Subsequent exposures show source 5 fading by about a factor of 10 in $``$300 days. When the full light curve is accumulated, it is easy to conclude that an outburst occurred near the time of the second exposure. The increase in flux is at least a factor of 3, from LX $``$3$`\times `$1038 to $``$1039 ergs s-1. We also included the PSPC observation described in Miller et al. (1998) because it falls near the time of brightening. No PSPC source is detected at the location of source 5; the plotted flux is the 90% flux upper limit for source 5. The flux was converted to an HRI count rate assuming a thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum absorbed by the Galactic column to NGC 1313.

Most X-ray transients do not reach LX $``$1039 erg s-1 levels unless the source is an X-ray binary (e.g., White, Nagase, & Parmar 1995). A supernova could produce the light curve. The presence of SN1978K guarantees considerable scrutiny of NGC 1313. Observations were made at MJD 49361 (day -177) and 49722 (day +184) in the optical; radio observations were obtained on MJD 49284 (day -254) and 49627 (day +89) (Schlegel et al., 1999). We judge it unlikely a supernova could explode and fail to be reported. In the discussion to follow, we assume source 5 is a binary X-ray transient.

To compare the source’s outburst to the X-ray light curves of known Galactic X-ray sources, we examined the 2-10 keV light curves obtained with the RXTE All-Sky Monitor. Ideally, a comparison should be made using X-ray binaries observed with the HRI. Few have been observed because of the high column density toward the Galactic center, and none monitored over a duration comparable to the NGC 1313 observations. The known column density to NGC 1313 is relatively low, as measured in the PSPC spectrum of source 6 (Colbert et al., 1995; Miller et al., 1998). On the basis of the column density, we estimate the mean energy of the source 5 photons to be $``$1.2 keV, so the ASM light curves provide an approximate comparison to the HRI band. A precise comparison is not the goal; we are interested in whether any of the known Galactic X-ray transients have light curve shapes similar to that of source 5.

We arbitrarily assume the source 5 outburst occurred at or shortly before the time of the second exposure and set that time as the time of maximum. We downloaded ASM data from the accumulating database222The data are available from the RXTE WWW site at NASA-GSFC or the RXTE ASM site at MIT.. We extracted times and fluxes surrounding bursts for the sources XTEJ1550-56, GX339-4, GRS1915+105, X0115+634, Aql X-1, and X1705-44. We then subtracted the minimum flux, scaled the data to the maximum, and subtracted the date of maximum. We smoothed the ASM data with a 5-point triangular response to reduce the point-to-point fluctuations and aid the visibility. No corrections for distance or column density have been made. Figure 5(a) shows the comparison between source 5’s light curve and the light curves of XTEJ1550-56 and GX339-4 (top), GRS1915+105 and X0115+634 (bottom); Figure 5(b) shows the comparison to Aql X-1 and X1705-44.

The source 5 light curve clearly possesses an outburst duration of several hundred days. The FWHM, assuming an infinite rise at day zero, is $``$200 days. Most Galactic X-ray transients have considerably shorter outbursts. For example, the FWHM of the outbursts of Aql X-1 and X0115+634 are $``$10 and $``$20 days, respectively. The FWZI width for Aql X-1 and X0115+634 are $``$30 and $``$50 days, respectively. The outburst duration for source 5 is much longer, even if we missed the maximum by $``$100 days.

We can not eliminate the possibility that multiple outbursts occurred in source 5 between the day 0 and day 220 HRI observations. Another possibility assumes the day 0 and subsequent points are the decay of a second outburst in a multiple-outburst sequence. The first outburst would then fit into the unobserved $``$200 day gap prior to the first detection.

If such an outburst did occur earlier, so that the second observation fell on an exponential decay curve (as is approximately shown by the XTEJ1550-56 curve), then source 5 must have been considerably brighter. By sliding the J1550 curve vertically and horizontally to a negative “age,” the observed points can be made to fall at least close to the J1550 tail of the second burst. The FWZI is not reproduced unless we stretch the J1550 light curve. We have other examples of X-ray light curves that do not require such stretching.

The light curve for GX339-4 provides a good match to the data points, not only matching the width but also the steep decline at the end of the burst. If a match in light curve shape dictates physics, then by analogy with GX339-4, source 5 is a black hole candidate. A highly variable source such as GRS1915+105 also can in principle provide a match to the light curve of source 5; the data do not have the time resolution to refute this possibility. Interestingly, GRS1915+105 is also a black hole candidate.

## 5 Discussion

NGC 1313 is not a particularly unusual galaxy. Its most distinctive attributes are a low metallicity and a high density of H II regions along the bar (Ryder et al., 1995). There is no evidence of nuclear activity, nor does it show any evidence of rapid star formation, past or present, despite having possibly interacted with its nearby companion, NGC 1313A (Sandage & Brucato, 1979).

Three key issues are raised by the ROSAT data of NGC 1313: the lack of diffuse emission, the lack of a nuclear source, and the presence of several luminous sources. The lack of diffuse emission was discussed in Miller et al. (1998) and will not be repeated here. Essentially, a larger database of normal galaxies covering a broad range of properties is needed to place the presence or absence of diffuse emission in context. We note, however, that low-mass galaxies appear to contain holes in their neutral ISMs (e.g., Walter 1999). The holes may provide a channel by which injected energy escapes the ISM, rather than heating it. While that argument can explain the lack of a hot ISM in many dwarf galaxies, the H I layer in NGC 1313 does not appear to be dominated by holes (e.g., Ryder et al. 1995).

The absence of a nuclear source might indicate enhanced absorption surrounding the nucleus. If we assume the nuclear source is similar to source 6, the required column density to hide its X-ray emission and yield our observed upper limit is about 1023 cm-2 which corresponds to an AV $``$45, too high to be detectable in the optical. If enhanced absorption does explain the non-detection of a nuclear source, an observation with Chandra or XMM may reveal it at E $`>`$ 3-4 keV.

A 1 M, zero metallicity accreting source generates an Eddington luminosity of $``$1.4$`\times `$1038 ergs s-1. In NGC 1313, excluding SN1978K, there are 5 sources above LEdd (sources 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). An overestimate of the distance will lower the luminosities; if, however, we believe the luminosities must be sub-Eddington, the distance then must be in error by a factor of two or more. Given the proximity of the galaxy and the amount of study it attracts, a distance error of that magnitude is very unlikely.

While sources with similar luminosities to the NGC 1313 sources are found in other nearby galaxies, for none of them does a Galactic counterpart exist. Sources of comparable luminosity can be found in, for example, M51 (Marston et al., 1995), M82 (Collura et al., 1994), M33 (Takano et al., 1993), and M101 (Wang, Immler, & Pietsch, 1999). The two in M82 discussed by Collura et al. are of particular interest, as both show strong variability, and one has an average ROSAT band luminosity of at least 5 $`\times `$1039 ergs s-1, making it an X-ray binary candidate of comparable luminosity to the ones found in NGC 1313. Wang, Immler, & Pietsch (1999) discuss the number of luminous X-ray sources in several nearby galaxies and argue that the number of sources is correlated with the far-IR luminosity, LFIR. LFIR for NGC 1313 is 42.73, using the Devereux & Eales (1989) relation contained in the notes to their Table 7 and IRAS 60 and 100 $`\mu `$ fluxes from the NASA Extragalactic Database333Available from http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/. For NGC 1313, the LFIR places it near the bottom of the range (slightly above M33). The LX or, equivalently, the number of superluminous sources, places NGC 1313 nearer the top of the range.

If we eliminate the most luminous three objects from the luminosity distribution, the result resembles the distribution for M33 (Figure 6), an argument in favor of the interpretation that sources 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are accreting X-ray binaries. We can argue that the presence of SN1978K is fortuitous; over typical galactic times, its existence is ephemeral and happens to be visible at present. The other two sources, however, appear to be long-lived, particularly the near-nuclear source. We can ask how NGC 1313 has produced a top-heavy luminosity distribution. No explanation for the “overabundance” of very luminous X-ray sources readily presents itself. The existence of apparently super-Eddington non-nuclear sources in nearby galaxies, coupled with the lack of them in our Galaxy, is a long standing mystery in X-ray astronomy (Fabbiano, 1998).

## Appendix A Serendipitous Sources in the NGC 1313 Field

Sources 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, and 15 lie outside of the D25 circle centered on the galaxy. Sources 4 and 11 = SN1978K also lie outside that radius. SN1978K is definitely associated with NGC 113. The distance to source 4 is less certain (Stocke et al., 1994, 1995; Petre et al., 1994a, b). We used the APM WWW site (http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/$``$apmcat/) to list potential optical counterparts. From the APM list, we obtained a magnitude and using the nomogram of Maccacaro et al. (1988), estimated a log( fX / fV) value. A single counterpart fell within 4′′ of the HRI position for sources 1, 2, 12, 14, and 15. For sources 3 and 13, the offsets were larger (9′′ and 7′′, respectively). All of the objects are fainter than mag 20.0 and all appear to be point sources. The nomogram indicates all are AGN or BL Lac objects. Table 4 lists the sources, the closest optical counterpart, its magnitude, and the nomogram.

EMS thanks Jeff McClintock for a pointer to the literature on the light curves of X-ray binaries. This research was supported by NASA grant NAG5-4015 to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.


format: text

text:
# Boundary Effects on Dynamic Behavior of Josephson-Junction Arrays

## Abstract

The boundary effects on the current-voltage characteristics in two-dimensional arrays of resistively shunted Josephson junctions are examined. In particular, we consider both the conventional boundary conditions (CBC) and the fluctuating twist boundary conditions (FTBC), and make comparison of the obtained results. It is observed that the CBC, which have been widely adopted in existing simulations, may give a problem in scaling, arising from rather large boundary effects; the FTBC in general turn out to be effective in reducing the finite-size effects, yielding results with good scaling behavior. To resolve the discrepancy between the two boundary conditions, we propose that the proper scaling in the CBC should be performed with the boundary data discarded: This is shown to give results which indeed scale well and are the same as those from the FTBC.

preprint: SNUTP 99-028
During the past decades superconducting arrays have been extensively studied both theoretically and experimentally . The superconducting arrays in equilibrium are well described by the $`XY`$ model, which exhibits the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition at a nonzero temperature in two dimensions . Theoretically this transition is manifested by the characteristic behavior of static quantities such as the universal jump of the helicity modulus. On the other hand, the standard experimental probe of the transition is to measure the dynamical response to the external current driving . The need for the analysis of the experimental data together with the interest in the dynamic properties themselves has motivated extensive theoretical examinations of the dynamics of the system, where numerical simulations have been of great help.

It has been recognized that the boundary conditions employed in those simulations, performed in finite systems, may affect the results in a crucial way, which makes it necessary to examine their effects. Most existing dynamic simulations of the system in the absence of driving currents have been performed with periodic boundary conditions along both directions; under driving currents, the boundary conditions along the current-injected direction are changed to be free whereas periodic boundary conditions are retained along the perpendicular direction. Such conventional boundary conditions (CBC), however, are known to produce rather large edge effects, and the system is expected to approach the thermodynamic limit rather slowly, compared with that in the busbar boundary conditions . Of much interest here are the recent results on the dynamical exponent. Under the periodic boundary conditions, remarkably different values of the dynamical exponent have been obtained in the resistively shunted Josephson junction (RSJ) dynamics and in the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) dynamics , suggesting that the two kinds of dynamics may be inherently different. In particular the dynamical exponent in the RSJ dynamics turns out to be much smaller than expected and apparently inapplicable to the flux-noise experiment . On the other hand, no difference has been observed when the fluctuating twist boundary conditions (FTBC), forcing the vortex interaction to be periodic , is employed ; this implies that the difference in the dynamical exponent stems from the employed boundary conditions rather than from the intrinsic property of the dynamics.

This paper is to clarify the boundary effects and thus to resolve the discrepancy between the two types of the boundary conditions. For this purpose, we investigate in detail the current-voltage $`(IV)`$ characteristics and the corresponding dynamic critical behaviors of the system in the CBC and in the FTBC. The finite-size-scaling analysis is performed to reveal that the two types of the boundary conditions yield different values of the dynamical exponent. In particular, the data obtained in the CBC are found not to display proper scaling behavior. We show that the discrepancy has its origin in the rather large boundary effects in the CBC and give a simple proposal that the proper scaling analysis in the CBC should be performed with the boundary data discarded. It turns out that the resulting $`IV`$ characteristics indeed exhibit good scaling behavior and are consistent with those from the FTBC, confirming that the poor scaling behavior originates from the peculiar boundary effects in the CBC and that correct description of the dynamic behavior can be achieved by appropriate extraction of the bulk properties from the data.

We begin with the set of equations of motion describing the dynamics of an RSJ array with critical current $`I_c`$ and shunt resistance $`R_s`$:

$$\underset{j}{}^{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2eR_s}\frac{d\varphi _{ij}}{dt}+I_c\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{ij}+L_{ij}\right]=I_i^{\mathrm{ext}}.$$
(1)
Here $`\varphi _{ij}\varphi _i\varphi _j`$ is the phase difference across a junction with $`\varphi _i`$ being the phase of the superconducting order parameter on grain $`i`$ (at position $`𝐫_i`$), $`I_i^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is the external current fed into grain $`i`$, and the primed summation runs over the nearest neighbors of grain $`i`$. The thermal noise current $`L_{ij}`$ is assumed to be a white noise satisfying

$$L_{ij}(t+\tau )L_{kl}(t)=\frac{2k_BT}{R_s}\delta (\tau )(\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}\delta _{il}\delta _{jk})$$
(2)
with the angular bracket denoting an ensemble average and $`T`$ being the temperature. In the CBC, uniform current $`I`$ is fed into each grain at one edge ($`x=0`$) and extracted from each grain at the other edge ($`x=N`$), leading to $`I_i^{\mathrm{ext}}=I(\delta _{x_i0}\delta _{x_iN})`$ . The boundary conditions for the phase variables are taken to be free in the $`x`$ direction and periodic in the $`y`$ direction. The average voltage across each junction is given by the relation

$$V=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2eN^2}\underset{y=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{d\varphi _{(0,y)}}{dt}_t\frac{d\varphi _{(N,y)}}{dt}_t\right),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{}_t`$ stands for the time average. In the FTBC, on the other hand, periodic boundary conditions are imposed on $`\{\varphi _i\}`$ in both directions, yielding the equations of motion in the form

$$\underset{j}{}^{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2eR_s}\frac{d\varphi _{ij}}{dt}+I_c\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{ij}𝐫_{ij}𝚫)+L_{ij}\right]=0$$
(4)
with $`𝐫_{ij}𝐫_i𝐫_j`$. The dynamics of the twist variables $`𝚫(\mathrm{\Delta }_x,\mathrm{\Delta }_y)`$ is governed by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2eR_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }_x}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_c}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij_x}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_x){\displaystyle \frac{I}{N}}+L_{\mathrm{\Delta }_x},`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2eR_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }_y}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_c}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij_y}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_y)+L_{\mathrm{\Delta }_y},`$ (6)
where $`_{ij_{x(y)}}`$ denotes the summation over all nearest-neighboring pairs in the $`x(y)`$ direction and the thermal noise current $`L_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{x(y)}}`$ satisfies

$$L_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{x(y)}}(t+\tau )L_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{x(y)}}(t)=\frac{2k_BT}{N^2R_s}\delta (\tau ).$$
(7)
The average voltage can then be obtained from the time evolution of the twist variable $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$:

$$V=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }_x}{dt}_t.$$
(8)
To obtain the $`IV`$ characteristics in the two boundary conditions, we integrate directly the coupled equations of motion given by Eq. (1) for the CBC and Eqs. (4) and (6) for the FTBC, with the time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.05`$ (in units of $`\mathrm{}/2eR_sI_c`$). The data are averaged over 30 independent runs while in each run the averaging time is chosen in such a way that at least 25 vortices are created. We concentrate on the temperature $`T=0.84`$ (in units of $`\mathrm{}I_c/2e`$), which is below the BKT transition temperature $`T_c0.89`$ , and henceforth write the current and the voltage in units of $`I_c`$ and $`I_cR_s`$, respectively.

Figure 1 presents the resulting $`IV`$ characteristics in the CBC and in the FTBC. We have considered several system sizes ranging from $`N=4`$ to $`N=64`$, to clarify size effects. At high currents the average voltage drop is found to be almost independent of the size in both boundary conditions. As the current is decreased, however, the system undergoes a crossover from the nonlinear-resistance regime to the linear-resistance regime, exhibiting size-dependence. The crossover current apparently decreases with the increase of the size, suggesting that the linear resistance at low currents reflects the finite-size effects  rather than the lattice effects . Here one can observe two striking differences between the $`IV`$ characteristics in the CBC and those in the FTBC: First, at low currents the voltage drop in the CBC is much higher than that in the FTBC. Furthermore, the ratio of the former to the latter grows larger as the system size is increased. Secondly, the decrease of the crossover current with the system size is faster in the FTBC than in the CBC; this implies that the FTBC is more effective in reducing the finite-size effects.

We now analyze the $`IV`$ data by means of the finite-size scaling method, and investigate the dynamic critical behavior both in the CBC and in the FTBC. We assume the dynamic scaling form

$$NR^{1/z}=f(NI),$$
(9)
where $`R`$ is the resistance of the system and $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent. The dimensionless scaling function $`f(x)`$ is expected to possess the asymptotic behavior: $`f(x)\mathrm{constant}`$ for small $`x`$ and $`f(x)x`$ for large $`x`$. The small-$`x`$ behavior follows from the behavior of the linear resistance for $`I0`$:

$$R_LN^z$$
(10)
whereas the finiteness of the resistance in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ elucidates the behavior of $`f(x)`$ for large $`x`$.

We first fit the linear resistance $`R_L`$ in the CBC to the form in Eq. (10), and display in the inset of Fig. 2(a) the log-log plot of the linear resistance versus the system size, which shows that the linear resistance is well described by Eq. (10) with the dynamical exponent $`z=0.91\pm 0.07`$. Note, however, that this is presumably deceptive since the value of $`z`$ less than two is likely to be erroneous, especially, below the transition temperature: In a two-dimensional Josephson-junction array, the value is generally believed to be $`z=2`$ at the transition temperature and to grow larger as the temperature is lowered . Indeed the scaling plot with the value $`z=0.91`$, which is presented in Fig. 2(a), manifests that the system in the CBC does not follow the one-parameter dynamic scaling given by Eq. (9).

We next examine the $`IV`$ data in the FTBC, and fit the corresponding linear resistance $`R_L`$. This yields the dynamical exponent $`z=2.73\pm 0.02`$, as shown in the inset of Fig. 2(b), which is quite different from the value in the CBC and indeed consistent with the results of previous studies . In particular, unlike the result of the CBC, the scaling plot shown in Fig. 2(b) reveals that the scaling form in Eq. (9) is observed well in the FTBC. Namely, the $`IV`$ data in the nonlinear-resistance regime as well as in the linear-resistance regime collapse nicely into a single curve and the scaling function follows the expected asymptotic behaviors.

Both the values of the dynamical exponent and the resulting scaling plots indicate that the CBC are not appropriate for describing the dynamical behavior of the system whereas the FTBC give a correct description. This discrepancy is likely to have its origin in the effects of the boundary, which is formed for the purpose of the current injection in the CBC but is absent in the FTBC. To find a clue to the boundary effects, we examine the distribution of the voltage drop along the $`x`$ direction, which is, according to Eq. (3), proportional to the gradient of the phase profile. The phase profile

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (x)\frac{1}{N}\underset{y}{}[\varphi _{(x,y)}(\tau )\varphi _{(x,y)}(0)],$$
(11)
where $`\tau `$ is the average time, has been obtained for several system sizes and currents, which turns out to be essentially the same as the profile obtained in Ref. . It demonstrates that the voltage drop across a few columns near the boundary is comparable to, or even larger than, that across the rest of the system. Such tendency becomes prominent at lower currents, and leads to an overestimation of the voltage drop in the system, especially at low currents; this may have significant effects on the dynamic behavior of a system of finite size .

To make clear that the boundary effects are the main origin of the failure of the dynamic finite-size scaling in the CBC, we consider the $`(N+10)\times N`$ array, consisting of $`N+10`$ columns and $`N`$ rows under the CBC, and calculate the voltage drop between the grains at $`x=5`$ and $`x=N+5`$. Namely, we propose that the proper scaling in the CBC should be performed with the boundary data discarded, which helps to estimate correctly the voltage drop in the bulk . Here the number five has been chosen since the phase profile reveals that the boundary effects are severe, i.e., the anomalous voltage drop is substantial, across the five columns at each edge, apparently regardless of the system size. The $`IV`$ characteristics for several sizes, obtained in this scheme, are plotted in Fig. 3, which shows marked difference from Fig. 1(a): The voltage drop is significantly reduced at small currents, resulting in the $`IV`$ characteristics which look almost the same as those obtained from the FTBC.

Indeed the finite-size scaling analysis, shown in the inset of Fig. 4, leads to the dynamical exponent $`z=2.84\pm 0.06`$, which is consistent with that obtained from the FTBC. Further, with this value of the dynamical exponent, the $`IV`$ data in Fig. 3 collapse remarkably well into a single curve, as illustrated in Fig. 4. ¿From these results we thus reach the conclusion that the CBC give a correct description of the dynamical behavior of the Josephson-junction array only when the rather large voltage drop near the boundary is discarded in the analysis. Such boundary effects should be irrelevant in the thermodynamic limit, but can affect significantly the properties of a finite system, generating substantial errors in the scaling analysis. Taking into account that the periodic boundary conditions are naturally generalized to the CBC in the presence of driving currents, we can infer that the erroneous value of $`z`$ obtained in Ref.  also has its origin in the boundary conditions rather than in the RSJ dynamics itself.

In summary, we have studied the boundary effects on the dynamical behavior of a two-dimensional RSJ array, both in the CBC and in the FTBC. The finite-size-scaling analysis has been performed to reveal not only the discrepancy in the value of the dynamical exponent but also the lack of scaling in the CBC, steming from the rather large boundary effects. We have thus given a simple proposal that in the CBC the proper scaling should be performed with the boundary data discarded, and shown that such removal of the boundary effects indeed restores the correct scaling behavior. This confirms the crucial role of boundary conditions in the finite-size scaling analysis and resolves the discrepancy between the two types of the boundary conditions.

We thank B.J. Kim for useful discussions and acknowledge the partial support from the Seoul National University Research Fund and from the Ministry of Education through the BK21 Program. G.S.J. was also supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation postdoctoral fellowship.


text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

Historically discrete torsion has been a rather mysterious aspect of string theory. Discrete torsion was originally discovered  as an ambiguity in the choice of phases to assign to twisted sectors of string orbifold partition functions. Although other work has been done on the subject (see, for example, ), until recently no work has succeeded in giving any sort of genuinely deep understanding of discrete torsion. In fact, discrete torsion has sometimes been referred to has an inherently stringy degree of freedom, without any geometric analogue.

Recently, however, a purely mathematical understanding of discrete torsion was worked out . In a nutshell,

Discrete torsion is the choice of orbifold group action on the $`B`$ field.

More generally, in any theory containing fields with gauge invariances, to define an orbifold it does not suffice to only define the orbifold action on the base space. One must also specify the orbifold action on the fields. The choice of orbifold action on the fields is not unique, precisely because of the possibility of combining the orbifold group action with a gauge transformation.

For vector fields, these degrees of freedom lead to orbifold Wilson lines. For $`B`$ fields, these degrees of freedom lead to discrete torsion.

Put another way, discrete torsion can be understood in purely mathematical terms, without any reference to string theory – it has nothing to do with string theory per se. At the end of the day, one can calculate twisted sector phases, orbifold group actions on D-branes, and so forth, so one can certainly work out physical consequences of discrete torsion. However, again, discrete torsion can ultimately be understood in purely mathematical terms.

Phrased differently, discrete torsion can no longer be considered to be mysterious – a perfectly sensible, and purely mathematical, description exists in .

In this article we shall give a brief overview of these developments in understanding discrete torsion .

In section 2 we discuss orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines, which provide the prototype for our picture of discrete torsion. In section 3 we briefly discuss how the group $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ arises in describing orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields. In section 4 we discuss how the twisted sector phases of  can be derived. In section 5 we derive the projectivized orbifold group actions on D-brane worldvolumes used by M. Douglas in  to describe discrete torsion for D-branes. In section 6 we outline how results of C. Vafa and E. Witten  on the interplay between discrete torsion and Calabi-Yau moduli can be understood in this framework. In section 7 we briefly review results on discrete torsion for perturbative heterotic strings. Finally, in section 8 we briefly describe analogues of this story for other tensor field potentials.

## 2 Orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines

Our description of discrete torsion in  has many very close parallels with orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines. For example, just on a naive level, orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines are counted by the group cohomology group111Where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the orbifold group. $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, and discrete torsion is associated with $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$. Also, orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines are technically far easier and less subtle to manipulate. For these reasons, in  we repeatedly stress the parallels with orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines, and use orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines as toy models for calculations involving $`B`$ fields.

How does one describe the action of an orbifold group on a set of vector fields? One way is to specify how the orbifold group acts on the total space of the bundle; see for example  for an example of this approach. Another (equivalent) way (described in ) is to describe pullbacks of the gauge fields and transition functions in local coordinate patches. For example, we discuss in  how an orbifold group action on a set of vector fields defined by $`(A^\alpha ,g_{\alpha \beta })`$,

$$A^\alpha A^\beta =d\mathrm{log}g_{\alpha \beta }$$

can be written in the form

$`g^{}A^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`A^\alpha +d\mathrm{log}h_\alpha ^g`$
$`g^{}g_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(g_{\alpha \beta }\right)\left(h_\alpha ^g\right)\left(h_\beta ^g\right)^1`$
where $`g`$ is an element of the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for an appropriate collection of Čech cochains $`\{h_\alpha ^g\}`$.

How does the group $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ arise? Not directly. It can be shown that, in general, the set of orbifold group actions is a set, and does not even possess a group structure, so one cannot hope to understand orbifold group actions directly from the calculation of some (cohomology) group.

However, it can be shown that the set of orbifold group actions, although not itself a group, is acted upon by a group, namely $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$. To be brief, given any one orbifold group action on a set of vector fields (principal $`U(1)`$ bundle with connection), one can get to any other action by combining that action with a set of gauge transformations $`\varphi ^g`$. These gauge transformations are required to respect the group law, meaning that

$$\varphi ^{gh}=\varphi ^hh^{}\varphi ^g$$

and in order to preserve the gauge field, these gauge transformations must be constant. On a connected space, such a set of gauge transformations defines a homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }U(1)`$, which is the same thing as an element of the group $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$. In other words, although the set of orbifold group actions does not have a group structure, the difference between any two orbifold group actions is described by an element of the group $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$.

Although the set of orbifold group actions does not in general have a group structure, in special cases (in fact, the special cases usually considered by physicists) one can impose a group structure. For example, if the bundle is topologically trivial, then there is a notion of a canonical trivial action (which only acts on the base, not the fiber). In this special case, one can describe any orbifold group action in terms of its difference from the canonical trivial action, and so (in this special case) one can speak of elements of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ determining the orbifold group action. In general, however, one must be more careful.

Before going on to discuss $`B`$ fields, we should make a few concluding remarks. First, our analysis of orbifold group actions on vector fields does not assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts freely. Our analysis also does not assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is abelian. Finally, our analysis also does not assume that the bundle on which the gauge fields live is topologically trivial, although if it is not trivial, one must be careful to check that any orbifold group actions exist, which our analysis assumes.

## 3 $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$

In this section we shall give a pedagogical outline of orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields. Our discussion here is not meant to be rigorous; however, rigorous versions do exist. In particular, reference  contains a completely rigorous description of orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields, and reference  contains a substantially simplified version.

In general terms, the same analysis holds for $`B`$ fields as for vector fields. One can describe elements of the set of orbifold group actions on the $`B`$ fields, and just as the difference between any two orbifold group actions on a $`U(1)`$ gauge field is a set of gauge transformations $`\varphi ^g`$, the difference between any two orbifold group transformations on a $`B`$ field is a set of gauge transformations.

What is a gauge transformation of a $`B`$ field? Locally, recall a gauge transformation of a $`B`$ field looks like

$$BB+d\mathrm{\Lambda }$$

for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ some one-form. We shall omit the details here (see instead ), however the reader may correctly guess that globally, a gauge-transformation of a $`B`$ field is determined by a principal $`U(1)`$ bundle with connection – i.e., a set of $`U(1)`$ gauge fields $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In other words, to specify the difference between two orbifold group actions on a $`B`$ field, we specify a set of principal $`U(1)`$ bundles $`T^g`$ with connection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)`$. Also, just as we had to restrict to constant gauge transformations of $`U(1)`$ gauge fields in order to preserve the connection and count orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines, here we must demand that the connection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)`$ on $`T^g`$ be flat.

Now, there are two important subtleties in this description.

First, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ are two connections that differ by a (bundle) gauge transformation, then they define the same gauge transformation of the $`B`$ field. After all, the $`B`$ field transforms as $`BB+d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so we can add any exact form to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ without changing the gauge transformation of $`B`$. Globally, if $`(T^g,\mathrm{\Lambda }(g))`$ and $`(T^g,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(g))`$ are two principal $`U(1)`$ bundles with connection that differ by a connection-preserving bundle isomorphism, then they define the same gauge transformation of the $`B`$ field.

Second, not any set $`(T^g,\mathrm{\Lambda }(g))`$ will do – they must be well-behaved with respect to group composition. In other words, we must demand an analogue of the constraint

$$\varphi ^{g_1g_2}=\varphi ^{g_2}g_2^{}\varphi ^{g_1}$$
(1)
that we imposed on the gauge-transformations relating orbifold group actions on $`U(1)`$ gauge fields. Instead of $`U(1)`$ valued functions $`\varphi ^g`$, we now have bundles $`T^g`$. The correct analogue of equation (1) is that the bundle $`T^hh^{}T^g`$ must be isomorphic to the bundle $`T^{gh}`$, and the same isomorphism must preserve the connection.

Let $`\omega ^{g,h}:T^hh^{}T^gT^{gh}`$ denote that connection-preserving isomorphism. Now, by composing the isomorphisms $`\omega `$, we can construct two different isomorphisms between $`T^{g_3}g_3^{}\left(T^{g_2}g_2^{}T^{g_1}\right)`$ and $`T^{g_1g_2g_3}`$; to be consistent, these two isomorphisms must be the same.

To summarize, we have stated that any two orbifold group actions on a set of $`B`$ fields differ by a collection of principal $`U(1)`$ bundles $`T^g`$ with flat connection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)`$, together with connection-preserving bundle morphisms $`\omega ^{g_1,g_2}:T^{g_2}g_2^{}T^{g_1}T^{g_1g_2}`$, such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T^{g_3}g_3^{}\left(T^{g_2}g_2^{}T^{g_1}\right)& \stackrel{\omega ^{g_1,g_2}}{}& T^{g_3}g_3^{}T^{g_1g_2}\\ \text{ }\omega ^{g_2,g_3}& & \text{ }\omega ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\text{ }\\ T^{g_2g_3}(g_2g_3)^{}T^{g_1}& \stackrel{\omega ^{g_1,g_2g_3}}{}& T^{g_1g_2g_3}\end{array}$$
(2)
Also, we are free to replace any of the bundles $`T^g`$ with isomorphic bundles. Let $`T^g`$ be another set of principal $`U(1)`$ bundles with connection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(g)`$, and $`\kappa _g:T^gT^g`$ connection-preserving bundle isomorphisms, then we can replace the data given above with the collection $`(T^g,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(g),\omega ^{g_1,g_2})`$, where the $`\omega ^{}`$ are given by

$$\omega ^{g_1,g_2}\kappa _{g_1g_2}\omega ^{g_1,g_2}\left(\kappa _{g_2}g_2^{}\kappa _{g_1}\right)^1$$
(3)
How does $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ arise in this description? Consider the special case that all the bundles $`T^g`$ are topologically trivial, and the connections $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)`$ are gauge-trivial. Without loss of generality, we can map each $`T^g`$ to the canonical trivial bundle (whose transition functions are identically 1) and gauge-transform the connections $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)`$ to be identically zero, not just gauge-trivial. Then the maps $`\omega ^{g,h}`$ can be interpreted as gauge transformations (of the canonical trivial bundle), and furthermore constant gauge transformations (since they must preserve the connection, which is the same – zero – on both sides). Commutivity of diagram (2) then becomes the group 2-cocycle condition. So, in this choice of gauge, the maps $`\omega ^{g,h}`$ are explicitly representatives of an element of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$.

In addition, there are residual gauge transformations – we can gauge-transform each of the bundles $`T^g`$ by a constant gauge transformation, without making the connection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)`$ nonzero. From equation (3) we see that such gauge transformations of the bundles $`T^g`$ change the $`\omega ^{g,h}`$ by a group coboundary. So, $`B`$ field gauge transformations of this form are classified by elements of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$.

In addition to these $`B`$ field gauge transformations, which yield elements of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, there can be additional $`B`$ field gauge transformations, a fact which does not seem to have been noticed previously in the physics literature. These are discussed in more detail in .

## 4 Twisted sector phases

How do the twisted sector phases of  arise in this picture? In a nutshell, they arise because of the sigma model term $`B`$, and are precise analogues of Wilson loops.

Consider Wilson loop on a quotient space for a moment. Suppose on the covering space, the Wilson loop becomes an open line, with ends identified by the orbifold group action, as illustrated in figure (1). The Wilson loop on the quotient space is not merely

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(_x^{gx}A\right)$$

but also picks up a factor from a gauge transformation relating the gauge field $`A`$ at $`x`$ and $`gx`$. In other words, the Wilson loop on the quotient space is given by

$$\phi \mathrm{exp}\left(_x^{gx}A\right)$$

for some $`\phi `$.

In  we point out that the same considerations for Wilson surfaces $`\mathrm{exp}\left(B\right)`$ give rise to the twisted sector phases of .

For simplicity222So we can describe any orbifold group action in terms of a set of global gauge transformations distinguishing it from a canonical trivial action., assume $`B`$ is topologically trivial. Consider a polygon on the covering space as shown in figure (2), describing a contribution to a one-loop twisted sector partition function. Naively, one might write the Wilson surface on the quotient space as merely $`\mathrm{exp}\left(B\right)`$, but just as for Wilson loops, this is wrong because it fails to take into account gauge transformations along the boundary.

As discussed earlier, a nontrivial orbifold group action on a (topologically trivial) $`B`$ field is determined by a set of $`B`$ field gauge transformations – that is, a set of principal $`U(1)`$ bundles $`T^g`$ with connection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)`$, and connecting maps $`\omega ^{g,h}`$.

To take into account gauge transformations of the $`B`$ field along the boundary, one naively would correct the factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left(B\right)`$ by adding a factor

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(_x^{hx}\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)_x^{gx}\mathrm{\Lambda }(h)\right)$$

As discussed in , this is still not quite right, if for no other reason than it is not invariant under gauge transformations of the bundles $`T^g`$. To get a gauge-invariant result we must take into account the corners, which leads one to

$$\left(\omega _x^{g,h}\right)\left(\omega _x^{h,g}\right)^1\mathrm{exp}\left(_x^{hx}\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)_x^{gx}\mathrm{\Lambda }(h)\right)$$

Since this expression is gauge-invariant, we can evaluate it in any convenient gauge. For $`B`$ field gauge transformations corresponding to elements of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, a particularly convenient gauge is one in which all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)0`$ and the $`\omega ^{g,h}`$ are constant. Working in this gauge, it is now clear that for such $`B`$ field gauge transformations, the expression above is equal to the constant

$$\left(\omega ^{g,h}\right)\left(\omega ^{h,g}\right)^1$$

which is precisely the phase factor given in . Since this phase factor is constant, all contributions to the twisted sector partition function $`Z_{(g,h)}`$ are multiplied by the same factor, and so the effect is to multiply $`Z_{(g,h)}`$ by this phase.

In  we also derive the phase factors appearing in higher-loop string orbifold partition functions.

## 5 M. Douglas’s orbifold actions and D-branes

In , it was claimed that in terms of orbifold group actions on D-branes, discrete torsion is realized in terms of a projectivized action of the orbifold group.

In  we point out that this orbifold group action on D-brane worldvolumes is a natural consequence of the fact that the “bundle” on a D-brane is actually twisted by the $`B`$ field. Specifically, since gauge transformations $`BB+d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ induce $`AA+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the $`B`$ field and the D-brane gauge fields are correlated. For a topologically trivial $`B`$ field, for example, the transition functions for the “bundle” on the D-brane do not close as

$$g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\gamma \alpha }=I$$

but rather close only up to a Čech cocycle $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ defining the characteristic class of the $`B`$ field:

$$g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\gamma \alpha }=h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }I$$

Once one understands orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields, it is then straightforward to work out orbifold group actions on these “twisted bundles” appearing on D-brane worldvolumes, and one rapidly recovers the projectivized orbifold group action described in .

## 6 Vafa-Witten

Reference  studied how discrete torsion affects Calabi-Yau moduli. Specifically, the authors of that paper studied deformations of toroidal orbifolds in which discrete torsion had been turned on. In general terms, they found that all nontrivial Kähler moduli were lifted, as well as many of the complex structure moduli.

In  we point out that these behaviors have a natural understanding in our picture. Briefly, turning on discrete torsion means that the quotient space has nontrivial Wilson surfaces $`\mathrm{exp}\left(B\right)`$. Just as turning on orbifold Wilson lines on quotients $`𝐂^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for example, forces resolutions to have nonzero curvature supported on exceptional divisors, so nonzero Wilson surfaces forces one to need nonzero curvature $`H`$ on any full resolution.

A blowup or small resolution of a toroidal orbifold tends to only introduce even-dimensional cycles, leaving no natural place for the $`B`$ field curvature $`H`$ to live. Therefore, one is naturally led to believe that nontrivial Kähler deformations are obstructed by the demands of consistency, and indeed this is what was observed in .

Complex structure resolutions, on the other hand, often introduce 3-cycles. So one could deform the complex structure of the toroidal orbifold, and naturally be led to a space with nonzero curvature $`H`$. However, nonzero $`H`$ on a (Kähler) Calabi-Yau breaks supersymmetry, so any complex structure deformation that completely resolves the singularity would also be obstructed, as was noted in .

What deformations remain? One can still consistently deform the complex structure, but one cannot expect to completely resolve the space (at least, not to a Calabi-Yau). This is precisely what was found in .

A somewhat more detailed examination of how  can be naturally understood in the framework we have presented can be found in .

## 7 Perturbative heterotic strings

So far we have reviewed orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields whose curvature $`H`$ is closed, in the sense that $`dH=0`$. Unfortunately, the $`B`$ fields of string theory do not always have this property. The most prominent exception is the $`B`$ field of perturbative heterotic string theory. In this case, the curvature $`H`$ is a (globally-defined) three-form such that $`dH=\text{Tr }FF\text{Tr }RR`$, and so (except for the special case of the old-fashioned “standard embedding”), $`dH0`$ for the heterotic $`B`$ field.

We examined orbifold group actions on the heterotic $`B`$ field in detail in . To be brief, we found that, for fixed orbifold group action on the gauge and tangent bundle, the difference between any two orbifold group actions on a heterotic $`B`$ field was defined by the same data as for a type II $`B`$ field. In other words, the difference between any two orbifold group actions on a heterotic $`B`$ field is defined by data $`(T^g,\omega ^{g_1,g_2})`$, where the $`T^g`$ are principal $`U(1)`$-bundles with connection (one for each $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), and the $`\omega ^{g_1,g_2}`$ are connection-preserving bundle isomorphisms, subject to the same equivalence relations as before.

Thus, for heterotic $`B`$ fields as well as type II $`B`$ fields, we find the same occurrence of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, as well as twisted-sector phases.

## 8 Analogues for $`C`$ fields

We have repeatedly stressed that orbifold group actions on any field with gauge invariances are not unique, because one can combine the orbifold group action with a gauge transformation. For vector fields, this ambiguity is known as “orbifold Wilson lines,” and we have explained in  how for $`B`$ fields this ambiguity is discrete torsion.

String theory has other fields beyond vector fields and $`B`$ fields; what degrees of freedom does one find in defining orbifold group actions on these other fields?

In reference  we explore this matter for the M-theory three-form. In order to get concrete results, we make the slightly simplistic assumption that the $`C`$ field can be understood as a connection on a 2-gerbe. When we repeat the calculations of , we find that part of the difference between orbifold group actions is classified by $`H^3(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, though there can be additional orbifold group actions also.

One might ask what the analogue of the twisted sector phases of  are for membranes. The answer is as follows : given a “twisted sector” on $`T^3`$ defined by a commuting triple $`(g_1,g_2,g_3)`$, under an orbifold group action on a trivial $`C`$ field determined by an element of $`H^3(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, the factor

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(C\right)$$

picks up a factor of

$$\left(\omega ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\omega ^{g_2,g_1,g_3}\right)^1\left(\omega ^{g_3,g_2,g_1}\right)^1\left(\omega ^{g_3,g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\omega ^{g_2,g_3,g_1}\right)\left(\omega ^{g_1,g_3,g_2}\right)^1$$

from gauge transformations at the boundaries, where $`\omega ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ is a group 3-cocycle. This expression is invariant under changing the cocycle by a coboundary (as it must be, to associate a well-defined phase to an element of $`H^3(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$), and is also invariant under the natural $`SL(3,𝐙)`$ action on $`T^3`$.

Admittedly the analysis in  is slightly naive – it is really just an analysis of orbifold group actions on 2-gerbes, and does not take much physics into account. For example, it ignores the flux-quantization-shifting effect described in , which almost certainly will have an effect here.

However, although the analysis is naive, it does highlight the fact that one does expect an analogue of discrete torsion for the M-theory $`C`$ field, and gives a first rough idea of what those degrees of freedom should look like.

## 9 Conclusions

In this short article we have given a brief general overview of the basic understanding of discrete torsion described in . Those references explain that discrete torsion is simply the choice of orbifold group action on the $`B`$ field; all the basic properties of discrete torsion, from its appearance as twisted sector phases  to M. Douglas’s description of discrete torsion for D-branes  follows from this description.

## 10 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P. Aspinwall, A. Knutson, D. Morrison, and R. Plesser for useful conversations.

This research was partially supported by National Science Foundation grant number DMS-0074072.