text:
# The Infrared Surface Brightness Fluctuation Hubble ConstantBased on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

The Hubble constant, $`H_0`$, is the most fundamental of the cosmological parameters. Yet in spite of its key role in our understanding of the universe, an accurate determination of its value eluded researchers for decades. It has only been within the last few years that the promise of knowing $`H_0`$ to better than 10% has been realized (Mould et al. 2000). The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has occupied a key role in resolving the debate over the Hubble constant by enabling distance measurements not previously possible from the ground. With HST’s spatial resolution, Cepheid variable stars have been detected in galaxies as distant as 20 Mpc. Cepheid distances to a variety of galaxies, including some in the important Virgo and Fornax clusters, have provided new calibrations of many secondary distance indicators, including type-Ia supernovae (Gibson et al. 2000, Parodi et al. 2000), fundamental plane (Kelson et al. 2000), Tully-Fisher (Sakai et al. 2000), planetary nebulae, globular clusters, and surface brightness fluctuations (Ferrarese et al. 2000a). Uniform HST Cepheid distances were collected by Ferrarese et al. (2000b).

Surface brightness fluctuations have emerged as an accurate and reliable distance indicator (Tonry et al. 1997, Blakeslee et al. 1999). HST has made it possible to not only better calibrate SBFs by providing Cepheid distances to calibration galaxies, but also allowed detection of fluctuations in half a dozen galaxies at much greater distances than possible from the ground (Lauer et al. 1998, Pahre et al. 1999, Thomson et al. 1997). Two additional low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) measurements in the Coma cluster (Thomson et al. 1997, Jensen et al. 1999), were the most distant SBF measurements until the current NICMOS project.

Surface brightness fluctuations have a much larger amplitude in the near-IR than at optical wavelengths. The Near Infrared Camera and Multi-object Spectrograph (NICMOS) on the HST provides the combination of low background and high spatial resolution needed to measure IR SBFs beyond 100 Mpc for the first time. The purpose of this study was to calibrate the F160W SBF distance scale and to measure $`H_0`$ beyond the effects of local flows. Reaching distances twice as large as previous SBF studies for a sample uniformly distributed on the sky provided immunity to many of the difficulties that plague all attempts to measure $`H_0`$ within 50 Mpc.

In the next section we describe the selection of the calibration and distant galaxy samples observed. In Section 3 we discuss the procedures used to acquire and reduce the data. Section 4 describes the methods used to determine the SBF amplitude. Section 5 discusses the empirical calibration of the F160W SBF distance scale and the comparison to stellar population models. Section 6 presents the IR SBF Hubble diagram. Finally, we discuss the relationship of our measurement to others which find lower values of $`H_0`$ and conclude with a summary section.

## 2 Sample Selection

As part of our program to measure distances to redshifts of 10,000 km s-1, we observed a set of nearby galaxies in the Leo, Virgo, and Fornax clusters. These observations support an empirical distance calibration determined both using Cepheid variable star distances and the extensive $`I`$-band SBF distance survey (Tonry et al. 1997). The calibration galaxies cover a similar color range as the distant galaxies used to measure $`H_0`$ ($`I`$-band SBF brightnesses show a systematic dependence on galaxy $`(VI)`$ color). In addition to our calibration data, we discovered that several other NICMOS programs included F160W observations of nearby galaxies suitable for SBF analysis that could be used to augment our calibration. The most useful of these are the IR SBF survey of the Fornax cluster (NICMOS program 7458, J. R. Graham et al.) and the programs which targeted galaxies previously observed using WFPC-2 for the purpose of measuring Cepheid distances. We acquired raw NICMOS data from the HST archive and reduced it using the procedures presented in this paper to guarantee a completely consistent calibration.

Because we were able to analyze F160W NICMOS data for galaxies with Cepheid distances, we were not required to assume that the ellipticals and spirals in a given cluster are all at a common distance. For at least a few Cepheid-bearing spirals, IR SBF measurements are possible in their bulges. Using a calibration based solely on galaxies with distances measured both using Cepheid variables and SBFs removes the added uncertainty in the calibration arising from the size and distribution of galaxies in the clusters (Tonry et al. 2000, hereafter SBF-II).

In addition to the relatively local calibrators, we also targeted five galaxies with $`I`$-band SBF distances previously measured using WFPC-2: the four from Lauer et al. (1998) and Ajhar et al. (1997), and NGC 4709 in the Centaurus cluster (Optical SBF team, private communication). These intermediate-distance galaxies provide overlap between our local calibration and the distant galaxies from which we determine $`H_0`$. NGC 3311 in the Hydra cluster (NICMOS program 7820, D. Geisler et al.) was added to the intermediate-distance set, although it does not have an $`I`$-band SBF distance measurement.

The main focus of this study is to measure distances to the set of 16 galaxies (including the six intermediate-distance galaxies) that extend out to redshifts of 10,000 km s-1. The most distant galaxies are uniformly distributed on the sky to provide a robust determination of $`H_0`$ and minimize sensitivity to bulk streaming motions in the local universe. The sample and observational data are presented in Table 1; the positions of the galaxies on the sky are shown in Figure 1 in galactic coordinates.

The results presented in this paper are derived from data taken as part of six separate NICMOS programs. In some cases the observers in these other programs were careful to ensure that their data would be useful for SBF measurements. This program demonstrates the value of the HST archive.

## 3 Observations and Data Reduction

All the data were acquired using the background-minimizing F160W filter (1.6 µm, similar to the standard $`H`$ filter) and the NIC2 camera read out in the MULTIACCUM mode. NIC2 has a plate scale of 0.075 arcsec per pixel which gives a field of view 19.2 arcsec across. Data were reduced using modified versions of IDL routines developed by the NICMOS team. During each exposure, the NIC2 array was read non-destructively several times, and intermediate images from the MULTIACCUM sequence were created by subtracting the initial read from the intermediate reads. A dark current image from the NICMOS team’s library was then subtracted and pixels exhibiting non-linear response were identified. The differences between intermediate reads were used to identify pixels affected by cosmic rays, which were recognizable as a change in the rate of accumulation of flux in a pixel and could be corrected using the unaffected sub-images. Remaining cosmic rays were fixed when the individual MULTIACCUM images were combined. The next step was to construct the full exposure by multiplying the fitted slope of flux accumulation in each pixel by the total exposure time, divide by the flat field, and mask bad pixels. The combined MULTIACCUM images were then registered to the nearest pixel and added together; integer-pixel registration does not introduce correlations in the noise between pixels that change the spatial power spectrum of the noise. The SBF analysis assumes that the noise is uncorrelated between pixels.

Raw NICMOS images frequently have slightly different bias levels in each quadrant. In the final coadded images, the background level mismatches between quadrants produce horizontal and vertical discontinuities that affect the measurement of the SBF spatial power spectrum. To remove the offsets, we first processed each individual image and subtracted a smooth fit to the galaxy. The differences between residual background levels in narrow regions on either side of the boundaries were measured. Overall offsets were then computed to effectively add zero flux to the overall image background while minimizing the differences across boundaries. Offsets were applied to the images prior to dividing by the flat field. The final coadded images are much smoother and do not suffer from discontinuities in the background.

Once the relative bias levels between quadrants was removed, the overall bias level remained uncertain. Any such background not removed prior to dividing by the flat field image carries the power spectrum of the flat field into the final spatial power spectrum. The NIC2 flat field has significant structure, making it necessary to address the possibility that residual bias adds power to the measured SBF power spectrum. To measure the influence of residual bias levels on the SBF measurement, we constructed an image composed of scaled copies of that flat field added with the offsets of the dither pattern. The resulting image was then scaled to form a “residual bias image” and added to or subtracted from the final galaxy image prior to SBF analysis. The SBF analysis was repeated for different scale factors, corresponding to the likely range of residual bias values. The most likely residual bias level was determined by trial and error: if a residual bias correction was similar to the level of the inter-quadrant bias adjustment, resulted in lower fluctuation amplitudes, and made the fit to the power spectrum better over a larger range of wavenumber, then it was adopted. If adding a scaled residual bias image led to a worse fit to the spatial power spectrum, or increased the fluctuation amplitude, then no correction was adopted. In many cases applying a residual bias correction did not make the power spectrum fit better or worse, and no correction was adopted. The influence of residual bias on the final SBF measurement was included in the uncertainty by noting the change in the fluctuation magnitude resulting from a range of applied residual bias levels.

Some raw NIC2 images were also affected by interference from the operation of the other cameras. Because NIC1 and NIC3 were not operated in precisely the same mode as NIC2, the cameras were not being reset and read at the same time. Interference between cameras resulted in dark and light horizontal lines in the raw images that adversely affect the SBF power spectrum. To remove the lines, we first identified the affected rows in each individual image with a smooth galaxy profile removed. These rows were masked before the final image was constructed.

A few cosmic rays were energetic enough to leave a residual ghost that persisted for several minutes in the subsequent MULTIACCUM sequences. We identified these occasional residual cosmic rays and masked them as well. These, along with any cosmic rays that escaped detection in the MULTIACCUM sequence, were fixed using valid data for the same location on the sky from the other images in the dither sequence. Each individual exposure (a complete MULTIACCUM sequence) was dithered by 1.5 arcsec, or 20 pixels. When the final summed images were created, we also used the spatial information in the dither sequence to fix the lines caused by read out interference. The final images are smooth and clean, free from almost all the defects inherent in the raw images.

Even when great care was taken to remove cosmic rays and detector artifacts, one type of persistent problem proved to be difficult to remove from our data. When the HST passed through the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), the NICMOS arrays were completely saturated with cosmic rays. The arrays were turned off during these passages. However, some of the time the arrays were restarted too soon after passage through the SAA, and the number of hard cosmic ray hits was very high. The persistent images from these cosmic rays are obvious in the first MULTIACCUM sequences taken after passing through the SAA, and slowly decay through several subsequent exposures.

The background of residual cosmic rays is best described as a “wormy” pattern, with small, sometimes elongated patches of several pixels having significantly higher signal than surrounding regions. An example of this wormy background is shown for one quadrant in subsequent MULTIACCUM images in Figure 2, in which the galaxy profile has been subtracted to show the background. The “worms” make up the splotchy background (left panel) and are distributed fairly uniformly over the array because they correspond to the locations of cosmic ray hits. Worms are a serious concern for SBF measurements, as they are not confined to a small number of pixels. Their spatial power spectrum, while not exactly matching the PSF power spectrum, has significant power on the spatial scales used to fit the SBF power spectrum. If not removed, the power in worms can dominate the stellar fluctuations. The low level persistence of the wormy background pattern can bias the SBF measurement because worms add power to the fluctuation power spectrum, even when they are no longer obvious in the images.

To deal with the worms, we started by examining the galaxy-subtracted residual images from individual MULTIACCUM sequences (e.g., Fig. 2) and we excluded the badly affected images. The remaining question, then, is to what extent the rest of the images were affected. The power spectra from sequential exposures showed the total power decaying to an asymptotic value, although it was difficult to know if the contribution from worms at the asymptotic power level was zero or not. Because the worms were not convolved with the PSF, it was sometimes possible to identify wormy images from power spectra that deviated systematically from the PSF power spectrum. A wormy image has more power at high wavenumbers (small scales) and less power at low wavenumbers than the PSF. To estimate the maximum contribution from residual worminess, we examined the behavior of the SBF signal as a function of the distance from the center of the galaxy. The stellar SBF signal scales with the galaxy surface brightness, while any background fluctuation power from cosmic ray image persistence is uniform. The result of background worminess was a fluctuation power that increased with the area of the region being analyzed. We measured the SBF power in three or four apertures centered on the galaxy nucleus, and, assuming the stellar population of the galaxy is reasonably uniform (ie., the intrinsic stellar fluctuation magnitude does not change drastically with radius), we applied a correction proportional to area to make the fluctuation measurements in the different annuli equal, if possible. The details of these corrections are discussed further in the appendix.

## 4 SBF Measurements

We followed the same basic procedures for measuring SBF amplitudes outlined in detail in Jensen et al. (1998). We first fitted and subtracted a smooth fit to the galaxy profile. Fluctuations can be seen in the three examples shown in Figure 3. Objects in the galaxy-subtracted image were identified, their brightnesses and number densities measured, and a luminosity function generated for globular clusters (GCs) and background galaxies (see Jensen et al. 1998 for details of the luminosity function fits). Objects down to the completeness limit were masked, and the luminosity function integrated beyond the completeness limit to determine the contribution to the SBFs from undetected globular clusters and galaxies. The SBF analysis is insensitive to the exact values assumed for the globular cluster luminosity function width and peak magnitude or the galaxy luminosity function slope when the brightest of these populations are well-measured and masked. Residual large-scale variations in the background resulting from incomplete galaxy subtraction were fitted and removed as well; low wavenumbers ($`k<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$) were ignored in fitting the power spectrum because the spectrum at low wavenumbers was modified by the background subtraction. The fitting parameters for the galaxy profile and large-scale background were tuned to produce the cleanest power spectrum possible. The uncertainties resulting from the galaxy and background fits were determined and added in quadrature with the other sources of uncertainty. Dusty regions near the centers of a few of the galaxies were masked.

The SBF spatial power spectrum normalized by the mean galaxy surface brightness was fitted with the sum of a white-noise component $`P_1`$ and the expectation power spectrum $`E(k)`$ scaled by the fluctuation power $`P_0`$. $`E(k)`$ is a combination of the normalized PSF power spectrum and the mask used to excise point sources and select the radial region of the galaxy being analyzed. The data were fitted with the function

$$P(k)=P_0E(k)+P_1.$$
(1)
The fluctuation power $`P_0`$ must be corrected for undetected point sources and residual wormy background. These are represented by $`P_r`$ and $`P_g`$, respectively. The power in stellar SBFs is therefore

$$P_{\mathrm{fluc}}=P_0P_rP_g.$$
(2)
$`P_{\mathrm{fluc}}`$ is simply a flux, and has units of electrons per pixel per integration time. Fluctuation powers and the relative sizes of the $`P_r`$ and $`P_g`$ corrections are listed in Table 2. $`P_{\mathrm{fluc}}`$ can be transformed into an apparent fluctuation magnitude and corrected for galactic extinction:

$$\overline{m}=2.5\mathrm{log}(P_{\mathrm{fluc}})+m_1A_H$$
(3)
where $`m_1`$ is the magnitude of a source yielding 1 e- per total integration time on the Vega system. We adopted the photometric zero point for NIC2 and the F160W filter measured by the NICMOS team of $`m_1=23.566\pm 0.02`$ mag, the brightness of a source which gives 1 e-s-1. The gain is 5.4 e- per ADU. In this paper we have chosen to adopt the extinction values of Schlegel et al. (1998, hereafter SFD), which are converted to the $`H`$-band extinction values assuming $`A_B=4.315E(BV)`$ and $`A_H=0.132A_B`$ (SFD).

Because the stellar SBF pattern is convolved with the diffraction pattern of the telescope and instrument, we require a good measurement of the point spread function (PSF) for each observation. If the reference PSF shape used does not match the PSF of the data, the fit will be poor. If the PSF is not properly normalized, the photometry will not be correct. To ensure a good SBF measurement, we attempted to image a bright star concurrently with each galaxy observation to serve as a high-S/N PSF reference. The PSF star measurements were short, unguided exposures, and in some cases the PSF was blurred slightly by telescope drift. Others were unusable because of close companions that were undetectable without the excellent resolution of the HST. Still another turned out to be a compact galaxy. In the end, we acquired 10 good PSF measurements over the course of our program (spanning approximately 1 year). For each SBF measurement, we chose the PSF taken closest in time to the galaxy observation.

The uncertainty in the SBF measurement resulting from variations in the PSF was determined by using all 10 PSF stars to measure the fluctuation magnitude for a galaxy. The standard deviation in each case was added in quadrature with the other sources of uncertainty, and was typically between 4% and 6%. The time between individual PSF measurements was much longer than the “breathing” timescale of the telescope, so the variation between PSFs was random. In general, the PSF fits to the SBF data were excellent. While the PSF shows diffraction rings and spots that are quite different from the typical smooth PSF observed from the ground, the PSF power spectrum fits the galaxy data very well, both in the tight Airy core (the broad, high-wavenumber component) and in the wings (the steeper component at low wavenumbers).

We compared our snapshot PSF measurements to 16 measurements of four stars made by the NICMOS team. Fluctuation measurements of our most distant galaxy (Abell 496) were made using the library PSFs as a test case. The library PSF results agreed perfectly with measurements made using our snapshot PSFs, and showed a somewhat smaller scatter (3.5%). The smaller dispersion can be attributed to the fact that the library PSF measurements were made on fewer stars and while the telescope guiding was enabled.

The signal-to-noise ratio of an SBF measurement is best quantified as

$$\xi =P_{\mathrm{fluc}}/(P_1+P_g).$$
(4)
Jensen et al. (1998) showed that $`\xi `$ is a good figure of merit for IR SBF measurements. Values of $`\xi `$ less than unity indicate measurements that are unreliable. The higher $`\xi `$, the better the SBF measurement. Galaxies with $`\xi <1`$ are necessarily those for which the correction for globular clusters ($`P_r`$) or residual cosmic rays ($`P_g`$) are large. $`P_0/P_1`$, while sometimes used as a measure of SBF S/N, significantly overestimates the true S/N because $`P_0`$ contains the contributions from these other sources of variance.

In several cases, the relative contributions of stellar SBFs ($`P_{\mathrm{fluc}}`$), background worminess ($`P_g`$), and globular clusters ($`P_r`$) to the power spectrum were difficult to untangle. Table 2 lists the powers measured (in electrons per total integration time) for each galaxy and the relative levels of the $`P_1`$, $`P_r`$, and $`P_g`$ contributions. The fluctuation S/N ratio ($`\xi `$) is listed for each galaxy, and the power spectrum for each annulus listed in Table 2 is plotted in Figure 4. Fluctuation measurements were made in three annuli for each galaxy, and the results compared. The inner annulus spanned a radial region from 1.2 to 2.4 arcsec, the middle annulus from 2.4 to 4.8 arcsec, and the outer annulus from 4.8 to 9.6 arcsec. In the appendix we discuss the SBF measurements for each intermediate and distant galaxy individually.

## 5 Calibration of the F160W SBF Distance Scale

### 5.1 Absolute Fluctuation Magnitudes

Apparent fluctuation magnitudes for the nearby calibrator galaxies were combined with previously measured distance moduli to empirically determine the absolute brightness of F160W fluctuations $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$. Most of the calibration galaxies are giant ellipticals, and we adopt the distances from the $`I`$-band SBF survey for them (Optical SBF team, private communication). The $`I`$-band SBF distances were calibrated using Cepheid distances to a handful of spiral galaxies for which $`I`$-band SBF analysis was possible in the bulges (SBF-II). Thus the $`I`$-band SBF distances used to calibrate the F160W distance scale are based on SBF and Cepheid distances to individual galaxies, and do not assume common distances for different galaxies within a cluster or group. Optical SBF distance moduli and F160W fluctuation magnitudes are listed in Table 3.

Four Cepheid-bearing galaxies were observed as part of other NICMOS programs, which allowed us to bypass the $`I`$-band SBF calibration altogether. We determined reliable $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ values for three of the galaxies using HST Cepheid distances; the fluctuation measurement in NGC 4536 was contaminated by clumpy dust, and it was excluded from the calibration. Cepheid distances are also compiled in Table 3.

The measured apparent fluctuation magnitudes are very robust. Because slewing between targets and acquiring guide stars takes a significant fraction of an HST orbit, only one or two calibration galaxies could be observed in one orbit. Each integration was at least 256 s, far longer than the minimum time needed to measure SBFs with NICMOS at distances less than 20 Mpc. As a result, the fluctuations were very strong in the calibration images, and the corrections for undetected globular clusters and worms were insignificant. The S/N ratios of the calibration measurements were $`\xi =15`$ to 50.

Absolute fluctuation magnitudes are plotted as a function of $`(VI)`$ color in Figure 5. NGC 1387 and NGC 4536 are excessively dusty, and the extra spatial power from the clumpy dust leads to the anomalously bright fluctuation magnitudes measured (they lie outside the range plotted in Figure 5). The dust is easily seen in the NICMOS images, and these two galaxies were rejected from further consideration based on morphology, not their bright fluctuation magnitudes. They were excluded from the calibration fits. The top panel of Figure 5 shows $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ derived using Cepheid distances, and the lower panel shows those calculated using $`I`$-band SBF distances.

The best fits for the larger $`I`$-band SBF calibration and the direct Cepheid calibration are practically identical. A weighted fit (including the uncertainties both in $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ and $`(VI)`$) has no significant slope in $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ for galaxies redder than $`(VI)`$$`>1.16`$. We therefore adopt a uniform $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ calibration for galaxies in this color range, and note that none of the distant galaxies are likely to have colors bluer than $`(VI)`$$`=1.16`$ (as described in the next section). The $`I`$-band SBF distances give

$$\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}=4.86\pm 0.05\mathrm{mag}$$
(5)
with an rms scatter of 0.08 mag. The calibration derived using only the three Cepheid measurements is indistinguishable ($`4.85\pm 0.06`$ mag). The small scatter in values of $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ for this color range is remarkable, and emphasizes the potential IR SBFs have as a precision distance indicator and probe of stellar populations.

Five additional galaxies from the intermediate-distance sample are plotted in Figure 5 with open symbols. These galaxies have $`I`$-band SBF distances measured using HST. They were not included in the calibration fit; instead, their F160W SBF distances were derived using the calibration and they were included in the computation of $`H_0`$. If they had been used as calibrators, the calibration would have been 0.015 mag brighter, which is entirely consistent given the standard deviation of 0.05 mag observed in the $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ fit. The intermediate set is presented in Figure 5 to demonstrate the overlap between our calibration sample and the distant galaxies from which $`H_0`$ is derived. While both intermediate-distance galaxies redder than $`(VI)_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.24}`$ have brighter than average absolute fluctuation magnitudes, we cannot assume that redder galaxies have intrinsically brighter fluctuations. In fact, the results of Jensen et al. (2000) suggest that $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ gets fainter with increasing $`(VI)`$. Different stellar population models (Sec. 5.3) provide contradictory predictions for fluctuation magnitudes in galaxies redder than $`(VI)`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.24}`$. At this point, we take the conservative approach and adopt a uniform calibration for all the distant galaxies, relying on the overlap (albeit with significant scatter) between the calibrators and the intermediate set. The consistency of $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ values shown in Figure 5 suggests that there are probably no significant stellar population differences between the distant brightest cluster galaxies, the nearby ellipticals, and the bulges of the Cepheid-bearing spirals that produce large variations in the F160W absolute fluctuation magnitudes.

The two versions of the calibration presented here are not independent; both rely on many of the same Cepheid calibrators and are subject to the same systematic uncertainties of the Cepheid distance scale. These significant uncertainties are very much the topic of current debate, and include the issues of the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud (Mould et al. 2000), metallicity corrections to the Cepheid distance scale (Kennicutt et al. 1998; Ferrarese et al. 2000a), and blending of images in the most distant Cepheid measurements (Ferrarese et al. 1998, 2000c; Gibson, Maloney, & Sakai 2000; Stanek & Udalski 2000; Mochejska et al. 2000). This study adopts a distance modulus to the LMC of 18.50 mag. The Cepheid distances adopted are those of Ferrarese et al. (2000b), without the metallicity correction described in Kennicutt et al. (2000).

### 5.2 $`(VI)`$ Colors

As in the optical $`I`$-band, $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ shows a dependence on $`(VI)`$ color such that bluer ellipticals have intrinsically brighter fluctuations. Stellar population models predict a breaking of the age and metallicity degeneracy in the near-IR, and the observed slope of $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ with $`(VI)`$ reveals differences between old, metal-poor populations and young, metal-rich galaxies. A sample of NICMOS SBF measurements in galaxies spanning a wide range in $`(VI)`$ is presented in a companion paper (Jensen et al. 2000) in which stellar population issues are explored. The slope in $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ with color among the redder ellipticals $`(VI)`$$`>1.16`$ is insignificant (Fig. 5). $`(VI)`$ colors have been measured for 7 of the 16 distant galaxies in our sample (Lauer et al. 1998), and all are significantly redder than $`(VI)`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.16}`$. Estimates of the $`(VI)`$ colors for the rest of the distant sample were made by finding the best-fitting relationship between $`(VI)`$ and ($`BR`$) for the 7 galaxies for which both colors are known, and then applying the relationship to the ($`BR`$) data taken from Lauer & Postman (1995). All of the estimated $`(VI)`$ colors are significantly redder than 1.16 as well. The mean estimated $`(VI)`$ is 1.246 mag with a standard deviation of 0.027 (averaging all 14 galaxies with known ($`BR`$) colors); the mean for the 7 galaxies with measured $`(VI)`$ colors is 1.255 mag. Measured or estimated $`(VI)_0`$ colors listed in Table 4 have been corrected for extinction and redshift. We therefore feel secure adopting the calibration determined for galaxies redder than 1.16 for the distant sample. Distances to bluer galaxies will require a reliable $`(VI)_0`$ color measurement and the full color–$`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ relation to be presented in Jensen et al. (2000).

### 5.3 Comparison with Single-Burst Stellar Population Models

If the intrinsic luminosity of the brightest stars in a population is known, fluctuation distances can be determined directly without an empirical calibration based on another distance indicator. Stellar population models can be used to compute theoretical absolute fluctuation magnitudes by determining the second moment of the luminosity function for an ensemble of stars of a particular age and metallicity. In practice, we adopt the empirical calibration because of the uncertainties involved in modeling populations and because of the variations in the ages and metallicities of real galaxies. Nevertheless, it is useful to compare the empirical calibration to the theoretical predictions of stellar population models.

In Figure 6 we plotted the same calibration data points shown in Figure 5 over three different sets of models. The top panel shows the recent model predictions of Liu, Charlot, & Graham (2000) for the F160W filter. These are the same models used to compute the redshift corrections $`k(z)`$ to our fluctuation magnitudes. The models plotted in the middle panel were taken from Blakeslee, Vazdekis, & Ajhar (2000). These models were computed for the $`H`$-band filter and shifted to F160W using the relation:

$$\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}=\overline{M}_H+0.1(\overline{M}_J\overline{M}_K)$$
(6)
(J. Blakeslee, private communication, and Stephens et al. 2000). Finally, Worthey’s (1994) models are plotted in the bottom panel for the F160W filter (G. Worthey, private communication). In all three sets of models, dashed lines indicate isochrones ranging from approximately 5 Gyr at the top to 17 Gyr on the bottom. The fine dotted lines indicate models of constant metallicity. In the Liu et al. case, the SBF measurements straddle the solar-metallicity line, and the next line to the left is \[Fe/H\] $`=0.4`$. In the center panel, the points are closest to the \[Fe/H\] $`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}`$ models of Blakeslee et al. (2000) and reach down to the solar metallicity line. The transformation to the F160W scale, and hence the vertical position of the models, is somewhat uncertain however. In the bottom panel, the points are closest to the \[Fe/H\] $`=0.25`$ line; the next metallicity line down is \[Fe/H\] $`=0.5`$. The calibration data presented here cover a limited range in color, and appear consistent with stellar populations near solar metallicity (between -0.25 and 0.25) and potentially covering a wide range of ages. A detailed comparison of the models with a NICMOS data set covering a much wider range of $`(VI)`$ colors will be presented in Jensen et al. (2000).

## 6 The F160W SBF Hubble Diagram

### 6.1 Distances and Uncertainties

To determine the distance to each galaxy, we adopted $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$$`=4.86\pm 0.05`$ and computed the $`k(z)`$-corrected distance modulus:

$$(mM)=\overline{m}_{\mathrm{F160W}}\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}k(z).$$
(7)
Redshift corrections $`k(z)`$ to fluctuation magnitudes in the F160W-band were taken from the Liu et al. (2000) models for metallicities between \[Fe/H\] $`=0.4`$ to 0.0 and old stellar populations. $`k(z)`$ corrections are listed in Table 4. We compared these $`k(z)`$ corrections to those determined using Worthey’s models for solar metallicity (G. Worthey, private communication) and found small differences of order $`0.01`$ mag. At distances of 10,000 km s-1 and less, the magnitude of the $`k(z)`$ corrections are insensitive to the details of the stellar population models.

The uncertainties in the fluctuation magnitudes in Table 4 are the contributions from PSF fitting, sky subtraction, bias removal, and galaxy subtraction, all added in quadrature. The uncertainties in the distance moduli include the uncertainty in $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ of 0.05 mag. Typical values for the individual uncertainties are listed in Table 5. We also determined the range of fluctuation magnitudes permitted given the level of worminess in the background and the agreement between individual annuli. Maximum and minimum values derived from the residual background corrections are listed separately from the other sources of uncertainty in Table 4.

We treated the different uncertainties as if they were independent, but acknowledge the fact that there are subtle correlations between sources of uncertainty that are difficult to quantify. For example, the procedure that is used to fit and subtract the smooth galaxy profile is affected by errors in sky subtraction. While relationships between sources of uncertainty exist, they are insignificant to the results of this study. Examination of Table 5 shows that the significant sources of uncertainty in the distance measurement are the PSF fit, globular cluster correction, and the intrinsic scatter in the $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ calibration. The first is due mainly to variations in the drift and focus of the telescope and brightness of the PSF stars. The second is principally a function of the depth of the observation and size of the globular cluster population. The cosmic scatter in $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ is a result of variations in the stellar populations of galaxies. These uncertainties are independent and may safely be added in quadrature. Furthermore, in many cases even these uncertainties are secondary to the larger uncertainty in the correction for worminess in the background, which is a function of time since the last SAA passage.

Measuring the uncertainty due to residual background patterns was difficult; to make an estimate, we explored the range of correction that is permitted by the data by subtracting various levels of uniformly distributed residual spatial power, and thereby found the maximum and minimum fluctuation magnitudes allowed. The most likely fluctuation magnitude for each galaxy was determined taking into account the details described in the notes in the appendix. Rather than assume a Gaussian distribution of errors about the most probable value, we chose to adopt a probability distribution that increases linearly from zero at the maximum and minimum allowed values to the most likely value and is normalized appropriately. The probability function is not symmetrical about the most likely value because the measurement is not usually midway between the maximum and minimum allowed values. We convolved this skewed saw-tooth distribution function with the normal probability distribution of the other sources of uncertainty to get the probability distribution function that was used to determine $`H_0`$.

Some systematic errors listed in Table 5 affect all our measurements equally, and are not included in the uncertainties in Table 4. The first of these is the 0.02 mag uncertainty in the photometric zero point of the F160W filter in the NIC2 camera. The other systematic errors we inherit from the Cepheid distances adopted, either directly or via the $`I`$-band SBF calibration. The systematic uncertainty in the Cepheid distance scale of 0.16 mag includes the 0.13 mag uncertainty in the distance to the LMC and the 0.02 mag uncertainty in the zero point of the period-luminosity relationship for Cepheid variables. The systematic photometric uncertainty in the WFPC-2 measurements contributes another 0.09 mag to the Cepheid distances. A detailed discussion of these uncertainties can be found in Ferrarese et al. (2000a). Adding all sources of systematic uncertainty in quadrature gives 0.16 mag. An additional systematic uncertainty from the $`I`$-band SBF distance scale is not included because the $`I`$-band distances are only used to link the Cepheid calibration to the distant galaxies of our sample. The $`I`$-band SBF systematic uncertainties are the same as those already discussed, and it would not be correct to include them twice. The 0.01 mag agreement between the $`I`$-band SBF and the direct Cepheid calibrations confirms that no additional systematic error is incurred by adopting the $`I`$-band SBF distances for the calibration.

### 6.2 Radial Velocities

The heliocentric velocity for each cluster or galaxy was initially measured or collected from the literature by Postman & Lauer (1995, and references therein). The uncertainties on the individual redshift measurements were typically 60 km s-1. New data now available provide velocities to additional cluster members and have been included in this study. Radial velocities are compiled in Table 4, along with the number of individual galaxy redshifts that were averaged to get the cluster velocity. The details of how galaxies were selected for inclusion are described by Postman & Lauer (1995). The mean uncertainty in the mean cluster redshift is 184 km s-1 for the Postman & Lauer sample. NGC 4709 is listed in Table 4 with its own radial velocity; it is a member of the high-velocity (4500 km s-1) component of the Centaurus cluster, and hence has a significant peculiar velocity. NGC 5193 is also listed with its own redshift; it was previously thought to be the cD galaxy in Abell 3560, but Willmer et al. (1999) found that it is in fact a foreground galaxy. NGC 4073 is not associated with a cluster; its heliocentric velocity was taken from Beers et al. (1995). The heliocentric velocities were converted to the reference frame that is at rest with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The CMB dipole adopted was that measured by Lineweaver et al. (1996).

### 6.3 The Model Velocity Field and $`H_0`$

Measurements of the Hubble constant within 50 Mpc must take peculiar velocities into account because they can be a significant fraction of the Hubble velocity. In fact, one of the differences between the Hubble constants measured by Tonry et al. (SBF-II) and Ferrarese et al. (2000a) using the same Cepheid calibrators and the same SBF measurements (albeit with a slightly different calibration) was the result of different assumptions about the local velocity field. We have chosen our distant sample to be distributed in such a way as to minimize sensitivity to local peculiar velocities (Fig. 1). By far the greatest immunity to peculiar velocities comes from reaching much greater distances than previously possible. At 130 Mpc, we expect peculiar velocities to be approximately 3% of the Hubble velocity. This insensitivity to peculiar velocities and isotropic distribution of the distant sample produced the most accurate SBF measurement of $`H_0`$ to date.

We followed the SBF-II maximum-likelihood procedure for computing $`H_0`$. We first constructed a model velocity field, which included a 187 km s-1 cosmic thermal velocity dispersion. The quadrupole term adopted in SBF-II was not included. Various dipole terms (resulting from the peculiar velocity of the Local Group in the CMB frame) were tried, and a comparison is presented below.

At the position of each galaxy as defined by the F160W SBF distance, the most likely velocity was determined from the velocity model. A number of points were then chosen radially spanning the range of possible distances given the uncertainties in the measured distances. At each point, the joint likelihood of a given combination of distance and velocity measurements was computed, and the likelihood integrated across the radial range in distance. The Hubble constant is a free parameter of the velocity model, and this procedure was repeated to find the value of $`H_0`$ which maximizes the likelihood of all the distance and velocity measurements together. This procedure used the distance probability distribution function constructed by convolving the normal Gaussian uncertainties with the saw-tooth probability distribution between the maximum and minimum $`\overline{m}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ values. In practice, we attempted to minimize the negative likelihood statistic $`𝒩`$ (see SBF-II for details). The value of $`\chi ^2`$ determined using the maximum likelihood technique and our non-Gaussian probability distributions is not necessarily minimized when $`𝒩`$ is minimized; however, the difference between values of $`𝒩`$ for different input parameters to the velocity model is equivalent to a difference in $`\chi ^2`$. In Table 6 we compared the likelihood of various models by indicating the difference in $`\chi ^2`$ relative to the baseline model that ignores all peculiar velocities except the motion of the Local Group in the CMB frame.

Several velocity models were used to determine the sensitivity of the $`H_0`$ measurement to the input parameters of the models. Results for these tests are listed in Table 6. NGC 4709 was excluded from all fits because the velocity field of the complex Centaurus cluster was not included in the velocity model. The models tried were constructed as follows:

(1) The first model does not include any local attractors or peculiar velocities beyond that of the Local Group in the CMB frame. In the CMB frame, $`H_0`$$`=76.1`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. We adopt the CMB model as the baseline and compare other models by computing the change in $`\chi ^2`$ relative to this case.

(2) Adding the contributions from the Virgo and GA mass concentrations and dipole as prescribed by SBF-II increases $`H_0`$ to 77.1. The slight decrease in $`\chi ^2`$ is not significant. The quadrupole term suggested by SBF-II was not included because it is inappropriate for the distances of the galaxies in our sample (including it would increase $`\chi ^2`$ by 25!).

(3$``$4) For model 3 we used the dipole determined by Willick & Batra (2000). Model 4 includes the dipole measured by Giovanelli et al. (1998) using Tully-Fisher measurements to many clusters out to redshifts of 9000 km s-1. The likelihood of these two dipole models is essentially the same as the best-fitting SBF-II models and the CMB-only baseline model. The Hubble constant implied by these models is approximately 75.5 km s-1 Mpc-1. The largest difference in $`H_0`$ between models 1 to 4, which have essentially the same likelihood, is only 1.6 km s-1 Mpc-1.

(5) Like model 2, the fifth model used the mass distribution suggested by SBF-II, but allowed the maximum likelihood procedure to determine the most likely dipole velocity in addition to $`H_0`$. Despite having more freedom to fit the data with three additional degrees of freedom, the fit is worse and and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ is larger. The dipole determined is large, but barely larger than the uncertainty. We have sampled the velocity field with only 16 points spanning a range in distance from 50 to 150 Mpc, and the sample was chosen to minimize sensitivity to streaming motions that could bias the measurement of $`H_0`$. Towards this end we were successful; the small variation in $`H_0`$ between the various models confirms this conclusion. On the other hand, to reliably measure the bulk motion of the galaxies in the local universe, distances would need to be measured to a much larger sample of galaxies within the redshift interval of interest (7000 to 10,000 km s-1 in this study).

(6) The one dipole presented here that fails to fit our data very well is the large dipole velocity of 689 km s-1 measured by Lauer & Postman (1994). Using the Lauer & Postman dipole reduces $`H_0`$ by approximately 3 km s-1 Mpc-1, but $`\chi ^2`$ is significantly larger. It is, however, closer to the free dipole of model 5 than the other model dipoles considered.

Based on the full data set, we conclude that

$$H_0=76\pm 1.3(\mathrm{random})\pm 6(\mathrm{systematic})\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1.$$
(8)
The 1-$`\sigma `$ random uncertainty formally includes all sources of uncertainty in the distance measurement, including the non-Gaussian uncertainty from the residual background correction. Although $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is not minimized for our non-Gaussian probability distribution, its value of 1.0 for model 1 indicates that the adopted uncertainties are reasonable. The Gaussian 1-$`\sigma `$ error bars are plotted with thick lines in the Hubble diagram (Fig. 7). The full non-Gaussian ranges allowed by the various corrections to the SBF distances are indicated by the lighter lines underneath each point. The Hubble diagram is shown using the CMB velocities (model 1), and our best-fit value of $`H_0`$$`=76`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 is indicated by the dashed line.

A second line in Figure 7 indicates the decrease in $`H_0`$ beyond 70 h-1 Mpc ($`7000`$ km s-1) suggested by Zehavi et al. (1998). Their “Hubble bubble” model hypothesizes that a locally under-dense region of the Universe gives rise to an expansion rate about 6% higher within 70 h-1 Mpc. The SBF analysis was repeated using only the six most distant galaxies and the model 3 (SBF-II) velocity model (model 7 in Table 6). The six galaxies were chosen to minimize $`H_0`$ and provide the best match to the decrease in $`H_0`$ predicted by Zehavi et al. (1998). The result, 72.3 km s-1 Mpc-1, reproduces nearly perfectly the predicted decrease in $`H_0`$.

The lower panel in Figure 7 shows the Hubble ratio $`v_{\mathrm{CMB}}/d`$ for each galaxy. The error bars are shown for the Gaussian component of the distance error, and do not include the uncertainty range from the residual background correction. The curved lines behind each point show the full range of possible distances if a different background correction $`P_g`$ were adopted. The longest arcs are necessarily those points with the worst worminess, the largest corrections, and the lowest S/N ratios. The best-fit value of $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}76}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 is indicated by the horizontal line. Once again, the Zehavi et al. (1998) predicted decrease in $`H_0`$ is shown.

We also explored the sensitivity of our results to the low-S/N observations. Several of the measurements are quite poor, and should arguably be excluded from the fits. Excluding all galaxies obviously contaminated by worms (Abell 262, 2666, 3389, 3581, 3742 and NGC 4073) gives $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}77.4}\pm 1.7`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 for model 2, which is nearly the same value determined using the entire data set of 77.1. If we exclude only the three galaxies with $`\xi <1`$ (Abell 2666, Abell 3389, and Abell 3581), then we find that $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}78.0}\pm 1.6`$. It is clear that the worst measurements are not systematically biasing the measurement of $`H_0`$. This is not surprising, as the maximum likelihood code takes into account the large range of possible distances for these galaxies. The fact that there is no systematic offset shows that the $`P_g`$ corrections are applied uniformly and that the residual background is not systematically over or under-subtracted. When the six galaxies that have dust lanes or disks are exluded (Abell 262, 1060, 2199, 3565, 3581, and NGC 5193), $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}75.7}\pm 1.5`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. This value is only 1.4 km s-1 Mpc-1 smaller than 77.1, and suggests that clumpy dust in some galaxies does not introduce a significant bias to the distance measurements. If there were a significant bias in the distance measurements due to residual cosmic rays, clumpy dust, improper bias removal, undetected globular clusters, or any of the other sources of variance discussed above, the result would be increasingly underestimated distances as redshifts increase. In fact, the opposite trend is observed: the highest redshift galaxies have somewhat larger measured distances than expected, as predicted by the Zehavi et al. (1998) Hubble bubble model.

## 7 Can $`H_0`$ be 65 km s-1 Mpc-1?

Several groups have recently reported measurements of the Hubble constant derived from HST Cepheid distance calibrations of various secondary distance indicators. Our best-fit measurement of $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}76}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.3}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 is in good agreement (better than 1 $`\sigma `$) with several, including optical SBFs (SBF-II; Lauer et al. 1998), Cepheid distances alone (Willick & Batra 2000), fundamental plane distances (Kelson et al. 2000), and Tully Fisher distances (Sakai et al. 2000). The SBF Hubble constant as calibrated by Ferrarese et al. (2000a) differs from ours at the 1.5-$`\sigma `$ level for the same reasons it differs from SBF-II: a slightly different SBF calibration and different peculiar velocities were adopted for the four clusters measured by Lauer et al. (see Ferrarese et al. for a discussion). Our measurement of $`H_0`$ differs significantly from the results based on type-Ia supernovae. Gibson et al. (2000) report $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}68}\pm 2\pm 5`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, 12% lower than our value. Parodi et al. (2000) found $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}58.5}\pm 6.3`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 (90% confidence level), which is 24% smaller. These two supernovae measurements cannot be directly compared, however, because of a significant difference (0.18 mag) between the calibration adopted by Parodi et al. and that used by the HST Key Project team (ie., Gibson et al.) The Key Project Cepheid calibration was adopted for this study.

Is it possible that $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}65}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, and that we have overestimated it by 15% (or more)? Roughly one third of this difference disappears if the Zehavi et al. (1998) Hubble bubble model is correct. If galaxies nearer than $`7000`$ km s-1 must be disregarded because of their enhanced velocities away from a locally under-dense region, then our measurement of $`H_0`$ can be as low as 72 km s-1 Mpc-1. Our results do not demand that this be the case, however, and are still consistent with observations that refute the Hubble bubble hypothesis (Giovanelli et al. 1999, Lahav 2000). The fits including all the data, assuming a smooth Hubble flow, are equally good because the nearer meausurements tend to be most reliable.

Extinction from clumpy dust in the individual galaxies could add to the fluctuation power and bias the SBF measurements to shorter distances. No sign of dust was seen in the images of the galaxies used to determine the calibration of $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ (aside from NGC 1387 and NGC 4536, which were excluded). Six of the distant galaxies do have obvious dust lanes (Table 2). Only one (Abell 262) has extensive dust, and we used the optical WFPC-2 image of Lauer et al. (1998) to mask the dusty regions. The other five have dust lanes or disks that are concentrated near the centers of the galaxies, which were masked. There is no evidence for extended patches of dust with sizes comparable to the PSF and smooth on larger scales. The distances for these are not systematically smaller than the others at the same redshifts, nor are their colors redder on average. The Hubble constant measured with the six dusty galaxies excluded was not significantly smaller, and it seems unlikely that all the distant galaxies would have uniformly distributed clumpy dust that would be unrecognizable in our images.

Besides the potential 6% reduction in $`H_0`$ beyond $`100`$ Mpc suggested by the six most distant measurements, are there systematic problems with the F160W SBF measurements that could explain another $``$10% (or more) difference between our results and the conclusions of the supernovae measurements? There are potentially three sources of extra power in the power spectrum that are not convolved with the diffraction pattern of the telescope, but do have power on the spatial scales over which we fit the SBF power spectrum. The first of these is the residual bias scaled by the flat field image. We addressed this possibility by explicitly subtracting a dithered bias$`\times `$flat image as described in Section 3. The uncertainty in $`H_0`$ resulting from errors in bias subtraction was measured and found to be less than 1% (Table 5).

The second potential contributor to the power spectrum is the residual wormy background. We carefully excluded wormy images and subtracted an estimate of the residual power as described in Section 3. If the correction for worms were systematically underestimated, then our measurement of $`H_0`$ would be too large. In the previous section we showed that excluding the galaxies contaminated by worms had no significant effect on the measurement of $`H_0`$. Excluding the lowest S/N measurements also had no significant effect. The range of $`H_0`$ values seen during these tests was less than 1 km s-1 Mpc-1. This suggests that the corrections were applied uniformly.

The third potential contributor to the power spectrum is the residual structure in the background from subtraction of the model galaxy profile. To avoid any bias because of the somewhat arbitrary fit of the left-over large-scale structure in the galaxy, we excluded wavenumbers smaller than 20 from our analysis. The mean uncertainty in the distance modulus from galaxy and smooth background subtraction was 0.02 mag. Residual galactic structure could explain a 1% bias in our $`H_0`$ measurement, but not a large systematic error.

If the fluctuation powers we measure are reliable, is it possible that other sources of systematic error could cause us to overestimate $`H_0`$ by 10 to 15%? Perhaps the most obvious candidate for this kind of systematic error would be the calibration of the F160W absolute fluctuation magnitude. We used both Cepheid and $`I`$-band SBF distances to determine the calibration. Although not completely independent, the two calibrations are remarkably consistent (0.01 mag). The agreement between the $`I`$-band SBF and direct Cepheid calibration supports the conclusion that there is no significant difference in the fluctuation amplitudes between early and late-type galaxies. The applicability of the calibration to the more distant galaxies is demonstrated by the overlap with the intermediate-distance sample. To explain a 15% difference in $`H_0`$, $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$ would have to be brighter by 0.3 mag, or $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{F160W}}`$$`=5.16`$. Examination of Figure 5 shows that a calibration as bright as $``$5.16 is inconsistent with the data.

Significant systematic errors in the Cepheid distance scale are relevant to the measurement of the true value of the Hubble constant, but cannot explain the difference between our measurement and that determined using type-Ia supernovae because we adopted the same Cepheid calibration as the other groups listed at the beginning of this section. A systematic error in the distance to the LMC (for example) will affect our measurement of $`H_0`$ in exactly the same way as the other measurements.

Is it possible that the mundane choice of Galactic extinction corrections could result in a systematic calibration error at the 15% level? By observing in the near-IR, our sensitivity to errors in the extinction are significantly reduced. The largest correction in our sample is 0.08 mag (Table 1). Most of the calibrator galaxies have IR extinction corrections of order 0.01 mag. If extinction has been underestimated, the true fluctuation magnitudes will be brighter than we have estimated and the distances smaller. Increasing extinction corrections makes $`H_0`$ larger. On the other hand, extinction cannot have been overestimated by very much because the corrections are already very close to zero. The only other way to get distance measurements that are systematically underestimated by 15% would be for extinction corrections to all three Cepheid calibrators used in this paper and all the Cepheid calibrators used by Tonry et al. (SBF-II) to be overestimated by 0.3 mag, but not those used to calibrate the supernova distance scale. It seems unlikely that Galactic extinction could be the cause of so large a systematic error.

One reason that previous measurements of $`H_0`$ have disagreed with each other has been the choice of velocities used (Ferrarese et al. 2000a, Mould et al. 2000). When $`H_0`$ is measured on scales where the peculiar motions of individual galaxies are a significant fraction of the Hubble velocity, the value of $`H_0`$ will depend quite sensitively on the velocity adjustments made for infall into local mass concentrations. Our measurement of $`H_0`$ reaches well into the Hubble flow and is distributed uniformly on the sky, and is therefore very insensitive to the choice of velocity model and the peculiar velocities of individual galaxies and clusters (as described in Section 6.3).

Finally, we cannot rule out the possibility that modest systematic errors affect both F160W SBF and type-Ia supernovae distance measurement techniques in such a way to create the difference between the measurements.

## 8 Summary

We measured accurate IR SBF distances to a collection of 16 uniformly-distributed distant galaxies for the purpose of measuring the Hubble constant well beyond the influence of local peculiar velocities. These NICMOS measurements mark the first time SBFs have been measured in galaxies out to redshifts of 10,000 km s-1, clearly demonstrating the advantages of measuring SBFs in the near-IR with excellent spatial resolution and low background. The calibration of the F160W SBF distance scale presented here was based on SBF measurements of galaxies in which Cepheid variable stars were detected in the same galaxy. Using a maximum-likelihood technique to account both for the influence of local mass concentrations on the velocity field and the non-Gaussian uncertainties on our SBF distance measurements yields a Hubble contsant of $`H_0`$$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}76}\pm 1.3`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 (1-$`\sigma `$ statistical uncertainty) with an additional systematic uncertainty of 6 km s-1 Mpc-1, primarily the result of uncertainty in the distance to the LMC. The small statistical uncertainty in $`H_0`$ is a result of the fact that our measurement is very insensitive to peculiar velocities, stellar population variations, extinction corrections, and photometric errors. Arbitrarily excluding all but the six most distant galaxies from the fit results in a 6% decrease in $`H_0`$, consistent with the hypothesis that the Local Group is located in an under-dense region of the universe.

This study benefitted greatly from NICMOS data collected as part of several programs, and we thank those who worked to acquire that data. In particular, we are grateful to those who helped ensure that the data would be appropriate for SBF analysis and assisted with the data reductions (D. Geisler, J. Elias, J. R. Graham, and S. Charlot). We are endebted to the NICMOS GTO team for their hard work in building, calibrating, and providing software for NICMOS. We greatly appreciated the helpful comments of R. Weymann, J. Blakeslee, and L. Ferrarese. The calibration presented here made use of data collected by the Optical SBF team (J. Tonry, J. Blakeslee, E. Ajhar, and A. Dressler), and we thank them for providing color photometry and $`I`$-band SBF distances to the calibration galaxies. Finally, we wish to thank G. Worthey, S. Charlot, and A. Vazdekis for constructing stellar population models and providing appropriate $`k(z)`$-corrections. This research was supported in part by NASA grant GO-07453.0196A. The NICMOS GTO team was supported by NASA grant NAG 5-3042. J. Jensen acknowledges the support of the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina).

## Appendix A Appendix: Notes

Abell 262 (NGC 708): The central galaxy in Abell 262 is littered with dust. We used the high-resolution $`I`$-band WFPC-2 images (Lauer et al. 1998) to identify dusty regions and create a mask for our NICMOS image. In addition to the copious dust, we had to exclude exposures because of worminess in the background. The uncertainty in fluctuation magnitude is relatively large because of the dustiness and wormy background corrections, even though Abell 262 is among the closest of the clusters we observed.

Abell 496 (PGC 015524): This cluster is the most distant in our sample, and we allocated 3 orbits to ensure a good SBF measurement. Of the 20 individual exposures, only the last two were found to be wormy. The other 18 are unaffected. The S/N is good and the fluctuation measurement is reliable.

Abell 779 (NGC 2832): Aside from a little dither-pattern noise in the power spectrum, the results for Abell 779 are quite good. Pattern noise is an array of spots in the spatial power spectrum with a periodicity corresponding to the 20-pixel offset of the dither pattern. Detector artifacts (e.g., vertical bands or mismatches in the background level at quadrant boundaries) were sometimes incompletely removed by the image reduction procedures and cause pattern noise. Pattern noise is only significant in the power spectrum of the outermost annulus.

Abell 1060 (NGC 3311): The central galaxy in the Hydra cluster was one of four galaxies presented here that were observed by D. Geisler, J. Elias and E. Ajhar as part of NICMOS program 7820. The images were reduced for SBF analysis using the software and procedures described in this paper. NGC 3311 has some dust in the central region that was masked; the SBF fit in the outer regions is nearly perfect and the S/N ratio is very high.

Abell 1656(a) (IC 4051): Two galaxies in the Coma cluster were observed by D. Geisler et al. IC 4051 has an unusually large population of globular clusters (Baum et al. 1997). We found that many are much brighter than expected for a galaxy at this distance. We modified the luminosity fitting parameters and estimated the contribution from unresolved GCs and subtracted it, but a relatively large uncertainty in the GC contribution to the SBF power remains. The fit to the SBF power spectrum is good.

Abell 1656(b) (NGC 4874): The power spectrum for NGC 4874 is clean and the fit is very good. NGC 4874 has a normal globular cluster population (Harris et al. 2000).

Abell 2199 (NGC 6166): The central galaxy in Abell 2199 has dust lanes within 3 arcsec of the center. The dust lanes were masked prior to performing the SBF analysis, but measurements in the innermost aperture are suspect. The SBF analysis did not include the region between NGC 6166 and two nearby companions, where the fit to the galaxy profile is not very good. The fit to the power spectum in the intermediate annulus was excellent, but the outer two apertures disagree at a level (0.64 mag) that cannot be corrected properly by adopting a value of $`P_g`$ that scales with area. We adopted the measurement in the intermediate aperture and a relatively large range of permitted fluctuation magnitudes.

Abell 2666 (NGC 7768): NGC 7768 has surprisingly few globular clusters, which is consistent with the measurements of Harris, Pritchet, & McClure (1995) and Blakeslee, Tonry, & Metzger (1997). Our attempts to fit a luminosity function to a half-dozen objects failed to produce a reasonable correction for undetected globular clusters. The SBF analysis proceeded without a GC correction, and we adopted an uncertainty that is larger than the other galaxies that reflects our lack of knowledge of the GC luminosity function. The only way this measurement could be significantly biased by undetected GCs is if the GC luminosity function is skewed to the faint end and contains practically no GCs on the bright side of the peak. The Abell 2666 observation is also contaminated by a wormy background. One of the six exposures is excluded, and the worst regions masked in the two subsequent exposures. There is always a tradeoff between including frames that increase the SBF signal but also contain the decaying wormy background. In this case, a good fit to the power spectrum was achieved, but a significant correction for the background must be applied to make the outer two apertures agree. $`P_g`$ is further enhanced by the presence of undetected globular clusters and background galaxies that could not be handled with the usual procedure of fitting luminosity functions due to the paucity of bright objects in this field. $`\xi <1`$ for this galaxy and the possible range of fluctuation magnitudes is therefore quite large.

Abell 3389 (NGC 2235): We observed the central galaxy in Abell 3389 in the continuous viewing zone to achieve a longer total integration time for this galaxy. Unfortunately, the longer MULTIACCUM sequences used to avoid frequent NICMOS buffer dumps had many more persistent cosmic rays in each image and a significantly wormy background. We abandoned half of our images, and the remaining ones must be corrected for residual worminess. As a result, $`P_g`$ is significant and $`\xi `$ is less than unity. The fluctuation power increases significantly with aperture area, and the globular cluster and worminess corrections are large. The uncertainties reflect the fact that the fluctuation magnitude is poorly constrained.

Abell 3565 (IC 4296): IC 4296 has a compact dust ring close to the nucleus, but no sign of dust outside of a radius of 1.5 arcsec. Very small residual spatial variance corrections ($`P_g`$) bring the annuli into nearly perfect agreement. The S/N of this measurement is high and the GC correction small.

Abell 3581 (IC 4374): the observations of IC 4374 were strongly affected by worminess in the background. Two of six exposures were excluded from the final image, and residual worms were masked in three of the remaining four. The potential for bias is strong in this case, and a significant $`P_g`$ correction for background power was applied, resulting in a $`\xi <1`$ and a large range of allowed fluctuation magnitudes. Furthermore, the central regions contain a dust lane, which we masked.

Abell 3656 (IC 4931): The only problem that arose in the analysis of IC 4931 is the presence of dither pattern noise in the background. This problem is only significant in the largest annulus; the inner two agree nicely.

Abell 3742 (NGC 7014): The HST failed to lock onto the guide stars for the observations of NGC 7014. Because some drift occurred during the MULTIACCUM sequences, our IDL procedures interpreted the changing flux in each pixel as cosmic rays. To overcome this problem, we were forced to abandon the temporal cosmic ray rejection and rely on the spatial information alone. The galaxy fitting routine also had trouble because of the smeared image. The residual image shows extra background structure close to the center where the galaxy fit is worst. In this case, we included a small correction to the fluctuation power that scales as the galaxy brightness (rather than by the area of the aperture, as with the worminess corrections applied to some of the other galaxies). Furthermore, the S/N is reduced because the PSF has been smeared by telescope drift. Because the bright PSF stars used for the other galaxies do not match in this case, we resorted to extracting a low-S/N PSF from a combination of six faint stars or globular clusters from the smeared image of NGC 7014. The resulting fit is acceptable, but the PSF normalization somewhat uncertain. Although Abell 3742 is among the closest clusters in our sample, the uncertainties are relatively large.

NGC 4073: This galaxy was observed by D. Geisler et al., and it is not associated with a cluster. Its globular cluster population is extensive. Worminess in some of the images contaminates the SBF measurement, and the $`P_g`$ correction is large. Another difficulty with the analysis of this galaxy was accurately subtracting the smooth galaxy profile. Because of the dither pattern used in this case was chosen to maximize the number of globular clusters detected, there is a hole in the image near the galaxy center that made galaxy subtraction somewhat difficult.

NGC 4709: This galaxy is part of the complex Centaurus cluster and has a significant positive peculiar radial velocity. Although it is not useful for measuring the Hubble Constant, it does have a reliable $`I`$-band SBF distance from WFPC-2 observations. The first of the six exposures was excluded because of low-level worminess in the background. The resulting power spectrum fits the PSF spectrum very well, and the S/N is relatively high. A modest correction for background worminess brought the individual apertures into perfect agreement

NGC 5193: A recent velocity study by Willmer et al. (1999) indicated that NGC 5193 is not a member of the Abell 3560 cluster, as had been supposed. NGC 5193 has a dust ring extending 2.6 arcsec from the center, which we masked. NGC 5193 is one of the nearest galaxies in our survey, and the S/N ratio is quite high. Nevertheless, the relatively large range of acceptable fluctuation magnitudes reflects the 0.5 mag disagreement between annuli that was not removed with a uniform $`P_g`$ correction.


format: text

text:
# 1 Unitarization

Pion and Kaon Vector Form Factors

J. E. Palomar1, J. A. Oller2, E. Oset1

1 Departamento de Física Teórica e IFIC, Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia-CSIC,
46100 Burjassot (Valencia), Spain

2 Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institut für Kernphysik (Theorie)
D-52425 Jülich, Germany

## Abstract

The pion and kaon coupled-channel vector form factors are described by making use of the resonance chiral Lagrangian results together with a suitable unitarization method in order to take care of the final state interactions. A very good reproduction of experimental data is accomplished for the vector form factors up to $`\sqrt{s}1.2`$ GeV and for the $`\pi \pi `$ P-wave phase shifts up to $`\sqrt{s}1.5`$ GeV.

PACS: 13.75.Lb, 11.55.Fv, 11.80.Et, 12.39.Fe

## 1 Unitarization

Using an appropriate unitarization method we take into account the final state interaction corrections to the tree level amplitudes calculated from lowest order $`\chi PT`$  and from the inclusion of explicit resonance fields in a chiral symmetry fashion as given in ref. . A similar procedure has already been used in the scalar sector to describe the scalar form factor associated with the strange-change scalar current $`\overline{u}s`$ in ref. . Starting from the unitarity of the $`S`$-matrix and the introduction of the electromagnetic meson form factor $`F_{MM^{}}(s)`$:

$$\gamma (q)|T|M(p)M^{}(p^{})=eϵ_\mu (pp^{})^\mu F_{MM^{}}(s)$$
(1)
with $`q^2=s`$, $`e`$ the modulus of the electron charge and $`ϵ_\mu `$ the photon polarization vector, we arrive at the expression:

$$\text{Im}F_{MM^{}}(s)=\underset{\alpha }{}F_\alpha ^{}(s)\frac{p_\alpha (s)}{8\pi \sqrt{s}}\theta (s4m_\alpha ^2)p_\alpha (s)\frac{T(s)_{\alpha ,MM^{}}}{p_{MM^{}}(s)}$$
(2)
where $`\theta (x)`$ is the usual Heaviside function. On the other hand $`p_{MM^{}}(s)`$ and $`p_\alpha (s)`$ are respectively the moduli of the three momenta of the mesons in the final and intermediate meson states, and we sum over intermediate two-meson states.

We will work in the isospin limit, with $`|\pi \pi `$ and $`|K\overline{K}`$ states (and the $`\rho `$ resonance) in the $`I=1`$ channel and only the $`|K\overline{K}`$ state (and the $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ resonances) in the I=0 channel. Using a matrix notation, the P-wave amplitudes $`T^I(s)`$ can be written as :

$$T^I=[1+K^I(s)g(s)]^1K^I(s)$$
(3)
where $`K_{ij}^I(s)`$ are the tree level amplitudes derived from lowest order $`\chi PT`$ plus s-channel vector resonance exchange contributions  corresponding to the transition $`ij`$. From eqs. (2) and (3) it follows, after some algebra, that $`F^I(s)`$ can be written as:

$$F^I(s)=\left[1+\stackrel{~}{Q}(s)^1K^I(s)\stackrel{~}{Q}(s)g^I(s)\right]^1R^I(s)$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ij}(s)=p_i(s)\delta _{ij}`$ and $`K^I(s)`$ is the matrix collecting the tree level amplitudes between definite $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ isospin states. $`F^I(s)`$ is the column matrix $`F^I(s)_i=F_i^I(s)`$, $`R^I(s)`$ is a vector made up by functions without any cut and $`g^I(s)`$ is the diagonal matrix given by the loop with two meson propagators:

$$g_i^I(s)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[2+d_i^I+\sigma _i(s)\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma _i(s)+1}{\sigma _i(s)1}\right]$$
(5)
where $`\sigma _i(s)=\sqrt{14m_i^2/s}`$. We will label pions with $`1`$ and kaons with $`2`$ in the $`I=1`$ case. In the $`I=0`$ case we only have kaons.

In the large $`N_c`$ limit loop physics is supressed and then $`F^I(s)=R_{N_cleading}(s)=F_t^I(s)`$, where $`F_t^I(s)`$ is the tree level form factor.111We evaluate the tree level form factors and scattering amplitudes using the lowest order $`\chi PT`$ Lagrangian  plus the chiral resonance Lagrangian .

This allows us to write:

$$F^I(s)=\left[1+\stackrel{~}{Q}(s)^1K^I(s)\stackrel{~}{Q}(s)g^I(s)\right]^1\left[F_t^I(s)+R_{subleading}^I(s)\right]$$
(6)
with $`R_{subleading}^I(s)`$ being of $`𝒪(N_c^1)`$. If we require that the vector form factor from eq. (6) vanishes for $`s\mathrm{}`$ as is suggested by the experiments, we find that the subleading part of $`R^I(s)`$, which at first can be an arbitrary polynomial (the poles coming from the resonances are in the leading part $`F_t^I(s)`$), must be a constant. In order to fix the constants $`R_{subleading}^I(s)`$ and $`d_i^I(s)`$ of $`g_i^I(s)`$ we match our results with those of one loop $`\chi PT`$. We take $`R_{subleading}^{I=1}(s)=0`$ in order to constrain further our approach. This can be done since we can match our results with one loop $`\chi PT`$ by choosing appropriate values for $`d_1^{I=1}`$ and $`d_2^{I=1}`$. The values of the other constants given by the matching are:

$`d_1^{I=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$
$`d_2^{I=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\pi ^2}{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}}\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$
$`d^{I=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\mu ^2}}`$
$`R_{subleading}^{I=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{16\sqrt{2}\pi ^2f^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (7)
The bare masses of the resonances (which appear in the tree level quantities) are fixed by the requirements that the moduli of the $`\pi \pi `$ $`I=1`$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ $`I`$=0 P-wave amplitudes have a maximum for $`\sqrt{s}=M_\rho ^{physical}`$ MeV and for $`\sqrt{s}=M_\varphi ^{physical}`$ MeV, respectively. For the mass of the $`\omega `$ we take directly 782 MeV since there are no experimental data in the region of the $`\omega `$ and its contributions to other physical regions do not depend on such fine details since the $`\omega `$ is very narrow. On the other hand, the coupling of the vector resonances  to mesons and photons are described by two real parameters $`G_V`$ and $`F_V`$ respectively. We use their experimental value, $`G_V`$=53 MeV (from a study of the pion electromagnetic radii ) and $`F_V`$=154 MeV (from the observed decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^0e^+e^{})`$ ).

## 2 Results and conclusions.

As can be seen in fig. 1, we can describe in a very precise way the vector pion form factor and the P-wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts up to about s=1.44 GeV2 (even for higher energies in the case of phase shifts). For values of $`\sqrt{s}`$ higher than 1.2 GeV new effects appear: 1) the presence of more massive resonances, $`\rho ^{}`$, $`\omega ^{}`$, $`\varphi ^{}`$… 2) The effect due to multiparticle states, e.g. $`4\pi `$, $`\omega \pi `$ … which are non negligible. In figure 2, we compare our results with those of $`\chi PT`$. We can see that the resummation of our scheme leads to a much better agreement with the two loop $`\chi PT`$ pion vector form factor than with the one loop one. The resonance regions are also well reproduced.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the MSSM, charginos are the fermionic superpartners of the $`W^\pm `$ bosons and the charged-Higgs bosons, in specific superpositions forming the mass eigenstates. High-energy electron-positron colliders are the best environment to make a precise determination of their properties. In $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, charginos are produced in pairs, in lowest order described by $`\gamma ,Z`$ $`s`$-channel exchange and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ $`t`$-channel exchange. In that approximation, the cross section is determined by the gauge couplings and by the masses of the charginos and of the $`e`$-sneutrino. From precise measurements of the masses, production cross sections and asymmetries, the fundamental parameters of the model can be reconstructed . In view of these prospects it is necessary to include the radiative corrections in order to get theoretical predictions matching the experimental accuracy.

It has been shown in previous studies that the lowest-order predictions can significantly be influenced by higher-order contributions. These studies concentrate on the one-loop diagrams with virtual fermions and sfermions , which can involve large Yukawa couplings. In this note we present the result of a complete one-loop calculation, where all MSSM particles with electroweak couplings are included in the virtual states. As a calculational frame, the on-shell renormalization scheme has been applied where all particle masses are physical on-shell quantities. Cross sections and asymmetries are thus directly related to the physical masses of the charginos and of the other particles entering the loops. We briefly outline the theoretical basis of the calculation and discuss the numerical size of the loop effects in the integrated cross sections (for unpolarized beams) and for the angular distributions in terms of the forward-backward asymmetry, as well as for the left-right asymmetry in case of longitudinal beam polarization.

## 2 Amplitudes and cross sections

The differential cross section for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^{}`$ ($`i,j=`$ 1 or 2) with given $`e^\pm `$ helicities $`\eta _\pm `$ can be written in terms of the helicity amplitudes $``$ as follows,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}(\eta _+,\eta _{})=\frac{\lambda (s,m_i^2,m_j^2)}{64\pi ^2s^2}\underset{s_+,s_{}}{}|(\eta _+,\eta _{},s_+,s_{})|^2,$$
(1)
with $`\lambda (s,m_i^2,m_j^2)=(s^2+m_i^4+m_j^42sm_i^22sm_j^24m_i^2m_j^2)^{1/2}`$. The sum extends over the final-state helicities $`s_\pm `$. Unpolarized $`e^\pm `$ in the initial state require a further summation over $`\eta _\pm `$, together with an additional factor 1/4. Of specific interest are the integrated cross section

$$\sigma =d\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(2)
the forward-backward asymmetry

$$A_{\mathrm{FB}}=\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{F}\sigma _\mathrm{B}}{\sigma _\mathrm{F}+\sigma _\mathrm{B}},$$
(3)
with the cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{B})}`$ integrated over the forward (F) and backward (B) hemispheres in the center-of-mass system, and the left-right asymmetry

$$A_{\mathrm{LR}}=\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{L}\sigma _\mathrm{R}}{\sigma _\mathrm{L}+\sigma _\mathrm{R}},$$
(4)
with the integrated cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{R})}`$ for left- and right-handed electrons.

At lowest order, the amplitude for chargino-pair production can be described by $`s`$-channel photon and $`Z`$-boson exchange and by $`t`$-channel exchange of a scalar neutrino ($`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$), as displayed in the following Feynman diagrams:

For a heavy $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$, the $`t`$-channel-exchange contribution decouples.

At the one-loop level, the full particle spectrum of the MSSM enters into the amplitudes, and the process becomes dependent on all the parameters of the model. Schematically, the loop contributions are depicted below, grouped into three classes.

* Self-energy contributions:
* Vertex corrections:

The bubbles summarize the one-particle irreducible 3-point functions including their counterterms, together with the wave-function renormalization of the external lines and chargino mixing.
* Box-diagram contributions:

For illustration, the particle insertions for the first box topology are depicted (with gauge bosons $`V`$, Higgs bosons $`H`$, charginos/neutralinos $`\chi `$, leptons $`l`$, and sleptons $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$):

The diagrams with a Higgs line attached to an electron line are negligible, owing to the small electron Yukawa coupling.

The previously calculated fermion/sfermion-loop terms are contained in the self-energy diagrams, in the $`V\chi \chi `$ vertex corrections, and in the wave-function renormalization from the external-chargino self-energies.

For a complete one-loop calculation, the full particle spectrum of the MSSM has to be taken into account in the loop diagrams, and the process becomes dependent on all the parameters of the model. The parameters are chosen in the following way:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{gauge sector:}\hfill & \alpha ,M_Z,M_W\hfill \\ \text{Higgs sector:}\hfill & M_A,\mathrm{tan}\beta \hfill \\ \text{gaugino sector:}\hfill & M_2,M_1,\mu \hfill \\ \text{sfermion sector:}\hfill & M_{\stackrel{~}{L}},M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}},A_f.\hfill \end{array}$$

The sfermion-mass parameters for the slepton and squark generations $`M_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, for simplicity, are chosen as equal in the numerical analysis.

Applying the on-shell renormalization scheme to the charginos, the chargino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$,$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}`$ are considered to be the pole masses, which fixes the mass counterterms by the on-shell values of the chargino self-energies. In this way, the parameters $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ are determined in terms of the chargino masses, in the same way as in the lowest order relations. Their physical meaning, however, is different from e.g. those in a $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization scheme, which becomes important when comparisons between different schemes are performed. In a similar way, the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ on-shell mass renormalization relates the slepton mass parameter to the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ mass, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e}^2=M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2+\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )M_Z^2/2`$. The other parameters enter only at the one-loop level and hence do not need renormalization.

A special subtlety arises from the contributions with virtual photons attached to two external charged particles, which are infrared divergent. To obtain a infrared-finite result, real-photon bremsstrahlung from the external legs has to be taken into account. After integrating over the photon phase space, the sum of the one-loop and the bremsstrahlung cross section is IR-finite. Different from standard-fermion production, these photonic contributions cannot be removed and treated separetely as “QED corrections”, because the one-loop result without the virtual photons would not be UV-finite even after renormalization. The presence of the photon is required to cancel the divergence owing to the photino component of the virtual neutralinos. This is a new aspect, which does not appear in the approximate calculation with (s)fermion-loops only.

## 3 Numerical Results

In this section we provide an illustration of the higher-order effects by choosing specific examples of parameters. We consider the unpolarized integrated cross section (2) and forward-backward asymmetry (3), and the left-right asymmetry (4). As a fixed input parameter, the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson is set to $`M_A=150`$ GeV. The mass parameters $`M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, assumed to be equal for all generations and for left/right chiralities, are denoted by the common mass scale $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$; sfermions are treated as unmixed. Moreover, between the gaugino masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, the usual GUT relation is assumed.

(i) Integrated cross section: For demonstration of the loop effects, we define the relative correction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\sigma \sigma _0}{\sigma _0}$$
(5)
to the lowest-order cross section $`\sigma _0`$. Thereby, $`\sigma _0`$ is an improved Born cross section, which already incorporates the large effects arising from the light standard fermions, i.e. the following specifications are made:

* The fine-structure constant $`\alpha `$ is replaced by the QED-running effective fine-structure constant $`\alpha (s)`$ in the photon-exchange diagram;
* The normalization of the weak coupling to the $`Z`$ boson is chosen in terms of the Fermi constant: $`(G_FM_Z^2)^{1/2}`$;
* The normalization of the $`e\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ coupling is chosen as $`(G_FM_W^2)^{1/2}`$.

Since, for a IR-finite result, we have to include photon bremsstrahlung, which is treated in the soft-photon approximation (with a cut $`k_\gamma <0.05\sqrt{s}`$). A large part of the one-loop corrections is due to initial-state real and virtual photonic corrections. These initial-state corrections contain large logarithms of the type $`\mathrm{log}(s/m_e^2)`$ from collinear radiation. Such terms are universal; they are conventionally taken into account already by convoluting the Born cross section with a radiator function,

$$\sigma (s)=_0^{k_{max}}dkH(k)\sigma _0((1k)s).$$
(6)
We therefore drop the universal terms from initial-state radiation (ISR) in our one-loop result and display only the non-universal residual corrections in the numerical presentation.

Figure 1 displays the relative one-loop correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, eq. (5), for the production cross section of a light-chargino pair as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The low-$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, although experimentally ruled out meanwhile from Higgs-boson searches , is kept for illustration to outline the effect of the top-Yukawa-coupling enhancement. The gaugino mass $`M_2`$ is kept fixed; varying $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ thus corresponds to a variation of $`\mu `$, which can be both negative and positive. Typically, the higher-order contributions are between 5 and 10%.

The breakdown of the complete set of radiative corrections into the various subsets of classes of diagrams is shown in Figure 2, for two values of the lighter-chargino mass: the subset with only top/stop and bottom/sbottom loops, the subset with all fermion and sfermion loops, and the set with the complete one-loop terms. For illustration, also the effect resulting from the standard-model light fermions is included. As expected, the standard-fermion loop contribution is very small since its main effect is already incorporated in the Born cross section in terms of the running fine-structure constant. The figure demonstrates the comparable size of the various subclasses and underlines the importance of a full calculation.

(ii) Forward-backward asymmetry: The angular distribution of the produced $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+`$ shows an asymmetry, originating at the tree level from the different left- and right-handed couplings to the $`Z`$ and from the $`t`$-channel-exchange diagram. This angular asymmetry can be expressed in terms of the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$, eq. (3), which is displayed in Figure 3 as a function of the CMS energy, for unpolarized beams.

The loop diagrams represent an additional source for $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$, which can be described in terms of a shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ according to

$$A_{\mathrm{FB}}=A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{\mathrm{Born}}+\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{FB}}.$$
(7)
This shift is shown in Figure 4 for the same set of parameters as in Figure 1. The loop contributions can thus modify the asymmetry by up to 10%. In order to illustrate the total effect from the loops, we include also the contribution from the sublass of only fermion/sfermion diagrams (lower two figures). The significance of the non-(s)fermionic loop contributions is clearly visible.

(iii) Left-right asymmetry: The left-right asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, eq. (4), is of specific interest for probing the fundamental parameters of the MSSM , since the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$-exchange diagram is absent for right-handed electrons. In order to point out the contributions from the higher-order terms, we define a loop-induced shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ with respect to the Born term, according to

$$A_{\mathrm{LR}}=A_{\mathrm{LR}}^{\mathrm{Born}}+\mathrm{\Delta }A_{\mathrm{LR}}.$$
(8)
This shift is displayed in Figure 5. Again, the same set of parameters has been used as in Figures 1 and 4. For illustration, the approximate results from only (s)fermion-loop diagrams are also shown (lower two figures). The differences are less pronounced than in the case of $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$, but still they are significant and recommend the use of a full calculation for precise predictions.

## 4 Conclusions

A complete one-loop calculation for chargino-pair production in electron-positron collisions has been performed, using the on-shell renormalization scheme. Applications to the integrated cross sections and to the forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ for unpolarized beams, as well as to the left-right asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, have shown that the higher-order effects have a sizeable influence on the theoretical predictions and therefore should be properly taken into account for detailed studies in the MSSM.
This work has been supported by the DFG Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte Carlo Simulation” and by the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.