format: text

text:
# Numerical atomic orbitals for linear-scaling calculations

## I Introduction

In order to make intelligent use of the increasing power of computers for the first-principles simulation of ever larger and more complex systems, it is important to develop and tune linear-scaling methods, where the computational load scales only linearly with the number of atoms in the simulation cell. The present status of these methods and their applications can be found in several reviews. Essential for linear scaling is locality, and basis sets made of localized wavefunctions represent a very sensible basis choice. It is not only the scaling what matters, however, the prefactor being also important for practical calculations. The prefactor depends significantly on two aspects of the basis: ($`i`$) the number of basis functions per atom, and ($`ii`$) the size of the localization regions of these functions.

Atomic orbitals offer efficient basis sets since, even though their localization ranges are larger than those of some other methods, the number of basis functions needed is usually quite small. The price to pay for this efficiency is the lack of systematics for convergence. Unlike with plane-wave or real-space-grid related methods, there is no unique way of increasing the size of the basis, and the rate of convergence depends on the way the basis is enlarged. This fact poses no fundamental difficulties, it just means that some effort is needed in the preparation of unbiased basis sets, in analogy to the extra work required to prepare pseudopotentials to describe the effect of core electrons.

Maximum efficiency is achieved by choosing atomic orbitals that allow convergence with small localization ranges and few orbitals. It is a challenge again comparable to the one faced by the pseudopotential community, where transferability and softness are sought. For atomic wavefunctions the optimization freedom is in the radial shape. Gaussian-type orbitals have been proposed for linear scaling, connecting with the tradition of quantum chemistry. These bases are, however, quite rigid for the mentioned optimization, imposing either many gaussians or large localization ranges.

Numerical atomic orbitals (NAOs) are more flexible in this respect. Different ideas have been proposed in the literature, originally within tight-binding contexts concentrating on minimal (single-$`\zeta `$) bases. They are obtained by finding the eigenfunctions of the isolated atoms confined within spherical potential wells of different shapes, or directly modifying the eigenfunctions of the free atoms. These schemes give strictly localized orbitals, i.e., orbitals that are strictly zero beyond given cutoff radii $`r_c`$. A first extension towards more complete basis sets was proposed using the excited states of the confined atoms, but the quite delocalized character of many excited states made this approach inefficient unless very stringent confinement potentials were used.

For multiple-$`\zeta `$, a better scheme was proposed based on the split-valence idea of Quantum Chemistry, but adapted to strictly localized NAOs. In the same work, a systematic way was proposed to generate polarization orbitals suited for these basis sets. The scheme of Ref.  has proven to be quite efficient, systematic, and reasonable for a large variety of systems (for short reviews see Refs. ).

In this work we go beyond previous methodologies because of two main reasons: $`(i)`$ It is always desirable to obtain the highest possible precision given the computational resources available, and $`(ii)`$ it is important to know and show what is the precision attainable by NAO basis sets of reasonable sizes. None of these points was systematically addressed in this context before.

We explore these issues by variationally optimizing basis sets for a variety of condensed systems. The parameters defining the orbitals are allowed to vary freely to minimize the total energy of these systems. This energy is then compared with that of converged plane-wave calculations for exactly the same systems, including same density functional and pseudopotentials. The optimal basis sets are then tested monitoring structural and elastic properties of the systems.

The transferability of the basis sets optimized for particular systems is then checked by transfering them to other systems and testing the same energetical, structural and elastic parameters. Finally, the effect of localizing the orbitals tighter than what they variationally choose is explored on a demanding system.

## II Method

The calculations presented below were all done using density-functional theory (DFT) in its local-density approximation (LDA). Core electrons were replaced by norm-conserving pseudopotentials in their fully separable form. The non-local partial-core exchange-correlation correction was included for Cu to improve the description of the core-valence interactions.

Periodic boundary conditions were used for all systems. Molecules were treated in a supercell scheme allowing enough empty space between molecules to make intermolecular interactions negligible. For solid systems, integrations over the Brillouin zone were replaced by converged sums over selected $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-sets.

Thus far the approximations are exactly the same for the two different sets of calculations performed in this work: based on NAOs and on plane-waves (PWs). The calculations using NAOs were performed with the Siesta method, described elsewhere. Besides the basis itself, the only additional approximation with respect to PWs is the replacement of some integrals in real space by sums in a finite 3D real-space grid, controlled by one single parameter, the energy cutoff for the grid. This cutoff, which refers to the fineness of the grid, was converged for all systems studied here (200 Ry for all except for Si and H2, for which 80 Ry and 100 Ry were used, respectively). Similarly, the PW calculations were done for converged PW cutoffs.

Cohesive curves for the solids were obtained by fitting calculated energy values for different unit-cell volumes to cubic, quartic and Murnaghan-like curves, a procedure giving values to the lattice parameter, the bulk modulus and the cohesive energy of each system. The bulk moduli given by the Murnaghan and quartic fits deviate from each other by around 3%, the Murnaghan values being the lowest and the ones shown in the tables. The deviations between Murnaghan and cubic fits are of the order of 7%. The other cohesive parameters do not change appreciably with the fits.

The atomic-energy reference for the cohesive energy was taken from the atomic calculations within the same DFT and pseudopotentials, always converged in basis set. They are hence the same reference for NAOs and for PWs, the difference in cohesive energies between the two accounting for the difference in the total energy of the solid. The isolated-atom calculations included spin polarization.

## III Basis of numerical atomic orbitals

The starting point of the atomic orbitals that conform the basis sets used here is the solution of Kohn-Sham’s Hamiltonian for the isolated pseudo-atoms, solved in a radial grid, with the same approximations as for the solid or molecule (the same exchange-correlation functional and pseudopotential). A strict localization of the basis functions is ensured either by imposing a boundary condition, by adding a confining (divergent) potential, or by multiplying the free-atom orbital by a cutting function. We describe in the following three main features of a basis set of atomic orbitals: size, range, and radial shape.

### A Size: number of orbitals per atom

Following the nomenclature of Quantum Chemistry, we establish a hierarchy of basis sets, from single-$`\zeta `$ to multiple-$`\zeta `$ with polarization and diffuse orbitals, covering from quick calculations of low quality to high precision, as high as the finest obtained in Quantum Chemistry. A single-$`\zeta `$ (also called minimal) basis set (SZ in the following) has one single radial function per angular momentum channel, and only for those angular momenta with substantial electronic population in the valence of the free atom. It offers quick calculations and some insight on qualitative trends in the chemical bonding and other properties. It remains too rigid, however, for more quantitative calculations requiring both radial and angular flexibilization.

Starting by the radial flexibilization of SZ, a better basis is obtained by adding a second function per channel: double-$`\zeta `$ (DZ). Several schemes have been proposed to generate this second function. In Quantum Chemistry, the split valence scheme is widely used: starting from the expansion in Gaussians of one atomic orbital, the most contracted gaussians are used to define the first orbital of the double-$`\zeta `$ and the most extended ones for the second. Another proposal defines the second $`\zeta `$ as the derivative of the first one with respect to occupation. For strictly localized functions there was a first proposal of using the excited states of the confined atoms, but it would work only for tight confinement. An extension of the split valence idea of Quantum Chemistry to strictly localized NAOs was proposed in Ref.  and has been used quite succesfully in a variety of systems. We follow this scheme in this work, which generalizes to multiple-$`\zeta `$ trivially.

Angular flexibility is obtained by adding shells of higher angular momentum. Ways to generate these so-called polarization orbitals have been described in the literature, both for Gaussians and for NAOs. In this work, however, they will be obtained variationally, as the rest, within the flexibilities described below.

### B Range: cutoff radii of orbitals

Strictly localized orbitals (zero beyond a cutoff radius) are used in order to obtain sparse Hamiltonian and overlap matrices for linear scaling. The traditional alternative to this is based on neglecting interactions when they fall below a tolerance or when the atoms are beyond some scope of neighbours. Its disadvantage is that it implies a deviation from the original Hilbert space, the total energy is no longer a variational magnitude, and produces numerical instabilities.

For the bases made of strictly localized orbitals, the problem is finding a balanced and systematic way of defining all the different radii, since both the precision and the computational efficiency in the calculations depend on them. A scheme was proposed in which all radii were defined by one single parameter, the energy shift, i.e., the energy raise suffered by the orbital when confined. In this work, however, we step back from that systematic approach and allow the cutoff radii to vary freely in the optimization procedure (up to a maximum value of 8 a.u.).

### C Shape

Within the pseudopotential framework it is important to keep the consistency between the pseudopotential and the form of the pseudoatomic orbitals in the core region. This is done by using as basis orbitals the solutions of the same pseudopotential in the free atom. The shape of the orbitals at larger radii depends on the cutoff radius (see above) and on the way the localization is enforced. The first proposal used an infinite square-well potential. It has been widely and succesfully used for minimal bases within the ab initio tight-binding scheme of Sankey and collaborators using the Fireball  program, but also for more flexible bases using the methodology of Siesta.

This scheme has the disadavantage, however, of generating orbitals with a discontinuous derivative at $`r_c`$. This discontinuity is more pronounced for smaller $`r_c`$’s and tends to disappear for long enough values of this cutoff. It does remain, however, appreciable for sensible values of $`r_c`$ for those orbitals that would be very wide in the free atom. It is surprising how small an effect such kink produces in the total energy of condensed systems (see below). It is, on the other hand, a problem for forces and stresses, especially if they are calculated using a (coarse) finite three-dimensional grid.

Another problem of this scheme is related to its defining the basis considering the free atoms. Free atoms can present extremely extended orbitals, their extension being, besides problematic, of no practical use for the calculation in condensed systems: the electrons far away from the atom can be described by the basis functions of other atoms.

Both problems can be addressed simultaneously by adding a soft confinement potential to the atomic Hamiltonian used to generate the basis orbitals: it smoothens the kink and contracts the orbital as variationally suited. Two soft confinement potentials have been proposed in the literature, both of the form $`V(r)=V_\mathrm{o}r^n`$, one for $`n`$=2 (Ref. ) and the other for $`n`$=6 (Ref. ). They present their own inconveniences, however. Firstly, there is no radius at which the orbitals become strictly zero, they have to be neglected at some point. Secondly, these confinement potentials affect the core region spoiling its adaptation to the pseudopotential.

This last problem affects a more traditional scheme as well, namely, the one based on the radial scaling of the orbitals by suitable scale factors. In addition to very basic bonding arguments, it is soundly based on restoring virial’s theorem for finite bases, in the case of coulombic potentials (all-electron calculations). The pseudopotentials limit its applicability, allowing only for extremely small deviations from unity ($`1\%`$) in the scale factors obtained variationally (with the exception of hydrogen that can contract up to 25%).

An alternative scheme has also been proposed: Instead of modifying the potential, it directly modifies the orbitals of the free atom. Following ideas of previous mixed-basis schemes the atomic orbital is multiplied by $`1\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (rr_c)^2]`$ for $`r<r_c`$ and zero otherwise. This scheme does provide strict localization beyond $`r_c`$, but introduces a different problem: for large $`\alpha `$ and small $`r_c`$ a bump appears in the orbital close to $`r_c`$, which becomes a discontinuity in the wave-function in the limit of zero $`\alpha `$.

In this work we propose a new soft confinement potential avoiding the mentioned deficiencies. It is flat (zero) in the core region, starts off at some internal radius $`r_i`$ with all derivatives continuous and diverges at $`r_c`$ ensuring the strict localization there. It is

$$V(r)=V_\mathrm{o}\frac{e^{\frac{r_cr_i}{rr_i}}}{r_cr}$$
(1)
In the following the different schemes are compared, their defining parameters being allowed to change variationally.

Finally, the shape of an orbital is also changed by the ionic character of the atom. Orbitals in cations tend to shrink, and they swell in anions. Introducing a $`\delta Q`$ in the basis-generating free-atom calculations gives orbitals better adapted to ionic situations in the condensed systems.

## IV Optimization procedure

Given a system and a basis size, the range and shape of the orbitals are defined as described above, depending on parameters. These are defined variationally: the energy is minimized with respect to all of them. As a robust and simple minimization method not requiring the evaluation of derivatives, we have chosen the downhill simplex method.

The parameters varied in an optimization are the following. Per atomic species there is a global $`\delta Q`$. Confinement is imposed differently for each angular momentum shell, with its corresponding parameters that depend on the scheme used. Hard confinement implies one parameter per shell ($`r_c`$), and our soft confinement implies three ($`r_c`$, $`r_i`$, and $`V_\mathrm{o}`$). One parameter ($`V_\mathrm{o}`$) is needed only in the $`r^n`$-confinement schemes, and two parameters in the scheme of Kenny et al. ($`r_c`$ and the width of the cutting function). Finally, for each $`\zeta `$ beyond the first, there is a matching radius as defined in Ref. . The values obtained for the parameters in the optimizations described below can be obtained from the authors.

## V Results

### A Comparison of different confinement schemes

Table I shows the performance for MgO of the different schemes described above for constructing localized atomic orbitals.

The basis sets of both magnesium and oxygen were variationally optimized for all the schemes. Mg was chosen because the 3$`s`$ orbital is very extended in the atom and both the kink and the confinement effects due to other orbitals are very pronounced. Results are shown for a SZ (single $`s`$ and $`p`$ channels for both species) and a DZP basis (double $`s`$ and $`p`$ channels plus a single $`d`$ channel). Fig. 1 shows the shape of the optimal 3$`s`$ orbital for the different schemes, and the shape of the confining potentials.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results: ($`i`$) Within the variational freedom offered here, the 3$`s`$ orbital of Mg wants to be confined to a radius of around 6.5 Bohr, irrespective of scheme, which is extremely short for the free atom. This confinement produces a pronounced kink in the hard scheme. ($`ii`$) The total energy is relatively insensitive to the scheme used to generate the basis orbitals, as long as there is effective confinement. ($`iii`$) The basis made of unconfined atomic orbitals is substantially worse than any of the others. ($`iv`$) The pronounced kink obtained in Sankey’s hard confinement scheme is not substantially affecting the total energy as compared with the other schemes. It does perturb, however, by introducing inconvenient noise in the energy variation with volume and other external parameters, and especially in the derivatives of the energy. ($`v`$) The scheme proposed in this work is variationally slightly better than the other ones, but not significantly. Its main advantage is the avoidance of known problems. In the remainder of the paper, the confinement proposed in this work will be used unless otherwise specified.

### B Basis convergence

Table II shows how NAO bases converge for bulk silicon. This is done by comparing different basis sizes, each of them optimized. The results are compared to converged (50 Ry) PW results (converged basis limit) keeping the rest of the calculation identical. They are also compared to all-electron LDA results to compare basis errors with the ones produced by the pseudopotentials. Experiment gives a reference to the accuracy of the underlying LDA. Fig. 2(a) shows the cohesion curves for this system.

The comparisons above are made with respect to the converged-basis limit, for which we used PWs up to very high cutoffs. It is important to distinguish this limit from the PW calculations at lower cutoffs, as used in many computations. To illustrate this point, Fig. 2(b) compares the energy convergence for PWs and for NAOs. Even though the convergence of NAO results is a priori not systematic with the way the basis is enlarged, the sequence of bases presented in the Figure shows a nice convergence of total energy with respect to basis size (the number of basis functions per atom are shown in parenthesis in the Figure): the convergence rate is similar to the one of PWs (DZP has three times more orbitals than SZ, and a similar factor is found for their equivalents in PWs). For the particular case of Si, Fig. 2 shows that the polarization orbitals (3$`d`$ shell) are very important for convergence, more than the doubling of the basis. This fact is observed from the stabilization of SZP with respect to SZ, which is much larger than for DZ.

Fig. 2 shows that an atomic basis requires ten times less functions than its (energetically) equivalent PW basis, being Si the easiest system for PWs. For other systems the ratio is much larger, as shown in Table III.

It is important to stress that deviations smaller than the ones due to the pseudopotential or the DFT used are obtained with a relatively modest basis size as DZP. This fact is clear in Table II for Si, and in Table IV for other systems.

Table IV summarizes the cohesion results for a variety of solids of different chemical kind. They are obtained with optimal DZP basis sets. It can be observed that DZP offers results in good agreement with converged-basis numbers, showing the convergence of properties other than the total energy. The deviations are similar or smaller than those introduced by LDA or by the pseudopotential.

## VI Transferability

To what extent do optimal bases keep their performance when transfered to different systems than the ones they were optimized for? This is an important question, since if the performance does not suffer significantly, one can hope to tabulate basis sets per species, to be used for whatever system. If the transferability is not satisfactory, a new basis set should then be obtained variationally for each system to be studied. Of course the transferability increases with basis size, since the basis has more flexibility to adapt to different environments. A thorough study of transferability, therefore, implies many calculations in different systems, for different bases and different basis sizes. In this work we limit ourselves to try it on DZP bases for a few representative systems.

Satisfactory transferability has been obtained when checking in MgO the basis set optimized for Mg bulk and O in a water molecule. Similarly the basis for O has been tested in H2O and O2, and the basis for C in graphite and diamond. Again, the results show deviations due to the basis that are smaller than the errors introduced by the pseudopotentials and/or the DFT functional. The results are shown in Table V.

Table VI shows the results for the structural parameters of SiO2 in its $`\alpha `$-quartz structure.

The DZP numbers have been obtained for a basis that was optimized not for $`\alpha `$-quartz itself, but for bulk silicon for the Si basis and for the water molecule for the O basis. SiO2 was chosen because its being quite sensitive to many approximations and in particular to the basis set. It was hard to converge for previous NAO schemes, giving typically longer Si-O bonds (with deviations of around 1.5%) and smaller unit cells (deviations of around 1.5% and 2% for the $`a`$ and $`c`$ parameters, respectively). The results of Table VI are very satisfactory, showing ($`i`$) the good performance of NAOs, ($`ii`$) their transferability in this case, and ($`iii`$) the improvement of the basis sets proposed here over previous bases.

## VII Limiting the range

In this work we have concentrated on variationally optimized basis sets, allowing the cutoff radii for the different orbitals to vary freely, as long as the orbitals remained strictly localized. This was done in the spirit of exploring the capabilities of the NAO basis sets. Some orbitals demanded reasonably short values of $`r_c`$, others chose long ranges. As mentioned earlier, the range of the orbitals is important for the efficiency in the calculations. Therefore, further work will be very important to explore the possibility of enforcing smaller ranges in reasonably balanced ways and its effect on the precision. A systematic study in this direction will be subject of future work, we have limited ourselves here to illustrate the nature of the problem in the particular example of $`\alpha `$-quartz.

The basis has been optimized as before (Si in bulk Si and O in H2O), but imposing now tighter $`r_c`$’s. The results are summarized in Table VII.

The constraining of Si orbitals to 6.0 a.u. affects the geometry only slightly, whilst the contraction of the O orbitals to 5.0 a.u. implies a substantial contraction of the cell due to the decrease of Si-O-Si angle rather than the shortening of the Si-O bond. Note that, from an atomic perspective, the confinement of Si to 6 a.u. is tighter than the 5 a.u. confinement of O.

Allowing for different $`r_c`$’s for the different channels we observe that the shrinking of the cell is avoided keeping a long $`p`$ orbital for O, the $`s`$ and $`d`$ remaining comparably shorter, indicating the (expected) different “compressibilities” of the different orbitals. As a candidate of unifying criterion, we tested the simple definition of $`r_c`$ for each channel as the value of the radius at which the unconstrained orbital would have a defined value (0.01 a.u.-3). Even though the energy raise was appreciable (about 70 meV per atom), the geometry retained an acceptable precision, the orbitals being quite short, thus allowing quite efficient calculations. Further work is, however, needed to explore in detail this and other possibilities.

## VIII Conclusions

The variational optimization of NAO basis sets for different systems allows us to draw the following conclusions. ($`i`$) The performance of NAO basis sets of modest size as DZP is very satisfactory for the systems tried. For this basis size, the deviation from basis convergence is smaller than errors due to the pseudopotential or DFT used. ($`ii`$) The bases obtained here represent a substantial improvement over previous NAO basis sets. In particular, the optimization in condensed systems offers better and more efficient bases than purely atomic schemes. ($`iii`$) The radial shapes of the orbitals obtained as proposed in this work offer better bases than previous schemes from a variational point of view, albeit not a substantial difference is obtained. ($`iv`$) The elimination of the discontinuity in the derivative, while retaining strict localization and leaving the core region untouched, gives bases of better quality from the point of view of the energy, its derivatives, and computational efficiency. ($`v`$) The bases obtained showed enough transferability to expect that a basis tabulation would be useful, and that the optimization of the basis for each particular system will not be necessary. Finally, the selective sensitivity to orbital-range tightening has been shown, making clear the need of further work systematically to control the cutoff radii for improving efficiency without loss of precision.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge discussions and input from J. M. Soler, E. Anglada, Z. Barandiarán, L. Seijo, P. Ordejón, and A. García. This work was supported by the Spanish Dirección General de Investigación under grant BFM2000-1312 and by the Fundación Ramón Areces of Spain.


text:
# On the first two Vassiliev invariants

## Introduction.

The two simplest non-trivial Vassiliev knot invariants (see ) are of type two and type three. These invariants have been studied from various angles: for instance, combinatorial formulæ for evaluating them have been derived, and simple bounds in terms of crossing number have been obtained (see e.g. ). In this work they are examined from the novel point of view of the actual values that they take on knots of small crossing number. For instance, one can ask how accurate the known bounds are, as in Section 1. When looking at this question I was led to plot the values of these invariants which revealed the interesting “fish” plots of Section 2: these pictures form the focus of this note. Various ideas which arise from these graphs can be answered for torus knots and this is done is Section 3. The final section presents some problems and further questions.

## 1. On $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$.

The space of additive invariants of type three is two dimensional. By “the first two Vassiliev invariants” is meant the elements of a basis $`\{v_2,v_3\}`$ of this space. The invariants $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ can be defined canonically in the following fashion. The space of additive invariants of type three splits into the direct sum of type three invariants which do not distinguish mirror image knots and the type three invariants which differ by a factor of minus one on mirror image knots. Pick the vector in each of these one dimensional spaces which takes the value one on the positive trefoil. The one which is invariant under taking mirror images is of type two and will be denoted $`v_2`$; the other will be denoted $`v_3`$.

The invariant $`v_2`$ has appeared in various guises previously in knot theory: it is the coefficient of $`z^2`$ in the Conway polynomial and its reduction modulo two is the Arf invariant. Both $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ can be obtained from the Jones polynomial in the following fashion. If $`J(q)`$ is the Jones polynomial of a knot $`K`$ and $`J^{(n)}(q)`$ denotes the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ derivative with respective to $`q`$, then

$$v_2(K)=\frac{1}{6}J^{(2)}(1),v_3(K)=\frac{1}{36}\left(J^{(3)}(1)+3J^{(2)}(1)\right).$$

Combinatorial formulæ for $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ can be given in terms of Gauß diagram formulæ— the reader is referred to . From the combinatorial formulæ, it is straight forward to obtain simple bounds for $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ in terms of the crossing number, $`c`$, of the knot, $`K`$: namely

$$|v_2(K)|\frac{1}{4}c(c1),|v_3(K)|\frac{1}{4}c(c1)(c2).$$

The first of these bounds was obtained by Lin and Wang  and led Bar-Natan  to prove that any type $`n`$ invariant is bounded by a degree $`n`$ polynomial in the crossing number — this also follows from Stanford’s algorithm  for calculating Vassiliev invariants. The bound for $`v_3`$ was obtained in  by utilizing Domergue and Donato’s integration  of a type three weight system.

It is natural to ask how sharp these bounds are, and it is this question that motivated this work. Stanford has calculated Vassiliev invariants up to order six for the prime knots up to ten crossings, the programs and data files of which are available as ; Thistlethwaite has calculated various polynomials for knots up to fifteen crossings, these are available in the knotscape program . Using these data, one can compare the bounds on $`|v_2|`$ and $`|v_3|`$ given above, with the actual maximum attained for each crossing number — this comparison is made in Table 1. It is seen that in this range of crossing numbers, the bounds are not particularly tight.

By looking at the raw data, one can see that in this range, for odd crossing number $`(2b+1)`$, the maxima are achieved precisely by the $`(2,2b+1)`$-torus knot, and that this dominates the $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ of the $`(2b+2)`$-crossing knots as well. Letting $`T(p,q)`$ be the knot type of the $`(p,q)`$-torus knot, Alvarez and Labastida  (see also Section 3 below) give explicitly for crossing number $`c=2b+1`$,

$$v_2\left(T(2,c)\right)=(c^21)/8,v_3\left(T(2,c)\right)=c(c^21)/24.$$

One could conjecture that these give bounds on $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$. After an earlier version of this paper, Polyak and Viro  showed that for a knot with $`c`$ crossings $`v_2c^2/8`$.

## 2. Plots for knots with up to fourteen crossings.

Having stared at the raw data of Stanford for sufficiently long to start noticing patterns, I was led to plot $`v_2`$ against $`v_3`$ for knots of each crossing number up to crossing number fourteen. These plots are contained in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The symmetry in the $`v_2`$-axis is expected, as this is just the effect of taking the mirror image of the knots. The “fish” shape of these plots is not expected!

This shape suggests some bound of the form

$$\text{cubic in }v_2(K)(v_3(K))^2\text{another cubic in }v_2(K).$$

Such bounds, independent of crossing number do in fact exist for torus knots, as will be seen below. However, this cannot be the case in general (unless the bounds depend on the crossing number): two reasons are as follows.

Firstly, consider the sequence of Whitehead doubles of the unknot, $`\{Wh(i)\}_i`$ (see Figure 3). Table 2 gives the value of $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ on these for a range of $`i`$. It follows from the theorem of Dean  and Trapp  on twist sequences that a type $`n`$ invariant evaluated on the Whitehead doubles is a polynomial in $`i`$ of degree at most111By an observation of Lin in this case it must be of degree at most $`n1`$. $`n`$. A glance at Table 2 suffices to deduce that $`v_2\left(Wh\left(i\right)\right)=i`$ and $`v_3\left(Wh\left(i\right)\right)=\frac{1}{2}i(i+1)`$. Thus there is a sequence of knots (all except the unknot having unknotting number equal to one) which maps into the $`(v_2,v_3)`$-plane as a nice quadratic. This contradicts any bounds of the above form.

Secondly, for any $`(a,b)^2`$ one can obtain a prime (alternating) knot with $`(v_2,v_3)`$ equal to $`(a,b)`$ in the following manner: connect sum suitably many positive and negative trefoil knots (with $`(v_2,v_3)=(1,\pm 1)`$) and figure eight knots (with $`(v_2,v_3)=(1,0)`$), to obtain a composite knot with $`(v_2,v_3)=(a,b)`$, then Stanford  gives a method for constructing a prime knot with the same $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$.

There does appear to be a qualitative difference between the pictures for odd and even crossing numbers in Figures 1 and 2. The even crossing number ones seem to be more concentrated in the ‘body’ of the ‘fish’ and the odd ones more in the ‘tail’. Note that for each odd crossing number, $`c`$, there is the $`(2,c)`$-torus knot and the Whitehead double $`Wh(\left(c1\right)/2)`$ with a $`(v_2,v_3)`$ of $`(\left(c1\right)/2,\left(c^21\right)/8)`$; and for even crossing number, $`c`$, there is the Whitehead double $`Wh(1c/2)`$ with a $`(v_2,v_3)`$ of $`(1c/2,\left(c2\right)c/8)`$. Also for up to twelve crossings the amphicheiral knots — that is those equivalent to their mirror image, and hence with $`v_3=0`$ — all have even crossing number, but this is not true in general, as the fifteen crossing knot $`15_{224980}`$ is amphicheiral.

## 3. Torus knots.

The purpose of this section is to show that the torus knots map into the $`(v_2,v_3)`$-plane in a nice manner. In particular they satisfy cubic bounds of the form described above, implying that they lie on the tails of the fish; further, torus knots of the same unknotting number, or crossing number, lie on nice curves in the $`(v_2,v_3)`$-plane. The results of this section are summarized diagrammatically in Figure 4.

For $`p`$ and $`q`$ coprime let $`T(p,q)`$ be the knot type of the $`(p,q)`$-torus knot. Then $`T(p,q)`$ is the unknot if and only if $`p`$ or $`q`$ is $`\pm 1`$, and for $`T(p,q)`$ nontrivial, $`T(p,q)`$ is the same knot as $`T(p^{},q^{})`$ if and only if $`(p^{},q^{})`$ equals one the following $`(p,q)`$, $`(q,p)`$, $`(p,q)`$, or $`(q,p)`$. Further $`T(p,q)`$ is the mirror image of $`T(p,q)`$. See .

The key to this section is the following pair of formulæ of Alvarez and Labastida .

$$v_2(T(p,q))=\frac{1}{24}(p^21)(q^21),v_3(T(p,q))=\frac{1}{144}pq(p^21)(q^21).$$

Note that these have the required properties under the symmetries of $`p`$ and $`q`$ mentioned above, and that these are integer valued on torus knots (i.e. when $`p`$ and $`q`$ are coprime). Also $`T(v_2(T),v_3(T))`$ is injective for torus knots, that is to say torus knots are determined by their $`(v_2,v_3)`$.

### 3.1. Cubic bounds

With the above formulæ of Alvarez and Labastida it is straightforward to prove bounds, for torus knots, of the form suggested in the last section.

###### Proposition 1.

If $`T`$ is a torus knot then

$$\frac{2}{3}v_2(T)^3+\frac{1}{3}v_2(T)^2v_3(T)^2\frac{8}{9}v_2(T)^3+\frac{1}{9}v_2(T)^2.$$

Further, the right hand bound is tight in the sense that there exist torus knots with arbitrarily large $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ such that equality holds.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`T`$ is a $`(p,q)`$-torus knot then

$`v_3(T)^2\frac{2}{3}v_2(T)^3`$ $`=\left(\frac{1}{144}pq(p^21)(q^21)\right)^2\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{1}{24}(p^21)(q^21)\right)^3`$
$`=\frac{1}{12^4}(p^21)^2(q^21)^2[p^2+q^21]`$
$`\frac{1}{12^3}(p^21)^2(q^21)^2\text{ as }p^2+q^213`$
$`=\frac{1}{3}v_2(T)^2,`$
hence the first inequality (with equality only in the case of torus knots).

For the second,

$`\frac{8}{9}v_2(T)^3v_3(T)^2`$ $`=\frac{8}{9}\left(\frac{1}{24}(p^21)(q^21)\right)^3\left(\frac{1}{144}pq(p^21)(q^21)\right)^2`$
$`=\frac{1}{4.27}\left[\frac{1}{24}(p^21)(q^21)\right]^2\left\{4(p^21)(q^21)3p^2q^2\right\}`$
$`=\frac{1}{4.27}v_2(T)^2\left\{(p^24)(q^24)12\right\}`$
$`\frac{1}{4.27}v_2(T)^2\{12\}=\frac{1}{9}v_2(T)^2,`$
and note that equality occurs precisely when $`T`$ is a $`(2,q)`$-torus knot. ∎

Although the left hand bound has the correct asymptotic behaviour, for a tight bound a different form of cubic is required.

###### Proposition 2.

For a torus knot $`T`$,

$$\frac{2}{3}v_2(T)^3+\frac{1}{3}v_2(T)v_3(T)v_3(T)^2,$$

and this bound is tight in the sense of the previous proposition.

###### Proof.

Using the notation of the previous proof,

$`v_3(T)^2\frac{2}{3}v_2(T)^3\frac{1}{3}v_2(T)v_3(T)`$ $`=\frac{1}{36.24^2}(p^21)^2(q^21)^2\left((pq)^21\right)`$
$`0,`$
with equality if and only if $`T`$ is a $`(p,p+1)`$ torus knot. ∎

Given that half the torus knots (those with positive $`v_3`$) can be thought of as lying in the region $`q>p>0`$ in the $`(p,q)`$-plane, these bounds are not surprising. Graphically this can be seen in Figure 4.

### 3.2. Torus knots and unknotting number

By Kronheimer and Mrowka’s  positive solution to the Milnor conjecture the following formula is known for the unknotting number, $`u`$, of torus knots:

$$u(T(p,q))=\frac{1}{2}\left(|p|1\right)\left(|q|1\right).$$

As a consequence, the following easily verifiable relationship is obtained:

###### Proposition 3.

For a torus knot T,

$$v_2(T)^2+\frac{1}{6}u(T)(u(T)1)v_2(T)=u(T)|v_3(T)|,$$

and given $`v_2(T)`$ and $`v_3(T)`$ then $`u(T)`$ is the smaller of the two roots. ∎

So for a fixed unknotting number, the torus knots lie on a quadratic in the $`(v_2,v_3)`$-plane (c.f. the Whitehead knots in Section 2). This is pictured in Figure 4. The segments of curves shown were chosen by the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.

For a torus knot $`T`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}u(T)(u(T)+1)v_2(T)\frac{1}{6}u(T)\left(u(T)+\sqrt{8u(T)+1}+2\right),$$

and both bounds are tight.

###### Proof.

If $`T`$ is a $`(p,q)`$-torus knot, then a minimal amount of manipulation gives

$`\frac{1}{2}u(T)(u(T)+1)v_2(T)`$ $`=\frac{1}{12}(|p|1)(|q|1)(|p|2)(|q|2)`$
$`0,`$
with equality if and only if $`T`$ is a $`(2,q)`$-torus knot.

For the right hand bound, firstly, let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be distinct positive integers, then $`(ab)^21`$, so $`(a+b)^24ab+1`$ and thus $`a+b\sqrt{4ab+1}`$, with equality precisely when $`a`$ and $`b`$ differ by one.

Now for $`T`$ a $`(p,q)`$-torus knot,

$`v_2(T)\frac{1}{6}u(T)`$ $`\left(u(T)+\sqrt{8u(T)+1}+2\right)`$
$`=\frac{1}{12}(|p|1)(|q|1)\left\{|p|+|q|2\sqrt{4(|p|1)(|q|1)+1}\right\}`$
$`0,`$
by putting $`a=|p|1,b=|q|1`$ in the above paragraph. Note that equality occurs precisely when $`T`$ is a $`(p,p+1)`$-torus knot. ∎

Weakening the right hand bound to $`v_2\frac{1}{6}u(T)\left(u(T)+5\right)`$ and inverting the inequalities reveals the following corollary.

###### Corollary 5.

For a torus knot $`T`$,

$$\sqrt{1+8v_2(T)}12u(T)\sqrt{24v_2(T)+25}5,$$

and the left hand bound is tight (in the sense of Proposition 1). ∎

### 3.3. Torus knots and crossing number.

By the work of Murasugi , a similar formula is known for the crossing number, $`c`$, of torus knots:

$$c(T(p,q))=|q|(|p|1),\text{when }|p|<|q|.$$

This leads to the following relation;

###### Proposition 6.

If $`T`$ is a torus knot, and $`\rho (T)=\left|\frac{6v_3(T)}{v_2(T)}\right|`$ then

$$24v_2(T)(c(T)\rho (T))^2=c(T)\left(\left(c(T)\rho (T)\right)^21\right)\left(2\rho (T)c(T)\right),$$

and

$$c(T)=\rho (T)\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{(\rho (T)1)^224v_2(T)}+\sqrt{(\rho (T)+1)^224v_2(T)}\right).$$

###### Proof.

This is easily verified; note that if $`T`$ is a $`(p,q)`$-torus knot then $`\rho (T)=|pq|`$ and $`c(T)\rho (T)=|q|`$. ∎

This isn’t as nice a relationship as with the unknotting number: for a fixed crossing number the relationship is a not particularly nice quartic between $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$. However, the crossing number curves can still be graphed, as in Figure 4 — the length of arc segments plotted there being determined by the following proposition.

###### Proposition 7.

For a torus knot $`T`$,

$$\frac{1}{8}\left(c(T)^21\right)v_2(T)\frac{1}{24}c(T)\left(c(T)+1+2\sqrt{c(T)+1}\right),$$

and these bounds are tight (in the sense of Proposition 1).

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`T`$ is a $`(p,q)`$-torus knot with $`q>p>0`$ — this just avoids excessive modulus signs in the calculation — then for the left hand bound,

$`\frac{1}{8}\left(c(T)^21\right)v_2(T)`$ $`=\frac{1}{24}\left\{3\left(\left[q(p1)\right]^21\right)(p^21)(q^21)\right\}`$
$`=\frac{1}{24}\left\{2q^2p^26q^2p+4q^2+p^24\right\}`$
$`=\frac{1}{24}(p2)\left\{(2q^2+1)(p1)+3\right\}`$
$`0,`$
and equality occurs precisely when $`T`$ is a $`(2,q)`$-torus knot.

For the right hand bound,

$`24v_2(T)c(T)`$ $`\left(c(T)+1+2\sqrt{c(T)+1}\right)`$
$`=(p^21)(q^21)q(p1)\left(q(p1)+1+2\sqrt{q(p1)+1}\right)`$
$`=(p1)\left\{2q^2q1p2q\sqrt{qpq+1}\right\},`$
and claim that this is non-negative and is zero precisely when $`q=p+1`$.

To prove the claim, note

$$(q1)^2=q(q1)q1qpq1$$

as $`qp10`$, and so also

$$(q1)^2+\frac{2(q1)\left(qp1\right)}{2q}+[\frac{qp1}{2q}]^2qpq1>0,$$

thus, by taking square roots,

$$(q1)+\frac{qp1}{2q}\sqrt{qpq1},$$

from which the claim follows on multiplying through by $`2q`$. ∎

Weakening the right hand bound to $`v_2\frac{1}{24}c(c+5)`$ and inverting, gives

###### Corollary 8.

For a torus knot T

$$\frac{1}{24}\left(\sqrt{25+96v_2(T)}5\right)c(T)2\sqrt{8v_2(T)+1},$$

and the right hand bound is tight in the previous sense. ∎

## 4. Problems and further questions.

###### Problem 1.

The invariants $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ form, in some sense, a canonical basis for the space of invariants of degree three. Can one find similarly, for example, a canonical basis for the space of type four, even, additive invariants? Can canonical bases be found for higher order invariants?

###### Problem 2.

Does the fish pattern persist in the graphs of knots with higher crossing number?

###### Problem 3.

Is there some qualitative distinction between knots with odd and even crossing number which explains the perceived difference in the fish?

###### Problem 4.

Is there any relationship with unknotting number? Note that the $`n`$-fold connect sum of $`8_{14}`$ has unknotting number $`n`$ and $`(v_2,v_3)=(0,0)`$ (this was pointed out to me by Stoimenov).

###### Problem 5.

For a knot $`K`$ with $`(6|v_3(K)||v_2(K)|)^224v_2(K)^3`$, let $`\rho (K)=6|v_3(k)/v_2(K)|`$ and then define the pseudo-unknotting number, $`\stackrel{~}{u}(K)`$, and the pseudo-uncrossing number, $`\stackrel{~}{c}(K)`$, by

$`\stackrel{~}{u}(K)`$ $`:=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\rho (K)\sqrt{(1+\rho (K))^224v_2(K)}\right);`$
$`\stackrel{~}{c}(K)`$ $`:=\rho \frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{(1+\rho (K))^224v_2(K)}+\sqrt{(1\rho (K))^224v_2(K)}\right).`$
For torus knots, the pseudo-unknotting and pseudo-crossing numbers coincide with the usual unknotting and crossing numbers. Do they have any meaning for other knots? Does the necessary bound for $`K`$ have any topological interpretation?

As an example, consider the Whitehead knots $`Wh(i)`$, for $`i>0`$ these all have unknotting number equal to one; in this case $`\stackrel{~}{u}(Wh(1))=1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{u}(Wh(i))2`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$.

## Acknowledgements

This work formed part of the author’s University of Edinburgh PhD Thesis, and was supported by an EPSRC studentship. Thanks to Oliver Dasbach and Alexander Stoimenow for useful comments. The diagrams and numerical experiments were done using Maple.


text:
# Anomalous X-ray Pulsars and Soft Gamma-Ray Repeaters in Supernova Remnants

## 1. Introduction

It has long been believed that radio pulsars are the most common form of young neutron star. However, a variety of new discoveries have demonstrated that the population of such objects is considerably more diverse than originally thought. Most prominent amongst these recent results has been the emergence of two possibly related classes of source, the Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) and the Soft Gamma-Ray Repeaters (SGRs).

The AXPs are a group of 5–6 unresolved X-ray sources, showing pulsations at periods of 6–12 sec and generally exhibiting steady spin-down (see Mereghetti (2000) for a comprehensive review). None of the AXPs show any evidence for a binary companion, and none have been detected at radio wavelengths. The AXPs all lie in the Galactic Plane, and several are located near the centers of supernova remnants (SNRs).

The four (possibly five) SGRs are characterized by their occasional intense $`\gamma `$-ray activity (see Hurley (2000) for a review). All four confirmed SGRs have been identified with persistent X-ray sources. In three cases, pulsations have been detected from these X-ray sources, with periods in the range 5–8 sec and positive period derivatives. Radio pulsations have been claimed from one SGR but have not been confirmed (Shitov, Pugachev, & Kutuzov (2000); Lorimer & Xilouris (2000)). Three of the SGRs are in the Galactic Plane while a fourth is located in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC); in all four cases, the SGR lies near a cataloged SNR.

The generally accepted interpretation for the SGRs is that they are “magnetars” — young isolated neutron stars with extremely high ($`10^{15}`$ G) magnetic fields (Paczyński (1992); Duncan & Thompson (1992); Kouveliotou et al. (1998)). Such field strengths are well above the quantum critical field limit of $`4\times 10^{13}`$ G; the physics and emission processes of the SGRs are therefore expected to differ considerably from those of lower-field radio pulsars (Duncan (2000)). These high magnetic fields can account for the $`\gamma `$-ray activity seen from the SGRs, and also for their observed periods and period-derivatives.

An interpretation for the AXPs is less clear. Given the similarities of their timing properties to those of the SGRs, several authors have proposed that the AXPs are also magnetars (Thompson & Duncan (1996); Vasisht & Gotthelf (1997)) — the dipole magnetic fields inferred from their periods and period-derivatives are indeed in the range $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ G. Because $`\gamma `$-ray burst activity has not been observed in any of the AXPs, it has been suggested that they represent a different evolutionary stage than do SGRs in the life of a magnetar (Kouveliotou et al. (1998); Gotthelf, Vasisht, & Dotani (1999); Gaensler, Gotthelf, & Vasisht (1999)).

Alternatively, a variety of authors have argued that the AXPs are neutron stars with typical magnetic fields $`10^{12}10^{13}`$ G, and whose X-ray flux originates from accretion from a low mass companion (Mereghetti & Stella (1995)), a supernova fall-back disk (Chatterjee, Hernquist, & Narayan (2000)), or a common-envelope phase of evolution (van Paradijs, Taam, & van den Heuvel (1995)). These interpretations can better explain the small range of periods observed for the AXPs (Chatterjee & Hernquist (2000)), but have trouble accounting for these sources’ faint optical counterparts (Hulleman, van Kerkwijk, & Kulkarni (2000)).

An important constraint in interpreting both AXPs and SGRs has been the associations of these sources with SNRs. Such an association confirms that the AXP or SGR was formed in a supernova explosion and is thus likely to be a neutron star. Furthermore, since SNRs are reasonably short-lived (20–100 kyr; Braun, Goss, & Lyne (1989); Shull, Fesen, & Saken (1989)), the association argues that the AXP/SGR is comparatively young. Beyond these basic conclusions, an association with a SNR also provides an estimate of a neutron star’s age, distance, and birth-site, from the latter of which its projected space velocity can be estimated. Associations with SNRs have correspondingly been used to infer a variety of properties for the AXPs and SGRs: it has been concluded from SNR associations that SGRs have extremely high space velocities (Thompson & Duncan (1995)), that AXPs are very young objects (Vasisht & Gotthelf (1997)), that AXPs and SGRs are born in higher density regions than are radio pulsars (Marsden et al. (2001)), that the supernova explosions which produce SGRs occur on the edge of their progenitor’s wind-bubbles (Gavaramadze (2001)), and even that AXPs and SGRs are strange stars (Dar & De Rújula (2000); Zhang, Xu, & Qiao (2000)).

It is clearly of considerable interest to identify new instances of such associations, but at the same time it is crucial to determine whether previously-claimed associations are genuine. There are many regions of the Galactic Plane where the spatial density of SNRs is high. The possibility that an AXP/SGR and an adjacent SNR are physically unrelated and merely lie along similar lines-of-sight must therefore be carefully considered. Indeed, many associations claimed between SNRs and radio pulsars (Kassim & Weiler (1990); Caraveo (1993); McAdam, Osborne, & Parkinson (1993)) have subsequently been shown to be spurious (Frail, Kassim, & Weiler (1994); Nicastro, Johnston, & Koribalski (1996); Stappers, Gaensler, & Johnston (1999)), and similar caution must be applied to associations between SNRs and AXPs/SGRs.

Associations between SNRs and radio pulsars are usually judged on criteria such as agreement in ages and distances and whether the transverse velocity implied for the pulsar is reasonable. However, these criteria are problematic when applied to cases involving AXPs and SGRs.

The characteristic age parameter used to estimate the ages of radio pulsars ($`\tau P/2\dot{P}`$, where $`P`$ is the spin-period and $`\dot{P}`$ is the period-derivative) is applicable only if a neutron star’s spin-down is entirely due to magnetic dipole radiation. However, in the case of a magnetar there is expected to be a significant additional torque due to a relativistic particle wind (Thompson & Blaes (1998); Harding, Contopoulos, & Kazanas (1999)). Furthermore, some AXPs and SGRs show complicated timing behavior not consistent with any kind of steady spin-down (Woods et al. 1999a ; Kaspi et al. (2001)). Finally, in the specific case of the otherwise convincing association of the AXP 1E 2259+586 with the SNR CTB 109 (discussed in Section 4.3), the age of the SNR is a factor $``$20 times smaller than the value of $`\tau =P/2\dot{P}`$ inferred for the AXP. There thus seems to be neither any evidence nor expectation that the ages of AXPs and SGRs can be usefully estimated from their observed spin parameters.

Distance estimates for most of the AXPs/SGRs come only from a measurement of the column density of absorbing material along the line-of-sight, and so have large uncertainties $`>`$50%. Finally, while transverse velocities inferred for radio pulsars can be compared to the pulsar velocity distribution as determined from proper motion measurements (e.g. Frail, Goss, & Whiteoak (1994)), nothing is known about the range of velocities expected for AXPs and SGRs. Therefore the only criterion we can reliably apply in the case of AXPs and SGRs is positional coincidence — namely, whether the neutron star and SNR are sufficiently close on the sky that it is unlikely that they align by chance (e.g. Kulkarni & Frail (1993); Smith, Bradt, & Levine (1999)).

Motivated by these considerations, we here present a study of associations of AXPs and SGRs with SNRs, a brief discussion of which was outlined by Gaensler (2000). In Sections 2 and 3 we describe a search for radio SNRs towards two AXPs, RX J170849–400910 and 4U 0142+61. In Section 4 we discuss the implications of these observations, review possible SNR associations for all other known AXPs, and use the results to infer some general properties about the AXP population. In Section 5 we consider the case of SGRs in SNRs, similarly derive some overall properties of the SGR population, and discuss the possible relationship between AXPs and SGRs.

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

The regions surrounding the AXPs RX J170849–400910 and 4U 0142+61 were observed with the Very Large Array (VLA), and are summarized in Table 1. All observations were centered at 1435 MHz, using three adjacent frequency channels each of width 12.5 MHz. Each field was observed in a 3-point mosaic pattern, both to increase the field-of-view and to maximize sensitivity to extended structure. Antenna gains and polarization were calibrated using regular observations of PKS B1827–360 (for RX J170849–400910) and 3C 468.1 (for 4U 0142+61). Amplitudes were calibrated using observations of 3C 286 (for RX J170849–400910) and 3C 48 (for 4U 0142+61), assuming flux densities at 1.4 GHz of 15.0 Jy and 16.1 Jy respectively.

Data were analyzed using the MIRIAD package. Once visibilities were edited and calibrated, an image corresponding to the combination of all three frequency channels was made using multi-frequency synthesis (Sault & Wieringa (1994)). All three pointings towards each source were then deconvolved simultaneously using the MOSMEM algorithm (Sault, Staveley-Smith, & Brouw (1996)). The resulting image was then smoothed with a gaussian restoring beam of dimensions corresponding to the diffraction-limited resolution of the observations.

Our VLA data on 4U 0142+61 lacks sensitivity to the largest spatial scales. To search for such emission, we have also obtained a 1.4-GHz image of the region surrounding 4U 0142+61 made as part of the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS; English et al. (1998)) and archived by the Canadian Astronomy Data Center. This image includes both interferometric and single-dish data, and so has sensitivity to all scales down to the resolution limit of 1 arcmin.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. RX J170849–400910

#### 3.1.1 Imaging

A 1.4 GHz image of the field surrounding RX J170849–400910 is shown in Fig 1. Only the lower-resolution DnC-array data have been used to make this image, so as to give maximal surface-brightness sensitivity.

It is clear that RX J170849–400910 is in a complex region. Previously identified sources which can be seen in the image include the SNR G346.6–0.2 ($`15^{}`$ to the east of the AXP; Dubner et al. (1993)), the ultra-compact H ii region G346.52+0.08 $`=`$ IRAS 17052–4001 ($`4^{}`$ to the north of the AXP; Walsh et al. (1998)), the unresolved radio source G346.472+0.053 ($`1^{}`$ to the west; Zoonematkermani et al. (1990)), and the thermal source IRAS 17056–4004 ($`4^{}`$ to the east).

Two arcmin to the east of the AXP can be seen an arc of diffuse emission, running from north to south for $`8^{}`$ before curving around to the east, eventually fading and merging with SNR G346.6–0.2. The overall morphology is that of a faint partial shell, with a radius of $`6^{}`$. We have looked for this source in various archival data-sets: 1.4 GHz VLA observations of SNR G346.6–0.2 (Dubner et al. (1993)), 1.4 GHz observations of SNR G347.3–0.5 using the Australia Telescope Compact Array (Ellison, Slane, & Gaensler (2001)) and in the 843 MHz Molonglo Galactic Plane Survey (MGPS; Green et al. (1999)). Although these observations are all of poorer sensitivity than the data presented here, the presence and morphology of this source is clearly apparent in all three data-sets. In future discussion, we refer to this source as G346.5–0.1, corresponding to the position of its approximate center of curvature.

An examination of the IRAS Galaxy Atlas (Cao et al. (1997)) shows no counterpart to G346.5–0.1 at wavelengths of 60 $`\mu `$m or 100 $`\mu `$m, nor in a map of the ratio 60 $`\mu `$m/100 $`\mu `$m. We also have found no X-ray emission from this source in archival ROSAT or ASCA data.

We have searched for radio emission from RX J170849–400910 itself by making a 1.4 GHz image using only data from the higher-resolution CnB array. No emission is seen at the position of RX J170849–400910 in this image down to a $`5\sigma `$ upper limit of 3 mJy.

#### 3.1.2 Spectral Index Determination

We have determined approximate spectral indices for the emission seen in Fig 1 by comparing our 1.4 GHz image to a 843 MHz MGPS image of the same region (Green et al. (1999)). In order to make a proper comparison of the images, we first applied to the 843 MHz data the mosaicing pattern, primary beam attenuation and $`uv`$ coverage of the 1.4 GHz VLA observations so as to produce two data-sets which were identical except in their brightness distributions. We then applied to this spatially-filtered 843 MHz data the same deconvolution process as was required to produce the 1.4 GHz image shown in Fig 1. Images at both frequencies were then smoothed to a resolution of $`60^{\prime \prime }\times 60^{\prime \prime }`$, and compared using the technique of spectral tomography, whereby scaled versions of the 843-MHz image are subtracted from the 1.4-GHz image, and the scaling factor for which a given feature merges into the background is used to compute that feature’s spectral index (Katz-Stone & Rudnick (1997)). An accurate spectral index for G346.5–0.1 is difficult to determine because it is so faint and diffuse. However, for the brightest region along its extent, we estimate a spectral index $`\alpha =0.4\pm 0.2`$ (where $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$).

Of the other main sources seen in Fig 1, we find that SNR G346.6–0.2 has a spectral index $`\alpha =0.6\pm 0.1`$, in good agreement with the value $`\alpha =0.5`$ tabulated by Green (2000) in his SNR catalog. G346.52+0.08 and IRAS 17056–4004 both have relative flat spectra ($`0.15\pm 0.1`$ and $`0.1\pm 0.1`$ respectively), consistent with their interpretations as thermal sources. G346.472+0.053 has a steeper spectrum, $`\alpha =0.9\pm 0.1`$, indicating that it is probably a background radio galaxy.

### 3.2. 4U 0142+61

The CGPS image of the region surrounding 4U 0142+61 is shown in Fig 2; no extended structure can be seen anywhere near the position of the AXP. The RMS sensitivity of the image is 0.2 mJy beam-1. Assuming a typical SNR spectral index $`\alpha =0.5`$, this corresponds to a $`1\sigma `$ surface brightness limit on any SNR of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1\mathrm{GHz}}=3.5\times 10^{23}`$ W m-2 Hz-1 sr-1.

We can use our VLA observations to search for emission from 4U 0142+61 itself. Using these data, we find no point source at the position of 4U 0142+61 down to a $`5\sigma `$ limit of 0.27 mJy.

## 4. Associations of AXPs with SNRs

### 4.1. RX J170849–400910

The arc of emission G346.5–0.1 which we have identified in Fig 1 has a partial-shell morphology, a high radio/IR flux ratio, and a spectral index which suggests non-thermal emission. We thus suggest that G346.5–0.1 is potentially a previously-unidentified SNR, although confirmation of this possibility will require a detection of linear polarization and/or a more accurate determination of its spectral index. It is certainly not unusual for deep imaging to reveal previously-unidentified faint SNRs in complex regions of the Galactic Plane (Frail, Goss, & Whiteoak (1994); Gaensler, Gotthelf, & Vasisht (1999); Crawford et al. (2001)) — these results underscore the incompleteness of current SNR samples.

Of the nearby sources in the field, SNR G346.6–0.2 is at a distance of either 5.5 or 11 kpc (Koralesky et al. (1998)), while the ultra-compact H ii region G346.52+0.08 is at a distance of $``$17 kpc (Caswell & Haynes (1987); Caswell et al. (1995)). Thus even if the case can be made that G346.5–0.1 is associated with one of these nearby sources, its distance is still highly uncertain. We assume in future discussion that the distance to G346.5–0.1 is $`10d_{10}`$ kpc with $`0.5d_{10}2`$.

If G346.5–0.1 is indeed a SNR, could it be associated with RX J170849–400910? The hydrogen column density towards the latter as inferred from its X-ray spectrum suggests that $`d_{10}1`$ for the AXP (Sugizaki et al. (1997)). So while the distance to neither object is known, there is nothing to suggest they are inconsistent.

If we assume that the AXP was born at the center of G346.5–0.1 $`10^4t_4`$ years ago, we can infer a projected velocity for the AXP of $`2300d_{10}/t_4`$ km s-1. If we assume $`t_45`$ (as suggested by the faint and ragged appearance of G346.5–0.1 and the lack of any X-ray emission from it) and $`d_{10}=1`$, we obtain a projected velocity of $`460`$ km s-1, which is comparable to that inferred for other AXPs (see discussion in Section 4.4 below).

However, we also need to consider the possibility that the AXP and candidate SNR lie near each other only through random alignment along the line-of-sight. We can estimate such a probability by noting that there are 12 SNRs in the catalog of Whiteoak & Green (1996) within a representative area bounded by $`340^{}l350^{}`$, $`|b|0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$. To calculate the probability of an AXP lying within $`2^{}`$ of the rim of an unrelated SNR, we inflate the radius of each of these 12 SNRs by $`2^{}`$. The chance of an alignment is then just the ratio of the area of these 12 sub-regions to the total 10 square degrees under consideration (Smith, Bradt, & Levine (1999)), corresponding to a probability of $``$5%. However, this value is certainly an underestimate, as we have carried out a targeted observation of greater sensitivity than the survey of Whiteoak & Green (1996), and the probability of finding a nearby SNR will thus be higher than inferred from this catalog. The catalog of Whiteoak & Green (1996) is complete to a 1-GHz surface brightness of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }8\times 10^{21}`$ W m-2 Hz-1, about 10 times poorer than the 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivity of the VLA observations presented here. Gaensler & Johnston (1995) simulate the Galactic SNR population, and find that for a search 10 times deeper than that of Whiteoak & Green (1996), one would find approximately twice as many SNRs. Similarly, Helfand et al. (1989) argue that about 50% of SNRs in this direction are still to be discovered.

We thus conclude that for our targeted search, the probability of finding a random alignment of the AXP with a nearby SNR is $``$10%. This does not imply that there is a $``$90% probability that G346.5–0.1 and AXP RX J170849–400910 are physically associated, but simply that there is a 90% probability that the AXP is not randomly located with respect to the SNR distribution. If AXPs are young neutron stars, they will be naturally clustered into the same small regions of the sky as SNRs. A low probability of random alignment may simply indicate that AXPs and SNRs are both associated with massive star formation. We therefore conclude that there is no compelling argument for a physical association between G346.5–0.1 and RX J170849–400910.

As an aside, we note that Marsden et al. (2001) have proposed an association between RX J170849–400910 and SNR G346.6–0.2. The AXP is $`12^{}`$ beyond the perimeter of this SNR, and the probability of random alignment (estimated through the same arguments as above) is $``$30%. We therefore consider it highly unlikely that there is any association between RX J170849–400910 and G346.6–0.2.

### 4.2. 4U 0142+61

There is no evidence for any SNR towards 4U 0142+61 down to a 1-GHz brightness limit $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=3.5\times 10^{23}`$ W m-2 Hz-1 sr-1.

The faintest SNRs in the Galactic SNR catalog are G65.2+5.7 and G156.2+5.7 (Green (2000)). In both cases, most of the extended emission from the SNR shell has a brightness of at least $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1\mathrm{GHz}}1.5\times 10^{22}`$ W m-2 Hz-1 sr-1, which would have been easily detected in the observations presented here. Thus if there is a SNR associated with 4U 0142+61, it is fainter than any other radio SNR known.

Recent X-ray results suggest that some SNRs are detectable at high energies but have no corresponding radio emission (e.g. Slane et al. (2000)); however no spatial or spectral evidence of a SNR has been reported in X-ray observations of this source (e.g. White et al. (1996)).

### 4.3. Other AXPs

There are three (possibly four) other AXPs, several of which lie within SNRs. We now briefly describe each case.

The AXP 1E 2259+586 lies within $`3^{}`$ of the geometric center of the young SNR CTB 109 (G109.1–1.0; Fahlman & Gregory (1981)). In a representative area $`100^{}<l<120^{}`$, $`|b|<2^{}`$, there are just five SNRs listed in Green’s (2000) catalog. The probability of the AXP lying this close to the center of one of these SNRs by chance is $`5\times 10^4`$. This probability is sufficiently low that we think it highly probable that 1E 2259+586 and CTB 109 form a genuine association.

Similarly, AXP 1E 1841–045 lies $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ from the center of the very young SNR G27.4+0.0 (Kes 73; Vasisht & Gotthelf (1997)). Considering the 11 SNRs in the region $`20^{}<l<30^{}`$, $`|b|<1^{}`$, we calculate the probability of chance alignment to be $`1\times 10^4`$. As for 1E 2259+586 / CTB 109, it seems highly likely that 1E 1841–045 and SNR G27.4+0.0 form a physical association.

AXP 1E 1048.1–5937 lies on the edge of the Carina Nebula, a bright and confused region at all wavelengths. Jones (1973) identified a region of non-thermal radio emission towards the Carina Nebula, which he proposed as a candidate SNR, G287.8–0.5. While other radio observations have failed to find evidence for such a source (Retallack (1983); Whiteoak (1994)), data at X-ray, optical and millimeter wavelengths provide evidence for recent supernova activity in the Carina region (Tateyama, Strauss, & Kaufmann (1991); Chu (1993); Tovmassian et al. (1998)). Thus, while it seems likely that 1E 1048.1–5937 is in a region of massive star formation, there is no indication of the specific event associated with its formation.

The 7-second pulsar AX J1845–0258 is highly time-variable, but otherwise has properties consistent with it being an AXP (Torii et al. (1998); Gotthelf & Vasisht (1998);Vasisht et al. (2000)). It lies within $`40^{\prime \prime }`$ of the center of the young SNR G29.6+0.1, with a probability of random alignment of $`<2\times 10^3`$ (Gaensler, Gotthelf, & Vasisht (1999)). As in the cases discussed above, it seems likely that the AXP and the surrounding SNR are physically associated.

Finally, the X-ray point source RX J1838.4–0301 lies within the SNR G28.8+1.5, and was once considered an AXP candidate on the basis of a marginally significant detection of 5.5-s pulsations in ROSAT data (Schwentker (1994)). However, RX J18384.4–0301 shows significant X-ray flares, suggesting that it likely corresponds to coronal emission from a positionally coincident K5 star (Mereghetti, Belloni, & Nasuti (1997)). Furthermore, the pulsations reported by Schwentker (1994) were not detected in subsequent ASCA observations (Song et al. (2000)). Thus there currently seems little evidence that RX J1838.4–0301 is an AXP or is associated with G28.8+1.5.

### 4.4. Overall Properties

In the first part of Table 2 we summarize the properties of the three AXPs for which there are plausible associations with SNRs. For each AXP we list the estimated age, $`t_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$, and distance, $`d_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$, for the SNR, the offset of the AXP from the SNR’s geometric center, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, and the angular radius of the SNR, $`\theta _{\mathrm{SNR}}`$. In all three cases the associated SNR is reasonably circular and its center is well-defined, so that it is straightforward to estimate this offset.

The ratio of the offset to the SNR radius, $`\beta =\mathrm{\Delta }\theta /\theta _{\mathrm{SNR}}`$, is also listed in Table 2. In all cases $`\beta 1`$, indicating that each AXP lies very close to the center of its SNR. As argued above, these alignments imply a very small probability that an AXP and SNR lie in the same part of the sky simply by chance.

If we assume that each AXP is associated with its coincident SNR and was born at its center, the values of $`t_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$, $`d_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ allow one to calculate an implied transverse velocity, $`V_T`$, for the AXP. In all three cases the implied velocity is $`<`$500 km s-1. These upper limits and the corresponding small values of $`\beta `$ are both entirely consistent with the properties of the youngest radio pulsars and their associated SNRs (Gaensler & Johnston 1995a,b; Kaspi (1996)).

The ages of their associated SNRs indicate that the three AXPs in Table 2 are all young objects, with ages less than $`10^4`$ yr. However, the absence of SNRs around the remaining three AXPs does not necessarily imply that these other sources are older objects. Many SNRs occur in low density regions and so do not produce detectable emission (Kafatos et al. (1980); Gaensler & Johnston 1995b ). Indeed of the eight known radio pulsars with characteristic ages less than $`10^4`$ yr, four have no associated SNR at radio wavelengths.111The four radio pulsars with no SNR are the Crab Pulsar (Frail et al. (1995)), PSR J0537–6910 (Lazendic et al. (2000)), PSR B1610–50 (Stappers, Gaensler, & Johnston (1999)) and PSR J1617–5055 (Kaspi et al. (1998)). While the first two of these power associated synchrotron nebulae, they show no evidence for a surrounding SNR blast-wave. If the supernovae which produce AXPs occur in similar environments to those which form radio pulsars then, just as for young radio pulsars, we expect that $``$50% of young AXPs will lack SNR associations. We therefore argue that observations are consistent with all six AXPs being young neutron stars with ages $`10`$ kyr. As argued by Gaensler et al. (1999), this implies a lower limit on the Galactic birth-rate for AXPs of one per 1700 yr.

The young ages inferred for AXPs can place constraints on both magnetar and accretion models for these sources. In the context of the magnetar model, our upper limit on AXP ages, combined with their narrow range of spin periods, can be explained only if these sources undergo rapid magnetic field decay, as can result from a Hall cascade in the neutron star crust (Colpi, Geppert, & Page (2000)). Such a model specifically predicts that an AXP of true age $`10^4`$ will have a characteristic age $`\tau =P/2\dot{P}10^5`$, which indeed is the case for AXP 1E 2259+586 ($`\tau 225`$ kyr; Kaspi, Chakrabarty, & Steinberger (1999)) in the SNR CTB 109 (age $``$ 10 kyr; Rho & Petre (1997)).

Any viable accretion model must produce sufficient torque to spin down an AXP from its presumed rapid birth period ($`1`$ s) to its current spin-period ($`10`$ s) in less than $`10^4`$ yr. While this rapid braking rules out many standard accretion scenarios (Vasisht & Gotthelf (1997)), Chatterjee et al. (2000) propose a model in which an AXP is a $`10^{13}`$ G neutron star which accretes from a fall-back disk of supernova debris. In this model, the neutron star is initially in a propellor phase in which its X-ray luminosity is too low to be detected. After a few thousand years, the AXP will slow down sufficiently that it can begin to accrete and will become X-ray bright. However, the mass accretion rate will steadily decline as the disk is depleted, and after $`10`$ kyr the AXP will again become too faint to be detected. This model thus predicts that AXPs will only be observed with ages $`10^4`$ yr and with a narrow range of spin periods, as is observed.

Marsden et al. (2001) have also recently considered associations of AXPs with SNRs. In discussing such systems, they include the pairings RX J170849–400910 / G346.6–0.2 and 1E 1048.1–5937 / G287.8–0.5, both of which we have argued in Section 4.3 above to be spurious associations. For the remaining three associations (listed in Table 2), Marsden et al. (2001) assume each SNR to be in the Sedov phase of evolution and to have resulted from a supernova of kinetic energy $`E_0=10^{51}`$ erg. They then use the SNR’s estimated age, $`t_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$ and radius, $`R_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$, to infer an ambient density, $`n_0`$. They conclude that the supernovae which form AXPs (and SGRs) occur in regions of significantly higher density regions than those which make radio pulsars. Marsden et al. (2001) argue that this result favors accreting models for AXPs, and specifically propose that the neutron star either accretes gas as it overtakes the slowly-expanding SNR shell, or forms an accretion disk from material pushed back by the encounter of the SNR with dense material. In either case, a high ambient density for AXPs suggests that their properties are due to their environment rather than are intrinsic to the source, a conclusion which would argue against the magnetar hypothesis.

However, there are a number of deficiencies with this argument. First, Kes 73 and possibly G29.6+0.1 are very young SNRs, which may not yet be in the Sedov phase. In this case, the calculation used to infer an ambient density is not valid. Second, for SNRs in the Sedov phase the ambient density depends on other parameters as $`n_0E_0t_{\mathrm{SNR}}^2R_{\mathrm{SNR}}^5`$. Uncertainties in $`t_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$ and $`E_0`$ of a factor of two, along with a 20% uncertainty in the distance (all quite reasonable for Galactic SNRs), result in an uncertainty of two orders of magnitude in any estimate of $`n_0`$.

Regardless of the uncertainties in these calculations, the conclusion that AXPs occur predominantly in denser regions ($`n_0>0.1`$ cm-3) than do radio pulsars ($`n_00.001`$ cm-3) can be entirely attributed to selection effects. AXPs have generally been discovered serendipitously in X-ray observations of bright SNRs, the latter which are generally only detectable in high density regions (Kafatos et al. (1980); Gaensler & Johnston 1995b ). On the other hand, young radio pulsars have mostly been detected in all-sky surveys, and their inferred values of $`n_0`$ reflect the fact that most of the interstellar medium by volume is of low density. When only radio pulsars associated with SNRs are considered, ambient densities $`n_00.2`$ cm-3 are inferred (Frail, Goss, & Whiteoak (1994)), indicating that there is no obvious difference in ambient density between SNRs associated with radio pulsars and those containing AXPs.

### 4.5. Radio Emission from AXPs

A detection of radio pulsations from an AXP would make a strong case that these sources are isolated neutron stars rather than accreting systems. Furthermore, this would make these sources amenable to radio timing observations and would provide distance estimates from their dispersion measures.

We have shown that there is no radio emission from RX J170849–400910 or 4U 0142+61 down to limits of 3 mJy and 0.3 mJy respectively (5$`\sigma `$ limits at 1.4 GHz). Because these limits are determined from continuum images, they are more constraining than comparable non-detections from pulsed searches, which can have reduced sensitivity at long periods. Similar non-detections of radio emission from the AXPs 1E 2259+586 (0.08 mJy; Coe, Jones, & Lehto (1994)), and 1E 1841–045 (0.6 mJy; Kriss et al. (1985)) have led Baring & Harding (1998) to argue that AXPs are “radio-quiet”. If AXPs are magnetars, this could result from photon-splitting in their magnetospheres, which prevents pair-production and thus suppresses the radio pulse mechanism.

The distances to these AXPs imply upper limits on their 1.4-GHz radio luminosities of 1.2, 2.0, 29 and 320 mJy kpc2 for 4U 0142+61, 1E 2259+586, 1E 1841–045 and RX J170849–400910 respectively.222We have adopted distances to RX J170849–400910 and 4U 0142+61 of 10 and 2 kpc respectively, and have omitted the factor of $`4\pi `$ as is usual for pulsar radio luminosities. Lyne et al. (1998) derive a 400-MHz luminosity function for potentially observable radio pulsars (i.e. all pulsars in the Galaxy beaming towards us, whether detected by current searches or as yet undiscovered). Scaling this luminosity distribution to an observing frequency of 1.4 GHz by assuming a typical pulsar spectral index of $`\alpha =2`$, we find that $`>`$60% of potentially observable radio pulsars have pulsed luminosities below 1 mJy kpc2, fainter than the deepest limits obtained towards the AXPs. The fact that that this small set of X-ray selected sources has not been detected at radio wavelengths therefore does not place any strong constraints on their intrinsic radio properties.

Furthermore, models for pulsar beaming generally predict that slower-spinning pulsars have narrower radio beams. Indeed the slowest radio pulsar, PSR J2144–3933 (for which $`P=8.5`$ s, comparable to that of the AXPs), has the narrowest known pulse, of width less than $`1^{}`$ of the pulse phase (Young, Manchester, & Johnston (1999)). If we assume a population of radio pulsars in which the magnetic axis is randomly oriented with respect both to the pulsar spin axis and to the line-of-sight, 333In magnetar models for the AXPs, the X-ray emission originates from the neutron star surface (Heyl & Hernquist (1997)) and thus suffers significant gravitational bending. The X-ray beams will thus be very broad, and the fact that we observe X-ray pulsations from the AXPs is not inconsistent with the assumption of randomly oriented radio beams. then for $`P=10`$ s (appropriate for the AXPs), the fraction of pulsars which would be beamed towards us is estimated to be 3–5% (e.g. Biggs (1990); Tauris & Manchester (1998)). Thus even if all the AXPs are radio pulsars, it is likely that none of them are beamed in our direction.

## 5. Associations of SGRs with SNRs

Of the four (possibly five) SGRs identified to date, in all cases associations have been claimed with nearby SNRs (Hurley (2000)). Below we review recent results on each system, and use similar criteria as for the AXPs to assess the validity of the proposed SNR associations.

### 5.1. SGR 0526–66 and SNR N49

SGR 0526–66 was discovered as a result of its intense $`\gamma `$-ray activity on 5 Mar 1979, data which also contained an 8-second periodicity (Barat et al. (1979); Terrell et al. (1980)). This $`\gamma `$-ray emission was localized to a small 0.1 arcmin2 region of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) which overlaps the SNR N49 (Cline et al. (1982)). The X-ray point source RX J05260.3–660433 falls within this error box and lies on the rim of the SNR (Rothschild, Kulkarni, & Lingenfelter (1994); Marsden et al. (1996)); this source is presumed to be the X-ray counterpart to the SGR.

The probability of a chance alignment between SGR 0526–66 and SNR N49 was estimated by Felten (1982) to be $`10^3`$. There have been many new results on SNRs in the LMC since this estimate was made. We consequently here make a revised calculation as to the probability of coincidence between the SNR and SGR.

The most recent catalog of LMC SNRs is that of Williams et al. (1999), who list 37 confirmed SNRs. The total solid angle subtended by these SNRs is $`180`$ arcmin2. If we assume the LMC to be delineated by a circle of radius $`3^{}`$ and that SNRs are randomly distributed throughout this region, then using the same approach as in Section 4.1 above the probability of the SGR falling on the rim of an unrelated SNR is 0.2%, double the estimate of Felten (1982).

However, because both SNRs and SGRs are believed to be formed in supernova explosions, their distributions should be similar to those of massive stars and star-forming regions within the LMC, neither of which are uniformly distributed throughout the entire galaxy. The above calculation therefore considers too large a possible area for these objects, and is an underestimate of the probability of a spurious association.

In Figure 3 we show an IRAS 60 $`\mu `$m image of the LMC, on which the positions of SNRs from the catalog of Williams et al. (1999) are marked. It is clear that the distribution of SNRs within the LMC is indeed far from uniform, and follows the multi-armed spiral pattern traced in the infra-red. If we only consider those parts of the LMC in which there is bright infrared emission ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{60\mu \mathrm{m}}>10`$ MJy sr-1), the total area under consideration is then $`7`$ deg2, and the probability of a chance coincidence between SGR 0526–66 and a SNR rises to 0.7%. Alternatively, the scale length for the distribution of OB stars in the LMC is 1.6 kpc (Weinberg & Nikolaev (2001)), corresponding to an area of $`10`$ deg2 (for a distance of 50 kpc) and thus a probability of random alignment of 0.5%.

There are certainly many LMC SNRs still to be discovered, especially given the difficulty in identifying SNRs in complex star-forming regions (Chu & Kennicutt (1988)). The above calculations are thus likely to be underestimates, and the true probability of coincidental alignment may be as large as several percent. Furthermore, as we have discussed above for the case of RX J170849–400910, a low probability of chance alignment does not imply that the SGR and SNR were formed in the same supernova explosion, but possibly that two separate supernovae occurred near each other. The many examples of closely-grouped SNRs in the LMC indeed demonstrate the clustered nature of their progenitors (Chu et al. (1993); Smith et al. (1994); Williams et al. (1997)).

These considerations suggest that the claimed association between SGR 0526–66 and N49, while by far the most likely of the SGR/SNR associations (see further discussion below), is considerably less convincing than the cases for AXPs in SNRs considered above. Doubt has also recently been cast on this association by Kaplan et al. (2001), who infer an age for the SGR of $``$1000 yr on the basis of its energetics and broad-band spectrum. This is clearly inconsistent with the age of 5–16 kyr estimated for the SNR (Shull Jr. (1983); Vancura et al. (1992)).

### 5.2. SGR 1806–20 and G10.0–0.3

SGR 1806–20 was originally localized to a small region centered on the unusual SNR G10.0–0.3 (Atteia et al. (1987); Murakami et al. (1994)). However, a re-analysis of $`\gamma `$-ray data for SGR 1806–20 demonstrates its most likely position to be offset by $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ from the center of G10.0–0.3 (Hurley et al. (1999)). Recent observations of the region using the Chandra X-ray Observatory have confirmed this refined position (Kaplan (2001)).

Meanwhile, VLA observations of G10.0–0.3 have shown a centrally-condensed, changing morphology and an unusually steep spectrum, with no evidence for a blast-wave and/or a supernova explosion (Kulkarni et al. (1994); Vasisht, Frail, & Kulkarni (1995); Frail, Vasisht, & Kulkarni (1997)). The classification of G10.0–0.3 as a SNR therefore seems to have been erroneous; it rather seems to be powered by some central object unrelated to SGR 1806–20, possibly the massive star identified by van Kerkwijk et al. (1995).

We thus conclude that there is no SNR associated with SGR 1806–20.

### 5.3. SGR 1900+14 and G42.8+0.6

SGR 1900+14 has been identified with an unresolved X-ray source located $`5^{}`$ outside the rim of the SNR G42.8+0.6 (Hurley et al. (1999)). As is the case for RX J170849–400910, this source falls in a complicated region in the inner Galaxy. Considering the region $`35^{}<l<45^{}`$, $`|b|<1^{}`$, we find by the same approach as used earlier that there is a $``$4% probability that the proximity to a SNR is simply by chance. As discussed above, this low probability may simply represent the natural spatial clustering of supernova explosions rather than any specific association between the SGR and SNR. Furthermore, a radio pulsar, PSR J1907+0918, has recently been identified just $`2^{}`$ from SGR 1900+14, and has a characteristic age of only 38 kyr (Lorimer & Xilouris (2000)). The case for an association between the radio pulsar and SNR G32.8+0.6 is far from compelling, but is just as plausible as the SGR/SNR association, further weakening the argument for the latter.

Finally, we note that Vrba et al. (2000) have discovered a cluster of massive stars separated from SGR 1900+14 by just a few arcsec. They propose an association between the SGR and the star cluster, which would immediately rule out an association with SNR G42.8+0.6.

We conclude that there is a significant likelihood of random alignment between SGR 1900+14 and G42.8+0.6, and that there is little convincing evidence in favor of a physical association given the complex nature of this part of the sky.

### 5.4. SGR 1627–41 and G337.0–0.1

SGR 1627–41 has an X-ray counterpart which shows it to be embedded in the complicated radio region CTB 33 (Woods et al. 1999b ). CTB 33 was originally classified as an SNR/H ii complex (Shaver & Goss (1970)), an interpretation confirmed by recent high-resolution observations which show this source to be a large H ii region in which a compact SNR, G337.0–0.1, is embedded (Sarma et al. (1997)). The X-ray localization for SGR 1627–41 puts it $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ outside the rim of the SNR (Hurley et al. (2000)). Smith et al. (1999) estimate the probability of a random alignment between the SNR and SGR to be $``$5%.

A common distance of 11.0 kpc has been determined independently for SNR G337.0–0.1 (Frail et al. (1996)) and SGR 1627–41 (Corbel et al. (1999)). However, this simply indicates that the SNR and SGR are probably part of the same star-forming complex which includes CTB 33; it does not make a strong case that they correspond to the same supernova explosion.

### 5.5. SGR 1801–23

A possible fifth SGR, 1801–23, has been reported by Cline et al. (2000). The error box for this source is very elongated, extending across almost four degrees of the Galactic Plane in a complex region near the Galactic Center. Although this error circle passes through or near $``$7 SNRs, any such error circle drawn randomly on the sky in this region would do so. No serious case can be made for an association with any particular SNR until this SGR is confirmed and its position refined.

### 5.6. Overall Properties

In the second half of Table 2, we have listed the three SGRs which lie near SNRs. As in Section 4.4 for the AXPs, for each system we have listed the age, distance and radius of the SNR, the offset of the SGR with respect to the SNR’s center, the normalized offset, $`\beta `$, and the implied transverse velocity, $`V_T`$. In stark distinction to the AXPs, for all three SGRs we find that $`\beta 1`$.

No estimate of an age or distance is available for G42.8+0.6,444The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ relation is not a valid method of determining distances to individual SNRs (e.g. Green (1984)), and distances and ages which have been quoted for this SNR using this method are totally unreliable. but for SNRs N49 and G337.0–0.1, transverse velocities which are at the upper end of, or even beyond, the velocity distribution of the radio pulsar population (Lorimer, Bailes, & Harrison (1997); Cordes & Chernoff (1998)) are inferred. These velocities appear inconsistent with the low transverse velocities inferred for the AXPs.

The small statistics available thus suggest that if SGRs are associated with their nearby SNRs, then they must be a higher velocity population than are AXPs or radio pulsars. Indeed it has been proposed that magnetars should have unusually high space velocities ($`1000`$ km s-1) as a result of anisotropic neutrino emission immediately after core-collapse (Duncan & Thompson (1992); Thompson & Duncan (1993)).

However, these associations with SNRs rule out any relationship or evolutionary connection with the AXPs. If SGRs are a younger population than the AXPs, as has been proposed by Kouveliotou et al. (1998), then SGRs should generally have smaller values of $`\beta `$ than do AXPs, which is clearly not the case. On the other hand, if SGRs are an older incarnation of the AXPs (Gaensler, Gotthelf, & Vasisht (1999); Gotthelf, Vasisht, & Dotani (1999)), then the SGRs should have values of $`\beta `$ larger than for the AXPs (as is observed), but the velocity distributions of the two populations should be similar.555While the “electromagnetic rocket” effect proposed by Harrison & Tademaru (1975) can cause a neutron star’s space velocity to steadily increase, this effect is negligible at the long periods of AXPs and SGRs (Lai, Chernoff, & Cordes (2001)). Thus if all the associations in Table 2 are genuine, then AXPs and SGRs must represent two discrete populations of object. This could result either if SGRs are magnetars and AXPs are accreting systems, or if there are two types of magnetar — a population with extreme ($`10^{15}`$ G) magnetic fields and high velocities (the SGRs), and a separate group with lower magnetic fields ($`10^{14}`$ G) and lower velocities (the AXPs).

Disregarding their values of $`\beta `$ and $`V_T`$, AXPs and SGRs have remarkably similar properties (e.g. Kulkarni et al. (2001); Kaspi et al. (2001)). There is thus considerable reluctance to conclude that the two populations are not related in some way. The only way this AXP/SGR connection can be maintained is if one abandons the associations between SGRs and SNRs, and therefore removes the discrepancy in the velocity distributions of the AXP and SGR populations. As argued earlier, none of the SGR/SNR associations are particularly compelling. It is worth noting that of the claimed associations between radio pulsars and SNRs for which $`\beta 1`$, almost all have been subsequently argued to be spurious (e.g. Gaensler & Johnston 1995b ; Nicastro, Johnston, & Koribalski (1996); Kaspi et al. (1998); Stappers, Gaensler, & Johnston (1999)).

If SGRs are neutron stars, but have ages of 50–100 kyr and have low space velocities, then we would expect their associated SNRs to have faded, but for these sources to still be near regions of supernova and star-forming activity, as is observed. In this case the the data are consistent with the hypothesis that SGRs and AXPs are related sources, but imply that the SGRs represent an older or longer-lived population whose SNRs have dissipated.

Given this result, it is tempting to argue that AXPs evolve into SGRs. However, this scenario is problematic in that if AXPs are magnetars, then their youth and narrow range of spin-periods argue that their magnetic fields decay rapidly to strengths below $`10^{13}`$ G (Colpi, Geppert, & Page (2000)). It is then hard to see how AXPs can evolve into SGRs, the latter of which are believed to have magnetic field strengths $`10^{15}`$ G. Furthermore, the AXPs and SGRs have similar period distributions: 5–8 sec for SGRs, and 6–12 sec for AXPs. If SGRs are 5–10 times older than AXPs as proposed here, and if one extrapolates the steady spin-down seen in several AXPs (Gotthelf, Vasisht, & Dotani (1999); Kaspi, Chakrabarty, & Steinberger (1999)) to such ages, we would then expect the SGRs to have periods $``$10 s, which is not observed. We note that some AXPs and SGRs do not show smooth spin-down (Kaspi et al. (2001); Woods et al. 1999a ), while there is evidence in the case of 1E 2259+586 for a short period of spin-up (Baykal & Swank (1996)). It has indeed been argued that magnetars can undergo periods of very low spin-down or even spin-up depending on the level of internal activity (Thompson et al. (2000)). These effects must be significant if AXPs are to evolve into SGRs.

## 6. Conclusions

We have presented radio observations of two Anomalous X-ray Pulsars, RX J170849–400910 and 4U 0142+61. RX J170849–400910 lies in a complex region which includes the candidate supernova remnant G346.5–0.1, but is not likely to be associated with this or any other SNR. No extended radio emission is seen in the vicinity of 4U 0142+61; even the faintest known SNR would have been detected.

The three associations of AXPs with SNRs provide strong evidence for a physical connection between the two types of object. These associations imply that AXPs are young ($`<`$10 kyr) neutron stars, with low space velocities ($`<`$500 km s-1). This result is consistent with AXPs being “magnetars” which undergo rapid field decay, but also with models in which AXPs are lower-field neutron stars accreting from a supernova fallback disk. We argue that there is no evidence that the SNRs associated with AXPs expand into a denser environment than do the SNRs associated with radio pulsars, contrary to the “nurture” model for AXPs proposed by Marsden et al. (2001). Despite the fact that no AXP has been detected at radio wavelengths, these data provide no evidence that AXPs are radio-quiet. Even if all AXPs are radio pulsars, it is highly likely that they are either all beaming away from us or are too faint to detect.

The Soft Gamma-Ray Repeaters have been proposed to all be associated with SNRs. We review the associations claimed between SGRs and SNRs — in one case the classification as a SNR was erroneous, while in all other cases the SGR is on the edge of or outside the nearest SNR. We find a significant probability that the claimed SGR/SNR associations are spurious, implying that the SGRs are an older or longer-lived population than are the AXPs. If the SGR/SNR associations are valid, they imply that SGRs are high velocity ($`1000`$ km s-1) objects. In this case, the data are inconsistent with there being any link between the SGR and AXP populations. In either case, the fact that the SGRs all lie near SNRs, H ii regions and massive star clusters is still consistent with the hypothesis that they are relatively young neutron stars.

The high velocities suggested for the SGRs from their claimed SNR associations can be tested by proper motion measurements with Chandra over the next few years. These results will provide significant new input into the debate over SGR/SNR associations, and on the relationship between SGRs and AXPs.

We thank Barry Clark for generously rescheduling a failed observing run, Fred Seward and Kate Brooks for information on SNRs in the Carina region, and Bob Rutledge for discussions on probability. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This paper has used data obtained as a Guest User of the Canadian Astronomy Data Center, and has made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System, the CDS SIMBAD database and NASA’s SkyView facility. Some of this work was completed while B.M.G. was at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, which is supported by NSF under Grant No. PHY99–07949. This research was also supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01107.01-98A (B.M.G.), contract NAS8-39073 and grant NAG5-4803 (P.O.S.), and LTSA grant NAG5–22250 (E.V.G. and G.V.).