text:
# Extracting the spectral function of 4He from a relativistic plane-wave treatment

## I Introduction

Electron scattering from nuclei is a common and powerful tool for studying the structure of nuclei. The method relies on our superior understanding of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and the relative ease by which QED may be applied to a variety of processes, at least in the one-photon-exchange approximation. In inclusive $`(e,e^{})`$ electron scattering all nuclear-structure information is contained in two dynamical quantities: the longitudinal and transverse response functions. The longitudinal response is sensitive to the distribution of charge in the nucleus while the transverse response samples the distribution of currents and magnetization. Measurement of these quantities in the quasielastic region is expected to be particularly clean as the reactive content of the reaction is dominated by quasifree proton knockout. If so, “reduced” longitudinal and transverse response functions, obtained from the full nuclear responses by dividing out the corresponding single-nucleon form factor, should be equal. Yet a quenching of the longitudinal response relative to the transverse one of 14% in 4He and 50% in 208Pb has been reported from a quasielastic $`(e,e^{})`$ electron-scattering measurement . A similar, in fact even larger 20-40%, quenching in 4He has also been reported in the semi-exclusive $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction at quasielastic kinematics . In order to explain the longitudinal/transverse (L/T) discrepancy a variety of explanations have been proposed. These include medium-modifications to vacuum polarization , nucleon “swelling , and Brown-Rho scaling . It is fair to say, however, that the L/T anomaly remains an unsolved problem in nuclear physics.

The appeal of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction is due to the perceived sensitivity of the process to the nucleon momentum distribution. Interest in this reaction has stimulated a tremendous amount of experimental work at electron facilities such as NIKHEF, MIT/Bates, and Saclay, who have championed this effort for several decades. While it is undeniable that this reaction involves the best understood theory in all of physics (QED) many uncertainties remain due to the strongly-interacting character of the many-body system. It is hoped that with the advent of modern electron-scattering facilities, such as the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab) and Mainz, some of the remaining open questions will be answered. Indeed, in an attempt to elucidate the physics of the L/T anomaly discussed earlier, a systematic study of the longitudinal and transverse response functions from 3He and 4He is being conducted at the Mainz Microton (MAMI) facility by the A1-collaboration . Their extraction of “experimental” spectral functions and of momentum distributions relies on a plane-wave-impulse-approximation (PWIA). In such an approximation the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ cross section is proportional to the nucleon spectral function times an off-shell electron-proton cross section ($`\sigma _{ep}`$). Experimental analyses of this reaction employ, almost exclusively, the de Forest’s $`cc1`$ prescription for $`\sigma _{ep}`$ with both nucleon form factors unmodified from their free-space form .

Stimulated by this new experimental thrust, we report here relativistic plane-wave-impulse-approximation (RPWIA) calculations of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ cross section in the quasielastic region. Our motivation for such a study is fourfold. First, we employ an established RPWIA formalism, first introduced in Ref.  and recently extended to the kaon-photoproduction reaction , for the study of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction in the quasielastic region. Second, we use this formalism to compute the spectral function of 4He in anticipation of the recently measured, but not yet fully analyzed, $`A1`$-collaboration data from Mainz . Third, we take advantage of the L/T separation at Mainz to introduce what we regard as the cleanest physical observable from which to extract the nucleon spectral function. Lastly, we highlight some of the challenges and opportunities that remain in the calculation of quasifree observables.

There is a vast amount of literature on $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction in the quasifree region. Most relevant to our present discussion is the one pertaining to fully relativistic calculations . An extensive set of these relativistic studies has been conducted by the “Spanish” group of Udias and collaborators . These studies have shown that the many subtleties intrinsic to the relativistic approach challenge much of the “conventional wisdom” developed within the nonrelativistic framework and that, as a result, a radical revision of ideas may be required. Relativistic effects originating from medium modifications to the lower components of the Dirac spinors and from the negative-energy part of the spectrum seem to play an important role in the quasifree process. Indeed, the much debated issue of short-range correlations at large missing momenta  can now be attributed, at least in part, to contributions arising from the negative-energy states .

The power of the theoretical approach employed here lies in its simplicity. Analytic expressions for the response of a mean-field ground state may be provided in the plane-wave limit. The added computational demands placed on such a formalism, relative to that from a free on-shell proton, are minimal. The formalism owes its simplicity to an algebraic trick, first introduced by Gardner and Piekarewicz , that enables one to define a “bound” (in direct analogy to the free) nucleon propagator. Indeed, the Dirac structure of the bound nucleon propagator is identical to that of the free Feynman propagator. As a consequence, the power of Feynman’s trace techniques may be employed throughout the formalism.

The paper has been organized as follows. In Sec. II some of the central concepts and ideas of the semi-exclusive $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction are reviewed. Special emphasis is placed on defining the bound-state propagator and the simplifications that this entails in the plane-wave limit. In Sec. III we present our results for 4He and discuss a (fairly) model-independent method for extracting the nucleon momentum distribution. Finally, a summary and conclusions are presented in Sec. IV.

## II Formalism

In Refs.  a general formalism has been developed for the study of a variety of quasifree processes in the relativistic plane-wave impulse approximation (RPWIA). This formalism is now applied to the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction in a mean-field approximation to the Walecka model . Although the use of a mean-field approach for a nucleus as small as 4He is questionable, we allow ourselves this freedom in order to establish a baseline against which more sophisticated approaches may be compared.

Following a standard procedure, an expression for the unpolarized differential cross section per target nucleon for the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction is derived. We obtain,

$$\left(\frac{d^5\sigma }{dE_e^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐩^{}}\right)_{\mathrm{lab}}=\frac{4\alpha ^2}{Q^4}\frac{|𝐤^{}|}{|𝐤|}\text{ }|𝐩^{}|\text{ }\left|\right|^2.$$
(1)
In the above expression $`𝐤`$, $`𝐤^{}`$, and $`𝐩^{}`$ denote the linear momentum of the incoming electron, outgoing electron, and knocked-out proton, respectively. The four-momentum transfer is defined in terms of the energy loss ($`\omega =E_eE_e^{}`$) and the three-momentum transfer ($`𝐪=𝐤𝐤^{}`$) as $`Q^2=𝐪^2\omega ^2`$. The transition matrix element $``$ is given in a relativistic mean-field picture by

$`\left|\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`l^{\mu \nu }W_{\mu \nu },`$ (3)
$`l^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(k^\mu k^\nu +k^\mu k^\nu g^{\mu \nu }(kk^{})\right),`$ (4)
$`W^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(2j+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}m}{}}\left(\overline{𝒰}(𝐩^{},s^{})j^\mu 𝒰_{\alpha m}(𝐩)\right)\left(\overline{𝒰}(𝐩^{},s^{})j^\nu 𝒰_{\alpha m}(𝐩)\right)^{}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\left(\text{/}p^{}+M\right)j^\mu S_\alpha (𝐩)j^\nu \right).`$ (6)
Here $`𝒰(𝐩^{},s^{})`$ is the free Dirac spinor for the knocked-out proton, normalized according to the conventions of Bjorken and Drell , while $`𝒰_{\alpha m}(𝐩)`$ is the Fourier transform of the relativistic spinor for the bound proton. Note that $`\alpha `$ denotes the collection of all quantum numbers necessary to specify the single-particle orbital, except for the magnetic quantum number ($`m`$) which is indicated explicitly. We have also introduced a “bound-state propagator”

$$S_\alpha (𝐩)\frac{1}{2j+1}\underset{m}{}𝒰_{\alpha m}(𝐩)\overline{𝒰}_{\alpha m}(𝐩),$$
(7)
normalized according to:

$$\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{T}r\left(\gamma ^0S_\alpha (𝐩)\right)=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}𝒰_{\alpha m}^{}(𝐩)𝒰_{\alpha m}(𝐩)=1.$$
(8)
Here $`j`$ is the total angular momentum quantum number and $`2j+1`$ is the multiplicity of protons in the struck shell. It follows from simple kinematical arguments that the missing momentum $`𝐩𝐩^{}𝐪`$ is, in a mean-field picture, identical to the momentum of the struck proton. It is the possibility of mapping the nucleon momentum distribution that makes the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction so appealing.

We now invoke an algebraic trick first introduced in Ref.  to simplify the expression for the hadronic tensor $`W^{\mu \nu }`$. This technique is useful in quasifree processes as it enables one to cast the bound-state propagator of Eq. (7) into a form identical in structure to that of the free Feynman propagator. That is,

$$S_\alpha (𝐩)=\left(\text{/}p_\alpha +M_\alpha \right),$$
(9)
where we have defined mass- and four-momentum-like $`\left[p_\alpha ^\mu (E_\alpha ,𝐩_\alpha )\right]`$ quantities according to

$`M_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{p^2}}\right)\left[g_\alpha ^2(p)f_\alpha ^2(p)\right],`$ (11)
$`E_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{p^2}}\right)\left[g_\alpha ^2(p)+f_\alpha ^2(p)\right],`$ (12)
$`𝐩_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{p^2}}\right)\left[2g_\alpha (p)f_\alpha (p)\widehat{𝐩}\right].`$ (13)
Moreover, they satisfy the “on-shell relation”

$$p_\alpha ^2=E_\alpha ^2𝐩_\alpha ^2=M_\alpha ^2.$$
(14)
In these expressions $`g_\alpha (p)`$ and $`f_\alpha (p)`$ are the Fourier transforms of the upper and lower components of the bound-state Dirac spinor, respectively . Using this form of the bound-state propagator the hadronic tensor simplifies to:

$$W^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{T}r\left(\left(\text{/}p^{}+M\right)j^\mu \left(\text{/}p_\alpha +M_\alpha \right)j^\nu \right).$$
(15)
The obvious similarity in structure between the free and bound propagators results in an enormous simplification: powerful trace techniques developed elsewhere may now be employed here to compute all $`(e,e^{}p)`$ observables. Although the focus of this paper is the unpolarized cross section \[Eq. (1)\] the formalism may be extended without difficulty to the case in which the electron, the outgoing proton, or both, are polarized. Yet, in order to automate this straightforward but lengthy procedure, we rely on the FeynCalc 1.0 package with Mathematica 2.0 to calculate all the necessary traces. For a general electromagnetic current operator for the proton, the output from these symbolic manipulations is transparent enough so that the sensitivity of the cross section to the various quantities in the problem may be assessed. Indeed, such a simplification will prove useful later in identifying the optimal observable from which to extract the spectral function. It is important to note, however, that this enormous simplification would have been lost had distortions been included in the formalism. Even so, the plane-wave approach discussed here, and used in most experimental extractions of the spectral function, is qualitatively useful. Moreover, if the main effect of distortions is to induce an overall suppression of the cross section without affecting significantly the distribution of strength, the plane-wave formalism provides solid quantitative predictions for a variety of spin observables .

Yet an important open question remains: what constitutes a suitable form for the nucleon electromagnetic current? A ubiquitous form given in the literature is

$$j^\mu (q)=F_1(q^2)\gamma ^\mu +iF_2(q^2)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\nu }{2M}.$$
(16)
While this form is certainly general, as only two form factors are required to fully specify the electromagnetic current for an on-shell nucleon, the form is not unique. Indeed, many other forms — all of them equivalent on-shell — may be used. For example, through a Gordon decomposition of the current one arrives at

$$j^\mu (q)=(F_1+F_2)\gamma ^\mu F_2\frac{(p^{}+p)^\mu }{2M}.$$
(17)
However, as soon as one of the nucleons goes off its mass shell, an off-shell choice must be made. This decision is crucial, as various on-shell equivalent choices may yield vastly different results. This off-shell ambiguity remains one of the most serious obstacles in the field. Several attempts have been made in the literature to overcome this hurdle. Perhaps the most celebrated treatment is due to de Forest who uses physical constraints, such as current conservation, to reduce this ambiguity . He imposes this condition on the two forms of the electromagnetic current given above \[Eqs. (16) and 17\] and produces what are known in the literature as the $`cc2`$ and the $`cc1`$ forms, respectively. Although noteworthy, this effort does not resolve the ambiguity. For example, there is no unique way to impose current conservation; one may eliminate either the time component or the longitudinal component of the three-vector current . Alternatively, one may adopt some guiding principle, such as vector-meson-dominance, to go off the mass shell. Here we adopt the “natural” choice by simply extrapolating off the mass shell the $`cc2`$-form, without imposing further constraints on the single-nucleon current.

## III Results

As de Forest has done in the past, we now attempt to impose some approximate form of gauge invariance. Yet rather than concentrating on the nucleon current, we focus directly on the nuclear responses. First, however, we address some important issues in this regard. For any mean-field treatment of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction to be gauge invariant, the mean-field potential for the bound proton must be identical to the distorting potential for the emitted proton. This represents a challenging task. Indeed, mean-field approximations to the nuclear ground state give rise to real, local and energy-independent potentials that are in contradiction to the complex and energy-dependent potentials that are needed to describe the propagations of the outgoing proton. Thus, present-day calculations of $`(e,e^{}p)`$ observables are presented with a dilemma. Calculations that use the same (real and energy-independent) mean fields to generate both the bound single-particle wave-function and the distorted wave satisfy gauge invariance but miss some of the important physics, such as absorption, that is known to be present in the outgoing channel. On the other hand, calculations that incorporate the correct physics via a phenomenological optical potential are known to violate current conservation . We offer here no solution to this complicated problem. Rather, we impose gauge invariance “ad-hoc” by adjusting the effective nucleon mass of the emitted proton so that the “gauge-variance” term, $`q_\mu q_\nu W^{\mu \nu }`$, be minimized. This procedure, with perhaps its unexpected outcome, is displayed in Fig. 1. It shows that by decreasing the proton mass by about $`20`$ MeV, one can restore gauge invariance in the calculation: $`q_\mu q_\nu W^{\mu \nu }=0`$. Although by no means fundamental, this “poor-man” distortion ensures the conservation of gauge invariance without compromising the clarity of the formalism.

The essence of the experimental extraction of the spectral function is based on a nonrelativistic plane-wave result :

$$S(E,𝐩)=\frac{1}{p^{}E_p^{}\sigma _{eN}}\frac{d^6\sigma }{dE_e^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤^{}dE_p^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐩^{}}.$$
(18)
However, this procedure is problematic. First, the quasifree cross section \[the numerator in Eq. (18)\] suffers from the off-shell ambiguity; different on-shell equivalent forms for the single-nucleon current yield different results. Second, the problem gets compounded by the use of an elementary electron-proton cross section ($`\sigma _{eN}`$) evaluated at off-shell kinematics . Finally, the projection of the bound-state wave-function into the negative-energy sector as well as other relativistic effects spoil the assumed factorization of the cross section derived in the nonrelativistic limit .

Insights into the role of relativistic corrections, particularly those concerned with negative-energy states, may be gained by introducing the completeness relation in terms of free (plane-wave) spinors:

$$\underset{s}{}\left[𝒰(𝐩,s)\overline{𝒰}(𝐩,s)𝒱(𝐩,s)\overline{𝒱}(𝐩,s)\right]=1.$$
(19)
Naively, one would expect that the projection of a positive-energy bound state into a negative-energy plane-wave state would be vanishingly small. This, however, it is not the case . At the very least one must recognize that the positive-energy plane-wave states, by themselves, are not complete. Moreover, it has been shown that the projection of the bound-state spinors into the negative-energy states dominate at large missing momenta and may mimic effects perceived as “exotic” from the nonrelativistic point of view, such as an asymmetry in the missing-momentum distribution  or short-range correlations . Indeed, Caballero and collaborators have confirmed that these contributions can have significant effect on various observables, especially at large missing momenta .

To “resolve” the off-shell ambiguity it has become ubiquitous in the field to use the de Forest $`cc1`$ prescription for evaluating the elementary cross section $`\sigma _{eN}`$ — irrespective of the form of the electromagnetic current adopted to compute the quasifree cross section. This is the standard procedure used in comparing theoretical calculations of the spectral function to experiment. We may elect here to conform to tradition and use the de Forest $`cc1`$ prescription to compute $`\sigma _{eN}`$ in Eq. (18), but at a cost. A price must be paid because of the inconsistency in using one prescription for evaluating the single-nucleon current $`\sigma _{eN}`$ and a different one ($`cc2`$) to evaluate the quasifree cross section. To illustrate this point we display in Fig. 2 the proton momentum distribution defined by

$$\rho _2(𝐩)=S(E,𝐩)𝑑E.$$
(20)
Note that the subscript “2” in $`\rho _2`$ stands for two-body breakup. The graph displays the “canonical” momentum distribution (solid line) obtained from the Fourier transform of the $`1S^{1/2}`$ proton wave-function \[see Eq. (12)\]. Note that this canonical momentum distribution has been normalized, as it is done experimentally, to the total number of protons in the shell (2 for the case 4He). The other two curves were extracted from the quasifree cross section by adopting either the de Forest $`cc1`$ choice for $`\sigma _{eN}`$ (dashed line) or the $`cc2`$ prescription (dot-dashed line). In both cases the quasifree cross section has been computed using the “vector-tensor” form of the electromagnetic current, as given in Eq. (16). The inset on the graph shows the integrand from which the occupancy of the shell may be computed. It is evident that the conventional $`cc1`$ prescription of de Forest greatly overestimates $`\rho _2`$ (it integrates to 3.6). We attribute this deficiency to the lack of consistency: the quasifree cross section has been evaluated using the $`cc2`$ form of the current while the elementary amplitude uses the $`cc1`$ form. One can improve the situation by adopting the $`cc2`$ form in the evaluation of both. Yet significant differences remain; while the off-shell ambiguity has been reduced, it has not been fully eliminated. Moreover, the factorization assumption is only approximate, as it neglects the projection of the relativistic wave function onto the negative-energy spectrum and other relativistic effects.

While a consistent relativistic treatment seems to have spoiled the factorization picture obtained from a nonrelativistic analysis, and with it the simple relation between the cross-section ratio and the spectral function \[Eq. (18)\], the situation is not without remedy. Having evaluated all matrix elements of the electromagnetic current analytically in the plane-wave limit, the source of the problem can be readily identified. Upon evaluating the coincidence cross section, one learns that the off-shell ambiguity is manifested in the form of several ambiguous “kinematical” factors. For example, one must decide what value to use for the energy of the struck proton. Should it be the binding-energy of the struck proton or should it be the on-shell value? This is not an easy question to answer. Energy conservation demands that the energy be equal to the binding energy ($`E_{\mathrm{bin}}=E_p^{}\omega `$) yet the equivalence between the various forms of the electromagnetic current is derived assuming the on-shell dispersion relation ($`E_p=\sqrt{𝐩^2+M^2}`$). This is one of the many manifestations of the off-shell ambiguity: kinematical terms that are well defined for on-shell spinors become ambiguous off-shell. In Ref.  de Forest resolves the ambiguity, by fiat, using the on-shell choice. Perhaps a better option may be looking for an observable, that even though might be more difficult to isolate experimentally, it may display a weaker off-shell dependence than the unpolarized cross section. To do so we examine the various components of the hadronic tensor. We find, perhaps not surprisingly, that the longitudinal component of the hadronic tensor could be such a model-independent observable. Ignoring (for now) the anomalous part of the electromagnetic current, the Dirac-Dirac component of the longitudinal tensor \[see Eq. (15)\] becomes:

$$W_{\mathrm{DD}}^{00}=F_1^2\left[M_\alpha Mp_\alpha p^{}+2E_\alpha E_p^{}\right]=F_1^2\left[M_\alpha M+E_\alpha E_p^{}+𝐩_\alpha 𝐩^{}\right].$$
(21)
This expression depends exclusively on $`p_\alpha `$ and $`p^{}`$, which are unambiguous. Note that for scattering from a free on-shell nucleon the above expression becomes:

$$W_{\mathrm{DD}}^{00}\underset{\mathrm{free}}{}F_1^2\left[M^2pp^{}+2E_pE_p^{}\right]=F_1^2\left[M^2+E_pE_p^{}+𝐩𝐩^{}\right].$$
(22)
Also note, as a consequence of the lower component of the bound-state spinor $`f_\alpha (p)`$ being substantially smaller than the upper component $`g_\alpha (p)`$, that $`|𝐩_\alpha |E_\alpha `$ while $`M_\alpha E_\alpha `$. This is true even though the lower-to-upper ratio $`f_\alpha /g_\alpha `$ has been enhanced considerably in the nuclear medium relative to its free-space value. This is an important step towards isolating an observable sensitive to the spectral function. Indeed, if the longitudinal component of the hadronic tensor is computed in parallel ($`\widehat{𝐩}^{}=\widehat{𝐪}`$) kinematics, Eqs. (21) and (22) reduce to the following simple expressions:

$`W_{\mathrm{DD}}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^2(E_p^{}+M)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{p^2}}g_\alpha ^2(p)\right]\left[1\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{f_\alpha (p)}{g_\alpha (p)}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩^{}|}{E_p^{}+M}}\right)\right]^2,`$ (24)
$`W_{\mathrm{DD}}^{00}|_{\mathrm{free}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^2(E_p^{}+M)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E_p+M)\right]\left[1\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩|}{E_p+M}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐩^{}|}{E_p^{}+M}}\right)\right]^2.`$ (25)
The $`\pm `$ sign in the above expressions corresponds to a missing momentum $`𝐩`$ either parallel or antiparallel to $`𝐩^{}`$. We observe that up to second-order corrections in the small (lower-to-upper) ratios, the hadronic tensor is proportional to the energy-like (or mass-like) quantity given in Eqs (12). Yet this energy-like quantity $`E_\alpha `$ is nothing but the Fourier transform of the bound-state nucleon density. Thus we conclude that, in a mean-field treatment, the nucleon spectral function is proportional to the longitudinal response. That is, $`S(E,𝐩)W_{\mathrm{DD}}^{00}E_\alpha `$. Thus, the (Dirac-Dirac component of the) longitudinal hadronic tensor is, up to second-order corrections in the lower-to-upper ratios, proportional to the nucleon spectral function. Indeed, the nucleon momentum distribution may now be easily extracted from the longitudinal response. It becomes

$$\rho _2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(2j+1)(E_p+M)\left(W_{\mathrm{DD}}^{00}/W_{\mathrm{DD}}^{00}|_{\mathrm{free}}\right).$$
(26)
The momentum distribution for 4He is displayed in Fig. 3 using various methods for its extraction. The solid line gives the “canonical” momentum distribution, obtained from the Fourier transform of the $`1S^{1/2}`$ proton wave-function \[see Eq. (12)\]. The momentum distribution extracted from the longitudinal response as defined in Eq. (26) (dot-dashed line) is practically indistinguishable from the canonical momentum distribution. While it appears that a suitable observable has been found from which to extract the nucleon momentum distribution, it may be argued, and justifiably so, that $`W_{DD}^{00}`$ is not a physical observable (as $`F_2`$ has been neglected). Hence, the merit of such an extraction may be put into question. To show that the above procedure is still robust, we display in the figure (with a dotted line) the momentum distribution extracted from the full longitudinal response, namely, one that also includes the anomalous component of the current. This result remains indistinguishable from the canonical momentum distribution. Although this behavior is general, it is most easily understood by limiting the discussion to the case of parallel kinematics. In this case the longitudinal response becomes equal to

$$R_\mathrm{L}W^{00}=(E_p^{}+M)\left[\frac{\pi }{p^2}g_\alpha ^2(p)\right]\left[\left(F_1\xi _p^{}\overline{q}F_2\right)\pm \left(\xi _p^{}F_1+\overline{q}F_2\right)\left(\frac{f_\alpha (p)}{g_\alpha (p)}\right)\right]^2.$$
(27)
The contribution from the anomalous form factor $`F_2`$ to the longitudinal response is small because it appears multiplied by two out of three“small” quantities in the problem: the lower-to-upper ratio, $`\xi _p^{}|𝐩^{}|/(E_p^{}+M)`$, and $`\overline{q}|𝐪|/2M`$. Thus, up to second order corrections in these small quantities, the longitudinal response is given by

$$R_\mathrm{L}F_1^2(E_p^{}+M)\left[\frac{\pi }{p^2}g_\alpha ^2(p)\right]F_1^2(E_p^{}+M)E_\alpha .$$
(28)
The last calculation displayed in Fig. 3 corresponds to a momentum distribution extracted from the factorization approximation using the $`cc2`$ form for the electromagnetic current (long dashed line). The momentum distribution extracted in this manner overestimates the canonical momentum distribution over the whole range of missing momenta and integrates to 2.9 rather than 2; this represents a discrepancy of 45 percent.

In summary, the longitudinal response appears to be a robust observable from which to extract the nucleon momentum distribution. Experimentally, one should proceed as follows: perform a Rosenbluth separation of the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ cross section so that the longitudinal response ($`R_\mathrm{L}W^{00}`$) may be extracted. This expression should then be divided by the corresponding single-nucleon response. Up to a simple and unambiguous kinematical factor this yield, at least in the plane-wave limit, the nucleon momentum distribution:

$$\rho _2=2(2j+1)(E_p+M)\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{L}}{R_\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{free}}}\right).$$
(29)
Note that up to second order corrections in various small quantities, this form is independent of the small components of the Dirac spinors and also of the negative-energy states. Moreover, it is also free of off-shell ambiguities. Indeed, we could have used the $`cc1`$ form of the electromagnetic current and the results would have remained unchanged. We regard the outlined procedure as much more robust than the conventional one given in Eq. (18) because the transverse component of the hadronic tensor is strongly dependent on the small components of the wave-function and also sensitive to off-shell extrapolations .

In Fig. 4 a comparison is made between our results and nonrelativistic state-of-the-art calculations of the momentum distribution of 4He. The solid line displays, exactly as in Fig. 3, the canonical momentum distribution. We see no need to include the momentum distribution extracted from the longitudinal response \[Eq. (29)\] as it has been shown to give identical results. In addition to our own calculation, we have also included the variational results of Schiavilla and collaborators , for both the Urbana  (dashed line) and the Argonne  (long-dashed line) potentials, with both of them using Model VII for the three-nucleon interaction. The variational calculation of Wiringa and collaborators  (dashed-dotted) has also been included; this uses the Argonne v18 potential  supplemented with the Urbana IX three-nucleon interaction . Figure 4 also shows NIKHEF data by van den Brand and collaborators  as well as preliminary data from MAINZ by Florizone and collaborators  for three different kinematical settings. (Results in final form will be submitted shortly.) Comparisons to the preliminary Mainz data of Kozlov and collaborators  have also been made (although the data is not shown). These measurements are consistent, in the region where comparisons are possible, to the experimental data of both van den Brand and Florizone. Thus, high-quality data for the momentum distribution of 4He is now available up to a missing momentum of about 200 MeV. We find the results of Fig. 4 quite remarkable. It appears that a simple relativistic mean-field calculation of the momentum distribution rivals — and in some cases surpasses — some of the most sophisticated nonrelativistic predictions. The mean-field calculations reported here, with the scalar mass adjusted to reproduce the root-mean-square charge radius of 4He, provide a good description of the experimental data. Still, theoretical predictions of the momentum distribution overestimate the experimental data by up to 50-60%. Part of the discrepancy is attributed to distortion effects which are estimated at about 12% . However, distortions are not able to account for the full discrepancy. We have argued earlier that an additional source of error may arise from the factorization approximation \[see Eq. (18)\] used to extract the spectral function from the experimental cross section. The use of an off-shell prescription, such as the $`cc1`$ prescription for $`\sigma _{eN}`$, combined with the in-medium changes in the lower-component of the Dirac spinors contaminate the extraction of the spectral function. One could estimate the source of the off-shell ambiguity by monitoring the variations in the spectral function as other on-shell equivalent forms for the single-nucleon current are used. While such an approach is useful for estimating a theoretical error, it is clearly not sufficient to eliminate it. We are confident that the approach suggested here, based on the extraction of the spectral function from the longitudinal response, is robust. While the method adds further experimental demands, as a Rosenbluth separation of the cross section is now required, the extracted spectral function appears to be weakly dependent on off-shell extrapolations and relativistic effects. If deviations between experiment and theory still persist, these may suggest physics beyond the baseline model, such as violations to the impulse approximation or to the independent particle picture.

## IV Conclusions

To summarize, we have calculated the spectral function of 4He in a plane-wave approximation to the $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction using a fully relativistic formalism. We have taken advantage of an algebraic trick originally introduced by Gardner and Piekarewicz and of our recently developed relativistic formalism for quasifree processes to arrive at transparent, analytical results for the quasifree reaction. We have found that a simple relativistic mean-field calculation of the momentum distribution in 4He rivals — and in some cases surpasses — some of the most sophisticated nonrelativistic predictions to date. These calculations attempt to provide theoretical support to the recently measured, but not yet fully analyzed, $`A1`$ collaboration data from Mainz. The final experimental reports are expected to be published shortly.

We have also demonstrated that a more robust procedure, relative to the conventional factorization prescription, exists for extracting the spectral function. This procedure uses the ratio of quasifree to single-nucleon longitudinal responses, rather than the ratio of cross sections, to isolate the momentum distribution. We have shown that the longitudinal ratio is fairly insensitive to off-shell ambiguities and to the negative-energy part of the spectrum, as both of these effects appear as second-order corrections to a “canonical” momentum distribution. This ceases to be true in the case of the ratio of cross sections because the transverse response is sensitive to both effects. While this procedure relies on a Rosenbluth (L/T) separation of the quasifree cross section, and thus presents the experimentalist with a more demanding task, the experimental field has evolved to such a level of maturity that L/T separations are now almost routine. Indeed, in a recent publication  a Rosenbluth separation of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(e,e^{}p)`$ cross sections was made in order to extract “longitudinal” and “transverse” spectral functions in the hope of resolving the anomaly in the longitudinal-transverse ratio alluded to in the introduction. We speculate that the sensitivity of the transverse response to more complicated dynamical processes might be partially responsible for the quenching of the longitudinal–transverse ratio.

Finally, although in this article we focused exclusively on the spectral function, the formalism presented here may be extended in a straightforward fashion to the calculation of spin observables in quasifree electroproduction processes. Indeed, we speculate that, because the ratio of quasifree cross sections are fairly insensitive to distortion effects, spin-observables may be a more fruitful testing ground for our relativistic plane-wave model. Moreover, our formalism may be easily extended to neutrino-induced reactions. It has been suggested that a measurement of the ratio of neutral to charge-changing neutrino-nucleon scattering may provide a clean signature of the strange-quark content of the nucleon . This measurement is believed to be free from most of the uncertainties, such as radiative corrections, that hinder the parity-violating electron scattering program. Yet neutrino experiments suffer from very low counting rates. To remedy this situation neutrino experiments employ large quantities of nuclear targets (such as organic scintillators) that provide both the target and the detection medium. Thus neutrinos interact, not only with the free protons in the target, but also with protons and neutrons bound to nuclei; hence, one must compute quasifree $`(\nu ,\nu ^{}p)`$ and $`(\nu ,\mu ^{}p)`$ cross sections. (Of course, one must integrate the quasifree cross section over the undetected outgoing neutrino). Therefore, the relativistic plane-wave formalism presented here is ideally suited, after including an additional axial-vector term in the single-nucleon current, to predict ratios of quasifree neutrino-nucleus cross sections in the quasifree region.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Drs. S. Gilad, A. Kozlov, A.J. Sarty, and the $`A1`$ collaboration as well as Dr. J.F.J. van den Brand for providing us with their data for this process and for many helpful discussions on this subject. We would also like to thank Drs. R. Schiavilla and R. B. Wiringa for providing us with their theoretical calculations. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG05-92ER40750 and in part by a joint fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the United States National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Super Virasoro Ghost Algebra using the Conformal Ghosts

## Abstract

Superconformal ghost current generators of conformal dimension $`3/2`$ are constructed using the conformal ghosts and anticommuting infinite dimensional gamma matrices of the Clifford algebra. The super-Virasoro algebra for the ghosts in both the N.S. and R sectors are presented. The anomaly terms in both cases are deduced using Jacobi identity.

The commutator of bosonic string Virasoro operators , which are Fourier modes of energy momentum tensor, contain quantum mechanical anomalous terms. In covariant formulation, these terms are cancelled by introducing the conformal ghosts . The ghost quanta are labelled by $`c_n`$ and the antighosts by $`b_n`$. ‘$`n`$’ is an integer. The canonical anticommutation relations satisfied by them, are

$$\{c_m,b_n\}=\delta _{m+n}$$
(1)
$$\{c_m,c_n\}=\{b_m,b_n\}=0$$
(2)
The Virasoro ghost operator is

$$L_m^{gh}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(mn)b_{m+n}c_n$$
(3)
The antighost $`b`$ has a conformal dimension $`+2`$ where as the ghost $`c`$ has conformal dimension $`1`$, so that

$$[L_m^{gh},b_n]=(mn)b_{m+n}$$
(4)
$$[L_m^{gh},c_n]=(2m+n)c_{m+n}$$
(5)
Virasoro algebra is

$$[L_m^{gh},L_n^{gh}]=(mn)L_{m+n}^{gh}+A^{gh}(m)\delta _{m+n}$$
(6)
The last terms is the ghost anomaly term which cancels the normal anomaly $`\frac{𝐜}{12}(m^3m)`$ when the central charge $`𝐜=26`$ and $`a=1`$  i.e. $`A^{gh}(m)=\frac{26}{12}(m^3m)=A^{gh}(m)`$.

We shall have a super Virasoro algebra with $`𝐜=26`$ if we can construct the ghost current generators $`F_r^{gh}`$ or $`G_r^{gh}`$ in Ramond  (where $`r`$ is integral)or Beveu-Schwarz  (where $`r`$ is half integral) respectively. In Ramond sector we should have

$$[L_m^{gh},F_r^{gh}]=\left(\frac{m}{2}r\right)F_{m+r}^{gh}$$
(7)
$$\{F_r^{gh},F_s^{gh}\}=2L_{r+s}^{gh}+B^{gh}(r)\delta _{r+s}$$
(8)
$`B^{gh}(r)`$ is the ghost current anomaly term.

The current generator must have a conformal dimension $`3/2`$. To construct such an object we use the gamma matrices of the Clifford  algebra.

Consider a representation of Clifford algebra in infinite dimensions

$$\gamma _a\gamma _b+\gamma _b\gamma _a=\{\gamma _a,\gamma _b\}=2\delta _{ab}𝐈,a,b=1,2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$
(9)
Multiplying these matrices we obtain the matrix ‘$`\gamma _n`$’ of degree $`n`$,

$$\gamma _n=\gamma _{a1}\gamma _{a2}\mathrm{}\gamma _{an},a1<a2\mathrm{}<an$$
(10)
Since $`\gamma _a^2=1`$, we have

$$\gamma _n^2=(1)^{1/2n(n1)}𝐈$$
(11)
The sign factor arises because of the reordering the $`\gamma `$’s to become equal to the neighbour. When $`n`$ is odd, we can choose a set of gamma matrices which satisfy

$$\{\gamma _{2j1},\gamma _{2j^{}1}\}=2(1)^j\delta _{jj^{}}𝐈$$
(12)
We construct the sum of such product matrices,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{2j1}\gamma _{2j1}$$
(13)
$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{2j1}^2(1)^j2\delta _{m,n}𝐈$$
(14)
In applying these results to the problem at hand, we shall need the values $`<\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{|n|}^{\alpha \beta }\beta >`$ where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are states normalised such that $`<\alpha \alpha >=1`$ and $`\alpha ><\beta =\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$. For simplicity in notation, we have also used the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, to indicate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=<\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{|n|}^{\alpha \beta }\beta >$$
(15)
such that

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\}=2\underset{j=1}{\overset{|n|}{}}c_{2j1}^2(1)^j\delta _{m,n}$$
(16)
In particular

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{|n|}{}}(1)^jc_{2j1}^2$$
(17)
Since the coefficients $`c_{2j1}^2`$ are at our choice, we choose in such a fashion that every

$$(1)^jc_{2j1}^2=ϵ(n)$$
(18)
This leads to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2=n$$
(19)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ is now proportional to $`\sqrt{n}`$, the ghost current having conformal dimension $`3/2`$, can be guessed.

$$F_r^{gh}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nb_{n+r}c_n$$
(20)
Using the commutation relations (4) and (5) and the anticommutation relation (16), we deduce that

$`[L_m^{gh},F_r^{gh}]=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}r){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nb_{n+m+r}c_n`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}(mn)\right)b_{n+m+r}c_n`$
and

$$\{F_r^{gh},F_s^{gh}\}=\underset{n}{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nr}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ns}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m)b_{n+r+s}c_n$$
(23)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}`$ will be the result of shifting the $`n`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ by an amount $`m`$ keeping the gamma within the calss $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ defined by equations (12), (13) and (14). The product, like the ones occuring above,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{|nm/2|}{}}\underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{|n|}{}}c_{2j1}c_{2j^{}1}\gamma _{2j1}\gamma _{2j^{}1}$$
(24)
$$=\underset{j=1}{\overset{|nm/2|}{}}\underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{|n|}{}}c_{2j1}c_{2j^{}1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\{\gamma _{2j1},\gamma _{2j^{}1}\}+\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _{2j1},\gamma _{2j^{}1}]\right)$$
(25)
It will eventually turn out that we need consider $`j_{\mathrm{max}}=j_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$. So the second, the commutator term, vanishes as can be seen by interchanging $`jj^{}`$.

With the help of the Heavyside theta function, the first term becomes

$$\underset{j}{}\theta (|n|j)\theta (|nm/2|j)(1)^jc_{2j1}^2$$
(26)
If $`|nm/2|`$ is greater than $`|n|`$, then it is redudant; and the shift produces no change. This is not true. For the shift to be meaningful $`|nm/2|`$ should be less than $`|n|`$. The first theta function is redudant. The sum becomes

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{|nm/2|}{}}(1)^jc_{2j1}^2$$
(27)
with $`|nm/2|<n`$. Let us look at the last terminating term with the shift involving the gamma matrices namely

$$\gamma _{2(nm/2)1}=\gamma _{(2n1)m}$$
(28)
If the term is to going to contain less than the product of $`n`$ $`\gamma `$-matrices, $`m`$ pairs of $`\gamma `$-matrices must be becoming unity i.e. the additional $`m`$ gamma matrices of $`\gamma _{(2n1)m}`$ must be equal to $`\gamma _{2n2m1}`$ multiplied by successively equal neighbouring $`m`$ pairs of gamma matrices.

So we are led to define the end term to be

$$\gamma _{(2n1)m}=\gamma _{2n2m1}$$
(29)
and $`j`$ in equation (26) has the maximum value $`|nm|`$. As a result, the shifted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm/2}`$ satisfies the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=mn$$
(30)
and it follows that (by shifting $`n`$ by $`m/2`$),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm/2}=m(n+m/2)=m/2n$$
(31)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nm}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=2mn$$
(32)
Using (29) and (30) we see that the last two unwanted terms in equation (21) cancel and

$$[L_m^{gh},F_r^{gh}]=\left(\frac{m}{2}r\right)F_{m+r}^{gh}$$
(33)
The anticommutator, equation (22) is now

$$\{F_r^{gh},F_s^{gh}\}=2\underset{n}{}(r+sn)b_{n+r+s}c_n=2L_{r+s}^{gh}+B^{gh}(r)\delta _{r+s}$$
(34)
Let us now calculate the anomaly term for euqation (33). $`F_o^{gh}`$ has no normal ordering ambiguity as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_o=0`$. So $`F_o^{gh^2}=L_0^{gh}`$. Further $`F_r^{gh}=\frac{2}{r}[L_r^{gh},F_o^{gh}]`$. Using Jacobi indentity,

$$[\{F_r,F_s\},L_m]+\{[L_m,F_r],F_s\}+\{[L_m,F_s],F_r\}=0$$
(35)
we get

$$\{F_r^{gh},F_r^{gh}\}=\frac{2}{r}\{[L_r,F_0],F_r\}=2L_o^{gh}+\frac{4}{r}A^{gh}(r)=2L_o^{gh}+B^{gh}(r)$$
(36)
As a result

$$B^{gh}(r)=\frac{𝐜}{3}(r^21),r0$$
(37)
There is difficulty in going over to the NS sector, as the $`r`$ in the $`G_r^{gh}`$ takes half integral values whereas the conformal ghosts are defined for integers. To circumvate this difficulty we introduce an integer $`r+1/2t`$ where $`t`$ is an integer and define

$$G_r^{gh}=Lt_{t0}\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nb_{n+r+t/2}c_n$$
(38)
with the understanding that the limit $`t0`$ will be taken after all calculations are over. We reproduce the whole Super Virasoro algebra expect for the anomaly term like equation (34) and (35). Here, again, the Jacobi Identity equation (33) for the $`G`$’s can be used to show that

$$B^{gh}(r)=\frac{A^{gh}(2r)}{2r}=\frac{𝐜}{3}(r^2\frac{1}{4})$$
(39)
Collecting the results, we have the super Virasoro ghost algebra

$$[L_m^{gh},L_n^{gh}]=(mn)L_{m+n}^{gh}\frac{𝐜}{12}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n}$$
(40)
N.S.:

$$[L_m^{gh},G_r^{gh}]=\left(\frac{m}{2}r\right)G_{m+r}^{gh}$$
(41)
$$\{G_r^{gh},G_s^{gh}\}=2L_{r+s}\frac{𝐜}{3}(r^21/4)\delta _{r+s}$$
(42)
R:

$$[L_m^{gh},F_r^{gh}]=(\frac{m}{2}r)F_{m+r}^{gh}$$
(43)
$$[F_r^{gh},F_s^{gh}]=2L_{r+s}\frac{𝐜}{3}(r^21)\delta _{r+s},r0$$
(44)
The super conformal ghosts have never been used. We hope that this will stimulate research to findq supersymmetric string theories with central charge 26 in particular .


text:
# The Forbidden Abundance of Oxygen in the Sun

## 1 Introduction

The cosmic abundance of oxygen is an important number in a wide variety of scenarios. Several debates have over the years focussed on disagreements about the oxygen abundance of stars, and disparities between estimated abundances for different kinds of astronomical objects. For example, there is a long history of using hot stars as tracers of the galactic radial variation of the oxygen abundance, but only very recently have the stellar abundances seemed to agree with the results derived from emission lines in H ii regions (Rolleston et al. 2000). Currently, the study of metal-poor stars is particularly polemical. A group of astronomers defends a monotonic increase of the oxygen-to-iron ratios (i.e., \[O/Fe\]) with lower iron abundances (see, e.g., Israelian et al. 2001; Boesgaard et al. 1999), whereas a second group tends to prefer an essentially constant \[O/Fe\] for stars with \[Fe/H\] $`1`$ (see, e.g., Carretta, Gratton & Sneden 2000; Nissen, Primas & Asplund 2000). The discrepancy for metal deficient stars may be connected to the use of different indicators of the oxygen abundances and, ultimately, caused by deficiencies in the modeling of the spectra.

The solar oxygen abundance is not free from debate. In fact, the solar controversy and that in metal-poor stars could be related. The most popular indices of the oxygen abundance in cool stars are i) the \[O i\] forbidden lines at 6300 and 6363 Å; ii) the OH lines in the UV and IR; and iii) the O i triplet at about 7773 Å111Unfortunately, weaker (forbidden and allowed) O i lines in the optical and near-IR solar spectrum appear to be either heavily blended with several (some times unknown) other features (e.g. 5577.3, 6156.8, 6158.2, 9741.5, 11302.2 Å), lack atomic data (e.g. 9760.7 Å),or are affected by a large uncertainty in the continuum location (e.g. 8446.3, 9265.99 Å), or suffer some of these problems simultaneously, occasionally in combination with serious departures from LTE (e.g. 8446.8 Å).. In the solar case, the forbidden lines and the OH lines tend to provide higher abundances, by about $`0.10.2`$ dex, than the O i 7773Å triplet, when allowance for departures from Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) in the formation of the triplet is made.

None of the indicators of the solar oxygen abundance is free from suspicion. The popular \[O i\] lines are threatened by the presence of blends (Lambert 1978). The O i 7773 Å triplet likely suffers important departures from LTE (see e.g. Kiselman 1993; Takeda 1994; Reetz 1999a,b). The OH lines are particularly sensitive to temperature, and therefore compromised by deficiencies in the model atmospheres (e.g., Sauval et al. 1984; Asplund & García Pérez 2001). In addition, all lines are affected by surface inhomogeneities (granulation) that are ignored by classical model atmospheres (Kiselman & Nordlund 1995). Some lines are likely afflicted by several errors acting in concert, for example, the OH UV lines may be affected not only by model atmosphere uncertainties but also by significant departures from LTE, and the uncertainties in the opacities in that spectral region (Hinkle & Lambert 1975; Bell, Balachandran & Bautista 2001; Asplund & García Pérez 2001).

We reexamine the solar \[O i\] 6300 Å line using synthetic spectra based on a three-dimensional hydrodynamical model atmosphere, and allowing for the Ni i blend. A principal advantage of the \[O i\] line is that departures from LTE should be very small. A disadvantage is that the line is weak and, therefore, susceptible to blends. As discussed by Lambert (1978), the line at 6300 Å is blended with a Ni i feature, while that at 6363 Å is affected by a CN line. We consider only the 6300 Å line because the blending Ni i line makes a smaller contribution to the solar line than does the CN line to the 6363 Å line (Reetz 1999a), the 6363 line is located in the middle of a broad Ca i auto-ionization line and, as discussed for OH, molecular features are particularly sensitive to the details of the temperature structure. The next section describes the basic ingredients involved in the analysis, §3 is devoted to the comparison with the solar flux spectrum to derive the photospheric oxygen abundance, and §4 is a brief summary of the results.

## 2 Model atmospheres and line synthesis

We made use of a 3D time-dependent hydrodynamical simulation of the solar surface calculated by Asplund et al. (2000), and based on the compressible radiative hydrodynamical code described by Stein & Nordlund (1998). The equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation together with the simultaneous treatment of the 3D radiative transfer equation were solved on a Eulerian grid with $`200\times 200\times 82`$ points to represent $`(6\times 6\times 3.8)\times 10^3`$ km in the solar surface, with about $`10^3`$ km above continuum optical depth unity. For more details we refer the reader to Asplund et al. (2000) and references therein.

The calculated flux profiles for the \[O i\] and Ni i lines at 6300 Å from the 3D simulation are based on a sequence of 50 minutes, taking a snapshot every 30 seconds. The integration over the disk used $`4\times 4`$ angles, and took into account the solar surface rotation as a solid body ($`v_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i1.9`$ km s-1). The Uppsala synthesis package (Gustafsson et al. 1975 with subsequent updates) was the source of the continuum opacities, partition functions, ionization potential and other basic data for the line synthesis as well as for the simulation. Collisional broadening by hydrogen atoms was considered following the van der Waals formula, but is essentially irrelevant for the extremely weak lines considered (equivalent widths $``$ 5 mÅ). Natural broadening, also irrelevant, was included, using data from the Vienna Atomic Line Database (VALD; Kupka et al. 1999). Reduction of the partial pressure of oxygen through CO formation is included with the carbon abundance put at $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{C})`$ = 8.52; though the effect on the number density of O i is $`5`$%. Our assumption of LTE for the \[O i\] line formation is supported by our own NLTE calculation for various 1D model solar atmospheres. It must be stressed that the line profiles are predicted ab initio, i.e., microturbulence and macroturbulence are not invoked and adjusted to fit these or other lines. Convective velocity fields and thermal broadening are provided by the model.

Our goal was to determine the best fit to the solar 6300 Å feature using the known atomic parameters for the \[O i\] and Ni i lines. The laboratory wavelength of the \[O i\] line was measured by Eriksson (1965) as $`6300.304\pm 0.002`$ Å. The transition probability for the \[O i\] line is dominated by the magnetic dipole contribution with a minor (0.3%) electric quadrupole contribution. We adopt Storey & Zeippen’s (2000) relativistic calculation of the magnetic dipole contribution, and following them include the electric quadrupole contribution from Galavís, Mendoza, & Zeippen (1997) to obtain $`\mathrm{log}gf=9.717`$ with an accuracy of a few per cent. Inclusion of relativistic corrections reduced the value by less than 2 %. The $`\mathrm{log}gf`$ has changed little over the years; Lambert (1978) suggested $`9.75`$, after comparison of laboratory and older theoretical determinations.

The blending Ni i line’s wavelength was measured as 6300.339 Å by Litzén, Brault, & Thorne (1993) with an estimated uncertainty of 2 to 3 mÅ. Litzén et al.’s energy levels derived from their extensive reinvestigation of the Ni i spectrum predict 6300.342 Å for the line. The NIST web database gives 6300.343 Å, as calculated from the energy levels of Sugar & Corliss (1985). Litzén et al. did not report measurable isotopic splitting and, therefore, we neglect isotopic (and hyperfine) splitting. We have adopted 6300.339 Å as the rest wavelength of Ni i line. The $`\mathrm{log}gf`$ for the Ni I line is uncertain. There are seemingly no laboratory measurements for this line. The energy levels clearly show that LS-coupling is an inappropriate assumption from which to derive the solar $`gf`$-value using Ni i lines of the same and similar multiplets. Indeed, Moore’s (1959) classification gives the transition as y 3D$`{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ \- e 3P0 but severe configuration interaction renders these misleading labels. Litzén et al. show that the dominant (90%) contribution to the upper term is not from the 3P term but from a 1S term, and while the leading contribution to the lower term is from the 3D term there is an appreciable contribution (34%) from other terms. These contributions differ for different levels of the lower and upper terms. We treat the product $`gfϵ`$(Ni) as a free parameter.

## 3 Comparison with the observed spectrum

We have confronted our calculated profiles with the FTS solar flux spectrum published by Kurucz et al. (1984). The resolving power is about half a million, and the signal-to-noise ratio amounts to several thousand, making these data adequate for studying the \[O i\] feature at 6300 Å. Allende Prieto & García López (1998) checked that the wavelength scale of the atlas is very accurate. It has been corrected for the Earth-Sun velocity, but not for the gravitational redshift, which amounts to 633 m s-1 for the photospheric spectrum intercepted at Earth.

Two strong lines (Si i 6299.6 Å and Fe i 6301.5 Å) depress the continuum in the immediate vicinity of the \[O i\] - Ni i blend, but have a negligible effect on the shape of the observed blend. Other weaker lines might be present closer to the blend, as reflected by the slightly irregular shape of the spectrum, discouraging the individual modeling of all lines, but rather suggesting a zeroth-order correction to the continuum level, which becomes one of the fitting parameters. As the 3D models predict the convective line asymmetries and shifts for weak neutral lines to well within 0.1 km s-1 ($`0.002`$ Å; Asplund et al. 2000), the shifts - absolute and differential - of the oxygen and nickel lines from the laboratory wavelengths cannot be adjusted. Therefore, the only parameters we can tune to match the predicted profile to the observed profile are the continuum level, the oxygen abundance, and the product $`gfϵ`$(Ni). The optimization of the fit was accomplished using the slow-but-robust amoeba algorithm based on the Nelder-Mead simplex method (Nelder & Mead 1965; Press et al. 1986).

Figure 1a shows the agreement between the observed profile (filled circles) and that calculated with the 3D model atmosphere (solid line). The oxygen and nickel lines are represented with dashed lines. Adopting a signal-to-noise-ratio (S/N) of 2100, estimated from the region between 6303.10 and 6303.25 Å, we choose to minimize the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ in the region between 6300.15–6300.40 Å to avoid apparent blends outside the selected region, which leads to a multiplicative correction to the local continuum level in the solar atlas of $`C=1.0083`$. Alternative reasonable choices of $`C`$ do not change the retrieved oxygen abundance by more than 0.02 dex (see below). A change as small as 0.005 Å in any direction in the wavelengths of the oxygen or nickel lines would degrade the final $`\chi ^2`$ of an optimal fit.

The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ (34 frequencies and 3 degrees of freedom) for the flux between 6300.15 and 6300.40 Å is 0.30, and the probability for this to happen by chance is $`P=5\times 10^5`$. We stress that we have corrected for the Sun-Earth gravitational redshift (633 m s-1), but no arbitrary shifts have been allowed for the oxygen, nor for the nickel lines, nor for both as a pair. No macro-turbulence or micro-turbulence enter the fit. The effective temperature or, equivalently, the entropy at the lower boundary of the simulation box, was carefully adjusted prior to starting the simulation. The temporal average of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ from the simulation is $`5767\pm 21`$ K, where the quoted error is the standard deviation for the 100 snapshots. The adopted surface gravity is $`\mathrm{log}g=4.437`$ (cgs). The uncertainties in the solar gravity, effective temperature, and chemical composition have a negligible impact on the fit.

External uncertainties inherent in the adopted set of continuum opacities, partition functions, equation of state, etc. are considered as part of our systematic errors. From tests with different synthesis codes and previous experience, we expect these not to exceed 0.02 dex. The estimated uncertainty in the theoretical value adopted for the transition probability of the forbidden line adds a contribution of similar size. An uncertainty in the wavelength of the Ni i of $`\pm 0.003`$ Å translates to an error in the oxygen abundance of $`{}_{0.02}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.02}`$ dex and $`{}_{+0.04}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.03}`$ in $`\mathrm{log}[gfϵ(\mathrm{Ni})]`$. The same shifts in the wavelength of the \[OI\] line would produce a change of $`{}_{0.03}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.04}`$ dex in the oxygen abundance and $`{}_{+0.10}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.15}`$ dex in $`\mathrm{log}[gfϵ(\mathrm{Ni})]`$. Simultaneous shift of the rest central wavelengths of both lines by $`\pm 0.003`$ Å would induce changes to the determined abundance of oxygen by $`{}_{0.05}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.04}`$ dex, and $`{}_{+0.12}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.18}`$ dex in $`\mathrm{log}[gfϵ(\mathrm{Ni})]`$.

We find $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{O})=8.69\pm 0.05`$ dex. Fig. 2 shows the projection onto the $`C\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{O})`$ plane of the reduced $`\chi ^2`$. The scale for both the gray-scale and the contours is logarithmic and, therefore, the units in the gray-scale code bar are dex.

Our evaluation of the Ni i line is equivalent to $`\mathrm{log}[gfϵ(\mathrm{Ni})]=3.94`$. Adopting the solar Ni abundance from Grevesse & Sauval (1998), we obtain $`\mathrm{log}gf`$ = -2.31 for the Ni i line, which compares with $`\mathrm{log}gf`$ = -1.74 computed by Kurucz & Bell (1995). Figure 1b shows the best fit obtained assuming the solar feature at 6300 Å is entirely produced by the oxygen forbidden line: the abundance derived would be $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{O})=8.82`$ dex, which allowing for the differences in the adopted $`\mathrm{log}gf`$s and the correction due to consideration of 3D ($`0.08`$ dex), is in perfect agreement with previous results based on 1D model atmospheres and neglect of the Ni i blending line. If a redshift of about 10 mÅ (476 m s-1) is applied to the predicted profile, the fit to the observations is obviously improved, but we argue that such a shift far exceeds known sources of wavelength-related errors.

Unpublished measurements of the Ni i line report the detection of five isotopic components (referee’s private communication). Adopting those isotopic shifts and solar system abundance ratios (Anders & Grevesse 1989), we find a slightly worse fit to the observed feature (reduced $`\chi ^2=0.45`$), and our estimate of the solar oxygen abundance increases by 0.01 dex. Kurucz lists 70 weak CN lines between 6300.0 and 6300.6 Å222http://kurucz.harvard.edu, which should be responsible for at least part of the continuum depression that we find. A significant unrecognized blend or blends in the observed feature would further lower the oxygen abundance, although the extremely good fit that we find constrains tightly such possibility.

Reetz (1999a,) analyzed the 6300 Å line using empirical 1D model atmospheres and high S/N spectra of the solar disk-center and limb. The observed profile was fitted not only by adjusting the contributions of the \[O i\] and Ni i lines but also by including microturbulence and macroturbulence. With the Holweger-Müller (1974) atmosphere, the oxygen abundance including a Ni i contribution, Reetz obtained $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{O})=8.81`$ from fits to the center and the limb spectra. His value on correction to our adopted $`gf`$-value for the \[O i\] line corresponds to $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{O})`$ = 8.75, a difference of 0.06 dex from our result. This difference could be bridged by adopting another choice for the empirical model – see Reetz (1999a, Table 3.3). The Ni i line’s $`gf`$-value was set by considering other but similar lines and the adjustments to the Kurucz $`gf`$-values needed to fit the solar lines. Reetz apparently fitted the 6300 Å line profile equally well with and without the Ni i line and, therefore, his preferred lower oxygen abundance is based on the argument used to set the Ni $`gf`$-value ($`\mathrm{log}gf=1.95`$). In our case, the line profile is used to set the Ni i line’s contribution.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

The photospheric oxygen abundance we determine from the 6300 Å feature, $`\mathrm{log}ϵ(\mathrm{O})=8.69\pm 0.05`$ dex, is at the lower end of the distribution of oxygen abundances previously published. This lower value results partly from adoption of the recent relativistic calculation of the transition probability, but is primarily the result of two factors: (i) the use of the 3D hydrodynamical model atmosphere instead of the Holweger-Müller model ($`0.08`$ dex), and (ii) an accounting for the contribution of the Ni i line ($`0.13`$ dex). The lower oxygen abundance is consistent with the oxygen abundances found in the local interstellar medium when adopting an oxygen gas-to-dust ratio of $`2`$ (Meyer, Jura & Cardelli 1998), and in the photospheres of hot stars in the solar neighborhood (e.g. Cunha & Lambert 1994; Kilian, Montenbruck, & Nissen 1994), both of which typically fall in the range $`8.658.70`$ dex.

As \[Ni/Fe\] $`0`$, and oxygen is known to be relatively more abundant at lower metallicities, the importance of the nickel line in the 6300 Å blend will decrease in metal-poor stars, becoming negligible below \[Fe/H\] $`1`$. However, it is important to note that the common practice of using a scale relative to the solar abundances would affect the shape of any possible trend of \[O/Fe\] in the range $`1`$ \[Fe/H\] $`0`$. In particular, the nearly constant \[O/Fe\] in stars with $`0.3`$ \[Fe/H\] $`+0.3`$ found by Nissen & Edvardsson (1992) is likely an artifact. Because the contribution of the Ni line is negligible below \[Fe/H\] $`<1`$, our findings do not affect how the O/Fe ratio changes at low metallicities and, therefore, do not resolve the controversy mentioned in the Introduction. Nonetheless, acknowledging the presence of the Ni i blend in the solar line has the effect of increasing \[O/Fe\] by roughly 0.13 dex in stars with \[Fe/H\] $`<1`$.

This Letter exemplifies the importance of detailed line profiles and accurate wavelength scales in chemical analyses of stars from spectra, as well as the need for hydrodynamical model atmospheres in fine analyses of stellar spectra.

We thank Poul Nissen for inquiring about the Ni i line’s effect on oxygen abundance determinations, and both Sveneric Johansson and the anonymous referee for alerting us to the reinvestigations of the Ni i spectrum. This work has been possible with the financial help of the US National Science Foundation (grant AST-0086321), the Robert A. Welch Foundation of Houston (Texas), and the Swedish Natural Science Foundation (NFR F990/1999).


text:
# Optimal multihump filter for photometric redshifts

## 1 Introduction

The prediction of photometric redshifts (Koo, 1985; Connolly et al., 1995a; Gwyn & Hartwick, 1996; Sawicki, Lin & Yee, 1997; Hogg et al., 1998; Wang, Bahcall & Turner, 1998; Yee, 1998; Fernández-Soto, Lanzetta, & Yahil, 1999; Weymann et al., 1999; Benítez, 2000; Csabai et al., 2000; Budavári et al., 2000) is built upon global continuum features of the underlying galaxy spectrum such as the Balmer break at 4000 Å. The more precisely one can localize these features, the more accurate the redshift estimates become. However, traditional broadband filters were not designed to provide the best possible photometric redshifts, for several reasons. In theory, a set of filters optimal for photometric redshift estimation might be designed, but this would probably be substantially different from any current standard set. Here we do not intend to solve the generic problem of finding an optimal filter set for photometric redshift estimation; this study shows how conventional filter sets can be extended to yield better photometric redshifts.

In Section 1.1, we present the idea of an additional filter and look into why and how an extra measurement—sampling the same wavelengths—can improve significantly on photometric redshifts. In Section 2, the algorithm is developed and we make a case study of the Advanced Camera for Surveys of the Hubble Space Telescope. Based on our analysis, we propose a novel type of “broad-band” filter that can be effectively used for photometric redshifts.

### 1.1 The idea

The more general inversion problem of photometry in terms of redshift, type, and intrinsic luminosity (Koo, 1985; Connolly et al., 1995a, b, 1999; Budavári et al., 1999, 2000; Csabai et al., 2000) involves the study of the Jacobian matrix of fluxes as a function of the physical parameters of galaxies. Our numerical simulations show that filter sets yield more precise estimates when continuum spectral features are located around the overlap of two bands—both fluxes change rapidly with redshift. One way to improve the redshift estimates is to increase the number of filters and use narrower bands. This would require too many exposures and yield a non-standard photometric system (Hickson et al., 1998). The other possibility is to put an intermediate width (IM) filter in a broad band, which would help the redshift estimation by improving the resolution. A single IM band can only help in a narrow redshift range, so additional, narrower filters are needed for each broad band. This approach could triple the resolution but will heavily increase the total exposure time at the same signal-to-noise ratio.

We propose combining multiple IM filters located in standard photometric bands into one “broadband” filter. We call this a multihump filter. The resulting new filter will be able to improve the redshift prediction (wavelength resolution) over a much wider redshift range and will only require a single additional exposure of comparable length.

How does this really work? Our approach makes a large difference for blue galaxies. The 4000 Å break in their spectra shows up only as a small “bump” which makes the redshift estimation difficult. Let us consider the worst-case scenario, a toy model spectrum of a late-type galaxy that declines with wavelength as a power law and has as its only spectral feature the approximately 500 Å wide bump. Without this feature, the colors would be the same at any redshift. The flux changes with redshift within a band depending on the shape of the filter. If its gradient is too small (e.g. flat as a top-hat), tiny photometric errors can yield large errors in the redshift prediction. In other words, while the bump is in a broad band, it is hard to tell precisely where it is. The measured flux in our new filter will change in redshift regions where the spectral feature is passing through one of the IM humps. These are the regions where the proposed filter contributes the most to the redshift estimation and where the original filter set has poor performance (small gradient). Red elliptical (E/S0) galaxies do not present a significant problem, because the strong discontinuity at 4000 Å changes noticeably the fluxes as it passes through the bands with redshift. In this case the additional filter plays a subsidiary role, and the improvement of the accuracy is incremental.

## 2 Filter design

The actual throughput of a photometric system strongly depends on the instrument, different projects use different CCDs to gain more sensitivity in the desired wavelength range. The quantum efficiency of these devices set strict constraints on the observable wavelength regime. The filter set is selected to cover the available spectral interval according to science goals. The multihump filter is specific to a filter set, and its transmissivity is affected by the CCD’s quantum efficiency (QE).

We have analyzed the photometric system of the Hubble Space Telescope’s Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS Ford et al., 1996)111http://adcam.pha.jhu.edu. The two back-illuminated CCDs of the wide field channel are VIS-AR coated in order to optimize the response in the $`I`$ band, and thus the $`U`$-band sensitivity has been sacrificed. Mission specifications dictate the constraints on the multihump filter that is to extend the original set of the g’, r’, i’ and z’ bands, which span the entire observable wavelength range. No bluer or redder filter can be used, because the detector is not sensitive at shorter or longer wavelengths.

The framework of the algorithm is simple. We parameterize a fictitious filter curve and convolve it with the CCD’s actual QE to obtain a realistic response function. Simulated photometric catalogs of fluxes and errors are generated using the extended filter set. The goodness of a particular filter set is assessed by computing the errors on the redshift estimates.

In the context of current filter manufacturing techniques (Offer & Bland-Hawthorn, 1998), a feasible parameterization of the additional filter’s response function ($`R(\lambda )`$, see Figure 1) consists of at most two notch filters, plus a low and a high cutoff, as described by

$`R(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}\left(ϵ(\lambda \lambda _{\mathrm{start}})\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}\left(ϵ(\lambda \lambda _{\mathrm{end}})\right)`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \lambda _1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _1}}\right)^p\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \lambda _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _2}}\right)^p\right].`$
Parameters $`\lambda _{\mathrm{start}}`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{end}}`$ are the limits of the filter, and $`ϵ`$ determines the gradients, the rise of the edges. The values of $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ correspond to the locations of the notches and $`p`$ (an even number) changes their shape.

The mock catalogs were generated based on spectral energy distributions (SEDs) derived from a physical interpolation scheme applied to the spectra of Coleman, Wu & Weedman (1980), as described in Connolly et al. (1999) and Budavári et al. (2000). On a high resolution redshift grid ($`\delta z=5\times 10^3`$), a hundred objects were generated at each grid point with random SEDs. The continuous type parameter was scaled to yield a population of galaxies in which the probability of having a spectral type between Ell and Sbc was 10%, Sbc–Scd 35%, Scd–Irr 35%, and bluer 20%. The fluxes were modulated with 3% photometric errors taken from a Gaussian distribution. The quality of the photometric redshifts is determined by computing the rms of the estimates. The error is calculated for the desired redshift interval (or regions) meeting the actual project requirements—in this study, redshifts between $`z=0.2`$ and $`z=1.2`$.

The actual optimization problem has quite a few parameters (see Equation 1) to solve for, which makes it hard to numerically find the global minimum. It is also quite time-consuming to evaluate the underlying function; a new loop of the simulation has to be completed each time. Also extra constraints were added to the problem. To be able to use the very same filter from the ground for testing purposes or in follow-up observations, a design compromise due to the atmosphere has been made. In the actual optimization algorithm, one of the notches was always forced to include the 5577 Å sky line. To map the entire parameter space, a linear search on a coarse grid was used to find the best possible filter candidates, and then from the those minima, a gradient method was utilized with discrete, higher resolution step-sizes.

## 3 Discussion

The resulting shape of the multihump is shown in Figure 2. This best configuration has two humps and its transmissivity peaks at the shortest possible wavelengths in the g’ band and, at longer wavelength, in the i’ band. Since the ACS filters look almost like triangles (as a result of the strong wavelength dependency in the CCD’s QE), our additional filter tries to intensify the changes in colors, at the lowest, $`z0.2`$, and highest, $`z1.2`$, redshifts. On one side, the optimal multihump filter is essentially trying to compensate the lack of a ultraviolet filter by boosting the contrast at the edge of the g’ band. In fact, the algorithm also finds an optimal solution of having a $`U`$ band, which is not a real option because of the CCD’s QE (see Section 2). The location of the hump in the i’ is clearly set by the upper redshift limit $`z1.2`$, when the Balmer break is at $`8800`$ Å.

Figure 3 compares the performance of the original and extended filter sets by plotting the rms error as a function of redshift. The accuracy of photometric redshifts for the entire catalog is shown first. The prediction improves at all redshifts; the overall improvement is

$$𝒬=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{orig}}^2\sigma _{\mathrm{ext}}^2}{\sigma _{\mathrm{orig}}^2}=34\%.$$
(2)
Early- and late-type subsamples are shown in the middle and right panels of Figure 3, respectively. The E/S0 estimates clearly get better at the smallest redshifts, $`z0`$, and at around $`z1.2`$, when the 4000 Å break is in one of the humps. However, the redshift prediction also improves in another redshift region, around $`z0.55`$, as a result of the H $`\beta `$ and Mg i absorption as it passes through the second hump. In according with our expectations, redshift estimates of the late-type galaxies change much more drastically then those estimated for early types.

The large number of parameters makes it difficult to estimate the errors or covariances. In Table 1, the rms errors computed for different set of filters are shown. The original ACS filter set gives $`\sigma _z=0.075`$. If we try additional multihump filters with humps centered on the g’r’i’ and g’r’z’ bands, the performance just slightly improves; $`\sigma _z=0.072`$ and $`0.073`$, respectively. Centering humps on the gaps between the original bands (off-band multihump filter) does not improve on the accuracy of the estimates either; $`\sigma _z=0.073`$. The optimized filter yields much better redshifts, $`\sigma _z=0.058`$. The gain in the entire catalog is comparable to what would be achievable by using separate IM filters. The redshift accuracy can be marginally increased by splitting the optimal multihump into two separate filters ($`\sigma _z=0.055`$), but the additional exposure time would be more than twice as long as in our approach.

## 4 Conclusion

We propose the use of multihump filters extending standard photometric systems to make photometric redshift estimation much more efficient. Our simulations have shown that an optimized extra filter could improve the redshift prediction by 34% for the Advanced Camera for Surveys. The improvement takes place over the $`z<1.3`$ redshift range. The filter’s effective width is about 1500 Å, comparable to the existing photometric bands, so the measurement would require only about 25% more exposure time. Such a filter can be built with today’s technology; in fact, similar filters have been utilized to suppres atmospheric features at near-infrared wavelengths (Offer & Bland-Hawthorn, 1998). The shape of the extra filter can be tuned to different goals and missions. It can be optimized for different filter sets and adjusted to desired redshift ranges.

I. C. and T. B. acknowledge partial support from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences–NSF grant 124 and the Hungarian National Scientific Research Foundation grant T030836, A. J. C. acknowledges support from NASA through a Long Term Space Astrophysics grant (NAG 5-7934) and through grant GO-07817.06-96A from the Space Telescope Science Institute. A. S. acknowledges support from the NSF (AST 98-02980) and the NASA Long Term Space Astrophysics program (NAG 5-3503).