text:
# MUELLER MATRIX PARAMETERS FOR RADIO TELESCOPES AND THEIR OBSERVATIONAL DETERMINATION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The polarization response of a single-dish radio telescope is usually described in terms of the native polarization of the feed. For example, a dual-linear polarized feed provides two outputs (“channels”) which are orthogonal linear polarizations; the sum is Stokes $`I`$ and the difference Stokes $`Q`$. Correlating the two outputs with zero phase difference provides the other linearly polarized Stokes parameter $`U`$, and correlating with $`90^{}`$ phase difference provides the circularly polarized Stokes parameter $`V`$. Similarly, with a dual-circular feed the sum and difference provide $`I`$ and $`V`$, and the correlated outputs provide $`Q`$ and $`U`$. However, these statements are only approximate. Feeds are almost never perfect, so their polarizations are only approximately linear or circular; moreover, some feeds, such as turnstile junctions, can have two orthogonal polarizations with arbitrary ellipticity that is frequency-dependent. And generally speaking, no feed has two outputs that are perfectly orthogonal.

The feed’s response is modified by the electronics system, which introduces its own relative gain and phase differences between the two channels. These must be calibrated relatively frequently because they can change with time. For example, if the feed is perfect and the relative gain differs, then the difference between the two channels is nonzero for an unpolarized source, making the source appear to be polarized. For a perfect linearly polarized feed, if the relative phase of the two channels differs, then a linearly polarized source appears to be circularly polarized. Thus two quantities, the relative gain and phase, must be calibrated. This is most effectively done by injection of a correlated noise source into the two feed outputs or, alternatively, by radiating a noise source into the feed with a polarization that provides equal amplitudes in the feed outputs.

The modification of the four Stokes parameters by these system components is most generally described by a $`4\times 4`$ matrix. This matrix is known as the Mueller matrix (Tinbergen 1996). Along with every Mueller matrix goes a Jones matrix, which describes the transfer function for the voltages. We express the Jones matrix elements in terms of complex voltage coupling coefficients. We consider three such matrices: one describes the polarization state of the feed (circular, elliptical, or linear); one the nonorthogonality of the polarized outputs; and one the relative gain and phase of the electronics system. We calculate the associated Mueller matrices and describe how to solve for the coupling coefficients from astronomical measurements. We illustrate the method by applying it to some of the systems at Arecibo Observatory111The Arecibo Observatory is part of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, which is operated by Cornell University under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

We begin by reviewing the basic theoretical concepts and developing the structure of our treatment. §2 introduces the Stokes parameters, Mueller matrix, and Jones vector and matrix. §3 defines the Mueller matrices for the different effects we describe, including the mechanical rotation of the feed with respect to the sky, the imperfections in the feed, the feed, and the amplifier chain. §4 discusses the combined effects of the receiver components and calculates that matrix product. §5 describes the technique for evaluating the matrix elements from observations. §6 describes how to apply the derived Mueller matrix to correct for the instrumental effects. Finally, §7 provides illustrative results for the two 21-cm line receivers at Arecibo Observatory. This paper is a more general and succinct version of Arecibo Technical and Operations Memo 2000-04, which covers all of Arecibo’s receivers.

## 2  STOKES, MUELLER, AND JONES

The basic reference for our discussion of the fundamentals is the excellent book on astronomical polarization by Tinbergen (1996). A more mathematical and fundamental reference is Hamaker, Bregman, and Sault (1996), which the theoretically-inclined reader will find of interest. In the following we make several unproven statements and assertions about Mueller and Jones matrices; the explanations and justifications can be found in the abovementioned references.

### 2.1  The Stokes and Jones vectors

The fundamental quantities are the four Stokes parameters $`(I,Q,U,V)`$, which we write as the 4-element Stokes vector

$`𝐒=\left[\begin{array}{c}I\\ Q\\ U\\ V\end{array}\right].`$ (5)
The Stokes parameters are time averages of electric field products; we use the terms “voltage” and “electric field” interchangeably because the radio telescope’s feed converts one to the other. The Jones vector represents the fields as orthogonal linear polarizations $`(E_X,E_Y)`$, and considers them as complex to account for their relative phase:

$`𝐉=\left[\begin{array}{c}E_X\\ E_Y\end{array}\right].`$ (8)
Instructive special cases include pure linear and pure circular polarization. Orthogonal linear polarizations are, obviously, $`(𝐉_𝐗,𝐉_𝐘)=([1,0],[0,1])`$ (In the text, we write these vectors as rows instead of columns for typographical purposes). Orthogonal circular polarizations are $`(𝐉_𝐋,𝐉_𝐑)=(\frac{[1,i]}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{[i,1]}{\sqrt{2}})`$, where $`i=\sqrt{1}`$. Orthogonal polarizations satisfy, for example, $`J_X\overline{J_Y}=0`$, where the bar over a symbol indicates the complex conjugate and all products are time averages.

It is straightforward to relate the Stokes parameters to the components of the Jones vector:

$$I=E_X\overline{E_X}+E_Y\overline{E_Y}$$
(9a)
$$Q=E_X\overline{E_X}E_Y\overline{E_Y}$$
(9b)
$$U=E_X\overline{E_Y}+\overline{E_X}E_Y$$
(9c)
$$iV=E_X\overline{E_Y}\overline{E_X}E_Y.$$
(9d)
### 2.2  The Mueller and Jones matrices

When the fields pass through some device, such as a feed or an amplifier, they suffer amplitude and phase changes. These modify the Stokes parameters. The Mueller matrix is the transfer function between the input and output of the device:

$$𝐒_{\mathrm{𝐨𝐮𝐭}}=𝐌𝐒_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧}}.$$
(10)
The Mueller matrix is, in general, a $`4\times 4`$ matrix in which all elements may be nonzero (but they are not all independent). In the usual way, we write

$`𝐌=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}m_{II}& m_{IQ}& m_{IU}& m_{IV}\\ m_{QI}& m_{QQ}& m_{QU}& m_{QV}\\ m_{UI}& m_{UQ}& m_{UU}& m_{UV}\\ m_{VI}& m_{VQ}& m_{VU}& m_{VV}\end{array}\right].`$ (15)
The matrix elements are just the partial derivatives, for example

$$m_{VQ}=\frac{V_{out}}{Q_{in}}|_{I_{in},U_{in}}.$$
(16)
Every Mueller matrix has its Jones matrix counterpart; the Jones matrix is the transfer function for the voltages. We defer further discussion of Jones matrices until our treatment of three specific cases of interest for radio astronomical systems.

## 3  THE RADIOASTRONOMICAL RECEIVER COMPONENTS AND THEIR MATRICES

In this section, we consider the Mueller matrices of devices that are encountered by the incoming radiation on its way from the sky to the correlator output. We consider three devices. The first device encountered by the incoming radiation is the telescope ($`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐤𝐲}}`$), which mechanically rotates the feed with respect to the sky. The second device is the feed, which we split into two parts. The first part ($`𝐌_𝐅`$) has the ability to change the incoming linear to any degree of elliptical polarization; by design, feeds are intended to produce either pure linear or pure circular, but in practice the polarization is mixed, i.e. elliptical. The second part ($`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐅𝐫}}`$) describes imperfections in such a feed, specifically the production of nonorthogonal polarizations. The third device is the amplifier chain ($`𝐌_𝐀`$).

We describe the Jones matrix of the incoming radiation in linear polarization, as in equation 8. However, the feed matrix $`𝐌_𝐅`$ can radically change the polarization state; for example, as we shall see a dual-circular feed changes the order of the Stokes parameters in equation 5. Thus the signal voltages, after going through $`𝐌_𝐅`$, are not intuitively described as $`(E_X,E_Y)`$, because the $`(X,Y)`$ connote linear polarization. Therefore, for the voltages after the output of $`𝐌_𝐅`$, we will use the symbols $`(E_A,E_B)`$, or simply $`(A,B)`$, to emphasize the fact that the state of polarization can be arbitrary.

We assume that the remaining device matrices $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐅𝐫}}`$ and $`𝐌_𝐀`$ produce closely-matched replicas of the input Stokes parameters because, by design (hopefully!), the imperfections in the feed are small. We will retain only first-order products of these imperfections.

### 3.1  Mueller matrix relating the radio source to the receiver input

Astronomical continuum sources tend to have linear polarization but very little circular polarization; we assume the latter to be zero. Moreover, we express the source polarization as a fraction of Stokes $`I`$. Thus,

$`𝐒_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐫𝐜}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ Q_{src}\\ U_{src}\\ 0\end{array}\right].`$ (21)
A linearly polarized astronomical source has Stokes $`(Q_{src},U_{src})`$ defined with respect to the north celestial pole (NCP). The source polarization is conventionally specified in terms of fractional polarization and position angle with respect to the NCP, measured from north to east. We have

$$Q_{src}=P_{src}\mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}$$
(22a)
$$U_{src}=P_{src}\mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}$$
(22b)
$$P_{src}=(Q_{src}^2+U_{src}^2)^{1/2}$$
(22c)
$$PA_{src}=0.5\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{U_{src}}{Q_{src}}\right)$$
(22d)
As we track a source with an alt-az telescope, the parallactic angle $`PA_{az}`$ of the feed rotates on the sky. $`PA_{az}`$ is defined to be zero at azimuth 0 and increase towards the east; for a source near zenith, $`PA_{az}az`$, where $`az`$ is the azimuth angle of the source. The Stokes parameters seen by the telescope are $`(Q_{sky},U_{sky})`$, and are related to the source parameters by

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐊𝐘}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}& \mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}& \mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (27)
The central $`2\times 2`$ submatrix is, of course, nothing but a rotation matrix.

For an equatorially-mounted telescope, $`PA_{az}`$ doesn’t change unless the feed is mechanically rotated with respect to the telescope. This was the case with the NRAO 140-foot telescope222The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc., which was one of the several systems we used during the genesis of this work. This relative rotation between feed and telescope can produce unintended changes in the feed response to astronomical sources, which makes such telescopes inherently less accurate for polarization measurement. The 140-foot telescope is the last of the great equatorial radio telescopes and with its recent closure a detailed discussion of these matters has become irrelevant; the remainder of the present paper considers alt-az telescopes exclusively.

### 3.2 Mueller matrix for a perfect feed providing arbitrary elliptical polarization

The feed modifies the incoming voltages with its Jones matrix. Suppose that the feed mixes incoming linear polarizations with arbitrary phase and amplitude, keeping the total power constant and retaining orthogonality; this makes it a perfect feed that responds to elliptical polarization. Following Stinebring (1982) and Conway and Kronberg (1969), we write the transfer equation for the feed as

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}E_{A,out}\\ E_{B,out}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ e^{i\chi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}E_{X,in}\\ E_{Y,in}\end{array}\right].`$ (34)
The feed can completely alter the polarization state, so the output Jones voltages are more intuitively described by subscripts $`(A,B)`$ instead of $`(X,Y)`$, which connote linear polarization. Here $`\alpha `$ is the amount of coupling into the orthogonal polarization and $`\chi `$ is the phase angle of that coupling. For example, for a native linear feed $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\chi =0`$; for a native circular feed $`\alpha =45^{}`$ and $`\chi =90^{}`$. Using this with equation 9, we find

$`𝐌_𝐅=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}2\alpha & \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\chi & \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}\chi \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\chi & \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\chi & \mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}2\chi \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}\chi & \mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{sin}2\chi & \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha +\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\chi \end{array}\right].`$ (39)
Notice that in the right-bottom $`3\times 3`$ submatrix, the off-diagonal transposed elements are of opposite sign for two of the three pairs and the same sign for one. This is not an algebraic error!

Some instructive special cases include:

(1) A dual linear feed: $`\alpha =0`$, $`\chi =0`$, and $`M_F`$ is diagonal.

(2) A dual linear feed rotated $`45^{}`$ with respect to $`(X,Y)`$: $`\alpha =45^{}`$, $`\chi =0`$, and

$`𝐌_𝐅=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (44)
As expected, this interchanges Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$, together with a sign change as befits rotation.

(3) A dual linear feed rotated $`90^{}`$ with respect to $`(X,Y)`$: $`\alpha =90^{}`$, $`\chi =0`$, and

$`𝐌_𝐅=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (49)
As expected, this reverses the signs of Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$.

(4) A dual circular feed: $`\alpha =45^{}`$, $`\chi =90^{}`$, and

$`𝐌_𝐅=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right].`$ (54)
The combination $`(\alpha =45^{},\chi =90^{})`$ permutes the order of the Stokes parameters in the output vector, making it $`(I,V,U,Q)`$. $`(E_A\overline{E_A}E_B\overline{E_B})`$ provides Stokes $`V`$, instead of the $`Q`$ written in equation 9; in other words, it makes the feed native dual circular. With respect to linear polarization, $`\alpha =45^{}`$ has the same effect as in case (2), namely to interchange $`(Q,U)`$ and change the sign of $`Q`$, because it is equivalent to a feed rotation of $`45^{}`$.

(5) A dual-elliptical feed: arbitrary $`\alpha `$, $`\chi =90^{}`$. If $`\chi =90^{}`$ then orthogonal linear inputs produce orthogonal elliptical outputs with the ellipticity voltage ratio equal to $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ (see Tinbergen 1996, Figure 2.1). Thus $`\alpha =0^{}`$ passes the linear polarizations without modification, $`\alpha =90^{}`$ reverses the sign of the position angle, $`\alpha =45^{}`$ produces orthogonal circular polarizations, and other values of $`\alpha `$ produce orthogonal elliptical polarizations.

### 3.3 An important restriction: we set $`\chi =90^{}`$

Generally speaking, we prefer either pure linear or pure circular feeds, i.e. we prefer either the combination $`(\alpha ,\chi )=(0^{},0^{})`$ or $`(\alpha ,\chi )=(45^{},90^{})`$ in $`𝐌_𝐅`$. If a feed is designed to produce circular polarization with $`(\alpha ,\chi )=(45^{},90^{})`$ and instead produces elliptical polarization whose major axis is aligned with the $`X`$ direction, then $`\chi =90^{}`$ but $`\alpha 45^{}`$. If the ellipse is not aligned with $`X`$, then $`\chi 90^{}`$, but this is equivalent to having $`\chi =90^{}`$ and physically rotating the feed. Thus, without loss of generality, we can take $`\chi =90^{}`$ (also see §3.4). This leads to great simplification in $`𝐌_𝐅`$, whose restricted form becomes

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}2\alpha & 0& \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}2\alpha & 0& \mathrm{cos}2\alpha \end{array}\right].`$ (59)
### 3.4 An imperfect feed

Again we follow Stinebring (1982) and Conway and Kronberg (1969), and represent the imperfections of a feed by the Jones matrix

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}E_{X,out}\\ E_{Y,out}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& ϵ_1e^{i\varphi _1}\\ ϵ_2e^{i\varphi _2}& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}E_{X,in}\\ E_{Y,in}\end{array}\right].`$ (66)
Here the $`ϵ`$’s represent undesirable cross coupling between the two polarizations; for example, this might be caused by the two linear probes not being exactly $`90^{}`$ apart. The $`\varphi `$’s are the phase angles of these coupled voltages. This equation assumes that the feed is “good”, meaning that we need retain only first-order terms in $`ϵ`$ (which makes the diagonal elements unity); however, for the moment we allow the phases to be arbitrary.

After a little algebra, we find the matrix for the Imperfect Feed to be

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐅}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ\mathrm{cos}& \mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ\mathrm{sin}\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{cos}& \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{sin}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ\mathrm{cos}& \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{cos}& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ\mathrm{sin}& \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{sin}& 0& 1\end{array}\right],`$ (71)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ\mathrm{cos}=ϵ_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1+ϵ_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2`$; $`\mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ\mathrm{sin}=ϵ_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1+ϵ_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{cos}=ϵ_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1ϵ_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{sin}=ϵ_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1ϵ_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2`$. The imperfections in a good feed are completely specified by four independent parameters.

The central 4-element submatrix is a rotation matrix that represents an error in position angle of linear polarization (its diagonal elements are unity because of our first-order expansion in $`ϵ`$); in-phase mutual voltage coupling between the two probes causes an apparent rotation. Its off-diagonal elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{cos}`$ are impossible to measure without calibration sources whose position angles are accurately known. Moreover, a small rotation can also occur because of mechanical inaccuracy in mounting the feed. In practice, these problems make it impossible to separate this factor, so one might as well assume it is equal to zero and make appropriate adjustments to the position angle ex post facto.

Assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{cos}=0`$ is consistent with a more stringent assumption, namely that $`ϵϵ_1=ϵ_2`$ and $`\varphi \varphi _1=\varphi _2`$ so that, also, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\mathrm{sin}=0`$. Physically, this is equivalent to assuming that the coupling in a linear feed arises from the two probes being not quite orthogonal and that the coupling in each has the same relative phase. In other words, it makes the correlated output non-orthogonal.

This assumption might seem to be too restrictive because, by requiring $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2`$, it eliminates the possibility of imperfections inducing a change in the ellipticity of the polarization. However, it leads to no loss in generality of our treatment, because the out-of-phase coupling case is included in the feed matrix $`𝐌_𝐅`$. Our restricted case of an imperfect feed is described by just two parameters:

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐅𝐫}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi & 2ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi & 0& 1& 0\\ 2ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi & 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (76)
### 3.5 The amplifiers

The two polarization channels go through different amplifier chains. Suppose these have voltage gain $`(g_A,g_B)`$, power gain $`(G_A,G_B)=(g_A^2,g_B^2)`$, and phase delays $`(\psi _A,\psi _B)`$. The Jones matrix is

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}E_{A,out}\\ E_{B,out}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}g_Ae^{i\psi _A}& 0\\ 0& g_Be^{i\psi _B}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}E_{A,in}\\ E_{B,in}\end{array}\right]`$ (83)
In practice, the amplifier gains and phases are calibrated with a correlated noise source (the “cal”). Thus, our amplifier gains $`(G_A,G_B)`$ have nothing to do with the actual amplifier gains. Rather, they represent the gains as calibrated by specified cal intensities, one for each channel. If the sum of the specified cal intensities is perfectly correct, then the absolute intensity calibration of the instrument is correct for an unpolarized source (Stokes $`I`$ is correctly measured in absolute units). In our treatment, $`G_A+G_B=2`$ by necessity because we deal with fractional polarizations.

If the ratio of the cal intensities is correct, then the difference between the two polarization channels is zero for an unpolarized source. This happy circumstance does generally not obtain. However, the relative cal intensities are known fairly well, which allows us to assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }GG_AG_B1`$ and to carry $`g_Ag_B`$ to first order only, meaning we take $`g_Ag_B=1`$. With this first-order approximation, we have

$`𝐌_𝐀=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}& 0& 0\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi \end{array}\right].`$ (88)
The incorrect relative cal amplitudes produce coupling of Stokes $`I`$ into $`Q`$ through the nonzero $`m_{QI}`$; the difference between the relative cal and sky phases produces a transfer of power between the two correlated outputs, as we now discuss.

The difference between the amplifier phases is also referred to the cal. Thus a phase difference $`\psi =\psi _A\psi _B`$ represents the phase difference that exists between a linearly polarized astronomical source and the cal and has nothing to do with the amplifier chains. The behavior of this phase difference depends on the native polarization of the feed.

For a perfect native dual linear feed, the phase of a linearly polarized astronomical source, modulo $`180^{}`$, is independent of $`PA_{az}`$ because the linearly polarized dipoles have no relative phase difference ($`\chi =0`$); the phase changes by $`180^{}`$ when the measured $`U`$ changes sign as $`PA_{az}`$ changes. Thus, $`\psi `$ modulo $`180^{}`$ is independent of $`PA_{az}`$. The desirable case $`\psi =0`$ means that $`(E_A\overline{E_B}+\overline{E_B}E_A)`$ contains pure Stokes $`U`$ and $`(E_A\overline{E_B}\overline{E_B}E_A)`$ pure Stokes $`V`$.

For a perfect native dual circular feed, the phase of a linearly polarized astronomical source (and therefore $`\psi `$) rotates as $`\pm 2PA_{az}`$ (see section 5.2 and equation 132w). At $`PA_{az}=0`$, the condition $`\psi =0`$ produces the correctly defined Stokes parameters in equation 54, $`(E_A\overline{E_B}+\overline{E_B}E_A)=U_{sky}`$ and $`(E_A\overline{E_B}\overline{E_B}E_A)=Q_{sky}`$. If $`\psi 0`$, then the correctly defined Stokes parameters occur at $`PA_{az}=\pm \frac{\psi }{2}`$.

### 3.6  The correlator outputs

Our measured quantities are four time averaged voltage products from the digital correlator: from autocorrelation, $`(E_AE_A,E_BE_B)`$; from crosscorrelation, $`(E_AE_B,E_BE_A)`$. In these products we consider the second quantity to be delayed relative to the first. Each correlation function has $`N`$ channels of delay. We Fourier transform (FT) these quantities to obtain spectra.

The autocorrelation functions are symmetric and thus their FT’s are real, with no imaginary components. We combine the two measured crosscorrelation functions into a single one with $`2N`$ channels; it has both negative and positive delays and is generally not symmetric, so its FT is complex. We combine these Fourier transforms as in equation 9:

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}APB\\ AMB\\ AB\\ BA\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}FT(E_AE_A)+FT(E_BE_B)\\ FT(E_AE_A)FT(E_BE_B)\\ 2\mathrm{Re}[FT(E_AE_B)]\\ 2\mathrm{Im}[FT(E_AE_B)]\end{array}\right].`$ (97)
If we have an ideal native dual linear feed and a perfect receiver, then $`(APB,AMB,AB,BA)=(I,Q,U,V)_{sky}`$; for native circular, $`(APB,AMB,AB,BA)=(I,V,U,Q)_{sky}`$.

## 4  THE SINGLE MATRIX FOR THE RADIOASTRONOMICAL RECEIVER

### 4.1  The general case with $`\chi =90^{}`$

The observing system consists of several distinct elements, each with its own Mueller matrix. The matrix for the whole system is the product of all of them. Matrices are not commutative, so we must be careful with the order of multiplication.

We express the Jones vector of the incoming radiation in linear polarization. The radiation first encounters the feed, producing Stokes parameters as specified by $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}}`$ in equation 59. Next it suffers the restricted set of imperfections associated with $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐅𝐫}}`$ (equation 76). Finally it proceeds through the amplifier chains, undergoing $`𝐌_𝐀`$ (equation 88). The product of these matrices, in this order ($`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}=𝐌_𝐀𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐅𝐫}}𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}}`$), produces the vector that the correlator sees, which we denote by $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐎𝐑}`$. In calculating $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐎𝐑}`$, we ignore second order terms in the imperfection amplitudes $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta }G)`$ but, of course, retain all orders in their their phases $`(\varphi ,\psi )`$ and also in the feed parameter $`\alpha `$. This gives

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& (2ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\alpha +\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )& 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi & (2ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}2\alpha +\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\alpha )\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}& \mathrm{cos}2\alpha & 0& \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \\ 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\psi )& \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{cos}2\alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi \\ 2ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\psi )& \mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi \end{array}\right].`$ (102)
The terms in the top row make $`I1`$ for a polarized source. If one derives fractional polarization, for example $`\frac{Q}{I}`$, then it will be in error by amounts comparable to $`[(ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta }G)\times (Q,U,V)]`$. For the weakly polarized sources we use as calibrators, these products are second order and therefore are of no concern.

However, for a strongly polarized source such as a pulsar, these terms are first order. This can be particularly serious for timing, because polarization variations across the pulse will produce errors in the pulse shape. These effects can be eliminated by correcting for the Mueller matrix.

### 4.2  Two important special cases

Commonly, feeds are intended to be either pure linear or circular. For these two important cases we have the following, expanded to first order:

(1) A dual-linear feed with a slight elliptical component, meaning that $`[\alpha =(0^{},90^{})+\delta \alpha ]`$ with $`\delta \alpha 1`$. We ignore second order products involving $`\delta \alpha `$:

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓},\mathrm{𝐥𝐢𝐧}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& \pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}& 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi & 2ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}& \pm 1& 0& \pm 2\delta \alpha \\ 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\psi )& \pm 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi \\ 2ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\psi )& 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi & \pm \mathrm{cos}\psi \end{array}\right].`$ (107)
For terms with two signs, the top sign is for the $`0^{}`$ case and the bottom for the $`90^{}`$ case.

(2) As above, but for a dual-circular feed with $`[\alpha =(45^{},135^{})+\delta \alpha ]`$:

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓},\mathrm{𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi & 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi & \pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}& 2\delta \alpha & 0& \pm 1\\ 2ϵ\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\psi )& \pm \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi & \pm 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi \\ 2ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\psi )& \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi & 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi \end{array}\right].`$ (112)
Recall that in the circular case, the order of the Stokes parameters in the output vector is permuted: $`[I,V,U,Q]`$. As with the imperfect linear, the imperfections in $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐅𝐫}}`$ produce coupling between Stokes $`I`$ and $`(V,U,Q)`$, represented by the nonzero elements in the left column. The order of the terms in the column is independent of the feed polarization, but the Stokes parameters are not, so the imperfections produce different effects for the two types of feed.

## 5 EVALUATING THE PARAMETERS IN THE MATRIX

We evaluate the parameters in equation 102 using observations of a polarized source tracked over a wide range of position angle $`PA_{az}`$. The source is described by $`𝐒_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐫𝐜}}`$ and the Mueller matrix for the radiation entering the feed by $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐤𝐲}}`$, both described in section 3.1. The full Mueller matrix is $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐤𝐲}}`$. The product of this matrix with $`𝐒_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐫𝐜}}`$ results in a set of of four equations, one for each element of the observed $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐎𝐑}`$ vector. Recalling that we define the source Stokes parameters as fractional (so that $`I_{src}=1`$) and that we assume $`V_{src}=0`$, they are expressed by the four equations embodied in

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}APB\\ AMB\\ AB\\ BA\end{array}\right]=𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐊𝐘}}\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ Q_{src}\\ U_{src}\\ 0\end{array}\right].`$ (121)
In practice, we cannot reliably measure the $`PA_{az}`$ dependence of $`APB`$. $`APB`$ is approximately equal to the total intensity, and it is rendered inaccurate by small gain errors. Thus, in practice we use fractional correlator outputs. We define

$$\mathrm{𝐂𝐎𝐑}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{𝐂𝐎𝐑}}{APB}$$
(122)
and consider only the last three equations in equation 121:

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}AMB^{}\\ AB^{}\\ BA^{}\end{array}\right]=𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐊𝐘}}\left[\begin{array}{c}Q_{src}\\ U_{src}\\ 0\end{array}\right].`$ (129)
Note that the division by $`APB`$ produces errors in the other elements of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐎𝐑}^{}`$, but these errors are second order because they are products of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ and/or $`ϵ`$ with quantities such as $`Q_{src}`$ that are already first order. Our whole treatment neglects second order products, so we can neglect these errors.

Multiplying out equation 129, we obtain three equations of the form

$$AMB=A_{AMB^{}}+B_{AMB^{}}\mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}+C_{AMB^{}}\mathrm{sin}2PA_{az},$$
(130)
where the coefficients $`(A,B,C)`$ are complicated function of the 5 parameters $`(\alpha ,ϵ,\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta }G,\psi )`$ and, also, the two source Stokes parameters $`(Q_{src},U_{src})`$ which are not known ab initio, so we have 7 unknown parameters. We have 9 measured quantities, three $`(A,B,C)`$ for each correlator output; these are derived from least squares fits of $`(AMB^{},AB^{},BA^{})`$ to $`PA_{az}`$. We use nonlinear least squares fitting to solve for the 7 unknown parameters. In practice, we use numerical techniques to obtain the relevant derivatives. An alternative fitting technique that is useful when combining the results from $`N_{src}`$ different sources into a grand average is to express the coefficients $`A_{AMB^{}}`$, etc., in terms of the $`(5+2N_{src})`$ unknown coefficients, and to lump all observations of all sources together in one grand nonlinear least squares fit.

Nonlinear least square fitting is often plagued by multiple minima, and the present case is no exception when the polarization is nearly pure linear or circular. To discuss these cases we temporarily assume $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta }G)=0`$, which makes the mathematics more transparent.

### 5.1 The nearly linear case

Equation 121 becomes

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}Q_{out}\\ U_{out}\\ V_{out}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}AMB^{}\\ AB^{}\\ BA^{}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\pm 1& 0\\ \pm 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi \\ 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}& \mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}\\ \mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}& \mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}Q_{src}\\ U_{src}\end{array}\right]`$ (131n)
which, when multiplied out, becomes

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}AMB^{}\\ AB^{}\\ BA^{}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\pm \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}& \pm \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}\\ \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}\pm 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}& \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}\pm 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}\\ \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}2\delta \alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}& \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}2\delta \alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}P_{src}\mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}\\ P_{src}\mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}\end{array}\right].`$ (131w)
For $`\delta \alpha =0`$ we have

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}AMB^{}\\ AB^{}\\ BA^{}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\pm \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}& \pm \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}\\ \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}& \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}\\ \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}& \mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}P_{src}\mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}\\ P_{src}\mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}\end{array}\right].`$ (131af)
This shows that, for $`\delta \alpha 0`$, one cannot distinguish between the two cases $`(\alpha ,\psi )=(0^{},\psi _0)`$ and $`(\alpha ,\psi )=(90^{},\psi _0+180^{})`$, because the two bottom rows change sign for $`\psi _0+180^{}`$. For these two cases, the signs of $`(Q,U)`$ change, which is equivalent to rotating the feed by $`90^{}`$. The physical interpretation is straightforward: $`\alpha =90^{}`$ converts $`E_X`$ to $`E_Y`$ in equation 34, thus changing the sign of $`Q`$; changing $`\psi `$ by $`180^{}`$ changes the sign of $`U`$; the combination is equivalent to rotating the feed by $`90^{}`$.

In practice one must deal with this problem. For a conventional linear feed, loosely described as two E-field probes in a circular waveguide, the combination $`(\alpha ,\psi )=(90^{},180^{})`$ is physically unreasonable. However, for some feeds, in particular a turnstile junction operating in linear polarization, either possibility can occur and one must make the appropriate choice based on frequencies well away from where the feed is pure linear; for a turnstile we expect $`\frac{d\alpha }{df}const.`$

### 5.2 The nearly circular case

Equation 121 is

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}V_{out}\\ U_{out}\\ Q_{out}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}AMB\\ AB\\ BA\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}2\delta \alpha & 0\\ \pm \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi \\ \mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}& \mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}\\ \mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}& \mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}Q_{src}\\ U_{src}\end{array}\right]`$ (132n)
and becomes

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}AMB\\ AB\\ BA\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}2\delta \alpha \mathrm{cos}2PA_{src}& 2\delta \alpha \mathrm{sin}2PA_{src}\\ \mathrm{sin}(2PA_{src}\pm \psi )& \mathrm{cos}(2PA_{src}\pm \psi )\\ \mathrm{cos}(2PA_{src}\pm \psi )& \mathrm{sin}(2PA_{src}\pm \psi )\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}P_{src}\mathrm{cos}2PA_{az}\\ P_{src}\mathrm{sin}2PA_{az}\end{array}\right].`$ (132w)
This shows that the angles $`2PA_{src}`$ and $`\psi `$ are inextricably connected. We can determine only their sum (for $`\alpha =45^{}`$) or their difference. It also shows that the two solutions $`\alpha =(45^{},45^{})`$ are degenerate as $`\delta \alpha 0`$, because the bottom row changes sign for these two cases (thus flipping the derived sign of $`Q_{src}`$ and thereby rotating the derived $`PA_{src}`$ by $`90^{}`$). The physical interpretation of this degeneracy is straightforward: for a pure circular feed, the phase of a linearly polarized source rotates with $`2PA_{az}`$ and its absolute value depends both on the system phase $`\psi `$ and the source position angle $`PA_{src}`$.

In practice, one can only deal with this problem by having additional information, namely knowing either $`\psi `$ or $`PA_{src}`$. For the case of turnstile junctions, which are narrow band devices, one can determine $`\psi `$ at frequencies well away from that where the feed is pure circular and interpolate. Then, during the fit, this value of $`\psi `$ should be fixed. For a wideband circular feed, there is no substitute for an independent calibration of the linearly polarized position angle, either with a test radiator or with a source of known polarization.

### 5.3  Commentary

(1) $`ϵ`$ is the quadrature sum of the $`PA_{az}`$-independent portions of the two correlated outputs $`(AB,BA)`$. This power is distributed between those outputs according to $`(\varphi +\psi )`$. In the near-linear case, $`\psi `$ can change by $`180^{}`$ by changing the choice for $`\alpha `$, and this also produces a $`180^{}`$ change in $`\varphi `$.

(2) Consider a high-quality standard linearly polarized feed that has a correlated cal connected by equal-length cables. Such a feed has $`\alpha 0^{}`$ and the equal-length cables mean that $`\psi 0^{}`$. However, the solution yields $`\psi 180^{}`$ if the sign of $`AMB`$ is incorrect, which can easily happen if one interchanges cables carrying the two polarizations; this is equivalent to reversing the handedness of $`PA_{az}`$ and $`PA_{src}`$.

(3) If one has a system without a correlated cal, then $`\psi `$ is meaningless. $`\psi `$ has contributions at r.f. (from the difference in cable and electrical lengths to the first mixer) and i.f. (from length differences after the mixer). Normally the latter is likely to dominate because the cable runs from the feed to the control room are long. For example, at Arecibo we found $`\frac{d\psi }{df}0.1`$ rad MHz-1, roughly constant among different systems. This corresponds to an electrical length difference of $`5`$ m, most of which probably occurs along the pair of $`500`$ m optical fibers that carry the two channels from the feed to the control room.

(4) We have adopted the following procure for phase calibration. If there is a correlated cal then we measure $`\psi _{cal}`$ and fit it to a constant plus a slope $`\frac{d\psi }{df}`$; we subtract this fit from the source phase and produce corrected versions of $`(AB,BA)`$. Thus, the only component left in the correlated products is the difference between source and cal phase, which is the same as $`\psi `$ in the equation 88.

If there is not a correlated cal, then we measure $`\psi _{src}`$ and fit it to a constant plus a slope $`\frac{d\psi }{df}`$; we subtract the slope but not the constant from the source phase and produce corrected versions of $`(AB,BA)`$. While most of this slope is in the system, this procedure also subtracts away any intrinsic slope caused by Faraday rotation.

## 6  APPLYING THE CORRECTION

One of the major reasons to determine the Mueller matrix elements is to apply it to observations and obtain true Stokes parameters. There are two steps to this process.

### 6.1  Applying $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}`$ and $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐤𝐲}}`$

The completely general form of equation 121 uses observed voltage products instead of fractional ones and does not force $`V=0`$. Thus, to derive the source Stokes parameters from the data, we use

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}I_{src}\\ Q_{src}\\ U_{src}\\ V_{src}\end{array}\right]=(𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐊𝐘}})^\mathrm{𝟏}\left[\begin{array}{c}APB\\ AMB\\ AB\\ BA\end{array}\right].`$ (141)
### 6.2  Deriving true astronomical position angles

The position angle of the source polarization $`PA_{src}`$ is defined relative to the local idiosyncrasies. For a dual linear feed these include the angle at which feed probes happen to be mounted and, also, which feed probe happens to be defined as $`A`$. For a dual circular feed this includes the phase angle at which the correlated cal happens to be injected and the angle at which the feed happens to be oriented.

Astronomers wish to express position angles in the conventional way, viz. with $`PA_{src}`$ measured relative to the North Celestial Pole. There is also the possibility of its handedness, but this is taken care of automatically in the fitting process if the $`PA_{az}`$ is correctly defined. To satisfy the astronomers’ desire, we must apply a rotation matrix $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧}}`$, which looks like $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐊𝐘}}`$ in equation 27 with $`PA_{az}`$ replaced by $`\theta _{astron}`$. For a linearly polarized feed the angle $`\theta _{astron}`$ is the angle of the feed probes with respect to azimuth arm. There is a sign ambiguity that is best determined by empirical comparison with known astronomical position angles. At low frequencies, one must include the effects of terrestrial ionospheric Faraday rotation, which is time variable.

## 7  SAMPLE RESULTS

Here we present sample results for the two Arecibo L-band receivers (L-band is the frequency range surrounding the 21-cm line). For each observing session the digital correlator was split into four 25-MHz chunks centered at different frequencies. The L-band Wide receiver (LBW) is a very wide-bandwidth dual linearly polarized feed. The L-band Narrow receiver (LBN) is a turnstile junction whose polarization state changes from dual linear to dual circular over a frequency range $`100`$ MHz. First, however, we reiterate the definitions of the parameters.

### 7.1  Reiteration of parameter definitions

$`𝚫𝑮`$ is the error in relative intensity calibration of the two polarization channels. It results from an error in the relative cal values $`(T_{calA},T_{calB})`$. Our expansion currently takes terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ to first order only, so if the relative cal intensities are significantly incorrect then the other parameters will be affected.

The relative cal values should be modified to make $`\mathrm{\Delta }G=0`$, keeping their sum the same. To accomplish this, make $`T_{calA,modified}=T_{calA}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}\right)`$ and $`T_{calB,modified}=T_{calB}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }G}{2}\right)`$.

$`𝝍`$ is the phase difference between the cal and the incoming radiation from the sky; see the discussion following equation 88. It redistributes power between $`(U,V)`$ for a dual linear feed and between $`(Q,U)`$ for a dual circular feed (equations 107 and 112).

$`𝜶`$ is a measure of the voltage ratio of the polarization ellipse produced when the feed observes pure linear polarization. Generally, the electric vector traces an ellipse with time; $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ is the ratio of major and minor axes of the voltage ellipse. Thus, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\alpha `$ is the ratio of the powers. If a source having fractional linear polarization $`P_{src}=\sqrt{Q_{src}^2+U_{src}^2}`$ is observed with a native circular feed that has $`\alpha =\frac{\pi }{4}+\delta \alpha `$, with $`\delta \alpha 1`$, then the measured Stokes $`V`$ will change with $`2PA_{az}`$ and have peak-to-peak amplitude $`4\delta \alpha `$.

$`𝝌`$ is the relative phase of the two voltages specified by $`\alpha `$. Our analysis assumes $`\chi =90^{}`$; this incurs no loss of generality, as explained in sections 3.3 and 3.4.

$`\mathit{ϵ}`$ is a measure of imperfection of the feed in producing nonorthogonal polarizations (false correlations) in the two correlated outputs. Our expansion takes $`ϵ`$ to first order only. The only astronomical effect of nonzero $`ϵ`$ is to contaminate the polarized Stokes parameters $`(Q,U,V)`$ by coupling Stokes $`I`$ into them at level $`2ϵ`$; the exact coupling depends on the other parameters. For weakly polarized sources, this produces false polarization; for strongly polarized sources such as pulsars, it also produces incorrect Stokes $`I`$.

$`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is the phase angle at which the voltage coupling $`ϵ`$ occurs. It works with $`ϵ`$ to couple $`I`$ with $`(Q,U,V)`$.

$`𝜽_{𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏}`$ is the angle by which the derived position angles must be rotated to conform with the conventional astronomical definition.

### 7.2  Results for LBW

LBW is a very wide-band feed with native linear polarization. It has some problems with resonances. Apart from these, the parameters are nearly ideal and frequency-independent from 1175 to 1680 MHz: $`\alpha 0.25^{}`$ and $`ϵ0.0015`$. Care was taken by the receiver engineer to equalize the length of the two cables for the correlated cal; as a result, $`\psi 4.6^{}`$.

Figure 8 exhibits observational results for two sources obtained during two Mueller-matrix calibration observing sessions. The digital correlator was split into four 25-MHz chunks, with duplicate coverage at 1415 MHz on the two days; this provides seven different center frequencies. The change of position angle from Faraday rotation is obvious over the broad band covered by the data, and even within a single spectrum. Regarding fractional polarization, the decrease toward low frequency for B0017+154 is not surprising; this is caused by Faraday depolarization. However, that of B1634+269 reaches a minimum near 1400 MHz, and this behavior is somewhat unusual. We believe that our measurements are correct and that this observed behavior is real.

### 7.3 Results for LBN

LBN is a turnstile system without a correlated cal and is commonly used over a large frequency range. Turnstile junctions are narrow-band devices for two reasons: one, the polarization response is defined by physical path length differences in waveguide, and these length differences correspond to incorrect phase differences as one moves away from the design frequency; two, unwanted reflections within the junction are eliminated by a tuning structure, and this is narrow-band. The solid lines in Figure 8 exhibit the frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$, $`\alpha `$, $`ϵ`$, and $`\varphi `$ for the 25 MHz bands centered at four frequencies within the range commonly used with this feed. These particular data were derived from the source B0017+154; we obtained data for two additional sources, and the results agree well. The dashed lines are our adopted analytic expressions for the frequency dependence of the parameters.

Near 1415 MHz the polarization is dual circular; the absence of a correlated cal means that the parameter $`\psi `$ has no meaning and, moreover, we cannot measure the position angle of linear polarization. The dependence of $`\alpha `$ on frequency is close to linear, which is what’s expected for a turnstile junction. The variation of $`ϵ`$ is remarkably complicated, probably because of resonances in the tuning structure, and we do not have sufficient frequency coverage to characterize it. The scatter in $`\varphi `$ for the 1375 MHz spectrum simply reflects the uncertainty in the angle, which is large because $`ϵ`$ is small. Of course, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ simply reflects inaccurate relative cal values and not the properties of the turnstile itself.

This work was supported in part by NSF grant 95-30590 to CH.

## 8 FIGURE CAPTIONS


format: text

text:
# On the geometry of entangled states.

## Abstract

The basic question that is addressed in this paper is finding the closest separable state for a given entangled state, measured with the Hilbert Schmidt distance. While this problem is in general very hard, we show that the following strongly related problem can be solved: find the Hilbert Schmidt distance of an entangled state to the set of all partially transposed states. We prove that this latter distance can be expressed as a function of the negative eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the entangled state, and show how it is related to the distance of a state to the set of positive partially transposed states (PPT-states). We illustrate this by calculating the closest biseparable state to the W-state, and give a simple and very general proof for the fact that the set of W-type states is not of measure zero. Next we show that all surfaces with states whose partial transposes have constant minimal negative eigenvalue are similar to the boundary of PPT states. We illustrate this with some examples on bipartite qubit states, where contours of constant negativity are plotted on two-dimensional intersections of the complete state space.

In this paper we try to get some insight into the geometrical structure of entangled states. The main goal will be to characterize the distance of an entangled state to the set of separable states. Related questions were addressed in the papers of Zyczkowski et al., Pittenger et al.  and Witte et al.  (see also Ozawa ), although here we attack the problem from a different perspective.

The concept of negativity will turn out to be very much related to the Hilbert-Schmidt distance of a state to the set of separable states. It originates from the observation due to Peres  that taking a partial transpose of a density matrix associated with a separable state is still a valid density matrix and thus positive (semi)definite. Subsequently M.Horodecki,P.Horodecki and R.Horodecki  proved that this was a necessary and sufficient condition for a state to be separable if the dimension of the Hilbert space does not exceed $`6`$. In higher dimensional systems, no easy way of determining the separability of a state exists due to the existence of bound entangled states. We will therefore content ourselves to calculate the Hilbert Shmidt distance of an entangled state to the set of PPT-states (Remark that in the case of two qubits no bound entangled states exist).

This problem is highly related to calculating the distance of an entangled state to the set of partially transposed states, as the intersection of the set of all states with the set of all partially transposed states is equal to the set of all PPT-states. This is visualized in figure (1), where the boundary of the convex set of states $`H`$ consists of rank deficicient states. The set of partially transposed states is completely isomorf with the set of states, and can be seen as some kind of reflection of the set of states. The intersection of both sets is the convex set of PPT-states.

From figure (1) it is immediatly clear that the distance of an entangled state to the PPT ones is equal to the distance of an entangled state to the set of partially transposed states iff the closest partially transposed state is positive (semi)-definite; this condition will turn out to be almost always true.

Let us now calculate the closest partially transposed state to an entangled state. The key observation is the fact that the Hilbert Schmidt norm is preserved under the partial transpose map. Therefore the proposed measure can be defined in the space of partial transposed density matrices as the minimal Hilbert Schmidt distance of $`\rho ^{PT}`$ to the surface of positive (semi)-definite matrices with trace 1, this surface being the partial transpose of the boundary of PPT-states.

We are therefore looking for the best positive semidefinite approximation of the indefinite matrix $`\rho ^{PT}`$ in the Hilbert-Schmidt norm:

$$\underset{\sigma H}{\mathrm{min}}\rho ^{PT}\sigma _2=\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}\left((\rho ^{PT}\sigma )^2\right)}$$
(1)
Writing the eigenvalue decomposition $`\rho ^{PT}=UDU^{}`$, and absorbing $`U`$ in $`\sigma `$, this problem is equivalent to finding $`\sigma `$ such that $`D\sigma `$ is minimal. Using the eigenvalue decomposition $`\sigma =VE^2V^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(E^2\right)=1`$, this can be written as a Lagrange constrained problem with cost function:

$$K=DVE^2V^{}_2\lambda \left(\mathrm{Tr}\left(E^2\right)1\right)$$
(2)
It is immediatly clear that the optimal unitary $`V`$ is given by the identity: a positive definite matrix remains positive definite if off-diagonal elements are made zero. Differentiation leads to the result that the $`e_i^2`$ are either equal to $`0`$, either equal to $`d_i+\lambda `$. Normalization fixes the value of $`\lambda `$. Straightforward calculations show that th $`e_j^2`$ corresponding to the negative eigenvalues $`d_j`$ have to be choosen equal to zero and the other ones either equal to $`d_i+\lambda `$ either equal to $`0`$, depending on the sign of $`d_i+\lambda `$. The algorithm for finding the closest partially transposed state therefore becomes:

1. Calculate the eigenvalue decomposition of $`\rho ^{PT}=UDU^{}`$
2. Define $`E^2`$ as the unique diagonal positive (semi)-definite normalized matrix such that its elements are $`e_i^2=d_i+\lambda `$ or $`e_i^2=0`$.
3. The closest partially transposed state $`\rho _s`$ is given by $`\rho _s=\left(UE^2U^{}\right)^{PT}`$. The Hilbert Schmidt distance between both states is given by

$$\rho \rho _s_2=\sqrt{\frac{(_{iI_p}d_i+_{iI_n}d_i)^2}{n_p}+\underset{iI_n}{}d_i^2},$$
(3)
where $`I_n`$ is the set of all indices corresponding to the negative eigenvalues of $`\rho ^{PT}`$, $`I_p`$ is the set of indices corresponding to positive eigenvalues of $`\rho ^{PT}`$ but for which $`E_i^2=0`$, and $`n_p`$ denotes the rank of $`E^2`$.

If $`\rho _s`$ is a state, it is guaranteed to be the closest PPT-state. Numerical investigations show that for example in the two qubit case the positiveness of $`\rho _s`$ happens in approximately 97% of the cases. If $`\rho _s`$ is not positive, then the distance to the set of partially transposed states calculated is a (fairly good) lower bound on the distance of the entangled state to the set of PPT-states.

Let us illustrate the above procedure with an example. Say we want to find the closest biseparable $`2\times 4`$ state to the three qubit $`W`$-state  $`|W=(|001+|010+|100)/\sqrt{3}`$. The eigenvalue decomposition of $`(|WW|)^{PT}=UDU^{}`$, with the partial transpose operation taken over the 4-dimensional Hilbert space, is given by:

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}2/3& \sqrt{2}/3& 1/3& 0& 0& 0& 0& \sqrt{2}/3\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}.& 1/\sqrt{2}& .& .& .& .& .& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& .& .& 1/\sqrt{2}& .& .& .& .\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& .& .& 1/\sqrt{2}& .& .& .& .\\ .& .& .& .& 1& .& .& .\\ .& .& 1& .& .& .& .& .\\ .& 1/2& .& .& .& .& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/2\\ .& 1/2& .& .& .& .& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/2\\ .& .& .& .& .& 1& .& .\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
The eigenvalues $`E^2`$ are readily obtained:

$$E^2=\mathrm{diag}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}2/3\sqrt{2}/9& 2\sqrt{2}/9& 1/3\sqrt{2}/9& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
Taking the partial transpose leads to the state $`\rho _s`$, where we used the notation $`c=\sqrt{2}/18`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}2c& .& .& .& .& .& .& .\\ .& 1/3c& 1/3c& .& 1/9& .& .& .\\ .& 1/3c& 1/3c& .& 1/9& .& .& .\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .\\ .& 1/9& 1/9& .& 1/32c& .& .& .\\ .& .& .& .& .& c& c& .\\ .& .& .& .& .& c& c& .\\ .& .& .& .& .& .& .& .\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
The eigenvalues of $`\rho _s`$ are non-negative and it is possible to show that $`\rho _s`$ is separable. We have therefore found the closest biseparable $`2\times 4`$ state to the $`|W`$-state, and the Hilbert Schmidt distance to it is equal to $`\left(2/3\right)^{3/2}`$. Recently, the question arised whether the set of W-type states is of measure zero. Using the language of the Hilbert-Schmidt distance, this problem is readily solved. Indeed, the question is solved if we can prove that the state obtained by mixing the W-state with a small random completely separable mixed state remains outside the set of all convex combinations of biseparable states (with relation to whatever partition). As there is no biseparable pure state infinitesimally close to the W-state, and a mixed state not infinitesimally close to a pure state is always at a finite distance from whatever pure state, it is proved that the set of W-type states is indeed not of measure zero. A different proof was given by Acin et al. . Remark that the above proof is very general and can be used in systems of arbitrary dimensions: whenever there exists a pure state $`\psi _1`$ that can probabilistically be converted into another one $`\psi _2`$ but not vice-versa, the set of $`\psi _1`$-like states minus the set of the $`\psi _2`$-like states is of finite measure if there does not exist a $`\psi _2`$-like state infinitesimally close to $`\psi _1`$!

The concept of negativity is also connected to the concept of robustness of entanglement . Indeed, let us calculate how much an entangled bipartite state of whatever dimension has to be mixed with the identity before it gets PPT. In analogy with the previous derivation of the Hilbert-Schmidt distance, this amounts to the equivalent problem of how much one has to mix the partial transpose of $`\rho `$ with the identity before it gets positive semi-definite:

$$\underset{t}{\mathrm{min}}(1t)\rho ^{PT}+\frac{t}{4}I_40$$
(17)
This problem is readily solved, and the solution is

$$t=\frac{|d_{min}|}{|d_{\mathrm{min}}|+\frac{1}{4}}$$
(18)
where $`d_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the minimal negative eigenvalue of $`\rho ^{PT}`$. The minimal $`t`$ is therefore only a function of the negative eigenvalues. A geometrical implication of this fact is that all surfaces of constant $`d_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are similar to the boundary of separable and entangled states: the set of all states with constant $`d_{\mathrm{min}}`$ can be generated by extrapolating all lines from the identity to the boundary of separable states such that the distance of the extrapolated state to the identity is a constant factor ($`>1`$) of the distance of the separable state to the identity.

Let us now move to the case of two qubits. In this case $`\rho ^{PT}`$ has at most one negative eigenvalue . Numerical investigations indicate that in a vast majority of the states the optimal rank of $`E^2`$ is equal to three, and if the rank is equal to two it implies that $`\rho _s`$ has a negative eigenvalue. For the states for which $`E^2`$ is rank 3, it follows that their distance to the set of partially transposed states is given by

$$\rho \rho _s=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}|d_{\mathrm{min}}|$$
(19)
where $`d_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the negative eigenvalue of $`\rho ^{PT}`$. Surfaces of two-qubit states with constant negativity, defined as $`N=2|d_{\mathrm{min}}|`$, have therefore two distinct properties: they are all similar to each other and the Hilbert-Schmidt distance between them is almost everywhere constant.

Let us illustrate the above findings by explicitely calculating some two-dimensional intersections of the set of all bipartite qubit states including the maximally mixed state. In the following figures we use the metric based on the Hilbert-Schmidt distance $`\rho _1\rho _2^2=\mathrm{Tr}\left((\rho _1\rho _2)^{}(\rho _1\rho _2)\right)`$, and directions represented orthogonal to each other are orthogonal in the sense that $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(A_1A_2\right)=0`$. Rank deficient density operators always lie on the boundary of the intersection.

Note that an explicit parameterization of the boundary between the entangled and separable states can easily be obtained: it is at most a quartic function of the mixing parameters of the states, as their analytic expression can be obtained by setting the determinant of the partial transpose equal to zero.

As a first example we consider the plane containing the maximally mixed state and the states

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (25)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (31)
The plane is plotted in figure (2) and the boundary of all (rank-deficient) states is given by the solid enveloppe. The starred line is the boundary between the convex set of separable states and the convex set of all states. The surfaces of constant negativity are indeed all similar to this boundary. The fact that the distance between these surfaces is not constant throughout the picture indicates that the closest separable states lie in other planes. Note that the Werner states lie along the line between the maximally mixed state and the maximally entangled state $`\rho _1`$. The thirth extremal point in the undermost left corner is given by the rank 2 state

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}.& .& .& .\\ .& \frac{1}{4}& \frac{1}{4}& .\\ .& \frac{1}{4}& \frac{1}{4}& .\\ .& .& .& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(32)
This state is called a quasi-distillable state and has some remarkable properties: a single copy of it can be destilled infinitesimally close to the singlet state , it is the state with minimal negativity for given entanglement of formation , and it has furthermore the strange property that no global unitary operation can increase its entanglement .

Let us now consider a different plane including the maximally mixed state and

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (44)
This plane is obtained by rotating the previous plane around the axis $`\rho _1I_4`$. In this case $`(\rho _1I_4)`$ is orthogonal to $`(\rho _2I_4)`$, and a completely different picture is obtained as shown in figure (3).

Further rotation of the plane leads to the following states:

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (50)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (56)
The intersection of the state space by this plane is shown in figure (4).

The surfaces of constant negativity become straight lines, implying that the closest separable states lie in the same plane: the Hilbert-Schmidt distance betweem the surfaces of constant negativity has to be constant if they consist of parallel planes. Using the procedure previously outlined, it is indeed trivial to check that the separable state closest to the maximally entangled state $`\rho _1`$ lies in the defined plane and is given by

$$\rho _s=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{6}& .& .& .\\ .& \frac{1}{3}& \frac{1}{6}& .\\ .& \frac{1}{6}& \frac{1}{3}& .\\ .& .& .& \frac{1}{6}\end{array}\right)$$
(57)
Let us rotate the plane further over the $`(\rho _1I_4)`$-axis:

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (63)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{101}}\left(\begin{array}{c}10\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 10\end{array}\right)`$ (69)
The resulting figure (5) combines the features of the previous figures. Three entangled disconnected regions arise, and once more we observe the strange shape of the boundary between entangled and separable states.

A plane with a highly symmetric contour lines is obtained if $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are both taken to be maximally entangled states:

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (75)
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (81)
Indeed, only straight lines are obtained in figure (6). The thirth extremal state is in this case given by $`\rho =\mathrm{diag}[1/2;0;0;1/2]`$.

At last, we choose two random planes through the maximally mixed state and plot them in figure (7).

The similarity of all planes with constant negativity is clearly illustrated.

We acknowledge interesting discussions with K. Audenaert, A. Pittenger and K. Zyczkowski, who gave the idea of considering 2-D intersections of the state space.


text:
# BeppoSAX observations of Mrk 841 and Mrk 335

## 1 Introduction

Soft excesses, i.e. emission below $``$1 keV in excess of the power law component dominating the X–ray spectrum above that energy, were discovered in Seyfert 1 galaxies by EXOSAT (e.g. Arnaud et al. 1985; Turner & Pounds 1989) and later confirmed by ROSAT (e.g. Walter & Fink 1993; Walter et al. 1994; Piro et al. 1997). In the first case, however, it is possible that the excesses were somewhat overestimated because the Compton reflection component had not yet been discovered at that time, and the best–fit hard X-ray spectra were therefore found flatter than real. In the second case, the limited ROSAT bandwidth implied that data from another satellite (usually either GINGA or ASCA), not always simultaneous, had to be employed, with related uncertainties. Moreover, it is possible that most of the published ROSAT power law indices are steeper than real due to calibration problems (Fiore et al. 1994; Iwasawa et al., 1999; Mineo et al. 2000), again overestimating (if not creating altogether) soft excesses, when compared with higher energy spectra. ASCA energy band goes down only to 0.6 keV (and only with the SIS instruments), not enough to study the majority of soft excesses in Seyfert 1s, which were found to be relevant below that energy.

Despite the lower sensitivity with respect to both ROSAT and ASCA in the overlapping energy ranges, BeppoSAX (Boella et al. 1997), thanks to the broad energy covering (0.1-200 keV), may overcome some of the problems affecting previous studies on soft excesses. While confirming the commonness of soft excesses in both Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (Comastri et al. 2000, and references therein) and in high luminosity PG quasars (Mineo et al., 2000), up to now BeppoSAX observations seem indicate that soft excesses are the exception rather than the rule in classical, broad line Seyfert 1 galaxies (Matt 2000 and references therein). We therefore decided to study with BeppoSAX two Seyfert 1s in which the claim of the presence of soft excesses have been among the strongest in the past.

Mrk 841 is indeed the first source in which the soft excess was discovered (Arnaud et al. 1985). Since then, Mrk 841 has been extensively studied, remaining one of the best case for this component (George et al. 1993; Nandra et al. 1995). In particular, it is one of the three (out of 24) sources in the ASCA sample of Reynolds (1997) in which “soft excess is clearly seen in the data” (the other two sources being Mrk 335, see below, and NGC 4051). The source is interesting also in other respects: the intrinsic power law index varies strongly between different observations (which, by the way, may confuse the soft excess estimate if non–simultaneous observations in different bands are compared); a fairly strong fluorescent iron K$`\alpha `$ line (EW$``$450 eV) was detected by GINGA (George et al. 1993); in one GINGA observation the source was apparently reflection–dominated (George et al. 1993), similarly to what happened recently to NGC 4051 (Guainazzi et al. 1998). All these facts make Mrk 841 a source worth investigating even independently of the soft excess issue.

Mrk 335 is another source in the Reynolds (1997) sample in which the soft excess is clearly present, confirming previous findings by EXOSAT (Turner & Pounds 1989) and BBXRT (Turner et al. 1993a). Similarly to Mrk 841, no clear evidence for warm absorption is present in ASCA data (Reynolds 1997; George et al. 1998), but Turner et al. (1993b) previously found evidence for a warm absorber in the ROSAT data. Evidence for such an absorber was also found by Orr (2000) in the same BeppoSAX data we are discussing in this paper. Both Reynolds (1997) and Orr (2000) detected a strong iron K$`\alpha `$ line, with EW$``$560 and 230 eV, respectively. It should be noted that Mrk 335 is often classified as a NLSy1, but has a relatively high H$`\beta `$ FWHM (1640 km/s, Wang et al. 1996, close to the conventional boundary for this class of objects of 2000 km/s), and a rather normal power law index (see also below), and may therefore be considered a borderline object.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

For both sources, the observing dates, exposure times, count rates (for the LECS, MECS and the PDS instruments, the latter referring to two units, as at any time only half detector is on source), fluxes and luminosities are summarized in Table 1. While the Mrk 841 data are presented here for the first time, results from the BeppoSAX observation of Mrk 335 have already been presented, but not discussed in detail, by Orr (2000). For the imaging instruments, light curves and spectra have been extracted from 4’ (LECS) and 3’ (MECS) circles centred on the sources. Background spectra taken in the same regions from blank sky observations have been used for subtraction. Regarding the PDS, background subtracted spectra automatically generated at the BeppoSAX Scientific Data Centre (SDC) have been used. Variable Rise Time thresholds have been adopted.

## 3 Temporal analysis

### 3.1 Mrk 841

The LECS (0.1–4 keV), MECS (1.8-10.5 keV) and PDS (13-100 keV) light curves of Mrk 841 are shown in Fig. 1. The source varies up to 50% on time–scales of tens of thousand seconds. To search for spectral variability, we have also plotted the (1.8-4)/(0.1-1.8) LECS, the (4-10.5)/(1.8-4) MECS and the PDS/MECS hardness ratios. There is marginal evidence for moderate and rather erratic spectral variability, not correlated with flux variations.

### 3.2 Mrk 335

A similar temporal analysis has been made for Mrk 335 (see Fig. 2). During the observation the source varied up to a factor $``$2 in both the LECS and MECS. There is marginal evidence for spectral variability, but also in this case not correlated with flux variations.

## 4 Spectral analysis

For both sources, the spectra have been averaged over the entire observations, as spectral variability is modest. As usual, in the fits the normalization of the LECS and PDS with respect to MECS has been kept free and fixed to 0.8, respectively. In the following, all quoted errors correspond to the 90 percent confidence level for one interesting parameter ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$=2.7). All spectal fits were performed with the Xspec package (version 10).

### 4.1 Mrk 841

The data from the three instruments were fitted together. We first fitted the spectra above 2 keV with a model composed by a power law with exponential cut–off absorbed by the Galactic $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ ($`2.34\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, obtained using the W3nH HEASARC tool), plus a reflection component and an iron K$`\alpha `$ line. The reflection component is described by the pexrav model (Magdziarz & Zdziarski, 1995), while for the iron line we used either a narrow gaussian line or a relativistic line (diskline model); in the latter model we kept fixed the inner radius at 6$`r_\mathrm{g}`$, leaving therefore as free parameters the outer radius and the inclination angle (the latter linked to that of the reflection component). We note that a broad gaussian line, besides having no astrophysical meaning in the context under discussion, has the same number of free parameters as the relativistic lines, and therefore is not a simpler model. We therefore did not use this line parametrization in our fits. We tried to apply the relativistic effects to the reflection component too, adopting the refsch model, but no appreciable difference could be observed, due to the limited statistics.

This model (whatever the line parametrization) provides a good description of the data between 2 and 200 keV, but when extrapolated to lower energies (see Fig. 3) it falls significantly short of the data, suggesting the presence of a soft excess.

When the fit is performed over the whole band, this model gives an acceptable fit ($`\chi ^2`$=135.4/121 degrees of freedom (dof)) after steepening the power law index and simultaneously increasing the reflection component, but features in the residuals in the soft part of the spectrum are still present. We thus checked if the presence of a warm absorber is consistent with the data, by adding to the baseline model the absori component. The addition of this component significantly improves the fit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$(dof) = 13.6(2), corresponding to a probability of 99.8% according to the F–test). The best fit parameters are listed in Table 2, first column. The value of $`R`$, 4.6, is very high, while the equivalent width of the iron line is 210 eV, inconsistent with the large value of $`R`$ found (e.g. Matt et al. 1992). There is also a problem with the iron line properties, as the value of $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is basically equal to $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$. If we use a simple, narrow gaussian profile (zgauss model) instead of the relativistic one for the iron line, we get a fit of similar quality ($`\chi ^2`$=123.9/120 dof). The value for $`R`$ is also similar ($`4.3_{1.6}^{+9.1}`$), but the EW is much lower ($`80_{60}^{+40}`$ eV), making more acute the inconsistency with the large value of $`R`$. In the following fits we will therefore consider only the relativistic line, keeping in mind that this choice is based on astrophysical plausibility rather than statistical arguments. Excluding altogether the line from the model, we found a still acceptable fit ($`\chi ^2`$=129.6/121 dof), but again this is rather unplausible given the unambiguous presence of a reflection continuum (in the fit without the line the value of $`R`$ raises to 6.4!). According to the F-test, the presence of the (relativistic) line is significant at the 98.5% confidence level.

Of course, excluding the reflection component leads to a very bad fit, as illustrated in Fig. 4, obtained by fitting the data with a simple power law instead of the pexrav model.

The next step was to fit the data with the baseline model plus a thermal emission (bb model), instead of the warm absorber (second column of Table 2). This results in a similar $`\chi ^2`$ (120.8/119 dof). The equivalent width of the iron line is higher ($`260_{80}^{+120}`$ eV), thus becoming more consistent with the large value of the reflection component. Even if the value for $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is still very low, it is higher than before. Moreover, $`R`$ is lower and significantly better constrained than in the previous fit, being $`3.2_{1.0}^{+1.6}`$. As in the previous fit, only a lower limit can be put on the high energy cut–off.

Since the value of the solid angle of the reflection component is still very high, we checked whether this could be entirely ascribed to an excess of counts in the PDS. Thus we fitted the same model with LECS and MECS data only, without the PDS. The resulting $`\chi ^2`$ is 108.9/105 dof: the value of $`R`$ is still very high ($`3`$), therefore excluding that it may arise from a miscalibration between the MECS and the PDS instruments, or to contaminating sources in the PDS field of view.

We also tried to model the soft excess with a power law instead of a black body. The fit is significantly worse ($`\chi ^2`$=131.5/119 dof), even adding a warm absorber ($`\chi ^2`$=125.8/117 dof), but in the last case a lower value for $`R`$ (2.7) and a more consistent iron line EW (250 eV) is found.

On the contrary, the fit with the bremsstrahlung emission provides a fit almost as good ($`\chi ^2`$=123.4/119 dof) as with the black body. The value of $`R`$, 2.3, is lower and consistent, within the errors, with the value of the iron line EW, 280 eV.

We next tried to fit the primary continuum with a more physical model than a simple power law; we used the Comptonization model of Haardt & Maraschi (1993) (third column of Table 2). The corresponding XSPEC code is in the form of a grid of spectra; the fitting parameters are the electron temperature in units of $`mc^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the optical depth $`\tau `$, and the temperature of the soft black body emission, $`T_{\mathrm{soft}}`$; the parameters range from 0.1 to 1 ($`\mathrm{\Theta }`$), 0.05 to 1 ($`\tau `$) and 5 to 100 eV ($`\mathrm{\Theta }`$). The cosine of the inclination angle has been fixed to 0.8 (as suggested by the pexrav plus diskline fit), in order to reduce the number of free parameters. The Compton reflection component is also included in the model. The fit is satisfactory ($`\chi ^2`$=118.8/120 dof), but the problem of the large value of $`R`$ is not solved. The line EW is about 390 eV (obtained with the diskline model). The parameters of the continuum are $`\tau `$=0.8 and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$=0.13. It is worth noting that the soft emission present in the Comptonization model is not sufficient, and a further black body component is also required, suggesting either a multicolor disc emission or an altogether different component.

If a bremsstrahlung is used instead of a black body, the fit is significantly worse ($`\chi ^2`$=135.0/120 dof). A power law, instead, provides a fit of comparable quality ($`\chi ^2`$=121.0/120 dof), but the problem of the large value of $`R`$ is made even more serious. Finally, a warm absorber, instead of a true soft excess, gives a significantly worse fit ($`\chi ^2`$=138.6/120 dof).

### 4.2 Mrk 335

We firstly proceeded as for Mrk 841, and fitted the data above 2 keV with the same baseline model, with a Galactic column density $`N_\mathrm{H}=4.0\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. Given the poor statistics in the PDS, we did not include the high energy cut–off. The extrapolation to lower energies is shown in Fig. 6: the soft excess is even more clear than for Mrk 841. In fact, fitting this model to the whole band, we obtain a totally unacceptable fit, with $`\chi ^2`$=286.4/128 dof (see Fig. 7). The inclusion of a warm absorber strongly improves the fit ($`\chi ^2`$=151.4/126 dof), but still a power law is needed to model the soft excess ($`\chi ^2`$=134.2/124 dof). The solid angle of the reflection component is rather low ($``$0.6) and ill constrained, while the equivalent width of the iron line is rather high, being $``$300 eV. If a narrow gaussian line is used instead of the relativistic one, the fit is worse ($`\chi ^2`$=139.3/125 dof)

A significant improvement in the fit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^28.2`$, corresponding to a probability of about 99.4% according to the F–test) is obtained adding a narrow gaussian line to the relativistic one. The new model (see the first column of Table 3) has parameters not very different from the previous one, but the total equivalent width of the iron line is very large, the sum of the two components being 270+390=660 eV.

If a black body or a bremsstrahlung is used instead of the power law, rather worse fits are found ($`\chi ^2`$=130.7/123 dof for the black body, $`\chi ^2`$=133.2/123 dof for the bremsstrahlung).

Recently, Ballantyne et al. (2001) have found that a good fit to the ASCA spectrum of Mrk 335 is achieved with the ionized disc model (Ross & Fabian 1993). This could naturally explain the large equivalent width of the iron line (Matt et al. 1993, 1996). We therefore substituted the model pexriv, which allows for ionization of the reflecting matter, to pexrav, which is for neutral matter alone. We also fixed the energy of the iron line in the diskline model either to 6.7 (He–like iron) or to 6.97 (H–like iron), and excluded from the fit the narrow line. The results are inconclusive: the $`\chi ^2`$ is not improved (126.1/123 dof for the H–like iron, and 126.8/123 dof for the He–like iron), and the reflection component in both cases goes to zero (but remaining ill–constrained). The equivalent width of the iron line is 690 eV for the H–like iron, and 660 eV for the He–like iron. Very similar results are obtained using the Ross & Fabian (1993)111available at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/models/iondisc.html  model. We therefore conclude that the ionized disc model is neither proved nor disproved by the data, remaining the more plausible on physical ground.

We then fitted the spectrum with the Comptonization model described in the previous section, using a power law, a black body or a bremsstrahlung model for the soft excess. In all cases, the fit is slightly better than that with a cut–offed power law. The best fit is found for a black body (121.4/123 dof, second column of Table 3), while for the power law and the bremsstrahlung we found a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of 124.5/123 dof and 123.2/123 dof, respectively. None of these fits require a narrow iron line besides the relativistic one.

As far as the reprocessing components are concerned, we still found a very large iron line, and a Compton reflection component consistent with zero.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

We analysed the BeppoSAX data of Mrk 841 and Mrk 335, two Seyfert 1s in which previous observations indicated the presence of a soft excess. We indeed confirm the presence of this component, even if for Mrk 841 the fit with the warm absorber is almost as good as that with a true soft excess. The quality of the data are not, unfortunately, good enough to choose between different parameterizations of the soft emission. In fact, for Mrk 841 we found that a power law is a significantly poorer description of the soft excess, but a black body and a bremsstrahlung are equally acceptable (even if the former is more plausible if the soft excess is indeed associated with the accretion disc), at least as long as a power law is used for the hard X–ray component. For Mrk 335, the presence of the soft excess is clear. If a simple power law is used for the hard component, then a power law is also to be preferred for the soft excess. If, instead, the hard X–ray emission is described by the Comptonization model of Haardt & Maraschi (1993), the black body and the bremsstrahlung provide a better fit. To quantify the relative importance of the soft excess, in Table 4 the bolometric and 0.1-0.5 keV fluxes in the black body component, for both the pexrav and Comptonization models, are given for both sources. Comparing them with the 2-10 keV fluxes given in Table 1, it is clear that the soft excess is more important in Mrk 335, not surprisingly as it is a NLS1. Rather unexpectedly, for Mrk 335 the largest fluxes are obtained in the Comptonization model, despite the presence of a further thermal component in the model.

Comparing our results with previous observations, we note that the soft excess in Mrk 841 is significantly weaker than that found by Arnaud et al. (1985), who however found a much flatter spectral index ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.6) for the hard component. Because at that time the spectral complexities of Seyfert 1s have not yet been discovered, it is possible that they overestimated the soft excess (see the Introduction). Our results are instead remarkably similar to those found by Nandra et al. (1995) analysing ROSAT data (compare model B of their Table 1 with the second column of our Table 2 and with Table 4).

As far as the soft excess in Mrk 335 is concerned, comparing our results with those of Reynolds (1997, see his Table 5), based on ASCA data, we note that the black body bolometric luminosity in our observation is a factor 2.7 higher than in the ASCA observation, while the 2-10 keV luminosities are very similar (with the photon indices being also very similar). This finding rules out models in which the soft excess is entirely due to reprocessing of the hard X–ray component, because in such a model the two components should vary together.

The Comptonization model gives a slightly better fit for Mrk 335, and a comparable one for Mrk 841. While the quality of the spectra, especially at high energies, is not good enough to allow definitive conclusions, it may be instructive to compare the present results with those obtained, adopting the very same model, by Petrucci et al (2001, P01) on a sample of Seyfert 1s observed by BeppoSAX. For both sources the best fit value for the temperature of the plasma is about 70 keV, significantly lower than any value in the P01 sample. Looking at their Fig. 2, we can see that the values we find of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\tau `$ are in between the theoretical curves for a plane–parallel (‘slab’) geometry and for an hemispherical one (in this respect, in agreement with most of the sources analyzed by P01; note also that, for Mrk 335, a pure plane–parallel geometry is ruled out by the comparison of BeppoSAX and ASCA results, see above). The need for a further black body component may suggest that the correct geometry is the patchy one, as envisaged by Haardt et al. (1994), at least for Mrk 841. In the case of Mrk 335, instead, the fact that the temperature of the extra black body is greater than that of the Comptonized one makes this solution hardly tenable.

For both sources the most puzzling results concern the reprocessed components. In Mrk 841 we found a very large value for the solid angle, $`R`$, of the Compton reflection component, while the EW of the iron line, supposed to originate in a relativistic disc, is larger than usual but not so extreme, at least as far as the face values are considered. Actually, within the errors a solution in which both components are about a factor 2 larger than in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi `$ case is possible (in agreement with previous GINGA observations, in which very large values for both the iron line EW and the amount of reflection continuum were found, George et al. 1993). This may be explained either by an anisotropy of the illuminating radiation (see e.g. Ghisellini et al. 1991, where it is shown that even larger anisotropies may be achieved), or by a delayed response of the reprocessing components to variations of the primary continuum (but the latter possibility implies a distance of the reprocessing matter greater than that of the inner accretion disc, in disagreement with the hypothesis of a relativistic iron line necessary to have a sufficent EW to match the large amount of reflection). Interestingly, the large value of $`R`$ seems to follow the anticorrelation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ found by P01, as well as that the correlation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ found by Zdziarski et al. (1999).

In Mrk 335, on the contrary, we found a very large iron line (in agreement with previous findings) but small or moderate Compton reflection component (the upper limit being between 1 and 2, depending on the model for the continuum). A possible explanation could be a larger–than–solar iron abundance, but the values required are rather high, i.e. around 10 (Matt et al. 1997). A more viable solution is in terms of an ionized disc; if the iron is mainly in He– and H–like ions, an equivalent width several times that for neutral iron can be obtained, at least in the constant density solution (Ross & Fabian 1993; Matt et al. 1993, 1996). It is worth noting that Mrk 335 is usually classified as a Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxy, a class of sources in which significant ionization of the accretion disc are often observed (see e.g. Comastri 2000 and references therein), not surprisingly as these sources are commonly believed to accrete at high rates.

###### Acknowledgements.

The BeppoSAX satellite is a joint Italian–Dutch program. We thank the BeppoSAX Scientific Data Centre for assistance, M. Guainazzi for helpful discussions, and the anonymous referee for comments that helped improving the clarity of the paper. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This work was supported by the Italian Space Agency, and by the Ministry for University and Research (MURST) under grants COFIN98–02–32 and COFIN00–02–36.