text:
# Discovery of the Galaxy Proximity Effect and Implications for Measurements of the Ionizing Background Radiation at Low Redshifts

## 1 Introduction

The forest of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines identified in the spectra of QSOs probes physical conditions of the universe at redshifts ranging through $`z5`$. Previous studies have established the redshift distribution $`n(z)`$ of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$-forest absorption lines, with two primary results: First, $`n(z)`$ generally increases with increasing redshift according to a power-law relation $`n(z)(1+z)^\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ ranges from $`\gamma =0.1`$ to 0.5 at redshifts $`z_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1.5}`$ up to $`\gamma =1.85`$ to 2.78 at redshifts $`z1.54`$ (Lu, Wolfe, & Turnshek 1991, hereafter LWT91; Kulkarni & Fall 1993, hereafter KF93; Bechtold 1994, hereafter B94; Bahcall et al. 1996; Giallongo et al. 1996; Kim et al. 1997; Weymann et al. 1998; Savaglio et al. 1999). Second, $`n(z)`$ decreases with increasing redshift along individual lines of sight at redshifts near the emission redshifts of the QSOs (Weymann, Carswell, & Smith 1981; Carswell et al. 1982; Murdoch et al. 1986; Tytler 1987; Bajtlik, Duncan, & Ostriker 1988, hereafter BDO88; LWT91; KF93; B94; Cooke, Espey, & Carswell 1997). This latter effect is known as the “proximity effect” and is generally believed to exist because absorbers near QSOs (which are subject to ionizing radiation from the background radiation field and from the QSOs) are more highly ionized than absorbers far from QSOs (which are subject to ionizing radiation from only the background radiation field) and so on average exhibit smaller neutral hydrogen column densities and weaker $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines (BDO88).

The primary utility of the proximity effect is that it is sensitive to the intensity of the background ionizing radiation field. Under an assumption of ionization equilibrium, the deficit of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines (with respect to an extrapolation of the general cosmological trend) at redshifts near the emission redshift of a QSO depends on the ratio of the flux of ionizing photons from the QSO to the mean intensity of ionizing photons from the background ionizing radiation field. Measurement of the proximity effect fixes this ratio, and measurement of the QSO spectral energy distribution fixes the flux of ionizing photons from the QSO, thus allowing the intensity of ionizing photons from the background ionizing radiation field to be directly inferred. Results are usually expressed in terms of the mean specific intensity of the background ionizing radiation field at the Lyman limit, $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$.

Knowledge of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ as a function of redshift is crucial for understanding galaxies, because ionizing radiation directly affects processes of star and galaxy formation. A higher level of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ at high redshifts would have increased the ionization fraction of the universe, preventing gas from collapsing down to form clouds, and consequently delaying or hampering star formation activity to later times (e.g., Dekel & Rees 1987; Efstathiou 1992). Various groups have applied the proximity effect to measure $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ at both low and high redshifts. At low redshifts ($`z_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$), the density of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$-forest absorption lines is relatively low, and only a single (tentative) measurement of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ has been made, yielding $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}6.0\times 10^{24}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 (KF93). At high redshifts ($`z24`$), the density of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$-forest absorption lines is relatively high, and various measurements of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ in the range $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}=0.63.0\times 10^{21}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 have been obtained (BDO88; LWT91; B94; Giallongo et al. 1996e). (For comparison, measurements of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ from observations of H$`\alpha `$ emission of Galactic and intergalactic clouds and photoionization edges of the neutral hydrogen disks of nearby galaxies (e.g., Maloney 1993) typically determine $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ in the range $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}110\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 at redshift $`z0`$.)

But previous measurements of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ from the proximity effect have assumed that the clouds that produce the $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ forest are uniformly distributed in space, even in the vicinities of QSOs. This assumption may not be valid in light of the following two points: First, direct comparison of galaxy and absorber redshifts along common lines of sight indicates that at least 50%—and possibly all—of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers at redshifts $`z_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ are associated with galaxies (Lanzetta et al. 1995, hereafter L95; Chen et al. 1998, hereafter C98). Second, various observations show that galaxies cluster around QSOs (Bahcall, Schmidt, & Gunn 1969; Hartwick & Schade 1990; Bahcall & Chokshi 1991; Fisher et al.1996; Yee & Green 1987; Boyle, Shanks, & Yee 1988). If many or most $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers are associated with galaxies, and if galaxies cluster around QSOs, then previous measurements have underestimated the magnitude of the proximity effect, or, equivalently, overestimated $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ (see also Loeb & Eisinstein 1995). This may have important implications for our understanding of galaxies and of the sources responsible for the background ionizing radiation field.

To address these issues, we use a sample of galaxies and absorbers toward 24 low-redshift ($`z_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$) QSOs to examine the incidence and extent of gas envelopes around galaxies in the vicinities of QSOs and far from QSOs. We find several main results as follows: First, there exists a galaxy proximity effect in that galaxies in the vicinities of QSOs do not exhibit the same incidence and extent of gaseous envelopes as galaxies far from QSOs. Second, the galaxy proximity effect appears to extend to velocity separations from the QSOs of up to $`3000`$ km s-1, rather than up to only $`1000`$ km s-1, which suggests that the effect is related to ionizing radiation from the QSOs rather than to the physical environments of the QSOs. Third, the amplitude of the galaxy–QSO cross-correlation function implies that previous measurements have overestimated $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ by a factor of $`20`$. While a standard Friedmann cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ is assumed throughout, it should be noted that the entire analysis presented in this paper is completely independent of the assumed value of $`H_0`$.

In § 2 we present the data set used in our analysis. In § 3 we demonstrate the existence of a galaxy proximity effect from our galaxy-absorber pairs and discuss its origin. In § 4 we calculate the magnitude of the overestimate of the ionizing background radiation intensity $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ derived from the proximity effect, using clustering information derived from the galaxy–QSO cross-correlation function. Finally, we discuss these results in the context of our current understanding of the origin and evolution of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ in § 5, and describe other effects that also can cause an overestimate.

## 2 Data

### 2.1 Galaxies

Observations of galaxies used in the analysis were obtained from a portion of our imaging and spectroscopic survey of faint galaxies in the fields of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) spectroscopic target QSOs (L95; Lanzetta, Webb, & Barcons 1996; C98). The goal of the survey is to establish the relationship between galaxies and $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption systems by directly comparing galaxies and $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers along common lines of sight. The survey includes 523 galaxies of magnitude $`r_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}22.5}`$ drawn from within a few arcmin of 24 background QSOs. Redshifts of the galaxies were determined from various ground-based spectroscopic observations, the details of which have been presented elsewhere (L95; Lanzetta, Webb, & Barcons 1996; C98). The galaxy redshifts range from $`z=0.02`$ to $`1.5`$, and the galaxy impact parameters to the QSO lines of sight range from $`\rho =11`$ to $`1430h^1`$ kpc.

### 2.2 Absorbers

Observations of absorbers used in the analysis were obtained from the HST archive. Specifically, we analyzed Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) spectra of 24 QSOs of emission redshift $`z=0.20`$ to 1.07. First, we searched the QSO spectra for $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines according to a $`5\sigma `$ detection threshold criterion. Next, we searched the QSO spectra for additional $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines from each of the galaxies of the sample according to a $`3\sigma `$ detection threshold criterion (L95). We included upper limits of equivalent width $`W<0.35`$ Å for galaxies for which no $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines were measured in the QSO spectra. Using these criteria, we identified a total of 229 $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines in the spectra of the 24 QSOs. All absorbers included in our study have a neutral hydrogen column density $`N(\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I})>10^{14}`$ cm-2. It has been found that more than 75% of these are contaminated by C IV (Songaila & Cowie 1996), and such $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers are found to be strongly clustered (Fernandez-Soto et al.1996). Therefore, it follows that these absorbers are most likely to arise in galaxies at high redshifts.

The equivalent width sensitivities of the spectra vary significantly, both from spectrum to spectrum and within individual spectra. To account for these variations, we measured the equivalent width sensitivity versus wavelength of all QSOs in the sample, based on polynomial fits to the spectra and noise spectra. In this way, we employed a uniform equivalent width sensitivity criterion across the spectra.

### 2.3 Galaxy and Absorber Pairs

A total of 258 of the galaxies of the sample either (1) produce a detected $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption line or (2) do not produce an absorption line to within a $`3\sigma `$ limiting equivalent width threshold of 0.35 Å. The remaining galaxies have redshifts which either are larger than the redshift of the background QSO or would place the $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption line in a wavelength region of the QSO spectrum with an equivalent width sensitivity above the $`3\sigma `$ limiting threshold criterion.

We established galaxy and absorber pairs using the galaxy–absorber cross-correlation function $`\xi _{ga}(\mathrm{\Delta }v,\rho )`$ measured by Lanzetta et al.(1997, 2001) on the basis of 3125 galaxy and absorber pairs. Specifically, following Chen et al. 1998 we formed galaxy and absorber pairs by requiring that (1) $`\xi _{ga}(\mathrm{\Delta }v,\rho )>1`$ and (2) $`\rho <200`$ $`h^1`$ kpc. If more than one galaxy satisfied these criteria for a given absorption system, we ascribed the galaxy with the smallest impact parameter to form the pair. In total, we identified 73 galaxy-absorber pairs and 151 galaxies that do not produce $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption to within sensitive upper limits. Detailed information about each of the fields studied, including coordinates of the QSOs, emission redshifts, and spectral indices, and numbers of absorbers and galaxies in the field is given in Table 1.

## 3 The Galaxy Proximity Effect

Previous work by Lanzetta et al.(1995) and Chen et al.(1998) has demonstrated a distinct anticorrelation between $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption line equivalent width $`W`$ and galaxy impact parameter $`\rho `$ at redshifts $`z_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ for intervening galaxies far from the vicinities of background QSOs (with a line-of-sight velocity difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{}^>\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3000}`$ km s-1). In simplest terms, galaxies at impact parameters $`\rho _{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}180}h^1`$ kpc are almost always associated with corresponding $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines, while galaxies at larger impact parameters rarely are. This result is shown in the top left panel of Figure 1, which plots the logarithm of $`W`$ versus the logarithm of $`\rho `$. (Figure 1 contains data from an additional 14 QSO fields not included in the earlier studies, bringing the total number of fields studied to 24.) On the basis of 66 galaxy and absorber pairs and 91 galaxies that do not produce corresponding $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption to within sensitive upper limits, we find according to the generalized Kendall test that $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption equivalent width is anti-correlated with galaxy impact parameter at the $`7\sigma `$ level of significance. Specifically, in the top left panel of Figure 1 there are 57 galaxies with impact parameters $`\rho 180h^1`$ kpc, and 45 of these (79%) are associated with corresponding $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines, while there are 100 galaxies with impact parameters $`\rho >180h^1`$ kpc, and only 21 of these (21%) are associated with detectable absorption lines to within sensitive upper limits.

The sample of galaxies discussed here and presented in the top left panel of Figure 1 are sufficiently displaced from the background QSOs that they lack any physical association with the QSOs, i.e., there are no dynamical or radiative processes arising from the QSOs that directly affect the galaxies. But how do the absorption properties differ for galaxies in physical proximity to the background QSOs? Can the tenuous galaxy envelopes survive the intense ionizing radiation from the QSO and/or the dynamical effects of the QSO cluster environment? If galaxies near QSOs lack the same absorption properties as galaxies far from QSOs, one has to distinguish between dynamical effects such as tidal stripping, which might exist in the cluster environment, and radiation effects, such as the increased amount of ionizing radiation from the QSOs relative to the background radiation field. In an effort to make this distinction, we have created four subsamples from our data set in order to examine the incidence and extent of the gaseous envelopes of galaxies at various velocity separations from the background QSOs. These subsamples are (1) the “near” subsample, consisting of galaxies near enough to the QSOs to be affected by the ionizing radiation of the QSOs, (2) the “far” subsample, presented in the top left panel of Figure 1, consisting of galaxies far enough from the QSOs to lie outside the range of the ionizing radiation of the QSOs, (3) the “cluster” subsample, consisting of galaxies within what we define as the cluster environment, and (4) the “intermediate” subsample, consisting of galaxies outside the cluster environment but still subject to effects of the ionizing radiation of the QSOs. These are described in detail in the following sections.

### 3.1 Extent of QSO Ionizing Radiation Field

The control sample for this analysis is the sample of galaxies presented in the top left panel of Figure 1, which we call the “far” subsample. It contains galaxies which are sufficiently far from the background QSOs so as to be considered completely outside the effects of the QSO radiation. To define the extent of the QSO radiation field we must determine the radius at which the QSO radiation is exactly balanced by the background radiation field. We can think of the ionizing radiation emitted by the QSO as forming a “sphere of influence” whose size depends on the relative strength of this radiation in comparison to the diffuse ionizing background radiation field. A measure of this relative strength is given by the ratio of the QSO ionization rate to the background ionization rate,

$$\omega (z)=\left(_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{F_\nu ^Q\sigma _\nu }{h\nu }𝑑\nu \right)/\left(_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{4\pi J_\nu \sigma _\nu }{h\nu }𝑑\nu \right)f(z)$$
(1)
where

$$f(z)=\frac{(1+z)^5}{(1+z_q)}\left[\frac{(1+z_q)^{0.5}1}{(1+z_q)^{0.5}(1+z)^{0.5}}\right]^2$$
(2)
for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. Here, $`F_\nu ^Q`$ is the flux density of the QSO, $`J_\nu `$ is the specific intensity of the ionizing background radiation field, $`\sigma _\nu `$ is the absorption cross section of neutral hydrogen gas, $`\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}`$ is the observed Lyman limit frequency at the redshift of the galaxy, and $`\nu _0`$ is the restframe Lyman limit frequency. The cosmological factors are contained in $`f(z)`$, where $`z`$ is the redshift of the galaxy and $`z_q`$ is the redshift of the QSO.

To evaluate equation (1), it is first necessary to measure the spectral energy distributions of the QSOs and their flux densities at the Lyman limit. First, we created a final spectrum of each QSO by patching together the highest signal-to-noise parts of the various FOS observations obtained through different gratings, which in most cases covered rest-frame wavelengths $`\lambda 1000`$ to 2000 Å. Next, we identified regions of continuum by selecting portions of the QSO spectra likely to be free of the many Fe II multiplets and other prominent emission features according to the composite QSO spectrum of Francis et al.(1991). Finally, we measured the best-fit spectral index $`\alpha `$ and Lyman limit flux density $`F_0`$ of each QSO by fitting a power-law model to the selected wavelength regions of the spectrum assuming $`F_\nu ^Q=F_0(\nu /\nu _0)^\alpha `$, where $`\nu _0`$ is the frequency corresponding to the Lyman limit.

We then evaluated the integrals in equation (1), assuming first that $`J_\nu `$ may be approximated by $`J_\nu =J_0(\nu /\nu _0)^\beta `$, where $`J_0=1.0\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 (KF93) and $`\beta `$ is the background spectral index estimated from a fit to the range of $`\beta `$ (for a background arising primarily from QSOs) given in M92 for $`z=01`$, and that the $`\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}`$ cross section is very well approximated by $`\sigma \sigma _0(\nu /\nu _0)^3`$ (Osterbrock 1989). The resulting simplified version of equation (1) is

$$\omega (z)=\frac{F_0(z)\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}^{\alpha 3}}{J_0(z)\nu _0^{\beta 3}}\frac{\beta 3}{\alpha 3}f(z).$$
(3)
The extent of the QSO ionizing radiation sphere of influence, and thus the dividing line between the “near” and “far” subsamples, is defined to be the point where ionization due to the QSO is exactly balanced by ionization due to the background radiation field, i.e., where $`\omega (z)`$ is unity. We measured $`\omega (z)`$ using equation (3) for all galaxy-absorber pairs in our sample, and Figure 2 shows a plot of log $`\omega (z)`$ versus log $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ (galaxy–QSO velocity separation). It can be seen from Figure 2 that, while there is an obvious spread in log $`\omega (z)`$ due to the various QSO radiation intensities, a mean value of log $`\omega (z)=0`$ at log $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=3.477`$ km s-1 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }v=3000`$ km s-1) fits quite well and different values of $`J_0`$ than the adopted $`10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 would have little consequence in the determination of subsamples. In addition, adopting a different cosmological model such as LCDM would only change the calculation of $`f(z)`$ in our entire analysis. We find that the difference in $`f(z)`$ between SCDM and LCDM would amount to no more than a factor of two at $`z_{}^<\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$. Because of the small negative slope shown in Figure 2, the difference in $`f(z)`$ would have little effect in the determination of subsamples. The results of our analysis are therefore sensitive to neither the adopted cosmological model, nor the assumed $`J_0`$.

We find that galaxies at velocity separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }v<3000`$ km s-1 from the background QSOs in our sample are likely to be affected by the enhanced ionizing radiation from the QSOs, while galaxies at greater velocity separations are subject only to the effects of the background ionizing radiation field. Using this information, we created the “near” subsample of galaxies, which have velocity separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }v<3000`$ km s-1, and the “far” subsample, which have velocity separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }v>3000`$ km s-1.

### 3.2 Galaxy–QSO Cross-Correlation Function

To establish the “cluster” and “intermediate” subsamples, we must determine a “dynamical scale” over which the galaxies of this study cluster around the QSOs of this study. We measured the galaxy–QSO cross-correlation function $`\xi _{gq}(\mathrm{\Delta }v)`$ in terms of galaxy–QSO velocity separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$, which is shown in Figure 3. There is a prominent peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }v0`$, which indicates that the galaxies do indeed cluster around the QSOs. We fit the cross-correlation function with a Gaussian model, which yielded $`\mathrm{FWHM}=1170`$ km s-1. We take galaxies to be within the cluster environment if they occur at velocity separations at which the galaxy–QSO cross-correlation function exceeds unity \[i.e. $`\xi _{\mathrm{gq}}(\mathrm{\Delta }v)>1`$\] in Figure 3. According to the Gaussian fit of $`\xi _{\mathrm{gq}}(\mathrm{\Delta }v)`$, the clustering environment extends to $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=\pm 1180`$ km s-1. Therefore, galaxies with $`1180<\mathrm{\Delta }v<1180`$ are susceptible to the dynamical effects of the cluster environment, and we define this subsample as the “cluster” subsample. Galaxies with $`1180<\mathrm{\Delta }v<3000`$ km s-1 are designated as the “intermediate” subsample, since they occur outside the clustering environment but are still susceptible to the effects of the QSO ionizing flux.

### 3.3 Statistical Analysis

We defined in the previous sections four subsamples as follows: (1) the “near” subsample containing galaxies with $`\mathrm{\Delta }v<3000`$ km s-1, (2) the “far” subsample containing galaxies with $`\mathrm{\Delta }v>3000`$ km s-1, (3) the “cluster” subsample containing galaxies with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }v|<1180`$ km s-1, and (4) the “intermediate” subsample containing galaxies with $`1180<\mathrm{\Delta }v<3000`$ km s-1. The next step is then to compare the $`W`$ (equivalent width) versus $`\rho `$ (impact parameter) relation for each subsample to determine whether or not the absorption properties of galaxies vary among the subsamples. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out to perform this comparison. We used Gehan (Gehan 1965) and Log-rank (Mantel 1966; Cox 1972) tests for incomplete observations, modified for application to multivariate observations (Wei & Lachin 1984). These tests are a generalized version of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test designed to properly take into account the existence of arbitrarily censored (or failed) observations. The purpose of these tests is to examine the probability of the null hypothesis, i.e., that any two subsamples are drawn from the same parent sample; the tests are $`\chi ^2`$ distributed with respect to the null hypothesis. In our case, the test results will determine whether galaxies in the different subsamples share common physical properties of extended gas on the basis of the $`W`$ versus $`\rho `$ relation. As mentioned earlier, we adopt the far subsample as the control sample and compare the other three subsamples.

In making these comparisons, we must take into account the peculiar motions of galaxies induced by the cluster environment (Loeb & Eisenstein 1995; also, c.f. Figure 3). Some fraction of the galaxies in both the cluster subsample and the near subsample that do not produce absorption lines can actually lie behind the QSO due to these peculiar motions. To account for this, we selected from our subsamples non-absorbing galaxies that lie within the cluster environment ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }v|<1180`$ km s-1) and randomly placed them either in front of or behind the QSO when calculating the Gehan and Log-rank statistics. This process was repeated 100 times, and a probability was calculated for the average statistics of all 100 runs.

The results are given in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 1, which shows $`W`$ versus $`\rho `$ for galaxies in all the subsamples. On the basis of Figure 1 it appears that the $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption properties of galaxies in the near sample are utterly unlike the $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption properties of galaxies in the far sample. For example, in the far sample, galaxies at impact parameters $`\rho <100h^1`$ kpc are almost always associated with corresponding $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines (30 of 32 cases), whereas in the near sample, galaxies at impact parameters $`\rho <100h^1`$ kpc are almost never associated with corresponding $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines (4 of 22 cases). Apparently, the only place that galaxies close to the lines of sight to background QSOs are not associated with corresponding $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines is in the immediate vicinities of the QSOs.

The statistical significance of this result is summarized in Table 2, which indicates that the null hypothesis (i.e. that the absorption properties of galaxies in the vicinities of QSOs are identical to the absorption properties of galaxies far from QSOs) can be rejected for all three of the other subsamples in comparison to the far subsample. This can also be seen in the bottom two panels of Figure 1, which show no correlation. Evidently, the anticorrelation between $`W`$ and $`\rho `$ that is seen in the far subsample does not exist in any of the other subsamples. This indicates two things: (1) there exists a galaxy proximity effect, in that galaxies in the vicinities of QSOs do not exhibit the same incidence and extent of gaseous envelopes as galaxies far from QSOs, and (2) this galaxy proximity effect is likely due to the increased level of ionizing radiation from the QSOs above the mean intensity of background ionizing radiation. If the galaxy proximity effect instead arose from some dynamical process induced by the cluster environment in which galaxies were stripped of their H I envelopes (e.g., Morris et al.1993), then there should be a non-negligible probability of the null hypothesis for the intermediate subsample, since these galaxies are outside the cluster environment. Instead, Table 2 shows a vanishingly small probability for all the subsamples, so that the galaxy proximity effect probably exists at all velocity separations out to $`\mathrm{\Delta }v3000`$ km s-1, well outside the cluster environment.

We repeated the statistical tests for subsamples in which the dividing line between the intermediate and far subsamples was varied slightly (from $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=3000`$ km s-1 up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=4200`$ km s-1to account for the effect of different cosmological models), and for samples in which the clustering size was varied slightly (from $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=\pm 600`$ km s-1 up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=\pm 2000`$ km s-1) and found that the main results are insensitive to small variations around the values determined in this paper.

## 4 Effects of Galaxy Clustering on the Proximity Effect

Results of the previous section suggest that the deficit of absorption lines seen in close proximity to the background QSO (the proximity effect as discussed in §1) has been underestimated since the existence of an excess of galaxies near the QSO has been neglected. Therefore, a determination of the mean intensity of the ionizing background radiation field $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ from the proximity effect would be overestimated. This implies that all previous estimates of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ at various redshifts using the proximity effect may have also been overestimated. To determine the magnitude of this overestimate from our data set, we start by following the definition of the proximity effect presented in BDO88.

We first model the observed number of absorption lines per unit redshift with equivalent width above a fixed threshold as a power law of the form

$$n(z)=A_0(1+z)^\gamma $$
(4)
where $`A_0`$ is a normalization constant and $`\gamma `$ has been found to range from $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$0.3 at redshifts $`<`$ 1.7 (e.g., Weymann et al.1998) to $`2.0`$ at redshifts between $`24`$ (e.g., B94).

Next, we describe the H I column density $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}`$ for a highly ionized absorber near a QSO as

$$N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}=N_0[1+\omega (z)]^1$$
(5)
where $`N_0`$ is the column density of the absorber in the absence of the QSO and $`\omega (z)`$ is defined in §3.1. The observed distribution of absorber H I column densities is often given by a power law of the form

$$f(N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}})N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}^\eta $$
(6)
so that the number of absorbers with H I column density above some threshold $`N_{\mathrm{thr}}`$ is

$$n(N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}N_{\mathrm{thr}})N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}^{\eta +1}$$
(7)
Many absorption system studies have found that $`\eta 1.7`$ (e.g., Carswell et al.1984; Atwood, Baldwin & Carswell 1985; Rauch et al.1992), which then gives

$$n(N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}N_{\mathrm{thr}})N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}^{0.7}$$
(8)
Therefore, for a sample of absorbers limited by the observed H I column density, the distribution of absorption lines with redshift given in equation (4) including the proximity effect is given by

$$n(z)=A_0(1+z)^\gamma [1+\omega (z)]^{0.7}$$
(9)
However, given that most of the absorption lines in our sample are associated with galaxies and that galaxies cluster around QSOs, the actual number of potential absorbers must be higher by some factor $`\delta _{\mathrm{cl}}`$, which is the galaxy overdensity in the vicinities of QSOs. So the corrected version of equation (9) is

$$n(z)=A_0(1+z)^\gamma [1+\omega _{\mathrm{cl}}(z)]^{0.7}\delta _{\mathrm{cl}}$$
(10)
Equating equation (9) to equation (10) and collecting terms, we get

$$\left[\frac{1+\omega (z)}{1+\omega _{\mathrm{cl}}(z)}\right]^{0.7}=\delta _{\mathrm{cl}}$$
(11)
and since the clustering scale ($``$ 1180 km s-1) is smaller than the extent of the proximity effect ($``$ 3000 km s-1), $`\omega (z)`$ will always be $`1`$ so that

$$\left[\frac{\omega (z)}{\omega _{\mathrm{cl}}(z)}\right]^{0.7}=\delta _{\mathrm{cl}}$$
(12)
Thus, the amount by which the proximity effect has been underestimated is given by

$$\frac{\omega _{\mathrm{cl}}(z)}{\omega (z)}=\delta _{\mathrm{cl}}^{1.4}$$
(13)
To determine the overdensity of galaxies around the QSOs $`\delta _{\mathrm{cl}}`$, we calculated the ratio of the mean number of galaxies per unit velocity separation at $`|\mathrm{\Delta }v|<1180`$ km s-1 to the mean number of galaxies per unit velocity separation at $`3000<\mathrm{\Delta }v<50,000`$ km s-1. We find from this ratio that the magnitude of the excess of galaxies in the vicinities of the QSOs is $`\delta _{\mathrm{cl}}=8.5`$. According to equation (13), then, the proximity effect measured at low redshifts from a sample similar to the one presented in this paper may be underestimated by a factor of 20. Consequently, the strength of the ionizing background radiation field $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ deduced from such a measurement would be overestimated by a factor of 20.

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 Comparison of Local Estimates of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$

A quantitative understanding of the intensity of the ionizing background radiation, $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$, as a function of redshift is crucial for models of galaxy formation and evolution, because the ionizing background radiation directly modulates star formation at all redshifts. Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ directly, since the Galaxy is optically thick to ionizing radiation below the Lyman limit. Therefore, we must rely on more indirect means such as measuring its effects on detectable gas outside the Galaxy. At high redshifts ($`z24`$) our knowledge of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ comes entirely from detections of the proximity effect (e.g., BDO88, LWT91, B94) and model calculations based on the observed QSO redshift distribution (e.g., M92), which tend to agree that $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}1\times 10^{21}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1. Due to the lower density of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines at low redshifts ($`z`$$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$1) as compared to high redshifts, detection of the proximity effect at low redshifts is very difficult. Consequently, only a single tentative measurement of the ionizing background has been reported from the proximity effect at $`z0.5`$ of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}=0.23.6\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 (KF93). At these redshifts, however, various other techniques can be used to place constraints on $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ in addition to the proximity effect. In the following, we discuss these various techniques and their results to better depict the redshift evolution of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ in the context of our results.

There exist several estimates of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ in the local universe using techniques other than the proximity effect. Since many of these invariably rely on some set of model assumptions, they provide only upper or lower limits rather than specific measurements. For example, observations of a sharp cutoff in the surface density of H I in the outer disks of nearby galaxies can constrain $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ (Bochkarev & Sunyaev 1977). Typical estimates lie in the range $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}110\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1, with the range of values dictated mainly by the assumed structure of the galactic disks (Corbelli & Salpeter 1993; Maloney 1993; Dove & Shull 1994). Uncertainty in the total H I distribution at large radii also adds to the error in such measurements.

Another technique comes from the non-detection of H$`\alpha `$ emission from H I clouds. An upper limit of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$2 $`\times 10^{22}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 was determined from non-detections of H$`\alpha `$ emission from high-velocity clouds in the Galaxy halo (Kutyrev & Reynolds 1989; Songaila, Bryant, & Cowie 1989). However, these clouds may be affected by internal sources of ionization and/or be shielded from the intergalactic radiation field. A more reliable measurement can come instead from intergalactic H I clouds. Two independent studies arrived at similar stringent upper limits on $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ ($`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$8 $`\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1) from a lack of H$`\alpha `$ emission from several intergalactic clouds (Donahue, Aldering, & Stocke 1995; Vogel et al.1995). Also, observations of extraplanar and outer disk H$`\alpha `$ emission from several spiral galaxies place a firm upper limit of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$1 $`\times 10^{22}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 (Hoopes, Walterbos, & Rand 1999).

Finally, there have been several determinations of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ based on the QSO luminosity function under the assumption that a dominant fraction of the ionizing flux at low redshift is contributed by QSOs. Typical estimates lie in the range $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}28\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 (Miralda-Escudé & Ostriker 1990; M92; Zuo & Phinney 1993). More recent calculations, taking into account updated knowledge of the observed QSO redshift distribution find $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}=0.82.1\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 (Shull et al.1999). Furthermore, a lower limit of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}1\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1 was suggested from measurements of the column densities of Fe I, Mg I, Fe II, and Mg II in an intergalactic H I cloud, assuming a QSO-dominated ionizing background (Tumlinson et al.1999). Constraints on $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ from models of the QSO emissivity versus redshift, however, must make assumptions about the local QSO luminosity function, intrinsic QSO spectral shapes, and radiative transfer in the intergalactic medium.

If we take as an acceptable range from the above discussion $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}18\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1, we can see that the KF93 measurement from the proximity effect is quite consistent with these estimates ($`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}=0.23.6\times 10^{23}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1). If we apply the factor of 20 correction suggested by the results of this paper to the KF93 measurement, the intensity of the ionizing background becomes $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}=0.11.8\times 10^{24}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 sr-1 Hz-1, almost an order of magnitude weaker than the estimate of Shull et al.(1999). However, these authors have fairly pointed out that their error of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ was underestimated. Taking a more realistic error estimate, the discrepancy between the two measurements may be reduced to a factor of a few. Because a reduced $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ will result in a smaller ionization correction, the result of our analysis also implies a smaller estimate for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$.

### 5.2 Sources of the Ionizing Background Radiation

An accurate depiction of the redshift evolution of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ can also help to constrain the likely candidate sources of the ionizing background radiation, which will in turn have strong consequences on current models of structure formation in the early universe and the collapse and cooling of low-mass objects at early epochs. An obvious source of ionizing radiation is the QSO population. Initially, it was thought that the observed QSO population did not produce enough ionizing photons at high redshifts to satisfy measurements of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ from the proximity effect, so that there must be other sources such as massive star formation or an undetected QSO population (Miralda-Escudé & Ostriker 1990). Later studies found that indeed QSOs could produce (barely) enough ionizing flux at high redshifts to ionize the universe (Meiksin & Madau 1993), despite the observed decrease in the QSO number density at $`z>3`$. Nevertheless, the discovery of metals in high redshift $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ clouds implies that the intergalactic medium had been contaminated by the products of massive star formation — another viable source of ionizing photons. Coupled with the existence of a large population of star-forming galaxies at $`z3`$ reported over the last few years, this implies that ionizing radiation from massive star formation at $`z>3`$ can make up for the fraction that QSOs lack (Madau & Shull 1996; Madau, Haardt, & Rees 1999).

However, the high-redshift background ionizing spectrum is dominated by the effects of radiative transfer in a clumpy intergalactic medium, complicating its interpretation. The low-redshift ($`z`$$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$1) spectrum, on the other hand, should be more representative of its sources. As at higher redshifts, there have been discrepancies at low redshifts between the estimated background flux and the QSO space density, which steeply declines at $`z<2.5`$ (Madau 1992, hereafter M92). An underestimate of the proximity effect could then bring the intensity of the ionizing background into closer agreement with current models of QSOs as ionizing sources at low redshift (Giallongo, Fontana, & Madau 1997), especially if this underestimate is as high as a factor of 20.

### 5.3 Effects of QSO Properties on the Results

The study presented in this paper utilized a randomly selected sample of $`z`$$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$1 QSOs of various spectral indices and radio properties. Since QSO spectral index and radio power can have an effect on the results of this paper, we discuss each of them here. First, it can be seen from Figure 2 that there is a spread in the value of $`\omega (z)`$ for a given velocity separation, which implies that there is a spread in QSO ionizing flux density. The velocity separation at which the ionizing flux from the QSO is exactly balanced by the mean intensity of the background ionizing radiation field defines the extent of the proximity effect, and this was found to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }v3000`$ km s-1 from our data. QSOs with larger ionizing flux densities will push the extent of the proximity effect out to larger velocity separations, and QSOs with smaller ionizing flux densities will have a smaller sphere of influence. Therefore, the proximity effect for significantly stronger QSOs will be more severely overestimated due to galaxy clustering than the proximity effect for weaker QSOs (e.g., Loeb & Eisenstein 1995).

Second, while it has been noted that galaxy clustering around low redshift QSOs appears to be independent of QSO radio power for $`z<0.6`$, there appears to be a divergence in properties at higher redshifts (Yee & Green 1987). Radio-loud QSOs are often located in rich clusters, while radio-quiet QSOs exist in smaller groups or in the outer regions of clusters. Since most of our QSO sample (15 out of 24) have $`z<0.6`$, it is unlikely that radio power has any effect on our conclusions. However, for studies conducted at higher redshifts where the clustering properties vary significantly, the factor of 20 overestimate of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ calculated in this paper must be adjusted accordingly, since this number directly depends on clustering amplitude. For example, $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ measured from the proximity effect for a sample of radio-loud QSOs at some redshift slightly higher than $`z=0.6`$ should be decreased by an additional factor of $`4.6`$ in comparison to a measurement based on radio-quiet QSOs at the same redshift. (Here we assume a typical group has about 20 members and a rich cluster has Abell richness R=1, or about 60 members, so that the correction factor would be $`3^{1.4}`$.)

### 5.4 Additional Contributions to the Overestimate of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$

Galaxy clustering around QSOs is not the only source of error in estimates of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$. The mean intensity of the ionizing background radiation can also be overestimated due to uncertainties in the QSO redshifts (B94). If the QSO emission redshift is measured from broad high-ionization restframe ultraviolet lines such as $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ or C IV, then velocity shifts with respect to the QSO’s systemic redshift will cause estimates of the ionizing background from the proximity effect to be overestimated by factors of $`1.92.3`$ (McIntosh et al.1999). The low-ionization broad Mg II line, or narrow emission lines such as O II or O III, should instead be used for redshift determinations, since they generally are within $`50`$ km s-1 of the QSO systemic velocity. This effect, combined with the effect of galaxy clustering from our study, implies that estimates of the ionizing background from the proximity effect may be overestimated by as much as a factor of $`40`$ if the QSO redshifts come from the broad high-ionization ultraviolet lines. Although most QSO redshifts in our sample have emission redshifts determined from Mg II or O II, there are several that rely only on $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ and/or C IV, so that this effect should be accounted for even in our data.

Another source of error can come from the assumed slope of the power-law fit to the $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorber column density distribution. In our study, we assumed the widely quoted value $`\eta =1.7`$. If, for example, the slope is actually $`\eta =1.5`$, as found by Hu et al.(1995), then the overestimate of the ionizing background would increase from a factor of 20 to a factor of 72. For a very steep column density distribution ($`\eta =2.0`$) on the other hand, there would still need to be a correction of almost a factor of ten. Thus, measurements of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ are somewhat sensitive to the assumed slope of the fit to the absorber column density distribution.

The effects discussed here tend to increase the correction factor rather drastically, so that estimates of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ from the proximity effect may have to be adjusted in some cases by up to a factor of nearly 100. This will have serious consequences on our current understanding of the evolution of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$. In particular, if the differences between local estimates of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ and estimates at high redshifts are about a factor of $`100`$ as most studies seem to show, then any combination of the effects discussed here could have substantial impact on our understanding of the evolution of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ by significantly reducing these differences.

## 6 Summary

To summarize, we have used a sample of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines and galaxy spectra from 24 low redshift ($`z`$$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$1) QSO fields to show that there exists a galaxy proximity effect. In other words, galaxies in the vicinities of QSOs do not show the same incidence and extent of gaseous envelopes as galaxies far from QSOs. We find that the scale of the galaxy proximity effect is consistent with the scale of the QSO ionizing radiation field ($`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$3000 km s-1) rather than the scale of galaxy clustering ($`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$1180 km s-1) for our data, indicating that the galaxy proximity effect is due to the increased ionizing radiation from the QSO rather than some cluster environmental effect. We furthermore find that since (1) most $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption systems arise in galaxies, and (2) galaxies cluster around QSOs, the strength of the proximity effect has likely been underestimated. That is to say, there are more potential $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers (galaxies) in the vicinities of QSOs than assumed if clustering is ignored, leading to an underestimate of the magnitude of the proximity effect. Consequently, the mean intensity of the ionizing background radiation $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ as determined from the proximity effect will be overestimated. We find the overestimate to be as high as a factor of 20 at low redshifts (higher if other effects are taken into account), which brings estimates of $`J_{\nu _{\mathrm{LL}}}`$ down to a level which may make it easier to reconcile with models of QSOs as the primary source of ionizing photons.

SMP, HWC, and KML acknowledge support from NASA grant NAGW-4422 and NSF grant AST–9624216. JKW acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council.

| TABLE 1—QSO SAMPLE | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| QSO Field | RA (J2000) | Dec (J2000) | $`z_{\mathrm{em}}`$ | $`\alpha `$ | $`F_0`$a | $`n_{\mathrm{abs}}`$ | $`n_{\mathrm{gxy}}`$ |
| 0044$`+`$0303 | 00h 47m 05$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$91 | $`+`$03°19′55$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 | 0.62326 | $``$1.12 | 0.55 | 6 | 5 |
| 0122$``$0021 | 01h 25m 28$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$84 | $``$00°05′55$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$9 | 1.070 | $``$1.55 | 0.54 | 20 | 3 |
| 0349$``$1438 | 03h 51m 28$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$54 | $``$14°29′08$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 | 0.61625 | $``$0.58 | 1.29 | 5 | 7 |
| 0405$``$1219 | 04h 07m 48$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$43 | $``$12°11′36$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 | 0.57259 | $``$0.71 | 2.46 | 15 | 26 |
| 0454$``$2203 | 04h 56m 08$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$90 | $``$21°59′09$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 | 0.53348 | $``$1.05 | 1.02 | 15 | 10 |
| 0637$``$7513 | 06h 35m 46$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$51 | $``$75°16′16$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 | 0.656 | $``$1.15 | 0.64 | 10 | 12 |
| 0850$`+`$4400 | 08h 53m 34$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$20 | $`+`$43°49′01$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 | 0.51390 | $``$0.48 | 0.37 | 1 | 5 |
| 0903$`+`$1658 | 09h 06m 31$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$92 | $`+`$16°46′12$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 | 0.4121 | $``$0.79 | 0.10 | 1 | 15 |
| 1001$`+`$2910 | 10h 04m 02$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$63 | $`+`$28°55′35$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 | 0.32970 | $``$0.36 | 1.31 | 16 | 11 |
| 1049$``$0035 | 10h 51m 51$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$50 | $``$00°51′16$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 | 0.35990 | $``$1.10 | 0.81 | 1 | 2 |
| 1136$``$1334 | 11h 39m 10$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$70 | $``$13°50′43$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 | 0.557 | $``$0.83 | 0.55 | 2 | 13 |
| 1216$`+`$0657 | 12h 19m 20$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$88 | $`+`$06°38′38$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 | 0.33130 | $``$0.74 | 1.31 | 8 | 11 |
| 1259$`+`$5920 | 13h 01m 12$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$90 | $`+`$59°02′06$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 | 0.47780 | $``$0.85 | 1.47 | 8 | 17 |
| 1317$`+`$2743 | 13h 19m 56$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$32 | $`+`$27°28′08$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 | 1.022 | $``$0.48 | 1.18 | 38 | 12 |
| 1354$`+`$1933 | 13h 57m 04$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$44 | $`+`$19°19′07$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 | 0.719 | $``$1.67 | 0.69 | 10 | 5 |
| 1424$``$1150 | 14h 27m 38$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$17 | $``$12°03′50$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 | 0.806 | $``$1.88 | 0.38 | 8 | 8 |
| 1545$`+`$2101 | 15h 47m 43$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$54 | $`+`$20°52′16$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 | 0.26430 | $``$0.91 | 0.71 | 4 | 7 |
| 1622$`+`$2352 | 16h 24m 39$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$08 | $`+`$23°45′12$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 | 0.927 | $``$2.23 | 0.12 | 12 | 17 |
| 1641$`+`$3954 | 16h 42m 58$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$81 | $`+`$39°48′37$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 | 0.59280 | $``$1.57 | 0.67 | 2 | 20 |
| 1704$`+`$6048 | 17h 04m 41$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$35 | $`+`$60°44′30$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3 | 0.37210 | $``$0.83 | 1.40 | 13 | 25 |
| 1821$`+`$6419 | 18h 21m 34$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$38 | $`+`$64°20′59$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 | 0.2977 | $``$1.17 | 5.56 | 13 | 17 |
| 2135$``$1446 | 21h 37m 45$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$24 | $``$14°32′55$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 | 0.20030 | $``$0.23 | 0.39 | 5 | 7 |
| 2141$`+`$1730 | 21h 43m 35$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$55 | $`+`$17°43′49$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3 | 0.21110 | $``$1.38 | 0.81 | 1 | 1 |
| 2251$`+`$1552 | 22h 53m 57$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$75 | $`+`$16°08′53$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 | 0.859 | $``$2.88 | 0.74 | 15 | 2 |
| a$`10^{26}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 Hz-1. | | | | | | | |

| TABLE 2—PROBABILITY OF NULL HYPOTHESIS | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sample | $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ (km s-1) | Gehan (%) | Log-rank (%) |
| near | $`<3000`$ | $`6.5\times 10^5`$ | $`7.1\times 10^5`$ |
| intermediate | $`11803000`$ | $`1.2\times 10^4`$ | $`3.0\times 10^3`$ |
| cluster | $`11801180`$ | $`6.2\times 10^4`$ | $`3.4\times 10^4`$ |


format: text

text:
# Astrometric Method to Break the Photometric Degeneracy between Binary-source and Planetary Microlensing Perturbations

## 1 Introduction

Over the past decade, microlensing has developed into a powerful tool in various aspects of astrophysics besides its original use of searching for Galactic dark matter in the form of massive compact halo objects. One important application is the detection of extra-solar planets (Mao & Paczyński, 1991; Gould & Loeb, 1992). A planet can be detected by microlensing because the planet can perturb the smooth lensing light curve created by the primary lens. Since typical planet-induced perturbations last only a few hours to days, detecting them requires intensive monitoring of events. Currently, two groups (MPS: Rhie et al., 2000; PLANET: Albrow et al., 2001) are conducting follow-up observations of ongoing events alerted by the survey experiments (MACHO: Alcock et al., 2000; EROS: Lasserre et al., 2000; OGLE: Soszyński et al., 2001; MOA: Bond et al., 2001) to increase the planet detection rate by improving the monitoring frequency and photometric accuracy. Once the perturbation is detected, one can determine the mass ratio and the projected separation of the planet.

However, a mere detection of a short-lived perturbation in the lensing light curve does not guarantee the detection of a planet. This is because similar anomalies can also occur due to totally different physical reasons (Gaudi & Gould, 1997; Dominik, 1999). One well known type of events that produce light curves closely resembling those produced by more than half of planet/star lens systems are a subset of binary-source events where the source companion has a very low flux ratio to the primary source: planet/binary-source degeneracy (Gaudi, 1998). For these events, the perturbation occurs when the lens passes closely to the source companion. Gaudi (1998) showed that the probability for this type of perturbations can be comparable to the detection probability of Jupiter-mass planets. Therefore, unless this degeneracy is broken and the true cause of the perturbation is determined, a sample of suspected planetary systems detected via microlensing will be seriously contaminated.

As a new method of detecting planets via microlensing, Safizadeh, Dalal & Griest (1999) proposed to conduct astrometric follow-up observations of lensing events by using several planned high-precision interferometers such as the Space Interferometry Mission \[SIM, Unwin, Boden & Shao (1997)\] and those to be mounted on the Keck (Colavita et al., 1998) and the VLT (Mariotti et al., 1998). From astrometric microlensing observations by using these interferometers, one can measure the displacements in the source star image center of light with respect to its unlensed position, $`𝜹`$ (Miyamoto & Yoshii, 1995; Høg, Novikov & Polnarev, 1995). The trajectory of the centroid shifts (astrometric curve) caused by a single point-mass lens is an ellipse (Walker, 1995; Jeong, Han & Park, 1999). A planet can be detected because it can perturb the elliptical astrometric curve of the single lens event, which is analogous to the perturbation in the light curve. Adding astrometric information to the photometric light curve greatly helps in determining the planetary mass and projected separation, because the lensing behaviors of photometric and astrometric perturbations are strongly correlated (Safizadeh, Dalal & Griest, 1999; Han & Lee, 2001).

In this paper, we investigate whether one can break the planet/binary-source degeneracy in lensing light curves from astrometric microlensing observations. In § 2, we briefly describe the basics of microlensing. In § 3, we show that the degeneracy can be unambiguously broken astrometrically by demonstrating the fundamental differences between the astrometric curves resulting from a photometrically degenerate case of binary-source and planetary lensing events. We conclude in § 5.

## 2 Basics of Microlensing

### 2.1 Standard events

If a single source located at $`𝜽_\mathrm{S}`$ on the projected plane is lensed by a coplanar $`N`$ point-mass lens system, where the individual masses and locations are $`m_j`$ and $`𝜽_{\mathrm{L},j}`$, the positions of the resulting images $`𝜽`$ are obtained by solving the lens equation of the form

$$𝜽_\mathrm{S}=𝜽\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}^2}{m}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}m_j\frac{𝜽𝜽_{\mathrm{L},j}}{\left|𝜽𝜽_{\mathrm{L},j}\right|^2},$$
(1)
where $`m=_{j=1}^Nm_j`$ is the total mass of the lens system and $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ is the angular Einstein ring radius. The Einstein ring radius is related to the physical parameters of the lens system by

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}=\sqrt{\frac{4Gm}{c^2}}\left(\frac{1}{D_{\mathrm{ol}}}\frac{1}{D_{\mathrm{os}}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(2)
where $`D_{\mathrm{ol}}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{os}}`$ are the distances to the lens and source from the observer, respectively. The lensing process conserves the surface brightness, and thus the magnification of the source star flux equals the ratio of the surface areas between the image and the unlensed source. The magnifications of the individual images are given by the Jacobian of the transformation (1) evaluated at the image position, i.e.

$$A_i=\left(\frac{1}{|\mathrm{det}J|}\right)_{𝜽=𝜽_i};\mathrm{det}J=\left|\frac{𝜽_\mathrm{S}}{𝜽}\right|.$$
(3)
Then, the total magnification and the centroid shift vector are obtained respectively by $`A=_{i=1}^{N_I}A_i`$ and $`𝜹=_i^{N_I}A_i𝜽_i/A𝜽_\mathrm{S}`$, where $`N_I`$ is the total number of images.

When a single source is lensed by a single point-mass lens (standard event), the lens equation is easily solvable and yields two solutions. The resulting images appear at the positions

$$𝜽_\pm =\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}}{2}\left[u\pm (u^2+4)^{1/2}\right]\frac{𝒖}{u},$$
(4)
and have amplifications

$$A_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{u^2+2}{u(u^2+4)^{1/2}}\pm 1\right],$$
(5)
where $`𝒖=(𝜽_\mathrm{S}𝜽_\mathrm{L})/\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ is the dimensionless lens-source separation vector normalized by $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. The separation vector is related to the single lensing parameters by

$$𝒖=\left(\frac{tt_0}{t_\mathrm{E}}\right)\widehat{𝒙}\pm \beta \widehat{𝒚},$$
(6)
where $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ is the Einstein ring radius crossing time (Einstein time scale), $`\beta `$ is the closest lens-source separation (impact parameter)111Note that the sign ‘$`\pm `$’ in front of $`\beta `$ in eq. (6) is used because $`\beta `$ is positive definitive., $`t_0`$ is the time at the moment of the closest approach, and the unit vectors $`\widehat{𝒙}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒚}`$ are parallel with and normal to the direction of the relative lens-source transverse motion, respectively. Then, the brighter image (major image), denoted by the subscript ‘$`+`$’, is located outside of the Einstein ring and the other fainter image (minor image), denoted by the subscript ‘$``$’, is located inside of the ring along the line connecting the lens and the source. The two images formed by the lens cannot be resolved, but one can measure the total magnification and the shift of the source image centroid with respect to its unlensed position, which are represented respectively by

$$A=A_++A_{}=\frac{u^2+2}{u\sqrt{u^2+4}}.$$
(7)
and

$$𝜹=\frac{A_+𝜽_++A_{}𝜽_{}}{A}𝒖=\frac{𝒖}{u^2+2}\theta _\mathrm{E}.$$
(8)
The light curve of a standard event has a smooth and symmetric shape, where its height (peak magnification) and width (duration) are determined respectively by $`\beta `$ and $`t_\mathrm{E}`$. The centroid shift traces an elliptical trajectory with a semi-major axis $`a=\theta _\mathrm{E}/2(\beta ^2+2)`$ and an eccentricity $`\epsilon =[(\beta ^2/2)+1]^{1/2}`$ (Jeong, Han & Park, 1999).

### 2.2 Planetary Microlensing Events

The lens system with a planet is described by the formalism of the binary lens system with a very low mass companion. For this case, the lens equation can be represented as a fifth degree polynomial (Witt & Mao, 1995) and numerical solution of the equation yields three or five solutions depending on the source position with respect to the lenses.

The main new features of binary lenses relative to single point-mass lenses are caustics. These are the closed curves on the source plane where a point source is infinitely magnified. Hence, significant deviations both in the light and astrometric curves occur when the source passes the region close to the caustics. The size of the caustics, and thus the planet detection probability, depends both on the mass ratio, $`q`$, and the projected separation (normalized by $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$), $`b`$, between the planet and the primary lens. The caustic size decreases with the decreasing value of $`\sqrt{q}`$, and thus planet-induced perturbations last only a short period of time. For a given mass ratio, the caustic size is maximized when the projected star-planet separation is in the range $`0.6b1.6`$, the ‘lensing zone’.

There are two types of planetary perturbations: those which perturb the major image of the source formed by the primary lens, and those which perturb the minor image (Gould & Loeb, 1992). Photometrically, major image perturbations are characterized by positive deviations from the single lensing light curve, while minor image perturbations are characterized by negative deviations (Gaudi, 1998).

### 2.3 Binary-Source Events

Unlike the non-linear behavior of binary-lens events, binary-source lensing is simple because the lensing behavior involved with each source can be treated as an independent single source event (Griest & Hu, 1992). Then the light and astrometric curves of a binary-source event are represented by

$$A=\frac{A_1+A_2}{1+},$$
(9)
and

$$𝜹=\frac{A_1(𝒖_1+𝜹_1)+A_2(𝒖_2+𝜹_2)}{A_1+A_2}\frac{𝒖_1+𝒖_2}{1+},$$
(10)
where $`𝒖_i`$ are the separation vectors between the lens and the individual source components, $``$ is their (unlensed) flux ratio, $`A_i=(u_i^2+2)/u_i(u_i^2+4)^{1/2}`$ and $`𝜹_i=𝒖_i\theta _\mathrm{E}/(u_i^2+2)`$ are the magnifications and centroid shifts of the individual single source events (denoted by the subscripts $`i=1`$ and 2) (Han, 2001). We note that the reference position of the centroid shift measurements for the binary-source event is the center of light between the unlensed source components, i.e, the second term in eq. (10).

## 3 Planet/Binary-source Degeneracy

If the sources of a binary-source event have a small flux ratio and the fainter source passes close to the lens, the resulting light curve can mimic that of a planetary lensing event. The perturbation produced by the binary source companion is always positive, and thus it imitates major image perturbations, which comprises majority of planet-induced perturbations. In Figure 1, we illustrate this degeneracy by presenting the light curves (lower left panel) resulting from an example case of binary-source (solid curve) and planetary lensing (dotted curve) events suffering from the degeneracy. In the upper panels, we also present the lens system geometries of the events. We note that while the geometry of the binary-source event is represented with respect to the sources, the geometry of the planetary lensing event is represented with respect to the lenses. For the binary-source event, the flux ratio and the separation between the sources are $`=5\times 10^3`$ and $`b=0.5`$, respectively. For the planetary lensing event, the mass ratio and the separation between the lenses are $`q=10^3`$ and $`b=1.183`$, respectively. We note that the light curves are identical to those presented in Fig. 1 of Gaudi (1998).

To mimic the light curve of a planetary lensing event, a binary-source event should satisfy the specific requirements of the small flux ratio and the close passage of the lens to the fainter source. Gaudi (1998) estimated the probabilities to satisfy these requirements and found that for binary sources with separations of $`0.5b1.5`$ the probabilities range from a few percent to $`30`$ percent for binaries with magnitude differences of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V47`$. These probabilities are of the same order of magnitude as the probabilities of detecting anomalies induced by Earth-mass to Jupiter-mass planets located in the lensing zone (Gould & Loeb, 1992; Bennett & Rhie, 1996; Peale, 2001). Therefore, binary sources can seriously contaminate a sample of planet candidates detected by microlensing.

Gaudi (1998) discussed several methods to break the degeneracy. These include accurate and dense photometric sampling and multi-band (optical/infrared) photometric measurements of color changes (or spectroscopic measurements of the variation in spectrum) during perturbations. The first method utilizes the differences in the detailed lensing light curves between the two degenerate cases of events. However, applying this method is significantly limited because the differences are, in general, very small and even noticeable differences last a very short period of time. The other method utilizes the differences in the behaviors of color or spectral changes occurred during the perturbations. However, this method also has significant limitations because the expected color or spectral changes are very small.

However, if events are monitored from astrometric follow-up observations, the planet/binary-source degeneracy can be unambiguously broken due to the fundamental differences between the astrometric lensing behaviors of binary-source and planetary lensing events. To demonstrate this, in the lower right panel of Figure 1, we present the astrometric curves resulting from the photometrically degenerate case of binary-source (solid curve) and planetary lensing (dotted curve) events whose light curves are presented in the lower left panel. One finds that while the planet-induced perturbation points away from the opening of the unperturbed astrometric curve (outward perturbation), the perturbation induced by the binary source companion points towards the opening (inward perturbation). These trends of astrometric perturbations for the binary-source and planetary lensing events are not specified only for the presented example events, but are generic properties of these types of events. From the investigation of of the properties of planet-induced astrometric perturbations, Han & Lee (2001) found that both cases of the planet’s perturbations of major and minor images result in the same outward astrometric deviations.222For more examples of planet-induced astrometric perturbations, see Fig. 5 (for major image perturbations) and Fig. 7 (for major image perturbations) of Han & Lee (2001). The characteristic inward astrometric perturbations of binary-source events occur due to the specific geometry of the lens systems. This can be seen in the upper left panel of Fig. 1, where we additionally plot the astrometric curve of the binary-source event to see the source image centroid motion with respect to the source positions. When the lens is away from the source companion, the motion is well described by that of the event with the single brighter source and the centroid follows an elliptical trajectory. During this time, the image centroid is located on the opposite side of the lens with respect to the unlensed position of the brighter source. When the lens approaches the source companion, on the other hand, the companion is highly amplified and the centroid motion is perturbed. Since the lens is close to the companion, this perturbation is directed towards the lens, which is opposite direction compared to the centroid location without the companion. Therefore, binary-source events producing light curves resembling those produced by planetary lens system always result in astrometric curves with inward perturbations.

## 4 Conclusion

We have shown that with additional information from astrometric lensing observations one can unambiguously break the photometric degeneracy between binary-source and planetary lensing perturbations. This is possible because binary-source events producing light curves imitating those of planetary lensing events result in astrometric perturbations pointing towards the opening of the unperturbed astrometric curves, while astrometric perturbations induced by planets point away from the opening. Therefore, astrometric lensing observations by using future high precision interferometers will be important for solid confirmation of planet detections.

This work was supported by a grant (2001-DS0074) from the Korea Research Foundation (KRF).


text:
# ASCA Observation of MS 1603.6+2600 (=UW Coronae Borealis): a Dipping Low-Mass X-ray Binary in the Outer Halo?

## 1 Introduction

MS 1603.6+2600 was first discovered in the course of the Extended Medium Sensitivity Survey (Gioia et al, 1990). With only 51 detected photons in a 2112 s exposure, this detection was useful only in providing the position and a flux estimate of $`10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 (0.3–3.5 keV). Morris et al (1990) identified the optical counterpart, subsequently designated UW Coronae Borealis, a V $``$19.7th mag object. It was shown to be an eclipsing binary: measurements of 10 eclipse timings over a 3-day period has enabled Morris et al (1990) to derive a 111.0 min orbital period. This immediately establishes MS 1603.6+2600 as a low-mass, compact binary. To fit in such a short period binary, the secondary must be a low mass star; and, to be a significant X-ray source, the primary must be an accreting compact object — a white dwarf, which would make the system a cataclysmic variable (CV), a neutron star, or perhaps a black hole, either of which would make it a low mass X-ray binary (LMXB). Given the high galactic latitude of this object ($`b^{\mathrm{II}}47^{}`$), it has to be at a large distance ($`d10`$ kpc) to be a normal, bright LMXB. On the other hand, the optical spectrum and the high X-ray to optical flux ratio (fX/fopt $``$15) are unlike those of normal CVs.

Further optical observations (Vilhu et al, 1993; Hakala et al, 1998) have revealed highly variable orbital light curves. Report of a 112.5 min period, obtained by Vilhu et al (1993) from Fourier analysis, would make it a system with multiple periods, if confirmed. A ROSAT PSPC observation performed on 1991 August 26 (Hakala et al, 1998) did not resolve the nature of MS 1603.6+2600. Hakala et al (1998) discussed the possibility that MS 1603.6+2600 may be an LMXB with an accretion disk corona (ADC), in which we only observe a small fraction of X-rays scattered in the ADC surrounding the inner disk and the neutron star. They also considered the possibility that it might be a transient LMXB in quiescence. These scenarios are motivated, in part, by the desire to keep MS 1603.6+2600 within a few kiloparsecs of the Galactic plane.

We have obtained an ASCA observation of MS 1603.6+2600 in an effort to clarify the nature of this object (see also our preliminary report in Mukai et al (1999)). We describe the observation in §2, the results in §3, and discuss the implications in §4.

## 2 Observation

MS 1603.6+2600 was observed with ASCA (Tanaka et al, 1994) from 1997 August 30 at 20:25 UT to 1997 August 31 at 13:52 UT. Of the 4 instruments on-board ASCA, the 2 GIS’s were operated in the standard PH mode. For the GIS data, we have selected intervals when the satellite was outside the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), the attitude control was stable and within 0.02 of the target, and the line-of-sight was $`>5^{}`$ above the Earth limb. We have also applied a standard selection expression combining monitor count rates and geomagnetic cut-off rigidity (COR) to exclude time intervals of high particle background, obtaining $``$25 ksec of good on-source data. We extracted the source spectra and light curves using 6 arcmin radius circular extraction regions, and used $``$13 arcmin radius regions around the center of the detectors, excluding regions within $``$7.5 arcmin of the source, as background (no sources were detected in the background regions both for GIS and for SIS). The net count rates were $``$0.06 cts s-1 in GIS-2 and $``$0.07 cts s-1 in GIS-3.

For the 2 SIS instruments, we have applied the same SAA, attitude, and elevation constraints, and further excluded data taken within 10 of the bright Earth limb. We have selected low background time intervals using COR and PIXEL monitor count criteria, and also excluded data taken within 32 seconds of day/night and SAA transitions, when the on-board dark frame calculations are suspect. These resulted in $``$25 ksec of useful SIS data. We used an extraction region of $``$4.5 arcmin radius for the SIS-0, using the entire chip, excluding regions within $``$5.5 arcmin of the source, as background, with a net rate of $``$0.12 cts s-1. For SIS-1, we were forced to use a smaller ($``$3.5 arcmin) source region to stay entirely within the active chip, obtaining a net rate of $``$0.08 cts s-1.

For spectral analysis, we combined data from like instruments to form a GIS spectrum and an SIS spectrum. The latter is affected by the secular change in SIS performance at low energies; this can be phenomenologically characterized as a spurious excess absorption of order NH = $`1.0\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2. For the light curve analysis, we combined data from all 4 instruments, both using the entire ASCA passband, and in two sub-bands, one below 2 keV (0.48–2.0 for SIS and 0.7–2.0 keV for GIS) and the other above 2 keV (up to 10 keV).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Detection of a burst

We present a 16-s bin light curve of a striking, flare-like event in Figure 1. This event, detected at 21:45:50 UT on 1997 August 30, is seen in all 4 individual source light curves, and in none of the 4 background light curves. We are therefore confident that this is a real event, presumably due to MS 1603.6+2600. The rise is rapid, and the decay lasts for about 1 minute before blending into the (noisy) persistent emission. The peak count rate ($``$ 2.6 cts s-1 in 4 detectors) is 8 times the persistent emission.

We have attempted a more detailed analysis of this event, but this has not been fruitful because there are only $``$60 net counts from this event. In the remainder of this paper, we will refer to this event as a “burst.” The resemblance with a Type I X-ray burst (i.e., a thermonuclear runaway on the surface of an accreting neutron star; see Lewin et al (1995) for a review) is suggestive, but not conclusive.

### 3.2 Orbital modulation

Next, we removed the burst from our light curves and performed Fourier and folding analyses. We find a strong periodicity at 116$`\pm `$6 min, the large uncertainty being due to the limited duration of the observation and data gaps. We interpret this signal as reflecting the orbital modulation, and proceed below by folding the data on the orbital ephemeris of Morris et al (1990). Note, however, that this ephemeris does not define phase 0.0 accurately. No other periodicities are apparent in the data in the 200–20,000 s range.

We present the folded orbital light curves, in high ($`>`$2 keV) and low ($`<`$2 keV) energy bands, as well as the hardness ratio, in Figure 2. A clear orbital minimum, lasting $``$15% of the orbit and reaching $``$60% of the flux level outside the minimum, is seen in the low energy light curve. It is less clear in the high energy curve, which is reflected in the slight increase in the hardness ratio at these phase intervals. Inspection of individual orbital cycles shows that the minimum is always present during the same phase in broad outline, though their details vary. However, given the statistics, we cannot rule out statistical fluctuation as the cause of the cycle-to-cycle variations. Outside the minimum, the light curves are flat, with apparently random fluctuations superimposed.

This behavior is rather different from that reported by Hakala et al (1998) in their 1991 ROSAT PSPC observation. To investigate this further, we have retrieved the ROSAT data from the HEASARC and re-extracted the light curves. At first glance, we merely confirmed the results of Hakala et al (1998). However, after dividing the ROSAT data into two halves of roughly equal durations ($``$12 hrs), we find a pattern of orbital minimum for the first half of the ROSAT observation (Figure 3). This minimum is absent during the second half; instead, the folded light curve shows a flaring-like behavior.

### 3.3 Spectral analysis

Despite the improvement over the ROSAT PSPC spectrum, we have not been able to draw a definite conclusion from the average ASCA spectrum of MS 1603.6+2600. It can be fit with a power law, a bremsstrahlung, or a Comptonization model: discrimination among these continuum models proved impossible because high signal-to-noise ratio was not achieved over a sufficiently wide bandpass. No discrete features are obvious. Regardless of the continuum model, the 0.7–10 keV flux of MS 1603.6+2600 during the ASCA observation was $``$$`4.0\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 ($``$$`4.8\times 10^{34}`$ \[d/10 kpc\]2 ergs s-1). Ignoring the difference in spectral shapes, the $``$8 fold increase in count rate at the peak of the burst implies a peak luminosity of $``$$`3.8\times 10^{35}`$ \[d/10 kpc\]2 ergs s-1).

The average ASCA flux value indicates a significant long-term variability in MS 1603.6+2600. The Einstein IPC 0.3-3.5 keV flux of 1.14 $`\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 (Morris et al, 1990) is roughly a factor of 4 lower than the ASCA value, although both the bandpass and the assumed spectral shape are different. Back prediction of Einstein count rate based on ASCA flux and the best-fit bremsstrahlung model also points to a factor of $``$4 change in flux. Similarly, MS 1603.6+2600 appears to have been fainter by a factor of $``$7 during the ROSAT observation, compared to 1997 August.

We also compared the spectrum during the orbital minimum to that of the maximum, by simultaneously fitting the two using the same bremsstrahlung model (identical kT and normalization). For the maximum, we assumed no absorption, since the interstellar column, of the order of $`10^{20}`$ cm-2 according to the ROSAT PSPC spectral fit (Hakala et al, 1998), is too small to be detectable with ASCA. For the minimum spectrum, we have added an absorption component. Either a simple absorber of NH = $`4.6\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 ($`\chi ^2`$=70.6 for 140 PHA bins and 4 degrees of freedom) or a partial covering absorber of NH = $`1.3\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2 and a covering fraction of 37% ($`\chi ^2`$=64.8 for 140 PHA bins and 5 degrees of freedom) can be used to fit both spectra. The latter is shown for the GIS data in Figure 4.

## 4 Discussion: the Nature and the Location of MS 1603.6+2600

We have observed an orbital minimum in the ASCA light curve which is broad and partial. Our re-analysis of the ROSAT PSPC light curve shows that a similar minimum was present during the first half of the 1991 observation, but disappeared during the second half.

In the ADC model that we favored in our earlier report (Mukai et al, 1999), this minimum is caused by a partial eclipse of an extended X-ray source, whose size is a significant fraction of the binary separation. An ADC source is an LMXB seen at a high inclination angle. The central X-ray emitting region is blocked from our direct view by the accretion disk. A fraction (1–10%) is scattered into our line of site by the ADC above the accretion disk. Although this interpretation has several attractive properties, MS 1603.6+2600 does not show the smooth, quasi-sinusoidal modulation which is seen in the prototype ADC source, X1822$``$372 (Hellier & Mason, 1989). The orbital light curves of ADC sources generally appear to be stable from one cycle to the next, while the ROSAT data show MS 1603.6+2600 to be otherwise. In addition, the spectrum of X1822$``$372 is softer during the partial eclipse, which is the reverse of what we observe in MS 1603.6+2600. Therefore, the behavior of MS 1603.6+2600 differs in detail from those of well-established ADC sources such as X1822$``$372. Moreover, the ingress into the orbital minimum in MS 1603.6+2600 (Figure 2) takes place in less than one phase bin (1/32th of the orbital cycle). It is difficult to construct a geometry of an extended X-ray source that leads to a broad, partial eclipse yet with such a relatively rapid ingress.

On the other hand, the behavior of MS 1603.6+2600 is similar to that of dipping LMXBs such as XB 1916$``$053 (Homer et al, 2001). In dippers, we believe that the central X-ray source (the accretion disk, the neutron star, or both) is occulted by azimuthal structure of the accretion disk. The preferential location of the structure in binary frame defines the envelope of phases during which dips occur. The dip durations and depth change from epoch to epoch, sometimes within a single observation. Spectrally, dips are deeper at low energies, although simple absorption models often do not fit the data, instead requiring a partial covering absorber. In all these respects, the ASCA data of MS 1603.6+2600 are consistent with the dipper interpretation. We therefore favor this interpretation over the ADC model.

As a dipper, MS 1603.6+2600 must possess an accretion disk. This immediately excludes the AM Her-type magnetic CVs (in which the magnetic field is so strong as to prevent the formation of a disk) from consideration. It is still possible that MS 1603.6+2600 is a dipping CV with an accretion disk. For example, U Gem, the prototype dwarf nova, is a dipper (Szkody et al, 1996). However, all the objections raised to date remain valid, most notably that the fX/fopt ratio is too high: U Gem is $``$1,000 times brighter than MS 1603.6+2600 in the optical while only $``$4 times brighter in the ASCA band. Magnetic CVs of the intermediate polar type, which has partial accretion disk, also show X-ray dips (Hellier et al, 1993). However, their defining characteristic is a strong spin modulation in the X-rays, which we do not see. Thus, if MS 1603.6+2600 is a CV, it must be an unusual example.

Moreover, a burst-like event like the one we have seen in MS 1603.6+2600 has never been reported in any X-ray observations of CVs. We therefore assume, as a working hypothesis, that MS 1603.6+2600 is an LMXB containing a neutron star and the burst is a Type I event. This suggest MS 1603.6+2600 is at a great distance, since the typical persistent luminosity of a dipper is a few times $`10^{36}`$ ergs s-1 and the typical burst peak luminosity is a few times $`10^{37}`$ ergs s-1. Given the observed flux values, this would require $`d10`$ kpc.

Is this a serious weakness of this model? Is there anything in the Galactic halo out to, say, $`d`$ $``$50 kpc? To answer these questions, we have conducted a simple search for globular clusters near the direction of MS 1603.6+2600. The nearest match was found to be Palomar 14 (Sarajedini, 1997), $``$11 away on the sky at an estimated heliocentric distance of 73.8 kpc.

This suggests possible, though speculative, scenarios as to how MS 1603.6+2600 might have formed in the outer halo. First, it may have formed in Palomar 14 itself and escaped. Of the $``$150 Galactic globular clusters, 12 harbor a luminous X-ray binary (Deutsch et al, 2000). The same stellar encounters that form these LMXBs eject a significant number of resultant binaries. One calculation (Portegies Zwart et al, 1997) suggest the fraction of the escaped binaries may be about a third of those that have survived in the globular cluster, thus we expect several “non-globular-cluster” LMXBs to have escaped from the parent cluster. Similar escapees from a cluster much closer to the Galactic center would have been assimilated into the Galactic bulge, and its origin would have become obscured. If MS 1603.6+2600 was ejected from Palomar 14 at a velocity of 10 km s-1, it would have taken it $``$1 Gyr to move 10 kpc, which is the minimum distance implied by the current angular separation of 11. Thus it appears possible to have a reasonable combination of space velocity and lifetime of MS 1603.6+2600 to explain its current location, for an assumed origin in Palomar 14.

Another speculative scenario is related to the possible origin of Palomar 14, and many other outer halo globular clusters, in dwarf elliptical satellites of the Milky Way (van den Bergh, 2000). Several outer halo clusters are associated with the Sagittarius dwarf. Similarly, Palomar 14 may be associated with an undiscovered extant satellite, or one that has been tidally disrupted. In either case, MS 1603.6+2600 could be a member of this hypothetical satellite galaxy.

If we assume a physical association between MS 1603.6+2600 and Palomar 14, at a distance of $`d70`$ kpc, then the average luminosity during ASCA observation was $``$$`2.4\times 10^{36}`$ ergs s-1 and the peak burst luminosity was $``$$`1.9\times 10^{37}`$ ergs s-1, both of which are normal for a bursting, dipping LMXB, although still with an unusually low fX/fopt ratio. Evolutionary scenario Ia of Ergma & Vilhu (1993), similar to short period CVs, predicts a similar luminosity and bursting behavior, and hence fits our outer halo interpretation. However, this may be a coincidence if MS 1603.6+2600 is indeed formed in Palomar 14, since globular cluster LMXBs form in a distinct manner from field LMXBs.

If our interpretation is correct, MS 1603.6+2600 is a close analog of XB 1916$``$053, including the strong variabilities of the dip morphology. In fact, the second optical period obtained via Fourier transform (Vilhu et al, 1993) may be real, indicating that MS 1603.6+2600 is a permanent superhumper (Haswell et al, 2001), another characteristic of XB 1916$``$053. If so, it would be possible to estimate the mass ratio of MS 1603.6+2600 using the fractional period excess.

## 5 Summary and Future Prospects

We have presented our ASCA observation of the unusual high-latitude X-ray binary, MS 1603.6+2600. We have detected a burst and an orbital modulation consistent with a dipping behavior, and presented an outer halo LMXB model as perhaps the least contrived interpretation.

Future X-ray observations can test our interpretation. In particular, the detection of other bursts with better sensitivity is necessary to confirm the Type I interpretation spectroscopically. Moreover, if we are lucky enough to catch a radius expansion burst, a reliable distance and other parameters can be derived. The ingress and egress to the orbital minimum should be investigated further, so that we can can conclusively choose between the dipper and the ADC interpretations. At the same time, further optical observations should clear up the issue of possible multiple periodicities.

Pending such observations, we tentatively conclude that MS 1603.6+2600 may be the most distant Galactic X-ray binary known. Moreover, this may be an escaped globular cluster LMXB, something we cannot confidently observe near the Galactic center, or may be a relic of the hierarchical formation of the Milky Way halo.

This research has made use of data obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. RW is supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship grant PF9-10010 awarded by CXC, which is operated by SAS for NASA under contract NAS8-39073.


text:
# References

Irreducibility of spatial graphs

Dedicated to Professor Shin’ichi Suzuki for his 60th birthday

Kouki Taniyama

Abstract A graph embedded in the 3-sphere is called irreducible if it is non-splittable and for any 2-sphere embedded in the 3-sphere that intersects the graph at one point the graph is contained in one of the 3-balls bounded by the 2-sphere. We show that irreducibility is preserved under certain deformations of embedded graphs. We show that certain embedded graphs are irreducible.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 57M25, Secondary 57M15, 05C10.

Keywords and phrases. spatial graph, irreducible graph.

§1. Introduction

Throughout this paper we work in the piecewise linear category. We consider a graph as a topological space in the usual way. Let $`G`$ be a finite graph embedded in the 3-sphere $`S^3`$. A compact surface $`F`$ embedded in $`S^3`$ is called good for $`G`$ if $`F`$ is contained in $`G`$, $`\mathrm{int}FG`$ contains at most finitely many points, and for each point $`x\mathrm{int}FG`$ a neighbourhood of $`x`$ looks like Fig. 1.1 for some positive integers $`p`$ and $`q`$. Note that $`x`$ is not necessarily a vertex of $`G`$. Namely we allow the case that $`p=q=1`$ and $`x`$ is an interior point of an edge of $`G`$.

Fig. 1.1

A 2-sphere $`S`$ embedded in $`S^3`$ is called a separating sphere of $`G`$ if it is disjoint from $`G`$ and each component of $`S^3S`$ has intersection with $`G`$. A 2-sphere $`S`$ embedded in $`S^3`$ is called a cutting sphere of $`G`$ if it is good for $`G`$ and intersects $`G`$ at one point. Note that if $`S`$ is a cutting sphere of $`G`$ then each component of $`S^3S`$ has intersection with $`G`$. A graph $`G`$ embedded in $`S^3`$ is called non-splittable if there are no separating spheres of $`G`$. A graph $`G`$ embedded in $`S^3`$ is called irreducible if there are no separating spheres and cutting spheres of $`G`$. Thus $`G`$ is non-splittable if $`G`$ is irreducible. The purpose of this paper is to show that certain graphs embedded in $`S^3`$ are irreducible. Let $`D`$ be a 2-disk embedded in $`S^3`$ that is good for $`G`$. Let $`G^{}`$ be a graph embedded in $`S^3`$ obtained from $`G`$ by contracting $`D`$ to a point. Namely we consider the quotient space $`S^3/D`$ and let $`G^{}`$ be the image of $`G`$ under the quotient map $`S^3S^3/D`$. It is easy to see that $`S^3/D`$ is again homeomorphic to $`S^3`$. By identifying $`S^3/D`$ with $`S^3`$ we may suppose that $`G^{}`$ is embedded in $`S^3`$. Therefore $`G^{}S^3`$ is well-defined up to self-homeomorphism of $`S^3`$.

Theorem. Let $`G`$ be a graph embedded in $`S^3`$ and $`D`$ a 2-disk embedded in $`S^3`$ that is good for $`G`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{int}DG`$ is not an empty set or $`D\mathrm{cl}(GD)`$ is not a singleton where $`\mathrm{cl}`$ denotes the closure. Let $`G^{}`$ be a graph embedded in $`S^3`$ obtained from $`G`$ by contracting $`D`$ to a point. If $`G^{}`$ is irreducible then $`G`$ is irreducible.

In the following we show some applications of Theorem.

The link illustrated in Fig. 1.2 (a) is a Borromean ring. By contracting the obvious disk we have a graph illustrated in Fig. 1.2 (b). Again by contracting another obvious disk we have a graph illustrated in Fig. 1.2 (c). Since this graph has no loops and cut-vertices in the sense of abstract graph we have that this graph is irreducible. Then by Theorem we have that the graph illustrated in Fig. 1.2 (b) is also irreducible. Then again by Theorem we have that the Borromean ring is also irreducible, hence it is non-splittable. This is an elementary geometric proof of the nontriviality of a Borromean ring.

Fig. 1.2

The graphs $`C_n`$ with $`n>0`$ in Fig. 1.3 are shown to be nontrivial in  by using Yamada polynomial . Note that each $`C_n`$ is obtained from $`C_{n+1}`$ by contracting the obvious disk. Since $`C_0`$ has no loops and cut-vertices we have that $`C_0`$ is irreducible. Therefore we have that each $`C_n`$ is irreducible. Since a trivial embedding of a graph abstractly homeomorphic to $`C_n`$ with $`n>0`$ has a cutting sphere we have that each $`C_n`$ with $`n>0`$ is nontrivial.

Fig. 1.3

The graph illustrated in Fig. 1.4 is also irreducible. In fact by contracting the obvious disks we have a graph without loops and cut-vertices.

Fig. 1.4

§2. Proof

Proof of Theorem. It is sufficient to show that if there is a separating sphere or a cutting sphere of $`G`$ then there is a separating sphere or a cutting sphere of $`G^{}`$. Let $`S`$ be a separating sphere or a cutting sphere of $`G`$. We may suppose that $`S`$ and $`D`$ are in general position. Then we have that $`SD`$ consists of some circles and loops. Here the circles are mutually disjoint and disjoint from the loops. The loops have a point in common. Namely each loop contains the point $`SG`$ in case that $`S`$ is a cutting sphere of $`G`$. Therefore in case that $`S`$ is a separating sphere of $`G`$ there are no loops.

First suppose that there is a circle or a loop $`\gamma SD`$ bounding a disk $`\delta `$ in $`D`$ such that $`\mathrm{int}\delta (SG)=\mathrm{}`$. Then we cut $`S`$ along $`\delta `$ and obtain two 2-spheres. It is easy to see that at least one of them is again a separating sphere or a cutting sphere of $`G`$. Therefore we may suppose that there are no such circles and loops.

Suppose that $`SD`$ still contains some circles or loops. Let $`d`$ be a disk in $`S`$ such that $`dD=d`$. Let $`S^{}`$ be a 2-sphere obtained from $`d`$ by contracting $`D`$ to a point. It is clear that $`S^{}`$ intersects $`G^{}`$ at one point. We will show that $`S^{}`$ is good for $`G^{}`$. Let $`\sigma `$ be the disk in $`D`$ with $`\sigma =d`$. Then by the assumption above there is a point $`x\mathrm{int}\sigma G`$. Since $`D`$ is good for $`G`$ we have that $`S^{}`$ is also good for $`G^{}`$. Therefore $`S^{}`$ is a cutting sphere of $`G^{}`$. Therefore we may suppose that $`SD=SG\mathrm{}`$ or $`SD=\mathrm{}`$.

Suppose that $`SD=SD=SG\mathrm{}`$. Then by the assumption on $`D`$ and the goodness of $`S`$ for $`G`$ we have that $`S`$ becomes a cutting sphere of $`G^{}`$ after contracting $`D`$ to a point. Suppose that $`SD=S\mathrm{int}D=SG\mathrm{}`$. Then by the goodness of $`S`$ for $`G`$ we have that $`S`$ becomes a cutting sphere of $`G^{}`$ after contracting $`D`$ to a point. Suppose that $`SD=\mathrm{}`$. Then it is clear that $`S`$ becomes a separating sphere or a cutting sphere of $`G^{}`$ after contracting $`D`$ to a point. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Department of Mathematics, School of Education, Waseda University, 1-6-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-8050, Japan

e-mail address: taniyama@mn.waseda.ac.jp