text:
# Future physics with polarized ep colliders

## 1 Introduction

The commissioning of the first electron-proton collider HERA (27.5 GeV electrons on 820 GeV protons) eight years ago opened up a completely new kinematical domain in deep inelastic scattering (DIS), and the two HERA experiments have provided a multitude of new insights into the structure of the proton and the photon since then. It is therefore natural to assume that the operation of $`ep`$-colliders with polarized proton and electron beams will add vital new information to our picture of the spin structure of the nucleon. Possible high energy $`ep`$-collider projects presently under discussion are listed in Table 1.

HERA has just been upgraded to reach a higher luminosity. It has excellent detectors, and the electron beam is already polarized. The polarization of the proton beam is technically more involved than for the electron beam, since protons do not polarize naturally in the HERA ring. Hence beams from a source of polarized protons have to be accelerated through the whole chain and the polarization has to be kept during the process. The technical aspects of this project are elaborated in . Based on these studies, it seems realistic to assume that HERA could be operated with polarized electron and proton beams, each polarized to about 70%, acumulating a luminosity of 500 pb-1 when integrated over several years.

The Electron Ion Collider (EIC)  –if built at BNL– will need a polarized electron accelerator, most likely a LINAC, added to the RHIC polarized proton rings, and will probably also need a dedicated experiment. THERA  will need TESLA to be built at DESY (or tangential to the TEVATRON), polarized protons in the proton ring, and a new detector. The advantage of the EIC is its large reachable luminosity, imperative for polarized studies. At HERA the luminosity is (just) enough for most topics but its advantage lies in its larger kinematical reach. THERA reaches even further in the $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ plane, but its relatively low luminosity of 40 pb-1/year may be a handicap for many studies.

Most detailed studies for polarized $`ep`$-scattering at a collider have been made in a series of workshops for HERA  and these will serve as a basis for the discussion in this paper. Many of these studies have been carried over to EIC in the last two years. For THERA polarized studies have only been briefly explored so far.

Here we will discuss measurements of $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ at low $`x`$, the extraction of the polarized gluon density $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)`$ in a wide kinematic range using several processes, the extraction of the spin structure function $`g_5(x,Q^2)`$ from charged current events, photoproduction studies and studies on the helicity structure of the high $`Q^2`$ region.

## 2 The polarized structure function $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

The outstanding advantage of a high energy $`ep`$-collider is that it can measure structure functions at very small $`x`$ and very large $`Q^2`$. The kinematical reach is shown in Fig. 1 for the different machines. The region covered by present fixed target experiments is shown as well. The region can be extended by several orders of magnitude both in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. The regions of the three colliders overlap. At HERA measurements at values of $`Q^2`$ up to $`210^4`$ GeV2 are reached, and values of $`x`$ below $`10^5`$. Hence such data will allow for detailed QCD tests similar to the ones in the unpolarized case.

An example for HERA is shown in Fig. 2. The low-$`x`$ behaviour of $`g_1`$ is indicated in the figure: the straight line is an extrapolation based on Regge phenomenology, and the upper curve presents a scenario suggested in  where $`g_1`$ rises as $`1/(x\mathrm{ln}^2(x))`$, which is the maximally singular behaviour still consistent with integrability requirements. The low $`x`$ behaviour of $`g_1`$ by itself is an interesting topic as discussed in .

An EIC has as expected a more restricted range, as shown in Fig. 3. However the error bars can be substantially smaller due to the high luminosity of 4 fb-1/year. THERA would reach $`x`$ values down to 10-6, but needs at least one fb-1 of data.

Note that the expected asymmetries at low $`x`$, i.e. $`x10^4`$ are relatively small, about $`10^3`$, which puts strong requirements on the control of the systematic effects, as discussed in . At the lowest $`x`$ values at THERA, the asymmetries may be even smaller, and the potential to actually extract a polarized structure function at these values still needs to demonstrated.

It would be very advantageous to have polarized low-$`x`$ neutron data which would enable to measure singlet and non-singlet polarized structure functions at low $`x`$. A study was made using polarized 3He at HERA , from which $`g_1^n`$ can be extracted. If the machine can provide polarized 3He with a luminosity comparable to the one for the protons, such a program can be carried out. A recent new idea is to store polarized deutrons . Due to the small gyromagnetic anomaly value the storage and acceleration problems are less severe for deutrons and it could be possible to keep the polarization at HERA even without the use of Siberian snake magnets for deuterons. However the spin cannot be flipped by spin rotators from transverse to longitudinal polarization in the interaction regions, and other means, such as the recently suggested use of external radial frequency fields must be considered for arranging that the spins align longitudinally at the interaction points. For polarized deuteron beams the changes to the present HERA machine could be more modest, and, if one can instrument the region around the beam-pipe to tag the spectator in the deuteron nucleus, it can give simultaneously samples of scattering on $`p`$ and $`n`$. An intense polarized deuteron source is however needed. Furthermore, so far the accelerating and storing of polarized deuteron beams has been studied to a much lesser extend than for polarized protons.

With proton and neutron data available one can measure the Bjorken sum rule $`g_1^p𝑑xg_1^n𝑑x`$, presently measured to about 10% precision. E.g. EIC data will allow to measure this sum rule, a key test for QCD, to a few % precision.

## 3 The polarized gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)`$

The high quality $`g_1`$ data from the fixed target experiments allows for quantitative QCD studies of the polarized structure function data, from which polarized parton distributions are extracted . The relatively small contribution of the quarks to the spin of the proton, as follows from the ’spin puzzle’, leads to a rather large value of the polarized gluon. The precision is however rather limited. The measurements from present day data for the first moment of the polarized gluon distribution give typically $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)dx=0.9\pm 0.3(\mathrm{exp})\pm 1.0(\mathrm{theory})`$ at $`Q^2=1`$ GeV2. The theoretical error on this quantity is dominated by the extrapolation into the yet unmeasured low-$`x`$ region. Including future HERA data will improve the experimental error to about 0.2. The theoretical error is expected to decrease by more than a factor 2 once $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ is measured at low $`x`$. At an EIC one expects to reduce the statistical uncertainty even to 0.08 with about 10 fb-1, as discussed in .

It is crucial for our full understanding of the proton spin that the prediction of a large polarized gluon is confirmed by direct measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$. HERA has shown that the large centre of mass system (CMS) energy allows for several processes to be used to extract the unpolarized gluon distribution. These include jet and high $`p_t`$ hadron production, charm production both in DIS and photoproduction, and correlations between multiplicities of the current and target hemisphere of the events in the Breit frame.

The most promising process for a direct extraction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ at HERA is di-jet production, as discussed in . The underlying idea is to isolate boson-gluon fusion events, i.e. a process where the gluon distribution enters at the Born level. Jets are selected with a $`p_t>5`$ GeV and are restricted to the acceptance of a typical existing HERA detector by the requirement $`|\eta _{LAB}^{jet}|<2.8`$, where $`\eta _{LAB}^{jet}`$ is the pseudo-rapidity in the laboratory system. The resulting measurable range in $`x`$ (of the gluon) is $`0.002<x<0.2`$ with typically 6 measurable data points. At an EIC the measurable range is reduced to $`0.02<x<0.3`$. The reach at THERA is $`0.0005<x<0.1`$ but an event sample of several hundered pb-1 will be needed.

Instead of jets, single hadrons with high transverse momentum $`p_t`$ opposite in azimuthal angle in the $`\gamma ^{}p`$ frame can be used. . In a study for HERA two charged tracks with a $`p_t`$ larger than 1.5 GeV are required . The resulting gluon distribution is shown in Fig. 4 and compared to several predicted gluon distributions. A similar level of discriminating power as for the di-jet events is obtained, except in the highest $`x`$ region, where the di-jets are superior. These measurements allow for the determination of the shape of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$. The errors on the individual points for the di-jet measurement on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)/G(x)`$ are in the range from 0.007 to 0.1. The total error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)/G(x)`$ in the complete range is 0.02.

An exploratory study was made, using the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ obtained from the di-jet analysis as an extra constraint in the fit of $`g_1`$ data discussed above. The improvement of the errors on the first moment of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ due to the inclusion of di-jet data is shown in Table 2.

The first two rows give the values quoted before, namely for the NLO QCD analysis without and with projected HERA data for $`g_1`$. The third row shows the expected error if only the di-jet asymmetry is added to the fixed target $`g_1`$ data, and the fourth row shows the total improvement using all available information.

## 4 Polarized quark distributions

In present fixed target experiments information on the flavour decomposition can be obtained from semi-inclusive measurements, i.e. measurements where a final state hadron is tagged. At HERA one has the additional option to study quark flavours in a more inclusive, and therefore fragmentation function independent mode, via charged current interactions. The asymmetry is defined by

$$A^W=\frac{d\sigma _{}^W^{}d\sigma _{}^W^{}}{d\sigma _{}^W^{}+d\sigma _{}^W^{}}\frac{g_5^W^{}}{F_1^W^{}}$$

with $`g_5^W^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }c\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{s}`$, $`g_5^{W^+}=\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{c}`$. A Monte Carlo study, including detector effects, was made for the measurements of the asymmetry and the extraction of $`g_5`$ . The total missing transverse momentum (which is a signal for the escaping neutrino) was required to be $`P_{Tmiss}>15`$ GeV, and the region $`Q^2>225`$ GeV2 has been selected for this analysis. The results for the asymmetries for both HERA and THERA are shown in Fig. 5. The error bars indicate the statistical precision of the measurement. The asymmetries are very large and significant measurements can be produced at THERA down to $`x=10^3`$. These charged current measurements, with both $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams, can be used to extract e.g. the $`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d`$ distributions.

## 5 Photoproduction

Photoproduction processes have been shown to be sensitive probes for the polarized parton structure in the proton AND in the photon. Single jet production has been studied in . In  it was shown that also a high $`p_t`$ track analyses yields a similar sensitivity, with only modest luminosity requirements.

Polarized photoproduction of di-jets has been investigated in detail, including in particular effects due to parton showering, hadronization, jet finding and jet clustering. It could be demonstrated that, although these effects yield sizable corrections, the measurable asymmetry will largely be preserved at the hadron level . An example for the correspondence of parton and hadron level asymmetries is shown in Fig. 6, obtained with a moderate integrated luminosity of only 50 pb-1. A first idea on the discriminative power on the photon structure of future measurements can however be gained by comparing the predictions obtained with the two (minimal and maximal) polarization scenarios proposed in , as done in Fig. 6.

Finally, it can be pointed out that a measurement of the total polarized photoproduction cross section $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\gamma p}(\nu )`$ as function of the photon-proton CMS energy $`\nu `$ at HERA would contribute to a precise understanding of the Drell-Hearn-Gerasimov sum rule, as discussed in . In particular the Regge behaviour of the energy dependence of the polarized cross section can be tested. The sensitivity which could be reached with EIC is about one order of magnitude larger than the one for HERA.

## 6 Effects at high $`Q^2`$

At an $`ep`$-collider the region of high $`Q^2`$ offers the largest chance of discovering new physics. Such new physics could manifest itself through the production of new particles, such as Leptoquarks or SUSY particles in RP violating models, contact interactions, etc. A general study was made based on the contact interaction formalism . It was demonstrated that a fully polarized HERA would be very instrumental in disentangling the chiral structure of the new interactions. With 250 pb-1 data samples for polarized $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams, for each of the 2 spin orientations, the asymmetries are sensitive to contact interactions to scales larger than 7 TeV (95% C.L.). In the presence of a signal these different combinations of cross sections into the seven different asymmetries allow a complete identification of the chiral structure of the new interactions, i.e. whether the interactions are LL, RR, LR or LR or a combination of those (where L and R denote the left and right handed fermion helicities for the lepton and quark respectively).

This study has been further extended to the special case of leptoquark-like production : asymmetries like the ones above would allow to pin down the chiral properties of the couplings to these new particles.

An interesting possibility is the effect induced by QCD instantons  to the proton structure function. Non-perturbative instanton fluctuations describe the quantum tunnelling between different gauge rotated classical vacua in QCD. Due to the quark helicity flip at the quark-instanton vertex, the contribution to the spin-dependent cross sections of instantons is very different from the one of the perturbative quark-gluon vertex. Furthermore, in the instanton liquid model  the contribution of instantons to the proton structure is expected to become increasingly more important with increasing $`Q^2`$ .

These high $`Q^2`$ studies may be most relevant for HERA and THERA. For THERA both $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams will be needed and minimum integrated luminosities of order 100-200 pb-1/beam.

## 7 Other Topics

Many other topics on polarization can be studied at an $`ep`$-collider, e.g. target fragmentation properties, transversity, DHG, issues related to diffraction, spin transfer in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization, semi-inclusive measurements to extract the polarized quark distributions, etc. Further details can be found in .

## 8 Conclusions

Polarized $`ep`$-colliders with a centre of mass energies of 100-1000 GeV will allow to make unique measurements in polarized deep inelastic scattering as well as photoproduction.

The necessity for low-$`x`$ measurements of the structure functions, and determination of the polarized gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ have been wildly advocated by the spin physics community over the last five years. $`ep`$-colliders can play a pivotal role in this field since they are able to give conclusive insight on both of these issues.

Polarized $`ep`$-colliders will also contribute to the flavour decomposition of the quark spin distributions, and the very intriguing possibility to measure polarized parton distributions in the photon. Furthermore –not discussed in this review– new insight is expected on spin transfer in quark fragmentation and spin effects in diffractive scattering. Finally, a polarized HERA or THERA will be very instrumental in the study and interpretation of possible deviations from the Standard Model expectation in the high-$`Q^2`$ region, if observed.

However the required luminosity for any such machine should be at least 100 pb-1/year, preferably even more. The polarizations of the beams should be larger than 50-60%. If EIC will be the world’s only polarized collider, it would be useful to consider having an extention of the CMS energy, via an upgrade of the $`e`$-LINAC energy e.g. from 10 to 20-30 GeV, to cover an as large kinematic region as possible. If new detectors are required or can be afforded, particular care should be taken on the design, learning from shortcomings from the present HERA detectors, in e.g. the small angle instrumentation . Polarized deuterons seem an attractive addition or even alternative to polarized protons, and are perhaps easier to accelerate and store, but detailed machine studies need to be performed to confirm these ideas.

In all, polarized scattering experiments have in the last decades often revealed surprises, hence a polarized collider seems an attractive future option with a rich program.


format: text

text:
# Discovery of Ghost Cavities in Abell 2597’s X-ray Atmosphere

## 1 Introduction

Early Chandra images of galaxy clusters have shown that the X-ray emitting gas in their centers is bright and irregularly structured, and that much of this structure is associated with powerful radio sources. The radio sources in the Hydra A (McNamara et al. 2000), Perseus (Fabian et al. 2000), and Abell 2052 (Blanton et al. 2001) clusters appear to have pushed aside the keV gas leaving low surface brightness cavities in the gas. The cavities in Hydra A, Perseus, and Abell 2052 are filled with bright radio emission and are confined by the pressure of the surrounding keV gas. The cavities may be supported against collapse by pressure from relativistic particles, magnetic fields, and/or hot, thin thermal gas. Since the cavities have a lower gas density than their surroundings, they should behave like bubbles in water and rise buoyantly in the intracluster medium (ICM; McNamara et al. 2000; Churazov et al. 2001).

Using simulations of supersonic jets expanding into the ICM, Clarke, Harris, & Carilli (1997) and Heinz, Reynolds, & Begelman (1998) argued that the cavities seen in ROSAT images of the ICM surrounding the Perseus and Cygnus A radio sources (Böhringer et al. 1992; Carilli, Perley, & Harris 1994) were caused by strong shocks. In this instance, the X-ray emission from the rims surrounding the cavities should be spectrally hard, and gas in the rim should have higher entropy than the surrounding gas. The initial Chandra results for the Hydra A (McNamara et al. 2000; Nulsen et al. 2001), Perseus (Fabian et al. 2000) and Abell 2052 (Blanton et al. 2001) clusters were surprising, as the emission from the rims of the cavities was among the softest in the clusters. This implies that the radio lobes expanded gently into the intracluster medium at roughly the sound speed in the keV gas (Reynolds, Heinz, & Begelman 2001; David et al. 2000; Nulsen et al. 2001). The rapidly growing number of cavities found in giant elliptical galaxies (Finoguenov & Jones 2000), groups (e.g. Vrtilek et al. 2000) and cluster CDGs (e.g. Schindler et al. 2001) indicates that they are persistent features of these systems.

An intriguing and potentially significant Chandra discovery is the existence of cavities in the keV gas that do not have a bright radio counterpart. If such “ghost” cavities seen in Perseus (Fabian et al. 2000), and in Abell 2597, discussed here and in McNamara et al. (2000), are generated by radio sources, their properties would have significant consequences for our understanding of the life cycles of radio galaxies and the origin and dispersal of magnetic fields in clusters and galaxies. Here we discuss the remarkable properties of the X-ray core of Abell 2597 and its ghost cavities. Throughout this paper, we assume $`\mathrm{H}_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, a luminosity distance of 374 Mpc, and 1 arcsec = 1.67 kpc.

## 2 Observations & Data Reduction

Abell 2597 is an $`L_\mathrm{x}=6.45\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ ($`210`$ keV; David et al. 1993), richness class 0 cluster that lies at redshift $`z=0.083`$. The cluster possesses a bright cusp of X-ray emission associated with a cooling flow and the powerful radio source PKS 2322-122, both centered on the CDG (Sarazin et al. 1995).

A 40 ksec Chandra exposure was taken of Abell 2597 on 2000 July 28. The nucleus of the BCG was centered on node 0 of the ACIS S3 back-illuminated device. The pointing was chosen to maximize the spatial resolution and soft energy response available with Chandra while avoiding placing the interesting central region on a node boundary. The observations were made in Faint, full-frame, timed exposure mode, with the focal plane at temperature $`120`$ C. Grades 1, 5, and 7 were rejected in our analysis, as were data below 0.3 keV and above 8.0 keV. Unfortunately, the observations were compromised by strong flares. As a consequence, only 18.54 ksec of useful data were gathered.

## 3 Comparison between the Central X-ray & Radio Structures

An adaptively smoothed X-ray image of the central $`150`$ arcsec centered on the CDG is shown in Figure 1. The passband of this image is from $`0.38.0`$ keV. The image immediately reveals the gross structure in the inner arcmin or so of the cluster first seen in an earlier $`ROSAT`$ High Resolution Imager (HRI) observation (Sarazin et al. 1995). However, the fine structure and particularly the surface brightness depressions located 18 arcsec to the south-west and 16 arcsec to the north-east of the center were not seen in the ROSAT image.

The central structure was isolated by modeling and subtracting the smooth background cluster emission leaving the excess emission shown in Figure 2. This difference image was then adaptively smoothed, which revealed structure shown above the $`4\sigma `$ significance level. In the bright regions, surface brightness variations of $`5060\%`$ are present. The large surface brightness depressions to the north-east and south-west are two to three times fainter than the surrounding regions, the depression to the south-west being deeper. In order to examine the relationship between the central radio source and the structure in the gas, we have superposed radio contours of Abell 2597 in Figure 2. The radio image was obtained with the VLA A configuration, tuned to frequency 8.44 GHz (Sarazin et al. 1995). The radio source is relatively small and has a steep spectrum with a spectral index of $`1.5`$ (O’Dea et al. 1994; Sarazin et al. 1995). Its full extent from north to south is only $`5`$ arcsec, or roughly 8 kpc. Although a great deal of structure is seen surrounding the radio source, there is no evidence for cavities there in spite of its powerful nature. However, the central radio source is small compared to the bright X-ray structure in the inner 40 kpc or so. Therefore, any cavities that may exist would be difficult to detect due to emission from intervening material along the line of sight.

Unlike the cavities in Hydra A, Abell 2597’s cavities are located at larger radii and are more than twice the size of the central radio source. After subtracting the background cluster, the cavities appear to be more extensive than the impression given in Figure 1. The cavity to the north-east is roughly circular with a $`9`$ arcsec diameter, corresponding to a linear diameter of 15 kpc. The cavity to the south-west is elliptically shaped with major and minor axes $`14`$ arcsec and $`9`$ arcsec, or 23 kpc and 15 kpc linear diameters, respectively. The cavities are surrounded by shells of X-ray gas on most sides, but perhaps not at the outermost radii. We divided the data into a soft and hard band images with $`0.51.5`$ keV and $`1.53.5`$ keV passbands, respectively, and we arrived at the following conclusions. To within the accuracy of the data, 1) the emission immediately adjacent to each cavity is generally no harder or softer than its surroundings; 2) deep surface brightness depressions are present in both bands. Therefore, there is no compelling evidence for heating by the agent that inflated the cavities, nor are the depressions likely to be caused by absorption.

In order to determine whether faint radio emission is associated with the cavities, radio observations of Abell 2597 were made with the Very Large Array at 1.4 GHz on 2001 June 21. The total observing time was 12 hours, and the array configuration was mixed between the 3 km and 10 km configurations, leading to a synthesized beam FWHM = 11 arcsec by 6 arcsec with the major axis position angle = 90o. Standard amplitude and phase calibration were applied, as well as self-calibration using sources in the field. The dominant source in the field is the nucleus of Abell 2597 itself (Figure 2), which has a peak surface brightness in our 1.4 GHz image of 1.49 $`\pm `$ 0.03 Jy/beam. This bright source limits the sensitivity of the final image to about 0.1 mJy/beam rms, implying a dynamic range of 15000. The radio emission from Abell 2597 is marginally resolved with these observations, with a total flux density of 1.82 Jy.

In the context of studying the X-ray cavities, the most interesting results from the radio observations are the extensions of the radio source in the vicinity of the cavities, as can be seen in Figure 3. These extensions are robust in the imaging process, and are highly significant with respect to the noise on the image. Unfortunately, the resolution of the image is inadequate to make any firm conclusions concerning the morphology of the extended emission in the vicinity of the cavities, only that such emission exists. This detection of radio emission and a future confirmation with higher resolution are keys to understanding the nature of ghost cavities (§5).

## 4 Physical State of keV gas

The radial distribution of surface brightness, temperature, electron density, and pressure in the central region of Abell 2597 is shown in Figure 4. The profiles were extracted from annular apertures centered on the weak nuclear point source coincident with the radio core ($`\mathrm{RA}=232519.7`$ , $`\mathrm{Dec}=120727`$, J2000). The aperture sizes were chosen to include roughly 1000 counts and 5000 counts for surface brightness and temperature profiles shown in Figures 4a and 4c respectively. The density profile, Figure 4b, was constructed by deprojecting the surface brightness profile assuming an emission measure appropriate for a 3 keV gas. The temperature in each aperture was determined by fitting an absorbed MEKAL single temperature model in XSPEC with abundances fixed at 0.4 Solar, and a Galactic foreground column $`N_\mathrm{H}=2.48\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Only data from the ACIS-S3 device were considered.

The temperature drops from 3.4 keV at 100 kpc to 1.3 keV in the inner several kpc. Over this same region, the gas density and pressure rise dramatically, reaching values of $`0.070.08\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`2.5\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the inner few kpc, respectively. The radiative cooling time of the keV gas in the central 10 kpc region surrounding the radio source is only $`3\times 10^8`$ years. Similar properties are found in other cooling flow clusters, such as Hydra A (McNamara et al. 2000; David et al. 2000), Abell 2052 (Blanton et al. 2001), and Perseus (Fabian et al. 2000).

## 5 Origin & Energy Content of the Ghost Cavities

Without internal pressure support, the cavities would collapse on the sound crossing timescale of $`10^7`$ yr. Yet, the existence of ghost cavities in Abell 2597 and in NGC 1275 (Fabian et al. 2000) beyond their radio lobes shows that they almost certainly persist much longer than $`10^7`$ yr, and therefore must have pressure support. The gas density within the ghost cavities is much less than the ambient density. Therefore, they must be buoyant and have risen outward from the nucleus to their current projected radii of $`30`$ kpc. The time required for the cavities to rise to this radius is roughly $`10^{7.78}`$ years (McNamara et al. 2000; Churazov et al. 2001). This is much larger than the minimum age of the central radio source $`5\times 10^6`$ yr (Sarazin et al. 1995), so the ghost cavities are unlikely to be related directly to the current nuclear radio episode.

Based on the properties of radio-bright cavities, it is reasonable to suppose that the ghost cavities were produced in a radio episode that predated the current one shown in Figure 2. Their radio emission has faded presumably because they are no longer being supplied with relativistic particles from the nucleus. This hypothesis is supported by our detection of extended radio emission toward the cavities and their locations along nearly the same position angle as the central jets (Sarazin et al. 1995). A rough estimate of the minimum energy pressure in the extended 1.4 GHz emission is considerably less than the ambient pressure, as is found in other clusters. This would suggest a departure from the minimum energy condition, or a dominant pressure contribution from low energy electrons or protons.

Assuming the cavities formed through the action of a radio source, the lower limit to the energy expended during their formation is given by the $`PdV`$ work done on the surrounding gas. The gas pressure at the radius of the cavities is $`2.1\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Assuming the cavities are projected spheroids with volumes of $`5\times 10^{67}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`1\times 10^{68}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for the north-east and south-west cavities, respectively, the minimum energy corresponds to $`3.4\times 10^{58}\mathrm{erg}`$. The figure could be $`23`$ times larger if one includes the energy of thermal and relativistic gas in the cavities. This energy is more than an order of magnitude larger than the total mechanical energy of the central radio source (Sarazin et al. 1995). Therefore, if the ghost cavities originated in an earlier radio event, it would have been as powerful in the past as is Hydra A.

## 6 Discussion

The existence of ghosts cavities and their likely association with radio sources implies directly that powerful radio sources occur in repeated outbursts. This is consistent with the fact that more than 70% of CDGs in clusters with bright X-ray cusps–cooling flows–harbor powerful radio sources, while less than 20% of CDGs in non cooling flow clusters are radio-bright (Burns 1990). It would seem then that radio sources in cooling flow CDGs have the shortest duty cycles among the elliptical galaxies. The time required for cavities to rise to their observed locations implies radio cycling every $`50100`$ Myr. The alternative interpretation of the high incidence of radio emission, that radio sources persist on Gyr timescales, appears to be inconsistent with the existence of ghost cavities.

The cooling time of the central keV gas, $`3\times 10^8`$ yr, is interestingly close to the radio cycling timescale. This implies that feedback between radio heating and radiative cooling may be operating there (Tucker & David 1997; Soker et al. 2001). The energy deposited by cavities into the ICM in the form of magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and heat over the life of the cluster is $`>10^{6061}`$ erg, assuming the CDG produces between $`10100`$ bubbles over its lifetime. This is roughly equivalent to the cooling luminosity of a $`50\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ cooling flow in the center of the cluster. While this energy could reduce and possibly quench a small cooling flow, there is scant evidence for direct heating by radio sources (McNamara et al. 2000; Fabian et al. 2000; David et al. 2001). However, bulk lifting of cooling material out of cluster cores where it will expand, mix with ambient gas, and cool less efficiently can assist in reducing the deposition of cooled gas without the direct introduction of heat. (David et al. 2001; Nulsen et al. 2001).

Finally, clusters are magnetized (Clarke, Kronberg, & Böhringer 2001; Kronberg et al. 2001), and cavities emerging from the CDGs and normal elliptical galaxies in clusters may be vessels that transport magnetic fields from galaxy nuclei to the intracluster medium. If a significant fraction of the $`10^{6061}`$ erg of energy emerging from BCGs alone were deposited as magnetic field in the inner 100 kpc of clusters, the implied field strengths of $`550\mu `$G would be consistent with the field strengths observed in the cores of cooling flow clusters (Ge & Owen 1993).

B. R. M. thanks Liz Blanton for stimulating discussions. This research was supported by LTSA grant NAG5-11025 and Chandra General Observer award GO0-1078A. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by Associated Universities, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.


text:
# Some applications of algebraic curves to computational vision This work is partially supported by the Emmy Noether Institute for Mathematics and the Minerva Foundation of Germany, by the Excellency Center of the Israel Science Foundation ”Group Theoretic Methods in the Study of Algebraic Varieties” and by EAGER (European network in Algebraic Geometry).

## Abstract

We introduce a new formalism and a number of new results in the context of geometric computational vision. The classical scope of the research in geometric computer vision is essentially limited to static configurations of points and lines in $`^3`$. By using some well known material from algebraic geometry, we open new branches to computational vision.

We introduce algebraic curves embedded in $`^3`$ as the building blocks from which the tensor of a couple of cameras (projections) can be computed. In the process we address dimensional issues and as a result establish the minimal number of algebraic curves required for the tensor variety to be discrete as a function of their degree and genus.

We then establish new results on the reconstruction of an algebraic curves in $`^3`$ from multiple projections on projective planes embedded in $`^3`$. We address three different presentations of the curve: (i) definition by a set of equations, for which we show that for a generic configuration, two projections of a curve of degree $`d`$ defines a curve in $`^3`$ with two irreducible components, one of degree $`d`$ and the other of degree $`d(d1)`$, (ii) the dual presentation in the dual space $`^3`$, for which we derive a lower bound for the number of projections necessary for linear reconstruction as a function of the degree and the genus, and (iii) the presentation as an hypersurface of $`^5`$, defined by the set of lines in $`^3`$ meeting the curve, for which we also derive lower bounds for the number of projections necessary for linear reconstruction as a function of the degree (of the curve).

Moreover we show that the latter representation yields a new and efficient algorithm for dealing with mixed configurations of static and moving points in $`^3`$.

## 1 Introduction

Computational vision is the art of inferring three-dimensional properties of an object given several views of it. A view is concretely an image taken by a camera. From a mathematical point of view, a camera is a device that performs a projection from $`^3`$ to $`^2`$, through a center of projection. What are objects that we can deal with in this context? Until recently, for simplicity reasons, the objects that were considered in computer vision were essentially composed by static points and lines in $`^3`$. In the last two decades, intensive research has been carried out in this context, analyzing the 3D structure of the scene when given multiple views. A summary of the past decade of work in this area can be found in  and references to earlier work in .

The theory of multiple-view geometry and 3D reconstruction is somewhat fragmented when it comes to curve features, especially non-planar algebraic curves of any degree and genus. In  one shows how to recover the 3D position of a conic section from two and three views, and  shows how to recover the homography induced by a conic between two views of it, and  show how to recover a quadric surface from projections of its occluding conics.

In all the above, the projection matrices are given but hardly any thing was done when this data is not available.  show how to recover the fundamental matrix from matching conics with the result that 4 matching conics are minimally sufficient for a finite numbers of solutions.  generalizes this result to higher order curves, but consider only planar curves.

In this paper we present a general theory for dealing with algebraic curves in computational vision, and more precisely in the multiple-view geometry and 3D reconstruction problem. Thus we investigate three of the fundamental questions of computer vision, using algebraic curves: (i) recovering camera geometry (fundamental matrix) from two views of the same algebraic curve, (ii) reconstruction of the curve from its projection across two or more views, and (iii) application of algebraic curves to the structure recovery of dynamic scenes from streams of projections (video sequences).

We start by giving a short presentation of the computer vision background related to our work. Then we show how one can recover the so-called projective stratum of the camera geometry (epipolar geometry) from two views of a (non-planar) algebraic curve. For that purpose we define and derive the generalized Kruppa’s equations which are responsible for describing the epipolar constraint of two projections of the same algebraic curve. As part of the derivation of those constraints we address the issue of dimension analysis and as a result establish the minimal number of algebraic curves required for the epipolar geometry to be defined up to a finite-fold ambiguity as a function of their degree and genus.

On the reconstruction front, the curve admits three different representations: (i) as the solution of a set of equations in $`^3`$, for which we show that in a generic configuration, the reconstruction from two views of a curve of degree $`d`$ has two irreducible components, one of degree $`d`$ and the other of degree $`d(d1)`$, (ii) as an hypersurface in the dual space $`^3`$, for which we derive a lower bound of the minimal number of projections necessary for linear reconstruction as a function of the curve degree and genus, and (iii) as an hypersurface in $`^5`$, defined by the set of lines in $`^3`$ meeting the curve, for which we also derive lower bounds for the number of projections necessary for linear reconstruction as a function of curve degree alone. Moreover we show that the latter representation yields a new and efficient algorithm for dealing with mixed configurations of static and moving points in $`^3`$.

## 2 Foundation of linear computer vision

Projective algebraic geometry provides a natural framework to geometric computer vision. However one has to keep in mind that the geometric entities to be considered are in fact embedded into the physical three-dimension euclidian space. For this content, the euclidian space is provided with three structures defined by three groups of transformations: the orthogonal group $`O_3`$ (which defines the euclidian structure and which is included into the affine group), $`A_3`$ (defining the affine structure and itself included into the projective group), $`G_3`$ (defining the projective structure). We fix $`[X,Y,Z,T]^T`$, as homogeneous coordinates, and $`T=0`$ as the plane at infinity.

### 2.1 A single camera system

Computational vision starts with images captured by cameras. The camera components are the following:

* a plane $``$, called the retinal plane, or image plane,
* a point $`𝐎`$, called either the optical center or the camera center, and which does not lie on the plane $``$.

The plane $``$ is regarded as a two dimension projective space embedded into $`^3`$. Hence it is also denoted by $`i(^2)`$. The camera is a projection machine: $`\pi :^3\{𝐎\}i(^2),𝐏\overline{\mathrm{𝐎𝐏}}i(^2)`$. The projection $`\pi `$ is determined (up to a scalar) by a $`3\times 4`$ matrix $`𝐌`$ (the image of $`𝐏`$ being $`\lambda \mathrm{𝐌𝐏}`$).

The physical properties of a camera imply that $`𝐌`$ can be decomposed as follows:

$$𝐌=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}f& s& u_0\\ 0& \alpha f& v_0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right][𝐑;𝐭],$$

where $`(f,\alpha ,s,u_0,v_0)`$ are the so-called internal parameters of the camera, whereas the rotation $`𝐑`$ and the translation $`𝐭`$ are the external parameters.

It is easy to see that:

* The camera center $`𝐎`$ is given by $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐎}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.
* The matrix $`𝐌^T`$ maps a line in $`i(^2)`$ to the only plane containing both the line and $`𝐎`$.
* There exists a matrix $`\widehat{𝐌}_{6\times 3}()`$, which is a polynomial function of $`𝐌`$, that maps a point $`𝐩i(^2)`$ to the line $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐎𝐩}}`$ (optical ray), represented by its Plücker coordinates in $`^5`$. If the camera matrix is decomposed as follows:

$$𝐌=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^T\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\\ \mathrm{\Theta }^T\end{array}\right],$$

then for $`𝐩=[x,y,z]^T`$, the optical ray $`𝐋_𝐩=\widehat{𝐌}𝐩`$ is given by the extensor: $`𝐋_𝐩=x\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Theta }+y\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }+z\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $``$ denotes the meet operator in the Grassman-Cayley algebra (see ).
* The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝐌}=\widehat{𝐌}^T`$ maps lines in $`^3`$ to lines in $`i(^2)`$.

Moreover we will need in the sequel to consider the projection of the absolute conic onto the image plane. The absolute conic is simply defined by the following equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X^2+Y^2+Z^2& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill T& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$

By definition, the absolute conic is invariant by euclidian transformations. Therefore its projection onto the image plane, defined by the matrix $`\omega `$, is a function of the internal parameters only. By Cholesky decomposition $`\omega =\mathrm{𝐋𝐔}`$, where $`𝐋`$ (respectively $`𝐔`$) is lower (respectively upper) triangular matrix. Hence it is easy to see that $`𝐔=\overline{𝐌}^1`$, where $`\overline{𝐌}`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ matrix of the internal parameters of $`𝐌`$.

### 2.2 A system of two cameras

Given two cameras, $`(𝐎_j,i_j(^2))_{j=1,2}`$ are their components where $`i_1(^2)`$ and $`i_2(^2)`$ are two generic projective planes embedded into $`^3`$, and $`𝐎_1`$ and $`𝐎_2`$ are two generic points in $`^3`$ not lying on the above planes. As in 2.1, let $`\pi _j:^3\{𝐎_j\}i_j(^2),𝐏\overline{𝐎_j𝐏}i_j(^2)`$ be the respective projections. The camera matrices are $`𝐌_i,i=1,2`$.

#### 2.2.1 Homography between two images of the same plane

Consider the case where the two cameras are looking at the same plane in space, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let

$$𝐌_i=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^T\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_i^T\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_i^T\end{array}\right]$$

be the camera matrices, decomposed as above. Let $`𝐏`$ be a point lying on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We shall denote the projections of $`𝐏`$ by $`𝐩_i=[x_i,y_i,z_i]^T𝐌_i𝐏`$, where $``$ means equality modulo multiplication by a non-zero scalar.

The optical ray generated by $`𝐩_1`$ is given by $`𝐋_{𝐩_1}=x_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1+y_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+z_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Hence $`𝐏=𝐋_{𝐩_1}\mathrm{\Delta }=x_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }+y_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta }+z_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Hence $`𝐩_2𝐌_2𝐏`$ is given by the following expression: $`𝐩_2𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩_1`$ where:

$$𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Gamma }_2^T(\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Gamma }_2^T(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta })\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^T(\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^T(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta })\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_2^T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^T(\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^T(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta })\end{array}\right].$$

This yield the expression of the collineation $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between two images of the same plane.

###### Definition 1

The previous collineation is called the homography between the two images, through the plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

#### 2.2.2 Epipolar geometry

###### Definition 2

Let $`(𝐎_j,i_j(^2),𝐌_j)_{j=1,2}`$ being defined as before. Given a pair $`(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)i_1(^1)\times i_2(^2)`$, we say that it is a pair of corresponding or matching points if there exists $`𝐏^3`$ such that $`𝐩_j=\pi _j(𝐏)`$ for $`j=1,2`$.

Consider a point $`𝐩i_1(^2)`$. Then $`𝐩`$ can be the image of any point lying on the fiber $`\pi _1^1(𝐩)`$. Then the matching point in the second image must lie on $`\pi _2(\pi _1^1(𝐩))`$, which is, for a generic point $`𝐩`$, a line on the second image. Since $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are both linear, there exists a matrix $`𝐅_{3\times 3}()`$, such that: $`\xi (𝐩)=\pi _2(\pi _1^1(𝐩))`$ is given by $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$ for all but one point in the first image.

###### Definition 3

The matrix $`𝐅`$ is called the fundamental matrix, where as the line $`𝐥_𝐩=\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$ is called the epipolar line of $`𝐩`$.

Let $`𝐞_1=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}i_1(^2)`$ and $`𝐞_2=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}i_2(^2)`$. Those two points are respectively called the first and the second epipole. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, since $`\pi _1^1(𝐞_1)=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}`$ and $`\pi _2(\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2})=𝐞_2`$. Observe that by symmetry $`𝐅^T`$ is the fundamental matrix of the reverse couple of images. Hence $`𝐅^T𝐞_2=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Since the only point in the first image that is mapped to zero by $`𝐅`$ is the first epipole, $`𝐅`$ has rank $`2`$.

Now we want to deduce an expression of $`𝐅`$ as a function of the camera matrices. By the previous analysis, it is clear that: $`𝐅=\stackrel{~}{𝐌}_2\widehat{𝐌}_1`$. Moreover we have the followings properties:

###### Proposition 1

For any plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, not passing through the camera centers, the following equalities hold:

1. $$𝐅[𝐞_2]_\times 𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta },$$

where $`[𝐞_2]_\times `$ is the matrix associated with the cross-product as follows: for any vector $`𝐩`$, $`𝐞_2\times 𝐩=[𝐞_2]_\times 𝐩`$. Hence we have:

$$[𝐞_2]_\times =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\\ 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}& 0& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\\ 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}& 0\end{array}\right].$$

In particular, we have: $`𝐅=[𝐞_2]_\times 𝐇_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`𝐇_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the homography between the two images through the plane at infinity.
2. $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }^T𝐅+𝐅^T𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{𝟎}.`$ (1)

Proof: The first equality is clear according to its geometric meaning. Given a point $`𝐩`$ in the first image, $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$ is its epipolar line in the second image. The optical ray $`𝐋_𝐩`$ passing trough $`𝐩`$ meets the plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in a point $`𝐐`$, which projection in the second image is $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩`$. Hence the epipolar line must be $`𝐞_2𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩`$. This gives the required equality. The second equality is simply deduced from the first one by a short calculation.

###### Proposition 2

For a generic plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the following equality holds:

$$𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐞_1𝐞_2.$$

Proof: The image of the $`𝐞_1`$ by the homography must be the projection on the second image of the point defined as being the intersection of the optical ray generated by $`𝐞_1`$ and the plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Hence: $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐞_1=𝐌_2(𝐋_{𝐞_1}\mathrm{\Delta })`$. But $`𝐋_{𝐞_1}=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}`$. Thus the result must be $`𝐌_2𝐎_1`$ (except when the plane is passing through $`𝐎_2`$), that is the second epipole $`𝐞_2`$.

#### 2.2.3 Canonical stratification of the reconstruction

Three-dimension reconstruction can be achieved from a system of two cameras, once the camera matrices are known. However a typical situation is that the camera matrices are unknown. Then we face a double problem: recovering the camera matrices and the actual object. There exists an inherent ambiguity. Consider a pair of camera matrices $`(𝐌_1,𝐌_2)`$. If you change the world coordinate system by a transformation $`𝐕G_3`$, the camera matrices are mapped to $`(𝐌_1𝐕^1,𝐌_2𝐕^1)`$. Therefore we define the following equivalence relation:

###### Definition 4

Given a group of transformation $`G`$, two pairs of camera matrices, say $`(𝐌_1,𝐌_2)`$ and $`(𝐍_1,𝐍_2)`$ are said to be equivalent modulo multiplication by $`G`$ if there exists $`𝐕G`$, such that: $`𝐌_1=𝐍_1𝐕`$ and $`𝐌_2=𝐍_2𝐕`$.

Any reconstruction algorithm will always yields a reconstruction modulo multiplication by a certain group of transformations. More presicely there exist three levels of reconstruction according to the information that can be extracted from the two images and from a-priori knowledge of the world.

Projective Stratum

When the only available information is the fundamental matrix, then the reconstruction can be performed modulo multiplication by $`G_3`$. Indeed from $`𝐅`$, the so-called intrinsic homography $`𝐒=\frac{𝐞_2}{𝐞_2}𝐅`$ is computed and the camera matrices are equivalent to: $`([𝐈;\mathrm{𝟎}],[𝐒;𝐞_2])`$.

Affine Stratum

When, in addition of the epipolar geometry, the homography between the two images through the plane at infinity, denoted by $`𝐇_{\mathrm{}}`$, can be computed, the reconstruction can be done modulo multiplication by the group of affine transformations. Then the two camera matrices are equivalent to: $`([𝐈;\mathrm{𝟎}],[𝐇_{\mathrm{}};𝐞_2])`$.

Euclidian Stratum

The euclidian stratum is obtained by the data of the projection of the absolute conic $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto the image planes, which allows recovering the internal parameters of the cameras. Once the internal parameters of the cameras are known the relative motion between the cameras expressed by a rotation $`𝐑`$ and a translation $`𝐭`$ can be extracted from the fundamental matrix. However only the direction of $`𝐭`$ but not the norm can be recovered. Then the cameras matrices are equivalent, modulo multiplication by the group of similarity transformations, to: $`(\overline{𝐌}_1[𝐈;\mathrm{𝟎}],\overline{𝐌}_2[𝐑;𝐭])`$, where $`\overline{𝐌}_1`$ and $`\overline{𝐌}_2`$ are the matrices of the internal parameters.

Note that the projection of the absolute conic on the image can be computed using some a-priori knowledge of the world. Moreover there exist famous equations linking $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ when the epipolar geometry is given. These are the so-called Kruppa’s equations, defined in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3

The projections of the absolute conic onto two images are related as follows. There exists a scalar $`\lambda `$ such that:

$$[𝐞_1]_\times ^T\omega _1^{}[𝐞_1]_\times =\lambda 𝐅^T\omega _2^{}𝐅,$$

where $`[𝐞_1]_\times `$ is the matrix representing the cross-product by $`𝐞_1`$ and $`\omega _i^{}`$ is the adjoint matrix of $`\omega _i`$.

Let $`ϵ_i`$ be the tangents to $`\pi _i(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ through $`𝐞_i`$. Kruppa’s equations simply state that $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ are projectively isomorphic.

## 3 Recovering the epipolar geometry from curve correspondences

Recovering epipolar geometry from curve correspondences requires the establishment of an algebraic relation between the two image curves, involving the fundamental matrix. Hence such an algebraic relation may be regarded as an extension of Kruppa’s equations. In their original form (see proposition 3), these equations have been introduced to compute the camera-intrinsic parameters from the projection of the absolute conic onto the two image planes . However it is obvious that they still hold if one replaces the absolute conic by any conic that lies on a plane that does not meet any of the camera centers. In this form they can be used to recover the epipolar geometry from conic correspondences . Furthermore it is possible to extend them to any planar algebraic curve . Moreover a generalization for arbitrary algebraic spatial curves is possible and is a step toward the recovery of epipolar geometry from matching curves.

Therefore we shall prove and generalize Kruppa’s equations to arbitrary smooth irreducible curve that cannot be embedded in a plane and whose degree $`d2`$ (the case of line is excluded since one cannot deduce constraints on the epipolar geometry from a pair of matching lines and the case of planar curve has already been treated in ).

At this stage we recall a number of facts, that will be useful in the sequel, concerning the projection of a space curve onto a plane.

We shall mention that all our theoretical results are true when the ground field is the field of complex numbers. Finally we shall consider only the real solutions.

### 3.1 Single view of a space curve

Let $`𝐌`$ be the camera matrix, $`𝐎`$ the camera center, $``$ the retinal plane (as in 2.1). Let $`X`$ be a smooth irreducible embedded in $`^3`$ and which degree $`d2`$. Let $`Y`$ be the projection of $`X`$ by the camera. It is well known that:

1. The curve $`Y`$ will always contain singularities. Furthermore for a generic position of the camera center, the only singularities of $`Y`$ will be nodes.
2. The class of a planar curve is defined to be the degree of its dual curve. Let $`m`$ be the class of $`Y`$. Then $`m`$ is constant for a generic position of the camera center.
3. If $`d`$ and $`g`$ are the degree and the genus of $`X`$, they are respectively, for a generic position of $`𝐎`$, the degree and the genus of $`Y`$ and the Plücker formula yields:

$$\begin{array}{c}m=d(d1)2(\mathrm{}\text{nodes}),\\ g=\frac{(d1)(d2)}{2}(\mathrm{}\text{nodes}),\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{}\text{nodes}`$ denotes the number of nodes of $`Y`$. Hence the genus, the degree and the class are related by:

$$m=2d+2g2.$$

### 3.2 Generalized Kruppa’s equations

We are ready now to investigate the recovery of the epipolar geometry from matching curves. Let $`𝐌_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, be the camera matrices. Let $`𝐅`$ and $`𝐞_1`$ be the fundamental matrix and the first epipole, $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=0`$. We will need to consider the two following mappings: $`𝐩\stackrel{\gamma }{}𝐞_1𝐩`$ and $`𝐩\stackrel{\xi }{}\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$. Both are defined on the first image plane; $`\gamma `$ associates a point to its epipolar line in the first image, while $`\xi `$ sends it to its epipolar line in the second image.

Let $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ be the image curves (projections of $`X`$ onto the image planes). Assume that they are defined by the polynomials $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$. Let $`Y_1^{}`$ and $`Y_2^{}`$ denote the dual image curves, whose polynomials are respectively $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. Roughly speaking, the generalized Kruppa’s equations state that the sets of epipolar lines tangent to the curve in each image are projectively equivalent.

###### Theorem 1

Generalized Kruppa’s equations
For a generic position of the camera centers with respect to the curve in space, there exists a non-zero scalar $`\lambda `$, such that for all points $`𝐩`$ in the first image, the following equality holds:

$$\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))=\lambda \varphi _1(\gamma (𝐩))$$
(2)
Remark: Observe that if $`X`$ is a conic and $`𝐂_1`$ and $`𝐂_2`$ the matrices that respectively represent $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$, the generalized Kruppa’s equations reduce to the classical Kruppa’s equations, that is: $`[𝐞_1]_\times ^T𝐂_1^{}[𝐞_1]_\times 𝐅^T𝐂_2^{}𝐅`$, where $`𝐂_1^{}`$ and $`𝐂_2^{}`$ are the adjoint matrices of $`𝐂_1`$ and $`𝐂_2`$.

Proof: Let $`ϵ_i`$ be the set of epipolar lines tangent to the curve in image $`i`$. We start by proving the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1

The two sets $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ are projectively equivalent. Furthermore for each corresponding pair of epipolar lines, $`(𝐥,𝐥^{})ϵ_1\times ϵ_2`$, the multiplicity of $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐥^{}`$ as points of the dual curves $`Y_1^{}`$ and $`Y_2^{}`$ are the same.

Proof: Consider the following three pencils:

1. $`\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, the pencil of planes containing the baseline, generated by the camera centers,
2. $`\sigma (𝐞_1)^1`$, the pencil of epipolar lines through the first epipole,
3. $`\sigma (𝐞_2)^1`$, the pencil of epipolar lines through the second epipole.

Thus we have $`ϵ_i\sigma (𝐞_i)`$. Moreover if $`E`$ is the set of plane in $`\sigma (𝐋)`$ tangent to the curve in space, there exist a one-to-one mapping from $`E`$ to each $`ϵ_i`$. This mapping also leaves the multiplicities unchanged. This completes the lemma.

This lemma implies that both sides of the equation 2 define the same algebraic set, that the union of eipolar lines through $`𝐞_1`$ tangent to $`Y_1`$. Since $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, in the generic case, have same degree (as stated in 3.1), each side of equation 2 can be factorized into linear factors, satisfying the following:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi _1(\gamma (x,y,z))& =& _i(\alpha _{1i}x+\alpha _{2i}y+\alpha _{3i}z)^{a_i}\\ \varphi _2(\xi (x,y,z))& =& _i\lambda _i(\alpha _{1i}x+\alpha _{2i}y+\alpha _{3i}z)^{b_i},\end{array}$$

where $`_ia_i=_jb_j=m`$. By the previous lemma, we must also have $`a_i=b_i`$ for $`i`$.

By eliminating the scalar $`\lambda `$ from the generalized Kruppa’s equations (2) we obtain a set of bi-homogeneous equations in $`𝐅`$ and $`𝐞_1`$. Hence they define a variety in $`^2\times ^8`$. This gives rise to an important question. How many of those equations are algebraically independent, or in other words what is the dimension of the set of solutions? This is the issue of the next section.

### 3.3 Dimension of the set of solutions

Let $`\{E_i(𝐅,𝐞_1)\}_i`$ be the set of bi-homogeneous equations on $`𝐅`$ and $`𝐞_1`$, extracted from the generalized Kruppa’s equations (2). Our first concern is to determine whether all solutions of equation (2) are admissible, that is whether they satisfy the usual constraint $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=0`$. Indeed we prove the following statement:

###### Proposition 4

As long as there are at least 2 distinct lines through $`𝐞_1`$ tangent to $`Y_1`$, equation (2) implies that $`rank𝐅=2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

Proof: The variety defined by $`\varphi _1(\gamma (𝐩))`$ is then a union of at least 2 distinct lines through $`𝐞_1`$. If equation (2) holds, $`\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))`$ must define the same variety.

There are 2 cases to exclude: If $`rank𝐅=3`$, then the curve defined by $`\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))`$ is projectively equivalent to the curve defined by $`\varphi _2`$, which is $`Y_1^{}`$. In particular, it is irreducible.

If $`rank𝐅<2`$ or $`rank𝐅=2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1\mathrm{𝟎}`$, then there is some $`𝐚`$, not a multiple of $`𝐞_1`$, such that $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐚}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Then the variety defined by $`\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))`$ is a union of lines through $`𝐚`$. In neither case can this variety contain two distinct lines through $`𝐞_1`$, so we must have $`rank𝐅=2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

As a result, in a generic situation every solution of $`\{E_i(𝐅,𝐞_1)\}_i`$ is admissible. Let $`V`$ be the subvariety of $`^2\times ^8\times ^2`$ defined by the equations $`\{E_i(𝐅,𝐞_1)\}_i`$ together with $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}𝐅=\mathrm{𝟎}^T`$, where $`𝐞_2`$ is the second epipole. We next compute the lower bound on the dimension of $`V`$, after which we would be ready for the calculation itself.

###### Proposition 5

If $`V`$ is non-empty, the dimension of $`V`$ is at least $`7m`$.

Proof: Choose any line $`𝐥`$ in $`^2`$ and restrict $`𝐞_1`$ to the affine piece $`^2𝐥`$. Let $`(x,y)`$ be homogeneous coordinates on $`𝐥`$. If $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the two sides of equation (2) are both unchanged by replacing $`𝐩`$ by $`𝐩+\alpha 𝐞_1`$. So equation (2) will hold for all $`𝐩`$ if it holds for all $`𝐩𝐥`$. Therefore equation (2) is equivalent to the equality of 2 homogeneous polynomials of degree $`m`$ in $`x`$ and $`y`$, which in turn is equivalent to the equality of $`(m+1)`$ coefficients. After eliminating $`\lambda `$, we have $`m`$ algebraic conditions on $`(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)`$ in addition to $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}𝐅=\mathrm{𝟎}^T`$.

The space of all epipolar geometries, that is, solutions to $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}𝐅=\mathrm{𝟎}^T`$, is irreducible of dimension 7. Therefore, $`V`$ is at least $`(7m)`$-dimensional.

For the calculation of the dimension of $`V`$ we introduce some additional notations. Given a triplet $`(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)^2\times ^8\times ^2`$, let $`\{𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1)\}`$ (respectively $`\{𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)\}`$) be the tangency points of the epipolar lines through $`𝐞_1`$ (respectively $`𝐞_2`$) to the first (respectively second) image curve. Let $`𝐐_\alpha (𝐞_1,𝐞_2)`$ be the 3d points projected onto $`\{𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1)\}`$ and $`\{𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)\}`$. Let $`𝐋`$ be the baseline joining the two camera centers. We next provide a sufficient condition for $`V`$ to be discrete.

###### Proposition 6

For a generic position of the camera centers, the variety $`V`$ will be discrete if, for any point $`(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)V`$, the union of $`𝐋`$ and the points $`𝐐_\alpha (𝐞_1,𝐞_2)`$ is not contained in any quadric surface.

Proof: For generic camera positions, there will be $`m`$ distinct points $`\{𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1)\}`$ and $`\{𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)\}`$, and we can regard $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$, $`𝐪_{2\alpha }`$ locally as smooth functions of $`𝐞_1`$, $`𝐞_2`$.

We let $`W`$ be the affine variety in $`^3\times ^9\times ^3`$ defined by the same equations as $`V`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)`$ be a point of $`W`$ corresponding to a non-isolated point of $`V`$. Then there is a tangent vector $`\vartheta =(𝐯,\mathrm{\Phi },𝐯^{})`$ to $`W`$ at $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ not a multiple of $`𝐅`$.

If $`\chi `$ is a function on $`W`$, $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(\chi )`$ will denote the derivative of $`\chi `$ in the direction defined by $`\vartheta `$ at $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. For

$$\chi _\alpha (𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)=𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐪}_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1),$$

the generalized Kruppa’s equations imply that $`\chi _\alpha `$ vanishes identically on $`W`$, so its derivative must also vanish. This yields

$$_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(\chi _\alpha )=(_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{2\alpha }))^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐪}_{1\alpha }+𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐪_{1\alpha }+𝐪_{2\alpha }^T𝐅(_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha }))=0.$$
(3)
We shall prove that $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$ is in the linear span of $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ and $`𝐞_1`$. (This means that when the epipole moves slightly, $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ moves along the epipolar line.) Consider $`\kappa (t)=f(𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1+t𝐯))`$, where $`f`$ is the polynomial defining the image curve $`Y_1`$. Since $`𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1+t𝐯)Y_1`$, $`\kappa 0`$, so the derivative $`\kappa ^{}(0)=0`$. On the other hand, $`\kappa ^{}(0)=_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(f(𝐪_{1\alpha }))=grad_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$.

Thus we have $`grad_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })=0`$. But also $`grad_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T𝐪_{1\alpha }=0`$ and $`grad_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T𝐞_1=0`$. Since $`grad_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)𝐎`$ ($`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ is not a singular point of the curve), this shows that $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$, $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$, and $`𝐞_1`$ are linearly dependent. $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ and $`𝐞_1`$ are linearly independent, so $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$ must be in their linear span.

We have that $`𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐪}_{1\alpha }=0`$, so $`𝐪_{2\alpha }^T𝐅_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })=0`$: the third term of equation (3) vanishes. In a similar way, the first term of equation (3) vanishes, leaving

$$𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐪_{1\alpha }=0.$$

The derivative of $`\chi (𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)=\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1`$ must also vanish, which yields:

$$𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Phi }𝐞_1=0.$$

From the first equality, we deduce that for every $`𝐐_\alpha `$, we have:

$$𝐐_\alpha ^T𝐌_2^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐌_1𝐐_\alpha =0.$$

From the second equality, we deduce that every point $`𝐏`$ lying on the baseline must satisfy:

$$𝐏^T𝐌_2^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐌_1𝐏=0.$$

The fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not a multiple of $`F`$ implies that $`𝐌_2^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐌_10`$, so together these two last equations mean that the union $`𝐋\{𝐐_\alpha \}`$ lies on a quadric surface. Thus if there is no such quadric surface, every point in $`V`$ must be isolated.

Observe that this result is consistent with the previous proposition, since there always exist a quadric surface containing a given line and six given points. However in general there is no quadric containing a given line and seven given points. Therefore we can conclude with the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2

For a generic position of the camera centers, the generalized Kruppa’s equations define the epipolar geometry up to a finite-fold ambiguity if and only if $`m7`$.

Since different curves in generic position give rise to independent equations, this result means that the sum of the classes of the image curves must be at least $`7`$ for $`V`$ to be a finite set.

## 4 3D Reconstruction

We turn our attention to the problem of reconstructing an algebraic curve from two or more views, given known camera matrices (epipolar geometries are known). The basic idea is to intersect together the cones defined by the camera centers and the image curves. However this intersection can be computed in three different spaces, giving rise to different algorithms and applications.

We shall mention that in  a scheme is proposed to reconstruct an algebraic curve from a single view by blowing-up the projection. This approach results in a spatial curve defined up to an unknown projective transformation. In fact the only computation this reconstruction allows is the recovery of the properties of the curve that are invariant to projective transformation. Moreover this reconstruction is valid for irreducible curves only. However reconstructing from two projections not only gives the projective properties of the curve, but also the relative depth of it with respect to others objects in the scene and furthermore the relative position between irreducible components.

### 4.1 Reconstruction $`^3`$

Let the camera projection matrices be $`𝐌_1`$ and $`𝐌_2`$. Hence the two cones defined by the image curves and the camera centers are given by: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐏)=f_1(𝐌_1𝐏)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(𝐏)=f_2(𝐌_2𝐏)`$. The reconstruction is defined as the curve whose equations are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0`$. This curves has two irreducible components as the following theorem states.

###### Theorem 3

For a generic position of the camera centers, that is when no epipolar plane is tangent twice to the curve $`X`$, the curve defined by $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0\}`$ has two irreducible components. One has degree $`d`$ and is the actual solution of the reconstruction. The other one has degree $`d(d1)`$.

Proof: For a line $`𝐥^3`$, we write $`\sigma (𝐥)`$ for the pencil of planes containing $`𝐥`$. For a point $`𝐩^2`$, we write $`\sigma (𝐩)`$ for the pencil of lines through $`𝐩`$. There is a natural isomorphism between $`\sigma (𝐞_i)`$, the epipolar lines in image $`i`$, and $`\sigma (𝐋)`$, the planes containing both camera centers. Consider the following covers of $`^1`$:

1. $`X\stackrel{\eta }{}\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, taking a point $`xX`$ to the epipolar plane that it defines with the camera centers.
2. $`Y_1\stackrel{\eta _1}{}\sigma (𝐞_1)\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, taking a point $`yY_1`$ to its epipolar line in the first image.
3. $`Y_2\stackrel{\eta _2}{}\sigma (𝐞_2)\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, taking a point $`yY_2`$ to its epipolar line in the second image.

If $`\rho _i`$ is the projection $`XY_i`$, then $`\eta =\eta _i\rho _i`$. Let $``$ the union set of branch points of $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$. It is clear that the branch points of $`\eta `$ are included in $``$. Let $`S=^1`$, pick $`tS`$, and write $`X_S=\eta ^1(S)`$, $`X_t=\eta ^1(t)`$. Let $`\mu _{X_S}`$ be the monodromy: $`\pi _1(S,t)Perm(X_t)`$, where $`Perm(Z)`$ is the group of permutation of a finite set $`Z`$. It is well known that the path-connected components of $`X`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the orbits of the action of $`im(\mu _{X_S})`$ on $`X_t`$. Since $`X`$ is assumed to be irreducible, it has only one component and $`im(\mu _{X_S})`$ acts transitively on $`X_t`$. Then if $`im(\mu _{X_S})`$ is generated by transpositions, this will imply that $`im(\mu _{X_S})=Perm(X_t)`$. In order to show that $`im(\mu _{X_S})`$ is actually generated by transpositions, consider a loop in $`^1`$ centered at $`t`$, say $`l_t`$. If $`l_t`$ does not go round any branch point, then $`l_t`$ is homotopic to the constant path in $`S`$ and then $`\mu _{X_S}([l_t])=1`$. Now in $``$, there are three types of branch points:

1. branch points that come from nodes of $`Y_1`$: these are not branch points of $`\eta `$,
2. branch points that come from nodes of $`Y_2`$: these are not branch points of $`\eta `$,
3. branch points that come from epipolar lines tangent either to $`Y_1`$ or to $`Y_2`$: these are genuine branch points of $`\eta `$.

If the loop $`l_t`$ goes round a point of the first two types, then it is still true that $`\mu _{X_S}([l_t])=1`$. Now suppose that $`l_t`$ goes round a genuine branch point of $`\eta `$, say $`b`$ (and goes round no other points in $``$). By genericity, $`b`$ is a simple two-fold branch point, hence $`\mu _{X_S}([l_t])`$ is a transposition. This shows that $`im(\mu _{X_S})`$ is actually generated by transpositions and so $`im(\mu _{X_S})=Perm(X_t)`$.

Now consider $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, the curve defined by $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0\}`$. By Bezout’s Theorem $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has degree $`d^2`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{X}`$. It is projected onto a point $`y_i`$ in $`Y_i`$, such that $`\eta _1(y_1)=\eta _2(y_2)`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{X}Y_1\times _^1Y_2`$; restricting to the inverse image of the set $`S`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{X}_SX_S\times _SX_S`$. We can therefore identify $`\stackrel{~}{X}_t`$ with $`X_t\times X_t`$. The monodromy $`\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}_S}`$ can then be given by $`\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}_S}(x,y)=(\mu _{X_S}(x),\mu _{X_S}(y))`$. Since $`im(\mu _{X_S})=Perm(X_t)`$, the action of $`im(\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}_S})`$ on $`X_t\times X_t`$ has two orbits, namely $`\{(x,x)\}X_t`$ and $`\{(x,y)|xy\}`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has two irreducible components. One has degree $`d`$ and is $`X`$, the other has degree $`d^2d=d(d1)`$.

This result provides an algorithm to find the right solution for the reconstruction in a generic configuration, except in the case of conics, where the two components of the reconstruction are both admissible.

### 4.2 Reconstruction in the Dual Space

Let $`X^{}`$ be the dual variety of $`X`$. Since $`X`$ is supposed not to be a line, the dual variety $`X^{}`$ must be a hypersurface of the dual space . Hence let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be a minimal degree polynomial that represents $`X^{}`$. Our first concern is to determine the degree of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

###### Proposition 7

The degree of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is $`m`$, that is, the common degree of the dual image curves.

Proof: Since $`X^{}`$ is a hypersurface of $`^3`$, its degree is the number of points where a generic line in $`^3`$ meets $`X^{}`$. By duality it is the number of planes in a generic pencil that are tangent to $`X`$. Hence it is the degree of the dual image curve. Another way to express the same fact is the observation that the dual image curve is the intersection of $`X^{}`$ with a generic plane in $`^3`$. Note that this provides a simple proof that the degree of the dual image curve is constant for a generic position of the camera center.

For the reconstruction of $`X^{}`$ from multiple views, we will need to consider the mapping from a line $`𝐥`$ of the image plane to the plane that it defines with the camera center. Let $`\mu :𝐥𝐌^T𝐥`$ denote this mapping. There exists a link involving $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\varphi `$, the polynomial of the dual image curve: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\mu (𝐥))=0`$ whenever $`\varphi (𝐥)=0`$. Since these two polynomials have the same degree (because $`\mu `$ is linear) and $`\varphi `$ is irreducible, there exist a scalar $`\lambda `$ such that

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\mu (𝐥))=\lambda \varphi (𝐥),$$

for all lines $`𝐥^2`$. Eliminating $`\lambda `$, we get $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+2}{m}\right)1`$ linear equations on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Since the number of coefficients in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+3}{m}\right)`$, we can state the following result:

###### Proposition 8

The reconstruction in the dual space can be done linearly using at least $`k\frac{m^2+6m+11}{3(m+3)}`$ views.

From a practical point of view, it is worth noting that the fitting of the dual image curve is not necessary. It is sufficient to extract tangents to the image curves at distinct points. Each tangent $`𝐥`$ contributes to one linear equation on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\mu (𝐥))=0`$. However one cannot obtain more than $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+2}{m}\right)1`$ linearly independent equations per view.

### 4.3 Reconstruction in $`𝒢(1,3)`$

Let $`𝒢(1,3)`$ be the Grassmanian of lines of $`^3`$. Consider the set of lines in $`^3`$ meeting the curve $`X`$ of degree $`d`$. This defines an irreducible subvariety of $`𝒢(1,3)`$ which is the intersection of $`𝒢(1,3)`$ with an irreducible hypersurface of degree $`d`$ in $`^5`$ (see ), given by a homogeneous polynomial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, defined modulo the $`d`$th graded piece $`I(𝒢(1,3))_d`$ of the ideal of $`𝒢(1,3)`$ and modulo scalars. However picking one representative of this equivalence class is sufficient to reconstruct entirely without any ambiguity the curve $`X`$. Hence we need to compute the class of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`𝒢(1,3)`$, or more precisely in its $`d`$th graded piece, $`S(𝒢(1,3))_d`$, which dimension is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+5}{d}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2+5}{d2}\right)`$.

Let $`f`$ be the polynomial defining the image curve, $`Y`$. Consider the mapping that associates to an image point its optical ray: $`\nu :𝐩\widehat{𝐌}𝐩`$. Hence the polynomial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu (𝐩))`$ vanishes whenever $`f(𝐩)`$ does. Since they have same degree and $`f`$ is irreducible, there exists a scalar $`\lambda `$ such as for every point $`𝐩^2`$, we have:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu (𝐩))=\lambda f(𝐩).$$

This yields $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{d}\right)1`$ linear equations on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Hence a similar statement to that in Proposition 8 can be made:

###### Proposition 9

The reconstruction in $`𝒢(1,3)`$ can be done linearly using at least $`k\frac{1}{6}\frac{d^3+8d^2+23d+28}{d+3}`$ views.

As in the case of reconstruction in the dual space, it is not necessary to explicitly compute $`f`$. It is enough to pick points on the image curve. Each point yields a linear equation on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu (𝐩))=0`$. However for each view, one cannot extract more than $`\frac{1}{2}d^2+\frac{3}{2}d`$ independant linear equations.

## 5 Applications to dynamic configurations of points

In this section we show that the reconstructions in $`𝒢(1,3)`$ can be applied to trajectory recovery. Consider a point moving along a smooth trajectory. The motion is assumed to be well approximated by a low degree irreducible algebraic curve. This requirement is in fact very natural and has a widely broad validity in practice. Now we proceed to show how trajectory recovery can be achieved.

A set of cameras $`𝐌_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ which are either static or moving is viewing at a set of points $`𝐏_j,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ either static or moving. The cameras are independant and in particular they are not supposed to be synchronized. Let $`𝐩_{ijk}`$ be the projection of the point $`𝐏_j`$ onto the camera $`i`$ at time $`k`$.

For a given point $`𝐏_j`$, for all $`i`$ and $`k`$, the optical rays, $`𝐋_{ijk}=\widehat{𝐌}_i𝐩_{ijk}`$ meet the trajectory of $`𝐏_j`$. Then according to the geometric entity those rays generate, the motion of $`𝐏_j`$ can be recovered. Here we provide a table that gives the correspondence between this entity and the motion of $`𝐏_j`$.

| Motion of $`𝐏_j`$ | Geometry entity generated |
| --- | --- |
|  | by $`\{𝐋_{ijk}\}`$ in $`^5`$ |
| Static point | Plane included |
|  | in $`𝒢(1,3)`$ |
| Point moving on a line | Intersection of $`𝒢(1,3)`$ |
|  | with an hyperplane |
| Point moving on a conic | Intersection of $`𝒢(1,3)`$ |
|  | with a quadric |
|  |  |
| Point moving on a curve | Intersection of $`𝒢(1,3)`$ |
| of degree $`d`$ | with an hypersurface of degree $`d`$ |


text:
# Resonant versus anti-resonant tunneling at carbon nanotube A-B-A heterostructures

## Abstract

Narrow antiresonances going to zero transmission are found to occur for general (2n,0)(n,n)(2n,0) carbon nanotube heterostructures, whereas the complementary configuration, (n,n)(2n,0)(n,n), displays simple resonant tunneling behaviour. We compute examples for different cases, and give a simple explanation for the appearance of antiresonances in one case but not in the other. Conditions and ranges for the occurence of these different behaviors are stated. The phenomenon of anti-resonant tunneling, which has passed unnoticed in previous studies of nanotube heterostructures, adds up to the rich set of behaviors available to nanotube based quantum effect devices.
Published in Physica Status Solidi (b) 226, No.1, 79-85 (2001)

Rapid progress in carbon nanotube electronic devices has been made recently . Nanotube transistors  and diodes  have been experimentally verified. Doping of different sections of the tube has been proposed for the fabrication of devices, . Nevertheless, one of the most interesting ways of producing a nanotube device consists in forming heterojunctions  where different chiral tubes are joined by carbon pentagons and heptagons. This allows to fully exploit the metallic (m) and semiconducting (s) characters of nanotubes on a pure carbon molecule without doping. The main question is to find out the electronic behaviour of these nanotube heterostructures. Here we address the problem of three component heterostructures of type A-B-A, where A and B stand for different chirality of the tube.

In solid state nanoelectronic quantum devices, an A-B-A device behaves as a single tunneling barrier or as a quantum well, depending on the relative energies of the conduction band edges of A and B, and one needs an A-B-A’-B-A double barrier heterostructure in order to obtain resonant tunneling. On the contrary, we will show that nanotube ABA junctions can display simultaneously bound states, single barrier tunneling, and double barrier resonant tunneling. Furthermore, several kinds of resonant tunneling can occur, more complex than the ’Fabry-Perot’-like behaviour, depending on the chirality of the A and B sections and junction geometry. The conditions for each kind of tunneling to occur can be established. This suggests nanotube ABA junctions as potential quantum effect devices. A recent proposal showing the robustness of a (5,5)(6,4)(5,5) junction as quantum device has been published . However, the possibility of anti-resonant tunneling in nanotube heterostructures has largely been unnoticed in previous studies.

In this work, straight ABA heterostructures were constructed  by joining two straight AB junctions. Here, A and B stand for different orientations of the graphene hexagons with respect to the nanotube translation axis. The orientation is usually specified by the 2-D chiral vector, defining the section of the nanotube perpendicular to its translation axis on a 2-D honeycomb lattice . In terms of the honeycomb basis vectors, the chiral vector has the form $`(n,m)`$, where $`n`$ and $`m`$ are integers. Tube segments with $`(n,0)`$ or $`(n,n)`$ chirality are called zigzag and armchair tubes respectively (see fig.1a). The geometries considered were further relaxed by a molecular dynamic simulation approach, as reported previously . The calculation of their conductance curves were then carried out in a Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals framework . The conductance across any interface dividing the system can be computed as

$`\sigma ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{8e}{h}}Tr[D_{11}\rho _{11}T_{12}D_{22}^{}\rho _{21}^{}T_{22}^{}].`$ (1)
with the denominators D given by

$`D_{11(22)}=[IT_{12(21)}G_{22(11)}T_{21(12)}G_{11(22)}]^1.`$ (2)
$`G`$ is the retarded Green function of the decoupled systems, and $`T`$ is the hopping matrix joining the two parts. $`\rho `$ corresponds to $`Im[G]/\pi `$, and the self energies of the semi-infinite electrodes are calculated as described in . To calculate the Green function we took advantage of the tridiagonal character of the Hamiltonian, as in ref. . Resonant tunneling at a nanotube heterostructure device has been shown to be robust and quite insensitive to both temperature and electron-phonon scattering at the temperature and voltage biases of interest . Reference  justified the use of an independent electron model for the calculation of transmission properties, which is adopted in the present approach.

Fig.1 shows examples of two mmm straight junctions: a (6,6)(12,0)(6,6) structure (fig.1b) and its complementary case (12,0)(6,6)(12,0) (fig.1c). The straight (6,6)(12,0) stable structure is formed by purely alternating pentagon-heptagon defects, which preserves a 6-fold rotational symmetry. This is true for any (n,n)(2n,0) junction, keeping n-fold rotational symmetry. As a result, we can see resonant peaks with maximum value of $`2G_0`$, and appearance of interference patterns of different character for the two straight cases (AZA and ZAZ, where A stands for (n,n) and Z for (2n,0)). In addition to tunneling, bound states are confined in the structures, with energies inside the range of the conducting bands. These states are completely uncoupled from tunneling electrons, and do not affect the conductance. They are manifested in the Green function as a change of sign of the diagonal elements of $`Re(G)`$. In a non-purely alternating pentagon-hexagon defect structure, such as a (6,6)(10,0) junction, rotational symmetry is greatly reduced, and thus electron scattering between different angular momenta takes place, destroying the degeneracy. Our calculation shows that this leads to narrow resonant peaks with $`1G_0`$ conductance at their maximum (rather than $`2G_0`$ of fig.1b-c), in a range from about 1 to 2 eV and from -1 to -2eV for a (6,6)(10,0)(6,6) (msm) and (10,0)(6,6)(10,0) (sms).

Simple Resonant Tunneling (SRT) and Anti Resonant Tunneling (ART) behaviours \- The remarkably regular interference pattern of the AZA structure (fig.1b) in the $`2.2eV<E<2.2eV`$ range suggests that the system behaves as a simple quantum interferometer (SRT behaviour). In such a case, the propagating waves in the interferometer can be described as a combination of a ’forward’ and a ’reflected’ wave at each section of the structure: $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi ^f+\psi ^r`$. Denoting the two junctions as $`1`$ and $`2`$, it is easy to show that the wave amplitude immediately at the right of $`2`$ is related to the amplitude immediately before $`1`$ by the expression  $`\psi _{2+\delta }^f=\frac{t^2e^{i\varphi }}{1r^2e^{2i\varphi }}\psi _{1\delta }^fT\psi _{1\delta }^f`$, where $`t`$ and $`r`$ are the transmitivity and reflectivity of one of the two junctions alone ($`t^2+r^2=1`$). The denominator is a consequence of the multiple reflections between the two junctions of the interferometer (the derivation is no longer valid if the central part, between 1 and 2, is not a single chain). This implies that the transmission of the total system, $`|T|^2`$, is bound by two envelope curves which are solely functions of the conductance of the single (n,n)(2n,0) junction alone, as $`1|T|^2=|\frac{t^2e^{i\varphi }}{1e^{2i\varphi }(1t^2)}|^2(\frac{t^2}{2t^2})^2`$. Since we have two independent degenerate channels, the lower envelope curve for the total conductance of the AZA system, in units of $`2e^2/h`$, is

$`\sigma _{AZA}^{lim}=2({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{AZ}}{4\sigma _{AZ}}})^2`$ (3)
and the upper envelope is $`\sigma _{AZA}=2`$. And in fact this is indeed the case, as can be seen in fig.2(upper), where the conductance corresponding to states with angular momentum $`L=\pm 1`$ is plotted for different lengths of Z, and the minima are perfectly matched by expression (3).

Since the envelopes of the interference pattern of a (n,n)(2n,0)(n,n) junction are fitted by an expression invoving just the conductance of the single (n,n)(2n,0) junction alone, one would wonder whether this would also be the case for the (2n,0)(n,n)(2n,0) junction. Fig.2(lower) shows that it is not. Despite the upper envelope is still a line at $`2G_0`$, the pattern now shows remarkable full antiresonances -zero conductance- (ART behaviour) in the resonant energy range, and no minima are matched by eq.(3). The difference between the AZA and ZAZ cases can be understood as follows.

One can transform the Hamiltonian basis from local orbitals ($`|j`$) to combinations for each layer (same z), on the case of the zigzag:

$`|\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{i\gamma j}|j`$ (4)
and for the armchair:

$`|\beta _{+()}={\displaystyle \frac{1(i)}{\sqrt{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{i\beta j}(|j,1\pm |j,2)`$ (5)
where $`|j,1(2)`$ are the atomic orbitals at the two inequivalent locations of j, inside one ring and p indexes the layer. The allowed values of the angular number are $`\gamma =\pi L/n,L=0,\mathrm{},2n1;\beta =2\pi L/n,L=0,\mathrm{},n1`$.

In this new basis, the zigzag tube is reduced to a series of uncoupled independent chains with onsite energies $`ϵ=0`$ and alternating hoppings $`t_1=t`$ and $`t_2=2t\mathrm{cos}(\gamma /2)`$. It is straightforward to check that this gives the proper bands of the zigzag tube. The armchair is reduced to double chains, rather than single, with onsite energies $`ϵ_+=t,ϵ_{}=t`$, and hoppings $`t_{++}=t\mathrm{cos}(\beta /2),t_+=t\mathrm{sin}(\beta /2),t_{}=t\mathrm{cos}(\beta /2)`$ (see fig.3).

Now, the two states $`|\beta _+`$ and $`|\beta _{}`$ on the (n,n) side couple only with two states, $`|\gamma =\beta /2`$ and $`|\gamma ^{}=\beta /2+\pi `$ , on the (2n,0) side. From this representation, it is apparent that a zigzag in the middle of the AZA behaves essentially as two single chains coupled to the double chain electrodes. The conductance of these two single chains alone (i.e. for a pure (2n,0) system) is shown as the dotted line in fig.2(upper). We see that for some energy ranges, only one of the chains’ subband is present. For such range, we have a central region consisting of a single chain, and eq.(3) is thus valid. On the other hand, if the central region is consisting of a double chain, as in the ZAZ case, or the energy ranges where two chains are available for the Z in the AZA case, derivation of eq.(3) is no longer valid since the transmission of the AZ junction is no longer a scalar. In this case, the ZAZ system behaves as a single channel injecting electrons into two different channels, that afterwards merge again to drain in a single channel. When the energy is such that the electron arrives to the drain with opposite phase from each of the channels, an antiresonance takes place (ref. ).

Thus, the conditions for appearance of simple interferometer resonant pattern in the (n,n)(2n,0)(n,n) junctions can be stated: 1) it will only happen in the energy region such that the bands corresponding to $`\beta _+`$ and $`\beta _{}`$ of the A region overlap with only one of the two subbands ($`\gamma =\beta /2`$ or $`\gamma =\beta /2\pi `$) of the Z region. 2) The opening of a new subband family with different $`\beta `$ leads to a superposition of two interference patterns, and destroys the simple pattern. In general, the new superimposed pattern has different periodicity than the other one, because each subband’s minimum has different effective mass. This is different than in the case of a classical symmetric parabolic dispersion, where different $`k_{}`$ subbands have the same dispersion relation in $`k_{}`$, and their resonant patterns superpose with the same periodicity in the interferometer. With nanotubes, on the contrary, the range of simple interference pattern is only until the opening of the new subband. This allows us to determine the interference energy ranges as a function of n. In fig.4 we plot the lower edge of the subbands of the (n,n) system (negative slope curves) and the (2n,0) system (positive slope) as a function of n. The simple-interference region is limited by the two thick solid lines, fulfilling the two conditions stated above. We see that it goes from maximum to zero and viceversa cyclically, in periods of 6 units of n. in addition, the value of the maximum range, i.e. that at n=6, 12, 18, etc., decreases with n. Since its size is inversely proportional to the number of subbands in the system, it can be roughly approximated by 3t/n. The analytic expression for the thick lines in fig.4 is given by the minimum for all q of

$`Max\{\mathrm{sin}(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{q}{n}}),12\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi (qnj)}{2n}})\},`$ (6)
$`q=1,2,\mathrm{},Int[n/2];j=0,1.`$ (7)
where $`j=0`$ yields the lower line, and $`j=1`$ the upper one.

In conclusion, we have found occurence of antiresonances at general (2n,0)(n,n)(2n,0) nanotube heterojunctions, and occurence of simple ’Fabry-Perot’ type resonant tunneling at (n,n)(2n,0)(n,n) nanotube heterojunctions. The SRT conductance interference pattern has an upper constant envelope of $`2G_0`$, and a lower envelope that is fitted by $`\sigma _{ABA}^{lim}=2(\sigma _{AB}/(4\sigma _{AB}))^2`$ in units of the quantum of conductance. This simple pattern is due to the reduction of the (2n,0) part to a single channel at the energies of the interference. On the other hand, the reverse case of a (2n,0)(n,n)(2n,0) junction shows no longer a simple interference, but displays AntiResonant Tunneling. This is because the (n,n) segment is reduced to a double chain and allows interference between two channels. The energy range of the simple interference pattern is within $`0.5|t|<|E|<|t|`$, and oscillates as a function of $`n`$, with a period of $`6n`$, being maximum at $`n=6,12,18,\mathrm{}`$ and nearly 0 at $`n=9,15,21,\mathrm{}`$. The size of the maximum range becomes smaller with increasing $`n`$, roughly decreasing as $`3|t|/n`$. Unlike parabolic dispersion band resonant interferometers, where resonator interference pattern takes place with the same period for all $`k_{}`$, the interference in nanotube ABA junctions has different period for each subband, producing subsequent steps of superimposed periodicities when new subbands open. Possible application of resonant and anti-resonant tunneling in nanotube based devices should take all these facts in consideration when the design of such nanostructures becomes experimentally available.

J. H. and N. M. acknowledge Prof. J.P.Lu for his support of the joint research program between NASA Ames and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At energies around 0.03 TeV the emission from galactic and extragalactic sources is too weak to be detected by instruments onboard satellites because of their poor effective area. Actually, since the flux of an astronomical source decreases as the energy increases, observations at higher energy need a huge effective area that is not feasible with space detectors. Only ground-based experiments achieve enough effective area to observe the very low intensity and the soft spectra emitted in this extreme energy band. Observations can be performed either by detecting the shower of secondary particles produced by the interaction of gamma-ray entering into the high atmosphere, or by detecting the Cherenkov light emitted by the relativistic charged component of the shower. The spread of the secondary particles and the intrinsic Cherenkov light cone aperture (1.3 degrees in air) allow a strong increase of the effective area being the detectors sensible to gamma rays whose trajectory is hundreds of metres far from them. Imaging Cherenkov telescopes, thanks to their large collection area ($`10^5`$ m2) and to their very high efficiency in rejecting the cosmic ray background, have turned out to be the most sensitive instruments for the observation of astrophysical sources above 250 GeV.

In this paper we present a novel imaging Cherenkov telescope, GAW (Gamma Air Watch) designed to observe gamma-ray sources above 200 GeV. The main components of the telescope (optics, focal surface detector and operative mode) are described in Sect.2; the performance is presented in Sect.3.

## 2 GAW: technical description

Current and next planned imaging Cherenkov telescopes use large spherical mirror reflectors to collect light. The field of view (FOV) of these telescopes ranges from 3 to 5 degrees. A larger FOV can not be achieved with reflective systems because of the rapid increase of aberrations for off-axis angle. Since the FOV has the same order of magnitude as the Cherenkov light cone, the conventional Cherenkov telescopes can observe only one source each time and they must point to a different sky position to measure the diffuse background in the FOV loosing on-source observing time. These telescopes are not suitable for surveys and for discovery of rapid, transient phenomena or serendipity TeV sources. A sensitive survey of the galactic plane at TeV energies has to be undertaken yet. So, the development of wide angle optics for Cherenkov telescopes would be very important in the very high-energy astronomy. Wide FOV observations with a $``$200 GeV low energy threshold is the goal of the GAW project.

The main differences of GAW with respect to the conventional imaging Cherenkov telescopes are:

* optic system: the Cherenkov light collector is a single acrylic flat Fresnel lens instead of mirrors.
* photomultiplier operation mode: the photomultipliers work in single photoelectron counting mode instead of charge integration.

A schematic view of the telescope is shown in Fig. 1; the baseline is summarized in Table 1.

The Cherenkov light collector of GAW is a Fresnel lens. Optic systems with Fresnel lens have the advantage to provide large FOV with moderate angular resolution (Lamb et al. 1998); they do not suffer from central obscuration by the focal detector; they are lightweight and highly transparent. Moreover, the much more isochronisity of the refractive system with respect to mirrors allows us to take advantage of the short duration of the Cherenkov pulses ($``$ 2-5 ns) lowering the signal integration time and reducing the night sky background, with consequently decrease of the telescope energy threshold. The optical performance required for GAW is obtained with a single flat Fresnel lens with a diameter of 3 meters, a thickness of 3 mm and a f# of 1.4. The lens is made of ultraviolet transmitting acrylic with a transmittance of about 95% from ultraviolet to near infrared. Chromatic aberration, present in the Fresnel lens, is minimized using a diffractive plane in the optics design.

Tab. 1 - Baseline of the GAW design

The detector consists in an array of 300 multi-anode photomultipliers (MAPMT) manufactured by Hamamatsu, series R7600-03-M64 (Hamamatsu, 1999). Each photomultiplier is equipped with a bi-alkali photocatode and UV transmitting window that assure an average Quantum Efficiency of 20% in 300-500 nm. The MAPMT is organized as an array of 8$`\times `$8 independent pixels. The pixel size is $``$ 5 mm, corresponding to an angular size of $``$ 4 arcmin. The total array covers a FOV of 10.5 degrees. The MAPMT R7600-03-M64 has a geometric dead area of the order of 50%; a suitable light collector system is therefore placed above the MAPMT array to lead photons directed to the dead space to the sensitive area. In GAW, thanks to the reduced pixel size, the MAPMTs can operate in single photoelectron count mode. In such a working mode the noise and gain differences are negligible and it is possible to decrease the minimum number of photoelectrons necessary to apply the imaging background rejection technique. Small pixel size is actually required to minimize the probability of photoelectrons pile-up within intervals shorter than the dead time ( $``$ 5 ns). The imaging background rejection technique can be applied to images containing a minimum number of $``$40 photoelectrons. This allows to lower the energy threshold to a value of $``$ 200 GeV, in spite of the relatively small dimension of the Cherenkov light collector.

## 3 GAW performance

Fig. 2 shows the differential detection rate of the Crab Nebula as expected to be observed by GAW located at two possible different observing levels. We define the detection rate as the rate of gamma-ray events remaining after the cosmic-ray background rejection. The energy threshold of GAW, defined as the energy corresponding to the maximum of differential detection rate, will be about 150 and 320 GeV for the 2000 and 5000 meters a.s.l. observing level, respectively.

The performance of GAW is summarized by its integrated flux sensitivity as function of the energy. Fig. 3 shows the minimum integrated flux for detection of a 5 $`\sigma `$ excess, with at least more than 10 photons, in 50 hours of observation of a gamma-ray source with a Crab-like spectrum (dN/dE $``$ $`E^{2.5}`$). For comparison, the Whipple sensitivity is shown in the figure together with the integrated Crab Nebula flux. GAW, thanks to its finely segmented focal plane detector operating in single count mode, has a low energy threshold and flux sensitivity comparable to the Whipple telescope (Weeks et al. 1989), in spite of the one order lower geometrical area of the Cherenkov light collector.

GAW will be the first wide FOV imaging Cherenkov telescope. It is suitable to survey interesting sky regions as the Galactic Center, the Galactic Plane, the Magellanic Clouds, etc.. Moreover, pointed observations will be performed with good sensitivity and with a low energy threshold comparable to that of the next imaging Cherenkov telescopes.