text:
# Superfluid-insulator transition of the Josephson junction array model with commensurate frustration

## Abstract

We have studied the rationally frustrated Josephson-junction array model in the square lattice through Monte Carlo simulations of $`(2+1)`$D $`XY`$-model. For frustration $`f=1/4`$, the model at zero temperature shows a continuous superfluid-insulator transition. From the measurement of the correlation function and the superfluid stiffness, we obtain the dynamical critical exponent $`z=1.0`$ and the correlation length critical exponent $`\nu =0.4\pm 0.05`$. While the dynamical critical exponent is the same as that for cases $`f=0`$, $`1/2`$, and $`1/3`$, the correlation length critical exponent is surprisingly quite different. When $`f=1/5`$, we have the nature of a first-order transition.

The Josephson-junction array model has attracted a great deal of attention as a prototypical model to describe the zero-temperature quantum phase transitionSondhi et al. (1997) in two dimensions. The competition of the charging energy and the Josephson coupling energy yields the transition between superfluid and an insulator. Recent development of the nanotechnology makes it possible to tune the transition by changing the capacitance and the Josephson coupling of the arrays in experimentsvan der Zant et al. (1996). The transition is also tuned by applying a magnetic field perpendicular to the arrayvan der Zant et al. (1992). The magnetic field generates frustration in the phase coupling between the junctions. The feature of this model describing the quantum mechanical phase transition has been widely adopted to explain the superconductor-insulator transition in thin filmsMarković et al. (1999).

The zero-temperature phase transition of the unfrustrated ($`f=0`$) Josephson-junction array model belongsDoniach (1981); Fisher et al. (1989); Cha et al. (1991) to the 3D $`XY`$-model universality class with the dynamical critical exponent $`z=1`$ and the correlation length critical exponent $`\nu =0.67`$Li and Teitel (1989). The transitions of the model with frustration $`f=1/2`$ and $`f=1/3`$ have the critical exponents numerically very close to those for $`f=0`$Cha and Girvin (1994). It is useful to treat the model at $`f=1/q`$ in terms of $`q`$ coupled unfrustrated $`XY`$-rotors (i.e., order parameters) for small $`q`$Choi and Doniach (1985); Granato and Kosterlitz (1990). In terms of vortices, at $`f=1/2`$, for example, vortices form two different stable structures and the transition is mostly derived by excitations with respect to them. However, the couplings between rotors is believed to be always relevant. As a result, one may expect different critical exponents for different value of $`q`$.

Furthermore, when frustration is very small so that the number of order parameters is large, the first-order nature of the transition will emerge. This situation is analogous to the Potts model which shows the crossover from the continuous transition to the first-order transition as the number of the flavors increasesLee and Kosterlitz (1990). This conjecture is supported by the numerical simulation of the 3D $`XY`$-model with frustration $`f=1/6`$ in a triangular latticeHetzel et al. (1992), showing a first-order transition. It is also supported experimentally by the first-order melting of dilute vortex-lines in high-$`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductorsSafar et al. (1992), whose underlying physics can be captures by the 3D $`XY`$-model with small frustration. It is, therefore, interesting to investigate the nature of the transition and to measure the associated critical exponents, if it is a continuous phase transition, in the weakly frustrated Josephson-junction array model.

In this work, we study the zero-temperature phase transition of the Josephson-junction array model in a square lattice when the frustration is $`f=1/4`$ and $`f=1/5`$. The model can be mapped into $`(2+1)`$D classical $`XY`$-model with frustration on the $`xy`$-plane. Through Monte Carlo simulations, we find that when $`f=1/4`$ the superfluid-insulator transition of the model is continuous with the dynamical critical exponent $`z=1.0`$ and the correlation length critical exponent $`\nu =0.4\pm 0.05`$. While the dynamical exponent is numerically the same value as found for cases $`f=0`$, $`1/2`$, and $`1/3`$, the correlation length critical exponent is surprisingly different. When $`f=1/5`$, the probability distribution near the transition strongly suggests that the nature of the transition is of first-order.

The Josephson junction array model is represented by the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}E_cn_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}E_J\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i\theta _jA_{ij})`$ (1)
where $`E_c`$ and $`E_J`$ denote the charging energy and the Josephson coupling energy respectively, $`\theta _i`$ the phase of the superconducting order parameter at site $`i`$, $`n_i=(1/i)(/\theta _i)`$ the number of particles at site $`i`$, $`A_{ij}`$ the phase shift due to the magnetic field, and $`ij`$ pairs of nearest neighboring sites. Frustration $`f`$ is embedded in $`A_{ij}`$ whose plaquette sum is constant over the whole lattice, $`A_{ij}=2\pi f`$. It is convenient to use the notation $`i=(i_x,i_y)`$ to represent the position of the $`i`$-th site. Using the Landau gauge, one may have

$$A_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pm 2\pi fi_x\hfill & \text{if }j=(i_x,i_y\pm 1)\text{;}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

When $`E_cE_J`$, the system has the insulating ground state, while in the opposite limit it has the superfluid ground state. One may treat this transition more conveniently using the equivalent classical effective actionCha et al. (1991)

$`S[\theta ]=K{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{i}}{}}[\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _x})+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _y}2\pi f\stackrel{~}{i}_x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _\tau })],`$ (2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{i}=(\stackrel{~}{i}_x,\stackrel{~}{i}_y,\stackrel{~}{i}_\tau )`$ denotes the discrete lattice sites of the (2+1)D lattice ($`\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _x=(\stackrel{~}{i}_x+1,\stackrel{~}{i}_y,\stackrel{~}{i}_\tau )`$, etc. ), and $`K`$ the tuning parameter which effectively changes the ratio of the Josephson coupling energy to the charging energy. We multiply the coupling in the $`\tau `$-direction by a constant factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to make the superfluid stiffness and the compressibility, which are discussed below, comparable. Here the partition function is given by

$`Z=\mathrm{Tr}_\theta e^{S[\theta ]}.`$ (3)
We simulate the model given by the classical action in the systems whose sizes are represented by $`L\times L\times L_\tau `$. The first issue we are interested is the nature of the transition. In terms of vortices, the transition is described as the vortex-line melting. We measure the probability distribution near the expected critical point with respect to the bond energy, $`e`$, of the classical action, defined by

$`e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2L_\tau }}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{i}}{}}[\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _x})+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _y}2\pi f\stackrel{~}{i}_x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _\tau })],`$ (4)
Figure 1 shows the probability distribution when $`f=1/4`$ and $`f=1/5`$. Double maxima, separated by the distance of the latent heat and corresponding to the two coexisting phases in a first-order transitionLee and Kosterlitz (1990), do not appear when $`f=1/4`$. This strongly suggests that we have the continuous nature of the transition in this case. When $`f=1/5`$, however, the double maxima in the probability distribution do appear, indicating that the nature of the transition is of first-order.

For the continuous phase transition at $`f=1/4`$, we measure the critical exponents. Since the transition is a quantum phase transition, the correlation length diverges along the (imaginary) temporal direction as well as along the spatial direction. This requires prior knowledge of the dynamical critical exponent to determine the aspect ratio, $`L_\tau /L^z`$, of the finite size systems in order to use the finite-size scaling analyses. The dynamical critical exponent can be determined from the measurement of the correlation function. In finite size systems, the correlation function in a spatial direction, say $`x`$, and in the imaginary temporal direction will follow the form

$`C_x(r)r^{y_x}+(Lr)^{y_x},`$ (5)
$`C_\tau (r)r^{y_\tau }+(L_\tau r)^{y_\tau },`$ (6)
respectively with $`y_x=(d2+z+\eta )`$ and $`y_\tau =(d2+z+\eta )/z`$. Here $`d=2`$ is the spatial dimensionality. Figure 2 shows the correlation function measured at $`K=1.296`$ in the lattice of $`32\times 32\times 32`$. Here we obtain that $`y_x1.054`$ and $`y_\tau 1.049`$, implying that $`z=1.0`$ and $`\eta 0.05`$.

In finite size systems the superfluid stiffness, the stiffness in a spatial direction, say $`x`$, scales with respect to the diverging correlation length. In the Landau gauge used above, the superfluid stiffness is given by

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2L_\tau }}K{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{i}}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _x})(K{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{i}}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{i}+\delta _x}))^2,`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the average over the action of Eq. (2). The finite-size scaling ansatz of the superfluid stiffness can be expressed asCha et al. (1991)

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^{d+z2}}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(L^{1/\nu }\delta ,L_\tau /L^z),`$ (8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is a scaling function, and $`\delta =KK_c`$ is the tuning parameter. The compressibility, which is the stiffness in the imaginary temporal direction, is another quantity showing the scaling. The scaling behavior of compressibility will followCha et al. (1991)

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^{dz}}}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(L^{1/\nu }\delta ,L_\tau /L^z),`$ (9)
where again $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is a scaling function.

In order to obtain the scaling behavior depending on the size of the systems, we assume $`z=1`$ and take lattices of four different sizes: i.e., $`20\times 20\times 20,24\times 24\times 24,28\times 28\times 28`$, and $`32\times 32\times 32`$. Fig. 3 shows the scaling behavior of the superfluid stiffness and the compressibility. The curves of $`L^z\rho `$ and $`L^{dz}\kappa `$ for many different $`L`$ cross at $`K_c=1.2958\pm 0.001`$, implying that the chosen value of the dynamical exponent is correct. The correlation length exponent $`\nu `$ is extracted by plotting the curves with respect to $`L^{1/\nu }(KK_c)`$. We find that with $`\nu =0.4\pm 0.05`$ the curves of $`L^z\rho `$ collapse onto a single scaling function quite well as shown in the inset of Fig. 3. The same critical exponents are obtained from the scaling behavior of the comressibility. It is interesting to note that when $`f=1/4`$ the value of $`\nu `$ deviates from the one for $`f=0`$, $`f=1/2`$, and $`f=1/3`$.

In summary, we study the superfluid-insulator phase transition of the weakly frustrated Josephson junction array model in two dimensions. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we investigate the nature of the transition and measure the critical exponents from the scaling behavior near the transition. We find that when $`f=1/5`$ the nature of transition is of first-order. When $`f=1/4`$, we have the continuous transition with the dynamical critical exponent $`z=1.0`$ and the correlation length critical exponent $`\nu =0.4\pm 0.05`$. The value of $`\nu `$ is different from the one for the transitions at $`f=0,1/2`$ and $`1/3`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of Hanyang University, made in the program year of 2001, and the grant of Korea science and engineering foundation through the Quantum-functional Semiconductor Research Center at Dongguk university.


format: text

text:
# High Energy Field Theory in Truncated AdS Backgrounds

## I Introduction

It is widely believed that there exists a large energy desert separating the weak scale from the scale of grand unification, or perhaps the Planck scale. A primary reason for this belief is the observation that high-scale perturbative unification seems plausible in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model. On the other hand, it appears that in models in which the weak scale is fundamental, such as scenarios based on extra dimensions, one has to abandon the idea of gauge unification at high energies.

Several authors have argued that in scenarios where the weak/Planck hierarchy is generated by a single warped extra dimension  (the RS model), it is possible for bulk gauge couplings to evolve logarithmically over a large range of scales  . This is in sharp contrast to the behavior of a gauge theory propagating on compactified 5D flat space (for instance flat $`R^4\times S^1`$), where vacuum polarization effects give rise to power law corrections that become dominant at mass scales comparable to the compactification scale. At the scales where these power corrections dominate, effective field theory techniques break down. In order to make predictions beyond such energies, local field theory must be embedded into a suitable UV completion that resolves its short distance singularities.

While we agree that high energy logarithmic behavior is possible in gauge theories propagating in compactified AdS, we find that this is physically realized in a manner that is somewhat different from the proposal of . We will show that as in flat space, the one-loop correction to the gauge field zero mode propagator in compactified AdS contains a power law term that is saturated at the Kaluza-Klein mass scale (of order TeV). This power correction is a finite, non-analytic function of the 4D momentum. Because of this, it cannot be removed by any procedure for regulating the ultraviolet divergences that arise in loop calculations. However, while in a flat space theory the emergence of power law behavior at the KK mass scale signifies a breakdown of the higher dimensional field theory description, the same is not true for theories propagating in background AdS spaces. Rather, in AdS, large loop corrections at the TeV scale imply a breakdown of the field theoretic description of the zero mode observable, but not necessarily of other correlators. Thus, high energy gauge theory effects may be accessible via local field theory, provided one calculates the appropriate observable.

In the RS proposal for obtaining the weak scale from the AdS warp factor , a set of such calculable quantities is the 5D gauge theory correlators with external points restricted to the Planck brane. On the Planck brane the local cutoff for correlators is of order the AdS curvature scale (which is taken to be of order the Planck scale and is much larger than the KK scale). This implies that it is this scale, and not the TeV scale, which suppresses power corrections to these observables. Thus the logarithms due to KK zero modes in loops give the dominant non-analytic corrections for a large range of scales.

To illustrate these claims, in this letter we will work in the context of 5D massless scalar electrodynamics as a model of gauge dynamics. In principle, calculations in the model can be done in 5D, in a manner that is independent of any specific regulator. However, in order to compute the correlators on the Planck brane, it is easier to employ the AdS/CFT correspondence  as it applies to models with boundary branes . The Planck brane vacuum polarization of our toy model can be computed in a dual 4D field theory that consists of a massless scalar and a gauge field which are both weakly coupled to a (broken) conformal field theory (CFT). The one-loop logarithm of the 5D theory can be calculated in this framework without any detailed knowledge of the CFT ***This one-loop logarithm should not be confused with the classical high energy logarithmic behavior of the gauge field propagator on the Planck brane. That tree-level logarithm (attributed to CFT effects in the dual 4D theory) is universal, and would not be observed in the relative evolution of different gauge couplings at high energy..

At energies of order the KK mass gap, the Planck brane correlators match on to the zero mode Green’s functions. Therefore, there is a calculable relation between high energy couplings and the parameters measured in low energy experiments. In particular, symmetry constraints on the dynamics near the curvature scale (for instance, high energy unification of gauge forces) could have meaningful implications for low energy physics.

Our setup is as follows. We will work in the context of field theory propagating in a background five-dimensional (Euclidean) AdS spacetime with the coordinatization

$$ds^2=G_{MN}dX^MdX^N=\frac{1}{(kz)^2}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2\right),$$
(1)
where $`z`$ parameterizes location in the AdS bulk. The AdS boundary is cut off by a Planck brane at $`z=1/k`$, and the AdS horizon removed by the presence of a TeV brane at $`z=1/T.`$ Here $`k`$ is the AdS curvature parameter, and $`T`$ is an energy scale that sets the masses of KK excitations of bulk fields. For applications to the hierarchy problem all parameters are taken to scale as appropriate powers of the Planck scale, except $`T\text{TeV}.`$

## II Flat Space Effective Field Theory and Unification

Let us now review the one-loop structure of gauge theory compactified on spaces of the form $`R^4\times S^1`$ or $`R^4\times S^1/Z_2`$ . We will work in the context of massless scalar electrodynamics in five-dimensions. This simple model retains the essential physical features that we wish to discuss while avoiding technicalities that arise in more realistic models of non-Abelian gauge fields and fermions. It is convenient to work with an observable that matches onto measurable 4D quantities at low energies (smaller than the compactification radius) . Such an observable is provided by the two-point correlator of the zero mode of the 5D gauge field, which is generated by a 5D effective action evaluated on gauge fields that have no dependence on the compact coordinate. Keeping only terms up to quadratic in the gauge field and working in the $`A_5=0`$ gauge this is given by

$$S_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}A_\mu (q)\left[q^\mu q^\nu q^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right]\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)A_\nu (q),$$
(2)
On $`R^4\times S^1`$, summing the tower of scalar KK modes running in the loops, and using dimensional regularization to regulate the short distance divergences yields

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S^1}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_4^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R\sqrt{q^2}}{256}}`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx\sqrt{1x^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1e^{\pi xR\sqrt{q^2}}\right].`$
The first term in this equation is simply the tree level action, with $`g_4`$ the coupling of the zero mode gauge field to the tower of KK states. On the circle, this is related to the 5D gauge coupling by $`1/g_4^2=2\pi R/g_5^2`$. The second two terms represent the one-loop contributions. We have written the one-loop corrections as a piece which is identical to the vacuum polarization of an uncompactified 5D gauge theory (with zero external momentum in the fifth direction), and a piece which contains finite radius effects.

Note that on $`R^4\times S^1`$, the vacuum polarization is finite. Since $`[g_5]=1/2,`$ divergent contributions to the zero mode vacuum polarization in a massless theory must scale as $`g_5^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ an ultraviolet cutoff. However, we have used dimensional regularization to regulate divergences, which simply sets these pure counterterm contributions to zero. Indeed, from the 5D point of view the concept of running couplings is not particularly meaningful, since the resummation of power corrections is made moot by the fact that when these contributions are of order one calculability is lost.

Although there are no ultraviolet logarithms, finite logarithms can arise from the infrared region of loop integrals. For $`\sqrt{q^2}R1,`$ Eq. (4) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{S^1}(q^2)\frac{1}{g_4^2}\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(2\pi R\sqrt{q^2}\right)\frac{4}{3}\right].$$
(5)
Taking the limit $`R0`$ with $`g_4`$ fixed, we see that this finite logarithm becomes singular. But this is precisely the 4D limit, in which the massive KK sates decouple. Thus the singular $`R0`$ limit manifests itself as the usual one-loop UV logarithm of a 4D theory. The large logarithms that arise in this regime can be resummed by using the renormalization group in 4D. Besides the logarithm that appears in this equation, the expansion for $`\sqrt{q^2}R1`$ of the integral in Eq. (4) also yields a non-analytic $`\sqrt{q^2}R`$ piece as well as a series of integer powers of $`q^2`$. The non-analytic power-law term generated by this expansion cancels exactly the explicit power law that appears in Eq. (4), leaving behind the logarithm plus an analytic function of $`q^2`$. This is exactly what we expect for the behavior of the zero mode correlator if the low energy limit of the 5D compactified theory is to be reproduced by an effective 4D theory of massless modes plus a tower of non-renormalizable local operators.

For later comparison with the compactified AdS theory, we also consider the zero mode two-point correlator for flat field theory on a finite interval. Taking the space to be $`R^4\times S^1/Z_2`$ and making the bulk scalar even under the orbifold action, one finds in this case:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{S^1/Z_2}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\mathrm{ln}(4\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\right]`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{S^1}(q^2),`$
where $`\mu `$ is a subtraction scale. In contrast to the result for $`S^1`$, the orbifold calculation encounters logarithmic divergences, represented here by a $`1/ϵ`$ pole. This is because the presence of the orbifold fixed planes has modified the divergence structure of the field theory. Indeed, it is now possible to write down brane localized gauge kinetic operators

$$=\frac{1}{4}\left[\lambda _0\delta (z)+\lambda _1\delta (z\pi R)\right]F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }$$
(8)
with $`\lambda _{0,1}`$ dimensionless. By dimensional analysis, a divergent one-loop correction to these boundary couplings depends on an ultraviolet cutoff as $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which corresponds to the $`1/ϵ`$ pole in Eq. (7). Thus loop effects induce non-trivial RG flows for boundary couplings.

How do we reconcile the fact that 5D bulk couplings do not run with the statement of “power-law running” and unification that is often made in the literature ? In general, gauge unification implies that above some energy scale $`M_G`$ associated with symmetry breaking of a unified gauge group, the forces mediated by the exchange of unbroken gauge bosons are equal in magnitude. In our 5D gauge theories, this equality should hold for the full gauge two-point correlators evaluated at arbitrary external positions in the fifth directionHowever, in models where GUT symmetry is broken by boundary conditions , the equality of correlators evaluated on surfaces of broken symmetry will be spoiled by corrections that are small on the basis of naive dimensional analysis.. In particular, averaging the 5D correlators over the compact direction generates a condition on the zero mode vacuum polarization of the unbroken gauge bosons at the unification scale (assuming, for instance, a symmetry breaking pattern $`GG_1\times G_2`$)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{G_1}(M_G^2)=\mathrm{\Pi }^{G_2}(M_G^2).$$
(9)
This equation can be used to obtain a relation between the gauge couplings in the 5D Lagrangian. From this, one can extract predictions for low energy observables, leading to the usual prediction for the couplings at the weak scale with power law running. However, one might expect that unknown UV effects could be large and put into question the reliability of predictions when the power law starts to play an important role.

For both the 5D circle and orbifold theories, the non-analytic power corrections arising from the ultraviolet parts of 5D loop integrals dominate at a scale which is, up to a phase space factor, of order $`1/R.`$ At such energies, the 5D flat space gauge theory becomes strongly coupled and ceases to be a useful effective description of the physics. While in flat space all Green’s functions associated with the effective gauge theory exhibit this type of behavior, the same is not necessarily true in curved backgrounds, such as AdS. Then, the relevant question for compactified AdS is, for a given observable, at what scale does power law behavior become the dominant effect?

## III Effective Field Theory and Observables In AdS

We would like to understand which AdS observables can be studied in the framework of effective field theory (EFT) at a given energy scale. Consider a simple model consisting of a bulk scalar with higher derivative “interaction” terms

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^5X\sqrt{G}(\mathrm{\Phi })^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^5X\sqrt{G}\left(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2}`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n}{2}}{\displaystyle d^5X\sqrt{G}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Phi }},`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the scalar Laplacian on AdS. First we examine an $`𝒪(\lambda _2)`$ correction to the two-point function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\mathrm{\Phi }(X^{})D(X,X^{})+\lambda _2\frac{\delta ^5(XX^{})}{\sqrt{G}}.$$
(12)
In this equation, $`D(X,X^{})`$ is the scalar propagator derived from the free scalar action. Performing a Fourier transform along the 4D coordinates $`x^\mu `$, this becomes (with $`p^\mu `$ the coordinate momentum, $`px=\eta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu x^\nu `$, and $`p=\sqrt{\eta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu }`$)

$`G_p(z,z^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(0,z^{})}`$ (13)
$``$ $`D_p(z,z^{})+\lambda _2(kz)^5\delta (zz^{}),`$ (14)
Projecting onto the $`m\text{-th}`$ KK wavefunction, $`\psi _m(z)`$, we find

$$_{\frac{1}{k}}^{\frac{1}{T}}\frac{dz^{}}{(kz^{})^3}\psi _m(z^{})G_p(z,z^{})\psi _m(z)\left[\frac{1}{p^2+m_n^2}+\lambda _2(kz)^2\right],$$
(15)
where we have used the representation of the propagator in terms of modes, as well as the orthogonality condition for scalar KK wavefunctions ($`m_n`$ is the mass of the $`n\text{-th}`$ KK state). It is natural to take $`\lambda _2`$ to scale as $`\lambda _2M_5^2`$, where $`M_5`$ is the fundamental scale in 5D. For fixed $`n`$ and $`pm_n`$, the $`\lambda _2`$ correction to the propagator becomes leading when

$$pM_5/kz.$$
(16)
This signals the breakdown of the EFT description for the given mode. Eq. (16) is simply the well known result  that the local cutoff scales with $`z`$. Here we have made clear the relevance of the sliding cutoff for particular modes, and the importance of the localization of the mode to the breakdown of the EFT becomes apparent. From this estimate, it is clear that the loss of predictivity has nothing to do with loop effects, or with the nature of a specific choice of regulator.

An estimate based on a single insertion of the $`\lambda _2`$ coupling is insufficient for the correlator involving only external KK zero modes. In this case insertions higher derivatives operators are necessary. Consider the 1PI zero mode two-point correlator in the presence of all the higher dimension terms in Eq. (11)

$$G^1(p)=p^2+\lambda _2p^4+\underset{n=3}{}\widehat{\lambda }_n\left(\frac{k}{M}\right)^{2n2}\frac{T^4}{k^2}\left(\frac{p}{T}\right)^{2n},$$
(17)
with $`\widehat{\lambda }_nM^{2n2}\lambda _n`$. In order to have a sensible low energy theory, the $`p^2`$ term must dominate the corrections from operators with more derivatives. This means that we must have

$$\frac{p}{T}<\frac{M}{k}\left(\frac{k}{T}\right)^{1/(n1)},$$
(18)
where constants of order unity have been dropped. Interestingly, operators with more derivatives dominate at lower energy scales, and an operator with $`n1`$ becomes as important as the zeroth order propagator at a scale $`pT`$.

From this analysis, we conclude that we should not expect to be able to calculate zero mode observables (and in particular RG flows) for momenta much larger than a TeV, contrary to what was proposed in . Instead, if we are interested in calculating at such large momenta we must restrict ourselves to observables localized to the Planck brane.

## IV Gauge fields in AdS

We will study scalar QED propagating in the curved background of Eq. (1)

$$S=d^5X\sqrt{G}\left[\frac{1}{4g_5^2}F_{MN}F^{MN}+|D_M\mathrm{\Phi }|^2\right].$$
(19)
First, consider the gauge field zero mode propagator. Performing the computation explicitly in 5D, we find using dimensional regularizationAs we will show in a subsequent paper , the finite non-analytic parts of this quantity can be computed in a regulator independent manner. and working in $`A_5=0`$ gauge (irrelevant constants have been dropped)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{AdS}}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_4^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{kT}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{kT}}\right)\right]`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx\sqrt{1x^2}\mathrm{ln}N\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q^2}x}{2}}\right)`$
where $`N(p)=I_1(p/T)K_1(p/k)I_1(p/k)K_1(p/T)`$, with $`I_1(x),K_1(x)`$ modified Bessel functions of order one, and as in flat space $`1/g_4^2=R/g_5^2`$, with $`R`$ the proper distance between the boundaries. As on the flat orbifold, it can be shown that the $`1/ϵ`$ pole represents logarithmic divergences that renormalize gauge kinetic terms localized on the boundary branes at $`z=1/k`$ and $`z=1/T`$ . The coefficient of the pole even matches that of Eq. (7), leading to the same RG equations for the boundary terms. Physically, this is to be expected, since the UV divergences of field theory in curved space arise from distances shorter than the curvature scale and are therefore identical to those in flat space. In particular, the RG flows for couplings to operators that are present in both flat and curved space should be the same§§§However, it is possible for new operators composed from powers of the background curvature to play a role in the RG flows.. It follows that as in flat space, the 5D bulk gauge coupling does not run.

For $`\sqrt{q^2}T,`$ the zero mode of the scalar dominates Eq. (21) giving rise to low energy logarithmic energy dependence. For $`\sqrt{q^2}T`$ the behavior is power law

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{AdS}}(q^2)\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{T}$$
(22)
and the zero mode observable becomes strongly coupled, in accord with the analysis of the previous section. In fact, one does not have to consider loop effects to see power-law behavior. The non-renormalizable operator

$$S=\mathrm{}+\frac{\lambda }{2}d^5X\sqrt{G}F_{MN}\mathrm{}F^{MN}$$
(23)
will give rise to an analytic power-law contribution to Eq. (21) of the form $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\text{AdS}}(q^2)\mathrm{}+k\lambda q^2/T^2`$. In , it was argued that the zero mode gauge propagator can be studied at energies much higher than the KK scale, provided a suitable momentum cutoff is employed. Because the contribution from Eq. (23) is a tree-level effect, it is clear the breakdown of the zero mode observable cannot be avoided by a mere choice of regulator.

Although we cannot use the zero mode observables to study high energy gauge theory, the Planck brane correlator is still perturbative at energies much larger than the KK scale. To see that loop corrections to this quantity are logarithmic for a large range of scales, consider the gauge propagator (in $`A_5=0`$ gauge) with one point on the Planck brane for external momenta larger than $`T`$:

$$D_{p;\mu \nu }(z,1/k)\frac{kz}{p}\frac{K_1(pz)}{K_0(p/k)}\eta _{\mu \nu }+\text{pure gauge}.$$
(24)
For $`z`$ near $`1/T`$, $`pz1`$, and $`K_1(pz)\sqrt{\pi /(2pz)}\mathrm{exp}(pz)`$. We then see that this quantity has almost no overlap with the excited KK states of the bulk scalar, which are localized towards the TeV brane. It follows that the contribution from these states to the one-loop Planck correlator, which could potentially give rise to a power law of the form $`\sqrt{q^2}/T`$ is practically zero (it is supressed by powers of $`T/k1`$). However, because the scalar zero mode profile is flat, it does not suffer from the exponential suppression, and gives the dominant contribution to the correlator. We thus expect the zero mode logarithm to be the leading energy dependence of the one-loop Green’s function. As the external momentum reaches the curvature scale $`k`$, the heavy KK modes which have support near the Planck brane start to contribute. These modes give rise to power law behavior that becomes dominant near the scale $`k`$.

Instead of performing the 5D calculation just described, we will show how to use AdS/CFT duality as it applies to the RS model to obtain quantitative information about the one-loop Planck correlator. Our toy gauge theory in AdS corresponds to the 4D theory of a $`U(1)`$ gauge field, a charged scalar, and a CFT explicitly broken by a UV cutoff (the dual of the Planck brane) and spontaneously broken in the IR (the TeV brane in the 4D context). The gauge field couples minimally to the scalar, and couples weakly to an anomaly free $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the global symmetries of the CFT. By similar arguments as those of  for the graviton, the presence of the Planck brane in the 5D theory renders the KK zero mode of the bulk scalar normalizable, and therefore implies the existence of a 4D massless scalar which couples to the CFT through a dimension four operator. (This can be verified by checking that the KK corrections to scalar exchange on the Planck brane in the 5D theory match the contributions to the force law from the CFT in the 4D dual). Thus our 5D theory has a 4D dual description (ignoring couplings to 4D gravity) given by

$`_{\text{4D}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\text{CFT}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+A_\mu J_{\text{CFT}}^\mu `$ (26)
$`+|D_\mu \varphi |^2+c\left(\varphi 𝒪_4+\text{h.c.}\right),`$
where $`c`$ is a coupling of order $`1/k`$. While we do not know precisely what CFT is dual to the RS model, it is still possible to use this Lagrangian to compute Planck brane correlators of bulk fields. For instance, the Planck brane vacuum polarization is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(q^\mu q^\nu q^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right]`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}J_{\text{CFT}}^\mu (x)J_{\text{CFT}}^\nu (0)_{\text{CFT}}}+𝒪(|c|^2).`$
The first line is simply the contribution of a 4D scalar to the vacuum polarization. The second line is the correction to the correlator due to pure CFT effects. Writing

$$d^4xe^{iqx}J_{\text{CFT}}^\mu (x)J_{\text{CFT}}^\nu (0)_{\text{CFT}}=\left(q^\mu q^\nu q^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right)\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2),$$
(29)
it can be shown  that for $`\sqrt{q^2}T`$ (note that the effects of being in a vacuum state with broken conformal symmetry are suppressed exponentially at energies much larger than $`T`$)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)\frac{1}{2g_5^2k}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{q^2}{k^2}\right).$$
(30)
In the AdS description, this term corresponds to the contribution of the KK modes of the gauge field to the tree level Planck correlator. Because in the bulk theory Eq. (29) represents a tree level effect, it gives the leading behavior of the correlator. In settings where the AdS/CFT correspondence has been well tested, the CFT is a large $`N`$ $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, so Eq. (29) is expected to be larger than the scalar correction by powers of $`N`$. However, the coefficient of this classical logarithm is universal, so pure CFT effects will cancel in predictions for the difference of low-energy couplings in terms of high energy parameters.

Besides the terms explicitly shown in Eq. (28), there are also corrections which involve insertions of the operator $`𝒪_4`$. These terms are suppressed by powers of $`k`$, and correspond to the exponentially damped scalar KK corrections to the 5D correlator. They can be calculated in terms of CFT correlators (in the vacuum with broken conformal symmetry) of $`𝒪_4`$ and $`J_{\text{CFT}}^\mu `$. Such correlators can be obtained  using the rules of  for relating CFT correlators to solutions of classical AdS field equations.

So far we have only considered the evolution of the Planck brane vacuum polarization due to one-loop effects of bulk matter. It is easy to see that brane localized fields will also contribute logarithms with the usual 4D beta function coefficients. The effects of Planck localized fields persist for all energies up to the curvature scale. However, for $`\sqrt{q^2}T`$, the contribution due to TeV brane fields on the Planck brane correlator is suppressed by an exponential of $`\sqrt{q^2}/T`$, since for high energies this is a highly non-local effect (explicitly, the suppression is by two powers of Eq. (24) evaluated at $`z=1/T`$). This can be understood also in the 4D dual description . There, Planck brane fields are spectators to the CFT dynamics, so it is clear that they give rise to the usual 4D vacuum polarization effects. On the other hand, TeV brane localized fields arise in the 4D dual as condensates of CFT states in the IR. These bound states do not contribute to the running of the couplings above TeV scale energies.

Although we only explicitly considered a toy scalar model, we expect that loops of bulk non-abelian gauge and fermion fields will also generate logarithmic corrections to the Planck correlator with the usual 4D coefficient. Because at energies below the KK scale the Planck correlators match on to the Green’s functions of zero mode fields, gauge coupling evolution in the RS model with Standard Model gauge fields in the bulk is generically similar to the situation in the minimal (4D) Standard Model with an energy desert. It is therefore possible to make perturbative predictions for the low energy couplings of the model in terms of the parameters in the underlying 5D Lagrangian.

## V Conclusions

It is clear that effective field theory in curved backgrounds is more subtle than in flat space. We have seen that in truncated AdS geometries, we can determine the scale at which effective field theory breaks down for classes of correlators. For instance, it is not possible to calculate above the TeV scale for zero mode correlators, but correlators whose end points are restricted to the boundary (“Planck”) brane do succumb to field theoretic techniques reliably, all the way up to the curvature scale. Furthermore, there are certain observables, e.g. differences of gauge couplings, which can be calculated without detailed knowledge of the dual CFT. As was previously postulated  , these couplings run logarithmically.

This leads to the intriguing possibility, first noted by , that a version the RS proposal for addressing the hierarchy problem with bulk Standard Model gauge fields could also predict coupling constant unification within a grand unified contextIn the proposal of , the Standard Model is localized to the Planck brane, so supersymmetry must be employed to stabilize the weak scale. In that case, the AdS warp factor is used to generate an exponentially low supersymmetry breaking scale.. In order to maintain the hierarchy in the presence of bulk gauge fields, the Higgs scalar responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking must be confined to the TeV brane. It only contributes to gauge coupling evolution up to the TeV scale. Standard Model fermions may propagate either in the bulk or on the TeV brane. However, since the fermions come in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets, the RS prediction for low energy coupling constant relations is model independent, and qualitatively similar to that of the Standard Model. Achieving unification, though, could necessitate additional, perhaps ad hoc, physics since the running above the TeV scale excludes the Higgs. As in the Standard Model, there are potential threshold corrections to logarithmic evolution near the GUT scale. There are also TeV threshold corrections that arise from the matching of the Planck to the zero mode Green’s functions. Although these corrections are not accessible to our 4D CFT calculation, they can be unambiguously calculated in 5D. The details for plausible models have yet to be worked out.

I.R. would like to acknowledge the LBL theory group for its hospitality. The work of I.R. was supported in part by the DOE contracts DOE-ER-40682-143 and DEAC02-6CH03000. W.G. was supported in part by the DOE contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and by the NSF grant PHY-0098840.


text:
# Multi-object spectroscopy of low redshift EIS clusters. I.Based on observations made with the Danish1.5-m telescope at ESO, La Silla, Chile

## 1 Introduction

The evolution in the properties of galaxy clusters and their constituent galaxies is an important issue of contemporary cosmology and astrophysics. The demand for large samples of clusters at various redshifts has prompted major systematic efforts to provide catalogues of distant clusters (for references see e.g. Holden et al. Holden (1999)). Olsen et al. (1999a , 1999b ) and Scodeggio et al. (Scodeggio99 (1999)) presented the ESO Imaging Survey (EIS) Cluster Candidate Catalog containing a total of 302 cluster candidates with estimated redshifts of $`0.2z1.3`$. Their work is based on the EIS I-band images covering a total area of 17 square degrees. The candidates were selected via a matched filter algorithm akin to the one introduced by Postman et al. (Postman96 (1996)).

In order to confirm the reality of the EIS cluster candidates and determine membership of the clusters Ramella et al. (Ramella (2000)) have initiated multi-object spectroscopy (MOS) with the 3.6m ESO telescope at La Silla, Chile, for the $`0.5z0.7`$ part of the sample. Furthermore, the spectroscopic investigation of the high redshift candidates ($`0.8z1.3`$) using the VLT has been initiated by Benoist et al. (Benoist (2001)). They report the detection of bound systems in 3 candidate fields. One of the systems coincides with an X-ray source recently detected by XMM (Neumann et al. Neumann (2002)).

Here we present the first results for the low redshift part ($`0.2z0.4`$) based on MOS obtained at the Danish 1.54m telescope at La Silla. The data were taken as test observations aiming at implementing MOS at this telescope. The observations were performed during a run in February/March 2001 when moon or weather prevented the photometric main program, and exposures through the eight available slit masks covering five cluster candidates (Table 1) were secured. Unfortunately an arrangement suitable for proper flat fielding of the multi-slit images was not yet installed. Flat fields against a screen fixed in the dome were obtained instead, but as described below this procedure did not optimize the quality of the final spectra. Nevertheless, seven masks out of eight had spectra adequate for redshift determination (Table 2).

## 2 Observations

The Danish Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera (DFOSC) mounted at the Danish 1.54m telescope is well suited for MOS on galaxy clusters of moderate redshift. Multi-slit masks can be placed in the slit wheel which is easily accessible, and the field is as large as $`13\stackrel{}{.}7\times 13\stackrel{}{.}7`$ matching the extent of the moderate redshift clusters. A challenge is the small scale in the telescope focal plane. The slit width used is $`2\mathrm{}`$ or only $`128\mu `$m. The length of the slits varied depending on the extent of the galaxies.

The multi-slits are milled in thin (0.85 mm) plastic sheets of selected quality in the workshop of the Copenhagen University Astronomical Observatory. The positions and lengths of the slits are determined from pre-imaging frames of the fields using software that converts the positions on the chip to positions on the slit mask. The transformations are found using a mask with an accurately known grid of pinholes. An exposure through this mask is obtained, and the positions of the images of the pinholes are measured. This procedure has been carried out for two pinhole-masks (P. Kjærgaard, private communication). The accuracies of the two transformations are $`2.5\mu `$m and $`5.3\mu `$m, corresponding to $`0\stackrel{}{.}04`$ and $`0\stackrel{}{.}08`$ rms, respectively, which gives an estimate of the positional accuracy of the slits. The software also allows the observer to avoid overlapping spectra by displaying the computed positions of the spectra on the chip. For aligning the slit mask with the sky, holes corresponding to the position of at least three stars are made.

Alignment of the mask with the sky is carried out using direct exposures of the cluster field and of the slit mask without grism. Offset and rotation are computed based on the positions of the stars and the corresponding holes in the mask using software developed by the local staff (Jones et al. Jones (2001)). The field and mask are aligned by offset of the telescope, rotation of DFOSC and possibly fine rotation of the filter wheel. The fine rotation is necessary, because DFOSC cannot be rotated with the required accuracy.

All spectra were obtained with grism #4 giving a dispersion of 220 Å/mm. The final spectra were extracted in the region 3800-7500 Å, but the useful range depended on the spectrum. The resolution determined from He-Ne line spectra is found to be 16.6 Å FWHM. Total exposure times of minimum 1 hour were aimed at for each mask, but the images were read out each 20 minutes to facilitate removal of cosmic ray events in the images.

For the present observations a sample of 5 cluster candidates (Table 1) were selected from Table 1 of Scodeggio et al. (Scodeggio99 (1999)). All of these have well developed red sequences (Olsen Olsen\_thesis (2000)). The target galaxies were selected along the red sequence, i.e. cluster galaxies of early morphological types are favored. A mask typically contains $`20`$ slits, and one or two masks per field covered most of our candidate objects.

## 3 Data reduction

The data reduction was performed using the IRAF111 IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by AURA Inc. under contract with NSF  package. Bias was determined from overscan regions and subtracted. After flat fielding with the dome flats the resulting images were examined for residual fringing, resulting from shifts of the positions of the slit images between science exposures and flat fields. These shifts originate in instrument flexure, that causes the slit images to move slightly with position on the sky.

The flexure induced image shifts are apparent from exposure to exposure even near zenith. As mentioned above flat fields had to be obtained against a screen fixed on the dome, which led to typical shifts of 2-4 pixels between science exposures and exposures on the screen. This is unfortunate because the red part of the flat fields show high frequency variations caused by fringing in the thinned and backside illuminated EEV/MAT chip used. The peak-to-peak distance between fringes is only $`15`$ pixels. Even small shifts between flat field and science exposures will therefore show residual fringing in the spectra compromising faint spectra. The present data from the test observations are, therefore, not of an optimum quality, and all frames through mask #14 were abandoned because of a too large shift of the flat field. The He-Ne exposures on the other hand were taken before and after the science exposures without changing telescope pointing. Relative flexure shifts were therefore small and could be taken into account.

It is worth mentioning that since the test observations a flat field lamp has been installed in the telescope skybaffle besides the He and Ne lamps, allowing flat fields to be obtained at the same telescope position as the science frames. This procedure is expected to improve the quality of the flat fielding for future MOS observations.

Having discarded the frames with strong residual fringing the remaining frames were stacked using an IRAF script developed for this purpose. After applying small shifts to account for the different positions of the slit images in the science exposures, the script corrects for cosmic ray events and known defects of the chip.

The individual spectra were extracted and wavelength calibrated using the standard IRAF tasks. First the image section containing the two-dimensional spectrum of a slit was copied and wavelength calibrated by means of the corresponding He-Ne spectrum. Then the image section was transformed to wavelength scale along the columns. The background was determined and then subtracted along each individual line, and a one-dimensional spectrum was finally extracted. An approximate flux calibration was performed based on observations of a few spectrophotometric standards observed through a $`10\mathrm{}`$ slit.

Possible residuals from strong sky emission lines were removed by simple interpolation across the lines. A correction for the atmospheric B-band absorption around 6870 Å was performed by multiplying with a band correction function. This function was determined from spectrophotometric standards observed with a $`2\mathrm{}`$ slit. The otherwise smooth spectrum was interpolated across the band, and the result divided with the original spectrum.

The redshift determination was performed by Fourier cross-correlation of the spectra with template spectra. The templates were obtained from Kinney et al. (Kinney (1996)) and are UV-optical spectra covering from 1200 to 10000 Å. We used template spectra for elliptical, bulge, S0, Sa, Sb, and Sc. The Sc template has very strong emission lines and was suitable for cross correlation with emission line objects. The cross-correlation was performed using the IRAF task $`fxcor`$, and results are presented in Tables 4 through 8.

The templates were always redshifted close to the redshift under consideration. Whenever a peak in the correlation function was accepted as real or possibly real, the observed spectrum was inspected and compared to the expected positions of the most prominent spectral features. We demanded that some features like the H and K lines, the 4000 Å break, or emission lines should be identified before a determination was accepted as certain. This precaution was due to the possibility that residual fringing could introduce spurious correlation peaks. If no convincing features were found, but the correlation peak appeared real, we mark the $`z`$-value with a colon in Tables 4-8. If emission lines are identified the value is marked with an “e”. In a number of cases the spectrum suffered from residual fringing or was too weak to yield a redshift determination.

The accuracy of the measured redshifts are influenced by the limited resolution, signal-to-noise, fringing, possible systematic errors in the wavelength transformation, and the consistency with the template. These error sources vary from spectrum to spectrum. A hint of the accuracy is given by the typical FWHM $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.004`$ for the Gauss fit to the correlation peak. The position of the peak is likely to be found with an accuracy $`10\%`$ of the FWHM giving an expected standard deviation of $`\sigma _z0.0004`$. Another way to estimate the error is by comparing the redshift estimates obtained for the same galaxy using different template spectra. From applying all the templates to the same galaxy spectrum we obtain a standard deviation $`\sigma _z=0.0006`$ of the derived redshifts. This is consistent with the error estimated from the width of the correlation peak. Particularly, since some systematic differences between the redshifts derived from the different templates was observed. E.g. the bulge spectrum has a tendency to give slightly higher values than the others. All together we estimate an error for the mean value of $`\sigma _z0.0005`$.

Only one object has been observed through different masks, namely EIS0948-2044 #30 for which spectra are available from masks #15 and #16. The two results deviate by $`\sigma _z=0.0006`$ consistent with the above estimate.

## 4 Results

Tables 4 through 8 give the measured redshifts for all the galaxies. The positions and photometry are from Benoist et al. (Benoist99 (1999)) and da Costa et al. (daCosta (2000)). Magnitudes are total magnitudes determined by SExtractor (MAG\_AUTO, Bertin and Arnouts BertArn (1996)), and additionally corrected for interstellar extinction as described by Olsen (Olsen\_thesis (2000)).

We have secured between 12 and 38 redshifts per cluster field. The redshift histograms for each field are shown in Fig. 1. In all fields an obvious peak in the distribution is found indicating the presence of a cluster.

The cluster redshifts are determined as the mean value for all objects in the peak. Firstly, we identify cluster members by accepting all galaxies within $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.01`$ from the mean redshift. Then we apply a sigma-clipping at 3.5 $`\sigma `$ to discard outliers, and the redshift of the cluster is determined as the mean of the redshifts of the remaining member galaxies. The cluster members are those galaxies with their redshift printed in boldface in Tables 4-8. We note the high success rate in picking out cluster members which is due to our selection of objects falling on the red sequence.

Table 3 gives the cluster redshifts, $`z_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, the observed standard deviation in redshift among the cluster members, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}`$, the line-of-sight velocity dispersion, $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{r}`$, and the number of member galaxies found in our samples. The measured cluster redshifts are in good agreement with the matched filter estimated values ($`z_{\mathrm{mf}}`$ in Table 1). $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{r}`$ is derived from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}`$ after correction for an assumed measuring uncertainty $`\sigma _z=0.0005`$ and has been transferred to the cluster rest frame by division with $`1+z`$. We find line-of-sight velocity dispersions in the range 294–621 km/s, which is comparable to that of relatively poor clusters of galaxies in the Abell catalog and in agreement with the estimated richness classes of the EIS cluster candidates of R=0–1 (Olsen Olsen\_thesis (2000)).

In three fields secondary peaks due to possible background concentrations are identified. These are in the fields of EIS0946-2029 (4 objects, $`z`$=0.1361$`\pm `$0.0002), EIS0947-2120 (5 objects, $`z`$=0.2215$`\pm `$0.0003), and EIS0948-2044 (3 objects, $`z`$=0.2671$`\pm `$0.0004; 2 objects, $`z`$=0.3510$`\pm `$0.0002). Assuming that these concentrations are bound systems the quoted errors can be used to derive an upper limit on the accuracy of the individual measurements, by adopting a negligible velocity dispersion of the systems. From these four systems we estimate the error of an individual redshift measurement to be in the range $`\sigma _z=0.00030.0008`$, which supports the previous estimated accuracy of $`\sigma _z0.0005`$.

## 5 Conclusions

In this work we demonstrate that MOS is possible at the Danish 1.54m telescope notwithstanding the high mechanical requirements due to the small image scale. Flat fielding of MOS observations was not optimum during the test observations, but subsequent installation of a flat field lamp in the skybaffle allows future flat fields to be obtained at the same telescope position as the science exposure. The new procedure is expected to yield flat fielding of good quality. In spite of the flat field problems we were able to determine redshifts for 124 galaxies from the test data. We estimate the accuracy of the measured redshifts to be $`\sigma _z0.0005`$.

The test observations were targeting the fields of 5 EIS cluster candidates selected for their prominent red sequences. Multi-slit masks were constructed to cover members of the red sequences, which leads to a high success rate in picking out cluster members, yielding well-defined cluster redshifts as well as velocity dispersions.

In addition to determining cluster redshifts the data can be used to investigate the quality of the cluster characteristics listed in the EIS Cluster Candidate Catalog (Olsen et al., 1999a ; 1999b ; Scodeggio et al., Scodeggio99 (1999)). Firstly, we find that the measured redshifts are in good agreement with those originally estimated from the matched filter procedure. Secondly, we note that the derived velocity dispersions are consistent with the clusters being of Abell richness class R=0–1 as estimated for the EIS cluster candidates. Both of these results show that the EIS clusters are well-described by their characteristics in the EIS Cluster Candidate Catalog.

The results obtained in this work indicate that MOS on clusters with redshifts up to $`z0.4`$ is within reach with the Danish 1.54 m telescope at La Silla. Furthermore, the confirmation of 5 EIS clusters strongly supports the reality of the EIS cluster candidates. The observations reported here are the first in a systematic program of spectroscopic investigations of the low-redshift sample of the EIS cluster candidates.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank John Pritchard for making the pre-imaging observations of the fields. We would also like to thank the 2p2 team, La Silla, for their support, particularly Emanuela Pompei for her important help in the development of the alignment software. We are in debt to Michael I. Andersen, Per Kjærgaard, Morten Liborius Jensen, and Anton Norup Sørensen for their great work in developing the MOS mode for DFOSC. We thank the referee Dr. P. Katgert for useful comments. This work has been supported by The Danish Board for Astronomical Research. LFO thanks the Carlsberg Foundation for financial support.

## Appendix A Measured redshifts


text:
# Coulomb Drag for Strongly Localized Electrons: Pumping Mechanism

## Abstract

The mutual influence of two layers with strongly localized electrons is exercised though the random Coulomb shifts of site energies in one layer caused by electron hops in the other layer. We trace how these shifts give rise to a voltage drop in the passive layer, when a current is passed through the active layer. We find that the microscopic origin of drag lies in the time correlations of the occupation numbers of the sites involved in a hop. These correlations are neglected within the conventional Miller-Abrahams scheme for calculating the hopping resistance.

Since the subject was first introduced in pioneering papers , Coulomb drag between two parallel electronic layers has commanded a lot of attention. Stimulated by the early experiments , the development of the theory proceeded in two directions:

(i) progress on the formalism for calculating drag between conventional two-dimensional electron gases .

(ii) accomodation of various realizations of interacting layers. These include electron-hole layers , layers in the superconducting state , electronic layers with tunneling links , strongly disordered layers at the onset of Anderson localization , diffusive layers with correlated disorder , and double-layer systems in a perpendicular magnetic field. In the latter case, the picture of drag depends on the magnetic-field regime, namely classically strong fields , quantizing fields , the vicinity of the integer quantum Hall transition , and the fractional quantum Hall regime .

For all these interacting two-dimensional systems, the theories of Coulomb drag shared the common scenario of quasiparticles (electrons, holes, or composite fermions ) in two contacting layers scattering off one another in the course of ballistic motion, diffusion  or anomalous diffusion . This scattering results in a non-zero average momentum transfer between the active (current-carrying) and passive (open-circuit) layers. A voltage drop is then induced across the passive layer to ensure the absense of a net momentum.

Consider now the deeply insulating regime, where the localization radius of electronic states is smaller than the inter-electronic distance. Obviously, the momentum is not a good quantum number in this case, so that the conventional scenario of Coulomb drag does not apply. In addition, the picture of long-range time fluctuations of the electron density, and thus the language of spatially averaged response functions, is inadequate in the strongly localized regime. This is because the electron motion is due to hopping, which is characterized by an exponentially wide spread in the local transition frequencies.

Instead of momentum exchange due to collisions, the coupling between the contacting strongly localized systems is based on random shifts of energy levels in the passive layer caused by electron hops in the active layer, and vice versa. In this situation, it is not immediately obvious how these shifts “communicate” the overall direction of current from the active to the passive layer.

This question is addressed in the present paper. We find that Coulomb drag in the strongly localized regime is due to the correlated character of hopping transport. To clarify this point, consider two neighboring sites, $`1`$ and $`2`$, which belong to the current-carrying cluster . At nonzero temperature the time evolution, $`n_1(t)`$ and $`n_2(t)`$, of the occupation numbers of sites has the form of telegraph noise. In equilibrium, the average $`K_{12}(\tau )=n_1(t)n_2(t+\tau )`$ is an even function of $`\tau `$. Suppose now that current flows in the direction $`12`$. Then we have $`K_{12}(\tau )>K_{12}(\tau )`$ for $`\tau >0`$. This reflects the fact that, as the hops within a pair of sites occur preferentially from $`1`$ to $`2`$, the occupation numbers change in a certain sequence. This asymmetry is the analog of the current-induced asymmetry between wave vectors $`𝒒`$ and $`𝒒`$ of the thermal density fluctuations in the metallic regime, and thus, it is responsible for Coulomb drag between layers with strongly localized electrons.

Note in passing, that conventional theories of hopping transport neglect the asymmetry in $`K_{12}(\tau )`$. In both the non-interacting  and the interacting  cases, the resistance of an elementary hop is computed under the assumption of uncorrelated occupation numbers, i.e. $`n_1(t)n_2(t^{})=n_1n_2`$.

To show how the preferential sequence in the change of the occupation numbers transforms into drag we consider the simplest possible model as illustrated in Fig. 1. Within this model, the active and the passive layer are each represented by a pair of sites ($`1`$ and $`2`$) coupled to metallic contacts ($`l`$ and $`r`$). Both “active” and “passive” pairs of sites can be either empty or singly occupied. The corresponding conditions are $`\epsilon _{1,2}+U>E_F+eV`$ for the active layer, where $`U`$ is the Coulomb interaction between two electrons on sites $`1`$ and $`2`$ and $`V`$ the applied voltage, and $`\epsilon _{1^{},2^{}}+U>E_F`$ for the passive layer. Due to this condition an electron occupying, say, site $`2`$ elevates the energy level of site $`1`$ above the Fermi level, thus forbidding the tunneling process $`l1`$ (see Fig. 1). We will treat this model first in the strongly-nonlinear regime, in which the temperature $`T`$ is much lower than $`V`$. Subsequently, we will consider the Ohmic regime, where $`VT`$.

In the strongly-nonlinear regime, we can neglect all activation processes and thus, only a single sequence of hops is possible in the active layer. Within this sequence, the occupation numbers $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ of sites $`1`$ and $`2`$ undergo the transformations $`(1,0)(0,1)(0,0)(1,0)`$. With each repeated cycle of this sequence, an electron is transferred from the left to the right contact. The time evolution of $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ during one cycle is illustrated in Fig. 2. The strong asymmetry in $`K_{12}(\tau )`$ is evident. The average current through the active layer is equal to  $`I_a=e/(\tau _1+\tau _2+\tau _3)`$, where $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _3`$ are the average waiting times for the transitions $`l1`$, $`12`$ and $`2r`$, respectively. In the strongly nonlinear regime, the current $`I_a`$ is independent of the voltage drop, $`V`$.

Consider now the response of the passive layer to a single cycle of $`(n_1(t),n_2(t))`$. In the configuration $`n_1=1`$, $`n_2=0`$, the occupied site $`1`$ elevates the level $`\epsilon _1^{}`$ by some $`W_1`$, and the level $`\epsilon _2^{}`$ by some $`W_2=W_1\mathrm{\Delta }<W_1`$. Conversely, when $`n_1=0`$, $`n_2=1`$, the level $`\epsilon _1^{}`$ is elevated by $`W_2`$, while the level $`\epsilon _2^{}`$ is elevated by $`W_1`$. (We define the level positions $`\epsilon _1^{}`$, $`\epsilon _2^{}`$ in the passive layer with respect to an “empty” active layer, $`n_1=n_2=0`$.) As we will see, the pair $`1^{}`$, $`2^{}`$ is most “sensitive” when the conditions

$`E_F>`$ $`\epsilon _1^{}+W_1>\epsilon _2^{}+W_2`$ (2)
$`\epsilon _2^{}+W_1>E_F`$
are met. Indeed, by virtue of Eq. (2), the passive layer can only make the transition $`1^{}2^{}`$ during the interval $`t_1<t<t_2`$ when site $`1`$ in the active layer is occupied. This is illustrated in Fig. 3a. If the hop $`1^{}2^{}`$ does take place, then two transitions within the passive layer become possible during the next time interval $`t_2<t<t_3`$:

1) the electron on site $`2^{}`$ goes back to $`1^{}`$, cf. Fig. 3b. This transition is energetically favorable due to Eq. (2).

2) the electron tunnels from $`2^{}`$ into the right contact, $`r^{}`$, emptying the passive layer. Since $`\epsilon _1^{}+W_2<E_F`$, this opens the possibility for the hop $`l^{}1^{}`$ (see Fig. 3c).

In the first case, there is no transfer of charge from the left to the right contact in the passive layer during the cycle in the active layer. In the second case, however, provided that both transitions $`2^{}r^{}`$ and $`l^{}1^{}`$ took place during the interval $`t_2<t<t_3`$, the cycle in the active layer results in the transfer of an electron from $`l^{}`$ to $`r^{}`$. This transfer is nothing but the drag current.

The way the drag current is induced here closely resembles the operation of a classical electron pump  where two phase-shifted rf signals are applied either to the barriers  or to the gate electrodes  of a single or multiple quantum dot structure. In contrast to adiabatic quantum pumping , classical pumping is due to the Coulomb blockade, which forces an electron from one contact to enter the dot, and then to leave the dot into the other contact during each rf cycle. In the mechanism of hopping drag considered above, the pulses $`n_1(t)`$ and $`n_2(t)`$ play the role of the rf signals, their mutual phase shift being governed by the direction of the current in the active layer.

We now turn to the calculation of the average drag current, $`I_d`$. Denote with $`𝒯_1,𝒯_2`$, and $`𝒯_3`$ the waiting times corresponding to the transitions $`l^{}1^{}`$, $`1^{}2^{}`$, and $`2^{}r^{}`$ in the passive layer. The simple system considered here mimics drag between two-dimensional hopping layers when the transitions $`12`$ and $`1^{}2^{}`$ constitute “bottlenecks” for the transport in active and passive layer, respectively, i.e. $`\tau _2`$ and $`𝒯_2`$ are the “long” waiting times. In this limit we have $`I_ae/\tau _2`$. The calculation of $`I_d`$ is greatly simplified if the “short” waiting times are related as follows $`𝒯_1𝒯_3\tau _3`$. The latter conditions ensure that the passive layer returns to the ground state after each cycle in the active layer. Indeed, if the transition $`1^{}2^{}`$ took place during the time interval $`t_1<t<t_2`$ (the corresponding probability is equal to $`p_{1^{}2^{}}=1\mathrm{exp}\left[(t_2t_1)/𝒯_2\right]`$, then the probability that, during the subsequent interval $`t_2<t<t_3`$, both transitions $`2^{}r^{}`$ and $`l^{}1^{}`$ take place is close to $`1`$. This is because the characteristic duration of this interval $`(t_3t_2)\tau _3`$ is much longer than $`𝒯_3`$ and $`𝒯_1`$. In principle, the transition $`2^{}r^{}`$ opens the possibility for two follow-up hops, namely, $`l^{}1^{}`$ and $`r^{}2^{}`$. However, since $`𝒯_1𝒯_3`$, tunneling of an electron from the left contact onto site $`1^{}`$, thereby returning the passive layer into its ground state, occurs before the back hop $`r^{}2^{}`$. Once the transition $`l^{}1^{}`$ occurred, the passive layer remains in the ground state until the end of the cycle in the active layer $`t=t_4`$ (see Fig. 2). Thus, calculating the drag current reduces to averaging $`p_{1^{}2^{}}`$ which yields

$$I_d=\frac{\tau _2}{\tau _2+𝒯_2}I_a=\frac{e}{\tau _2+𝒯_2}.$$
(3)
Remarkably, the drag current is not exponentially small compared to the current in the active layer. Instead, both currents are of comparable magnitude. This result is clearly very different from naive predictions based on spatially-averaged response functions such as a widely used Fermi-golden-rule-type expression for the drag resisitivity .

In principle, hops in the passive layer might, in turn, affect transport in the active layer. In particular, occupation of site $`2^{}`$ shifts level $`2`$ upward. As a result, the hop $`21`$, in the direction opposite to the net current, might become energetically favorable. The condition that such “feedback” does not occur is $`\epsilon _1>\epsilon _2+\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As a concluding remark on our simplified model, we note that for a given polarity of voltage across the active layer (see Fig. 1) the activationless drag exists only if $`\epsilon _1^{}<\epsilon _2^{}`$.

We now turn to the linear regime $`V0`$ where transport in the active layer becomes more complicated in two respects. Firstly, charge-transfer processes become possible in both directions, $`lr`$ and $`rl`$, with only a small difference in their frequencies due to the applied voltage. Secondly, the dynamics involves “round-trip” processes such as $`l1l`$ or $`l121l`$ that do not result in charge transfer between the contacts.

It is important to note that the traditional description of hopping transport , based on the Miller-Abrahams network, does not capture the realistic occupation dynamics of the sites $`1`$ and $`2`$. Indeed, in this description, a pair of sites is considered as an isolated system so that the characteristic times for the changes in the occupations $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are long ($`\tau _2`$ in our notations). This is indeed the case for the non-ohmic regime considered above where an electron has to spend a time $`\tau _2`$ at site $`1`$ before the transition $`12`$ takes place, since it cannot return to the contact $`l`$ without activation. In the ohmic regime, however, while the waiting time, $`\tau _2`$, is long, the occupation of sites $`1`$ and $`2`$, constituting a “bottleneck”, changes many times between successive hops $`12`$ (or $`21`$). In other words, a typical charge-transfer process is preceded by many round-trip processes.

As in the non-ohmic regime, we restrict our considerations to a particular domain of parameters for which the analysis of drag is greatly simplified. We assume that (1) the energies of both sites in the active layer are above the Fermi level ($`\epsilon _{1,2}>E_F`$). Thus their average occupations are small, $`n_1(t),n_2(t)1`$, i.e. the states $`1`$ and $`2`$ are empty for long periods before an electron enters for a time of the order of $`\tau _1`$ or $`\tau _2`$. In addition, we assume for the passive layer that (2) the sites $`1^{}`$ and $`2^{}`$ are symmetric in space, so that $`𝒯_1𝒯_3`$, and close in energy (within temperature). As a result, unlike the situation in Fig. 3a, the site $`1^{}`$ is also elevated above the Fermi level, when the site $`1`$ in the active layer is occupied. Finally, we demand that (3) the “long” time $`𝒯_2`$ in the passive layer is shorter than the typical time interval during which the active layer is empty, but longer than the time when one of sites $`1`$ or $`2`$ are occupied. The latter assumption implies that an electron in the passive layer hops many times from $`1^{}`$ to $`2^{}`$ and back between successive round-trip processes in the active layer. We also demand $`𝒯_1,𝒯_2\tau _1,\tau _2`$.

Under these conditions, we find a remarkable result, namely that the drag current is simply half the current in the active layer. To understand how this comes about, consider a single charge-transfer process in the active layer, $`l12r`$. Imagine first that the passive layer is in the state $`n_1^{}=0`$, $`n_2^{}=1`$ when the transition $`l1`$ takes place. In this case, nothing happens in the passive layer until the transition $`12`$ takes place, after which the passive layer will undergo the transition $`2^{}r^{}`$ in essentially all cases. This will be immediately followed by $`l^{}1^{}`$. With the transition $`2r`$ the system effectively returns to its initial state and one electron has been transferred in both layers. Since the passive layer has a 50% chance of being in the state $`n_1^{}=0`$, $`n_2^{}=1`$ at the outset, this implies

$$I_d=\frac{1}{2}I_a.$$
(4)
Eq. (4) is based on the fact that there is no comparable drag current when the passive layer initially has an electron in $`1^{}`$. In this case, $`l1`$ causes the passive-layer transitions $`1^{}l^{}`$ and then $`r^{}2^{}`$, which are reversed after $`12`$ occurs in the active layer. Using similar reasoning, it can be verified that round-trip processes in the active layer do not lead to a net drag current.

An actual sample in the deeply localized regime will consist of a network of transresistors of the type described above. Hence, we should compute the transresistance of this network. This is by no means a trivial task, even if the transresistances between elements of the conducting networks in active and passive layer are known. This can be illustrated by considering the way in which transresistances combine when connected in sequence or in parallel. These situations are readily analyzed in terms of Kirchhoff’s laws. Two transresistors in sequence have a transresistance equal to the sum of the individual transresistances,

$$R_t^{(1+2)}=R_t^{(1)}+R_t^{(2)}$$
(5)
similar to ordinary resistors. Two transresistances in parallel are less simple. Here, one can show that

$$R_t^{(12)}=\frac{R_1R_1^{}R_t^{(2)}+R_2R_2^{}R_t^{(1)}}{(R_1+R_2)(R_1^{}+R_2^{})},$$
(6)
where $`R_i`$ ($`R_i^{}`$) denote the resistances of the active (passive) layer of the $`i`$-th transresistor. These expressions already allow one to draw an important conclusion about the net transresistance of the entire network. Even though the resistances $`R_i`$ and $`R_i^{}`$ are exponentially large, adding transresistances in sequence or in parallel does not lead to exponential changes in the transresistance. In this sense, the drag current is of comparable magnitude as the current in the active layer, even for the entire network.

In conclusion, the analysis of particular realizations of the active and passive layers, carried out in the present paper, illuminates the physics underlying the strong drag in the localized regime. The discreteness of the hopping electrons gives rise to Coulomb blockade, which, in turn, opens the possibility of classical pumping.


text:
# Evidence for a connection between the 𝛾-ray and the highest energy cosmic-ray emissions by BL Lacertae objects

## Abstract

A set of potentially $`\gamma `$-ray–loud BL Lac objects is selected by intersecting the EGRET and BL Lac catalogs. Of the resulting 14 objects, eight are found to correlate with arrival directions of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), with significance of the order of $`5\sigma `$. This suggests that $`\gamma `$-ray emission can be used as a distinctive feature of those BL Lac objects that are capable of producing UHECR.

cosmic rays — BL Lacertae objects: general — gamma rays: theory  slugcomment: UNIL-IPT-02-1

The highest energy cosmic rays with energies in excess of $`10^{19}`$ eV (ultra-high-energy cosmic rays \[UHECRs\]), observed by AGASA (Takeda et al., 1999) and Yakutsk (Afanasiev et al., 1996) experiments, show a significant number of clusters at angles of the order of experimental angular resolution (Uchihori et al., 2000). The significance of clustering is quantitatively estimated by calculating the angular correlation function of the UHECR events (Tinyakov & Tkachev, 2001a). It follows that the observed clustering has probability of less than $`10^5`$ to occur as a result of a statistical fluctuation. This suggests that (1) there exist compact sources of UHECRs and (2) the already existing data may contain information sufficient to identify the actual sources, the subset of cosmic rays with maximum autocorrelations being the best choice for this purpose.

This line of reasoning was pursued by Tinyakov & Tkachev (2001b) assuming that BL Lacertae objects are relevant candidates. Significant correlations were found with the subset of most powerful confirmed BL Lac objects. After assigning penalties for subset selection and bin size adjustment, the probability of such correlation to occur by chance in a random distribution is of order $`10^4`$. BL Lac objects comprise a subclass of blazars characterized by the absence of emission lines. Blazars are thought to have relativistic jets directed along the line of sight, while the absence of emission lines indicates low ambient matter and radiation fields and therefore favorable conditions for the acceleration of particles to highest energies. For this reason, BL Lac objects may be particularly promising candidates for UHECR sources.

It follows from both the statistical arguments (Dubovsky et al., 2000) and correlation analysis (Tinyakov & Tkachev, 2001b, c) that only a small fraction of existing BL Lac objects should be capable of producing highest energy cosmic rays. For understanding the nature of the sources and the mechanism of UHECR emission, the key question is which physical characteristics single out the actual emitters among all BL Lac objects? In this Letter we propose that the strong $`\gamma `$-ray emission is the feature that distinguishes UHECR sources.

There are general reasons to expect the connection between UHECR and $`\gamma `$-ray emissions. Both the acceleration of particles in the source and their subsequent propagation in the intergalactic space is accompanied by energy losses. A substantial part of this energy is transferred into the electromagnetic cascade and, generically, ends up in the EGRET energy region (Berezinsky et al., 1990; Coppi & Aharonian, 1996). In models involving neutrinos via the Z-burst mechanism (Fargion et al., 1999; Weiler, 1999; Fargion et al., 2001), and those based on very high-energy photons (Kalashev et al., 2001; Neronov et al., 2002), the astrophysical accelerator must be very powerful to provide sufficient flux of primary ultra–high-energy particles. In these models, one may expect a strong electromagnetic radiation from the source and substantial contribution into EGRET flux. Note that the extragalactic cascade may get isotropized by random magnetic fields when approaching the low energy end; this may cause smearing of point sources and result in contributions into $`\gamma `$-ray background. In any case, these arguments suggest that $`\gamma `$-ray emission may be an important distinctive feature of UHECR sources111We are grateful to A. Neronov and D. Semikoz for numerous useful discussions of this subject. Note that possible connection between gamma and neutrino signals has also been discussed in Fargion (2002)..

In order to test this hypothesis we first select those BL Lac objects that can be associated with $`\gamma `$-ray sources and then study their correlations with UHECR. The most complete list of the $`\gamma `$-ray sources can be found in the third EGRET catalog (Hartman et al., 1999) containing 271 object. Of these objects, 67 are identified with active galactic nuclei (AGNs), five with pulsars, one with a solar flare, one with the LMC, and 27 are tentatively identified with AGNs. The remaining 170 objects are unidentified.

In this Letter we do not rely on the existing EGRET identification of objects, neither do we attempt our own object-by-object analysis. Instead, we adopt a purely statistical approach: we take the full set of confirmed BL Lac objects from the Veron2001 catalog (Véron-Cetty & Véron, 2001) consisting of 350 objects, and we select a subsample of those that may be associated with an EGRET $`\gamma `$-ray source. The selection procedure is as follows: Point sources in the EGRET catalog are defined as a local excess of a signal over the background. Each source is associated with a contour containing 95% of the signal. For each contour, a circle of equal area is defined, with the radius $`R_{95}`$. These radii are listed in the EGRET catalog. They roughly correspond to uncertainties in the positions of the sources. However, the 95% contours are often noncircular. Additional systematic errors in position determination may be present in the case of a bright nearby source (such cases are marked as “confused” in the catalog). As a result, many well-identified sources (e.g., the Vela pulsar that is unambiguously identified by timing) fall outside of $`R_{95}`$. In our analysis, we consider an object to be associated with the EGRET source if the angular distance between the two does not exceed $`2R_{95}`$. In cases of ambiguity the nearest neighbor is taken.

According to this procedure, 14 BL Lac objects from the Veron2001 catalog are associated with EGRET sources. They are listed in Table 1. Of these 14 objects, eight already have identifications in the EGRET catalog, while six are newly proposed identifications. Out of eight previously identified objects, five have the same identifications in the SIMBAD database as is suggested by our procedure (objects marked by asterisks in Table 1). Interestingly, in those three cases when our procedure suggests identification different from the existing one, the latter has a question mark in the SIMBAD database, while in five cases when they coincide the existing identification is considered firm. This rather good agreement with previous results gives confidence that at least part of previously unidentified EGRET sources listed in Table 1 should be identified with corresponding BL Lac objects.

Since the EGRET 95% contours are large enough to contain several astrophysical objects, the identifications depend on the assumptions about candidate sources. Most previous works have concentrated on the powerful radio quasars as possible candidates (see, e.g., Mattox et al. (2001)). An approach somewhat similar to ours was used by Punsly (1999) where correlations of EGRET catalog with X-ray and moderate radio sources (ROSAT–Green Bank catalog) were considered. It revealed several new identifications, large fraction of them being BL Lac objects.

Being based on position coincidence only, the identifications proposed in Table 1 cannot be considered as final. Instead, Table 1 should be treated as a starting point for more detailed object-by-object study, including EGRET intensity maps, time correlations, etc. Such an analysis goes beyond the scope of this Letter. It is important to note, however, that possible misidentifications in Table 1 do not compromise our main result, strong correlation of the selected subsample with UHECRs. Like any random factor, such misidentifications can only diminish the correlations.

Let us now turn to correlations between the set of 14 (potentially) $`\gamma `$-ray–loud BL Lac objects of Table 1 and UHECRs. In the part concerning UHECRs, we follow the approach of Tinyakov & Tkachev (2001b) and use the set of cosmic rays with the largest autocorrelations. This set consists of 39 AGASA events with energies $`E>4.8\times 10^{19}`$ eV and 26 Yakutsk events with energies $`E>2.4\times 10^{19}`$ eV (Tinyakov & Tkachev, 2001a).

The numerical algorithm used in this Letter is identical to that of Tinyakov & Tkachev (2001a, b, c). We characterize the significance of correlations between UHECRs and a given set of sources at a given angular scale $`\delta `$ by the probability $`p(\delta )`$ defined in the following way. First, we count the number of source/cosmic-ray pairs separated by the angle $`\delta `$ in the real data, thus obtaining the data count $`N_d(\delta )`$. We then generate a large number of random (mock) sets of cosmic rays, taking into account actual acceptance of the experiments in such a way that the large-scale distribution of mock cosmic rays is uniform. On small scales we introduce autocorrelations in mock sets since the real data are clustered. The number of clusters added in each mock set mimics the real data, while cluster positions are random. For each mock set, the number of source/cosmic-ray pairs is then counted in the same way as for the real data, giving the mock count $`N_m(\delta )`$. At a large total number of mock sets, the fraction of mock sets for which $`N_m(\delta )N_d(\delta )`$ gives $`p(\delta )`$.

In the correlation analysis, we take into account possible effects of the Galactic magnetic field (GMF) on propagation of UHECRs. We use the spiral model of GMF with different directions of the field in the two spiral arms and consider two cases: symmetric and antisymmetric field with respect to the galactic plane. The details of the model and corresponding parameters can be found in Tinyakov & Tkachev (2001c) together with further references. We assume that primary particles can have charges of $`Q=0,\pm 1`$.

In the case $`Q0`$, the positions of cosmic rays are corrected for the deflections in GMF prior to counting the number of pairs with given angular separation. For each cosmic ray there are several possible positions after correction for GMF corresponding to different allowed charges. For a given ray, the minimum angular distance over the set of sources and charges determines the resulting charge assigned to that ray. In all cases, each randomly generated set is subject to exactly the same procedure as the real data. This guarantees that no correlations are artificially introduced.

The results of the calculations for the charge assignments $`Q=0`$, $`Q=1`$, $`Q=0,1`$ and $`Q=0,\pm 1`$ and for two types of magnetic field (symmetric and antisymmetric) are presented in Table 2. The correlations are rather significant in all cases, being the best in the case of charges $`Q=0,1`$ and antisymmetric field, in agreement with Tinyakov & Tkachev (2001c). In this case, the data count $`N_d(2.7^{})=13`$, while 2 is expected in average for a uniform background. The probability for this to occur by chance is $`p(\delta )=3\times 10^7`$ ($`5.1\sigma `$). The dependence of $`p(\delta )`$ on $`\delta `$ in this case is shown in Fig. 1.

From the analysis of Table 2 one is tempted to conclude that the case $`Q=0,1`$ (neutral and positively charged particles) is favored. However, present statistics are not enough for such a conclusion, as the following simple argument shows. The data count is subject to fluctuations that may be roughly estimated as $`\pm \sqrt{N_d}`$ (these fluctuations would be observed if the AGASA and Yakutsk experiments were repeated many times). If the “average” data count were 10, counts from seven to 13 would occur equally often. Corresponding probabilities $`p(\delta )`$ would range from $`10^4`$ to $`10^7`$. Thus, unlike correlations themselves, the difference between the cases $`Q=0`$, $`Q=0,1`$ and $`Q=0,\pm 1`$ can easily be explained by a fluctuation.

Energies and charges of UHECR events that contribute into correlations with $`\gamma `$-ray–loud BL Lac objects are listed in columns (7) and (8) of Table 1 (the antisymmetric magnetic field model is assumed). Multiple charges in column (8) mean that the corresponding event contributes to correlations under different charge assignments.

The comparison between Table 1 of this Letter and Table 1 of Tinyakov & Tkachev (2001b) shows that the same BL Lac objects and cosmic rays contribute to correlations in Ref. (Tinyakov & Tkachev, 2001b) and in the case of $`Q=0`$ presented above. In Tinyakov & Tkachev (2001b), the set of brightest BL Lac objects was selected by imposing cuts on redshift, apparent magnitude, and radio flux. In the resulting subset of 22 BL Lac objects, five candidate sources were identified. It is remarkable that four out of these five candidates, in particular all three that correlate with UHECR multiplets, are among the 14 BL Lac objects that comprise the intersection of BL Lac and EGRET catalogs, $`\gamma `$-ray–loud BL Lac objects. Even more remarkable is that out of 10 remaining BL Lac objects, four correlate with cosmic rays after correction for GMF. Among the remaining six that do not correlate with UHECRs, two objects are situated in the Southern hemisphere invisible for Yakutsk and AGASA experiments. These objects can be excluded from correlation analysis. Thus, the majority of $`\gamma `$-ray–loud BL Lac objects (eight out of 12) correlate with UHECR. One concludes that the ability to emit $`\gamma `$-rays may be used as the physical criterion that allows to select actual UHECR sources from the set of all BL Lac objects.

BL Lac objects are typically faint objects. Some of the unidentified EGRET sources may be actually BL Lac objects that have not not yet been observed at other wavelengths, or have been observed but not identified as BL Lac objects. If this is the case and our conclusion about the connection between $`\gamma `$-ray and UHECR emissions is correct, one may expect correlations between unidentified EGRET sources and UHECRs. To check this, we calculated correlations between UHECRs and unidentified EGRET sources having Galactic latitude $`|b|>10^{}`$ (the cut $`|b|>10^{}`$ is made to increase the fraction of extragalactic sources as, according to Grenier (2000), the total number of such sources is expected to be 30-40 only). This set contains 96 objects. Correlations are best when all particles are assumed to have a charge of $`Q=+1`$; corresponding significance is $`p(\delta )=10^4`$ at $`\delta =3^{}`$. Table 3 summarizes EGRET sources and cosmic rays that contribute to correlations. It is interesting to note that, unlike Table 1, Table 3 seems to favor positively charged particles. We expect that some EGRET sources listed in Table 3 are BL Lac objects that have not yet been observed.

To summarize, there exists a significant correlation of arrival directions of UHECRs with $`\gamma `$-ray–loud BL Lac objects (BL Lac objects that may be associated with the EGRET sources). This confirms the conjecture that strong $`\gamma `$-ray emission is a characteristic feature of those BL Lac objects that are the sources of UHECR. Present data are compatible with charges of primary particles $`Q=0`$, $`Q=+1`$, $`Q=0,+1`$ and $`Q=0,\pm 1`$, although they favor the latter two cases. It does not seem possible, with the present statistics, to distinguish between these cases on the basis of correlation analysis, but it should be possible in the future. This question is of particular interest since specific charge composition is a good signature of most of the existing models. Charge $`Q=0,\pm 1`$ would speak strongly for neutrino models. Charge $`Q=1`$ would favor protons accelerated in BL Lac objects (note that energies of most of the $`Q=1`$ events in Table 1 would allow them to reach us from super-GZK distances provided extragalactic magnetic fields are small). The cases $`Q=0,1`$ and $`Q=0`$ would suggest, in view of the distance to BL Lac objects and presence of neutral particles, the existence of new physics (e.g., exotic neutral particles (Chung et al., 1998; Berezinsky et al., 2002; Gorbunov et al., 2001) or violation of Lorentz invariance (Coleman & Glashow, 1999; Dubovsky & Tinyakov, 2002)).

The results presented here suggest that the sources of UHECRs are high-energy–peaked BL Lac objects located opposite the flat-spectrum radio quasar end of the “unified blazar sequence”(Ghisellini et al., 1998). This does not contradict the conclusions of Sigl et al. (2001), who found no correlations between UHECR and identified EGRET blazars. Indeed, most of the latter are high-polarization blazars, and not low-polarization, high-energy–peaked BL Lac objects that, according to our study, are the most probable sources of UHECR.

The work of P.T. is supported by the Swiss Science Foundation, grant 21-58947.99. The work of D.G. and S.T. is supported in part by the program SCOPES of the Swiss National Science Foundation, project No. 7SUPJ062239, by SSLSS grant 00-15-96626, and by RFBR grant 02-02-17398. The work of D.G., I.T., and S.T. is supported in part by INTAS grants YSF 2001/2-142, 99-1065 and YSF 2001/2-129, respectively. This Letter made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at the Centre de Données Astronomiques de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.