format: text

text:
# A Detailed Monte-Carlo Simulation for the Belle TOF System

## 1 Introduction

A time of flight (TOF) detector system using plastic scintillation counters is very powerful for particle identification (PID) in $`e^+e^{}`$ collider detectors . A TOF system with $`100\mathrm{ps}`$ time resolution is effective for particle momenta below about $`1.2\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, which encompasses 90% of the particles produced in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays. It can provide clean and efficient flavor tagging for CP violation studies in B meson decays in a B-factory experiment.

A reliable Monte Carlo (MC) simulator is a good tool to understand the detector system and is important for minimizing experimental systematic uncertainties for physics analysis. Although one simple simulation method is a parametrization based on real data, it doesn’t provide precise simulation for complex experimental situations, such as multi-track hits, hadronic interactions in the TOF counter, and shower leakage from the calorimeter outside of the TOF system.

We have developed a full detector simulator for the TOF system. Based on GEANT3 , it includes the simulation of all physics processes involving scintillation light production and its propagation in the TOF counters, the production of signal pulses in the photomultiplier tubes (PMT), the electronics process in the discriminator and the charge to time converter (QTC), and the effects of beam background.

In this report, we describe the Belle TOF detector simulation. In section 2, we briefly introduce the Belle TOF system. In section 3 we describe the simulation model and the main algorithm for each process. Finally, we compare the simulation results with experimental data in section 4. Section 5 contains conclusions.

## 2 TOF system in the Belle detector

The Belle detector is a large solid-angle spectrometer based on a $`1.5\mathrm{T}`$ superconducting solenoid magnet; a detailed description can be found elsewhere . Figure 1 shows the Belle detector.

The TOF system consists of 64 TOF/TSC modules located at a radius of $`1.2\mathrm{m}`$ from the interaction point, which cover a polar angle of $`33.7^{}120.8^{}`$. The design of one TOF module is shown in Figure 2. A module consists of two TOF counters of $`4\mathrm{cm}`$ thickness, viewed at both ends by PMTs, and one $`0.5\mathrm{cm}`$ thick TSC counter, viewed only at the backward (i.e. large angle) end.

In order to get sufficient gain in a $`1.5\mathrm{T}`$ field, a fine mesh photomultiplier (FM-PMT)  is used. This tube has 24 fine mesh dynodes of $`2000\mathrm{mesh}/\mathrm{inch}`$, and its size is $`8\mathrm{cm}`$ in length and 5.08 cm in diameter. Its bialkali photocathode covers 50% of the end area of each TOF counter. The PMT gain is adjusted to be about $`1\times 10^6`$, which requires a high voltage of about $`2100\mathrm{V}`$ in the $`1.5\mathrm{T}`$ field. The FM-PMTs are attached to the TOF counter ends with an air gap of $`0.1\mathrm{mm}`$ that selectively passes early arrival photons and reduces the PMT anode current. For the TSC counters, the tubes are glued to light guides that are attached to the sintillator. Table 1 lists the characteristic parameters of the TOF scintillator and the FM-PMT used in this simulation.

Figure 3 shows a block diagram of the TOF front end electronics (TOFFEE). Each PMT signal is split in two. One half is sent to a charge-to-time-converter (QTC) for charge measurement. The other half goes to generate two output signals by application of different threshold levels. The high level (HL) signal is used to provide a gate to the QTC, and the low level (LL) signal is fed to a time stretcher (TS) for time measurement.

## 3 Simulation procedure

Figure 4 shows the outline of the Belle TOF simulation program. It consists of the GEANT part, the main TOF simulation part including the scintillator, the PMT and discriminator processes, and the beam background merge.

GEANT provides the hit information for a particle passing through the scintillator, including the four vector, hit position, time, and energy loss.

Using the hit information from GEANT, scintillation light is produced. The light is then propagated in the TOF scintillator until it arrives at a PMT and makes a signal pulse. Finally, a pulse larger than the HL threshold makes a gate to measure the charge and timing of the signal. The main detector characteristics, such as the time resolution, are simulated in this part.

In order to take into account the effect of beam background, real data taken with random triggers, which represent the beam background, are merged into the MC output. The inefficiency due to the dead time of the QTC is simulated here.

### 3.1 Geant simulation up to the TOF counters

The geometrical and material configuration of the Belle detector is implemented in the Belle GEANT full simulator . Not only all sub-detector components, but also materials for the support, cooling structures, and readout cables are included. These allow realistic simulation of a primary particle that goes through the inner sub-detector (and materials) up to the TOF scintillator and of secondary particles that are produced in the inner and outer materials.

The material of the TOF/TSC scintillator is defined as a mixture of hydrogen and carbon. The atomic ratio is assumed to be 1:1. The density of this material is 1.032.

The GEANT hit information for a particle traversing the scintillator volume is recorded at discrete steps along the particle trajectory. For a particle with a given energy, the step size is automatically calculated by GEANT depending on particle species and on the characteristics of the current medium . Figure 5 shows the time at the first step and energy loss distributions for $`2.0\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ $`\mu ^{}`$ which enter perpendicular to the TOF counter.

### 3.2 Scintillation process

Using the step information from GEANT, we reconstruct a continuous path connecting each step in the scintillator volume. Scintillation light is uniformly emitted along this path. The time $`t_{traj}`$ on this path for each light emission event is calculated by using the four vector of the particle.

The number of photons is proportional to the energy loss of the particle, at a rate assumed to be one photon per $`100\mathrm{eV}`$ . The angular distribution of the emitted light is isotropic. The time profile of scintillation emission is simulated by using the emission time ($`t_{emit}`$) probability function ,

$$E(t_{emit})=\frac{1}{1+R}\left(\frac{e^{t_{emit}/\tau _2}e^{t_{emit}/\tau _1}}{\tau _2\tau _1}+\frac{R}{\tau _3}e^{t_{emit}/\tau _3}\right)$$
(1)
where $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ are two fast decay time constants, $`\tau _3`$ is the decay time of the slow component, and R is the ratio of the slow to fast components. Since the signal timing is determined at the leading edge in the discriminator, $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ are the most important parameters for TOF simulation. We use $`\tau _1=0.9\mathrm{ns}`$ and $`\tau _2=2.1\mathrm{ns}`$; these values are chosen so that this function has the same rise time as the BC408 scintillator light output. The values $`\tau _3=14.2\mathrm{ns}`$ and $`R=0.27`$ are given in reference . Figure 6 shows the $`E(t_{emit})`$ distribution.

### 3.3 Light Propagation

The scintillation light is propagated by total internal reflection and arrives at the PMTs located at the ends of the scintillator. We assume that light which has an emission angle within the trapping angle ($`\theta _{trap}`$) can traverse the air gap to reach the PMT, while the remaining light escapes from the scintillator volume without total reflection or is lost during the endless total reflection between the two ends of the TOF scintillator (see Figure 7-(1)). The angle $`\theta _{trap}`$ is given by

$$\theta _{trap}=sin^1\left(\frac{n_{air}}{n_{scint}}\right),$$
(2)
where $`n_{air}`$ and $`n_{scint}`$ are the refractive indices of the air and scintillator, respectively.

By assuming perfect internal reflection on each of the four surfaces of the TOF counter, the light propagation length in the counter is calculated (see Figure 7-(2)) as

$$l_{pro}=\frac{d}{cos\theta },$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is the distance from the light emission position to the end surface of the scintillator and $`\theta `$ is the polar angle of the emitted light. This technique effectively reduces the CPU time, while the result is equivalent to a full simulation of light propagation. Figure 8 shows the path length distribution of light which is produced at $`z=0`$ and reaches the forward PMT.

The light propagation time in the scintillator is obtained by

$$t_{pro}=\frac{l_{pro}}{v_{scint}},$$
(4)
where $`v_{scint}=c/n_{scint}`$ is the velocity of light in the scintillator.

Attenuation in the TOF counter is simulated according to

$$R(l_{pro})=e^{l_{pro}/\lambda _{pro}}$$
(5)
where $`\lambda _{pro}`$ is the attenuation length in the scintillator material. We use $`\lambda _{pro}=400\mathrm{cm}`$, which is measured with real data.

The mismatch of the rectangular cross section of the TOF counter to the round PMT results in light loss (see Figure 7-(3)). In the simulation, the number of photons is reduced by the ratio of the TOF end area to the effective area of the PMT photocathode.

### 3.4 PMT response

We consider the angular response ($`R_{angle}`$) of PMT sensitivity, which is a dependence on the angle of incident light on the photocathode ,

$$R_{angle}=cos\theta _i,$$
(6)
where $`\theta _i`$ is the light incident angle at the PMT front glass. We find 0.66 for the efficiency averaged over all arrival directions at the PMT. The number of photons is reduced by this factor.

At the PMT photocathode, photoelectrons are produced with a probability which is called the quantum efficiency. The average quantum efficiency of the photocathode is calculated to be 0.21 for the spectrum from the BC408 scintillator. Also, the number of photoelectrons is reduced by a factor of 0.6, called the collection factor, due to the fine mesh dynode structure. We reduce the number of generated photoelectrons by these factors.

The transit time of a single photoelectron signal in a FM-PMT, $`t_{TT}`$, is modeled by a transit time(TT) of $`5.5\mathrm{ns}`$ and a r.m.s. transit time spread (TTS) of $`0.31\mathrm{ns}`$, which are measured for the R6680 FM-PMT. By adding the smeared transit time to the photon timing information described in the previous section, the pivot time of single photoelectron signal at the anode is obtained,

$$t_{pe}=t_{traj}+t_{emit}+t_{pro}+t_{TT}.$$
(7)
Figure 9-(1) shows the time distribution of the photoelectrons at the anode for a typical event, a $`2.0\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ $`\mu ^{}`$ incident on a TOF counter at $`z=0`$.

To simulate the time walk effect due to the leading edge discrimination scheme used for the Belle TOF, a time response function $`v_i(t)`$ for a single photoelectron is introduced. Using this response function, the PMT output signal is obtained by summing all the single photoelectron signals in the PMT for an event,

$$V_{PMT}(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_{pe}}{}}v_i(t),$$
(8)
where

$$v_i(t)=GC_e\frac{t^2e^{t^2/\tau ^2}}{t^2e^{t^2/\tau ^2}𝑑t}.$$
(9)
Here $`G`$ is the gain of PMT, $`C_e`$ is the conversion factor for charge to voltage, and $`\tau `$ is the time constant. We use $`\tau =6\mathrm{ns}`$ so that the rise time of this function is the same as that of an R6680 PMT, and $`25\mathrm{ps}`$ time bin size which is the same as the least count of the Belle TOF readout system .

Figure 9-(2) shows a typical PMT output signal for the same event as shown in Figure 9-(1). The simulated signal is consistent with actual signals observed in the Belle TOF counters in both pulse height and rise time.

### 3.5 Simulation of readout electronics

Each PMT signal is examined by readout electronics using double thresholds. A signal larger than the high level (HL) threshold provides a gate to measure the signal timing (TDC) which is given at the moment when the PMT pulse crosses the low level (LL) threshold in the discriminator simulation. We use the same LL threshold as the real experiment ($`50\mathrm{mV}`$). A HL value 50% higher than that in the real experiment ($`150\mathrm{mV}`$) is used for fine tuning of the hit inefficiency, which is caused by PMT-to-PMT gain variation in the real experiment.

Finally, we introduce a timing uncertainty, parametrized by a Gaussian with a width of $`45\mathrm{ps}`$, which is due to the uncertainty of the beam crossing time ($`t=0`$) determination, the time jitter caused by electronic noise in the discriminators, and the time jitter in the TS readout. Figure 10-(1) shows the TDC distribution for perpendicular incidence on a TOF counter, and Figure 10-(2) shows TDC values as a function of particle hit position ($`z`$-hit) along the counter. The $`z`$-hit value is obtained by extrapolating the particle’s trajectory using tracking information from the central drift chamber (CDC) . The filled circles in Figure 10 are data and the open circles are MC. There is good agreement.

The charge output (ADC) is given by the time integral of the $`V_{PMT}(t)`$ divided by the impedance of the PMT circuit. The width of the simulated charge distribution is narrower than that of the real data. Possible sources of the difference include statistical gain variations of the PMTs  (the simulation assumes a constant gain for a single photoelectron), gain variation among individual PMTs, and the imperfection of the simplified model of light propagation. To better represent the data, we adjust the charge distribution by introducing a scaled Poisson distribution,

$$\mathrm{ADC}=Q_{orig}\left(S_w\frac{\left(N\left(n_{pe}\right)n_{pe}\right)}{n_{pe}}+1\right),$$
(10)
where ADC is the corrected charge, $`S_w`$ is the width scale parameter, $`N(n_{pe})`$ is a random number given by a Poisson distribution generator which has mean $`n_{pe}`$ and $`Q_{orig}`$ is the original charge from the $`V_{PMT}(t)`$ integration. In a comparison between $`Q_{orig}`$ and real data, we found that a value $`S_w=2`$ gives the best agreement. Figure 11-(1) shows the resulting charge distribution compared with the real data. Figure 11-(2) shows the mean ADC value as a function of the $`z`$-hit position. All points are in good agreement. By fitting $`\mathrm{log}(ADC_F/ADC_B)`$ as a function of $`z`$-hit (see Figure 11-(3)) to a linear function, we obtain good agreement for the effective light attenuation length ($`\lambda `$) along the $`z`$ direction .

One of the main parameters in the TOF calibration and reconstruction is a time walk correction coefficient that is used to remove a pulse height dependence  of the digitized time. It is the coefficient of a $`1/\sqrt{ADC}`$ term, and is sensitive to the rise time of the PMT signal. Figure 12 shows the (uncorrected) TDC versus $`1/\sqrt{ADC}`$ for data and MC. They are in good agreement.

### 3.6 Beam Background Simulation

The effect of the beam background is simulated by merging beam background data into the MC signal output. The background data are taken by random triggers during the real experiment. The typical hit rate of a single TOF PMT is $`1525\mathrm{kHz}`$. Because of its greater scintillator width, the TSC counter hit rate is more than 2 times higher than the TOF rate. The hit rates are expected to increase in the higher luminosity environment in the near future.

Figure 13 presents a flow chart of the beam background merging. For each PMT, MC and background are merged on an event-by-event basis. First, we consider the overlapping of two PMT signals. According to the algorithm in the readout electronics, if two signals are closer than the ADC gate width ($`100\mathrm{ns}`$), we take only the earlier signal TDC and the charge of the later signal is added to the earlier one. Otherwise, both signals are recorded. Then the QTC dead time and the number of edges are taken into account.

The major effect of the beam background is to increase the inefficiency caused by the QTC dead time, due to signal conversion and recovery times. It is simulated by discarding the later TDC signal in the case that the MC and beam background times are closer than the QTC dead time, which is found to be $`0.55\mathrm{ns}`$ per ADC count (Each ADC count corresponds to a charge of $`0.25\mathrm{pC}`$.) in real data.

Another source of inefficiency is the limit on the number of records in the TDC1877 system . The limit is 8 edge records for each PMT in an event. Because the TS system produces 4 edges for one PMT signal , a maximum of 2 PMT signals can be recorded for an event. In our simulation, we count the number of edges for the individual TDC channels, and remove the signal(s) after the 8th edge in the merged data. Since we don’t use the TS for the TSC counters, this inefficiency is not present for them.

Figure 14 shows the TOF and TSC hit inefficiencies in $`\mu `$-pair events $`(e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ as a function of the TOF trigger rate, which is defined as the rate for at least one TOF-TSC coincidence among the 64 TSC counters. The TOF PMT singles rate is about $`25\%`$ of this TOF trigger rate, and the TSC singles rate is about two times the TOF singles rate. Here the hit inefficiency is defined as the fraction of muons predicted to hit a TOF counter for which there is no associated counter signal. In the figure, the solid circles are for data and the open circles are for MC with beam background. The hatched part indicates the inefficiency given by the original MC without beam background. This intrinsic inefficiency is due to the dead space between counters. The higher TSC inefficiency is due to the higher background rate. The hit inefficiencies for MC and data agree to within 0.3%.

## 4 Result

Figure 15 shows the $`dt=T_{obs}^{correct}T_{pred}`$ distribution for all available TOF hits in a $`\mu `$-pair event sample. Here $`T_{pred}`$ is the time of flight predicted using the track path length calculated from the fit to hits in the CDC, and $`T_{obs}^{correct}`$ is the weighted average of the observed times in the forward and backward PMTs after correction for the $`z`$-hit position and time walk . The distribution is fitted to a symmetric Gaussian to determine the time resolution. The overall time resolution ($`100\mathrm{ps}`$) is well represented by the MC. Figure 16 shows the time resolutions for forward and backward PMTs and for the weighted average time as a function of $`z`$-hit .

The PID from the Belle TOF system is based on a ratio of likelihoods for two particle hypotheses. For $`K/\pi `$ separation, a particle is identified as a kaon using the likelihood ratio $`PID(K)=P_K/(P_\pi +P_K)`$, where the $`P_{K,\pi }`$ are the PID likelihoods for the particle hypotheses in the subscripts. The PID performance is evaluated using the charm decay $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$, followed by $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$. Figure 17 shows the measured $`K`$ ID efficiency and $`\pi `$ fake rate as a function of momentum, where $`PID(K)>0.6`$ is required to identify a kaon. The MC reproduces the $`K`$ ID efficiency and fake rate as functions of momentum with maximum deviations of 0.7% and 1.8% , respectively.

## 5 Conclusion

In this report we describe the full detector simulation for the Belle TOF system. We developed a GEANT-based simulator for the processes in the scintillator and the PMT, the readout electronics of the discriminator and the QTC, and the effect of beam background.

Scintillation light is produced using the hit information from GEANT. Using simple models for light propagation in the TOF scintillator and for the PMT response, we accurately reproduce the real PMT signals. The simulation represents the detector characteristics of the TOF system such as light attenuation, the ADC distribution, the effective light velocity, the TDC distributions and the time resolution. Through a beam background merging process, the QTC dead time and the limit on the number of records in the TDC1877 system is simulated, so that the TOF hit inefficiency dependence on the background rate is accurately modeled. Since the dependence on pulse height and on $`z`$-hit is well reproduced, the simulation is a good tool for the investigation and development of calibration and reconstruction methods. The $`K`$ ID efficiency and its momentum dependence are in good agreement with the data. The TOF simulation provides an important component of the Belle MC used for physics analysis.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the Belle collaboration and KEKB accelerator group. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the Center for High Energy Physics sponsored by the KOSEF; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# The Westerbork HI Survey of Spiral and Irregular Galaxies II. R-Band Surface Photometry of Late-type Dwarf GalaxiesBased on observations made with INT operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. The tables in Appendix A are only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/ The figures in Appendix B are only available in electronic form http://www.edpsciences.org

## 1 Introduction

Over the years, a growing body of CCD-based data on the surface brightness distributions of spiral and dwarf galaxies has become available (e.g., de Jong & van der Kruit 1994; Courteau 1996; Frei et al 1996; Heraudeau & Simien 1996; Patterson & Thuan 1996; Tully et al 1996; Matthews & Gallagher 1997; Peletier & Balcells 1997; Jansen et al 2000). CCD imaging has been the impetus for many new studies of a range of aspects of disk galaxies, such as general scaling laws (de Jong 1996a; Courteau et al 1996; Graham & Prieto 1999; Jansen et al 2000), the vertical light distribution (de Grijs & van der Kruit 1996; de Grijs 1998), the presence of thick disks (Sackett et al 1994; van Dokkum et al 1994; de Grijs & Peletier 1996), the radial truncation of the light distribution (Pohlen et al 2000; de Grijs et al 2000), asymmetries and lopsidedness (Rix & Zaritsky 1995; Zaritsky & Rix 1997; Kornreich et al 1998; Conselice et al 2000), and the stellar populations of disk galaxies (de Jong 1996b; Peletier & Balcells 1996; Bell & de Jong 2000).

A combination of optical imaging data with HI observations, which provide information both on the distribution of HI and on the kinematics of these galaxies, is a powerful tool to further our understanding of the properties of disk galaxies, as has been demonstrated by numerous papers in the literature in which one or a few galaxies are discussed. To date, however, there does not exist in the literature a large sample of galaxies for which both photometry and HI imaging exists. The ongoing Westerbork HI survey of spiral and irregular galaxies (WHISP), which aims at mapping about 500 spiral and irregular galaxies in HI, is well suited for a more statistical study of the link between optical and kinematical properties of disk galaxies (for more details on the WHISP project and its goals, see Swaters et al 2000, hereafter Paper I).

The two main aspects of the WHISP survey are a study of the HI component of galaxies in itself, and a study of the kinematic properties, focussing on rotation curves and dark matter properties. As part of the WHISP survey, optical $`R`$-band images have been obtained for the galaxies in the WHISP sample. These optical data provide the deep optical images and accurate optical global properties, such as disk surface brightnesses, disk scale lengths, integrated magnitudes and optical diameters that are needed for a detailed comparison of the optical, HI and dark matter properties. In addition to the two main aspects of WHISP, the combination of the HI distribution, the kinematics and the light distribution will allow detailed studies of the nature of for example scaling laws between HI and optical properties, warps, truncated disks, and lopsidedness.

In this paper, we present optical surface photometry data for the 171 late-type dwarf galaxies in the WHISP sample. The outline of the paper is as follows. Sect. 2 describes the selection of the sample. In Sect. 3 the distance uncertainties for the dwarf galaxies in our sample are discussed. Sect. 4 describes the observations and the data reduction steps. In Sect. 5 the ellipse fitting used to derive the surface brightness, ellipticity and position angle profiles is described. Sect. 6 presents the global photometric parameters obtained from the data, and Sect. 7 describes the internal checks on our surface photometry, the comparison of our profiles to those of other authors and the comparison of global parameters to catalog values. Sect. 8 gives a brief description of the optical properties of the galaxies in this sample. Finally, Sect. 9 gives a summary of the main results.

To facilitate the reading of text and tables, all long tables have been placed at the end of the paper. Appendix A presents the tables with the selected sample, the assumed distances for all galaxies, the list of observations and the derived optical properties. Grayscale representations of each galaxy, together with surface brightness profiles, are given in Appendix B.

## 2 Sample

The late-type dwarf galaxies presented here are part of the much larger WHISP sample. This sample has been selected from the Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies (UGC, Nilson 1973), and it consists of all UGC galaxies with a blue major-axis diameter larger than $`1.5^{}`$, $`\delta (2000)>20^{}`$, and an HI line flux density larger than 100 mJy (as calculated from the ratio of total HI fluxes and profile widths as listed in the Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (hereafter RC3, de Vaucouleurs et al 1991)). These criteria ensure sufficient resolution and a high enough signal-to-noise ratio for observation with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope.

From the WHISP sample all late-type dwarf galaxies were selected for the present study. The sample consists of two subsamples. The first consists of galaxies with HI flux densities above 200 mJy, that either have morphological types later than Sd, or that have earlier morphological types and are fainter than $`M_B=17`$. This subsample contains 113 late-type dwarfs and forms the basis of a study of HI and dark matter in late-type dwarf galaxies (see Swaters 1999). The second subsample comprises 80 galaxies with flux densities between 100 and 200 mJy that were classified as dwarf galaxies by Nilson (1973). The total sample constructed in this way contains 193 galaxies. No upper limit was set for the diameter of the selected galaxies. For the 200 mJy sample, no lower limit to the diameter was applied either, which resulted in the inclusion of four dwarf galaxies with blue major-axis diameters smaller than $`1.5^{}`$. Furthermore, there was no selection criterion based on the environments of these dwarfs. Isolated dwarfs as well as dwarf companions to larger galaxies have been included in the sample.

Besides the selection effects of the UGC, which are well studied (Thuan & Seitzer 1979; Paturel et al 1991; de Jong & van der Kruit 1994), the present sample has an additional selection effect as a result of the requirement that the galaxies have HI measurements listed in the RC3. Not all galaxies have been observed in HI (57% of the galaxies that meet all our criteria except the flux density criterion have a measured HI flux listed in the RC3), and those that have been observed come from studies with different scientific goals, different telescopes and different sensitivities. In addition, the selection based on the flux density may introduce a dependency on the inclination and the kinematic properties of the galaxies. Therefore the true selection function is difficult to quantify. With these caveats in mind, the sample is representative of this galaxy population as it spans the entire range of properties of late-type dwarfs.

Because morphological type was one of the main selection criteria for the sample selection, a few galaxies were included in the sample that were assigned late morphological types, but that proved not to be dwarf galaxies but large irregular galaxies, such as interacting systems and peculiar galaxies. Though these will be excluded in later studies of the properties of late-type dwarfs, their optical properties are presented here.

The sample of observed galaxies is listed in Table 4. Out of the total of 193 galaxies, 171 have been observed. The remaining 22 have been missed due to bad weather. The galaxies in the 200 mJy sample were given priority, as a result only 2 out of the 113 galaxies in that sample have not been observed.

## 3 Galaxy distances

An important source of uncertainty for mass models of our dwarf sample are the galaxy distances. Care has been given to using the best distance estimator available for each galaxy. Here we discuss the choice of distance estimators and the magnitude of the distance uncertainty associated to each.

The distances for the late-type dwarf galaxies in our sample have been obtained from a search of the literature up to and including 1998. Most of the literature distances have been derived from four distance indicators. In order of decreasing priority these are based on Cepheids, brightest stars, group membership and systemic velocity. A full list of the adopted distances for all of the galaxies in our sample, including the method used to determine the distance, is given in Table 5. Unfortunately, Cepheid distances are available for only three of the galaxies in our sample. Below the uncertainties for the three other methods are discussed.

### 3.1 Brightest stars

The accuracy of the brightest star method to determine the distance has been subject of many discussions. There are a number of possible problems, in particular if the brightest blue stars are used (e.g., Humphreys & Aaronson 1987). The brightest stars in a galaxy may not be individual stars, but star clusters or compact HII regions, or these stars may be variable. In addition, it is found that the luminosity of the brightest stars is dependent on the luminosity of their parent galaxy, thus introducing a degeneracy in the distance determination (e.g., Humphreys 1983). The brightest red stars suffer much less from these problems.

The reported accuracy of the brightest stars as distance indicators differs substantially between different studies. Rozanski & Rowan-Robinson (1994) found that the uncertainty in the distance modulus is 0.58 mag for the brightest red stars and 0.90 mag for the brightest blue stars. Karachentsev & Tikhonov (1994), on the other hand, find uncertainties of 0.37 mag and 0.46 mag, respectively. Lyo & Lee (1997) found, from a comparison of distance determinations based on Cepheids and brightest stars, that the uncertainties in the distance moduli are 0.37 mag for the brightest red stars, and 0.55 for the brightest blue stars, and they conclude that the brightest red stars are therefore useful distance indicators.

Most of the distance determinations from brightest stars, listed in Table 5, are based on brightest red stars. With an uncertainty in the distance modulus of 0.37 mag, the uncertainty in the distance is about 20%. If the uncertainty is as high as 0.58, as suggested by Rozanski & Rowan-Robinson (1994), the distance uncertainty will be about 30%.

### 3.2 Group membership

Distances from group membership are mostly based on the groups identified in de Vaucouleurs (1975) and de Vaucouleurs et al (1983). The published distance moduli for these groups were derived from several distance indicators: (a) from optical tertiary indicators (morphological type and luminosity class); (b) from the mean redshift of the group and a position-dependent Hubble constant (varying between 70 km s-1 Mpc-1 and 110 km s-1 Mpc-1), calibrated with spiral galaxies whose distances were determined from tertiary distance indicators; (c) from the Tully-Fisher relation. Unfortunately, de Vaucouleurs et al (1983) do not list which particular distance indicator or combination of distance indicators was used to obtain the distance modulus they list. For the details on these distance indicators, see de Vaucouleurs et al (1983) and references therein.

Given how the group membership distances have been determined, it is clear that these distance may suffer from substantial uncertainties. De Vaucouleurs (1979) claims that the uncertainty in the distance moduli obtained from tertiary distance indicators is less than 0.4 mag. The Hubble constant based on tertiary distance indicators has an average value of about 90 km s-1 Mpc-1, higher than the currently favored value of the Hubble constant, which may indicate that the tertiary distance indicators tend to underestimate the distance.

Adding to this uncertainty is the fact that at small distances the depth of the group may be a significant fraction of the group distance.

### 3.3 Systemic velocity

For all the galaxies in our sample a distance was calculated from the HI systemic velocity following the prescription given in Kraan-Korteweg (1986) to correct for Virgocentric flow, with an adopted Hubble constant of 75 km s-1 Mpc-1. Many of the dwarf galaxies have low systemic velocities, and these may well be dominated by peculiar motions. As a result, these distances derived from the systemic velocities may have large uncertainties, in particular for the closest galaxies.

### 3.4 Comparison of distances

In the top panels of Fig. 1 the comparison between the distances derived with the three different methods is shown. In Fig. 1a the distances derived from the HI systemic velocities and group memberships are compared. Two features stand out. Firstly, at small distances there are a number of points that are grouped along slanted lines. These arise because there are a number of large nearby groups to which a substantial number of dwarfs are assigned, such as the M81 group, the M101 group and the NGC 4736 group. Secondly, at larger distances there appears to be a systematic difference between the group distance and the distance derived from the systematic velocity, in the sense that the group distances are generally smaller. This may be the result of an underestimate of the distances determined from tertiary distance indicators, as mentioned above. On the other hand, almost all of these galaxies are in the same region of the sky as the Virgo cluster. In this direction, the relation between the systemic velocity and the distance is less certain. This may also contribute to the differences between the two distance estimates compared in Fig. 1a.

Fig. 1b shows a comparison of the distance from the HI systemic velocity and the brightest star distance. There appears to be a weak correlation between these two distance estimates. Towards smaller HI distances, the ratio of HI distance over brightest star distance decreases. All of the galaxies for which brightest star distances are available are, because of the nature of the method, at small distances. At such small distances, the distances as derived from the HI systemic velocities are uncertain.

In Fig. 1c the group distances are compared with the brightest star distances. There is a slight indication that the average ratio plotted in Fig. 1c is below unity, indicating that distances based on group membership are smaller than those based on brightest stars, similar to what was concluded from Fig. 1a.

Another concern is that the distance estimates may depend on the surface brightness of the galaxies. Although this is unlikely for the distances derived from the HI systemic velocities, it may play a role for the group membership distances, which are partially based on tertiary distance indicators, and for the brightest star distances. In Fig. 1d-f the different distance estimates are plotted against central disk surface brightness $`\mu _0^R`$. There does not appear to be a correlation between surface brightness and the HI distance (Fig. 1d), nor is such a correlation evident in (Fig. 1e, in which the group distance is plotted versus surface brightness.

Finally, at best a weak trend is seen between the brightest star distance and the surface brightness. The variations from low to high surface brightness are about 25%, comparable to the random errors. For low surface brightness galaxies smaller distances are found. Because of the lack of a precise distance indicator, it is unclear what causes this trend. It may be a result of selection effects. On the other hand, it may also be that the magnitudes of the brightest stars depend on surface brightness.

In summary, there are some indications that the group membership distances may underestimate the true distances. This systematic difference appears to be no larger than about 20%. In addition, the distance estimates based on brightest stars may depend on surface brightness, but these effects are probably smaller than 25%. This possible systematic error is likely to be dominated by the random errors in the distance estimates. Based on Figs. 1a-c, we estimate that the largest uncertainty in distance is about 60%, and that the typical distance uncertainty is about 30%.

## 4 Observations and data reduction

As mentioned in the introduction, one of the usages of the optical data is to provide the stellar distribution for mass modeling. For the light distribution to be close to the stellar mass distribution, observations at red wavelengths are necessary to minimize the effects of extinction and young populations. $`I`$-band observations were not suitable because of the brighter sky in $`I`$, making longer exposures necessary, and because of fringing making accurate flatfielding difficult. Even longer wavelengths, such as the $`K`$-band, were not practical because the available infrared arrays had too small a field of view for the galaxies in the sample. This would make mosaicking necessary and therefore require a lot of observing time. The $`R`$-band offered the best compromise. A possible problem in using $`R`$-band is that the H$`\alpha `$ emission line is included in the wavelength range covered by this filter. Jansen (2000) has found that the median contribution of H$`\alpha `$ to the $`R`$-band flux is 2.0% for late-type dwarf galaxies, with a maximum of 8%. Gallagher & Hunter (1989) show that radial H$`\alpha `$ profiles and the $`R`$-band radial surface brightness profiles have similar shapes. Hence, we expect that the H$`\alpha `$ emission may introduce a systematic offset from the true radial surface brightness profile of 0.02 mag on average, but the shape of the profile will hardly be affected.

We used the f/3.29 prime focus camera at the 2.54m Isaac Newton Telescope at La Palma, during six observing runs between May 1994 and May 1996. A list of the observing dates is given in Table 1. In all runs, we used Harris filters. In the May 1994 run, we used an EEV CCD, in all other runs we used a thinned Tektronix CCD (TEK3). Specific details on the CCDs used are given in Table 2, which lists the readout noise, gain, pixel size, chip size and field of view for each chip. The EEV chip was always used in standard readout mode, the TEK CCD was mostly used in quick readout mode, saving time on readout of the chip. The increased readout noise was not important because the exposures are limited by photon noise. The emphasis was to reach faint surface brightness levels. For this reason, most galaxies were observed only in the $`R`$-band. However, for 46 galaxies we have obtained $`B`$-band data, which are presented here as well.

Most galaxies were observed only once. Galaxies for which the center was found to be saturated were observed a second time with a shorter exposure. A list of all observations is given in Tables 6 and 7. Some galaxies were observed in different observing runs, and these data were used for internal comparison of the photometric accuracy. Only the data with the best photometric conditions are listed. All of the data processing was done in iraf.

### 4.1 Bias subtraction

Both the EEV and the TEK3 had flat bias levels and low dark currents, but the bias level did tend to vary slightly during the night. Therefore, the bias level was determined from the overscan regions. The May 1995 and the December 1995 run showed random bands in the bias levels, which were visible throughout the image. The amplitude of these bands was about 1 to 2 counts. For these images, the bias level was removed by subtracting from each image row the average of the corresponding bias row.

### 4.2 Flat fields

The instrument was known to have light leaks at the filter wheel, causing some excess light at the edges of the images. By wrapping the prime focus cone unit in a dark cloth, this effect was almost entirely removed, allowing accurate flat fielding.

During all the runs, twilight flats were taken at the beginning and the end of the nights, typically with 10000 to 30000 counts. Additionally, for increased accuracy night sky flats of blank fields were taken, typically seven per filter (each exposure 180 seconds in R and 300 in B).

For each night and filter we constructed a set of flat fields, by combining in different ways the twilight flats or the night sky flats. When more than two flat fields were combined, a rejection algorithm was used to remove stellar images and cosmic-ray events. Otherwise, stars and cosmic-ray events events were edited out by hand and replaced by the local average. Night sky flats were offset from one exposure to the other, so that stars could be filtered out. This filtering proved to be satisfactory under good seeing conditions ($`<1.5^{\prime \prime }`$) with 6 or 7 exposures. When the seeing was worse, or when fewer exposures had been obtained, stellar residuals remained in the constructed flat field. In the latter case, flat fields were constructed by fitting a low order two-dimensional polynomial to the night sky flat and to the twilight flat; next, the twilight flat was divided by its fit, thus obtaining the high signal-to-noise small scale variations, and these were multiplied into the fit to the night sky flat.

After constructing these flat fields, a number of exposures of each night was flat fielded by each of the constructed flatfields in order to test which provided the most accurate results. This was done by checking the flatness of the empty regions. In more than half of the cases the night sky flat fields allowed more accurate flat fielding than the twilight flats.

Because of this careful construction and testing of the flatfields, high flatfield accuracy was obtained. For each exposure the sky values at four places around each galaxy were measured, carefully avoiding the outer parts of the galaxy and the halos of bright stars. The background flatness was taken to be half the difference between the minimum and maximum values. The flatness defined in this way has a median value of 0.22% for the sample in $`R`$, and 0.32% in $`B`$.

### 4.3 Calibration

At regular intervals during each night, standard star fields from Landolt (1992) were observed. The fields we used were RU 149, PG0231+051, PG0942-029, PG1323-086, PG1525-071, PG1528+062 and PG 2213-006. With these stars and the magnitudes given in Landolt (1992), the observations were calibrated to Johnson $`B`$ and Kron-Cousins $`R`$. The standard stars were observed over a range of airmasses for both bands, both on photometric and non-photometric nights. For all these stars we determined the instrumental aperture magnitudes and spurious values were deleted. These data were combined to fit zero-point magnitudes and color and extinction coefficients of the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}b=B+c_{1,B}25+c_{2,B}X+c_{3,B}(BR)\hfill \\ r=R+c_{1,R}25+c_{2,R}X+c_{3,R}(BR)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`B`$ and $`R`$ are the standard star magnitudes, $`b`$ and $`r`$ are the instrumental magnitudes, $`X`$ is the airmass, $`c_1`$ is the zero-point offset, $`c_2`$ is the airmass term, and $`c_3`$ is the color term. The color terms were found to be small, and can be neglected. For most galaxies only $`R`$-band data are available, but the missing color information does not significantly affect the accuracy of the calibration.

The calibration was done for each night independently, except for a few nights with poor photometric conditions, for which a combined calibration was done. The derived calibration coefficients are listed in Table 3. The $`1\sigma `$ residuals of the fit given by Eq. (1) give the uncertainty on the calibration, and are listed in Tables 6 and 7 for the $`R`$ and $`B`$-band, respectively. This uncertainty also includes the uncertainty introduced by ignoring the color term. During nights with cirrus, standard stars were observed as well and obviously, the resulting photometric uncertainties are large. For those galaxies for which more than one observation was available, we used the one with the best photometry. If the seeing of the non-photometric observations was better, or if that image had a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the photometric one, we used the latter to calibrate the non-photometric observation.

The majority of the sample has good photometric accuracy. The zero point uncertainty is less than 0.1 mag for 77% of the sample, and below 0.2 mag for 89% of the sample.

### 4.4 Image combination

All exposures of the same galaxy observed in the same run were aligned using stars common in the frames. If more than two exposures were available, the images were combined using a rejection algorithm to remove cosmic-ray events. Otherwise, the cosmic-ray events were removed using the figaro bclean algorithm privately ported to iraf and replaced with the local average. If the central parts of a galaxy were saturated in a long exposure, the saturated pixels were rejected during the image combination and replaced with scaled values from the short exposure images.

A few galaxies were too large to fit in the $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ field of view. These galaxies were mosaicked. All galaxies to be mosaicked were observed in the December 1995 run, under poor photometric conditions. The sky for all the images was subtracted and the images were aligned using stars in overlapping regions. Next, the images were scaled to the same exposure time, and scaled photometrically to the frame with the lowest sky and the highest counts per second, and the images were combined.

### 4.5 Final steps

In each frame the mean value of the sky was determined in four areas near the galaxy that were free of objects, stellar halos and scattered light. The sky value for each frame was the average of these four mean values. For the estimate of the uncertainty in the sky determination we used half the difference between the minimum and the maximum of the four mean values. This estimate of the uncertainty in the sky includes large scale variations in the flat fielding and also the uncertainty in the sky determination itself.

For each exposure the seeing was estimated by fitting two-dimensional Gaussians to all objects in the field that had been masked by hand (see Sect. 5). Only objects with ellipticities smaller than 0.15 and central peaks more than five times the noise were used, to avoid contamination by background galaxies and inaccurate measurements. On average, about 40 objects were used to obtain the seeing estimate. The seeing estimates listed in Tables 6 and 7 are the median values of the individual fits. Given the pixel size of about $`0.6^{\prime \prime }`$, the observations with the best seeing are undersampled. This affects approximately 15% of the data presented here.

The last step was to add the coordinate system to the frames. The coordinate system was transferred from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), by determining coordinates from the plate solution for stars visible in both the DSS and the CCD image. Using these coordinates, a coordinate system was fitted to the CCD frame, using about ten stars. We used a four term matrix to describe the coordinate system in a gnomonic projection. The $`1\sigma `$ errors on the coordinate system determined in this way are about $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$. This is comparable to the typical error of $`0.6^{\prime \prime }`$ found by Veron-Cetty & Veron (1996). The $`R`$-band images of all galaxies, including the coordinate system, are presented in Appendix B.

## 5 Isophotal fits

Fitting ellipses to late type dwarf galaxies is not straightforward. Often, the light distribution is irregular, and sometimes a well defined center is missing, or the centers for the inner and outer parts are different. Nonetheless, the radial surface brightness profile gives a useful representation of the light distribution.

Before fitting ellipses to the galaxy images, we masked out all the stars and the scattered light in the frames by hand. Special care was taken to mask out low intensity halos of stars as well. In some cases this proved impossible, due to the proximity of a bright star to the galaxy image. In these cases, the foreground light was masked out to where the galaxy light started to be dominant and the contribution of the stellar halo was incorporated in the uncertainty in the sky determination.

The ellipse fitting itself was done using the galphot package (Franx et al 1989; Jørgensen, Franx & Kjægaard 1992). The ellipse parameters were determined at logarithmic intervals, each next ellipse having a radius 1.2 times bigger than the previous ellipse, with the innermost radius at $`1^{\prime \prime }`$. The radius $`r`$ of each ellipse is defined as $`r=\sqrt{ab}`$, where $`a`$ is the major axis and $`b`$ the minor axis. The ellipticity is defined as $`1b/a`$. Determining the ellipse parameters was done in several steps. To make sure that the ellipse fits were not affected by substructure, HII regions, bars or other luminous components, all fits were individually inspected at each step in the process, and adjusted as described below when necessary.

First, we ran the fitting program leaving all the parameters (center, position angle and ellipticity) free. From these results we determined the center. If the galaxy had a well determined center, e.g. a nuclear peak or a clear central condensation, this was adopted to be its center. In most other cases, we determined the center from the average of the outer ellipses where the solution was more stable. In those cases where the outer parts were highly irregular, the center was determined from the average of the inner parts. The adopted center for each galaxy is indicated in Appendix B with a cross.

In the second step, the center was fixed. From these results we determined the position angle. This was done by averaging over the outer ellipses, over the region where the results were converging. The outermost points were discarded if these gave erratic results. If the position angle varied systematically with radius, the average position angle was used. For galaxies with a pronounced bar, we tried to determine the position angle of the surrounding disk.

In the third iteration, the center and position angle were fixed, in order to determine the ellipticity. We determined the value for the ellipticity in the same way as we determined the position angle. The ellipticities were set to zero if equal to zero within the uncertainties of the measurements.

After fixing the orientation parameters, we extracted the calibrated radial surface brightness profiles from all the images. The orientation parameters as found for the $`R`$-band were also used to extract the $`B`$-band radial surface brightness profiles. In Appendix B we show the radial surface brightness profiles and the exponential fits (see Sect. 6) for all galaxies. Also, the run of orientation parameters (center, ellipticity and position angle) with radius are presented. Note that these have been derived from the free fits and may therefore, in some cases, deviate substantially from the values chosen from subsequent fits with more parameters fixed.

## 6 Structural parameters

### 6.1 Profile fitting

Most of the radial surface brightness profiles are smooth and regular, despite the often irregular optical appearance of the galaxies. Some show a central excess of light, while others have a central flattening. In this paper, we have not attempted to make decompositions into disk and central components. Instead, we focused on the disk component in these galaxies. An exponential intensity law was fitted to the outer parts of the profiles, which becomes a linear relation when expressed in magnitudes:

$$\mu (r)=\mu _0+1.0857\frac{r}{h},$$
(2)
where $`\mu _0`$ is the extrapolated central disk surface brightness, and $`h`$ is the disk scale length. The photometric errors were used as weights. Combined with the logarithmic spacing of the points in the profile, this leads to higher weights to the central parts. Most of the profiles are well described by an exponential. The profiles and their fits are shown in Appendix B. In a later paper, we will study the properties of the galaxies with central light concentrations with the use of the Sersic profile (Sersic 1968).

### 6.2 Observed central surface brightness

Beside the extrapolated central disk surface brightness $`\mu _0`$ derived from the fit, we also determined the observed central surface brightness, $`\mu _c`$. This value differs from $`\mu _0`$ if the profile shows a central peak or flattening. The observed central surface brightness $`\mu _c`$ was determined from a linear extrapolation of the surface brightness profile in the inner few arcseconds to $`r=0`$. This is justified given the exponential shape of the inner profile in most cases, also for profiles with a central concentration of light.

### 6.3 Diameters

For each galaxy two sets of diameters have been determined. Isophotal diameters in both the $`R`$ and the $`B`$-band have been determined at $`\mu _R=25`$ and 26.5 mag arcsec-2. Additionally, effective radii within which 20%, 50% and 80% of the light is contained have been calculated.

### 6.4 Extinction and inclination corrections

The observed surface brightnesses and magnitudes suffer from extinction, both from dust in our Galaxy and from that internal to the observed galaxy. The data were corrected for Galactic extinction using the values for $`A_B`$ from Burstein & Heiles (1984). The values for $`A_R`$ have been obtained assuming an $`A_B/A_R`$ of 1.77 (Rieke & Lebofsky 1985).

The correction for internal extinction is less certain. A relationship is expected between the axis ratio $`b/a`$ and the observed surface brightness $`\mu _0`$ of approximately:

$$\mu _0=\mu _0^i+2.5C\mathrm{log}(b/a),$$
(3)
where $`\mu _0^i`$ is the surface brightness corrected for inclination, and where $`C`$ is a constant related to the extinction. For the transparent case, $`C`$ is equal to unity, for the opaque case it is zero.

The dependence of $`\mu _0`$ on $`b/a`$ is shown in Fig. 2. Note the relative paucity of high inclination, low surface brightness galaxies. This might indicate that the galaxies in this sample are transparent, and it would imply a lower cutoff in the true surface brightness distribution of dwarf galaxies at $`\mu _{0,R}=23`$ mag arcsec-2. However, the lack of such galaxies may well be the result of selection, e.g. as a result of the selection on flux density. In addition, given the selection on morphological type, some galaxies may drop out of our sample if they may have been misclassified as earlier morphological types when seen edge-on. The latter could contribute to the lack of high surface brightness edge-on galaxies that are expected in the optically thin case. In any case, any expected trend is weak because of the wide range in surface brightnesses at each $`b/a`$. Also, the correction is uncertain in the cases where the ellipticity varies with radius. In conclusion, Eq. (3) does not provide a useful way to determine the transparency for this sample of galaxies.

Because dwarf galaxies generally have low metalicities (e.g., Skillman et al 1989), the dust content is likely to be low, and therefore these galaxies are expected to have small internal extinction. Therefore, $`C=1`$ was adopted, and in the remainder of this paper the surface brightnesses were corrected accordingly. In the optically thin case, the integrated magnitudes do not need to be corrected. Note that the surface brightnesses and diameters listed in Tables 8 and 9 have only been corrected for Galactic extinction, not for inclination.

### 6.5 Integrated magnitudes

Three magnitudes have been determined for each galaxy, two isophotal ($`m_{25}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$) and one total magnitude ($`m_{\mathrm{tot}}`$). The isophotal magnitudes are calculated at two different levels. One at the 25 $`R`$ mag arcsec-2, and one at the limiting surface brightness level, which corresponds to the $`3\sigma `$ above sky level. The total magnitude has been calculated by extrapolating an exponential fitted to the outer parts of the surface brightness profile out to infinity. In particular for galaxies with low surfaces brightnesses, such as the dwarfs in this sample, this extrapolation can be significant. To first order, the extrapolation can be determined by assuming that the entire profile follows an exponential decay, as was done by Tully et al. (1996). However, applying such a correction overestimates the total magnitude when a central condensation is present, and underestimates it when the light profile flattens towards the center, as Tully et al (1996) already noted. To avoid this problem, we used the more general method to determine the total magnitude (Han 1992). This method assumes that the light falls exponentially outside the last point in the profile, but it makes no assumptions on the shape of the inner profile:

$`m_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ (4)
$`2.5\mathrm{log}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{a}}q\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{lim}}}{h^{}}}\right)10^{0.4(m_\mathrm{t}m_{\mathrm{lim}})}\right\},`$
where the function $`q(x)`$ reflects the luminosity-radius relationship for such an exponential disk,

$$q(x)=(1+x)e^x,$$
(5)
$`r_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is the radius where $`3\sigma `$ is reached, and

$$m_\mathrm{t}=\mu _0^{}5\mathrm{log}h^{}2.5\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi $$
(6)
is the total magnitude of a pure exponential disk characterized by $`\mu _0^{}`$ and $`h^{}`$, as determined from fitting to the outer parts of the profile.

The top panel of Fig. 3 shows the extrapolation from $`m_{25}`$ to $`m_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ versus the total magnitude $`m_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. The corrections become larger for less luminous galaxies, and may reach up to one magnitude. The bottom panel of Fig. 3 shows the extrapolation versus $`\mu _0`$. The correction becomes larger for fainter surface brightnesses. The solid line shows the extrapolation for a purely exponential disk. The corrections generally follow this line closely. However, some points deviate up to about 0.5 mag from this line. This plot shows that just applying an extrapolation based on the assumption that the light profile is exponential may give total magnitudes that are significantly too bright, in particular for low surface brightness galaxies.

## 7 Comparison of radial surface brightness profiles

In order to assess the photometric quality of our data and to check the reliability of our estimate of the photometric uncertainty, radial surface brightness profiles of identical galaxies obtained during different runs have been compared. Our data have been compared to data available in the literature as well.

### 7.1 Internal comparison

Some galaxies were observed on more than one night. Although for each galaxy only one observation is given in this paper, these multiple observations have been used to assess the quality of our calibration. Figs. 4 and 5 show the internal comparison for the $`R`$ and the $`B`$-band respectively. The dotted lines indicate the $`\pm 1\sigma `$ range based on the uncertainties on the photometric solution. The majority of the profiles are equal within the uncertainties of the measurements. Five cases, UGC~2800, UGC~3475, UGC~7199, UGC~7853 and UGC~7861 deviate more than expected from our estimates of the uncertainty in the photometry. These galaxies were all observed on nights during which there was some cirrus present. The uncertainty caused by cirrus is in principle included in the photometric uncertainty. The deviant cases are probably the result of somewhat thicker cirrus clouds passing overhead occasionally. Because in 83% of the internal comparisons the photometric uncertainty is accurately known, including nights with some cirrus, we conclude that the photometric uncertainty we have derived is a reliable estimate of the real photometric uncertainty. The comparison for the $`B`$-band profiles, though available for only three galaxies, is consistent with this conclusion. Nights with cirrus have been marked in Tables 8 and 9. The fact that the difference profiles in Figs. 4 and 5 are quite flat indicates that, for 80% of the sample, uncertainties due to flatfielding, sky brightness determination and contamination by halos of foreground stars together are below 0.1 mag arcsec-2 over the entire radial range.

### 7.2 External comparison

Comparing surface brightness profiles with those obtained by other authors is not straightforward. For the comparison with published data, we restricted ourselves to CCD data. We have used data by McGaugh & Bothun (1994), de Jong & van de Kruit (1994), Heraudeau & Simien (1996), Patterson & Thuan (1996) and Jansen et al (2000). Where the authors have derived surface brightness profiles with fixed position angle and ellipticity, our profiles were rederived with the same orientation parameters. McGaugh & Bothun (1994) and Patterson & Thuan (1996) used free fits, making comparison of the profiles difficult. To get a substantial sample for comparison with other data, not only the data for the dwarf galaxies were used, but also the data for other galaxies that were observed in this program.

Fig. 6 shows the comparison for the $`R`$-band profiles. Most profiles are consistent within the $`1\sigma `$ errors, as indicated by the dotted lines. For three galaxies, our results deviate significantly from the profiles obtained by others: UGC~1551, UGC~6446 and UGC~12754. For UGC~1551 there are two independent measurements available in the literature, by Jansen et al (2000) and de Jong & van der Kruit (1994), which are in agreement with each other. The quality of those data for these galaxies is high, as judged by the authors. The three deviating galaxies were observed during nights that suffered from occasionally thicker cirrus. Based on the external comparison, we conclude that for 87% of our observations the quoted photometric uncertainty is an accurate estimate of the photometric quality, similar to the number found from the internal comparison.

The comparison with the published surface brightness profiles for the $`B`$-band is presented in Fig. 7. The comparison with the data by Jansen et al (2000) shows that our data is consistent within the uncertainties with his. However, the comparison with the data by McGaugh & Bothun (1994) and Patterson & Thuan (1996) shows clear inconsistencies. Both groups of authors have used free fits rather than fixed fits as we did. This explains the large difference found for UGC~3384, because this galaxy is highly asymmetric. Neither of the authors give uncertainties for their data. Except for UGC~3860, the profiles are fairly consistent, in particular in the inner parts.

In conclusion, based on both the internal and external comparison, we find that our quoted photometric uncertainties are accurate estimates of the real photometric uncertainties. In about 13% of the cases the real photometric uncertainties are underestimated. However, these poor nights are overrepresented in this comparison because many of the galaxies observed in non-photometric nights were deliberately reobserved in order to obtain better photometry. It is therefore likely that for a larger fraction than the 87% quoted above the photometric is uncertainty is accurate.

### 7.3 Comparison to UGC

An additional source to check our data against is the UGC. Fig. 8 shows the differences between our position angle and those listed in the UGC. For highly inclined galaxies the agreement is excellent. Towards more face-on galaxies the scatter increases and some large differences occur. The outcome of this comparison in no doubt affected by the fact that we have determined the position angles at fainter surface brightness levels.

Fig. 9 shows the comparison of our ellipticities with those from the UGC. The UGC ellipticities have been determined from the major and minor-axis diameters listed in the UGC. There is good general agreement, but with a large scatter, as was to be expected because our ellipticities have been determined at fainter surface brightness levels, and because the UGC ellipticities are based on eye estimates.

In Fig. 10 the $`m_{25}^B`$ is compared with the $`B`$-band magnitude given in the UGC catalog. Generally, the agreement is good for $`m_{25}^B14.0`$. For fainter galaxies, the UGC magnitudes are systematically too faint. This effect was already noted by Thuan & Seitzer (1979). The difference becomes even more pronounced if the UGC magnitudes are compared with the total magnitude $`m_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, where the difference may be as high as two magnitudes.

A comparison of the UGC $`R`$-band diameters with the $`D_{25}`$ diameters as determined from our $`R`$-band radial surface brightness profiles shows good agreement, as can be seen in Fig. 12. This indicates that the limiting surface brightness at which the UGC diameter is measured is about 25 $`R`$-band mag arcsec-2. A similar comparison of the $`B`$-band diameters shows that the limiting surface brightness there is about 26.5 $`B`$-band mag arcsec-2, in close agreement with the value of 26.53 found by Fouqué & Paturel (1985).

## 8 Discussion

As described in Sect. 2, this sample contains a range in galaxy types and properties. Here we briefly characterize the sample by showing the distribution of several parameters.

The distribution of ellipticities $`ϵ`$ and position angles PA are given in Fig. 12. The ellipticities have been derived as described in Sect. 5. The peak at $`ϵ=0`$ is artificial and occurs because the ellipticities were set to zero for galaxies in which the ellipticities were equal to zero within the uncertainties. The true values of the ellipticities for these galaxies probably spread over a range in ellipticities, up to $`ϵ0.3`$, filling in the depression near $`ϵ=0.1`$. This makes the distribution of ellipticities more or less uniform for small $`ϵ`$. Ellipticities near $`ϵ=1`$ are missing because of the finite thickness of the galaxies. The distribution of position angles is consistent with being flat, as is expected if the galaxy orientations are random.

Fig. 13 shows the distribution over absolute $`R`$-band magnitude for the galaxies in our sample. The absolute magnitudes have been calculated from the total magnitude $`m_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and the distances listed in Table 4, and range from $`M_R=22`$ to $`12`$. Most of the galaxies in our sample have low luminosities, as expected for dwarf galaxies, but about 30% have $`M_R<18`$. These galaxies are not true dwarf galaxies, but form a mixed bag of large low surface brightness galaxies (similar to the galaxies studied by e.g., de Blok et al 1995 and Sprayberry et al 1995) and bright interacting galaxies. These galaxies were included in the sample because our selection is largely based on morphological type.

Fig. 14 shows this point more clearly. In this figure, for each galaxy the inclination corrected central disk surface brightness $`\mu _0^i`$ is plotted against the scale length. About 30% of the galaxies have scale lengths larger than 2 kpc. These are the galaxies that are more typical of the large low surface brightness galaxies. De Blok et al (1995) find that these galaxies typically have scale lengths between 2 and 6 kpc, and surface brightnesses fainter than $`\mu _R=22`$ mag arcsec-2. Note that the selection on late type has not included galaxies with both large scale length and high central surface brightness.

Finally, Fig. 15 shows the distribution of scale lengths and of inclination corrected central disk surface brightnesses. The galaxies in our sample generally have small scale lengths. The range in surface brightnesses is large, spanning from $`\mu _{0,R}^i=19`$ to 25 mag arcsec-2.

## 9 Summary

We provide $`R`$-band surface photometry for 171 late-type galaxies. We have obtained magnitudes, diameters, central surface brightnesses, extrapolated central surface brightnesses and scale lengths. For all galaxies we have presented elliptically-averaged surface brightness profiles, and profiles showing the run of ellipticity, position angle profiles and isophote center with radius. Flatfielding achieved a median accuracy of 0.22%, making the surface brightness and structural profiles reliable to about 26 $`R`$ mag arcsec-2 in most cases. The zero point uncertainty is less than 0.1 mag for 77% of the sample, and less than 0.2 mag for 89% of the sample. The photometric accuracy is reliably quantified for each galaxy by the $`1\sigma `$ errors in the photometric calibration. Comparison of our surface brightness profiles and photometric zero points with data from other authors shows that, for at least 85% of the sample, we obtain agreement consistent with the quoted photometric uncertainties.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Tjeerd van Albada for valuable comments. We thank Rolf Jansen for making available his data before publication. Travel grant support for this work was provided by the E.U. ANTARES Astrophysics Network, under contract CHRX-CT.93.0359, and by the Leids Kerkhoven-Bosscha Fonds. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. The Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166.

## Appendix A Tables

### A.1 Table 4 – Global properties

Column (1) gives the UGC number.

Column (2) provides other common names, in this order: NGC, DDO (van den Bergh 1959, 1966), IC, Arp (Arp 1966), CGCG. At most two other names are given.

Columns (3) and (4) give the equatorial coordinates (2000) derived from the optical images, as described in Sect. 4.

Column (5) gives the morphological type according to the RC3, using the same coding.

Column (6) gives the absolute $`B`$-band magnitude, calculated from the apparent photographic magnitude as given in the RC3, and the distance as given in column 7.

Column (7) provides the adopted distance. Where possible stellar distance indicators have been used, mostly Cepheids and brightest stars. If these were not available, a distance based on group membership was used. If these were not available either, the distance was calculated from the HI systemic velocity following the prescription given in Kraan-Korteweg (1986), with an adopted Hubble constant of $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. A full list of published distances for the galaxies in this sample, updated to the beginning of 1998, is given in Table 5. For a discussion of the distance uncertainties, see Sect. 3.

Column (8), (9) and (10) give the heliocentric velocity, the HI line width at the 50% level and the HI mass in units of $`10^8`$ M, respectively, all as given in the RC3.

Column (11) gives the Galactic extinction in the $`R`$-band, derived from the $`A_B`$ value according to Burstein & Heiles (1984) assuming $`A_B/A_R`$ of 1.77 (Rieke & Lebofsky 1985).

### A.2 Table 5 – Adopted distances

Column (1) gives the UGC number

Column (2) gives the distance as derived from the HI systemic velocity, assuming a Hubble constant $`H_0=75`$ km s-1Mpc-1 and following the prescription given in Kraan-Korteweg (1986) to correct for the Virgocentric inflow.

Column (3) gives the distance(s) found in the literature.

Column (4) gives the reference for each distance.

Column (5) gives a brief description of the method used in the original paper to derive the distance.

Column (6) gives the distance we have adopted. The distance uncertainties are discussed in Sect. 3.

### A.3 Table 6 and 7 – List of observations

Column (1) lists the UGC number.

Column (2) gives the observing date.

Column (3) gives the exposure time.

Column (4) gives an estimate of the seeing, as described in Sect. 4.

Column (5) gives the photometric accuracy $`\sigma _{\mathrm{phot}}`$. This is the residual obtained in the photometric solution, as described in Sect. 4.

### A.4 Table 8 and 9 – isophotal and photometric parameters

Column (1) lists the UGC number.

Column (2) and (3) give the ellipticity $`ϵ`$ and the position angle P.A.

Column (4) gives the apparent magnitude $`m_{25}`$ within the 25 mag arcsec-2 isophote.

Column (5) gives the apparent limiting magnitude $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$. This is the apparent magnitude within the limiting surface brightness $`\mu _{\mathrm{lim}}`$ given in column (7).

Column (6) gives the extrapolated apparent magnitude $`m_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. The extrapolation is described in Sect. 6.

Column (7) gives the limiting surface brightness $`\mu _{\mathrm{lim}}`$, which corresponds to $`3\sigma `$ above sky. $`\sigma `$ is our estimate of the $`1\sigma `$ error in the sky, as described see Sect. 4.

Column (8) gives the central surface brightness $`\mu _c`$, as determined from the luminosity profile (see Sect. 5). $`\mu _c`$ has been corrected for Galactic foreground extinction, but not for inclination.

Column (9) gives the extrapolated disk central surface brightness $`\mu _0`$ as obtained from an exponential fit to the surface brightness profile. $`\mu _0`$ has been corrected for Galactic foreground extinction, but not for inclination.

Column (10) gives the absolute magnitude MR or MB. The absolute magnitude has been calculated from $`m_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ and the distance as listed in 5. These values are corrected for Galactic foreground extinction.

Column (11) gives the uncertainty in the photometry, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{phot}}`$, which is the residual obtained in the photometric solution, as described in Sect. 4. For galaxies with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{phot}}>0.25`$ mag the photometric parameters are only given to the nearest tenth of a magnitude.

Column (12) gives the scale length $`h`$ in arcsec, measured along the major axis, as determined from an exponential fit to surface brightness profile.

Column (13) and (14) give the isophotal diameters, $`d_{25}`$ and $`d_{26.5}`$ at the 25 and 26.5 mag arcsec-2 isophote. These diameters have been corrected for Galactic foreground extinction and are measured along the major axis. The diameters are given in units of arcsec.

Column (15), (16) and (17) give the radii $`r_{20}`$, $`r_{50}`$ and $`r_{80}`$ within which 20%, 50% and 80% of the light is contained. These radii have been measured along the major axis, and are given in units of arcsec.

Notes

a These galaxies are at very low Galactic latitude and therefore Burstein & Heiles (1984) do not give Galactic foreground extinctions. The galaxies concerned are: UGC 192, UGC 3272 and UGC 3390. For these galaxies the magnitudes and surface brightnesses are not corrected for Galactic extinction.

b These galaxies have been observed during nights with occasional thin cirrus clouds. Therefore, in some cases the $`1\sigma `$ photometric error may be an underestimate of the true photometric error, as was found in Sect. 7.

## Appendix B Images and surface brightness profiles

The next pages show an overview of the images, surface brightness profiles and isophotal fits for the 171 late-type dwarf galaxies in the sample. For each galaxy one row with three panels is shown.

The first panel gives the $`R`$-band image. All images have been put on a common grayscale using the calibration described in Sect. 4, and without correcting for Galactic foreground extinction. On the top left of each panel the UGC number is given, along with at most one other common name (either NGC or DDO). In the lower left a yardstick is shown, where the size depends on the scale of the galaxy. This size is shown above the yardstick and represents 1, 2, 5 or 10 kpc. The white cross near the center of the galaxy gives the adopted center from the isophotal fits (see Sect. 5). The ellipse indicates the orientation parameters, derived from the isophotal fits, that were adopted for each galaxy and that were used to derive the radial surface brightness profile.

The second panel presents the radial surface brightness profile. On the top right the morphological type, the absolute $`R`$-band magnitude and the conversion between arcseconds and parsecs are given. The arrow on the left side indicates the $`3\sigma `$ above sky level. The radial surface brightness profile has not been corrected for Galactic foreground extinction. The radial scale is measured along the major axis.

The third panel gives the results from the isophotal fits with all parameters (center, position angle and ellipticity) free. Note that these are not the data from which the final orientation parameters were derived. These were derived in several steps as described in Sect. 5. Within this panel there are four subpanels. Clockwise from the top left these show the variation of ellipticity, position angle, $`y`$-position and $`x`$-position of the center with radius. The dotted line in each panel gives the adopted value for the plotted parameter.

Full version with figures in this appendix can be downloaded from:

http://www.robswork.net/publications/WHISPII.ps.gz


text:
# Untitled Document

Paper is withdrawn due to errors (superseded by math.AG/0604303). Formula 6.5 is false. Section 6 is false, and the main statement is true only for bundles $`B`$ with $`c_1(B)`$ $`SU(2)`$-invariant.


text:
# Comment on “Ising model on a small world network”

## Abstract

In the recent study of the Ising model on a small-world network by A. Pȩkalski \[Phys. Rev. E 64, 057104 (2001)\], a surprisingly small value of the critical exponent $`\beta 0.0001`$ has been obtained for the temperature dependence of the magnetization. We perform extensive Monte Carlo simulations of the same model and conclude, via the standard finite-size scaling of various quantities, that the phase transition in the model is of the mean-field nature, in contrast to the work by A. Pȩkalski but in accord with other existing studies.

A. Pȩkalski in Ref. ref:Pekalski  studied the Ising model on a small-world network constructed from a ring lattice. In the presence of a finite fraction of additional long-range interactions, the model was observed to undergo a phase transition at a finite temperature, in agreement with other related studies ref:Gitt ; ref:Barrat ; ref:XY . However, the exponent $`\beta `$, describing the critical behavior of the magnetization in the vicinity of the transition, was found to be very small: $`\beta 0.0001`$, in contrast to the previous studies suggesting the mean-field nature of the transition ref:Gitt ; ref:Barrat ; ref:XY . The small-world network in Ref. ref:Pekalski,  was constructed in a slightly different way compared with the original model by Watts and Strogatz ref:WS , under the additional constraint that not more than one shortcut is allowed for each vertex in the network. In this comment we present results of extensive Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the same model as that in Ref. ref:Pekalski, , which reveal that the phase transition is described by the mean-field exponents, $`\alpha =0`$, $`\beta =1/2`$, $`\gamma =1`$, and $`\overline{\nu }=2`$ (see below for definitions), and thus conclude that the additional constraint in the network construction does not change the universality class of the transition.

For simplicity, we consider only the network where every vertex has one shortcut (or every spin has three couplings), which is identical to Pȩkalski’s network with the parameter $`p=1`$ in Ref. ref:Pekalski, . We then perform extensive Monte Carlo simulations of the Ising model described by the Hamiltonian:

$$H=\frac{J}{2}\underset{i}{}\underset{j\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}{}\sigma _i\sigma _j,$$
(1)
where $`J`$ is the coupling strength, $`\sigma _i(=\pm 1)`$ is the Ising spin on vertex $`i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ denotes the neighborhood of vertex $`i`$, including those vertices connected to $`i`$. For given network size $`N`$ at temperature $`T`$ (in units of $`J/k_B`$), we have measured various thermodynamic quantities such as Binder’s cumulant ref:Binder , the specific heat, and the susceptibility:

$`U_N`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{[m^4]}{3[m^2]^2}}`$ (2)
$`C_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[H^2H^2]}{T^2N}}`$ (3)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}[\sigma _i\sigma _j]`$ (4)
with $`m|(1/N)_i\sigma _i|`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`[\mathrm{}]`$ represent the thermal average (taken over 5000 MC steps after discarding 5000 MC steps for equilibration at each temperature) and the average over different network realizations (taken over 400-1200 different configurations), respectively.

Binder’s cumulant in Eq. (2), plotted for various sizes, yields a unique crossing point as a function of the temperature $`T`$, providing a convenient method to determine the critical temperature $`T_c`$. Figure 1(a) shows that the result $`T_c=1.81(2)`$ is obtained from the crossing point of Binder’s cumulant for $`N800`$. The critical exponent $`\overline{\nu }`$, describing the divergence of the correlation volume in such a way that $`\xi _V|TT_c|^{\overline{\nu }}`$ ref:XY , can be determined from the expansion of $`U_N`$ near $`T_c`$ ref:HXY :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_NU_N(T_1)U_N(T_2)N^{1/\overline{\nu }},$$
(5)
where $`T_1`$ and $`T_2(>T_1)`$ are chosen near $`T_c`$. Figure 1(b) results in the value $`\overline{\nu }2.0`$, which, together with the hyperscaling relation $`\overline{\nu }=2\alpha `$, gives the critical exponent $`\alpha 0`$ for the specific heat $`C_v`$.

With such a mean-field value, we write the finite-size scaling in the form

$$C_v=f\left((TT_c)N^{1/\overline{\nu }}\right),$$
(6)
where $`f(x)`$ is an appropriate scaling function with the scaling variable $`x`$. As shown in Fig. 1(c), the unique crossing point of $`C_v`$ again yields $`T_c=1.82(2)`$, in accord with $`T_c`$ obtained from $`U_N`$ within numerical errors. The similar expansion of $`C_v`$ then provides an alternative way of determining $`\overline{\nu }`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_v=C_v(T_1)C_v(T_2)N^{1/\overline{\nu }}`$, leading to the estimation $`\overline{\nu }2.0`$ in Fig. 1(d).

The divergence of the susceptibility when $`T_c`$ is approached from above is described by the critical exponent $`\gamma `$: $`\chi (TT_c)^\gamma `$, which suggests the finite-size scaling form

$$\chi =N^{\gamma /\overline{\nu }}g\left((TT_c)N^{1/\overline{\nu }}\right)$$
(7)
with the appropriate scaling function $`g(x)`$. Combined with $`\overline{\nu }2`$ found above, the finite-size scaling form (7) yields the value $`\gamma 1`$ and $`T_c=1.82(2)`$ as shown in Fig. 1(e).

Finally, on the basis of the above observation, the critical exponent $`\beta `$ for the magnetization is then determined from the scaling form

$$[m]=N^{\beta /\overline{\nu }}h\left((TT_c)N^{1/\overline{\nu }}\right),$$
(8)
which leads to $`T_c=1.82(1)`$ and $`\beta 1/2`$ \[see Fig. 1(f)\].

We note that the obtained critical temperature appears to be higher by factor two than that in Ref. ref:Pekalski, . The standard mean-field approximation applied to this model, where the coordination number is three, yields $`T_{MF}=3`$ ref:Goldenfeld . Considering the infinite range of the interactions and the mean-field nature of the transition, we believe that our estimation $`T_c=1.82(2)`$ (in units of $`J/k_B`$) is more precise. In this respect, it is interesting to note that also in the $`XY`$ model on the small-world network a relatively large value $`T_c/T_{MF}0.9`$ has been estimated ref:XY .

In summary, we have numerically studied the Ising model on the small-world network constructed in the identical way as in Ref. ref:Pekalski, . In contrast to Ref. ref:Pekalski, , we have obtained the standard mean-field critical exponents: $`\alpha =0,\beta =1/2,\gamma =1`$, and $`\overline{\nu }=2`$ and confirmed that the phase transition is of the mean-field nature, in agreement with other previous studies ref:Barrat ; ref:Gitt ; ref:XY .


text:
# Spin-polarized states of nuclear matter

## I Introduction

Studies of spin-polarized nuclear and neutron matter have been mainly focussed on the possible onset of a ferromagnetic transition in the neutron star core. This transition could explain in fact the high intensity magnetic fields ($`10^{12}`$ gauss) estimated from the timing observations in pulsars and magnetars (for a review see Ref. ). Besides this exciting issue the motivation for such studies can be based on a more general context of nuclear physics.

First of all, from the change of the energy per nucleon with the spin polarization one may extract a theoretical prediction for the spin symmetry energy, whose empirical value is so far quite uncertain. The nuclear matter instability against spin fluctuations is driven by the Landau parameter $`G_0`$ which is determined from the spin-symmetry energy. The value of this parameter is still a largely controversial topic and no agreement exists among the different approaches to the theory of nuclear matter . Experimental information could come from spin giant resonances, which have not yet been clearly observed. Information could also come from heavy-ion collisions as soon as polarized heavy targets become available.

The second issue related to the study of spin-aligned states of nuclear matter is the propagation of neutrinos in neutron stars. It has been shown that the neutrino mean free path is strongly affected by the magnetic susceptibility. The latter is sizeably suppressed by the strong correlations in nuclear matter and, as a consequence, the mean free path might change sizeably and, eventually drop to zero in the presence of a ferromagnetic transition .

There is a guess that the ferromagnetic transition could be a relativistic effect due to $`\pi `$-exchange and in fact all calculations, based on the relativistic mean field approch, predict this transition to occur in dense matter . On the other hand, non-relativistic approaches  do not support such a transition except Hartree-Fock calculations with phenomenological Skyrme-like forces (for a review see Ref. ). This aspect cannot be disconnected from the problem of the in-medium nucleon-nucleon (NN) force, which is poorly known in dense matter due to the lacking of empirical constraints far above the saturation density. However important relativistic effects can be incorporated into the effective interaction via the three-body force associated with a virtual nucleon-antinucleon excitation . Moreover non-relativistic calculations including only two-body forces miss the empirical saturation point of nuclear matter . So it seems worthwhile to investigate the spin-aligned states of nuclear and neutron matter in the non-relativistic Brueckner theory with three-body forces. They contain not only the above mentioned relativistic contributions but also nucleonic excitations which decisively enhance the agreement between theoretical and empirical saturation density .

## II Formalism

The spin and isospin asymmetric nuclear matter (ANM) consists of spin-up neutrons ($`n`$), spin-down neutrons ($`n`$), spin-up protons ($`p`$) and spin-down protons ($`p`$) in different density states: $`\rho _n`$, $`\rho _n`$, $`\rho _p`$, and $`\rho _p`$, respectively. Therefore four parameters are required to specify a given configuration of spin and isospin ANM. The Fermi momenta of the four components are generally different from each other, and related to their respective densities by the following relation:

$$\rho _\lambda =\frac{1}{6\pi ^2}(k_F^\lambda )^3$$

where $`\lambda `$ denotes the $`z`$-components of isospin and spin, i.e., $`\lambda =(\tau _z,\sigma _z)`$. Instead of $`\rho _\lambda `$, one can use the following four parameters to identify a given spin and isospin state,

$$\beta =\frac{\rho _n\rho _p}{\rho },\delta _n=\frac{\rho _n\rho _n}{\rho _n},\delta _p=\frac{\rho _p\rho _p}{\rho _p},$$

where $`\rho `$, $`\rho _n`$, and $`\rho _p`$ are total density, neutron density and proton density, respectively. The ratio $`\beta `$ is the isospin asymmetry parameter and $`\delta _n`$ and $`\delta _p`$ are the spin asymmetry parameters for neutrons and protons, respectively.

The starting point of the Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone (BBG) approach is the reaction $`G`$-matrix. The $`G`$-matrix incoporates strong short-range correlations in nuclear medium by means of the infinite ladder diagram summation of the bare NN interaction. It satisfies the Bethe-Goldstone equation. The latter can be expressed for the spin-isospin ANM in the total angular-momentum basis as follows,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G_{LL^{}}^{TSJ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}(\omega ,P;q,q^{};\rho ,\beta ,\delta _n,\delta _p)\hfill & =\hfill & v_{LL^{}}^{TSJ}(q,q^{})+\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{L^{\prime \prime }}{}q^{\prime \prime 2}dq^{\prime \prime }v_{LL^{\prime \prime }}^{TSJ}(q,q^{\prime \prime })\hfill \\ & & \\ & \times \hfill & \frac{Q^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(q^{\prime \prime },P)}{\omega e_{12}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(q^{\prime \prime },P)+i\eta }G_{L^{\prime \prime }L^{}}^{TSJ,\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}(\omega ,P;q^{\prime \prime },q^{};\rho ,\beta ,\delta _n,\delta _p)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`v_{LL^{}}^{TSJ}(q,q^{})`$ are the partial wave components of the NN interaction, $`\stackrel{}{P}=\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2=\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}+\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}`$ is the total momentum, $`\stackrel{}{q}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2}{2}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}}{2}}`$ the relative momenta of the two particles in their initial state and final state, respectively. The Pauli operator $`Q^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(\stackrel{}{q}^{\prime \prime },\stackrel{}{P})`$ and the energy denominator $`e_{12}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(\stackrel{}{q}^{\prime \prime },\stackrel{}{P})=ϵ^\lambda (k_1^{\prime \prime })+ϵ^\lambda ^{}(k_2^{\prime \prime })`$ have been angle averaged in order to remove the coupling between different channels $`\alpha =\{JST\}`$. It is worth noticing that the different components of the $`G`$-matrix differ in general from each other due to the dependence of the Pauli operator and energy denominator on the spin-isospin configuration ($`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$). The single particle energy is given by $`ϵ^\lambda (k)=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m+U^\lambda (k)`$. The continuous choice for the auxilary potential $`U^\lambda (k)`$ is adopted in the present calculations since, on the one hand, it has been shown to provide a much faster convergence of the hole-line expansion than the gap choice , on the other hand, it decribes physically the single-particle potential felt by a nucleon in nuclear medium. In the continuous choice, $`U^\lambda (k)`$ is the real part of the on-shell mass operator, i.e.,

$$U^\lambda (k)=Re\underset{\stackrel{}{k}^{},\lambda ^{}}{}n^\lambda ^{}(k^{})\stackrel{}{k}\lambda ,\stackrel{}{k}^{}\lambda ^{}|G[\omega =ϵ^\lambda (k)+ϵ^\lambda ^{}(k^{}),P]|\stackrel{}{k}\lambda ,\stackrel{}{k^{}}\lambda ^{}_A,$$

where the subscript $`A`$ denotes antisymmetrization. For spin and isospin ANM, it is convenient to split it into two contributions as

$$U^\lambda =U^{\lambda \lambda }+U^{\lambda \lambda ^{}},(\lambda ^{}\lambda ).$$

Each individul contribution is calculated by casting it into the partial wave expansion,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U^{\sigma _z\tau _z,\sigma _z^{}\tau _z^{}}(k)\hfill & =\hfill & _0^{k_F^{\sigma _z^{}\tau _z^{}}}\mathrm{d}^3k^{}\underset{TSJ}{}\underset{LL^{}}{}\underset{S_zT_z}{}i^{LL^{}}\left[C(\frac{1}{2}\sigma _z\frac{1}{2}\sigma _z^{}|SS_z)\right]^2\left[C(\frac{1}{2}\tau _z\frac{1}{2}\tau _z^{}|TT_z)\right]^2\hfill \\ & \times \hfill & \underset{M_L}{}C(L^{}M_LSS_z|JM_L+S_z)C(LM_LSS_z|JM_L+S_z)Y_{L^{}M_L}^{}(\widehat{q})Y_{LM_L}(\widehat{q})\hfill \\ & \times \hfill & 2G_{LL^{}}^{TSJ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}(\omega ,P,q,q;\rho ,\beta ,\delta _n,\delta _p).\hfill \end{array}$$

The summation over partial wave states is physically constrained by the selection rule $`S+T+L=\mathrm{𝑜𝑑𝑑}`$ due to the Pauli principle and consequently the antisymmetrization of the $`G`$-matrix simply implies multiplication by a factor of 2 for the allowed partial wave channels. For spin symmetric case ($`\delta _n=\delta _p=0`$), a spin-up neutron (proton) has the same Fermi momentum as a spin-down neutron (proton) and thus the single-particle potential felt by a nucleon does not depend on the direction of its spin. The summation on the spins of the two particles in the final state and the average of that in the initial state remove the non-diagonal contributions in angular-momentum from the single-particle potential. One easily finds

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U^{\tau _z\tau _z^{}}(k)\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma _z\sigma _z^{}}{}U^{\sigma _z\tau _z,\sigma _z^{}\tau _z^{}}(k)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2}_0^{k_F^{\tau _z^{}}}\mathrm{d}^3k^{}\underset{TSJL}{}\underset{T_z}{}\left[C(\frac{1}{2}\tau _z\frac{1}{2}\tau _z^{}|TT_z)\right]^2\frac{2J+1}{4\pi }2G_{LL}^{TSJ,\tau _z\tau _z^{}}(\omega ,P,q,q;\rho ,\beta ).\hfill \end{array}$$

For spin-asymmetric but isospin-symmetric nuclear matter, we have $`\beta =0`$ and $`\delta _n=\delta _p={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{}\rho _{}}{\rho }}=\delta `$. In this case, the single particle potential becomes,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U^{\sigma _z,\sigma _z^{}}\hfill & =\hfill & _0^{k_F^{\sigma _z^{}}}\mathrm{d}^3k^{}\underset{TSJ}{}\frac{2T+1}{2}\underset{LL^{}}{}\underset{S_z}{}i^{LL^{}}\left[C(\frac{1}{2}\sigma _z\frac{1}{2}\sigma _z^{}|SS_z)\right]^22G_{LL^{}}^{TSJ,\sigma _z\sigma _z^{}}(\omega ,q,q;\rho ,\delta )\hfill \\ & \times \hfill & \underset{M_L}{}C(L^{}M_LSS_z|JM_L+S_z)C(LM_LSS_z|JM_L+S_z)Y_{L^{}M_L}^{}(\widehat{q})Y_{LM_L}(\widehat{q}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The present calculations will mainly consider this spin-polarized nuclear matter as well as the spin polarized neutron matter.

## III Results and conclusions

We performed some calculations within the BHF self-consistent approach above described. The Argonne $`V_{18}`$ force is adopted as bare two-body interaction. This has been implemented by a microscopic three-body force , which is described in detail in Ref.  together with the average procedure to transform it into an effective two body force. In Fig. 1 the energy shift per nucleon $`E_A(\delta ,\rho )E_A(0,\rho )`$ in symmetric nuclear matter is reported as a function of the square of spin polarization $`\delta ^2`$ for a set of densities. Due to the linear dependence on $`\delta ^2`$, also reported in Refs.  one can write:

$$E_A(\delta ,\rho )=E_A(0,\rho )+_{sym}(\rho )\delta ^2,$$

i.e. the spin dependence of the energy per nucleon can be simply expressed in terms of spin-symmetry energy

$$_{sym}(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2E_A(\delta ,\rho )}{\delta ^2}$$

in the density range here considered.

The $`\delta ^2`$-law is mainly due to the BHF approximation (two-hole line terms only). The same behavior is in fact exhibited by the energy vs. isospin either . The effects of three-hole line terms are rather small when adopting the continuous choice for the auxiliary potential ; this choice is also adopted for the present calculations. The slope of the energy shift is monotonically increasing with density so that no signature for a ferromagnetic phase transition in symmetric nuclear matter is expected. The effect of three-body force is to enhance this slope for densities above the saturation point. This effect is more clearly shown in the plot of $`_{sym}`$ vs. density in Fig. 1.

The magnetic susceptibility has been also calculated from the spin-symmetry energy

$$\chi =\frac{\overline{\mu }^2\rho }{2_{sym}},$$

where $`\overline{\mu }`$ is the average of neutron and proton magnetic moments (in neutron matter $`\overline{\mu }`$ is the exact neutron magnetic moment). Usually one calculates the ratio of $`\chi `$ to $`\chi _F`$, $`\chi _F`$ being the magnetic susceptibility for a degenerate free Fermi gas. The effect of strong correlations in nuclear matter due to the two-body force is a reduction of $`\chi `$ with respect to $`\chi _F`$. This reduction increases with density up to a factor of 0.3 at $`\rho =0.8fm^3`$. The above result is common to most Bruckner calculations . More pronounced is the queching due to three-body force.

Fig. 2 also shows the Landau parameter $`G_0`$ describing the spin density fluctuations in the effective interaction. $`G_0`$ is simply related to the spin-symmetry energy or, equally, to the magnetic susceptibility by the relation

$$\frac{\chi }{\chi _F}=\frac{m^{}}{1+G_0}$$

where $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass. A magnetic instability would require $`G_0<1`$ which is analogous to the condition $`F_0<1`$ for the mechanical instability giving rise to the liquid-vapour phase transition. But, the value of $`G_0`$ vs. density from the BHF calculations is always positive and monotonically increasing up to the highest density. The three-body force pushes up the curve of $`\chi `$. This result is in strong disagreement with the prediction with Skyrme forces. This is not a complete surprise since Skyrme forces are only well suited in the proximity of the empirical saturation point. Astonishing is the strong disagreement on this respect with the relativistic approaches because the three-body forces contain already important relativistic effects . The accurate knowledge of $`G_0`$ should lead to reliable predictions on the spin and spin-isospin giant modes as well as spin-spin part of the optical potential .

The above calculations have been also repeated for the case of pure neutron and reported in Fig. 2. The same conclusions can be drawn as to the absence of the ferromagnetic phase transition and the quenching of the magnetic susceptibility caused by the strong correlations from the two- and three-body forces. This quenching should have a strong influence on the neutrino propagation in dense matter such as supernovae and neutron stars. In the case of the transition to a ferromagnetic state it has been shown that the mean free path could drop to zero  that could have remarkable consequences as, for instance, on the neutron star cooling.