text:
# Characterizing the Adaptive Optics Off-Axis Point-Spread Function - I: A Semi-Empirical Method for Use in Natural-Guide-Star ObservationsBased, in part, on observations obtained at the Lick Observatory, which is operated by the University of California. All authors except DC are affiliated with the Center for Adaptive Optics.

## 1 Introduction

A key ingredient to successful analysis of images produced with the aid of an adaptive optics (AO) system is the determination of the point-spread function (PSF). The application dictates how precisely the PSF must be determined. For example, limiting the uncertainty in PSF-fitting photometry in a crowded star field to only a few percent will demand very high accuracy in knowledge of the Strehl ratio. Another example, but a case where a good reference star is less likely to be found, is the subtraction of the point-like core from the image of a quasar-host or radio galaxy (Hutchings et al., 1998, 1999; Steinbring, Crampton, & Hutchings, 2002). In this case Strehl ratio may be low, and the AO PSF approximately Gaussian. For a fixed volume, the peak of a 2-dimensional circular Gaussian is inversely proportional to the square of its full-width at half maximum (FWHM). Therefore, reducing the FWHM by, say, 25% will drive the peak up by 78%. A 25% underestimate of the QSO core FWHM will have a detrimental effect on the quality of fit. In practice, accuracy of only 10% to 20% in PSF FWHM is sufficient for detection of the host galaxy.

The task of determining the PSF is made difficult by three factors. First, the performance of the AO system depends on the brightness of the star which it uses to measure correction - the “guide star.” Second, the delivered correction depends directly on quickly changing seeing conditions. Third, the AO PSF is strongly field dependent (anisoplanatic). The first factor requires that scientific observations and calibration measurements employ either the same guide star or ones of similar brightness. Choosing a fainter guide star for calibration may require, to preserve $`S/N`$, that the AO system obtain longer integration times per measurement. Phase corrugations change continuously as the wind moves turbulence across the telescope pupil, and therefore the lower bandwidth will result in poorer correction. The latter two factors are related to the degree of turbulence along the line of sight. The seeing scales linearly with the inverse of the coherence length of phase distortions, $`r_0`$ (Fried’s parameter), which for observations at zenith angle $`\gamma `$, are related to the atmospheric refractive-index structure “constant”, $`C_n^2`$, and wavelength, $`\lambda `$, by

$$r_0(\lambda ,\gamma )=0.185\lambda ^{6/5}\mathrm{cos}^{3/5}\gamma \left(C_n^2(h)𝑑h\right)^{3/5},$$
$`(1)`$
where $`h`$ is height in the atmosphere (for review papers see Roddier 1981, 1999; Beckers 1983). Thus a measurement of the PSF needs to be simultaneous with the target observation or at least sample the same variation in $`r_0`$. Differences in phase distortion along different lines of sight, exacerbated by a $`C_n^2(h)`$ profile skewed to high altitude, will dramatically degrade both Strehl ratio and FWHM with increasing telescope offset from the guide star. A separation of as little as 10″ is sufficient to render images of the guide star unusable as a PSF estimate for the target. The effect of tilt correlation also causes the off-axis PSF to be anisotropic. For any significant offset the amount of beam overlap between guide and PSF star in the tangential direction (perpendicular to the offset) will be greater than for the sagittal direction (along the offset). The lower correlation of aberrations in the sagittal direction causes the PSF to be elongated towards the guide star (see e.g. McClure et al. 1991, Voitsekhovich & Bara 1999). Limited AO system bandwidth may also elongate the PSF in the direction of the prevailing wind. Thus the PSF can depend on position angle in the frame, and this requires that the PSF measurement be made near the target position as well. Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic spatial dependence of the PSF. It shows natural-guide-star AO observations of two well-separated stars, taken simultaneously (these data are discussed later, in Section 2.1). The right-hand panel is an image of the guide star and the left-hand panel is an image of a star at an offset of 20″. Both images have a field of view (FOV) of roughly 2″ $`\times `$ 2″, and the direction to the guide star is indicated by the arrow in the left-hand panel. The on-axis image has a high Strehl ratio, greater than 30%, but the off-axis Strehl ratio is closer to 10%. Note the degradation of the off-axis PSF and its elongation towards the guide star.

If a sufficiently bright star were within a few arcseconds of the target, the task of PSF measurement would be greatly simplified. The observer could use this “PSF star” as a nearby and simultaneous measurement of the PSF during the target observation. Unfortunately, the probability that a suitably bright PSF reference will be available is very small. Furthermore, some AO systems operate with imagers originally designed for uncompensated seeing, and their new optics have sacrificed field of view in order to obtain Nyquist sampling. For example, the small FOV such as the 4″ $`\times `$ 4″ provided by the $`256\times 256`$ pixel Keck AO Near-Infrared Spectrometer (NIRSPEC) imager makes a fortuitous observation of both target and PSF star even more unlikely.

When faint extended objects are observed with natural guide-star AO, they will always be offset from the guide star. For a large FOV imager such as the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) $`1024\times 1024`$ pixel infrared camera (KIR), the guide star is often within the 36″ $`\times `$ 36″ FOV of the detector. This large FOV has the advantage of ensuring that a bright star will be available to characterize the on-axis PSF. Unfortunately, target integrations are typically long enough to leave a saturated image of the star. Still, several very short calibration exposures could be interleaved with those observations. An average of these would provide an unsaturated image of the star to characterize the on-axis PSF.

But even without images of the guide star, one can still determine the on-axis PSF. Consider a wave-front with corrugations consistent with a Kolmogorov spectrum. Now, consider perfect correction of the wave-front phase over an unobstructed pupil. An analytic expression can be found that gives the improvement in Strehl ratio due to successive removal of an increasing number of Zernike polynomials from the aberrated wave-front (Noll, 1976). For example, removing the first 3 Zernike modes (excluding piston) corresponds to a reduction in the residual mean square wave-front distortion by a factor of 5. In a real AO system, these residual errors can in principle be determined from wave-front sensor measurements and thus used to predict the delivered on-axis PSF. The wavelengths of sensing and correction may also be different. The light from the guide star is usually split; optical light is sent to the wave-front sensor while correction is applied to the instrument light path in the near-infrared. Véran et al. (1997) have exploited this and developed software that uses wave-front information to predict the on-axis PSF in the near-infrared for the CFHT AO system.

Knowing the on-axis PSF will not give the PSF at the target position. However, an estimate of the change in the PSF with increasing offset can be determined theoretically. For the case of a single thin turbulence layer at height $`h`$, infinite telescope aperture, and perfect correction of an infinite number of modes, the off-axis Strehl ratio, $`S`$, falls as (Roddier, 1999)

$$S\mathrm{exp}[(\theta /\theta _0)^{5/3}]$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\theta `$ is the offset angle on the sky, and

$$\theta _0=0.314\frac{r_0\mathrm{cos}\gamma }{h}$$
$`(3)`$
is the isoplanatic angle. For $`r_0(0.5\mu \mathrm{m})=10`$ cm and $`h=2`$ km this gives $`\theta _0=19`$″ for $`K`$-band observations at zenith. That is, the PSF at an offset of 19″ will have a Strehl ratio degraded by a factor of $`e`$ from the on-axis value.

Determining the real AO off-axis PSF is more complicated. A real $`C_n^2(h)`$ profile will contain significant power at low altitude (dome seeing, ground-layer), but the more important contribution to anisoplanicity occurs at higher altitude. For example, measurements using SCIntillation Detection And Ranging (SCIDAR) show that a single thin high-altitude layer typically dominates the nighttime free-atmosphere $`C_n^2(h)`$ profile above Mauna Kea (Racine & Ellerbroek, 1995). These observations predate the use of so-called generalized SCIDAR, however, and thus do not give a true picture of the conditions at the ground layer. But, evidence from generalized SCIDAR measurements at other observatories suggest that dominance by at most a few high layers may occur elsewhere as well (cf. Klueckers et al. 1998). Equation 3 suggests that the isoplanatic angle is inversely proportional to the height of the dominant layer. In reality, the off-axis Strehl ratio will depend on the mean height of the atmospheric turbulence, $`\overline{h}`$, and on the equivalent number of corrected Zernike modes, $`N`$. Higher order modes will decorrelate more quickly than low order ones, resulting in a smaller isoplanatic angle (see e.g. Roddier 1999). That is, equation 2 should be replaced by (Flicker & Rigaut, 2002)

$$S\mathrm{exp}[(\theta /\theta _N)^{5/3}],$$
$`(4)`$
with the exponent tending towards 2 for very partial compensation (Roddier et al., 1993). The “instrumental” isoplanatic angle is then given by

$$\theta _N=0.314\frac{r_0\mathrm{cos}\gamma }{\overline{h}},$$
$`(5)`$
where (Fried, 1982)

$$\overline{h}=\mathrm{sec}\gamma \left(C_n^2(h)h^{5/3}𝑑h/C_n^2(h)𝑑h\right)^{3/5}.$$
$`(6)`$
Now appropriately modified, equations 4 and 5 will give an estimate of the isoplanatic angle and layer height from measurements of the off-axis Strehl ratio. In practice, these Strehl ratio measurements could be made with a calibration observation of a suitably dense star field. Unfortunately, the Strehl ratio, both on-axis and off-axis, will vary with the seeing. In fact, since the off-axis PSF depends on not just the quickly varying $`r_0`$, but also on an evolving $`C_n^2`$ profile, it will vary even more rapidly, and with greater amplitude (Rigaut & Sarazin, 1999). Thus, if the image is to be obtained as a mosaic, it must be completed quickly, before changes in $`r_0`$ or $`\overline{h}`$ can introduce objectionable inhomogeneities. This calibration measurement, plus knowledge of the on-axis PSF, could be used to predict the off-axis PSF as long as there is no significant variation in the height of the dominant turbulence layer(s) or change in the equivalent number of compensated modes.

It should be stressed that the off-axis calibration image contains degenerate information about $`\overline{h}`$ and $`N`$. Furthermore, if one does not know $`r_0`$ during the on-axis PSF measurement, its value of Strehl ratio is also degenerate, but in $`r_0`$ and $`N`$. That is, as $`r_0`$ changes so does $`N`$, which in turn affects the isoplanatic angle. Although the value of $`r_0`$ can be determined from the AO system wavefront-sensor signals, thus relieving the on-axis PSF ambiguity, an independent measure of $`\overline{h}`$ is more difficult to obtain. Taking SCIDAR measurements during the AO observations could provide this information, but at substantial cost and effort. However, even with the degeneracy one might obtain useful results. If a uniform and low value of $`N`$ were maintained, the off-axis PSF would change very gradually with offset. Figure 1 illustrates the case where Strehl ratios are high, and small changes in $`r_0`$ will dramatically affect not only the on-axis Strehl ratio, but also the spatial variation in the PSF. A “first-order” method of determining the off-axis PSF variation - one that does not account for the variation in $`N`$ \- may be less successful here.

In response to a need to obtain reliable off-axis PSFs for the processing of faint galaxies, one of us (ES) developed a means of providing PSF information at various field positions using calibration observations of dense star fields (Hutchings et al., 1998, 1999; Steinbring, Crampton, & Hutchings, 1998; Steinbring, 2001; Steinbring, Crampton, & Hutchings, 2002). In this method, the observer obtains images of a dense star field once or at most a few times each night; the core of a globular cluster works best. The AO system is guided on a star of similar brightness to the one used in the target observations. Frequently, the required PSF is at an off-axis position outside the FOV of the camera, so a mosaic of the star field is generated by repositioning the telescope at successively greater off-axis distances. The goal is to obtain an unsaturated image of the guide star as well as a roughly uniform distribution of stars at many off-axis positions. Now, although the guide star in the star-field calibration image is chosen to be similar in brightness to the one used in the target observation, it is very unlikely that $`r_0`$ and, thus, the delivered PSF is identical. Therefore, the full PSF reconstruction technique must fold in information about the on-axis PSF during the scientific observation with the star-field mosaic data.

Our method to deal with time dependence is to deconvolve the image of the dense star field with the image of the guide star in that field. We assume that the effects of field-dependent aberrations in the camera optics are small compared to anisoplanicity. We would expect, if the full image is deconvolved with a sub-image of just the guide star until the entire flux is contained within one pixel, that re-convolution with that same sub-image will reconstitute the original image. That is, the PSF at each of the off-axis star positions will be restored. Therefore, we should be able to take the deconvolved image of the star field and convolve it with the image of the guide star from a target observation. The result would be the image of the star field as if it were observed under the natural seeing conditions at the time of the target observation. In this way, the image of the deconvolved star field contains the differences between the on-axis and off-axis PSFs. It is a map of the convolution kernel necessary to restore the off-axis PSFs over the field and will be referred to here as the PSF kernel map. Equations 4 and 5 suggest that the accuracy of predictions with the kernel map will decrease if the values of $`\overline{h}`$ and $`N`$ during construction of the mosaic differ significantly from those during the target observation. To restate this another way, the off-axis PSF cannot be exactly separated into an on-axis PSF which depends only on $`r_0`$, and an off-axis kernel which depends only on $`\overline{h}`$. Even so, we propose that the PSF kernel map is a useful approximation and that it provides a plausible method for predicting the off-axis PSF. It is not a mathematically exact method, and thus the results may depend on the deconvolution technique, number of iterations, convergence crition, among other things. For example, deconvolution of the guide-star to a spike of one pixel in width may lead to a spatial-frequency finite-support problem. One way to remedy this would be to convolve with the updated on-axis PSF first, and then deconvolve with the guide star from the calibration field. However, we will show that variation in the atmospheric conditions during observation of the star field can account for most of the uncertainty in the results, and thus for our demonstration the details of the deconvolution are not as important.

Observation of the calibration field is difficult and time-consuming, and must be a consideration in the application of the method. If only a small number of targets are observed, i.e. at only a few offset angles, a more practical method may be to measure the kernel with binaries of the appropriate separations. This may also allow for the interleaving of calibration and scientific observations, which the scarcity of globular clusters makes more difficult. We will show, however, that even a single calibration observation taken during the night is helpful. It may be that the problem is sufficiently well constrained that if one knows the on-axis Strehl and the Strehl degradation at one point, a model dependent on $`N`$ and $`\overline{h}`$ will be sufficient for reconstruction of the kernel map, but we leave that work for a later paper.

A theoretical expression for PSF anisoplanatism has been derived by Fusco et al. (2000), but needs an independent measurement of $`C_n^2`$ (in their example case, from thermosonde data) to provide the kernel. In this paper we focus on what results can be obtained from just a calibration image. A benefit of a semi-empirical approach is that it will apply to all AO systems. Conjugation of the AO correction to high altitude layers, such as employed in Gemini Altair, will reduce variation in the off-axis PSF, and should improve the results from our method. Multi-conjugate AO (MCAO) should lessen PSF variation even more. In MCAO, PSF uniformity is more dependent on system geometry than atmospheric conditions, and a direct measurement of the PSF kernel map may prove to be a very successful tool. This may allow field dependent deconvolution, for example.

Broad-band AO observations of dense star fields are frequently made by other observers, but almost always for scientific observations of the stars in those fields and not for calibration purposes. They are generally unusable for our analysis for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The image of the guide star is saturated. 2. The FOV of the mosaic is too small or contains too few stars. 3. Typically, a long time elapses between the observation of the guide star and the other parts of the mosaic. Variations in seeing thus render any measurement of anisoplanicity unreliable.

The work discussed here involves the observation and analysis of dense star fields for the sole purpose of calibrating the AO off-axis PSF. The observations and data reductions are outlined in Section 2. Computer simulations were used to further characterize the data and the PSF prediction method was applied to them. These analyses are found in Section 3 along with a discussion of the uncertainties in the predictions. Our conclusions follow in Section 4.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

Observations of dense star fields were made with two AO systems: Pueo on the 3.6 m CFHT on Mauna Kea, and the Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL) AO system on the 3.0 m Shane Telescope of the Lick Observatory. Both are compact systems capable only of low-order correction - providing fewer than 100 actuators in their deformable mirrors. Both are mounted at the Cassegrain focus. However, these systems represent two very different AO designs. The Pueo is a curvature wavefront-sensing system using avalanche photo-diodes (APDs) in its sensor and employing a 19-element bimorph mirror for correction (Rigaut et al., 1998). The LLNL AO system uses a CCD-based Shack Hartmann sensor and a piezostack mirror with 61 active elements (Bauman et al., 1999).

The Pueo and Lick AO systems are also located at very different observing sites. The CFHT is at an elevation of 4200 m and benefits from the already excellent seeing of Mauna Kea. Also, the CFHT observing floor is refrigerated to obtain good dome seeing by minimizing the temperature difference between the telescope and outside air. The Shane telescope depends on passive radiation and is at an elevation of only 1350 m. As a result, the CFHT provides $`V`$-band median-seeing conditions of FWHM$`=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}65`$, whereas at the Shane Telescope the median seeing is over 1″.

The image quality delivered by these systems depends on both atmospheric conditions and system performance. Guide stars must be selected to have sufficient brightness to operate the wave-front sensors. In practice, the LLNL system can obtain diffraction-limited performance with a star as faint as $`V=12`$, while the low-noise APDs of the CFHT system permit diffraction-limited performance for guide stars as faint as $`V=14`$. Even the selection of a sufficiently bright guide star, however, does not guarantee consistent performance. For example, the encroachment of thin cirrus clouds has been seen to temporarily attenuate guide-star signals and degrade phase measurement. This causes poorer delivered correction. Furthermore, small changes in the AO systems themselves also have an effect. Two examples are variation in the setup and calibration of the optical bench in the afternoon before observing and flexure of the system due to gravity during the night. It would therefore be a very difficult task to model in detail the performance of either system with a computer simulation in order to compare with observations.

A journal of the observations is given in Table 1. Observations were made through $`H`$ or $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ filters of globular cluster fields where archival $`V`$, $`R`$, or $`I`$-band Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Wide-Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) images were already available. The requirement of previous WFPC2 imaging was adopted for two reasons. First, to ensure that potential guide stars were not doubles or otherwise too crowded for use with the AO system. This was impossible to determine from previous ground-based images. Second, the large 2.6′ $`\times `$ 2.6′ FOV of WFPC2 helped to provide astrometry for registration of the mosaiced AO images.

### 2.1 CFHT Pueo

The CFHT observations were made during the commissioning of Pueo in June 1996. Observations of the globular cluster M 5 (catalog ) were made; two observations using the same $`V=10`$ guide star were made during one night. The generation of a wide-field mosaic was made difficult by the small FOV (9″ $`\times `$ 9″) of the Montreal Near Infrared Camera (MONICA) (Nadeau et al., 1994). A mosaic pattern was used to obtain a roughly 12″ wide by 30″ long strip with the guide-star at one end. The mosaic was composed of 6 individual pointings of the telescope, with a total exposure time of 30 seconds at each. These images overlapped their neighbours by a few arcseconds, which allowed us to monitor the seeing by comparing multiple observations of the same star. Each of the complete mosaics was constructed in under 10 minutes. Figure 2 is an image of the resulting field.

The star used for guiding was bright, 4 magnitudes brighter than the faint limit for Pueo, and sufficient for optimal performance of the system. However, there was some cirrus present during the night, and this may have caused the delivered performance to fluctuate independent of seeing variation. No independent measurements of the seeing, such as those provided by a dedicated seeing monitor instrument, were available at CFHT during this run. However, wave-front sensor telemetry was recorded automatically by Pueo. Values of $`r_0(0.5\mu \mathrm{m},\mathrm{zenith})`$ were estimated using the technique of Véran et al. (1997) by means of software provided on the Pueo website. Values ranged from 20 to 30 cm, consistent with median or better seeing on Mauna Kea.

### 2.2 Lick AO

Since only two observations were made with the CFHT, they provided an insufficient dataset for measuring the variation in anisoplanicity. To measure this we needed many observations of the same cluster taken over the course of an entire night. Such observations were obtained with the Lick AO system on the globular cluster M 15 (catalog ), as part of a program funded by the Center for Adaptive Optics to study AO PSFs.

Lick AO observations were obtained through a $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ filter with the Infrared Camera for Adaptive Optics at Lick (IRCAL) (Lloyd et al., 2000) in September 2000. The same guide star was used for all star-field observations. The small IRCAL FOV (19″ $`\times `$ 19″) required the construction of oblong mosaics much like that obtained at CFHT. In this case, three individual pointings of the telescope produced strips roughly 20″ wide by 60″ long. Figure 3 is an image of the resulting field. The exposure time at each pointing was 100 seconds, and each strip took approximately 9 minutes to complete. A total of 10 strips was obtained over two nights.

The guide star was selected because it was in a particularily dense part of M 15, but it was fainter than ideal. It was at the faint limit for Lick AO guide stars. Thus, a nearby but brighter isolated star was also observed from time to time to track optimal performance. We interleaved the mosaics of M 15 (catalog ) with observations of this bright star and obtained total integrations of 50 seconds with both the AO system providing full correction and tip-tilt correction only.

No seeing monitor was available at Lick. In an effort to obtain independent measures of the seeing during our run, we obtained simultaneous images of stars with a different telescope nearby on the mountain. A measurement obtained from within the same dome would have been ideal, but was impractical. We utilized the Nickel 1 m telescope, located roughly 0.5 km west of the Shane. Unfortunately, changes in telescope focus made these data unusable. We were still able, however, to determine $`r_0`$ during the run. Wavefront-sensor telemetry was recorded at intervals by the AO system and used to determined $`r_0(0.5\mu \mathrm{m},\mathrm{zenith})`$ in a manner similar to Véran et al. (1997). The mean values were $`8\pm 3`$ cm for 14 September 2000 and $`10\pm 3`$ cm for the following night.

### 2.3 Combined Dataset

All the globular-cluster data were compared to HST WFPC2 observations of the same fields in order to determine the plate scale and orientation of the cameras. We obtained good relative astrometry of stars, with sub-pixel accuracy. The data were flat-fielded, and aperture photometry was carried out on all the sky-subtracted images.

Strehl ratios were calculated for all the stars in the following manner: The diffraction pattern for a centrally obstructed circular aperture was scaled to the pixel sampling of the camera and to a flux of unity. This image was multiplied by the total flux of each measured star, shifted to that star’s sub-pixel coordinates, and divided by the original sky-subtracted image. The ratio of the peaks gives the Strehl ratio. The shifting of the diffraction pattern is easily done (in this case, with IMSHIFT in IRAF) to sub-pixel accuracy, which will limit the error due to different pixellation in the two images. A better method may be to resample the original image by a factor of 2 or more to reduce the intra-pixel averaging, but we are mostly interested in PSFs much poorer than the diffraction limit, where this effect is less severe. A further, yet systematic error in this measurement arises due to the finite size of the photometric aperture. For our photometry this corresponds to roughly a 10% overestimate of Strehl ratio, which is a consistent bias for all measurements. The dense star fields selected provided good sampling of the spatial variation in Strehl ratio. However, photometric accuracy, and therefore, accuracy of the measurement, dropped for fainter stars and for smaller separations. We overcame this problem by selecting from each field a sub-sample of the brightest and most isolated stars. We maintained this selection throughout the analysis and obtained an uncertainty in Strehl ratio for any given star in a single frame that was not much worse than its random photometric error, or on the order of few percent.

The mosaics ideally give an instantaneous measure of the PSF over the field. Since a time lapse of several minutes occured during the observation of each mosaic, it instead also samples a temporally varying PSF. The overlapping regions provide an estimate of this variation. The Strehl ratio of a particular star in both frames typically varied by 15% for CFHT and 20% for Lick, but some discontinuities as large as 50% occured for Lick. The mean Strehl ratios in the CFHT and Lick data are approximately 25% and 5% respectively, which suggests the mean absolute uncertainty in the Strehl ratio at any position in a mosaic is about 3%.

The correction delivered by both AO systems when using bright stars was similar. The mean on-axis Strehl ratio for the CFHT observations of M 5 was 0.24. This is comparable to the average value of 0.25 obtained for the Lick observations of the bright isolated star in M 15 (catalog ). Note, of course, that the CFHT images were obtained in $`H`$ band while the Lick images were obtained through a $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ filter. Since, to first order $`r_0\lambda ^{6/5}`$, observing at redder wavelengths with Lick compensated somewhat for its poorer seeing conditions. The value of $`r_0(0.5\mu \mathrm{m},\mathrm{zenith})`$ at CFHT was roughly 25 cm, while at Lick it was approximately 9 cm, or almost 3 times worse. Correcting these values of $`r_0`$ to the observing wavelengths gives $`100\pm 20`$ cm and $`53\pm 18`$ cm at CFHT (1.6 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) and Lick (2.2 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) respectively, indicating that the effective seeing conditions are comparable, differing by less than a factor of 2.

We obtained an estimate of the instrumental isoplanatic angle, $`\theta _N`$, by a least-squares fit of equation 4 to the measurements of Strehl ratios for stars in the mosaics. The values are given in Table 1 without correction for zenith angle. The M 5 (catalog ) (CFHT) observations have a mean $`\theta _N`$(1.6 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) of 33″. For M 15 (catalog ) (Lick) it was approximately 50″ (2.2 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) on average. Combining these values of $`\theta _N`$ (after correcting for zenith angle) with measurements of $`r_0`$ should yield estimates of $`\overline{h}`$ via equation 5. For the observations in M 5 (catalog ) the mean value of $`r_0`$ was approximately 25 cm, which suggests that $`\overline{h}`$ was approximately 5 km at CFHT. Similarily, $`r_09`$ cm for the observations of M 15 (catalog ) gives $`\overline{h}2`$ km at Lick.

Since the observations of the mosaics and the bright isolated star in the M 15 (catalog ) Lick data were interleaved, we can get a further diagnostic of the Lick AO system performance by comparing the on-axis Strehl ratios of the two observations. The difference between that obtained with full correction during the mosaics and during observations with tip-tilt only correction of the bright isolated star is a measure of how many more Zernike modes were corrected in the mosaic observation. We found that the Strehl ratio improved, on average, from 0.01 to 0.05, a factor of 5 over tip-tilt correction alone. This suggests that we achieved correction of only a few modes beyond tip and tilt (Noll, 1976). This is plausible because the guide star magnitude was near the useful limit for the Lick system.

## 3 Analysis

A goal of the observations was to relate gross changes in, say, $`r_0`$ or the number of corrected modes to the accuracy of the semi-empirical PSF prediction. We therefore want to, first, model the performance of the AO systems and determine what most affects their delivered isoplanatic angles. Next, we will generate the PSF kernel maps. Finally, we will relate the accuracy of the predictions based on these maps to the stability of the atmospheric conditions and performance of the AO system.

### 3.1 Computer Modeling

A computer simulation was developed to characterize the data. It is a simple model that includes a single atmospheric layer, a circular unobstructed pupil, and ideal wavefront sensing and compensation. The simulation codes were written by one of us (SH) and are based on a simulation by Rigaut (1994). Like that code, the wavefront corrugations are due to Kolmogorov turbulence and are contained in fixed phase screens; but in our case the model of the AO system is much less sophisticated and only a single phase screen is employed. This phase-screen image can be scaled according to Fried’s parameter, $`r_0`$, and the height of the atmospheric layer, $`h`$. The telescope pupil is then superimposed at a random position in the phase screen, and the aberrations are decomposed into Zernike modes via the prescription of Noll (1976). The code simulates compensation of the phase error by summing only a small subset, $`N`$, of the measured modes, re-binning this result at lower resolution to mimic the true number of actuators in the CFHT or Lick system, and subtracting the result from the phase screen. The delivered Strehl ratio, $`S`$, is calculated at several off-axis positions using the extended Marechal approximation on the residual phase error in the phase screen. The correction is done without time delay, and thus the code simulates open-loop performance of infinite bandwidth. All the simulation steps are repeated for hundreds of iterations, and the output is the average change in Strehl ratio with offset. The values of $`r_0`$, $`h`$, and $`N`$ can then be determined by a best fit optimization to these curves. Because only $`r_0`$ is directly specified by the observations (see Section 2.3), we kept $`h`$ and $`N`$ as free parameters in the model. We set $`N12`$, which models perfect correction of low-order modes such as tip, tilt, defocus, astigmatism, coma, and trefoil.

Figure 4 shows plots of $`S`$ versus offset for the two observations at CFHT. The data are shown as filled circles, and the results of the models are overplotted as smooth curves. The best-fit models have $`h5`$ km. Poorer fits were obtained with higher and lower altitudes; the results of $`h=1`$ km and $`h=10`$ km are shown. Correction was good for the first mosaic, suggesting $`N=12`$, while for the second mosaic $`N`$ is closer to 9. For these choices of parameters, the simulations suggest a value of $`\theta _N20`$″ for both observations.

Figure 5 shows the results for the observations at Lick. The data are shown as filled circles. The probable cause of discontinuties in the data for observations 3 and 10 is variation in $`r_0`$ during the construction of those mosaics. Several simulations are shown as smooth curves; solid curves represent a simulation with $`N=3`$, dotted curves: $`N=4`$, and dot-dashed curves: $`N=5`$. Three choices of layer height are plotted for each choice of number of modes corrected. Curves corresponding to $`h`$ of 1 km, 2 km, and 4 km are progressively steeper, with $`h=4`$ km being the steepest. The models suggest that, for Lick, a low number of modes were corrected by the system and the dominant layer was at an altitude between 1 km and 4 km. However, The best fit model has $`N=3`$ for mosaic 1, 2, 5, and 9. A value of $`N=4`$ is a better fit for mosaics 3, 4, 6 and 7; and mosaic 8 suggests $`N=5`$. To within the errors of the data the best model-fits all have similar values of $`\theta _N`$, tending towards 70 arcseconds.

### 3.2 Generating PSF Kernel Maps

Each of the mosaiced images from both the CFHT and Lick datasets was deconvolved with the image of its guide star. The Lucy-Richardson algorithm was employed. Other deconvolution methods such as maximum entropy were tried, with similar results. Linear deconvolution methods may prove to be faster, but were not studied. Iterations were allowed to continue until almost all the flux in the deconvolved image of the guide star was contained within a single pixel. The following convergence criterion was adopted: iterations ceased when less than 5% of the guide star flux remained outside the one-pixel spike. This was generally achieved after a few hundred iterations. Reducing the residual to, say, 1% was much more computationally expensive, required thousands of iterations, and did not significantly improve the final results. It should be pointed out that no number of iterations will reduce the residual to zero. For example, one can imagine that if the centroid of the star is not centered on a pixel, deconvolution cannot leave a spike that is restricted to just one pixel. To help remedy this, we applied sub-pixel shifts to the images so that the guide-star was centered on a pixel. The residuals for stars at off-axis positions are all larger than that for the guide-star, and less sensitive to positional errors.

This deconvolution process generates the PSF kernel maps discussed in Section 1. The kernel changes with increasing offset from the guide star, and the degree of change indicates the severity of degradation in the off-axis PSF. Within a few arcseconds of the guide-star, the kernel can be approximated by a delta-function, but at larger offset it is more Gaussian in shape. Offsets between 20″ and 40″ are of particular interest. Despite anisoplanicity, AO still provides useful correction at these offsets. However, these offsets are larger than the typical FOV of imagers currently available with AO on large telescopes. Thus, simultaneous observation of the guide star and target is not possible, and some means of calibrating the off-axis PSF is needed.

Figure 6 shows radial plots of kernels for an offset of 25″. The kernels for the M 5 (CFHT) data are shown on the left, and two of the ten kernels for the M 15 (Lick) data are shown on the right. For the CFHT data, the filled circles represent the kernel from the first mosaic, while the open circles represent the second mosaic. For the Lick data, the filled circles represent the second mosaic and the open circles represent the eighth mosaic. These mosaics were chosen because they represent the worst-case largest possible difference in on-axis Strehl ratio. Each datum represents a pixel, and no azimuthal averaging has been done. One-dimensional Gaussian fits to the data are overplotted for comparison. For CFHT, the FHWM of the fit is $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}15`$, while for Lick it is $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}25`$. The overlap of the filled and open circles indicates that, for both the CFHT and Lick kernels, the separate kernel estimates roughly agree. The scatter in the data is due to variation in $`r_0`$ during the observation and to the elongation of the kernel towards the guide-star, but the true shape of the kernel is somewhat complicated. It is not described by, say, a simple two-dimensional Gaussian with a fixed ellipticity. For example, the wings of the CFHT kernel can be fit by a Gaussian but the same profile is too broad for the core. The wings of the Lick kernel fall off faster than a Gaussian profile. To help illustrate this, 2-dimensional representations of the CFHT and Lick kernels are inset in Figure 6. Each image is an average of the same data displayed in the plot. Note the complex asymmetric shapes of both.

We are in the process of parameterizing the variation of the kernel with field position and have collected more data with Lick AO to assist in that work. We leave that analysis for a future paper. This paper deals with the kernel maps in an empirical way and will use them directly to predict the off-axis PSF.

### 3.3 Predicting the Off-Axis PSF

A goal of the observations was to determine if the reconstruction technique outlined in Section 1 could measure the AO PSF over a large FOV and predict it under different seeing conditions. Our sample of mosaics consists of long thin strips, and therefore we cannot use them to measure a change in the PSF with varying position angle about the guide star. However, a simple test can check whether a kernel map generated with different on-axis seeing conditions can be used to find the first-order radial variation in the off-axis PSF. The test is this: reproduce the star field based on a PSF variation map generated from a different observation of that same star field. The best means of demonstrating this is to reconstruct an off-axis PSF with the use of only an image of the on-axis guide-star and the PSF kernel map. Then we can compare this reconstructed PSF with the real image of that star. For high Strehl ratios, above roughly 30%, comparison of the peak brightnesses is the proper figure of merit, because the FWHM will change little. For lower Strehl ratios, FWHM becomes more relevant. Except for the first M 5 (catalog ) observation, the Strehl ratio was 12% or less for all of the strips. Thus, for the most part FWHM and not Strehl ratio is a better measure of image quality for our data. We therefore normalized the predicted PSF to have the same peak intensity as the data and compared their FWHM. Our more careful discussion of errors is left for the M 15 (catalog ) data, where Strehl ratio is 10% or lower.

Figure 7 shows the azimuthally averaged PSF of the guide star in M 5 (catalog ) (CFHT) and similarily averaged PSFs of stars at radial distances of approximately 15″ and 25″. The filled circles represent actual data from the second mosaic while the dashed curves represent the normalized, average PSF profiles from the first mosaic. The solid line is the PSF for that location reconstructed from the PSF kernel using the first mosaic data. The dashed curves are what we would predict the PSF to be at a later point in the night if all that was available was the mosaic from earlier in the night. The model is clearly a better fit to the data than the earlier PSFs even though it underpredicts the FWHM. At an offset of 25″ the model predicts a FWHM 31% too small, but without the model the prediction would be in error by 120%.

Figure 8 is similar to Figure 7 but shows the azimuthally averaged PSFs for M 15 (catalog ) (Lick). Here a kernel map generated with the eighth M 15 (catalog ) mosaic was used to predict the PSFs during the second M 15 (catalog ) mosaic observation. These mosaics were chosen because they represent the worst-case largest possible difference in on-axis Strehl ratio. The results are qualitatively similar to those for CFHT, but here the predicted FWHM is broader than the data by 44%. Without the model, the prediction would be an underestimate and in error by 69%.

The availability of several mosaics allows us to estimate the uncertainty in predicting the PSF for the Lick data. First, each of the guide-star images was used to predict the PSF at an offset of 25″, i.e. without accounting for anisoplanatism at all. The FWHM was found to be in error by 60% on average. The model was then applied. Each of the images was generated using each of the other kernel maps. Figure 9 gives results of comparing the observed and predicted FWHM for a star at an offset of 25″. The error in predicted FWHM is plotted against the difference in number of corrected modes in the mosaic used for the kernel map versus the predicted mosaic. The number of corrected modes was assigned according to the determination in Section 3.1. This plot shows a clear correlation. The trend is towards over-estimating the FWHM when a mosaic with too few corrected modes is used to predict the PSF. The mosaics with highest on-axis Strehl ratios, or equivalently, the highest number of corrected modes were obtained at the lowest airmasses. This suggests that calibration observations should be taken at equivalent or lower airmasses than target observations. Following this prescription and assuming that an under-estimate and over-estimate of FWHM are equally undesirable, we can determine the mean error in predicting the PSF. If we had simply used a star at an offset of 25″ to predict the PSF, the mean absolute error would be 33%. For the model PSFs it is 19%; an improvement by a factor of 1.7. Note that an error of 19% in predicting the PSF is also consistent with the 25% uncertainty in Strehl ratio for the Lick mosaics. Thus the major source of error in prediction of the PSF can be attributed to variation in AO correction, and thus plausibly to variation in $`r_0`$, during construction of the mosaics. But variation in $`r_0`$ is not the only way to account for the error. Variation in $`N`$ and not $`r_0`$ could arise from poorer correction due to the presence of cirrus, for example. This highlights how difficult it is to make a meaningful empirical prediction, and that the best method would provide independent measurements of $`r_0`$, $`\overline{h}`$, and $`N`$. The trend in Figure 9 suggests one path to decreasing the error. The second-order effect of lower angular decorrelation with smaller $`N`$ could be measured, and an appropriate model for increasing the off-axis kernel size developed.

## 4 Conclusions

We have discussed observations of dense star fields for the purpose of calibrating AO off-axis PSFs at CFHT and Lick Observatory. The results of our simulations suggest that a simple model with a single thin turbulence layer is a useful model for our data. For both the M 5 (catalog ) and M 15 (catalog ) observations, a dominant layer at between 2 and 5 km above the telescope and a low number of corrected modes reproduces the anisoplanicity seen in the data.

A semi-empirical technique was applied that utilizes these findings to improve the prediction of AO off-axis PSFs. The results show this simple method reduces error in the prediction of the basic radial variation in the PSF. We have insufficient data to determine if it can predict the suspected variation in anisoplanicity due to position angle about the guide star. The observations of M 15 (catalog ) suggest that a single calibration observation of a dense stellar field is a useful prediction of anisoplanicity over the course of a night, or even for a different night, at least for the atmospheric conditions present at Lick Observatory. Errors in prediction of FWHM with this method are approximately 19% compared to 33% without any on-axis information, and 60% without any anisoplanatic correction at all. For maximum accuracy the number of corrected modes should be similar, or larger, in the calibration image. The accuracy of determining anisoplanicity from a calibration image is limited because the effects of $`r_0`$, $`\overline{h}`$, and $`N`$ are intertwined. Better results could be realized by separating these effects through independent measurement of $`C_n^2`$.

The simulations help us understand why the method is successful, if only modestly. The dominant-layer height evidently does not change during a night or from night to night significantly enough to dramatically alter the isoplanatic patch delivered by the system. Obtaining a calibration image that measures this anisoplanicity is, however, a difficult task. A mosaiced image must be completed quickly, before variations in delivered Strehl ratio ruin the measurement. Each of our mosaics was constructed in under 10 minutes, but variation in Strehl ratio by 15% to 50% during that time ultimately limited the accuracy of the results.

In September 2001 we again used the Lick AO system but this time employed its laser beacon to acquire more calibration observations of dense star fields. Instead of narrow strips, coverage of a large box-shaped region of sky was obtained. This will allow us to characterize anisoplanatic behavior both radially away from and azimuthally about the guide star. Future observations would also benefit from confirmatory SCIDAR measurements of the $`C_n^2`$ profile.

We would like to thank the staffs of the CFHT and Lick Observatories, and for the helpful comments of the referee, Olivier Lai. ES acknowlegdges support from the University of Victoria Department of Physics and Astronomy. The CFHT observations and some preliminary analyses were carried out while he was a graduate student there. Portions of this work were performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center for Adaptive Optics, managed by the University of California at Santa Cruz under cooperative agreement No. AST-9876783.


format: text

text:
# The Wind Momentum-Luminosity relationship: blue supergiants in the spiral galaxy NGC 300

## 1. Introduction

The theory of radiatively driven winds predicts a relationship between the modified wind momentum and a power of stellar luminosity:

$$\mathrm{log}(\dot{M}v_{\mathrm{}}R)=x\mathrm{log}L+const$$

wher $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass-loss rate, $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ the wind terminal velocity and $`R`$ the stellar radius. Empirical verifications of this Wind Momentum-Luminosity Relationship (WLR) have so far been carried out for O stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds by Puls et al. (1996), and for Galactic and M31 B and A supergiants by Kudritzki et al. (1999). The brightest A-type supergiants in galaxies are extremely bright, with $`M_V`$ up to $`10`$, making the WLR a potential extragalactic distance indicator. However, extensive work still needs to be carried out on the empirical calibration of the relation and on the theoretical modeling of the effects of stellar metallicity and spectral type.

## 2. A-type supergiants in NGC 300

We have carried out a spectroscopic survey of blue supergiants in the Sculptor galaxy NGC 300 (Cepheid distance $``$ 2 Mpc) with multiobject spectroscopy at 5 Å resolution with VLT/FORS (Bresolin et al. 2002). These data enable us to determine spectral type, metallicity, effective temperature and reddening of the confirmed blue supergiants. In addition, the stellar mass-loss rate can be derived from the H$`\alpha `$ line profile.

For our analysis we have selected six late-B to early-A (B8-A2) supergiants, whose spectra appear uncontaminated by nebular emission. Stellar gravities and mass-loss rates have been measured by means of profile fits to the H$`\gamma `$ and H$`\alpha `$ lines, adopting the NLTE line formation code of Santolaya-Rey, Puls & Herrero (1997). The modified wind momentum has been derived from the measured $`\dot{M}`$ and the known distance (which, together with the apparent magnitude, provides the stellar radius), and by assuming a terminal velocity $`v_{\mathrm{}}=150`$ km/s. This is currently the major source of uncertainty, since $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ cannot be measured at the resolution of our spectra.

We show in Fig. 1 the resulting WLR for the six supergiants in NGC 300 (squares), compared with the relationship for an equal number of A-type supergiants in the Milky Way and M31 (circles; from Kudritzki et al. 1999). Also plotted are new theoretical models accounting for the metallicity dependence of the wind momentum, calculated for solar and 0.4 solar metallicity. The latter value corresponds to the oxygen abundance derived from the H ii region galactic radial abundance gradient (Zaritsky, Kennicutt & Huchra 1994) and measured at the mean galactocentric distance of our supergiant sample ($``$ 5 Kpc). We find a reasonable agreement between the data points and the models, which predict $`\dot{M}v_{\mathrm{}}RZ^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha 0.8`$. Our next step will be to further investigate the systematics of the WLR in terms of stellar parameters ($`\mathrm{log}g`$, $`T_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}}`$, metallicity).

## References

Bresolin, F., Gieren, W., Kudritzki, R.-P., Pietrzyński, G., & Przybilla, N., 2002, ApJ, 567, 277

Kudritzki, R.-P., Puls, J., Lennon, D.J., Venn, K.A., Reetz, J., Najarro, F., McCarthy, J.K., & Herrero, A. 1999, A&A, 350, 970

Puls, J., Kudritzki, R.-P., Herrero, A., et al. 1996, A&A, 305, 171

Santolaya-Rey, A.E., Puls, J., & Herrero, A. 1997, A&A, 323, 488

Zaritsky, D., Kennicutt, R.C., & Huchra, J.P. 1994, ApJ, 420, 87


text:
# Theorem 1.

Characterization of the set of “ergodic directions” in the Novikov’s problem of quasi-electrons orbits in normal metals

Roberto De Leo

Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Cagliari, deleo@unica.it

Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Maryland, rdl@math.umd.edu

## Abstract

Novikov’s problem of semiclassical orbits of quasi-electrons in a normal metal leads to a correspondance between 3-ply periodic functions in $``$ and fractals in $`P^2`$. These fractals are the complement of infinitely many open sets labeled by integer 2-cycles of $`𝕋^3`$. Here we present a characterization of the fractal points in terms of the open sets labels.

It was well known by physicists since late fifties that the qualitative behaviour of conduction in normal metals under a strong uniform magnetic field is dictated by the topological properties of the orbits of electrons quasi-momenta. Although, no substantial progress was made from the topological point of view until eighties, when Novikov \[Nov82\] noticed that a beautiful topological structure was hidden inside this problem and its pupils found its main properties.

In a normal metal, i.e. an ions lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$, quasi-momenta $`(p_1,p_2,p_3)\left(^3\right)^{}`$ are defined modulo a vector of the dual lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\left(^3\right)^{}`$ and their orbits are given by the intersection between a level surface of the dispersion law $`\epsilon (p)`$ and the bundle of planes perpendiculat to the magnetic field $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(𝕋^3)`$. Therefore the mathematical setting of this Novikov problem is very simple: given a smooth function $`f:𝕋^3`$ we want to study the existence and the topological properties of the open intersections (if any) between a level surface $`M_c^2`$ of $`f`$ and the level sets of a constant 1-form $`\omega `$ as a function of the direction of $`\omega `$ and of the level sets of $`f`$.

After the fundamental results found by Zorich \[Zor84\] and Dynnikov \[Dyn93,Dyn97\] the following picture emerged: every function $`f`$ induces on the space $`P^2`$ of directions of $`\omega `$ two functions $`c_{m,M}:P^2`$ s.t. the set $`c_m(\omega )c_M(\omega )`$ is the disjoint union of open sets $`S_i`$, each of them labeled by an element $`l_i`$ of $`H_2(𝕋^3,)`$; moreover, the complement $`F`$ of the union of $`S_i`$ has a fractal structure.

The meaning of all this construction is the following: if $`c_m(\omega )<c<c_M(\omega )`$ then $`\omega `$, that belongs to some $`S_{i_0}`$, induces on $`M_c^2`$ both closed and open orbits and such open orbits are strongly asymptotic to the intersection between a plane perpendicular to $`\omega `$ and $`l_{i_0}`$ (in the universal covering), while if $`c<c_m(\omega )`$ or $`c_M(\omega )<c`$ only closed orbits appear. The set $`c_m(\omega )=c_M(\omega )`$ instead is the union of the boundaries $`S_i`$ and of the set $`E`$ of the so-called “ergodic directions”, i.e. the directions of $`\omega `$ that induce on $`M_c^2`$ open orbits that fill components of genus bigger than 2 \[DL99\].

In this communication we present a simple characterization of the ergodic direction with maximal degree of irrationality:

###### Theorem 1.

The 3-irrational accumulation points of $`\{l_i\}`$ are exactly the 3-irrational ergodic directions.

To prove this theorem we need to prove three properties of the set $`E`$ of ergodic directions, that has being proved to be not empty in \[DL99\].

###### Lemma 1.

For any generic function $`f`$, in any neighborhood $`U_\omega `$ of any direction $`\omega S_iE`$ there are infinitely many stability zones.

###### Proof.

In both cases the neighborhood will not be contained in a single zone. Every rational inside $`U_\omega `$ (or inside $`U_\omega (S_iS_i)`$ if the point lies on boundary of zone $`i`$) is contained in some stability zone \[Dyn99\], so there is at least another class. Removing from $`U_\omega `$ a finite number of classes that do not contain it cannot exhaust its points because the boundaries of these closed sets cannot coincide in more than a countable set of points, so there will be always some open set left and therefore there will be inifitely many zones.

As the size of a zone must go to zero as $`l_i\mathrm{}`$, infinitely many of them will be completely contained inside it. ∎

The second result we need is a recent Dynnikov’s proposition \[Dyn99\] that claims that the direction of every label converges to the corresponding stability zone:

###### Lemma 2.

$`d(S_i,l_i)O(l_i^1)`$ for $`l_i\mathrm{}`$

Let us point out that for this proposition, essential for our main result, Dynnikov offers only convincing arguments and not a rigorous proof, that we plan to provide soon.

Dynnikov’s lemma has an obvious corollary that up to now has never been explicitly stated:

###### Corollary 1.

Given any function $`f`$, there are infinitely many directions in $`H_2(𝕋^3,)`$ that do not correspond to any stability zones.

###### Proof.

Choose any point inside a stability zone and be $`d`$ its distance from the boundary. Close to it, say within $`d/2`$ from it, there are inifinitely many 1-rational directions such that, when represented by elements of $`H_2(𝕋^3,)`$, their length will be so big that the zone with that name will have to lie inside a disc of radius smaller than $`d/2`$. Of course no such homology class but one can be the label of a stability zone. ∎

Last lemma illustrates the relation between the labels of the stability zones $`S_i`$ and the complement of their union $`S_i`$:

###### Lemma 3.

$`\overline{\{l_i\}}=S_iE`$

###### Proof.

It is basically a corollary from Dynnikov’s lemma and our lemma 1. Indeed, let $`\omega S_iE`$ and consider the balls $`B(\omega ,ϵ)`$ and $`B(\omega ,ϵ^{})`$: inside both balls, by our lemma, there are inifitely many zones, and, in particular, for every $`ϵ`$ we can choose an $`ϵ^{}ϵ`$ so small that all zones fully contained in it will have a label so big that $`d(S_j,l_j)ϵ/2`$. Taking now $`ϵ^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{min}(ϵ^{},ϵ/2)`$ we have that $`S_jB(\omega _i,ϵ/2)`$ and $`d(S_j,l_j)ϵ/2`$, so that finally $`d(\omega _i,l_j)ϵ`$, i.e. $`l_jB(\omega ,ϵ)`$.

Taking $`ϵ=1/n`$ we can use the above construction to generate a sequence of elements in $`\{l_j\}`$ converging to $`\omega `$. ∎

Putting together this few facts we are able to prove easily the main thorem:

###### Proof.

Boundaries contain at most 2-irrational directions, as they contain a rank-1 subset of lattice points, and therefore all 3-irrational directions asymptotically reached by $`l_i`$ must be ergodic, and all of them are reached because of Lemma 3. ∎

Acknowledgments

The author is in debt with his advisor S.P. Novikov for many fruitful discussions and suggestions and with I. Dynnikov for many technical discussions on the topic. The author also acknowledge financial support from Indam for its PhD at the UMD and from the Math Dept. at the U. of Roma for the project Cofin2000 “Proprietà geometriche delle varietà reali e complesse”


text:
# Evolution of the X-ray Properties of Clusters of Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

The evolution of cosmic structure is strongly dependent on the cosmology of the universe. Jenkins et al. (1998) is one of the many papers describing this well known result. Clusters of galaxies, as the most massive bound objects known, are the ultimate manifestations of cosmic structure building. The evolution of clusters is simple, being driven by the gravity of the underlying mass field of the universe and of a collisionless collapse of cluster dark matter. It should be possible to calculate this evolution reliably compared to that of other objects visible at cosmological distances such as galaxies or AGN. Clusters are luminous X-ray sources. The X-ray emission mechanism is optically thin thermal radiation from a medium nearly in collisional equilibrium, about the simpliest situation imaginable. Thus observations of the X-ray evolution of clusters provide a robust measure of the evolution of cosmic structure and thereby constrain the cosmology of the universe.

The cosmological model is described by a set of cosmological parameters. The present value of the Hubble parameter is $`\mathrm{H}_0100\mathrm{h}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. When needed h = 0.5 will be used, but almost nothing about evolution depends on the precise value of h since data at two epochs are always compared. The present matter and dark energy densities in terms of the critical density are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ respectively. The amount of structure in the universe is described by $`\sigma _8`$, the present rms matter fluctuations in spheres of $`8\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. This parameter is a complicated way to describe the present normalization of the spatial power spectrum of matter density fluctuations, P(k), on a scale of k $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.2}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$: $`\sigma _8[\mathrm{P}(0.172\mathrm{h}\mathrm{Mpc}^1)/3879\mathrm{h}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3]^{1/2}`$ (Peacock, 1999 equations 16.13 and 16.132). The dark energy equation of state is P = w $`\rho `$ c2. If w = -1, then the dark energy is the cosmological constant, if $`1<\mathrm{w}<0`$ it is termed Quintessence. Recall that w = 0 is cold dark matter and w = 1/3 is radiation. Cluster temperature evolution provides constraints on all of the above cosmological parameters except h.

When needed, two specific cases will be considered. The X-ray astronomer’s universe where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$. This combination was known to be correct ten years ago. The other case may be called the bandwagon universe where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.7`$. This combination is known to be correct today. Both universes are spatially flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=1`$.

## 2. Cluster Luminosity - Temperature Relation Evolution

The relation between cluster X-ray luminosities and temperatures (L - T relation) is the oldest and best studied among cluster X-ray observables. Early studies include Mitchell, Ives & Culhane (1977), Mushotzky et al. (1978) and Henry & Tucker (1979). Recent comprehensive work includes David et al. (1993), White, Jones & Forman (1997), Markevitch (1998) and Arnaud & Evrard (1999). Figure 1 shows an example of this relation using a sample of 53 $`z<0.3`$ and 32 $`0.3z0.6`$ clusters all with ASCA temperatures (Novicki, Sornig, & Henry, 2002).

Although there is clearly a relation in Figure 1, there is also substantial non-statistical scatter. The scatter is approximately Gaussian distributed in the logarithm of the luminosity at constant temperature. The dispersion in the logarithm of the bolometric luminosity, $`\sigma \mathrm{logL}(\mathrm{bol})`$, is about 0.2. The scatter is reduced if the effects of the cluster cooling centers are removed, either by modeling them (Allen & Fabian, 1998), excising them (Markevitch, 1998), or only using clusters that do not have cooling centers (Arnaud & Evrard, 1999).

Most observers adopt the simple functional form $`L(bol)=C[kT]^\alpha (1+Z)^A`$, where $`L(bol)`$ is the bolometric luminosity, to describe their results. The observations indicate that $`\alpha 3`$. However, simple scaling relations predict $`\alpha =2`$ and $`A=1.5`$. This $`\alpha `$ discrepancy is usually resolved by positing that the cluster gas has experienced some form of preheating prior to its heating through gravitational collapse (Evrard & Henry, 1991; Kaiser, 1991; Bialek, Evrard, & Mohr 2001; Tozzi & Norman, 2001; Bower et al., 2001). Preheating raises the temperatures of low mass clusters more than those of high mass, thereby breaking the scaling relations. These preheating models predict little or no evolution of the L - T relation, at least to redshifts $`1`$. For example, the model in Evrard & Henry (1991) has $`\alpha =2.5`$ and $`A=0`$. An alternative to this idea invokes cooling, which is more efficient at lower temperatures, and a small amount of post collapse heating to break the scaling (Voit & Bryan, 2001). Little evolution is expected in this model as well. Thus the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`A`$ provide clues to the thermodynamic history of the cluster gas.

It has recently become possible to constrain the evolution of the L - T relation, thereby testing these scenarios. Figure 2 shows the constraints derived by Novicki et al. (2002). The evolution is mild; A is consistent with 0 at the $`1\sigma `$ level. Similar results have been found by Henry, Jiao, & Gioia (1994), Mushotzky & Scharf (1997), Sadat et al. (1998), Donahue et al. (1999), Reichart, Castander & Nichol (1999), Fairley et al. (2000), and Arnaud, Aghanian & Neumann (2002). Little or no evolution may then imply that the thermodynamic history of cluster gas is more complicated than simply falling into the cluster potential well, at least for low mass clusters. There was possibly some additional heating prior to collapse and/or cooling after collapse.

## 3. Cluster X-ray Luminosity Evolution

The initial claim for cluster X-ray luminosity evolution was made over a decade ago by Gioia et al. (1990) and Henry et al. (1992) using the Einstein Extended Medium Sensitivity Survey (EMSS). The reported evolution was in the sense that there are fewer high luminosity clusters in the past. This conclusion has not enjoyed universal acceptance. However, there are now many new samples of clusters, both at high and low redshift, with which it may be tested.

### 3.1. Cluster X-ray Luminosity Samples

Clusters are not standard luminosity candles. Therefore, searching for luminosity evolution requires measuring the X-ray luminosity function at two epochs and that requires constructing statistically complete samples at the two epochs. Fortunately, measuring the X-ray luminosity is relatively easy. It only requires $`25`$ photons for a $`5\sigma `$ luminosity measurement, so large samples are possible with relatively modest observing time.

Table 1 gives some properties of low redshift (here defined as $`z<0.3`$) statistically complete cluster luminosity samples. Not included in Table 1 are the RASS1 Bright Sample (De Grandi et al., 1999), which is a subsample of REFLEX and the eBCS sample (Ebeling et al., 2000), which adds another 100 clusters at $`\mathrm{F}(0.1,2.4)>2.8\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{e}rgcm^2s^1`$ to the BCS but is 75% complete. The REFLEX sample was constructed from the second (i.e. fully merged) processing of the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS2).

Table 2 gives some properties of the high redshift cluster luminosity samples. Note that most of these samples also have low redshift objects, but only the numbers of $`z>0.3`$ objects are listed in the table. The EMSS sample is from Einstein Observatory observations, the other samples are from ROSAT. The MACS and NEP samples come from the RASS2, i.e. they are contiguous, all other samples are from disjoint targeted observations with a region around the target excised.

Typically, low redshift cluster samples contain several hundred X-ray bright objects coming from one-third of the sky. High redshift samples usually contain several tens of faint objects coming from less than one-percent of the sky.

### 3.2. Test For Cluster X-ray Luminosity Evolution In Seven High Redshift Samples

Since the evolution appears to be a lack of objects at high luminosities, simply comparing the binned low and high redshift differential luminosity functions will not use the full statistical power of the sample. In the limit that the evolution is a downward step function above a certain luminosity, such a comparison will show no difference between the two epochs (unless upper limits are plotted).

A more sensitive test is to compare the observed number of high-redshift, high-luminosity clusters to the expected number if the low redshift luminosity function did not evolve. This test accounts for clusters that could have been found but were not.

Specifically, the test used here compares the number of observed clusters with luminosities in the 0.5 - 2.0 keV band $`2\times 10^{44}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (except MACS, whose selection function limits the lowest luminosity to $`2.9\times 10^{44}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and with $`0.3z1.0`$ to the expected number assuming the REFLEX low redshift luminosity function did not evolve. Each of the seven high redshift samples probes a different region of the L - z plane due to its different flux limit and solid angle. The average redshift and luminosity of the clusters after the above cuts for all seven samples is 0.495 and $`4.7\times 10^{44}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ respectively ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$). Figure 3 summarizes the results. All seven samples show evolution, most at a statistically significant level. The average ratio of the observed to no-evolution numbers is $`0.35\pm 0.04`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$, and $`0.29\pm 0.04`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.7`$.

Figure 3 also shows that one systematic effect, the assumed cosmology, is not important. Another systematic effect is the choice of the low-redshift luminosity function. Using the BCS instead of REFLEX yields a ratio of $`0.38\pm 0.04`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$ (the BCS investigators only gave results for this cosmology). Thus the choice of the low-redshift comparison luminosity function is also not important. The final systematic investigated was whether the test yields a null result, a ratio of 1, at low redshift. Figure 4 shows that it does. The average ratio of the observed to no-evolution numbers is $`1.03\pm 0.08`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$, and $`0.87\pm 0.08`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.7`$. This test is limited to five samples because the selection function for Bright SHARC has not been published at low redshift and MACS does not attempt to be complete at low redshift.

These results show that there is no longer a question of whether cluster X-ray luminosities evolve, they do. Seven nearly independent surveys show some evolution with a combined significance $`>15\sigma `$. Systematic effects do not appear to be important. The amount of evolution is about a factor of three at $`L(0.5,2.0)4.7\times 10^{44}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over the redshift range $`0.1`$ to $`0.5`$. It is now time to better characterize the evolution.

### 3.3. Characterizing Cluster Luminosity Evolution Using Two Large High Redshift Samples

The first large sample comes from combining the 160 deg2, EMSS and NEP samples, denoted HEN. There are 109 objects with L(0.5,2.0) $`1\times 10^{43}`$ $`\mathrm{e}rgs^1`$ and $`0.3z0.85`$. This size is comparable to the low-redshift samples. There are no clusters in common among the three samples and the overlap of their survey regions on the sky is small, only $`5\%`$, which has been accounted for statistically. The HEN sample is large enough that a simple comparison of the luminosity functions from it and REFLEX demonstrates the evolution clearly, as Figure 5 shows. A Schechter function fits both the REFLEX and HEN samples well. Figure 6 gives the 1, 2 and 3 $`\sigma `$ contours for the slope and characteristic luminosity, again demonstrating evolution at high statistical confidence. At least the Schechter function normalization and slope are evolving, but the charcteristic luminosity may not be. Comparison of HEN with REFLEX shows a factor of 2 evolution at L(0.5,2.0) $`=2\times 10^{44}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over the redshift interval 0.11 to 0.45 ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$).

It is the nature of flux-limited samples that different luminosity objects are predominately found at different redshifts. Thus the luminosity functions in Figure 5 do not refer to unique epochs. This situation may be overcome to some extent by fitting to an evolving luminosity function, termed the AC model. The AC model generalizes the Schechter funtion to: $`\mathrm{n}(\mathrm{L},\mathrm{z})=\mathrm{n}_0(\mathrm{z})\mathrm{L}^{\alpha (\mathrm{z})}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{L}/\mathrm{L}^{})`$, with $`\mathrm{n}_0(\mathrm{z})=\mathrm{n}_0(1+\mathrm{z})^\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\alpha (\mathrm{z})=\alpha _0(1+\mathrm{z})^\mathrm{C}`$. A maximum likelihood fit of the AC model to the unbinned luminosity and redshift pairs for the REFLEX and HEN clusters gives the following: $`\mathrm{n}_0=4.65_{0.64}^{+0.58}\times 10^7\mathrm{Mpc}^3(10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1)^{\alpha 1}`$, $`\mathrm{L}^{}=6.86_{1.96}^{+4.59}\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\alpha _0=(1.70_{0.13}^{+0.15})`$, A = -(1.17 $`\pm `$ 0.84), C = 0.90$`{}_{0.35}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.60}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$). The errors are at 68% confidence for 4 parameters with the error on $`\mathrm{n}_0`$ determined from letting the errors on the other 4 parameters take their extreme values. Figure 7 gives the best fitting AC luminosity functions, now at two particular epochs.

The second large high redshift sample is the Massive Cluster Survey or MACS. This survey seeks a large sample of high luminosity clusters at high redshift. About 300 objects are expected if there is no evolution. Presently the survey is $`90\%`$ complete and has 119 clusters. Note that in Section 3.2 an additional $`10\%`$ systematic error has been added in quadrqture to the MACS statistical errors.

A final sample of $`130`$ objects means that MACS detects evolution also at high significance. Figure 8 shows a nonparametric representation of this evolution, comparing the MACS and eBCS integral luminosity functions. The comparisons in Section 3.2 folded a model fit to the REFLEX luminosity function through each survey selection function. MACS finds a factor of $`10`$ evolution at L(0.1,2.4) $`>10^{45}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over the redshift interval 0.05 to 0.55 ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$). Figure 8 also shows that the AC model fits the MACS data well, with no adjustable parameters and with few clusters in common between eBCS/MACS and REFLEX/HEN.

Two high statistics, high redshift samples agree on the amount and nature of cluster X-ray luminosity evolution. The previous apparent disagreements were probably just poor statistics.

### 3.4. Constraining Cosmology From Cluster Luminosity Evolution

Given the discussion in the Introduction, the question naturally arises whether cluster luminosity evolution may be used to determine the cosmology of the universe. The difficulty is the extra evolution experienced by the gas in addition to that driven by gravity, as the L - T relation shows. Since X-ray luminosity is proportional to the square of the gas density, will this extra evolution be large enough to mask that from gravity? The weak evolution of the L - T relation shows that the extra evolution occured before what is currently observable, possibly allowing a simple correction. Comparing data to a theory that incorporates the observed L - T (or L - M) relation into the gravitational evolution predictions has in fact been used to constrain cosmological parameters from cluster luminosities (eg Henry et al., 1992; Borgani et al., 2001; Viana, Nichol & Liddle, 2002).

## 4. Cluster X-ray Temperature Evolution

Perhaps a cleaner way to measure the evolution of cosmic structure using X-ray observations of clusters is via cluster temperature evolution. The temperature is more likely to reflect better the underlying gravity driven evolution than the luminosity.

### 4.1. Cluster X-ray Temperature Samples

Clusters are not standard temperature temperature baths. Just as with luminosity evolution, measuring temperature evolution requires constructing temperature functions at two epochs. Again, statistically complete samples are required at the two epochs. However it is substantially more difficult to measure cluster temperatures than luminosities. At least 1000 photons are required to provide a reasonable temperature measurement. Obtaining large samples is difficult. Obtaining even two independent samples at high redshift has so far not been possible. Table 3 gives some properties of cluster temperature samples. The last column of the table gives the numbers of clusters with measured temperatures from ASCA and with temperatures estimated from the L - T relation.

The low redshift samples are comprised of bright well-known clusters and are all more or less the same. The Edge et al. and Henry & Arnaud samples come from non-imaging surveys, the rest of the low redshift samples come from ROSAT. The Markevitch and Ikebe et al. samples have corrections for cooling centers; about 20% of the Blanchard et al. sample has these corrections. The high redshift clusters are unresolved by ASCA, which, when combined with the low statistics, does not permit corrections for cooling centers. Figure 9 shows the integral temperature functions at two epochs. The same factor $`2`$ evolution seen in the luminosities is also seen in the temperatures.

### 4.2. Cosmological Results From Cluster X-ray Temperature Evolution

Deriving cosmological constraints from X-ray observations is a two-step process. The fundamental variable of the theory is an object’s mass so the process starts with a mass function. The analytic mass function that best matches the large N-body simulations comes from Sheth and Torman (1999). This function agrees better with the simulations than does the venerable Press - Schechter (1974) function. However, the differences are only a factor of $`2`$.

The evolution of the mass function is very sensitive to cosmological parameters, but the mass of a cluster is difficult to determine. So, the mass must be converted to a more easily observed quantity, in this case the temperature. A top hat collapse is most often used to do that. This theory gives $`\mathrm{kT}=1.42\beta _{\mathrm{TM}}^1[\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0},\mathrm{z})]^{1/3}(\mathrm{hM}_{15})^{2/3}(1+\mathrm{z})`$. Here $`\beta _{\mathrm{TM}}`$ is a factor near unity that accounts for the effects of partial virialization of the cluster. Its exact value comes from hydrodynamical simulations. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0},\mathrm{z})`$ is the ratio of the average cluster mass density to the background mass density for a cluster that collapses at redshift z. It has recently been determined for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ by Pierpaoli et al. (2001). M<sub>15</sub> is the cluster mass in units of $`10^{15}M_{}`$.

One final issue concerns the selection function. X-ray clusters are selected by flux, not temperature. That is the solid angle surveyed to a given flux limit is known. Pierpaoli et al. (2001) circumvent this by using the L - T relation to insure that their temperature and redshift selection was compatible with the flux limits of existing samples. Usually, the flux limit is recast as a limit in the luminosity-redshift plane and then the luminosity is converted to a temperature via the L - T relation. The dispersion in the L - T relation is included by averaging over it which gives the solid angle surveyed for a given cluster of temperature kT at redshift z:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{kT},\mathrm{z})=\frac{\mathrm{dlog}(\mathrm{L})\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{L},\mathrm{z})}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2(\mathrm{logL})}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{C}[\mathrm{kT}]^\alpha )\mathrm{logL})^2/2\sigma ^2(\mathrm{logL})$$

There has been a great deal of recent work in this area. Among the many results are: Bahcall & Fan (1998), Donahue & Voit (1999), Henry (2000; 2002), Pierpaoli et al. (2001), and Viana & Liddle (1999).

Constraints on cosmological parameters presented here come from a maximum liklihood fit of the evolution theory to the unbinned temperature and redshift data for the samples in Figure 9. There are four interesting parameters in the theory: the matter and dark energy densities and the shape and normalization of the matter power spectrum. The effects of temperature errors are included in the likelihood function. Figures 10 and 11 show some of the results (Henry, 2002).

Figure 10 shows that clusters provide a band of constraints in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ plane of comparable width but different orientation to those from supernovae and microwave background observations. Further, all three bands intersect at the same point in the plane. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.6`$ is consistent with all three data sets at the $`1\sigma `$ level. For example, Rubino-Martin et al. (2002) show that all CMB data reported to date, plus the supernovae data from Perlmutter et al. (1999a), plus assuming h = 0.4 - 0.9 yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=0.35\pm 0.04`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.68\pm 0.04`$ at 68% confidence.

The normalization of the power spectrum, $`\sigma _8`$, agrees with the microwave background normalization evolved to the present, Figure 11a. Thus the fluctuations seen in the CMB really do grow to form the clusters seen today. The present cluster sample size is not large enough to provide tight constraints on w, Figure 11b. However, w = -1 is a good bet considering the constraints provided by supernovae and the CMB.

### 4.3. Cluster X-ray Temperature Evolution Systematics

It is of course important to consider the effects of systematic errors on the constraints derived in the last section. The three effects considered here are: 1. Using the older Press - Schechter (1974) mass function; 2. Using an empirical normalization of the mass - temperature relation, i.e. $`\beta _{\mathrm{TM}}`$, from Finoguenov, Reiprich & Böhringer (2001) instead of a theoretical normalization; 3. Setting all temperature errors to 2% or the actual value, whichever is less. All systematics effects considered change the constraint on $`\sigma _8`$ by $`1\sigma `$, the constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$ by $`0.5\sigma `$ and the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ and w by $`1\sigma `$. Thus statistical errors appear to dominate the error budget with the present sample size of about fifty objects.

## 5. Conclusions

The L - T relation shows that the hot X-ray cluster gas experienced a more complicated thermodynamic history than that resulting from the cluster collapse. There was possibly some heating prior to collapse and/or cooling with lesser heating after collapse.

There is no longer a question whether cluster X-ray luminosities evolve, they do. Seven nearly independent surveys show some evolution and systematics do not appear to be a big effect. Large high redshift samples, i.e. those containing more than 100 clusters, are needed to characterize the evolution. Two such samples currently exist. HEN shows a factor of 2 evolution compared to REFLEX at L(0.5,2.0) $`=2\times 10^{44}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over the redshift interval 0.11 to 0.45 ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$). MACS shows a factor of 10 evolution compared to eBCS at L(0.1,2.4) $`>10^{45}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over the redshift interval 0.05 to 0.55 ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.0`$).

A cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}=0.6`$ is consistent with cluster X-ray temperature evolution, the cosmic microwave background and supernovae at the $`1\sigma `$ level. The systematics of cluster temperature evolution constraints on cosmology are a minor concern at present, i.e. they are about the same size as the statistical errors. However, this method is so statistically powerful that systematics will be the dominate effect as soon as the sample sizes become only a factor of two or three larger, at least for the determination of $`\sigma _8`$.

A more positive statement would be that an X-ray cluster survey of 10,000 deg2 to a flux of $`\mathrm{F}(0.5,2.0)>5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ would yield $`18,000`$ clusters to z $`1.5`$ and provide constraints of similar statistical quality as the upcoming Planck and the proposed SNAP missions (Petre et al., 2001). In fact the great complementarity of cluster evolution, cosmic microwave background, and supernovae constraints exhibited in Figure 10 would provide a check on the systematics of all three methods.

#### Acknowledgments.

Thanks are due to the organizers of our conference for one of the best meetings I have ever attended. Particular thanks go to the organizers of the special night sessions that were also great. I want to acknowledge my many collaborators with whom I have worked on cluster surveys over the years. These include: I. Gioia, C. Mullis, W. Voges, U. Briel, H. Böhringer and J. Huchra for the NEP; A. Vikhlinin, C. Mullis, I. Gioia, B. McNamara, A. Hornstrup, H. Quintana, K. Whitman, W. Forman, and C. Jones for the 160 deg2. Most of the work described here will eventually appear as publications coauthored with them. I thank H. Ebeling and L. Jones who provided results prior to publications for MACS and WARPS II and H. Böhringer who provided the digital data from Figure 20 of Böhringer et al. (2001).

## References

Allen, S. W. & Fabian, A. C. 1998, MNRAS, 297, L57

Arnaud, M. & Evrard, A. E. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 631

Arnaud, M., Aghanian, N. & Neumann, D. M. 2002, A&A, in press

Bahcall, N. A. & Fan, X. 1998, ApJ, 504, 1

Bean, R. & Melchiorri, A. 2001, astro-ph 0110472

Bialek, J. J., Evrard, E. A. & Mohr, J. J. 2001, ApJ, 555, 597

Blanchard, A., Sadat, R., Bartlett, J. G. & Le Dour, M. 2000, A&A, 362, 809

Böhringer, Schuecker, P., Guzzo, L., Collins, C. A., Voges, W., Schindler, S., Neumann, D. M., Cruddace, R. G., De Grandi, S., Chincarini, G., Edge, A. C., MacGillivray, H. T. & Shaver, P. 2001, A&A, 369, 826

Böhringer, H., Collins, C. A., Guzzo, L., Schuecker, P., Voges, W., Neumann, D. M., Schindler, S., Chincarini, G., DeGrandi, S., Cruddace, R. G., Edge, A. C., Reiprich, T. H., & Shaver, P. 2002, ApJ, 566, 93

Borgani, S., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., Stanford, S. A., Eisenhardt, P. R., Lidman, C., Holden, B., Della Ceca, R., Norman, C. & Squires, G. 2001, ApJ, 561, 13

Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Lacy, C. G., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S. & Frenk, C. S. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 497

David, L. P., Slyze, A., Jones, C., Forman, W., Vrtilek, S. D., & Arnaud, K. A. 1993, ApJ, 412, 479

De Grandi, S., Böhringer, H., Guzzo, L., Molendi, S., Chincarini, G., Collins, C., Cruddace, R., Neumann, D., Schindler, S., Schuecker, P., & Voges, W. 1999, ApJ, 514, 148

Donahue, M., Voit, G. M., Scharf, C. A., Gioia, I. M., Mullis, C. R., Hughes, J. P. & Stocke, J. T. 1999, ApJ, 527, 525

Donahue, M. & Voit, G. M. 1999, ApJ, 523, L137

Ebeling, H., Edge, A. C., Böhringer, H., Allen, S. W., Crawford, C. S., Fabian, A. C., Voges, W. & Huchra, J. P. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 881

Ebeling, H., Edge, A. C., Allen, S. W., Crawford, C. S., Fabian, A. C. & Huchra, J. P. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 333

Ebeling, H., Edge, A. C., & Henry, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 668

Edge, A. C., Stewart, G. C., Fabian, A. C. & Arnaud, K. A. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 559

Efstathiou, G. et al. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 29

Evrard, A. E. & Henry, J. P. 1991, ApJ, 383, 95

Fairley, B. W., Jones, L. R., Scharf, C., Ebeling, H., Perlman, E., Horner, D., Wegner, G. & Malkan, M. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 669

Finoguenov, A., Reiprich, T. H. & Böhringer, H. 2001, A&A, 368, 749

Gioia, I. M., Henry, J. P., Maccacaro, T., Morris, S. L., Stocke, J. T., & Wolter, A. 1990, ApJ, 356, L35

Gioia, I. M. & Luppino, G. A. 1994, ApJS, 94, 583

Henry, J. P. & Tucker W. 1979, ApJ, 229, 78

Henry, J. P. & Arnaud, K. A. 1991, ApJ, 372, 410

Henry, J. P., Gioia, I. M., Maccacaro, T., Morris, S. L., Stocke, J. T., & Wolter, A. 1992, ApJ, 386, 408

Henry, J. P., Jiao, L. & Gioia, I. M. 1994, ApJ, 432, 49

Henry, J. P. 2000, ApJ, 534, 565

Henry, J. P., Gioia, I. M., Mullis, C. R., Voges, W., Briel, U. G., Böhringer, H., & Huchra, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 553, L109

Henry, J. P. 2002, in preparation

Ikebe, Y., Reiprich, T. H., Böhringer, H., Tanaka, Y. & Kitayama, T. 2002, A&A, 383, 773

Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., Pearce, F. R., Thomas, P. A., Colberg, J. M., White, S. D. M., Couchman, H. M. P., Peacock, J. A., Efstahiou, G. & Nelson, A. H. 1998, ApJ, 499, 20

Jones, L., Ebeling, H., Scharf, C., Perlman, E., Horner, D., Fairley, B., Wegner, G. & Malkan, M. 2000, in “Large-Scale Structure in the X-ray Universe”, eds. M. Plionis & I. Georgantopoulos, Atlantisciences, Paris, France, p35

Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 383, 104

Markevitch, M. 1998, ApJ, 504, 27

Melchiorri, A. & Silk, J. 2002, astro-ph 0203200

Mitchell, R. J., Ives, J. C. & Culhane, J. L. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 25p

Mushotzky, R. F., Serlemitsos, P. J., Boldt, E. A., Holt, S. S. & Smith, B. W. 1978, ApJ, 225, 21

Mushotzky, R. F. & Scharf, C. A. 1997, ApJ, 482, L13

Novicki, M., Sornig, M. & Henry, J. P. 2002, AJ, submitted

Peacock, J. A. 1999, Cosmological Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999a, ApJ, 517, 565

Perlmutter, S., Turner, M. S. & White, M. 1999b, Phys.Rev.Lett, 83, 670

Petre, R. et al. 2001, DUET Proposal to NASA MIDEX Program

Pierpaoli, E., Scott, D. & White, M. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 77

Press, W. H. & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

Reichart, D. E., Castander, F. J. & Nichol, R. C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 1

Romer, A. K., Nichol, R. C., Holden, B. P., Ulmer, M. P., Pildis, R. A., Merrelli, A. J., Adami, C., Burke, D. J., Collins, C. A., Metevier, A. J., Kron, R. G. & Commons K. 2000, ApJS, 126, 209

Rosati, P. 2001, in “X-ray Astronomy 2000”, eds. R. Giacconi, S. Serio & L. Stella, ASP Conference Series 234, p363

Rubino-Martin, J. A. et al. 2002, astro-ph 0205367

Sadat, R., Blanchard, A. & Oukbir, J. 1998, A&A, 329, 21

Sheth, R. K. & Torman, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119

Tozzi, P. & Norman, C. 2001, ApJ, 546, 63

Viana, P. T. P. & Liddle, A. R. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 535

Viana, P. T. P., Nichol, R. C. & Liddle, A. R. 2002, ApJ, 569, L75

Vikhlinin, A., McNamara, B. R., Forman, W., Jones, C., Quintana, H. & Hornstrup, A. 1998, ApJ, 502, 558

Voit, G. M. & Bryan, G. L. 2001, Nature, 414, 425

White, D. A., Jones, C. & Forman, W. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 419