text:
# References

INR-TH/03-3

January 2003

Determination of the numerical value for the strong coupling constant from tau decays in perturbative QCD*** Talk given at 15th International Seminar “Quarks-2002”, Novgorod the Great, Russia, June 1-7, 2002

A.A. Pivovarov
Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences,

Moscow 117312

Abstract

The determination of the numerical value for the strong coupling constant from tau decays in perturbative QCD is briefly described. Main emphasis is made on the use of the renormalization scheme invariance of the theory for reducing uncertainties related to truncation of the series in the strong coupling constant. The analysis of the convergence of the series is presented and the possibility of the asymptotic growth at the NNNLO is discussed.

In this talk I briefly describe one aspect of $`\tau `$ physics – the use of data on $`\tau `$-lepton hadronic decays for extracting a numerical value of the strong coupling constant that is mainly based on the recent analysis presented in ref. . The accuracy of experimental data is steadily improving that provides a good opportunity for high precision tests of the theoretical description . The underlying theory of strong interactions – QCD  – describes the observables related to the physics of $`\tau `$-lepton hadronic decays within perturbation theory in the strong coupling constant, i.e. as a series expansion. The key question of theoretical description is a pattern of convergence of the related series. On general basis, it is believed that the series is asymptotic, however, in some concrete applications it can appear as a convergent series. Thus, establishing the accuracy with which the series, truncated in a given manner, represents the “full” result of perturbation theory calculation is a central question of using pQCD in low-energy phenomenology. The $`\tau `$-lepton hadronic decays is a good place to investigate this problem since the theoretical description of the process is very clean. Indeed, the basic quantity is the two-point correlator of hadronic currents in the Euclidean domain which has been calculated with a very high degree of accuracy within perturbation theory  (for a review see ). Nonperturbative corrections to the correlator are known to be small and under control within the operator product expansion . For comparison of experimental data with theoretical calculations one can choose inclusive observables that makes pQCD directly applicable to the description of the system . These features explain the interest attracted by the $`\tau `$-lepton hadronic decays for extracting numerical values of the parameters of the standard model at lower energies. These values can then be compared with the results of high energy experiments that provides a powerful consistency check of QCD (and the standard model as a whole) for energies from $`M_\tau =1.777\mathrm{GeV}`$ till $`M_Z=91.187\mathrm{GeV}`$ (e.g. ).

I discuss in some detail the procedure of extracting numerical values of $`\alpha _s`$ from $`\tau `$-data in perturbation theory. Since the numerical value of the expansion parameter $`\alpha _s`$ is not small at the $`M_\tau `$ scale the contribution of higher order terms in the perturbation theory series can be significant. There are arguments that the accuracy of finite-order perturbation theory is already close to its asymptotic limit . Therefore a kind of resummation is necessary. A powerful technique is $`1/N_F`$ expansion (e.g. ) that leads to renormalon-type resummation  that can be formulated as an integral of the running coupling constant in momentum space. This technique is often used in the analysis based on Dyson-Schwinger equations . The result of the resummation under the integration sign depends strongly on the interpretation of higher order terms, e.g . The resummation of contributions related to the running of the coupling constant in QCD was used as a basis for the tau lepton decays analysis in contour improved perturbation theory .

The central point to be discussed in the talk is an explicit use of renormalization group invariance of the theory in order to analyze the $`\tau `$-lepton decay rate in the most optimal way within perturbation theory. Renormalization group invariance is a fundamental property of perturbation theory in quantum field theory which is (formally) related to the freedom in defining the subtraction procedure . Its explicit compliance may make a numerical analysis more reliable and stable. Note that it can be viewed in a broader context as an optimal choice of the starting point for the perturbative expansion, i.e. the way of splitting the whole Hamiltonian into two parts: the leading one that is considered to be large and “perturbation” that is considered to be small and can be taken within perturbation theory. The influence of the proper choice of the initial approximation on the accuracy of the analysis can be clearly seen in model examples  or in the framework of effective theories . In QCD the renormalization group invariance allows one to formally perform the numerical analysis in any renormalization scheme because all schemes are connected by a renormalization group transformation . In the finite-order perturbation theory approach this equivalence is only approximate and broken by higher order terms which introduce numerical differences into the results obtained in different renormalization schemes for the same quantities. Generally there many ways of using perturbation theory calculations. One is to find direct relations between physical observables which are renormalization group invariant. Then perturbation theory calculations are just a purely intermediate step for finding formal relations between observables (see, e.g. ) and no numerical analysis for renormalization scheme noninvariant quantities is performed. Indeed, let the perturbation theory expressions for two observables $`𝒪_{1,2}`$ in a given scheme have the form

$$𝒪_1=\alpha _s+r_1\alpha _s^2+O(\alpha _s^3),𝒪_2=\alpha _s+r_2\alpha _s^2+O(\alpha _s^3).$$
(1)
Then the perturbation theory relation between observables $`𝒪_{1,2}`$ reads

$$𝒪_2=𝒪_1+(r_2r_1)𝒪_1^2+O(𝒪_1^3)$$
(2)
and is scheme-independent. The difference $`r_2r_1`$ takes the same value for calculations in any scheme. Another way of using the result of perturbation theory calculations is to extract numerical values for renormalization scheme noninvariant quantities (as the coupling constant in a fixed scheme) and then use it for predictions of different observables. The truncation of the perturbation theory series leads to numerical violations of renormalization scheme invariance and plays an essential role. In our simple example this means that the relations in eq. (1) are treated as quadratic functions of $`\alpha _s`$ in some fixed scheme and the accuracy of extraction of the coupling constant value (and prediction of other observables) depends drastically on the scheme used, i.e. on the numerical values of the coefficients $`r_{1,2}`$. This happens because the accuracy is estimated in a heuristic way by considering the apparent convergence or the magnitude of the last term. There is an analogy with gauge invariance (or any other symmetry): one can either work with invariant quantities or fix the gauge and compute in terms of noninvariant quantities but the final result for physical observables (in a gauge invariant sector) will be the same. In practical application it is realized, for instance, as calculation in covariant or external field gauges.

The concrete example of this talk is the extraction of a numerical value for the coupling constant which is not an immediate physical quantity. By convention the reference value of the coupling constant that is used to compare between different experiments is fixed to be the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme one. However, this does not necessarily mean that for its extraction from a given experiment the numerical analysis should be performed in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme. It can be numerically accurate to analyze the system in its internal scheme and after finding numerical values for the internal parameters translate them into the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme using renormalization scheme transformation. This program is based on explicit renormalization scheme covariance of the theory (as calculations in different gauges are only possible (i.e. meaningful) for the gauge invariant sector of gauge theories). Note that the analogy with gauge is not quite complete: gauge invariance is exact order by order in perturbation theory while the renormalization scheme invariance is only exact for a ’full’ quantity while for truncated series it is only accurate precise with accuracy the order of the value of the first omitted term. Note also that gauge invariant quantities could not always be put into the same order of perturbation series. The approach used below, in practice, means that any scheme is allowed for the analysis of a particular quantity while the transition between the schemes is considered to be exact. Therefore numerical values obtained in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme directly and through renormalization group transformations can differ. In fact, in the spirit of the perturbation theory the internal scheme results are most reliable physically and are more stable numerically than the results of the standard analysis in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme. The numerical values for the reference $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme parameters are obtained by a renormalization group transformation from the numerical values found in the internal schemes. Renormalization group transformation is a quite formal operation and can be controlled numerically. For instance, the change of scale is a renormalization group transformation.

We consider a simplest example that exhibits relevant features –the normalized $`\tau `$-lepton decay rate into nonstrange hadrons $`H_{S=0}`$ that is given by

$$R_{\tau S=0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau H_{S=0}\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau l\overline{\nu }\nu )}=N_c|V_{ud}|^2S_{EW}(1+\delta _P+\delta _{EW}+\delta _{NP})$$

where $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors. The first term in eq. (S0.Ex1) is the parton model result, the second term $`\delta _P`$ represents perturbative QCD effects. $`V_{ud}`$ is the flavor mixing matrix element . The factor $`S_{EW}`$ is an electroweak correction term  and $`\delta _{EW}=0.001`$ is an additive electroweak correction . The nonperturbative corrections are rather small and consistent with zero; $`\delta _{NP}=0.003\pm 0.003`$ (see e.g. ). For numerical estimates the factorization approximation for four-quark condensates is essential: it has been studied within $`x`$ space sum rules and found to be under control . Note that recently the problem of duality violation for two-point correlators has been discussed . However, no established quantitative estimates of that violation are available yet. This problem can affect the numerical value of the coupling extracted from the analysis because of the numerical change of the quantity $`\delta _P`$ extracted from eq. (S0.Ex1). However, no established quantitative estimates of that violation are available yet. We concentrate on the perturbative part of the decay rate and numerical uncertainties related to the renormalization scheme freedom of perturbation theory. In this respect new possible corrections do not qualitatively affect our analysis. The corrections due to duality violation are of a new nature and they can be added independently to eq. (S0.Ex1). They would only change the input numerical value for the $`\delta _P`$ within our approach.

The value for the decay rate $`R_{\tau S=0}`$ has been measured by the ALEPH  and OPAL  collaborations with results very close to each other. Using (for definiteness only) the ALEPH data $`R_{\tau S=0}^{exp}=3.492\pm 0.016`$ one obtains from eq. (S0.Ex1) a numerical value for the main experimental parameter of the discussed observable

$$\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}=0.203\pm 0.007.$$
(3)
Eq. (3) is the main experimental input that is used in the analysis below.

Theoretically one starts with the determination of the differential decay rate of the $`\tau `$ lepton into a hadronic system $`H(s)`$ with a total squared energy $`s`$

$$\frac{d\sigma (\tau \nu H(s))}{ds}\left(1\frac{s}{M_\tau ^2}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{2s}{M_\tau ^2}\right)\rho (s)$$

that is given by the hadronic spectral density $`\rho (s)`$ defined through the correlator of weak currents. For the $`(ud)`$ current $`j_\mu ^W(x)=\overline{u}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d`$ one finds in massless approximation for the light quarks

$$iTj_\mu ^W(x)j_\nu ^{W+}(0)e^{iqx}𝑑x=(q_\mu q_\nu q^2g_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{had}}(q^2),\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{had}}(q^2)=\frac{\rho (s)ds}{sq^2}$$
(4)
with $`\rho (s)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{had}}(s+i0)`$, $`s=q^2`$.

Integrating the function $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{had}}(z)`$ over a contour in the complex $`q^2`$ plane beyond the physical cut $`s>0`$ one finds that for particular weight functions some integrals of the hadronic spectral density $`\rho (s)`$ can be reliably computed theoretically . Indeed, due to Cauchy theorem one gets

$$_C\mathrm{\Pi }(z)𝑑z=_{\mathrm{cut}}\rho (s)𝑑s.$$

Using the approximation $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{had}}(z)|_{zC}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{th}}(z)|_{zC}`$ which is well justified sufficiently far from the physical cut one obtains

$$_C\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{had}}(z)𝑑z=_{\mathrm{cut}}\rho (s)𝑑s=_C\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{th}}(z)𝑑z$$

i.e. the integral over the hadronic spectrum can theoretically be evaluated. In practice, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{th}}(z)`$ is computed within OPE, i.e. the function $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{th}}(Q^2)`$ with $`Q^2=q^2`$ is calculable in pQCD far from the physical cut as a series in the running coupling constant $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ with power corrections. Further improvements on theory side can be made – for instance, instanton-induced contributions can be added. The lattice approximation for the evaluation of the correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{th}}(Q^2)`$ beyond perturbation theory can also be used .

The total decay rate of the $`\tau `$ lepton written in the form of an integral along the cut

$$R_{\tau S=0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau H_{S=0}\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau l\overline{\nu }\nu )}_{\mathrm{cut}}\left(1\frac{s}{M_\tau ^2}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{2s}{M_\tau ^2}\right)\rho (s)𝑑s$$

is precisely the quantity that one can reliably compute in pQCD.

The basic object of the theoretical calculation is Adler’s $`D`$-function which is given by the representation

$$D(Q^2)=Q^2\frac{d}{dQ^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{had}}(Q^2).$$
(5)
In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme the perturbative expansion for the $`D`$-function is given by

$$D(Q^2)=1+\frac{\alpha _s(Q)}{\pi }+k_1\left(\frac{\alpha _s(Q)}{\pi }\right)^2+k_2\left(\frac{\alpha _s(Q)}{\pi }\right)^3+k_3\left(\frac{\alpha _s(Q)}{\pi }\right)^4+O(\alpha _s(Q)^5)$$
(6)
with (see e.g. )

$$k_1=\frac{299}{24}9\zeta (3),k_2=\frac{58057}{288}\frac{779}{4}\zeta (3)+\frac{75}{2}\zeta (5).$$
(7)
The notation $`a_s(Q)=\alpha _s(Q)/\pi `$ for the standard $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-coupling constant normalized at the scale $`\mu =Q`$ is used. Numerically one finds

$$D(Q^2)=1+a_s(Q)+1.6398a_s(Q)^2+6.3710a_s(Q)^3+k_3a_s(Q)^4+O(a_s^5(Q)).$$
(8)
The coefficient $`k_3`$ is known only partly . The particular numerical value of $`k_325`$ is obtained on the basis of geometric series approximation for the series (8) and is often used in the literature . Below I keep this coefficient for illustrative purposes to see the potential influence of this term on the numerical value of the coupling constant extracted from $`\tau `$-data.

In the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme the perturbative correction $`\delta _P`$ is given by the perturbation theory expansion

$$\delta _P^{th}=a_s+5.2023a_s^2+26.366a_s^3+(78.003+k_3)a_s^4+O(a_s^5)$$
(9)
where the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme coupling constant $`\alpha _s=\pi a_s`$ is taken at the scale of the $`\tau `$-lepton mass $`\mu =M_\tau =1.777\mathrm{GeV}`$. Usually one extracts a numerical value for $`\alpha _s(M_\tau )`$ by treating the first three terms of the expression in eq. (9) as an exact function – the cubic polynomial, i.e. one solves the equation

$`a_s+5.2023a_s^2+26.366a_s^3=\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}.`$ (10)
The solution reads

$$\pi a_s^{st}(M_\tau )\alpha _s^{st}(M_\tau )=0.3404\pm 0.0073_{exp}.$$
(11)
This is a standard method. The quoted error is due to the error in the input value of $`\delta _P^{exp}`$. It is rather difficult to estimate the theoretical uncertainty of the procedure itself. The main problem is to estimate the quality of the approximation for the (asymptotic) series in eq. (9) given by the cubic polynomial in eq. (10).

As a criterion of the quality of the approximation one can use the pattern of convergence of the series (9) which is

$$\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}=0.203=0.108+0.061+0.034+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
One sees that the corrections provide a 100% change of the leading term. Another criterion is the order-by-order behavior of the extracted numerical value for the coupling constant. In consecutive orders of perturbation theory (LO – leading order, NLO – next-to-leading order, NNLO – next-next-to-leading order) one has

$$\alpha _s^{st}(M_\tau )_{LO}=0.6377,\alpha _s^{st}(M_\tau )_{NLO}=0.3882,\alpha _s^{st}(M_\tau )_{NNLO}=0.3404.$$
(13)
One obtains a series for the numerical value of the coupling constant

$`\alpha _s^{st}(M_\tau )_{NNLO}`$ $`=`$ $`0.63770.24950.0478\mathrm{}`$ (14)
Up to the next-to-next-to-leading order result (NNLO) we can take a half of the last term as an estimate of the theoretical uncertainty. No rigorous justification can be given for such an assumption about the accuracy of the approximation without knowledge of the structure of the whole series: it is taken for definiteness. The theoretical uncertainty obtained in such a way – $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _s^{st}(M_\tau )_{th}=0.0239`$ – is much larger than the experimental uncertainty given in eq. (11). This is a challenge for the theory: the accuracy of theoretical formulas cannot compete with experimental precision at present. Assuming this theoretical uncertainty we have

$$\alpha _s^{st}(M_\tau )_{NNLO}=0.3404\pm 0.0239_{th}\pm 0.0073_{exp}.$$
(15)
Theory dominates the error even if the estimate for its precision $`\pm 0.0239_{th}`$ is not reliable (heuristic and only indicative). Thus the straightforward analysis in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme is not stable numerically and the naive estimate of the theoretical uncertainty is large.

To highlight the essence of the problem let me choose a different coupling constant as an expansion parameter that is obtained by the simple RG transformation – the change of scale of the coupling along the RG trajectory $`M_\tau 1\mathrm{GeV}`$. It is often called scale transformation which is still a subgroup of the full renormalization group. In terms of $`a_s(1\mathrm{GeV})`$ one finds a series $`a_s(1)+2.615a_s(1)^2+1.54a_s(1)^3=\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}`$. The solution for the coupling constant is $`\alpha _s(1\mathrm{GeV})=0.453`$. The convergence pattern for the correction $`\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is $`\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}=0.203=0.144+0.054+0.005`$ and for the numerical value of the coupling constant $`\alpha _s(1\mathrm{GeV})=0.453=0.6380.1770.008`$. Should one conclude that now the accuracy is much better? What would be an invariant criterion for the precision of theoretical predictions obtained from perturbation theory, i.e. finite number of terms of asymptotic series? Thus, one sees that the renormalization scheme dependence can strongly obscure the heuristic evaluation of the accuracy of theoretical formulae in the absence of any information on the structure of the whole perturbation theory series.

The use of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme is not obligatory for physical applications. The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme has a history of success for massless calculations where its results look natural and the corrections are usually small. This is not the strict rule, however, and there are cases (like gluonic correlators ) where corrections dramatically depend on the quantum numbers of the operators. In fact, the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme is rather artificial. It is simply defined by convention (let us be remindful of the evolution from the MS-scheme to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme which had its origin only in technical convenience ). From technical point of view, in practical calculations of massless diagrams of the propagator type, another scheme – the $`G`$-scheme – is the most natural one . It normalizes the basic quantity of the whole calculation within integration-by-parts technique – one loop massless scalar diagram – to unity . $`\beta `$-functions coincide in both schemes. It could have well happened that the $`G`$-scheme would be historically adopted as the reference scheme because corrections in this scheme are typically smaller than that in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme. However, for the tau system the direct (standard) analysis in the $`G`$-scheme fails.

Note that strictly speaking any scheme is suitable for a given perturbative calculation. However, it can lead to unusual (or even unacceptable) results in a numerical analysis. The only criterion for the choice of scheme at present is the heuristic requirement of fast explicit convergence: the terms of the series should decrease. Clearly this is a rather unreliable criterion. It does not provide strict quantitative constraints necessary for the level of precision usually claimed for the $`\tau `$-system analysis.

One can however work within a different paradigm that is independent of the scheme in what the actual calculation has been performed. One just extracts a scale that any observable generates due to dimensional transmutation in perturbation theory and which is its internal scale. It is natural for a numerical analysis to determine this scale first. For comparison with other channels one can then transform the result into a $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme or any other reference scheme using the renormalization group invariance. This last step is done only for comparison with other experiments (or just for convenience; the system itself can be well described in its internal scheme without any reference to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme).

The running of the coupling is one of the central features of QCD and very important for numerical analysis. A parameterization of the trajectory can be done at infinite $`Q`$ by using dimensional scale of QCD. The renormalization group equation

$$\mu ^2\frac{d}{d\mu ^2}a(\mu ^2)=\beta (a(\mu ^2)),a=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }$$
(16)
is solved by the integral

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }(a(\mu ^2))+_0^{a(\mu ^2)}\left(\frac{1}{\beta (\xi )}\frac{1}{\beta _2(\xi )}\right)𝑑\xi $$
(17)
where the indefinite integral $`\mathrm{\Phi }(a)`$ is normalized as follows

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a)=^a\frac{1}{\beta _2(\xi )}𝑑\xi =\frac{1}{a\beta _0}+\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a\beta _0^2}{\beta _0+a\beta _1}\right).$$
(18)
Here $`\beta _2(a)`$ and $`\beta (a)`$ denote the second order and full $`\beta `$ function, or as many terms as are available, given by

$$\beta _2(a)=a^2(\beta _0+a\beta _1),\beta (a)=a^2(\beta _0+\beta _1a+\beta _2a^2+\beta _3a^3)+O(a^6),$$
(19)
$`a`$ is a generic coupling constant. The four-loop $`\beta `$-function coefficient $`\beta _3`$ is now known in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme

$$\beta _3=\frac{140599}{4608}+\frac{445}{32}\zeta (3)=47.228\mathrm{}$$
(20)
The adjustment of the integration constant in eq. (17) defines the standard QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$: the asymptotic expansion of the coupling constant at large momenta $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ reads

$$a(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0L}\left(1\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(L)}{L}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{L^3}\right),L=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right).$$
(21)
The solution (17) of the renormalization group equation (16) describes the evolution trajectory of the coupling constant. The evolution trajectory of the coupling constant given by the solution (17) of the renormalization group equation (16) is parametrized by the scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the coefficients of the $`\beta `$ function $`\beta _i`$ with $`i>2`$ (see e.g. ). The evolution is invariant under the renormalization group transformation

$$aa(1+\kappa _1a+\kappa _2a^2+\kappa _3a^3+\mathrm{})$$
(22)
with the simultaneous change

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2e^{\kappa _1/\beta _0},$$
(23)
$`\beta _{0,1}`$ left invariant and

$`\beta _2`$ $``$ $`\beta _2\kappa _1^2\beta _0+\kappa _2\beta _0\kappa _1\beta _1`$
$`\beta _3`$ $``$ $`\beta _3+4\kappa _1^3\beta _0+2\kappa _3\beta _0+\kappa _1^2\beta _12\kappa _1(3\kappa _2\beta _0+\beta _2).`$
If this transformation was considered to be exact and the exact $`\beta `$-function corresponding to the new charge was used then it would be just a change of variable in a differential equation (16) or the exact reparametrization of the trajectory (17) and hence would lead to identical results. However, the renormalization group invariance of eq. (17) is violated in higher orders of the coupling constant because we consistently omit higher orders in the perturbation theory expressions for the $`\beta `$-functions. This is the point where the finite-order perturbation theory approximation for the respective $`\beta `$-functions is made. This is the source for different numerical outputs of analyses in different schemes.

Then the paradigm is to use the optimal charge and extract the coupling using exact RG technique. One introduces an effective charge $`a_\tau `$ through the relation $`\delta _P^{th}=a_\tau \alpha _\tau /\pi `$  and extracts the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau `$ which is associated with $`a_\tau `$ through eq. (17). This is just the internal scale associated with the physical observable $`R_\tau `$. The effective $`\beta `$-function is given by the expression

$$\beta _\tau =a_\tau ^2(\beta _{\tau 0}+\beta _{\tau 1}a_\tau +\beta _{\tau 2}a_\tau ^2+\beta _{\tau 3}a_\tau ^3+\mathrm{})$$
(24)
with $`\beta _{\tau 0}=\beta _0`$, $`\beta _{\tau 1}=\beta _1`$, and

$$\beta _{\tau 2}=12.3204,\beta _{\tau 3}=182.719+\frac{9}{2}k_3.$$
(25)
The extraction of the numerical value for the internal scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau `$ is done from equation (17) with $`a_\tau (M_\tau )=\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}`$. The coefficient $`\beta _{\tau 3}`$ does not enter the analysis. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ is found according to eq. (23). The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling at $`\mu =M_\tau `$ is obtained by solving eq. (17) for $`a_s(M_\tau )`$ with regard to $`\mathrm{ln}(M_\tau ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_s^2)`$ which is known if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ is obtained; the $`\beta `$-function is taken in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme. For consistency reasons we only use the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme $`\beta `$-function to three-loop order since the effective $`\beta `$-function $`\beta _\tau `$ is only known up to the second order, cf. eq. (25). A $`N^3LO`$ analysis is possible only if a definite value is chosen for $`k_3`$. Some estimates are given below.

The procedure is based on renormalization group invariance and one can start from the expression for the decay rate obtained in any scheme. The only perturbative objects present are the $`\beta `$-functions: it is the converge of perturbation theory for $`\beta `$-functions that determines the accuracy. It also highlights the limit of precision within this procedure: the expansion for $`\beta _\tau `$ is believed to be asymptotic as any expansion in perturbation theory. The asymptotic expansion provides only limited accuracy for any given numerical value of the expansion parameter which cannot be further improved by including higher order terms. The expansion used is presumably rather close to its asymptotic limit

$$\beta _\tau (a_\tau )=a_\tau ^2\left(\frac{9}{4}+4a_\tau 12.3204a_\tau ^2+a_\tau ^3\left(182.719+\frac{9}{2}k_3\right)\right)+O(a_\tau ^6)$$
(26)
with $`a_\tau 0.2`$ at the scale $`M_\tau `$. The convergence of the series depends crucially on the numerical value of $`k_3`$. If $`k_3`$ had a value where the asymptotic growth starts at third order then further improvement of the accuracy within finite-order perturbation theory is impossible.

At every order of the analysis we use the whole information of the perturbation theory calculation. Especially, the appropriate coefficient of the $`\beta _\tau `$-function is present. In the standard method the coefficient $`\beta _2`$ enters only at order $`O(\alpha _s^4)`$ of the $`\tau `$-lepton decay rate expansion. The described procedure can be called the renormalization scheme invariant extraction method (RSI) that means that it is based on renormalization scheme invariance. It does not mean that renormalization scheme uncertainty is completely eliminated but that it put under control in terms of explicit convergence of the effective $`\beta `$ function. It is also clear since $`\alpha _s`$ itself is not a physical object and is not renormalization scheme invariant. In this respect we extract the noninvariant parameter $`\alpha _s`$ using invariance of the physics in order to perform the numerical analysis in the most suitable scheme. The output of the analysis is transformed into a numerical value for $`\alpha _s`$ according to the renormalization group transformation rules that are treated exactly for the given order of the effective $`\beta `$ function. For the coupling constant in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme in NNLO it gives

$`\alpha _s^{RSI}(M_\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`0.3184\pm 0.0060_{exp}`$ (27)
which is smaller than the corresponding value obtained within the standard procedure eq. (11). The key question is how to estimate the quality of this result? The parameter which is really extracted in consecutive orders of perturbation theory within the method is the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau `$. Because of the relation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau e^{5.20232/2\beta _0}=0.3147\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau $$
(28)
one can look at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ directly. One finds

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|_{LO}=595\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|_{NLO}=288\mathrm{MeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|_{NNLO}=349\mathrm{MeV}$$
(29)
or, representing the NNLO result as a formal series,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|_{NNLO}=595307+61\mathrm{}\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(30)
Note that at leading order the scales (as well as charges) are equal in all schemes. Therefore the leading order result ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|_{LO}=595\mathrm{MeV}`$) is not representative, only indicative. Assuming the uncertainty of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ to be given by the half of the last term of the series (30) one has $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=349\pm 31\mathrm{MeV}`$ which leads to the numerical value for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme coupling constant

$$\alpha _s=0.3184_{+0.0160}^{0.0157}.$$
(31)
This result is obtained from eq. (17) with three-loop $`\beta `$-function. Taking the average we find

$$\alpha _s=0.3184\pm 0.0159.$$
(32)
This is better than the theoretical error of the standard result eq. (15). Still the theoretical error should be considered as a guess rather than a well-justified estimate of the uncertainty. It is affected by higher order terms, e.g. by the $`k_3`$ contribution. Clearly the estimate $`k_3=25`$ is rather speculative. Therefore it is more instructive to determine the range of $`k_3`$ which is safe for explicit convergence of perturbation theory. If the actual value of $`k_3`$ will be discovered in this range then perturbation theory is still valid and will give better accuracy in NNNLO. If not, the asymptotic growth of perturbation theory series is already reached and its accuracy cannot be improved.

We require that the last term should be equal to the half of the previous one. In the standard way (eq. 9) we have

$$|(78+k_3)a_s|<\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}26.36}13$$
(33)
which for $`a_s=0.1`$ gives

$$208<k_3^{st}<52.$$
(34)
In the RSI way (eq. 26) we have

$$|(182+\frac{9}{2}k_3)a_\tau |<\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12.32}6$$
(35)
which for $`a_\tau =0.2`$ gives

$$33.8<k_3^\tau <47.1.$$
(36)
This range is much narrower than that in eq. (34). The effective scheme method is much more sensitive to the structure of the series as can be seen from eq. (26). The actual precision depends on the actual value chosen for $`k_3`$ and it is rather premature to speculate about numbers.

Still we show the worst result (in the optimistic scenario that $`k_3`$ lies in the safe range) that can be expected within the RSI approach. In the RSI approach with $`k_3=47`$ we find the scale parameter in NNNLO

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|_{NNNLO}=334\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(37)
With $`k_3=34`$ one has

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s|_{NNNLO}=367\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(38)
Taking the average we have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=350\pm 17\mathrm{MeV}$$
(39)
which is the best possible estimate if we require that the perturbation theory series for the $`\beta _\tau `$-function still converges (according to our quantitative criterion of convergence). That results in the numerical value for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme coupling constant found with four-loop $`\beta `$-function from eq. (17)

$$0.3133<\alpha _s<0.3314.$$
(40)
Therefore our conservative estimate of the theoretical error in the optimistic scenario for the convergence of perturbation theory series in NNNLO reads

$$\alpha _s=0.322\pm 0.009.$$
(41)
One should keep in mind that the theoretical uncertainty still depends on the criteria chosen. This particular estimate comes from the requirement of the explicit convergence of the effective beta function.

The value of the coupling constant can be run to the scale $`M_Z=91.187\mathrm{GeV}`$ with the RG For the standard method one finds

$$\alpha _s^{st}(M_Z)=0.1210\pm 0.0008_{exp}\pm 0.0006_c\pm 0.0001_b$$
(42)
where the subscript $`exp`$ denotes the error originating from $`\delta _P^{exp}`$. The errors with subscripts $`c,b`$ arise from the uncertainty of the numerical values of the charm and bottom quark masses that enter the evolution analysis. The running to this reference scale is done with the four-loop $`\beta `$-function in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme  and three-loop matching conditions at the heavy quark (charm and bottom) thresholds . The threshold parameters related to heavy quark masses are $`\mu _c=\overline{m}_c(\mu _c)=(1.35\pm 0.15)\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mu _b=\overline{m}_b(\mu _b)=(4.21\pm 0.11)\mathrm{GeV}`$ (e.g. ) where $`\overline{m}_q(\mu )`$ is the running mass of the heavy quark in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme.

The running of $`\alpha _s^{RSI}(M_\tau )`$ from eq. (32) gives

$$\alpha _s^{RSI}(M_Z)=0.1184\pm 0.00074_{exp}\pm 0.00053_c\pm 0.00005_b$$
(43)
The theoretical uncertainty comes mainly from the truncation of the perturbation theory series. Taking the result of the NNLO analysis eq. (32) one finds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _s^{RSI}(M_Z)_{th}=0.0019$$
(44)
In the most optimistic scenario with the NNNLO analysis eq. (41) one has

$$\alpha _s^{RSI}(M_Z)_{N^3LO}=0.119\pm 0.001.$$
(45)
Note that for the Cabibbo suppressed decays that can also be analyzed within the perturbation theory  the approach looks quite natural as there are additional functions to be studied: two functions related to $`m_s^2`$ perturbative corrections. Then three coefficient functions should be analyzed together that allows one to factor out the renormalization scheme dependence to large extent .

Now I briefly comment on the extraction of the strong coupling constant within resummed perturbation theory. There are basically two possibilities to resum perturbation theory series that have recently been analyzed in some details . One is to extrapolate the running of the coupling into the infrared region using a natural cutoff provided by analytic continuation (so called $`\pi ^2`$ terms ). This approach relies on the pattern of continuation of the coupling constant to the infrared region. Another approach is based on the integration along the contour in Euclidean domain, it bypass the potentially nonperturbative region along safe areas in the complex momentum plane and, therefore, is quite perturbative in nature . Numerically the results of these two approaches are different. In fact, they are also nonequivalent mathematically and the difference can be explicitly calculated: it happens to be nonexpandable in $`al_s`$ that means that it is not noticeable within perturbation theory. As for the numerical results one fits the theoretical expression for the decay rate in the contour improved approach to the experimental result $`\delta _P^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ eq. (3) and find

$$\alpha _s^{CI}(M_\tau )=0.343\pm 0.009_{exp}$$
(46)
within the renormalization scheme invariant extraction method described above i.e. with the introduction of the effective charge first . This value differs from the finite-order perturbation theory result eq. (27) which is expected.

To conclude, the procedure of extracting the numerical value of the strong coupling constant from $`\tau `$-data is briefly described with main emphasis on the particular features that are related to the renormalization scheme invariance of the theory.

The present work is supported in part by the Russian Fund for Basic Research under contract 02-01-00601 and by INTAS grant.


format: text

text:
# Electron-hole asymmetry is the key to superconductivity

## I Holes are not like electrons

To understand superconductivity in solids it is essential to understand the fundamental electron-hole asymmetry of condensed matter. This asymmetry originates in the fact that the positive proton is 2000 times heavier than the negative electron.

When an electronic energy band is almost empty the carriers are electrons, when the band is almost full the carriers are holes. Ever since Heisenbergheisenberg  introduced the concept of ’hole’ in 1931 for the description of atomic spectra, electrons and holes have been regarded as equivalent quasiparticles in solids, as described for example by Peierlspeierls : “Ein Band, in dem sich nur wenige Elektronen befinden, verhalt sich in jeder Beziehung genau so, wie ein Band in dem nur fur wenige Elektronen noch Platz ist”. We assert that ’in jeder Beziehung’ is certainly wrong, and that in fact superconductivity originates in the fundamental asymmetry between electrons and holes in condensed matter.

How are electrons and holes different? Figure 1 depicts schematically an electronic energy band and the wavefunction of the carriers at the Fermi level when the Fermi level is near the bottom and near the top of the band. The electrons near the bottom of the band have a $`bonding`$ wave function, with large amplitude in the region between the ions. The electrons near the top of the band have an $`antibonding`$ wave function, with the wave function having a node in the region between the ions. This difference is independent of the nature of the orbitals giving rise to the bands: it originates in the fact that the states at the bottom of the band choose their wavefunction so as to minimize their kinetic plus electron-ion energy, and that the states at the top of the band are forced by the Pauli principle to have their wavefunction orthogonal to all the lower states in the band.

The antibonding electrons near the top of a band are $`not`$ a happy bunch. Because of the large oscillations in their wave function forced by having to be orthogonal to the bonding electrons, they have a high kinetic energy. Also, their wavefunction is such that it exerts ’negative pressure’ that tends to break the solid apart (hence their name, antibonding), unlike the bonding electrons near the bottom of the band that tend to bind the solid. Furthermore, when an external electric field is applied they move in direction $`opposite`$ to the applied force, countering rather than helping the transport of electricity done by the bonding electrons. Moreover, they are seldom talked about: when the Fermi level is near the top of the band, it is conventional to describe transport by the time evolution of the few empty states in the band (holes) rather than to describe the opposite contributions of bonding and antibonding electrons; in such case it is said that transport is done by holes rather than electrons.

There are other fundamental differences between the carriers at the Fermi energy when the Fermi level is near the bottom and near the top of a band. In a given band, electron carriers are always less dressed than hole carriersholeelec ; dynhelec . Because the electron-electron repulsion is always bigger than the separation between electronic energy levels, when a second electron occupies a Wannier orbital already occupied by an electron the state of the first electron is modified, causing a smaller quasiparticle weight and a larger effective mass for hole carriers compared to electron carriersdynh .

Table 1 summarizes the differences between carriers at the Fermi energy when the Fermi enery is near the bottom and near the top of the band. It is clear that holes are not like electrons. It is natural to expect that these differences can have fundamental consequences for superconductivity. The single band Hubbard model, widely used to describe interacting electrons in energy bands, is electron-hole symmetric and hence it is inadequate to describe the physics of real electrons in energy bands in solids. ’Dynamic Hubbard models’ are required instead holeelec ; dynhelec ; dynh .

## II Electron-hole asymmetry and superconductivity

Having established in the previous section that holes are different from electrons, we assert that superconductivity originates in the fundamental asymmetry beween electrons and holes, as follows:

(1) Superconductivity can only occur when carriers in the normal state are holes.

(2) Holes undress and become like electrons when they pair.

(3) The superfluid carriers are electrons.

In the following we discuss these points in more detail.

### II.1 The carriers of electricity in the normal state are dressed holes

Since the early days of superconductivity it was noted that if a metal does not have hole carriers it does not become superconducting, hence that the presence of hole carriers is a $`necessary`$ condition for superconductivity kikoin ; born ; chapnik . Furthermore non-superconductors are usually better conductors of electricity than superconductors in the normal state. We attribute the poor normal state conductivity of superconductors to the fact that hole carriers are ’dressed’ due to interactions and hence their effective mass is higher and correspondingly they give a smaller contribution to the low frequency conductivity. Optical experiments in high $`T_c`$ cuprates clearly show that the intraband Drude weight is small and there is large optical absorption in the mid-intrared and higher frequency rangeuchida . Photoemission experiments in the cuprates in the normal state do not show clear evidence for quasiparticles except in the overdoped regime, indicating that carriers are heavily dressed photonorm .

### II.2 Superconductivity is driven by hole undressing

In the theory of hole superconductivity, dressed hole carriers undress when the ’local’ hole concentration around a given carrier increasesundressing . This will happen both when the hole concentration increases in the normal state by doping, and when hole carriers pair as the temperature is lowered. Undressing leads to larger quasiparticle weight and smaller effective mass of the carriers, and the resulting lowering of kinetic energy provides the condensation energy for the superconducting statekine . The phenomenology is shown in Figures 2 and 3 and was predictedcolor  many years before it became clear from recent opticaloptical , photoemissionphoto  and transporttransport  experiments.

### II.3 The superfluid carriers in the superconducting state are undressed electrons

The nature of superfluid carriers in the superconducting state is revealed by experiments where a superconductor is put into rotation. The London equation implies that a magnetic field is generated (London field), given bylondon

$$\stackrel{}{B}=\frac{2mc}{q}\stackrel{}{\omega }$$
(1)
where $`q`$ and $`m`$ are the charge and mass of the superfluid carriers , $`c`$ is the speed of light and $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ the angular velocity. The field is generated because the superfluid ’lags behind’ the solid rotation in a surface layer of thickness given by the penetration depth. Experimentally it is determinedlondonexp  that the charge in Eq. (1) is the electronic charge $`with`$ $`its`$ $`sign`$, i.e. that the generated magnetic field is parallel to the angular velocity, and that $`m`$ is the $`bare`$ electron mass. These experiments, as well as related experiments where a superconductor is put into rotation by application of a magnetic fieldgyro , reveal that the superfluid carriers are bare electrons with negative charge. In other words, the dressed positive hole carriers in the normal state turn into undressed negative electron carriers in the superconducting state.

## III Discussion

It is impossible to give a comprehensive description of the theory of hole superconductivity in this short paper. A recent more extended review is given in ref. 20. As experiments improve, more of the predictions of the theory made early on become experimental facts. For example, the tunneling asymmetry predicted back in 1989tunneling  has become an experimental fact many years later; the strong to weak coupling crossover with increasing hole concentration predicted in 1989strongweak  has only very recently been confirmedhc2 . The optical sum rule violation and color change predicted back in 1992color  has been verified experimentally recentlyoptical . The prediction that high $`T_c`$ will result whenever holes in an almost filled band conduct through negatively charged ionsions  is confirmed by the discovery of 40K superconductivity in $`MgB_2`$mgb2 . The predictiontwoband  that when holes and electrons are present at the Fermi level holes develop a large gap and electrons a small gap is confirmed by recent tunneling experiments in $`MgB_2`$twogaps . More examples will follow.


text:
# SDSS catalog of stars in the Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Draco dwarf spheroidal companion to the Milky Way, at a distance of about 82 kpc (Mateo, 1998), was discovered fifty years ago from examination of Palomar Observatory Sky Survey Schmidt plates (Wilson, 1955). The horizontal branch for this dwarf galaxy is located at $`g^{}20`$ and it covers more than 1/3 of a square degree on the sky. Draco is one of the nearest of the Galaxy’s known dwarf spheroidal companions and is among the faintest known galaxies, with a luminosity of $`2\times 10^5L_{}`$ (Grillmair et al., 1998).

Dwarf spheroidal galaxies typically contain many variable stars, predominately the RR Lyrae variables typical of older, metal-poor stellar populations (Stetson, 1979). Draco is no exception. The first extensive study of Draco by Baade & Swope (1961) found 138 variable stars in the central part of Draco. They determined that all but five of these variables were RR Lyraes. The five remaining variables were deemed to be “anomalous” Cepheids. These Cepheids have a shorter period and so do not obey the period-luminosity relation for type II Cepheids (Carney & Seitzer, 1986). These “anomalous” Cepheids have been found in other dwarf spheroidals since their discovery in Draco (Zinn, 1978). Five carbon stars have also been found in Draco by Aaronson, Liebert, & Stocke (1982) and Margon et al. (2002). More recent compilations of variables in Draco are underway Kinemuchi et al. (2001).

The first detailed photometric survey of the Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy was created by Baade & Swope (1961). Since then Draco has become one of the best studied dwarf galaxies with several more recent photometric surveys. We have created our own catalog of stars in Draco using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). We present wide area, $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ CCD observations of Draco down to about $`g^{}23`$, and construct a color magnitude diagram. We combine our catalog of SDSS stars in Draco with previously published photometric data in Draco, from: Baade & Swope (1961), Carney & Seitzer (1986), Stetson (1997), Grillmair et al. (1998), and Piatek et al. (2001) to create a heterogeneous catalog of Draco stars, with multiple epochs of observation which allow us to identify variable candidates.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

The CCD imaging observations of Draco are taken from SDSS runs 1336 and 1339, which were obtained 2000 April 4 with the SDSS mosaic imaging camera (Gunn et al., 1998). The majority of the stars in the dwarf spheroidal fall on two frames of data in the same camera column (one continuous stream of drift-scan data). Since the precise calibration for the SDSS filter system is still in progress, magnitudes in this paper are quoted in the $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ system, which approximates the final SDSS system (Smith et al., 2002). These systems differ absolutely (with negligible color terms) by only a few percent in $`g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$, and no more than 10% in $`u^{}`$. See Fukugita et al. (1996) and York et al. (2000) for further information on the filter system and the overall survey, respectively. The data were reduced with PHOTO (Lupton et al. in preparation) version 5.1.7. Pier et al. (2002) describes the astrometry and astrometric accuracy of the software. Hogg et al. (2002) describes our monitoring program for photometricity. These data are included in the public Early Data Release (EDR) (Stoughton et al., 2002).

In the course of commissioning a survey, the images are reduced several times as the software evolves. The data presented here have been reduced three times. The first reduction is called “rerun 0,” and second is “rerun 1.” Most of the data included in this paper are from “rerun 1,” with some exceptions which are noted in the text below. “Rerun 2” was the version released in the EDR, and differs from “rerun 1” only in a small overall calibration offset. Since we recalibrate all of the photometry ourselves, the difference is not important. So, an object which is listed in the catalog by the SDSS id 1336-1-5-60-950 (Run-Rerun-CameraColumn-Field-ObjectID) is the same object as 1336-2-5-60-950 in the EDR.

The seeing for the Draco scans was typically 1.8” FWHM. Intercomparison of objects detected twice in overlapping scans is a good indication of relative photometric error, and for objects with $`g^{}<19`$, rms error for stellar sources is typically $`<4`$%. For objects between $`20<g^{}<21`$, typical errors are 8%, growing to 20% at $`g^{}=23`$, near the detection limit. For reference, blue stars with $`0<BV<0.2`$ have a SDSS $`g^{}`$ magnitude approximately equal to their Johnson $`V`$ magnitude, while stars with $`g^{}r^{}=1`$ have $`gV+0.45`$. In general, $`g^{}=V+0.54(BV)0.07`$ (Smith et al., 2002).

In order to obtain the best measurements at faint magnitudes, we used photometry derived from fits of the pointspread function (PSF) to stellar profiles. The SDSS code determines the PSF as a function of position in each CCD frame (1361 x 2048 pixels, or $`9^{^{}}`$ x $`13.7^{^{}}`$). While we were studying the stellar populations within Draco, we noticed a systematic shift in the color of the giant branch as a function of position within the Draco field. Further analysis showed that this result could be explained by systematic inaccuracies in the (PSF) photometry as modeled in the EDR reductions of the data (these systematics are corrected in later data releases). Since the code used to create the EDR did not accurately track rapidly varying point-spread functions, the PSF magnitudes in some regions of the sky were systematically shifted brighter or fainter by up to a tenth of a magnitude.

For this study, we were able to correct the EDR PSF magnitudes using the aperture magnitudes for bright objects. Although aperture magnitudes are quite noisy for faint stars, they are accurate for bright stars and not affected by the error in the calculated PSF. We used the brighter stars to calculate a correction to the PSF magnitudes, as a function of row and column in each frame. We fit a second degree polynomial to the deviations between the aperture and PSF magnitudes (mag(AP)$``$mag(PSF)) vs. CCD row and column for stars brighter than magnitude 19.5. We then used this polynomial to correct the photometry of all stars in the frame to the mean of the aperture photometry for that frame. The assumption here is that the aperture magnitudes are correct, and their calibration does not vary as the PSF varies across rows or columns. This is a good assumption if we capture practically all of the light in each object, even in the sections of data with poorer seeing.

The results of this correction procedure are shown in Figure 1. The left panel shows the color-magnitude diagram for Draco, using PSF magnitudes, and the right panel shows the same diagram after correcting the PSF magnitudes. Though we did not use any information about the giant branch of Draco, notice that the giant branch of the dwarf galaxy is significantly narrower after correction. This is evidence that the correction technique significantly improved the accuracy of the photometry.

## 3 CREATING THE CATALOG

In order to generate a useful catalog of stars in the Draco dwarf galaxy, we first selected from the SDSS database those objects with $`259^{}<\alpha <261^{}`$ and $`57.4^{}<\delta <58.4^{}`$, which were marked as unsaturated, and which were far enough from the edge of the frame that they were completely contained on a single CCD detector. This latter criterion effectively eliminates only quite extended galaxies near the edges, since there is enough overlap between frames that point sources are completely contained on at least one frame. We also removed duplicate measurements of the same astronomical object, either by multiple observation or multiple software measurements of the same observation, by choosing only observations marked in the SDSS as ‘primary.’ For each direction in the sky, only one observation and instance of processing is considered ‘primary,’ so this flag effectively removes duplicates.

To determine a centroid of our elliptical region, stars in our original data set were binned into boxes of area 0.05 degrees on a side. Then, we fit an elliptical Gaussian (right ascension and declination of the center, major and minor axes, a position angle, and sky), to the binned data. The adopted center of the distribution is: $`\alpha =17:20:13.2,\delta =57:54:45`$ (J2000). The exact center of the fit shifted by ten arcseconds depending on how we weighted the fit, which yields an error bar on our chosen center. Other sources such as Baade & Swope (1961), Irwin & Hatzidimitriou (1995), and Cotton, Condon, & Arbizzani (1999) report the center of Draco as: $`\alpha =`$ 17:20:13 $`\delta =`$ 57:55:11 (J2000, converted from B1950), $`\alpha =`$ 17:20.3 $`\delta =`$ 57:55.1 (J2000, converted from B1950), and $`\alpha =`$ 17:20:12.39 $`\delta =`$ 57:54:55.3 (J2000) respectively. These positions for Draco’s center are in good agreement with the value we found in right ascension, and off by about ten arcseconds in declination. The major axis of the ellipse fit is nearly constant in declination (PA $`90^{}`$) with Gaussian sigma 0.122 degrees (corrected for $`\mathrm{cos}(\delta )`$). The minor axis is 0.082 degrees in the declination direction implying an ellipticity of 1-0.082/0.122=0.33 in agreement with Hodge (1964) who found an ellipticity of $`0.29\pm 0.04`$, and also in excellent agreement with Piatek et al. (2001) who find an ellipticity of 0.331 for Draco.

To increase the fraction of cataloged stars which are associated with the dwarf galaxy, we included only those stars in an elliptical region centered on the Draco dwarf galaxy (see Figure 2), which extends to about one third of the tidal radius measured by Odenkirchen et al. (2001). Of the 7417 objects within the area of this 2-sigma ellipse for our Draco catalog, 5492 were brighter than our adopted magnitude limit of 23.005 (this odd effective limit is due to rounding before the limit was applied). The actual number of SDSS objects in the final catalog, 5634, is slightly different, as 15 objects with suspicious SDSS photometry (mostly on bright star bleed trails) were removed, and 157 objects were added from previous data reductions of the same astronomical images. Positions on the sky of cataloged SDSS stars are displayed in Figure 2. Faint SDSS detections ($`g^{}>22`$) are shown as small black dots, while brighter stars are larger black dots. Galaxies (objects which the SDSS software determined to be extended) are not included in the plot.

The catalog presented in this paper overlaps several previously published photometric surveys of the Draco dwarf galaxy. The footprints of the five surveys which are cross-referenced to sources in our catalog are shown in Figure 2. Our catalog also includes the fainter ten of the twelve Draco stars with accurate photometry from Henden and Munari (2000). Their SDSS IDs, from brightest to faintest, are: 1339-1-5-62-26, 1336-1-5-61-148, 1336-1-5-61-119, 1339-1-5-61-384, 1336-1-5-61-478, 1339-1-5-61-366, 1336-1-5-61-370, 1336-1-5-61-294, 1336-1-5-61-685, and 1336-1-5-61-1227. Since there are so few, we do not include a separate column in the catalog table. In the remainder of this section, we describe the construction of a catalog of Draco stars with cross-references to the other catalogs. Ultimately, the overlapping catalogs are used to generate a list of possible variable stars.

We list in Table 1 a summary of stars detected in each previous survey, along with numbers of matches to SDSS detections. The main data product of this paper, with format specified in Table 2, is contained in the (electronic) Table 3. Table 3 contains identifications, magnitudes, colors and cross-references to other surveys for stars in Draco. The SDSS J2000 right ascension (in degrees), declination (in degrees), SDSS id (Run-Rerun-CameraColumn-Field-ObjectID), $`g^{}`$ magnitude, and $`u^{}g^{},g^{}r^{},r^{}i^{},i^{}z^{}`$ colors of each object are listed as columns 1 through 8 of Table 3, respectively. These magnitudes have been derreddened using the E(B-V) tabulated in column 9, as derived from Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998). Following Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis (1989), $`A_u^{}=5.155E(BV)`$, $`A_g^{}=3.793E(BV)`$, $`A_r^{}=2.751E(BV)`$, $`A_i^{}=2.086E(BV),`$ and $`A_z^{}=1.479E(BV)`$. Measurements of the same objects in other catalogs are listed in columns 10 through 33, as described below. Note that the SDSS photometry is dereddened, while that of all the other catalogs is not. A flag indicating classification of the object as stellar (“s”), a resolved galaxy (“g”) or of an indeterminant extent (“f” for faint) is indicated in column 34 of Table 3. All stars with $`g^{}>22`$ are classified as “faint.” The 5766 lines in this table include the 5634 individual objects detected in the SDSS database, 19 objects from the Baade-Swope dataset which were not matched to SDSS objects, and 113 duplicate entries in cases where there exist Piatek objects in both the E1 and CO fields. The additional Baade-Swope entries were apparent in the SDSS images, so we were able to provide approximate astrometric positions even though no automated photometry was generated. We included multiple lines for Piatek duplicates to avoid adding yet four more columns to an already large table.

### 3.1 Photometry from Baade & Swope (1961)

The survey of area of Baade & Swope (1961) (hereafter BS61), approximately covering a circular region of radius $`5^{^{}}`$$`26^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ centered at R.A. $`17^h19^m24^s`$, Dec. $`+57^{}`$$`58^{^{}}`$$`06^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ (B1950), is completely contained within our catalog. Since the individual right ascensions and declinations were not included for each star in the BS61 catalog, the stars were matched by comparing the finding charts with SDSS images. Of the 624 stars in Table C of BS61, 563 were cross-identified with an object in the SDSS catalog, available in the SDSS Early Data Release (EDR). An additional 24 objects were measured in a previous software reduction (rerun 0) of the same data, and were included in our catalog. The majority of the data in Table 3 are from a software reduction called “rerun 1.” The second number in the third field of Table 3 is the SDSS id rerun number, thus, a 0 there would indicate that rerun 0 was used. The photometry for these latter objects could differ systemmatically by a small amount from the majority of the objects in the catalog, and were not corrected to match large aperture photometry of bright stars. Several other BS61 stars were apparent in the SDSS images, but were not reliably measured in any automated SDSS data reduction. In most cases, the star was close enough to a very bright star that the automated detection software had difficulty deblending it. The approximate positions for nineteen such objects are included in Table 3, though no SDSS photometry is provided. One star could not be identified because it was not labeled in the BS61 finding chart. The remaining BS61 stars either could not be reliably identified on the SDSS images or lay close enough to an image defect that the data could not be used reliably.

The process of cross-referencing catalogs through visual identification of stars in finding charts and images is inherently prone to errors. To reduce and evaluate the error rate, several checks were performed. We plotted $`g^{}V`$ vs. $`BV`$ for a set of magnitude ranges (Figures 3a and 3b). Here, $`g^{}`$ is the SDSS magnitude which is most similar to V. Except in unusual cases, stellar photometry should produce an approximately linear relationship between $`g^{}V`$ and $`BV`$. The scatter should increase with the photometric errors at fainter magnitudes. The derived color relations (SDSS dereddened values compared to BS61 undereddened values) are:

$$g^{}=V+0.618(BV)0.23,$$
(1)
$$g^{}r^{}=1.05(BV)0.28.$$
(2)
This transformation is only slightly different from that found in Fukugita et al. (1996) (hereafter F96), based on preliminary SDSS filter transmission design. Outliers on the $`g^{}V`$ vs. $`BV`$ plots were checked for mis-identification matches between SDSS and BS61, and several were found and corrected. Using the derived color transformations, the magnitudes of the detections of the same objects were directly compared in magnitude and color. Stars with significant differences in computed magnitudes or colors between different catalog observations are either variable, have unusual spectra which do not lead to linear color transformations, or are errors in either the SDSS or BS61 measurements. The outliers in magnitude are marked with diamonds in Figure 4a, and those outliers in color by diamonds in Figure 5a. Note that the photometry of BS61 is systematically shifted by several tenths of a magnitude at the faint end.

We compared the photometry between catalogs only for objects which are classified in the SDSS as stellar (column 34 of Table 3). Since the fraction of the light measured for galaxies differed between datasets, the inclusion of extended sources in the outlier detection process led to a large number of objects which appeared to vary in brightness from one observation to the next. This data cut did not have a large effect on the results from the BS61 data, since BS61 pre-selected only stellar objects, but is of greater import in comparing objects in other catalogs discussed below. Of the 586 BS61 objects matched to SDSS objects, only 25 were classified as galaxies by the SDSS, and 6 were fainter than $`22^{nd}`$ magnitude in $`g^{}`$ (and thus are classified only as “faint” in Table 3).

Stellar objects with a significant calculated photometric difference between SDSS and BS61 are flagged in column 13 of Table 3. Stars without significant photometric differences (as seen in Figures 4a and 5a) are flagged 0, stars with significant differences, but which have magnitudes and colors consistent with RR Lyrae variables (selection criteria are discussed below) are flagged as 1 and other variable candidate stars are flagged as 2 in this column. A flag value of 3 denotes an object which was not measured in the SDSS, BS61, or both. The BS61 id, V magnitude, and $`BV`$ values are found in columns 10, 11, and 12 of Table 3, respectively.

### 3.2 Photometry from Stetson (1979)

The Stetson (1979) (hereafter S79) photometric survey consisted of new photometry for a subset (512 stars) of the BS61 catalog. The star identifications of the stars in Table V of S79 are the same star identifers as in Table C of BS61. Since the S79 stars are identical to the BS61 stars, the S79 photometric data were simply matched to the appropriate BS61 stars. The S79 id, V magnitude, and $`BV`$ values are found in columns 14, 15, and 16 respectively in Table 3. The photometric difference flag in column 17 of Table 3 indicates whether or not there is a significant difference between the S79 (recalibrated BS61) photometry and SDSS data, as graphically shown in Figures 3c and 3d. The same $`(B,BV)(g,gr)`$ transform was performed as was used for BS61, and the outliers are shown in Figures 4b and 5b. The values of the flags have the same meanings as they do for BS61 (0:no difference, 1:RR Lyrae candidate, 2:unknown variable candidate, 3:no SDSS detection).

### 3.3 Photometry from Carney & Seitzer (1986)

The survey area of Carney & Seitzer (1986) (hereafter CS86) is broken up into two overlapping fields: Field 1 and Field 2. The total area (27 square arcminutes) of these two fields is completely contained within our catalog. Each of the two fields covers $`4^{^{}}`$$`.5`$ in declination and $`2^{^{}}`$$`.9`$ in right ascension and an outline of the field boundaries is drawn in Figure 2. Each field is approximately centered on a BS61 star; Field 1 is centered on BS69 star 92 and Field 2 on star 289. The two fields overlap by 3.4 square arcminutes (26%). An x and y value (in pixels) is given for each star in the two fields. To convert these x and y values to right ascension and declination, we created a transformation for each field. These transformations are accurate within about 1 arcsecond (rms). The transformation for Field 1 is:

$$\alpha =260.080880.000307403x0.00000397545y$$
(3)
$$\delta =57.874820.00000211255x+0.000163354y,$$
(4)
and for Field 2 the transformation is:

$$\alpha =260.01539580.00030713911x0.00000316997y$$
(5)
$$\delta =57.884940.0000016845x+0.0001632135y.$$
(6)
About half of the stars in each of the two fields were faint (V $``$ $`23`$), and were not matched to the SDSS data. 370 of the 547 Field 1 stars were matched to SDSS detections, and 292 of the 423 Field 2 stars were matched. Most of the stars that were not identified had $`V>22.5`$). Since the unmatched stars were not clumped in position on the sky, we believe that the coordinate transformation is not responsible for the fact that many of stars are not found in common between the catalogs. Almost all of the unmatched CS86 stars were either fainter than 23rd magnitude in V or close enough to brighter stars that the SDSS deblender did not identify them as isolated sources.

We used the same method to reduce and evaluate the error rate in CS86 data as we did in BS61 data. The transformation from B,V photometry to $`g^{},r^{}`$ photometry was different, however. The transformation from F96 was a good match to the data, so it was adopted:

$$g^{}=V+0.56(BV)0.12,$$
(7)
$$g^{}r^{}=1.05(BV)0.23.$$
(8)
The computed $`g^{}`$ values would differ by a few percent if we used the transformations derived in Smith et al. (2002) from comparisons of SDSS standard stars to Landolt standards. A comparison of our photometry with the corresponding photometry from ten stars in Henden and Munari (2000) support the claim that the Smith et al. (2002) transformations are a better match to modern CCD photometry than the theoretical transformations of F96. Since we are using the transformations only to look for outliers, it doesn’t matter if the overall transformation is off by a few percent (either due to the transformation or the fact that our magnitudes are dereddened and CS86 data is not).

Figures 3e, 3f, 4c and 5c show the photometric comparisons between SDSS and CS86 data, and the outliers chosen as candidate variables. Twenty candidate variable objects were identified (of which 16 are consistent with Draco RR Lyrae variables in color and magnitude). These objects are either variable, have unusual spectra, or highlight photometric errors in at least one catalog. The CS86 Field 1 id, V magnitude, $`BV`$ color, and variability flag are found in columns 18, 19, 20, and 21, respectively, and the CS86 Field 2 id, V magnitude, $`BV`$ color, and variability flag are found in columns 22, 23, 24, and 25, respectively.

### 3.4 Photometry from Piatek et al. (2001)

Out of the nine tables in and around Draco in Piatek et al. (2001) (hereafter P01), only three (Tables a, b, and d) overlap data within our catalog. Field C0 from P01 contains the majority of stars found within our catalog. Of the 11381 C0 stars within our catalog region, 4796 stars matched to stars within our catalog. 132 of the unidentified stars were found in the rerun 0 version of the reduction software. As was true in comparing our catalog to those of BS61 and CS86, most of the unmatched stars brighter than $`V=22.5`$ were not detected in the SDSS because they were not deblended from bright stars. Out of the 1294 stars in E1 (P01 Table b) and 191 stars in W1 (P01 Table d) within our catalog region, 444 and 60, respectively, stars were identified in our catalog. An additional five of the unidentified stars in Table b and two of the unidentified stars from Table d were found in the rerun 0 version of the reduction software. A total of 5326 matches to P01 objects were made out of a total of 5634 unique objects in the SDSS catalog. Again, about 90% of the stars brighter than $`V=22.5`$ are matched with objects in the SDSS database.

For bluer colors, $`VR0.875`$, the F96 color transformations work well:

$$g^{}=V+0.96(VR)0.14,$$
(9)
$$g^{}r^{}=1.80(VR)0.27.$$
(10)
For redder stars, we used the transformation:

$$g^{}=V+0.70,$$
(11)
$$g^{}r^{}=0.03.$$
(12)
Figures 3g, 3h, 4d, and 5d show a comparison of the photometry between P01 and SDSS catalogs; stars with inconsistent photometry are marked with a diamond-shaped symbol. 134 of the 2374 matched objects are flagged as possible variable stars. Due to saturation of P01 photometry on the bright end, we did not compare photometry for stellar objects brighter than $`V=17`$. The P01 id, V magnitude, $`VR`$ color, and match flag are found in columns 26–29 of Table 3, respectively.

Note that in cases where there is a match of the same SDSS star to a P01 C0 and either a P01 E1 or P01 W1 field, that there are two lines of entries in Table 3, one for each match, with the SDSS information duplicated.

### 3.5 Photometry from Grillmair et al. (1998)

The survey of area of the HST observations of Draco by Grillmair et al. (1998) (hereafter G98) is completely contained within our catalog and is roughly centered and almost completely contained within CS86 Field 1 (See Figure 2). It was necessary to create a transformation from G98 x and y to R.A. and Dec. for the three G98 fields (WF2, WF3, and WF4). For the WF2 field the transformation is:

$$\alpha =260.0383540.0000336621x0.00003946221y$$
(13)
$$\delta =57.908120.0000209702x+0.000017888y.$$
(14)
For WF3 the transformation is:

$$\alpha =260.0392950.000039238x+0.000033847y$$
(15)
$$\delta =57.90852+0.0000179864x+0.000020851y.$$
(16)
And for WF4 the transformation is:

$$\alpha =260.04099+0.0000342794x+0.000038953y$$
(17)
$$\delta =57.90783+0.0000206995x0.000018216y.$$
(18)
These fields are from one pointing of WFPC2.

The G98 data are taken with the Hubble Space Telescope and therefore includes very faint stars. There are 50 stars with V magnitude $``$ 23 in the WF2 data, 46 in the WF3 data, and 56 in the WF4 data. A total of 88 stars were matched by position to stars in our catalog, including 6 from the “rerun 0” version of the catalog. Since F96 provided no transformations from V,I to $`g^{},r^{}`$ filter systems, we generated our own transformation equations from the data:

$$g^{}=V+0.991(VI)0.15,$$
(19)
$$g^{}r^{}=1.25(VI)0.24.$$
(20)
The G98 id (id-WF chip number), V magnitude, $`VI`$ color, and photometric matching flag are found in columns 30, 31, 32 and 33 of Table 3, respectively. No stars were selected as variables by comparison to the G98 catalog (see Figures 3i, 3j, 4e and 5e).

## 4 ANALYSIS

The catalog of Table 3 is intended to provide a reference to researchers interested in the stellar populations and structure of Draco. The extensive cross-references to the literature provide an opportunity to select variable candidates based on multi-epoch photometry over a long baseline. Though the filter systems are inhomogeneous, roughly linear behavior for most colors yields a good list of candidate variables across the Draco field.

Table 4 lists all 142 candidate variables selected from Table 3. The columns of Table 4 are: right ascension, declination, SDSS ID, SDSS $`g^{}`$, $`g^{}r^{}`$, $`u^{}g^{}`$, suspected variable type (RR Lyrae , QSO, Cepheid or Unknown), matching catalog (BS61, S79, CS79, P01, or G98), and the $`\delta g^{}`$ and $`\delta (g^{}r^{})`$ between the SDSS observation and the transformed magnitude and color of the cross reference observation onto the SDSS $`(g^{},g^{}r^{})`$ system. A positive value of delta $`g^{}`$ or delta $`g^{}r^{}`$ means the star was fainter or redder respectively in the SDSS than in the comparison catalog. The last column gives the identity of the object from other catalogs.

Since the observations with the full set of filters for SDSS observations for each object are obtained within minutes of each other, most stars can be expected to be at a single point in their light curve. By plotting the colors of known RR Lyrae stars from BS61, we determined that in Draco these variable stars lie in a narrow region of the H-R diagram (see Figure 6). Therefore, we tentatively identify all 112 stars in the range $`19<g^{}<20.8`$, $`g^{}r^{}<0.4`$, $`2.7(g^{}r^{})+19.2<g^{}<2.7(g^{}r^{})+20.1`$ as RR Lyrae candidates. These objects have a one in the variability flag fields of Table 3, and are labeled as “RR Lyrae” in Table 4. Objects which are suspected to vary but which do not lie in the region inhabited by RR Lyrae stars have a one in the variability flag fields of Table 3 and are labeled as “unknown” in Table 4. There are only 30 objects suspected of varying which have colors outside the region known to contain RR Lyrae variables. A few of these might be RR Lyrae variables as well, as their colors place them only slightly outside our RR Lyrae color box.

The location of all variable candidates is summarized in the color magnitude diagram presented in Figure 6. Variable candidates from each cross-referenced catalog are marked with a separate color while all SDSS stars are indicated as black dots. The variables from the BS61 survey are well confirmed (Nemec, 1985) with full light curves. We were able to find the positions of 135 of the 137 BS61 variable objects within eight arcminutes of the center of Draco. Two of the 137 did not appear to be in the central part in the finding charts, so they were not included. Note that the numbering system for the BS61 variable stars is separate from the photometric table with which we matched our data; we did not match the photometry for the variable star list. We recover 82 (60%) of the 135 BS61 variables, which are identified in the last column of Table 4. We also recover 28 numbered BS61 variables outside the inner eight arcminutes, and three BS61 variables which were not given a number. Since most of the variables were detected from only two epochs of photometry, we would not expect to recover all of the variable objects in Draco from this technique.

Two of the variable candidates (1339-1-5-60-207 and 1339-1-6-61-504) are known quasars from Schneider et al. (2002). These objects are indicated by a large black circle in Figure 6, and labeled “QSO” in the last column of Table 4.

Five known carbon stars are included in Table 3. SDSS stars 1336-1-5-61-267, 1336-1-5-61-436, and 1336-1-5-61-484 correspond to Aaronson, Liebert, & Stocke (1982) stars $`C2=J`$, C1, and C3, respectively. SDSS stars 1336-1-5-60-249, 1336-1-5-61-436, and 1336-1-5-60-294 correspond to Margon et al. (2002) stars J171942.4+575838, J171957.7+575005, and J172038.8+575934, respectively. Object 1336-1-5-61-267 is apparently variable and we detect it as such in multiple catalog comparisons. It appears as a multi-colored point at $`(g^{},g^{}r^{})=(18.02,1.13)`$ in Figure 6, and is identified as type “Carbon” in the last column of Table 4.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

A matched catalog of 5634 objects in the Draco dwarf field, extending over four times the area of the Baade & Swope (1961) catalog and reaching to approximately one third the new tidal radius of Odenkirchen et al. (2001), has been assembled. We selected five color data from the SDSS with $`15<g^{}<23`$, within the elliptical region $`[(\alpha 260.051)/0.460]^2+[(\delta 57.913)/0.164]^2<1`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ are in J2000 degrees. This SDSS data was merged with several existing data sets to produce our final catalog. The data sets include: Baade & Swope (1961), Carney & Seitzer (1986), Stetson (1997), Grillmair et al. (1998), and Piatek et al. (2001).

Using only stellar sources with $`g^{}<23`$, we identify 142 candidate variable stars, of which 113 were identified as variables in BS61, one is a known carbon star, and two are known QSOs. Since the SDSS observations were taken nearly simultaneously in all filters, the catalog colors and distance to the Draco dwarf can be used to identify potential RR Lyrae stars. Nearly $`80\%`$ of the candidate variable objects have colors consistent with those of RR Lyrae variables. Only 6 (23%) of the 26 objects which do not have previous identifications are classified as RR Lyrae candidates on the basis of their colors. We report all astrometric and photometric transformations used to compare our data with previous catalogs.

## 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Carl J. Grillmair for sending his unpublished data, and Hugh Harris for providing us with the positions of BS61 variables outside of the central eight arcminutes of Draco. The referee, Slawomir Piatek, made many helpful comments which improved the paper.

This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.

This work was supported by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, under U.S. Government Contract No. DE-AC02-76CH03000.

Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.

The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.