text:
# Dependences of the X-ray luminosity and pulsar wind nebula on different parameters of pulsars and the evolutionary effects

## 1 Introduction

X-ray luminosity (Lx) of single neutron stars strongly depends on the rate of rotational energy loss (Ė) 1,2,3. Ė depends on the spin period (P) and time derivative of the spin period (Ṗ) of neutron stars. As there exist many other parameters of pulsars determined from P and Ṗ values, Lx must also depend on these parameters. This problem has already been analysed using values of Lx in 2-10 keV band for different groups of pulsars including also the old millisecond pulsars 2. We also prefer to use the Lx values in 2-10 keV band, because the absorption is strong in the softer X-ray band and also there must be a contribution of the cooling radiation to the soft X-ray part of the radiation of pulsar which may complicate the problem. Below, using reliable distance values we have analysed in detail the dependence of L2-10keV on different pulsar parameters for young single pulsars for which the radiation is related to ejection of relativistic particles. In this investigation we have also used the values of pulsar radiation in 0.1-2.4 keV band and the radiation of pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) in both bands. Special attention has been paid to the evolutionary factors. There exist many pulsars with large values of Ė and small values of age from which no X-ray radiation has been observed. Below, we have also discussed possible reasons of this.

## 2 Dependences of X-ray radiation of pulsars and their wind nebula on different parameters of pulsars

For the pulsed radio emission to occur and in order to produce radiation (excluding cooling radiation) in X-rays and also to form PWN, there must be ejection of high-energy particles. The production of these kinds of radiation and PWN must depend on different parameters of neutron star. Note that the magnetic field may not be pure magneto-dipole field and the angle between the magnetic field and the spin axis is uncertain. These facts also make the solution of the problems more difficult. We want to figure out whether X-ray radiation of pulsars and the formation of PWN depend on Ė or the electric field intensity (Eel) more strongly for the case of pure magneto-dipole radiation. In order to clarify these problems, we have constructed X-ray luminosity (2-10 keV) versus Ė diagram for all radio and single X-ray pulsars with characteristic time ($`\tau `$) $`<`$106 yr located up to 7 kpc from the Sun including also 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds (Figure 1). The data of these pulsars are represented in Table 1.

Depending on values of the magnetic field and the speed of rotation on the surface of neutron star, there arises induced electric field of which the intensity is represented as 4:

$$E_{el}=\frac{4\pi R}{c}\frac{B_r}{P}(\frac{\dot{P}}{P})^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(1)
where R is the radius of neutron star, Br the value of the real magnetic field strength and c the speed of light. In actuality, pulsars are located in plasma and expression (1) does not give the exact value of Eel. As the P-Ṗ diagram which we use is always represented in logarithmic scale, the lines of constant Eel pass parallel to the lines of constant characteristic time

$$\tau =\frac{P}{2\dot{P}}$$
(2)
so that, we do not show the lines of Eel=constant on the P-Ṗ diagram. Calculated values of Eel may also contain some mistakes, because different pulsars may have different radius, moment of inertia (I) and braking index.

Often, there is PWN around the youngest pulsars which we include in Table 1. For such cases the X-ray luminosity value include both the X-ray radiation of the pulsar and of the PWN in most of the cases, as it is difficult to distinguish the Lx(PWN) part of the luminosity. On the other hand, since the contribution of the PWN to the X-ray luminosity can be at most comparable with the X-ray luminosity of the pulsar in general 3, the change in the positions of the pulsars in the figures will be small in such cases that the dependences found from the best fits do not change considerably. It must also be noted that the uncertainties in the distance values and in the measured 2-10 keV fluxes can not have significant influences on these dependences. The pulsars with $`\tau `$$`<`$106 yr located up to 7 kpc for which the X-ray luminosity only in the 0.1-2.4 keV band is known are also displayed in Table 1. We have adopted reliable values of distance for the pulsars 5 and X-ray luminosity data mainly have been taken from Possenti et al. 2 and Becker & Aschenbach 3.

The dependence between X-ray luminosity (2-10 keV) and Ė is displayed in Figure 1. The equation of this dependence is:

$$L_{210keV}=10^{23.40\pm 4.44}\dot{E}^{1.56\pm 0.12}.$$
(3)
In Figure 2, X-ray luminosity (2-10 keV) versus $`\tau `$ diagram is represented for the same pulsar sample shown in Figure 1. The equation for the relation between X-ray luminosity (2-10 keV) and $`\tau `$ is:

$$L_{210keV}=10^{41.79\pm 1.04}\tau ^{1.98\pm 0.23}.$$
(4)
As seen from Figures 1 and 2, the deviations of the data with respect to the best fits shown in the figures are larger in the Lx (2-10 keV) versus $`\tau `$ diagram compared to the Lx (2-10 keV) versus Ė diagram, but there is no significant difference.

Some pulsars in Table 1 have $`\gamma `$-ray radiation. As seen from Figure 1, these pulsars are in general located below the best fit line. On the other hand, all the pulsars with large effective magnetic field (B) values (log B $`>`$ 12.7) are located above the line (note that when there exist some additional mechanisms other than the magneto-dipole mechanism, B$`>`$Br). We have not designated these pulsars in Figure 2 but notice that $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars in this figure are located in both parts with respect to the best fit line, whereas, all the pulsars with large values of B have positions below the line. This is also the result of different dependences of Eel (see expression (1)) and rate of rotational energy loss

$$\dot{E}=\frac{4\pi ^2I\dot{P}}{P^3},$$
(5)
on the value of P (note that in this approximation we neglect the dependences of the observational and the calculated parameters of pulsars on the radius and mass of neutron stars).

Which parameters of neutron stars do the deviations in Figures 1 and 2 mainly depend on? In order to understand this, we have examined pulsars in narrow Ė intervals with large differences in their Lx values which lead to large deviations. The largest deviation is for the interval log Ė=36.78-36.9 where pulsars J1846-0258, J1811-1925, and Vela are present. These are not ordinary pulsars: pulsars J1846-0258 and J1811-1925 are strong X-ray pulsars which have not been detected in other bands, whereas, Vela pulsar, which has been known as a radio, optical and gamma-ray pulsar until recently, has been identified also in X-rays but with low luminosity 6. The Lx (2-10 keV) value of Vela pulsar (Table 1) is more than one order of magnitude larger than the value given by Possenti et al. 2. This is because we have also included the X-ray luminosity of the PWN around the Vela pulsar which is about 10 times greater than the X-ray luminosity of the pulsar 7 and we have adopted a more reliable distance value 5 so that the luminosity value also increased about 3 times. Despite these facts, the position of Vela pulsar in Figure 1 is still well below the line and the difference between the luminosity values of Vela pulsar and pulsar J1846-0258 is still very large. Although, the period value of pulsar J1846-0258 is 4-5 times larger than the period values of Vela pulsar and pulsar 1811-1925, since the magnetic field

$$B=\sqrt{\frac{3c^3IP\dot{P}}{8\pi ^2R^6}}$$
(6)
and Ė values of pulsar J1846-0258 are larger than the values of the other two pulsars (even though the $`\tau `$ value is small), its luminosity (2-10 keV) value is larger (see Table 1).

The second largest deviation among large Ė values in Figure 1 is in the log Ė=37.21-37.42 interval where pulsars J1513-5908, J0205+6449, J1617-5055, and J2229+6114 are located in. Pulsar J1513-5908, the youngest one among these pulsars, has the largest P, B and Lx values. Among the other pulsars in this group, the largest Ė value belongs to pulsar J0205+6449 in this interval and this pulsar has a smaller value of $`\tau `$, a larger value of B, and a period value in between the values of pulsars J1617-5055 and J2229+6114. In spite of this, the luminosity of this pulsar is less than the luminosity of pulsar J1617-5055. This is strange, because all four parameters (P, $`\tau `$, B, Ė) of pulsar J0205+6449 suggest a larger luminosity value. Furthermore, there is no supernova shell or PWN around pulsar J1617-5055. This contradiction is not because of the adopted distance values. Is this contradiction related to the uncertainties in the observational data? Although, the luminosity values of these 2 pulsars (J0205+6449 and J1617-5055) are comparable within error limits 2, one still can not explain why pulsar J0205+6449 does not have a larger Lx value. If the observational data are not significantly different than the actual values, then either there may be a considerable difference in the mass values of these 2 pulsars or the magnetic field may not be pure dipole.

Among the youngest pulsars, the largest deviations are in the log $`\tau `$=3.19-3.22 interval. Among the pulsars in this interval, the smallest P and the largest Ė values belong to pulsar J0540-6919 which has also the largest Lx value. In this interval, the smallest Lx value belongs to pulsar J1119-6127 which has the largest P and B values and the smallest Ė value. According to Gonzalez & Safi-Harb 8, J1119-6127 has unabsorbed Lx (0.5-10 keV)=5.5$`{}_{3.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+10}`$$`\times `$1032 erg/s at 6 kpc. There is no pulsed X-ray radiation observed from radio pulsar J1119-6127 and the position of the X-ray source is not coincident with the position of the radio pulsar; the observed point source may actually be a PWN 9.

Pulsar J0358+5413 has log $`\tau `$=5.75 and pulsar J0538+2817 has log $`\tau `$=5.79. The Lx value of pulsar J0358+5413 is about 300 times larger than the Lx value of pulsar J0538+2817, but the P, B and Ė values of these 2 pulsars are roughly the same. Why is pulsar J0358+5413 much more luminous than pulsar J0538+2817? The absolute error of the Lx (2-10 keV) value of pulsar J0358+5413 is very large 2 and the Lx (2-10 keV) value is not a directly measured value but converted by Possenti et al. 2 from the Lx value in softer band 10. So, the high Lx (2-10 keV) value of pulsar J0358+5413 can actually be much lower and the large difference in the Lx (2-10 keV) values of pulsars J0358+5413 and J0538+2817 can actually be much smaller.

If we consider the corrections to the positions of some of the pulsars discussed above taking also into account relations between Lx and Ė, $`\tau `$, B and P, and if we change the positions of the pulsars in the figures within error limits given in Possenti et al. 2 then, pulsar J1119-6127 will have a higher Lx value, whereas, pulsars J1826-1334, J1302-6350 and J0358+5413 will have lower values of Lx. In this case, the dependence between Lx and $`\tau `$ given in eqn.(4) will be improved with a more negative power of $`\tau `$. If we apply the same approach for the positions of some of the pulsars in Figure 1, we see that the deviations do not decrease and the power of Ė (eqn.(3)) increases negligibly.

Some of the pulsars shown in Figures 1,2 and in Table 1 have experienced strong glitches ($`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P}{P}`$$`>`$10-6, denoted with ’G’ in Figure 2). As seen from Figure 2, the deviations of the data do not seem to be due to the glitch activity.

## 3 The evolutionary factors

Since the values of P and Ṗ and the other parameters change continuously during the pulsar evolution, the value of L2-10keV must also change in connection to this. We want to analyse how the L2-10keV luminosity of pulsars changes during the evolution of pulsars on the P-Ṗ diagram.

From eqn. (3) we see that

$$L_{210keV}^{(\dot{E})}(\frac{\dot{P}}{P^3})^{1.56}$$
(7)
and similarly from eqn. (4)

$$L_{210keV}^{(\tau )}(\frac{\dot{P}}{P})^{1.98}$$
(8)
using the expressions for Ė (5) and $`\tau `$ (2). Now, using the expression for B (6), we can write (7) and (8) in the form:

$$L_{210keV}^{(\dot{E})}(\frac{B^2}{P^4})^{1.56}$$
(9)
and

$$L_{210keV}^{(\tau )}(\frac{B^2}{P^2})^{1.98}.$$
(10)
If both dependences (3) and (4) are applicable in finding the value of Lx, then the ratio of the luminosities for each pulsar found from equations (9) and (10) must roughly be the same throughout the evolution of a pulsar. From dependences (10) and (9) we get:

$$\frac{L_{210keV}^{(\tau )}}{L_{210keV}^{(\dot{E})}}B^{0.84}P^{2.28}.$$
(11)
So, the ratio is strongly dependent on P which must be wrong because the ratio must not change significantly during the evolution if both dependences are reliable.

X-ray luminosity of the considered pulsars strongly depends on different parameters of pulsars and decreases with age down to Lx$``$1029-1030 erg/s. During the evolution of these pulsars, the period value changes up to a factor of 10, Ṗ up to 50 times, Ė up to 104 times, and $`\tau `$ up to 500 times. During the evolution, value of B for each pulsar may decrease only up to a factor of 3, but magnitudes of the deviation of B values for different pulsars are larger.

As seen from Figure 5, an increase in the initial magnetic field value of a factor of 10 leads to a decrease in the age of X-ray pulsar of a factor of 10. As X-ray luminosity of young pulsars strongly depends on Eel and Ė, as seen from the Lx-$`\tau `$ diagram (Figure 2) and Figure 5, the X-ray luminosity of the pulsars with largest initial B values drop very quickly below the threshold during the evolution, whereas, the X-ray luminosity of the pulsars with smaller initial values of B last longer and drop below the threshold in about 105 yr. Therefore, it is necessary to consider a more homogeneous group of pulsars which have B values close to each other. Naturally, the best fit lines for the new sample must lead to a different equation for the Lx-$`\tau `$ dependence and practically the same equation for the Lx-Ė dependence. In order to see this, we have constructed Lx vs. Ė and Lx vs. $`\tau `$ diagrams (Figures 3 and 4) for the pulsars with B values in the interval 12.2 $``$ log B $``$ 12.7 (Figure 5). Again from the best fits, we get dependences between Lx and Ė:

$$L_{210keV}=10^{27.46\pm 6.48}\dot{E}^{1.66\pm 0.18}$$
(12)
and Lx and $`\tau `$:

$$L_{210keV}=10^{45.98\pm 1.51}\tau ^{2.99\pm 0.36}.$$
(13)
From these two dependences it is seen that the dependence given by eqn.(3) is comparable to the dependence given by eqn.(12) within error limits, but the dependence given by eqn.(4) changed considerably (see eqn.(13)).

Dividing eqn.(13) by eqn.(12) and again using the expressions (5) and (2) we get:

$$\frac{L_{210keV}^{(\tau )}}{L_{210keV}^{(\dot{E})}}B^{2.66}P^{0.66}.$$
(14)
As the effective B value decreases gradually during the evolution, the large increase in the P value compensates it and the ratio remains approximately the same. The dependences (12) and (13) are more reliable and reflect the evolutionary effects, because we have used a more homogeneous group of pulsars with similar evolutionary tracks in Figures 3 and 4. The ratio given by dependence (14) shows this fact.

The reason of the considerable difference between the dependences (4) and (13) can easily be seen in Figure 5. As seen from this figure, when the value of $`\tau `$ is small, first the constant $`\tau `$ line crosses the considered B interval (i.e. the interval of 12.2 $``$ log B $``$ 12.7) where the value of Ė is large. Then, it crosses the region, which is not included in the B interval under consideration, where the value of Ė is small. On the other hand, if the value of $`\tau `$ is large, then the constant $`\tau `$ line first crosses a region, outside the considered B interval, where pulsars with large values of Ė are located, and then it crosses the B interval under consideration where pulsars with small Ė values are present. Therefore, for small values of $`\tau `$, the pulsars which have smaller values of L2-10keV and which are not located in the considered interval have positions below the best fit line in Figure 4. On the other hand, for large values of $`\tau `$, the pulsars which have larger values of L2-10keV and which are not located in the considered interval have positions above the best fit line in Figure 4. Excluding the pulsars with large deviations from the best fit line leads to the considerable difference between the dependences (4) and (13).

In Table 1, we have also included the 15 pulsars with $`\tau `$$`<`$105 yr and/or log Ė$`>`$35.60 from which no X-ray radiation has been detected. In Figure 5, all the 48 pulsars in Table 1 are displayed. Within and around this region of the P-Ṗ diagram, there are pulsars with detected X-ray radiation. All of these pulsars without detected X-ray radiation are also located at d$``$7 kpc from the Sun. One of these pulsars is connected to a supernova remnant (SNR).

As seen from Figure 5 and Table 1, there are some pulsars without observed X-ray radiation which have smaller $`\tau `$ values and larger Ė values compared to some pulsars with observed X-ray radiation. What is the reason for not detecting X-ray radiation from such pulsars? As mentioned in the previous section, the X-ray luminosity must depend not only on P and Ṗ but also on some other parameters. The deviations of the data from the best fits in Figures 1-4 also show this fact. It is not easy to examine these ”other parameters” which can not be calculated from values of P and Ṗ and get realiable results. But it is possible to clarify why there exist those pulsars with smaller $`\tau `$ values and larger Ė values from which no X-ray radiation has been detected by examining the selection effects.

It is clear that it is more difficult to observe the X-ray radiation of a pulsar if it is located at a large distance in the Galactic plane and in the Galactic centre direction. All the 8 pulsars with $`\tau `$$`>`$105 yr from which X-ray radiation has been observed as shown in Figure 5 are located at distances d$`<`$2.5 kpc from the Sun (Figure 6). Directions of these and all the other pulsars in Table 1 are shown in b vs. l diagram (Figure 7).

In Figure 6, Ė–d diagram for all the 48 pulsars in Table 1 is represented. The pulsars without observed X-ray radiation are all located beyond 2 kpc from the Sun. It is normal to detect X-ray radiation from pulsars with large Ė values even at large distances (see Figure 6), but there is a pulsar, namely J0631+1036, with detected X-ray radiation in the 2-10 keV band which is located at d=6.6 kpc and has a smaller Ė value (log Ė=35.24). The reason for this is that this pulsar is located in the Galactic anti-centre direction (see Figure 7). The other 8 pulsars with detected X-ray radiation and with distances between 6-7 kpc are located in the Galactic central directions. Six out of the 8 far away pulsars in the central directions are connected to SNRs that these are well examined pulsars. So, it must be considered normal to detect the X-ray radiation of these pulsars. On the other hand, the remaining 2 pulsars, namely J1105-6107 and J1617-5055, are not connected to SNRs. Pulsar J1617-5055 has very high Ė and large Lx values (see Table 1), and pulsar J1105-6107 is located in between the Sagittarius and the Scutum arms so that it is normal to observe the X-ray emission of these 2 pulsars. All the pulsars without detected X-ray radiation are located in the central directions and in the directions of Vela OB-associations (see Figure 7). Moreover, the pulsars with d$``$4.1 kpc which have not been detected in X-rays (J0940-5428, J1809-1917, J1718-3825, J1531-5610, J1509-5850, J1913+1011) have all been found in recent pulsar surveys 11,12,13. In the near future, it is possible that all of these pulsars will be detected in X-rays.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

For single pulsars, the X-ray radiation due to the relativistic particles, which considerably exceeds the cooling radiation, is important and worth examining. Power and spectrum of this radiation depend on the number and the energy spectra of the relativistic electrons in the magnetospheres of pulsars. They also depend on the number density of charged particles and the magnetic field in the magnetosphere. The X-ray radiation of PWNe also depends on these quantities. X-ray radiation has also been observed from old single millisecond pulsars which is absolutely not cooling radiation but a result of Coulomb interaction between the accelerated particles and the charged particles in the magnetosphere. Since the parameters of millisecond pulsars practically do not vary in time and as they are not active as the young pulsars are, we do not consider them in this work.

From the investigations of single pulsars which radiate X-rays as a result of ejection of relativistic particles, we have concluded as follows:
1) Luminosity in 2-10 keV band (often the total luminosity including the luminosity of the PWN) strongly depends on electric field intensity Eel (or $`\tau `$), rate of rotational energy loss Ė, magnetic field B, period, and in smaller degree on some other parameters of neutron stars.
2) The dependence of Lx on Ė is practically the same for pulsars with very different values of B and with B=1012-1013 G. This is not true for the Lx-$`\tau `$ dependence.
3) Pulsars with different initial values of B and with $`\tau `$ about 103 yr begin to evolve from different points of the Lx-Ė dependence and then continue to evolve with similar trajectories until Lx drops to $``$1030 erg/s, but the same pulsars begin and end their evolution in different parts of the Lx-$`\tau `$ dependence and the evolutionary tracks are not parallel to the Lx-$`\tau `$ dependence for all the pulsars under consideration.
4) The pulsars, which also radiate gamma-rays, with the same values of Ė as the other pulsars without gamma-ray radiation have several times smaller X-ray luminosities.
5) The pulsars which have PWNe practically always have X-ray luminosities greater than 1033 erg/s.
6) Practically, values of $`\tau `$ and Ė determine the X-ray luminosity. The increase in $`\tau `$ and the decrease in Ė simultaneously lead to a rapid decrease in Lx. Value of Lx decreases from $``$1037 erg/s for Ė$``$3$`\times `$1038 erg/s and $`\tau `$$``$103 yr to $``$1030 erg/s for Ė$``$3$`\times `$1034 erg/s and $`\tau `$$``$3$`\times `$105 yr.

If we take into account these and also the strength and spectra of the X-ray radiation of millisecond pulsars 2,3, we can have some preliminary conclusions about the acceleration of particles and their radiation. As the characteristic time of millisecond pulsars is about 4-5 orders of magnitude smaller compared to the young pulsars, their Eel values must be 200-250 times smaller than the Eel values of young pulsars. On the other hand, the value of Eel does not have a strong influence on the X-ray radiation of pulsars. The X-ray spectra of young pulsars are, on average, steeper compared to the spectra of millisecond pulsars. If we also consider the strong dependence of the X-ray radiation of all the pulsars on the value of Ė, we can conclude as follows:
7) Acceleration of particles mainly takes place in the field of magnetodipole radiation wave. Eel has a role of only triggering this process.
8) The high values of X-ray luminosity of young pulsars under the same Ė values and the steeper spectra of such pulsars are related to the large amount of charged particles in their magnetospheres as compared to millisecond pulsars.

It is necessary to reexamine the X-ray flux values of J0205+6449, J0358+5413, and J0538+2817 in 2-10 keV band to understand the dependences of the X-ray luminosity on Ė, Eel, B and P values and the possible dependence on the energy spectra of the ejected particles.

Also, in order to understand the dependence of the X-ray radiation on different parameters of pulsars better, it is necessary to observe pulsars J0940-5428, J1809-1917, J1718-3825, J1531-5610, J1509-5850, J1913+1011 preferably in the hard X-ray band.

Figure Captions
Figure 1: Log Lx (2-10 keV) versus log Ė diagram of all 30 pulsars with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr which have observed X-ray radiation. 28 of these pulsars are located up to 7 kpc from the Sun and 2 of them are in Magellanic Clouds. ’Plus’ signs denote the 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds. ’Cross’ signs show the positions of pulsars with 105 $`<`$ $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and ’star’ signs show the positions of pulsars with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 105 yr. ’Square’ signs denote single X-ray pulsars. Seven of these pulsars have log B $`>`$ 12.7 (denoted with ’B’) and from 8 of them $`\gamma `$-rays have been observed (denoted with ’G’).
Figure 2: Log Lx (2-10 keV) versus log $`\tau `$ diagram of all 30 pulsars with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr which have observed X-ray radiation. 28 of these pulsars are located up to 7 kpc from the Sun and 2 of them are in Magellanic clouds. ’Plus’ signs denote the 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds. ’Cross’ signs show the positions of pulsars with 105 $`<`$ $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and ’star’ signs show the positions of pulsars with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 105 yr. ’Square’ signs denote single X-ray pulsars. Seven of these pulsars have experienced strong ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$P/P $`>`$ 10-6) glitches (denoted with ’G’).
Figure 3: Log Lx (2-10 keV) versus log Ė diagram for 15 of the 30 pulsars shown in Figures 1 and 2; these 15 pulsars have 12.2 $``$ log B $``$ 12.7. ’Plus’ sign denotes the pulsar in Magellanic Cloud. ’Cross’ signs show the positions of pulsars with 105 $`<`$ $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and ’star’ signs show the positions of pulsars with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 105 yr. ’Square’ sign denotes the single X-ray pulsar.
Figure 4: Log Lx (2-10 keV) versus log $`\tau `$ diagram for 15 of the 30 pulsars shown in Figures 1 and 2; these 15 pulsars have 12.2 $``$ log B $``$ 12.7. ’Plus’ sign denotes the pulsar in Magellanic Cloud. ’Cross’ signs show the positions of pulsars with 105 $`<`$ $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and ’star’ signs show the positions of pulsars with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 105 yr. ’Square’ sign denotes the single X-ray pulsar. Black squares show the positions of the pulsars which are present in Figure 2 but not included in the fit of Figure 4.
Figure 5: Period versus period derivative diagram for all 48 pulsars represented in Table 1 with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and distance $``$ 7 kpc including the 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds. ’Circles’ represent the 33 pulsars from which X-ray radiation have been detected in 2-10 keV and/or 0.1-2.4 keV bands. ’Plus’ signs denote the 15 pulsars with log Ė $`>`$ 35.55 from which no X-ray radiation has been observed.
Figure 6: Log Ė versus distance diagram for all 48 pulsars represented in Table 1 with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and distance $``$ 7 kpc including the 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds. ’Circles’ represent the 33 pulsars from which X-ray radiation have been detected in 2-10 keV and/or 0.1-2.4 keV bands. ’Plus’ signs denote the 15 pulsars with log Ė $`>`$ 35.55 from which no X-ray radiation has been observed. ’Cross’ signs represent the 8 pulsars with 105$`<`$$`\tau `$$`<`$106 yr.
Figure 7: Galactic longitude (l) versus Galactic latitude (b) diagram for all 48 pulsars represented in Table 1 with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and distance $``$ 7 kpc including the 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds. ’Circles’ represent the 33 pulsars from which X-ray radiation have been detected in 2-10 keV and/or 0.1-2.4 keV bands. ’Plus’ signs denote the 15 pulsars with log Ė $`>`$ 35.55 from which no X-ray radiation has been observed. ’Cross’ signs represent the 8 pulsars with 105$`<`$$`\tau `$$`<`$106 yr.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Partially motivated by a model of Axelrod , the model of Deffuant et al.  simulates the building of a consensus, or the lack of consensus, out of many initially random opinions. Other consensus models are those of Krause and Hegselmann , Sznajd  (for a review see ), and Galam ; they were summarized recently in  and are part of sociophysics  or sociodynamics , which belong to the wider field of interdisciplinary applications of statistical physics methods .

The Deffuant model is the one where the largest number of people was simulated so far  so that the statistics was best and this is the reason why we selected this model for the present study. It assumes that everybody can talk with everybody else with the same probability, similarly to random graphs, but with sites living in the continuum. (So the model was not considered on random graphs in the sense of Erdös and Rényi .) In this unrealistic limit, analytical approximations work well . The opposite limit of people restricted to a square lattice was also simulated, with interaction between close neighbours (like nearest neighbours) only, but may apply better to trees in an orchard than to human beings. Real social connections may lie in between, with few people having lots of friends and many people having few friends to talk with. Everybody is still connected with everybody but only indirectly over a short link of mutual friends. The best studied model for these types of connections are the scale-free networks of Barabási and Albert  where the number of people having $`k`$ friends decays as $`1/k^3`$.

The effect of network topologies on the dissemination of culture  or on the spreading of information will be studied in future work .

The next section defines the two models, with directed and undirected bonds in a Barabási-Albert network, while section 3 gives the results and section 4 the conclusions.

## 2 Models

The Barabási-Albert network starts with a small number $`m`$ ($`m=3`$ in our simulations) of sites (agents, people) all connected with each other. (We varied $`m=3`$ also to $`m=2`$, $`4`$ and $`5`$ and observed similar test results for 100 runs each.) Then a large number $`N`$ of additional sites is added as follows: Each new site selects $`m`$ of the already existing sites as friends, with a probability proportional to the number of friends this already existing site had before. When the new site A has selected an already existing site B as friend, this selection increases for both A and B the number of friends by one. In the usual undirected Barabási-Albert model, later A can talk with B and B can talk with A. In the simpler directed version, A initiates a talk with B, but B initiates talks only with those $`m`$ people whom B had selected as friends. Thus in this directed version, everybody has a fluctuating number of people connected with him, but asks only one of exactly $`m`$ people for advice at a time, and these are the people the new site had selected when joining the network. (One may think of a hierarchy of bosses and underlings.) For the undirected case no such distinction between friends and people to talk with is needed; the connection network of friends then is constructed as in .

Once the network has been constructed, we start the consensus process of Deffuant et al.. Everybody gets a random number $`S`$ between zero and one as initial opinion. Then for each iteration, every site A is updated once by selecting randomly one site B from the sites connected with A. In the undirected case the selection is taken from all $`k`$ sites who had selected A as friend or whom A has selected as friends. In the directed case the selection is made only from the $`m`$ sites which A had selected as friends. If then the opinions $`S_A`$ and $`S_B`$ differ by more than a constant confidence bound $`ϵ`$ between zero and one, A and B refuse to discuss and do not change their opinion. Therefore $`ϵ`$ may be interpreted as a measure for the tolerance of people to other opinions. Otherwise both move closer to the position of the other by an amount $`\delta =\mu (S_AS_B)`$ with $`\mu =0.3`$ in our simulations, i.e. A takes the opinion $`S_A\delta `$ and B the opinion $`S_B+\delta `$. The parameter $`\mu `$ characterizes the flexibility in changing the opinion. After sufficiently many iterations (unfortunately much more than the $`10^2`$ in the “random” network ) no opinion moves by more than $`2\times 10^8`$: a fixed point in the space of opinions is approximated. (For different $`\mu `$ this small value needs to be adapted.) Hundred samples of this type were averaged over. The opinions are then placed in bins of width $`10^6`$ and are counted by checking which bins are occupied and do not have the lower neighbouring bin occupied. In this way, the total number of fixed opinions is found. The “directed” Fortran program is available from the authors.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 shows the undirected and figure 2 the directed case. For $`ϵ`$ larger than about 0.4 a full consensus is reached; only one opinion survives. For smaller $`ϵ`$, no consensus is reached and the number $`F`$ of fixed opinions increases with decreasing $`ϵ`$. When the number $`N`$ of people increases, the $`F`$ for small $`ϵ`$ also increases $`N`$ for large $`N`$. This increase is the crucial difference to the random version without Barabási-Albert restriction, when $`F`$ is independent of $`N`$ for large $`N`$. Thus we plot in figures 1 and 2 the scaled excess number

$$F_E=(F1)/N$$

versus $`1/ϵ`$: in the random case in the sense of Deffuant et al. (without specified network topology) $`F`$ roughly equalled $`1/ϵ`$, while now $`FN/ϵ`$. The remaining mild N-dependence of the scaled excess number which is seen in Figs. 1 and 2 is interpreted as a finite size effect getting weaker for larger system sizes $`N`$, cf. the figures.

Figure 3 shows the enormous fluctuations in the number $`t_c`$ of iterations needed to reach the fixed point, similarly to the Snajd model . This feature is understood from the fact that reaching a certain fixed point, e.g. that of consensus, is a collective property of the $`N`$ agents which cannot be obtained as an average over subsystems. Values of such kind of collective quantities may strongly fluctuate like those of individual ones, even for $`N\mathrm{}`$, i.e. they are not self-averaging. However, the behaviour near $`ϵ=0.1`$ for $`N=5000`$ is not understood.

## 4 Conclusions

Our condition for the confidence bound $`ϵ>0.4`$ to allow a complete consensus is about the same on the Barabási-Albert network as it was in the usual random case . But when no consensus is formed because $`ϵ<0.4`$ is too small, then our number of different opinions is proportional to the number of people involved and no longer size-independent. This observation shows that the choice of the links between the agents may be crucial in studies of social behaviour.

Acknowledgements: We thank PMMH at ESPCI for the warm hospitality, Sorin Tănase-Nicola for helping us with the computer facilities, and G. Weisbuch for drawing out attention to Axelrod’s model.


text:
# 1 The coefficients which determine the fits () to the order 𝛼_𝑠 QCD contributions to the charged lepton distribution (). 𝐴₀ and 𝐴₁ are given in units of 10⁻⁷ and 10⁻⁵, respectively.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. Brandenburg for useful comments.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1. The order $`\alpha _s`$ contributions to the polarisation independent part of the lepton distributions (3), (4).
Fig. 2. The order $`\alpha _s`$ contributions to the polarisation dependent part of the lepton distributions (3), (4).


text:
# The effect of (strong) discrete absorption systems on the Lyman-𝛼 forest flux power spectrum

## 1 Introduction

In the mid 1990s a paradigm shift occurred in the interpretation of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest. Instead of being caused by small (kpc size) “Lyman-$`\alpha `$ clouds” it is now widely believed that most of the absorption arises from smooth fluctuations in the density of a photoionized warm intergalactic medium (see Rauch 1998 and Weinberg 1999 for reviews). Traditionally absorption spectra had been decomposed into Voigt profiles which have then been identified with individual discrete absorption systems. For these absorbers column density and Doppler parameter distribution and correlation function were determined (Rauch 1998). With the new paradigm the emphasis of the analysis has shifted to statistical measures more suitable for absorption arising from a continuous density field, most notably the flux decrement distribution and the flux power spectrum. While the clustering signal in the correlation function of discrete absorbers was very weak for all but the strongest absorption systems (Cristiani et al. 1995) the flux power spectrum indicated rms fluctuations of 10-30% on scales of a few Mpc decreasing as a power-law towards larger scales. This was generally interpreted as a detection of the clustering of the matter distribution. Due to non-linear and saturation effects the relation to the dark matter(DM) power spectrum is not straightforward even on large scales. Numerical simulations are therefore used to constrain amplitude and slope of the matter power spectrum. The constraints are broadly consistent with the so called concordance model of structure formation (Croft et al. 1999, McDonald et al. 2000, Croft et al. 2002, Kim et al. 2003 (K03), Viel et al. 2003). Recently a combined analysis of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest and WMAP data has been used to argue that a spectral index of the initial matter fluctuation spectrum $`<1`$ and/or a running running spectral index is indicated by the data (Spergel et al. 2003, Verde et al. 2003). The errors are still large (Seljak, McDonald & Makarov 2003) and the hope is that tighter constraints can be obtained from the SDSS sample of QSO absorption spectra (Mandelbaum et al. 2003) . However, the reason why the clustering signal in the correlation function of weak absorption systems is apparently so much weaker than that in the flux power spectrum has not been investigated in detail. Press, Rybicky & Schneider (1993) have demonstrated that the rms fluctuation of the flux distribution on scales of 25 Å due to randomly distributed absorption lines is comparable to the observed fluctuations. Zuo & Bond (1994) have shown that the flux correlation function of low-resolution absorption spectra can be reproduced by a superposition of randomly distributed absorption lines. It is thus astonishing that the flux power spectrum of a random distribution of absorption systems has not yet been investigated.

Here we have studied the flux power spectrum of a sample of 8 randomised high-resolution absorption spectra taken with the VLT-UVES spectrograph for which a complete decomposition into Voigt profiles due to hydrogen and metal lines absorption lines had been performed previously (Kim et al. 2001, Kim et al. 2002). In section 2 we describe the data. Section 3 compares the flux power spectrum of randomised and observed spectra. Section 4 investigates the effect of strong absorption systems. In Section 5 we discuss consequences for the inferred DM power spectrum and in Section 6 we give our conclusions.

## 2 The Data

The sample consists of 8 spectra taken with the Ultra-Violet Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) on VLT. The 8 spectra were taken from the ESO archive. The median redshift of the sample is $`<z>=2.43`$ In Table 1 we list the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ redshift range, wavelength range and signal-to-noise ratio of the sample. The data reduction is described in Kim et al. (2001, 2002, 2003). Line lists for hydrogen and metal absorption have been compiled with the fitting routine VPFIT (Carswell et al.: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/ rfc/vpfit.html). For each of the 8 spectra we have produced randomised spectra where we have randomly shifted the hydrogen lines in wavelength. This procedure results in spectra with a column density distribution which is very similar to that of the observed spectra. Note, however, that there will be some incompleteness at the low column density end due to lines which have not been identified by the fitting procedure due to blending. We have also produced randomised spectra where we restricted the input list of hydrogen lines to certain column density ranges.

## 3 The flux power spectrum of randomised spectra

### 3.1 Calculating the flux power spectrum

The observed intensity is related to the emitted intensity as $`I_{\mathrm{obs}}=I_{\mathrm{em}}e^\tau `$. The fluctuations in the observed intensity are thus a superposition of the fluctuations of the emitted intensity and those of the absorption optical depth. We use here continuum-fitted spectra and consider the quantity $`F=I_{\mathrm{obs}}/I_{\mathrm{em}}=e^\tau `$ (F1 in the notation of Kim et al. 2003). Our procedure for calculating the flux power spectrum is described in detail in K03 and we give here just a short summary.

The “3D” flux power spectrum is obtained via numerical differentiation of the 1D flux power spectrum,

$$P_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}3\mathrm{D}^{\prime \prime }}(k)=\frac{2\pi }{k}\frac{d}{dk}P_\mathrm{F}^{1\mathrm{D}}(k).$$
(1)
The dimensionless “3D” power spectrum is given by,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{F}^2(k)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}k^3P_F^{\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}3\mathrm{D}^{\prime \prime }}(k).$$
(2)
Jackknife estimates are used to calculate the errors. In order to remind the reader that peculiar velocities and thermal broadening make the flux field anisotropic and that equation (2) does not give the true 3D power spectrum we denote it as “3D” power spectrum as in K03.

### 3.2 Flux power spectra of observed and randomised absorption spectra

In Fig. 1a we compare the 1D flux power of the sample of observed spectra to that of a sample of randomised spectra. For each observed spectrum we have produced 150 randomised versions. At wavenumbers $`0.03`$ s/km $`<k<0.1`$ s/km the 1D flux power spectra are remarkably similar. At larger scales the flux power spectrum becomes close to constant as expected for a random distribution of discrete absorption features. This suggests that the shape of the absorption lines as identified by a Voigt profile fitting routine dominates the flux power spectrum over a wide range of scales. The discrepancy at $`k>0.1`$ s/km is expected as the flux power spectrum of the observed absorption spectra is dominated by metal lines at these small scales (K03) which are not included in the randomised spectra. The contribution of large scale correlations in the density field is responsible for the difference at large scales but astonishingly these appear to be a relatively small contribution to the overall flux power spectrum. To investigate this in more detail we plot the corresponding “3D” flux power spectra in Fig 1b. As suspected from inspection of Fig. 1a at the peak the “3D” flux power spectra are identical to within the errors. At larger scales the variance of the randomised spectra is still $``$ 50 % of that of the observed spectra. This may explain why Cristiani et al. (1995) only found a very weak signal for strong absorption systems when they investigated the clustering of absorption lines. It also explains why linear theory gives a bad approximation to the “3D” flux power spectrum, even at scales $`k0.0030.001`$ s/km (Croft et al. 2002) and why numerical simulations are essential for inferring the DM power spectrum on these scales.

## 4 The effect of strong discrete absorption lines

### 4.1 Strong absorption lines and the flux power spectrum

In Fig. 2a we have splitted the “3D” flux power spectrum into contributions from lines of different column density ranges. Lines of different column density ranges do not add exactly linearly but the relative contributions should nevertheless become apparent in this way. There is a clear trend with larger column density systems contributing at larger scales. The strongest contribution comes from absorption lines in the range $`13.5<\mathrm{log}(N_{\mathrm{HI}}/\mathrm{cm}^2)<14.5`$. These are lines where the “curve of growth” which describes the relation between equivalent width and column density of absorption lines changes from the linear to the flat regime due to saturation. Such a behaviour can be understood if the different column density ranges contribute with their total equivalent width, $`𝒩_{\mathrm{lines}}\times \mathrm{EW}`$, to the “3D” power spectrum. The number of lines scales roughly as as $`𝒩_{\mathrm{lines}}N_{\mathrm{HI}}^{0.5}`$. The contribution to the total equivalent width has therefore a maximum for column densities at the transition of the curve of growth from linear to flat. Note that Press et al. (1993) had already demonstrated that the rms fluctuation of the flux can be explained with randomly distributed lines with a contribution $`EW^2`$ to the 1D variance of the flux.

To address the question whether it is really the shape of the individual Voigt profiles which is responsible for the bulk of the flux power spectrum we have also calculated randomised spectra where we halved and doubled the Doppler parameter of the lines. The resulting “3D” power spectra are compared in Figure 2b. Broadening and narrowing of the lines leads to an approximately linear shift in wavenumber.

### 4.2 Strong absorption lines and the mean flux decrement

With increasing size of the data sets the mean flux decrement of absorption spectra has been determined reasonably well (Press et al. 1993, Rauch et al. 1997, Kim et al. 2002, Bernardi et al. 2003). It is nevertheless striking that the mean flux decrement varies considerably between different QSOs. The main reason for this is likely to be the large contribution of strong absorption systems. In Fig. 3a we have used the bottom four of the spectra listed in Table 1 to quantify the contribution of absorption lines in different column density ranges to the mean flux decrement by successively removing low column density lines. These four spectra were chosen because they are at similar redshifts and thus have comparable total mean flux decrement. Up to 20 % of the flux decrement is due to absorption systems with $`\mathrm{log}(N_{\mathrm{HI}}/\mathrm{cm}^2)>15`$. In Fig. 3b we show a similar plot for the rms fluctuations of the flux. About 15-40% of the flux fluctuations are contributed by absorption from strong lines. Poisson noise of the rare strong absorption systems can thus indeed explain the significant differences of the mean flux decrement between different lines-of-sight (Press et al. 1993). Unfortunately the sample is too small to test the evolution of the contribution of strong absorption lines with redshift.

## 5 Strong absorption systems and estimates of the dark matter power spectrum

In the last section we had seen that strong absorption systems contribute significantly to both flux power spectrum and mean flux decrement. This will have profound implications for attempts to use numerical simulation together with QSO absorption spectra to infer amplitude and slope of the DM power spectrum with high accuracy. Numerical simulations of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest often underpredict the number of strong absorption systems. Katz et al. (1996) e.g. found that in their hydro-simulations the number of Lyman limit systems falls short by a factor of ten compared to the observed number while Gardner et al. (2001) find a discrepancy of about a factor five. For the analysis of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ flux power spectra numerical simulation of the DM distribution which mimic the effect of gas pressure in an approximate way (so called Hydro-PM simulations) are widely used. These simulation have rather low resolution and the discrepancy already becomes large for lines with $`\mathrm{log}(N_{\mathrm{HI}}/\mathrm{cm}^2)>14`$ (Gnedin 1998).

The lack of strong absorption systems will affect the inferred matter power spectrum in two ways. If large column densities absorption systems contribute significantly to the observed flux power spectrum on large scales by their shape their absence has to be compensated by extra power due to density correlations on these scales. This will require a shallower slope of the DM power spectrum. Without detailed numerical simulations it is difficult to estimate how large this bias will be but considering the large contribution of strong absorption lines and the weak dependence of the slope of the flux power spectrum on the slope of the DM spectrum (Croft et al. 2002) it is unlikely to be smaller than the current errors of the slope and amplitude (McDonald et al. 2002, Croft et al. 2002). This should thus be a serious concern for upcoming determinations of the DM power spectrum with larger samples of spectra which aim at higher accuracy.

The second more subtle bias is due to the effect of strong absorption systems on the mean flux decrement. As discussed e.g. by Croft et al. (1998) the amplitude of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ flux power spectrum depends not only the amplitude of the matter power spectrum but there is also a strong dependence on the mean flux decrement. The amplitude of the flux power spectrum increases with increasing mean flux decrement.

Analyses of observed flux power spectra with numerical simulations therefore normally set the mean flux decrement in the artificial spectra produced from numerical simulations to that of observed spectra. This is a reasonable thing to do if the numerical simulations are a fair representation of the absorbers responsible for the flux decrement in observed spectra. The failure of the simulation to produce enough strong absorption systems shows, however, that this is not the case. In the case of the hydro-simulations this may be related to the fact that the ionization rate required to match the observed mean flux decrement with favoured values of the baryon density and temperature falls short of that estimated from QSO surveys and high redshift galaxies by a factor 2-4 (Rauch et al. 1997; Haehnelt et al. 2001). A population of strong absorption systems may thus be genuinely missing in numerical simulations. In the case of the hydro-PM simulations the insufficient spatial resolution is the obvious reason for the much more severe lack of strong absorption systems.

Calibration of numerical simulations which underreproduce observed strong absorption systems using the observed mean flux decrement is thus clearly not the right thing to do. If it is nevertheless done the amplitude of the matter power spectrum inferred from the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ flux power spectrum will be systematically biased low. The simulated spectra reproduce then the observed flux fluctuations with a larger flux decrement and a smaller matter fluctuation amplitude. This effect is not small. Seljak, McDonald & Makarov (2003) found that a 20 % reduction of the effective optical depth used to calibrate the simulated spectra leads to a factor 2 increase of the inferred DM fluctuation amplitude. Note that if the inferred DM fluctuation amplitude at small scales is biased low a combined analysis with other data on larger scales (CMB, galaxy surveys) will lead to an underestimate of the spectral index. Alternatively, a spurious running of the spectral index may be inferred.

## 6 Conclusions

We used a sample of high-resolution, high signal-to-noise QSO absorption spectra taken with the ESO-UVES spectrograph for which line lists of hydrogen and metal absorption systems are available to investigate the effect of discrete absorption systems on Lyman-$`\alpha `$ flux power spectra. The basic shape and amplitude of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ flux power spectrum is well reproduced by a random superposition of Voigt profiles. Only at wavelengths larger than $`k<0.03`$ s/km a weak clustering signal appears to be detected. However, even there the contribution from strong absorption systems is still $`50\%`$. The contribution of strong absorption systems to the mean flux decrement is also large, up to $`20\%`$ for absorption systems with $`\mathrm{log}(N_{\mathrm{HI}}/\mathrm{cm}^2)>15`$. Simulated absorption spectra often underreproduce the number of strong absorption systems. The use of such simulations calibrated to the observed mean flux for an analysis of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest flux power spectrum is likely to lead to an underestimate of the amplitude and initial slope of the inferred DM power spectrum.

## Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the European Community Research and Training Network “The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium”. We would like to thank ESO for making publicly available a superb set of QSO absorption spectra. MV thanks Cristiano Porciani and Sabino Matarrese for useful discussions.


text:
# Khovanov’s conjecture over ℤ[𝑐]

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Khovanov’s Homology and Conjecture

In his 1999 paper \[K1\] in Duke Mathematical Journal, Mikhail Khovanov showed that the Jones link polynomial is the graded Euler characteristic of a bigraded homology module $`H^{i,j}(D)`$ over $`[c]`$, associated to a diagram $`D`$ of the link. $`H^{i,j}(D)`$ is the homology of a bigraded chain complex $`C^{i,j}(D)`$ with a $`(1,0)`$-bigraded differential. He also explained how each link cobordism induces a homomorphism between the homology modules of its boundary links, and conjectured that this homomorphism would be invariant up to sign under ambient isotopy of the link cobordism.

In \[J\] we proved that, if formulated precisely, this conjecture is indeed true, under the condition that the indeterminate $`c=0`$, i.e. when the modules are abelian groups. (This case suffices to retrieve the Jones polynomial as the Euler characteristic.) In \[K2\], Khovanov gave a different proof of this fact, and, in the introduction, renewed his conjecture in the general case.

### 1.2. The Results of This Paper

In the present note we consider the complete conjecture, with no apriori conditions on $`c`$. We disprove it by giving an example (Section 3, Figure 9) of a trivial link cobordism from the unlink of two components to itself, which does not induce $`\pm id`$ on homology.

### 1.3. A Remark on Coefficients

Throughout this paper, we use coefficients in the polynomial ring (in $`c`$) over $`_2=/2`$. This only strengthens the result, and simplifies some calculations.

### 1.4. Outline

Section 2 contains necessary preliminaries on Khovanov homology. In Section 3 we present the above-mentioned counterexample to Khovanov’s conjecture.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Khovanov’s Chain Complex

We briefly review the definition of Khovanov’s chain complex $`C^{i,j}(D)`$ and its differential. More details may be found in \[V\] or \[J\] (and, for the original definitions, in \[K1\]).

#### 2.1.1. The Chain Complex

Let $`D`$ be a diagram of an oriented link. Recall that a (Kauffman) state of $`D`$ is a distribution of positive or negative markers to the crossings of the diagram (see Figure 1). Each marker specifies one of the two ways to smooth the crossing. Smoothing all the crossings according to the markers at them gives a set of embedded circles in the plane called the resolution of $`D`$ according to $`S`$.

Following Viro \[V\] we define an enhanced state $`S`$ to be a state of $`D`$, together with an assignment of the symbols $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ or $`X`$ to each circle of the resolution of $`D`$ according to $`S`$. (In \[V\], $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ was denoted by the sign $``$ and $`X`$ by the sign $`+`$.)

###### Remark.

Since we will only be concerned with enhanced states, we call them states from now on.

Denote by $`C(D)`$ the free $`_2[c]`$-module generated by all (enhanced) states of $`D`$. Denote by $`w(D)`$ the writhe of the diagram. Let $`\sigma (S)`$ be the sum of all signs of markers in the state $`S`$ and let $`\tau (S)`$ be the number of $`X`$:s minus the number of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$:s on the resolution of $`S`$.

$`C(D)`$ becomes a bigraded module $`C=C^{i,j}(D)`$, if we define the grading parameters for an element $`c^kS`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i(c^kS)& =\frac{w(D)\sigma (S)}{2}\hfill \\ \hfill j(c^kS)& =\frac{\sigma (S)+2\tau (S)3w(D)}{2}+2k\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that multiplication by $`c`$ affects only the second grading parameter and that $`\mathrm{deg}(c)=2`$.

#### 2.1.2. The Differential

The differential $`dS`$ on a state $`S`$ in $`C^{i,j}(D)`$ is the sum of all states $`T`$ in $`C^{i+1,j}(D)`$, which are incident to $`S`$ in the following sense.

* The markers of $`T`$ coincide with those of $`S`$ at all crossings except one, where $`T`$ has a negative marker and $`S`$ has a positive marker. This means that the resolution of $`T`$ has either one circle more or one circle less than the resolution of $`S`$.
* The circles of the resolution which are common to $`S`$ and $`T`$ are coulored with the same symbols in $`S`$ as in $`T`$. The circles which are not, have symbols related by the table in Figure 2. It displays resolutions of $`S`$ and $`T`$ in a neighbourhood of the crossing at which the markers differ, with an indication (dotted arcs) of how the arcs are connected outside this neighbourhood. Note that the fifth row contains three different states incident to $`S`$. They appear in the differential as a sum. The last row is a mere mnemonic, summing up the other rows.
* If $`T`$ is incident to $`S`$ then $`c^kT`$ is incident to $`c^kS`$ for all $`k`$.

### 2.2. The Second Reidemeister Move $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$

In his proof of invariance of the (isomorphism class of) homology groups under Reidemeister moves, Khovanov shows the following proposition. Let $`D^{}`$ be obtained from $`D`$ by a Reidemeister move of type 2 increasing the number of crossings. (Reidemeister moves of type 2 will henceforth be referred to as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$-moves).

###### Proposition 2.1.

There is a splitting $`C(D^{})=CC_{contr}`$, where $`C_{contr}`$ is chain contractible, and an isomorphism $`\psi :C\stackrel{}{}C(D)`$.

Let us describe this splitting. Generators of $`C`$ and the isomorphism $`CC(D)`$ are displayed in Figure 3. $`C_{contr}`$ is generated (as a chain complex) by states as in Figure 4.

###### Remark.

The symbols $`p,q,p:q,q:p`$ in the figures mean that the symbols on the arcs are related as in Figure 2.

It follows that the composition $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi pr_C`$ given by

$$C(D^{})=CC_{contr}\stackrel{pr_C}{}C\stackrel{𝜓}{}C(D)$$

is a chain equivalence. $`pr_C`$ denotes the canonical projection. The inclusion $`i_C`$ and the inverse of $`\psi `$ give the homotopy inverse $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{inv}`$. Using this it is straightforward to prove (using the same method as in Subsection 2.4 in \[J\]) the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.2.

The chain equivalences $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{inv}`$ above have the values given in Figures 6 and 5 on states with given local configuration.

### 2.3. Khovanov’s Conjecture

Recall that a link cobordism $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^3\times [0,1]`$ between links $`L^3\times \{0\}`$ and $`L^{}^3\times \{1\}`$ is a smoothly embedded compact oriented surface whose boundary consists of the links.

Every link cobordism can be presented by a movie, which is the sequence of diagrams of the intersection of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the constant time hyperplanes $`^3\times \{t\}`$ (subject to certain genericity assumptions). For all but a finite number of values of $`t`$ (critical levels), this intersection is a link diagram, and at times just before and after a critical level the diagrams differ by a Reidemeister move or a Morse modification. Between two critical levels the diagram experiences a planar isotopy.

When a link cobordism is altered by an ambient isotopy, its movie changes accordingly. (For additional details on link cobordisms, see e.g. \[J\].)

In his paper \[K1\], Khovanov described chain equivalences induced by all Reidemeister moves and chain maps induced by Morse modifications on the link diagram. (In the previous section we explained how this is done for the second Reidemeister move, since this is all we will need in this paper.) It is also clear from the construction that states can be traced through any planar isotopy between two diagrams an hence induces a chain isomorphism between the associated chain complexes.

It follows that each movie presentation of a link cobordism induces a map between the homologies of its boundary link diagrams, via composition.

Khovanov conjectured that this map be invariant up to sign under ambient isotopy of the link cobordism. We pointed out in \[J\] that it is necessary to require stability of the boundary during the isotopy. (For example, that the boundary is held fixed during the isotopy.) We then proved the conjecture under the assumption that $`c=0`$.

In the next section we prove that the assumption $`c=0`$ is in fact necessary, by exhibiting a movie presentation of a trivial link cobordism which does not induce the identity on homology.

## 3. A Counterexample to Khovanov’s Conjecture

###### Example.

To begin with, let us compute the effect on chains under the following sequence (\*) of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$-moves. The sequence starts with a crossing somewhere in a link diagram. Just above the crossing an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$-move is performed, creating two bigons. Removal of the lower one of these via an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$-move in the opposite direction returns us to the original diagram:

Figure 8 shows what happens on $`C^{i,j}(D)`$. We include only states whose images we will need later. To verify this table is straightforward, given Proposition 2.2.

Now consider the sequence of moves in Figure 9. It starts and ends with the trivial unlink diagram of two components. Since evidently the differential is zero for this diagram, the homology modules are canonically isomorphic to the chain modules. Each state is just a distribution of $`\mathrm{𝟏}/X`$:s to the components.

The sequence starts with an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$-move on the trivial diagram, sliding the left circle above the right one. This induces the chain equivalence $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{inv}`$ as described in Proposition 2.2. Then the sequence (\*) described above is applied at the upper crossing. Finally the circles slide back again inducing $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

This is a movie of a link cobordism from the trivial unlink to itself, which is isotopic to the cylinder on the unlink. A simple computation shows that the map induced on the homology of the unlink is the one given in Figure 10. Clearly it is only $`id`$ if $`c=0`$. This disproves the general version of Khovanov’s conjecture.