text:
# Simultaneous determination of Ω_M0 and 𝐻₀ from joint Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and X-ray observations with median statistics

## 1 Introduction

Rich clusters of galaxies are the largest known virialized structures in the Universe. Their importance in observational cosmology is known from early times. In the beginning of the last century, direct estimates of their total masses first stated the need for unseen dark matter (Zwicky zwi33 (1933)). Now, they continue to provide important information to characterize the Universe (see, for example, Wang et al. wan+al00 (2000); Sereno io02cl (2002)).

A method, independent of the nature of the dark matter and based on minimal assumptions, to constrain the geometry of the Universe and its matter and energy content is based on gas mass observations in clusters of galaxies.

As shown with X-ray and optical imaging, the main contribution to the baryonic budget in clusters of galaxies is provided by the hot gaseous intracluster medium (ICM). The gas mass is about an order of magnitude larger than the mass in stars in cluster galaxies and provides a reasonable estimate of the cluster’s baryonic mass (Fukugita et al. fuk+al98 (1998); Lin et al. lin+al03 (2003)).

The ICM is X-ray emitting via thermal bremsstrahlung and produces a spectral distortion of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), known as Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (SZE) (Sunyaev & Zeldovich sun+zel70 (1970); Birkinshaw birk99 (1999)). The SZE is proportional to the pressure integrated along the line of sight, i.e. to the first power of the gas density. X-ray emission depends on the second power of the density. The ICM mass fraction may be estimated from either of these, fundamentally different, observables, based on independent techniques.

Since there is no efficient way to change the baryon fraction averaged within a Mpc scale, the mass composition in clusters, when estimated out to a standard hydrostatic radius, is expected to reflect the universal mass composition (White et al. whi+al93 (1993); Sasaki sas96 (1996); Evrard evr97 (1997)). Precise measurements of the visible baryonic mass fraction in galaxy clusters, $`f_\mathrm{B}`$, along with our knowledge of the universal baryonic density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}`$, provides a physically based technique for estimating cosmological parameters (White et al. whi+al93 (1993)). Ratio of the ICM mass to the total mass of the cluster represents a first estimate of $`f_\mathrm{B}`$. So, a useful constraint on the cosmological parameters is given by the identity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}/f_\mathrm{B}`$. Independent estimates of $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ can be obtained either from SZE measurements or X-ray imaging observations. The angular diameter distance, where the dependence on the cosmological parameters appears, to the cluster enters in the two gas mass estimates through a characteristic length-scale of the cluster along the line of sight. From the different dependencies of SZE and X-ray emission on the density of ICM, different dependencies on the assumed cosmology are implied.

Galaxy cluster gas mass fractions from SZE measurements have been used in Grego et al. (gre+al01 (2001)) to constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. X-ray gas mass fraction in relaxed clusters have provided upper limit on the cosmological density parameter (Mohr et al. moh+al99 (1999); Ettori & Fabian ett+fab99 (1999); Allen et al. all+al02 (2002); Erdogdu et al. erd+al02 (2002); Ettori et al. ett+al02 (2002)).

Without referring to the universal baryonic fraction, with some assumptions about the geometry of the cluster, a joint analysis of SZE measurements with X-ray imaging observations, since the different density dependencies, makes it possible to determine the distance to the cluster. Such a distance, independent of the extragalactic distance ladder, is then used to measure the Hubble constant (Birkinshaw birk99 (1999); Mason et al. mas+al01 (2001); Jones et al. jon+al02 (2002); Reese et al. ree+al02 (2002)).

All of the methods discussed above are based on ICM mass observations. Estimates of gas mass depend on the cosmological parameters through the angular diameter distance to the cluster. Equating the gas fraction in cluster to the universal baryonic fraction allows to investigate both the Hubble constant and the cosmological density parameters. Taking advantage of the different density dependencies, SZE and X-ray observations provide independent constraints in the space of cosmological parameters, leading one to solve for two unknowns at the same time.

Distance measurements are obtained by equating the central densities as derived from SZE and X-ray methods. Instead of equating the gas fraction to an universal value, now the two gas mass estimates are forced to coincide each other. This constraint is independent and nearly orthogonal to the previous ones and allows to solve for an additional unknown.

Usually, when deriving cosmological constraints from gas mass fractions, in order to estimate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, a prior on the Hubble constant is assumed. On the other hand, using the cosmic distance scale from interferometric measurements of the SZE to determine $`H_0`$ requires, with the current data sets, to fix the background cosmology. We show how a joint analysis of all the information on the ICM from both SZE and X-ray measurements enables to determine, at the same time, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`H_0`$.

The quality of the data samples used in the analysis determines the area of the overlapping region and the precision of the estimate. We perform a combined analysis of data samples, available in literature, of SZE measurements and X-ray observations.

Since we have to combine different data sets, obtained with independent methods, we adopt median statistics. As shown in Gott et al. (got+al01 (2001), see also Avelino et al. ave+al02 (2002) and Chen & Ratra ch+ra03 (2003)), median statistics provide a powerful alternative to $`\chi ^2`$ likelihood methods with fewer assumptions about the data. Statistical errors are not required to be known and Gaussianly distributed. Since errors, as reported in X-ray and SZE literature, are usually asymmetric, performing an analysis without using the errors themselves turns out to be a very conservative approach. Furthermore, median statistics is also less vulnerable to the presence of bad data and outliers. Since we are proposing a method to constrain cosmology with ICM mass estimates which extend and combine methods previously established, in this early stage we think that median statistics can be the best choice.

In Section 2, we derive the dependence of the ICM gas mass, derived from X-ray observations or SZE measurements, on the assumed cosmological parameters. In Section 3, the data samples and our selection criteria on the clusters are presented. In Section 4, the median statistics is shortly presented and the results are listed. Section 5 is devoted to the discussion of various systematic uncertainties. Conclusions are in Section 6.

## 2 The gas mass estimate

The ICM mass is calculated by integrating the ICM density profile, $`\rho _{\mathrm{ICM}}`$, over an assumed shape,

$$M_{\mathrm{ICM}}(V)=_V\rho _{\mathrm{ICM}}(r)d^3rm_\mathrm{p}_Vn_\mathrm{e}(r)d^3r,$$
(1)
where $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron number density profile and $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. For a spherically symmetric system, like the widely used $`\beta `$-model (Cavaliere & Fusco cav+fus76 (1976, 1978)), the mass within a fixed metric radius $`r`$ is

$$M_{\mathrm{ICM}}n_{\mathrm{e0}}r^3,$$
(2)
where $`n_{\mathrm{e0}}`$ is the central number density. The radius $`r`$ can be expressed as the product of an observable angular radius by the angular diameter distance to the cluster, $`d_\mathrm{A}`$.

The central number density can be measured by fitting the X-ray surface brightness profile, $`S_\mathrm{X}n_\mathrm{e}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_\mathrm{e})𝑑l`$, where the integration is along the line of sight and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_\mathrm{e})`$ is the X-ray emissivity at the electronic temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}`$. The dependence on distance is made explicit by expressing the integration variable in a dimensionless form, $`dl=d_\mathrm{A}d\zeta `$. It comes out

$$n_{\mathrm{e0}}^X\sqrt{\frac{S_\mathrm{X}}{d_\mathrm{A}}},$$
(3)
so, for the gas mass, when measured with X-ray observations, it is

$$M_{\mathrm{ICM}}^Xd_\mathrm{A}^{5/2}.$$
(4)
Spatially resolved measurements of the SZE can also determine $`n_{\mathrm{e0}}`$. Since the brightness temperature decrement of the CMBR towards a cluster is expressed as $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{SZ}}}{T_{\mathrm{CMBR}}}n_\mathrm{e}T_\mathrm{e}𝑑l`$, then

$$n_{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{SZ}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{SZ}}}{T_{\mathrm{CMBR}}}\frac{1}{d_\mathrm{A}};$$
(5)
so, it is

$$M_{\mathrm{ICM}}^{\mathrm{SZ}}d_\mathrm{A}^2.$$
(6)
The temperatures generally taken in analyses are the X-ray emission weighted temperatures, usually measured over a few core radii. If the temperature has a spatial structure, the temperature inferred from such an average procedure may depend on how much of the cluster is considered. This can lead to a substantial change in the SZE inferred, and thus to a systematic error in the determination of the cosmological parameters (Majumdar & Nath ma+na00 (2000)).

Typically, an estimate of the total mass of a cluster of galaxies is obtained under the assumption that the gas, supported solely by thermal pressure, is in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cluster’s gravitational potential. Assuming spherical symmetry and isothermal gas, the total mass of a cluster within radius $`r`$ is

$$M_{\mathrm{TOT}}(<r)=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{X}r}{G\mu m_\mathrm{p}}\frac{d\mathrm{log}n_\mathrm{e}(r)}{d\mathrm{log}r}d_\mathrm{A},$$
(7)
where $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is the Boltzmann’s constant, $`\mu m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the mean molecular weight of the gas and $`T_\mathrm{X}`$ is the spatially averaged X-ray emission temperature of the gas determined from a broad-beam spectroscopic instrument. Combining Eqs. (4, 6) with Eq. (7), the two estimates of the ICM mass fraction turn out

$$f_{\mathrm{ICM}}\frac{M_{\mathrm{ICM}}}{M_{\mathrm{TOT}}}d_\mathrm{A}^\beta ,$$
(8)
where, for X-ray observations, $`\beta _\mathrm{X}=3/2`$ and, for SZE data, $`\beta _{\mathrm{SZ}}=1`$.

By eliminating $`n_{\mathrm{e0}}`$ from Eqs. (35), one can solve for the angular diameter distance, yielding

$$d_\mathrm{A}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{SZ}}^2}{S_\mathrm{X}}.$$
(9)
The derived values of $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ depend on the cosmological parameters through the angular diameter distances (Sasaki sas96 (1996)). In a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker universe filled in with pressureless matter and a cosmological constant, the angular diameter distance to a source at redshift $`z`$ is

$`d_\mathrm{A}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{c}{H_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}|^{1/2}(1+z)}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{Sinn}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}|^{1/2}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}(1+z^{^{}})^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}(1+z^{^{}})^2}}}𝑑z^{^{}}\right\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ is the reduced cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$, and $`\mathrm{Sinn}(x)`$ is $`\mathrm{sinh}(x)`$, $`x`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(x)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}`$ greater than, equal to and less than zero, respectively; $`H_0`$ is the today Hubble constant. For the expression of the distance in inhomogeneous universes we refer to Sereno et al. (ser+al01 (2001)ser+al02 (2002)). In the next, we will consider only the flat case, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}=0`$, strongly supported by the bulk of evidences (de Bernardis et al. deb+al00 (2000); Harun-or-Rashid & Roos ha+ro01 (2001)).

To compare the ICM mass fraction of different clusters, we have to study the same portion of the virial region in each cluster. In such a region, we expect all clusters to have the same gas fraction and the gas to be isothermal. Regions of different clusters are characterized by the same properties if they encompass the same mean interior density contrast, $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$, with respect to the critical density at their own redshit, $`\rho _\mathrm{c}(z)\frac{3H^2(z)}{8\pi G}`$, as strongly suggested by numerical simulation (Evrard et al. evr+al96 (1996); Frenk et al. fre+al99 (1999)); $`H(z)`$ is the redshift dependent Hubble constant,

$$H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}(1+z)^2}.$$
(11)
The density contrast $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ is attained at the radius $`r_{\delta _\mathrm{c}}`$ (Evrard et al. evr+al96 (1996); Evrard evr97 (1997)). According to an analysis of gas velocity moments (Evrard et al. evr+al96 (1996)), $`\delta _\mathrm{c}=500`$ is a conservative estimate of the boundary between the inner, nearly hydrostatic and virialized central region of the cluster and the surrounding, recently accreting outer envelope. Clusters of different temperatures have similar structures once scaled to $`r_{500}`$, within which the easily visible region of the cluster is also probed with the typical background sensitivity. Hydrodynamical simulations (Evrard et al. evr+al96 (1996)) also show that the assumption of an isothermal gas in hydrostatic equilibrium is valid within the virial radius.

The virial equilibrium expectations at a fixed density contrast, that is

$$T\frac{GM}{r_{\delta _\mathrm{c}}}\frac{\delta _\mathrm{c}\rho _\mathrm{c}r_{\delta _\mathrm{c}}^3}{r_{\delta _\mathrm{c}}}\delta _\mathrm{c}H^2(z)r_{\delta _\mathrm{c}}^2,$$
(12)
can be calibrated by means of numerical simulation (Evrard et al. evr+al96 (1996)),

$$r_{500}(T_\mathrm{X})=r_{10}(500,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}})\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{X}}{10\mathrm{K}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\frac{H_0^2}{H^2(z)}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{h},$$
(13)
where $`h`$ is $`H_0`$ in units of 100 km s-1Mpc-1. The normalization $`r_{10}`$ in Eq. (13) is the average radial scale of $`10`$ KeV clusters at density contrast $`\delta _\mathrm{c}=500`$. Since the scaling law reflects the virial equilibrium within $`\delta _\mathrm{c}𝒪(10^3)`$, $`r_{10}(500)`$ is nearly insensitive to the peculiar cosmology. We put $`r_{10}(500,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}})=1.24\pm 0.08`$ Mpc (Evrard et al. evr+al96 (1996)).

The gas fraction at $`r_{500}`$, once known at a fixed physical radius $`r_\mathrm{X}`$, can be evaluated using a mild, power law extrapolation of the data quoted at $`r_\mathrm{X}`$ (Evrard evr97 (1997)),

$$f_{\mathrm{ICM}}[r_{500}(T_\mathrm{X})]=f_{\mathrm{ICM}}(r_\mathrm{X})\left[\frac{r_{500}(T_\mathrm{X})}{r_\mathrm{X}}\right]^\eta ,$$
(14)
with $`\eta =0.17`$ as derived from numerical simulations (Evrard et al. evr+al96 (1996)). The small value of $`\eta `$ also reduces the error on the gas fraction which propagates from an uncertain determination of the normalization factor in Eq. (13). Using a different normalization based on observations of the relatively relaxed cluster A1795, Mohr et al. (moh+al99 (1999)) found $`r_{10}(500)1.19`$. Since $`\eta =0.17`$, the relative variation on $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}(500)`$ between the two normalization is less then $`1\%`$.

Present X-ray observations are mostly sensitive to the inner cluster regions, but, future SZE data would probe more exterior region, allowing an analysis on larger scales. There are some evidences that the gas fraction increases by about 15% from $`r_{500}`$ to $`r_{200}`$ (Ettori & Fabian ett+fab99 (1999)). Since the currently derived gas fraction profile increases regularly from the inner part to the outer part, up to the virial radius and beyond (Sadat & Blanchard sad+bla01 (2001)), the $`\eta `$ value at $`\delta _\mathrm{c}500`$ accordingly changes but, whenever the ratio of $`r_{\delta _\mathrm{c}}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{X}`$ is within few percent of each other, the effect of $`\eta `$ on the final result is really negligible (Cooray 1998a ).

The variations in the gas fraction within the virial regions are then quite small. At a given temperature, the scatter in $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ is less than $`20\%`$, including both intrinsic variations and measurements errors (Arnaud & Evrard arn+evr99 (1999); Vikhlinin vik+al99 (1998)).

The estimated gas mass fraction out to $`r_{500}`$ depends on cosmology through the angular diameter distance, see Eq. (8), and the time dependent Hubble constant, see Eq. (13). From Eqs. (81314), we get

$$f_{\mathrm{ICM}}[r_{500}]d_\mathrm{A}^{\beta \eta }H(z)^\eta .$$
(15)
$`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}[r_{500}]`$ is a decreasing function of both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`H_0`$. So, an increment in $`\eta `$ determines an overestimate of these cosmological parameters.

Under the assumption that the gas fraction is time independent and constant for all clusters, it is possible to constrain the cosmological parameters (Sasaki sas96 (1996); Pen pen97 (1997); Cooray 1998a ; Danos & Pen dan+pen98 (1998); Rines et al. rin+al99 (1999)). The evolution of the gas mass fraction is still under discussion (Schindler schi99 (1999); Ettori & Fabian ett+fab99 (1999); Roussel et al. rou+al00 (2000)). An observed variation of $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ with the redshift would be explained by a wrong assumption for the angular diameter distance and the cosmological parameters and/or a true time evolution. In the near future, the study of the power spectrum of the secondary CMBR anisotropies due to the thermal SZE by clusters of galaxies should give a discriminatory signature of any possible evolution of the ICM mass fraction (Majumdar maju01 (2001)); however, at the moment, numerical simulations do not suggest any evolution.

## 3 Data sample

The observational sample we consider is based on the X-ray data set in Mohr et al. (moh+al99 (1999), hereafter MME) and Ettori & Fabian (ett+fab99 (1999); EF), on the SZE data from Grego et al. (gre+al01 (2001); GCR), and on the joint analysis of interferometric SZE observations with X-ray imaging observations in Reese et al. (ree+al02 (2002); RCJ). All the published ICM mass fractions are given out to an angular radius within which the signal-to-noise ratio is good enough and the problems deriving from extrapolation procedure are really negligible (Sadat & Blanchard sad+bla01 (2001)).

In order to work with a homogeneous sample, we impose a cut on the temperature, requiring $`T_\mathrm{X}>5`$ KeV. Cluster evolution is not an entirely self similar process driven exclusively by gravitational instability (David et al. dav+al95 (1995); Ponman et al. pon+al96 (1996); MME). While massive clusters are less affected by processes like galaxy feedback, low mass clusters may have lost gas as a result of preheating and post-collapse energy input, so enhancing ICM depletion within the virial region. The net result is that the ICM mass fraction shows a mild increasing trend with the temperature. Both observations (MME) and numerical simulations of the effect of preheating (Bialek et al. bia+al01 (2001)) show that $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ is depressed below the cosmic mean baryon fraction in clusters with $`T_\mathrm{X}\stackrel{<}{}3`$ KeV. However, the trend between $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{X}`$ is not clear (Roussel et al. rou+al00 (2000)) and an analysis in Arnaud & Evrard (arn+evr99 (1999)) of selected clusters with weak cooling flow does not give clear statistical significance. Sanderson et al (san+al03 (2003)) found departures from a self-similar behaviour in the scaling properties of a large sample of virialized haloes. Both the relation between the gas density slope parameter and the temperature and the gas fraction data reveal a flattening of the gas density profiles in small sized haloes, consistent with energy injection into the ICM by non-gravitational means. A clear trend for cooler system to have a smaller gas fraction emerged, although, above 4 KeV, the significance of this correlation is weakened.

To be more conservative with respect to these shortcomings, we consider only clusters with $`T_\mathrm{X}>5`$ KeV, which are less affected by feedback from galaxy formation and where $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ appears to be constant without opposite claims. This criterion is passed by $`28`$ clusters from the sample in MME, $`35`$ from the sample in EF, $`18`$ from both the sample in GRC and RCJ

## 4 Data analysis

Median statistics provide a powerful tool to experimental data analysis. Few assumptions about the data and their errors are required. Usual $`\chi ^2`$ statistics assume that i) experimental data are statistically independent; ii) there are no systematic effects; iii) experimental errors are Gaussianly distributed; iv) the standard deviation of these errors is known. On the other hand, median statistics assume only hypotheses i) and ii).

To compute the likelihood of a particular set of cosmological parameters, we count how many data points are above or below each cosmological model prediction and compute the binomial likelihoods. Given a binomial distribution, if we perform $`N`$ measurements, the probability of obtaining $`k`$ of them above the median is given by

$$P(k)=\frac{2^NN!}{k!(Nk)!}.$$
(16)
We perform such a test on the baryonic gas fraction measured with X-ray data from MME and EF, on the gas mass fraction from SZE observations from GCR and, finally, on the cosmological distances measurements in RCJ

### 4.1 Baryonic mass fractions

We count the number of baryon mass fractions that are too heavy with respect to (i.e. greater than) the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. ICM is not the only contribution to the cluster baryon budget. Other contributions come from the luminous mass in galaxies, intergalactic stars and a hypothetical baryonic dark matter. While the latter two terms can be neglected (Ettori et al. etto01 (2001)), the typical stellar contribution to the baryonic mass is between $`5`$ and $`20\%`$ (White et al. whi+al93 (1993); Fukugita et al. fuk+al98 (1998); Roussel et al. rou+al00 (2000)). The ICM is the most extended mass component in clusters, while the galaxies are the most centrally concentrated one (David et al. dav+al95 (1995)). There are some indications of a trend of increasing gas mass fraction and decreasing mass in optically luminous matter with increasing mass of the clusters (David et al. dav+al95 (1995); David dav+al95 (1995)), but this claim is still debated (Roussel et al. rou+al00 (2000)). Lin et al. (lin+al03 (2003)) found that the total baryon fraction is an increasing function of the cluster mass. Estimating the stellar mass using $`K`$-band luminosity, they also showed how the ICM to stellar mass ratio nearly doubles from low- to high-mass clusters. However, our choice to consider only massive clusters with $`T_\mathrm{X}>5`$ KeV gives some cautions in considering the total mass in galaxies as a fixed fraction of the cluster gas. We have adopted the estimate in Fukugita et al. (fuk+al98 (1998)), $`f_\mathrm{B}=(1+\left[0.18_{0.08}^{+0.10}\right]h^{1/2})f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$.

A determination for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}`$ is required. One of the most precise determination of the physical baryonic density is derived in O’Meara et al. (ome+al01 (2001)). By combining measurements of the primeval abundance of deuterium, as inferred from high-redshift Ly$`\alpha `$ systems, and theoretical predictions of the big-bang nucleosynthesis, they found $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}h^2=0.0205\pm 0.0018`$. Measurements of the angular power spectrum of the CMBR also provide an estimate of the baryon abundance. For the recent WMAP data (Spergel et al. spe+al03 (2003)), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}h^2=0.024\pm 0.001`$, depending primarily on the ratio of the first to second peak heights. When combined with other finer CMBR experiments and 2dFGRS measurements, WMAP data gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}h^2=0.022\pm 0.001`$ (Spergel et al. spe+al03 (2003)), in remarkable agreement with the result from Ly$`\alpha `$ forest data. CMBR predictions depend on a multi-dimensional fitting procedure involving all the cosmological parameters together, included the parameters we want to determine, i.e. $`H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, so we prefer to adopt the estimate from O’Meara et al. (ome+al01 (2001)).

The ICM mass fraction in Eq. (15) is a decreasing function of both $`H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, so, increasing the observed value of the baryon abundance, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}`$, determines an underestimate of both $`H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$.

We use the ICM mass fractions to a fixed metric radius as reported in Table 4 in MME, Table 2 in EF and Table 4 in GCR. Then, we extrapolate to the virial radius assuming the reference cosmological model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=1`$ and $`h=0.5`$ in MME and in EF and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=0.3`$ and $`h=1`$ in GCR); the prediction of a generic cosmological model is obtained according to Eq. (15). We join the X-ray derived mass fraction lists in MME and EF in a single data sample with 63 data points. The 1-$`\sigma `$ and region 2-$`\sigma `$ in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$-$`h`$ plane are located by cosmological pairs whose predictions are between 28 and 35 times ($`68.65\%`$111This and the following probabilities are determined by adding the single binomial likelihoods of $`k`$ overestimates in a data sample of $`N`$ entries, according to Eq. (16). The 1-$`\sigma `$ and the 2-$`\sigma `$ confidence region are chosen to be symmetric around the median and such that the total probability inside them is just larger than 68.3% and 95.4%, respectively. confidence region) or between 24 and 39 times ($`95.70\%`$), respectively, above $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$.

The SZE derived mass fraction data sample provides 18 entries. Now, the 1-$`\sigma `$ and 2-$`\sigma `$ regions in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$-$`h`$ plane are located by points with a number of overestimates between 7 and 11 ($`76.2\%`$) and 5 and 13 ($`96.9\%`$), respectively. Since the different dependence on the cosmological parameters, the results from X-ray and SZE measurements locate independent regions in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$-$`h`$ plane, see Fig. (1). In any case the points in the SZE sample are not enough to significantly constrain cosmological parameters from estimates of gas fraction alone.

### 4.2 Cosmological distances

As seen in Section 2, when combining X-ray and SZE data, a third constrain can be obtained without referring to any value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}`$. Reese et al. (ree+al02 (2002)) determined the distances to 18 galaxy clusters with redshift ranging from $`z0.14`$ to $`0.78`$. Now, for each cosmological model, we count the number of clusters that are too distant, i.e the number of cluster whose distance calculated according to Eq. (2) for a set of cosmological parameters is greater than the measured value. The confidence region in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$-$`h`$ plane are determined with the same criteria as for the SZE derived mass fraction. Despite the numbers of entries for the cosmological distances and for the baryonic mass fraction from SZE data are the same, the former does better since the difference dependence on cosmological parameters. The test on the cosmological distances, very sensitive to the Hubble constant, provides a nearly orthogonal constraint to the method of the baryonic fraction. At the 1-$`\sigma `$ level, we get $`0.50\stackrel{<}{}h\stackrel{<}{}0.66`$; the 2-$`\sigma `$ confidence range is $`0.38\stackrel{<}{}h\stackrel{<}{}0.70`$. Using a $`\chi ^2`$ statistics, where the statistical uncertainties have been obtained combining in quadrature and then averaging not Gaussian, asymmetric errors, Reese et al. (ree+al02 (2002)) found, as $`68.3\%`$ confidence range, $`0.51\stackrel{<}{}h\stackrel{<}{}0.64`$, nearly as constraining as our result.

### 4.3 Concordance analysis

To evaluate the allowed range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`h`$, we have to consider together the three independent constraints. We apply a concordance analysis, only retaining the pairs of cosmological parameters which lie within 1-$`\sigma `$ or 2-$`\sigma `$ of each individual constraint (Wang et al. wan+al00 (2000)). This procedure is conservative with respect to possibly not well controlled systematic errors and puts in evidence the most effective constraints in delimiting the allowed range. As can be seen from Figs. (12), constraints from cosmological baryonic fraction are nearly orthogonal to that from cosmological distances. At the 1-$`\sigma `$ level, Fig. (1), we get $`0.31\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}\stackrel{<}{}0.34`$ and $`0.55\stackrel{<}{}h\stackrel{<}{}0.62`$. At the 2-$`\sigma `$ level, Fig. (2), we get $`0.30\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}\stackrel{<}{}0.40`$ and $`0.44\stackrel{<}{}h\stackrel{<}{}0.66`$.

## 5 Systematic effects

Several systematic uncertainties are involved when deriving cosmological parameters from the cluster gas mass observations.

### 5.1 ICM depletion

Shocks during cluster formation can drive an ICM depletion within $`r_{500}`$. Numerical simulations (Frenk et al. fre+al99 (1999)) and observations (Sanderson et al. san+al03 (2003)) show that the gas distribution is more extended than the dark matter one. The extended gas structure implies a weakly rising baryon fraction with radius (Evrard evr97 (1997); EF), $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}r^\eta `$, see Eq. (14), and this increasing trend is stronger in less massive clusters (Schindler schi99 (1999)). The ratio $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ of the enclosed baryon fraction to the universal cosmic value within a fixed density contrast,

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\delta _\mathrm{c})\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{B0}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}}\frac{1}{f_\mathrm{B}(\delta _\mathrm{c})}\right)^1,$$
(17)
has been calibrated by simulations. A modest overall baryonic diminution, about $`10\%`$, has been found (Evrard evr97 (1997); Frenk et al. fre+al99 (1999)).

### 5.2 Density clumping

Small-scale density fluctuations on X-ray measurements of the ICM mass arising from accretion events and major mergers can introduce a bias in the determination of $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}^X`$. Density clumping on a scale less than the resolution of the images causes an enhancement of the X-ray brightness by a factor $`C_\mathrm{n}=n_\mathrm{e}^2/n_\mathrm{e}^2`$ with respect to a uniform smooth atmosphere. Since the surface brightness profile is proportional to the square of the central gas density, see Eq. (3), $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}^X`$ is overestimated by $`C_\mathrm{n}^{1/2}`$. Numerical hydro-simulations show that $`C_\mathrm{n}^{1/2}=1.16\pm 0.01`$ (Mathiesen et al. mat+al99 (1999)). However, the spread in this value, on a cluster-by-cluster basis, can be much larger than this.

Since the value of $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ is not changed by density clumping, the estimate of $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ based on the SZE is not affected by this systematic effect.

Currently, there is no observational evidence of significant clumping in galaxy clusters (RCJ).

### 5.3 Other effects

Several other systematic effects can affect the gas mass fraction measurements. A magnetic field in the cluster plasma might support a non thermal component in the X-ray emission. It can be effective in the core regions of the cluster but it is unlikely that it plays a major role out to the hydrostatic radius (Cooray 1998a ). The non-isothermality of the ICM has also been taken into account (Ettori et al. etto01 (2001); Puy et al. puy+al00 (2000)). The presence of a temperature gradient increases the gas fraction estimated at the virial radius $`r_{500}`$, whereas correcting by the contamination of a magnetic field reduces $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ (Ettori et al. etto01 (2001)).

Heating and cooling process may also act in galaxy clusters, but they do not change in a significant way the estimate of the mean $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ in a numerous enough cluster sample (Cooray 1998a ). Cooling processes can alter the ICM profiles. Since the SZE depends essentially on the pressure profile, a cooling flow can lead to an underestimation of the cosmological distance (Majumdar & Nath ma+na00 (2000)). Even after excluding $`80\%`$ of the cooling-flow region from the analysis, a $`10\%`$ overestimation of $`H_0`$ may be in order.

Cluster geometry introduces an important uncertainty in SZE- and X-ray-derived quantities (Cooray 1998b ; Puy et al. puy+al00 (2000)). Complicated cluster structure and projection effects cannot currently be disentangled. Projection effects of aspherical cluster modelled with a spherical geometry broaden the distribution of measured gas mass fraction and should be corrected by taking into account the distribution of ellipticities for the cluster sample (Cooray 1998b ). The effects of asphericity contribute significantly to the distance uncertainty for each cluster, but the determination of the Hubble constant from a large sample of clusters is not believed to be significantly biased (RCJ).

These various effects do not act all in the same direction; furthermore, they require a very detailed modelling in order to correct for a not very significant amount. Since an ensemble of hydro-dynamical cluster simulations has shown that the departures from an isothermal, spherical ICM do not introduce serious errors (GRC), we have not considered them in our analysis.

Considering the effects discussed in Section (5.15.2), ICM mass fraction should be corrected according to

$$f_\mathrm{B}^\mathrm{X}=f_{\mathrm{ICM}}^X\left[1+\frac{f_{\mathrm{gal}}}{f_{\mathrm{ICM}}}\right]\frac{1}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(500)}\frac{1}{C_\mathrm{n}^{1/2}},$$
(18)
and

$$f_\mathrm{B}^{\mathrm{SZ}}=f_{\mathrm{ICM}}^{\mathrm{SZ}}\left[1+\frac{f_{\mathrm{gal}}}{f_{\mathrm{ICM}}}\right]\frac{1}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(500)}.$$
(19)
## 6 Conclusions

The simple argument presented here, based on the different dependence of the galaxy cluster ICM mass estimates on the cosmological parameters as derived either from SZE measurements or from X-ray observations, has made it possible to infer both the value of the pressureless matter density parameter and the Hubble constant. The only additional information is the value of the universal baryonic matter density. To our knowledge, this is the first time that gas mass estimates are used to derive $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`H_0`$ together.

We have followed median statistics. This technique assumes only that the measurements are independent and free of systematic errors. Physical quantities in literature, such as X-ray emission temperature ICM mass fractions and cosmological distances, are often presented with asymmetric errors bars. Supposing these errors following a Gaussian distribution with known standard deviation, as required by usual $`\chi ^2`$ analysis, is a hard hypothesis. On the other hand, median statistics, based on fewer assumptions, can provide very interesting and constraining results, as shown in several astrophysical cases (Gott et al. got+al01 (2001); Avelino et al. ave+al02 (2002); Chen & Ratra ch+ra03 (2003)). To minimize the role of systematic uncertainties, we have performed a concordance analysis of the data (Wang et al. wan+al00 (2000)).

Our estimates agree with the currently favoured model of Universe (Wang et al. wan+al00 (2000)), derived from observational constraints such as measurements of the anisotropy of the CMBR (Spergel et al. spe+al03 (2003)), large-scale structure observations (Peacock et al. pe&al01 (2001))and evidences coming from type Ia supernovae (Riess et al. ri&al98 (1998); Perlmutter et al. pe&al99 (1999)).

We have found a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ in full agreement with the bulk of evidences (Harun-or-Rashid & Roos ha+ro01 (2001); Chen & Ratra ch+ra03 (2003)). Median statistics analyses of various collections of measurements has been used in Chen & Ratra (ch+ra03 (2003)) to determine an estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. They found $`0.20\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}\stackrel{<}{}0.35`$ at two standard deviations, in full agreement with our estimate $`0.30\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}\stackrel{<}{}0.40`$.

Our determination of the Hubble constant is independent of the local extragalactic distance scale. We find $`0.44\stackrel{<}{}h\stackrel{<}{}0.66`$ at 2-$`\sigma `$, in agreement with the estimate of the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project, $`h=0.72\pm 8`$ (Freedman et al. fre+al01 (2001)). Together with SZE-derived distances, time delays produced by lensing of quasars by foreground galaxies also provide a tool to determine $`H_0`$ independent of the extragalactic distance ladder. This technique suffers by very uncertain systematics but gives results in agreement with our result (Witt et al. wit+al00 (2000)). We remark how both these two global methods tend to yield smaller estimates of $`H_0`$ than the determination by CMBR measurements: WMAP data give $`h=0.72\pm 0.05`$ (Spergel et al. spe+al03 (2003)). The value of the Hubble constant, as derived applying median statistics to a collection of nearly all available pre-mid-1999 estimates, is $`h=0.67\pm 0.02`$ (95% statistical) $`\pm 0.05`$ (95% systematic) (Gott et al. got+al01 (2001)), in agreement with our result.

In the near future, by increasing the SZE data sample, the estimates of the cosmological parameters obtained with our method should greatly improve.


format: text

text:
# On the structure of the adjacency matrix of the line digraph of a regular digraph

## Introduction

Line digraphs of regular digraphs and their generalizations are important in the design of point-to-point interconnection networks for parallel computers and distributed systems. For instance, de Bruijn digraphs and Reddy-Pradhan-Kuhl digraphs, which are important topologies for interconnection networks, are all examples of line digraphs of regular digraphs (see, *e.g.*, , and ). In this note, we describe a special regularity property of the adjacency matrix of the line digraph of a regular digraph. Before stating formally our main result, we recall the necessary graph-theoretic terminology.

A (*finite*) *directed graph*, for short *digraph*, consists of a non-empty finite set of elements called *vertices* and a (possibly empty) finite set of ordered pairs of vertices called *arcs*. The digraphs considered here are without multiple arcs. We denote by $`D=(V,A)`$ a digraph with vertex-set $`V(D)`$ and arc-set $`A\left(D\right)`$. A *labeling* of the vertices of a digraph $`D`$ is a function $`l:V\left(D\right)L`$, where $`L`$ is a set of labels. Chosen a bijective labeling, the *adjacency matrix* of a digraph $`D`$ with $`n`$ vertices, denoted by $`M\left(D\right)`$, is the $`n\times n`$ $`(0,1)`$-matrix with $`ij`$-th element defined by $`M_{i,j}\left(D\right)=1`$ if $`(v_i,v_j)A\left(D\right)`$ and $`M_{i,j}\left(D\right)=0`$, otherwise. For any vertex $`v_iV(D)`$ of a digraph $`D`$, let $`d_D^{}\left(v_i\right):=|\{v_j:(v_j,v_i)A\left(D\right)\}|`$ and $`d_D^+\left(v_i\right):=|\{v_j:(v_i,v_j)A\left(D\right)\}|`$. A digraph $`D`$ is said to be $`d`$*-regular* if, for every vertex $`v_iV(D)`$, $`d_D^{}\left(v_i\right)=d_D^+\left(v_i\right)=d`$. A digraph $`H`$ is a *subdigraph* of a digraph $`D`$ if $`V\left(H\right)V\left(D\right)`$ and $`A\left(H\right)A\left(D\right)`$. A subdigraph $`H`$ of a digraph $`D`$ is said to be a *spanning subdigraph* of $`D`$, or equivalently, a *factor* of $`D`$, if $`V\left(H\right)=V\left(D\right)`$. A *decomposition* of a digraph $`D`$ is a set $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_k\}`$ of subdigraphs of $`D`$ whose arc-sets are exactly the classes of a partition of $`A\left(D\right)`$. A *factorization* of a digraph $`D`$, if there exists one, is a decomposition of $`D`$ into factors. A *dicycle factor* $`H`$ of a digraph $`D`$ is a spanning subdigraph of $`D`$ such that $`M\left(H\right)`$ is a permutation matrix. The *disjoint union* of digraphs $`D_1,D_2,\mathrm{},D_k`$, is the digraph with vertex-set $`_{i=1}^kV(D_i)`$, and arc-set $`_{i=1}^kA(D_i)`$. Then a dicycle factor $`H`$ of a digraph $`D`$ is a spanning subdigraph of $`D`$ and it is the disjoint union of dicycles. A *dicycle factorization* is a factorization into dicycle factors. The *line digraph* of a digraph $`D`$, denoted by $`\stackrel{}{L}D`$, is defined as follows: the vertex-set of $`\stackrel{}{L}D`$ is $`A\left(D\right)`$; for $`v_h,v_i,v_j,v_kV\left(D\right)`$, $`((v_h,v_i),(v_j,v_k))A(\stackrel{}{L}D)`$ if and only if $`v_i=v_j`$. Kronecker product and direct sum of matrices $`M`$ and $`N`$ are respectively denoted by $`MN`$ and $`MN`$. The identity matrix and the all-ones matrix of size $`n`$ are respectively denoted by $`I_n`$ and $`J_n`$. In the next section, we prove the following theorem:

Theorem *Let* $`D`$ *be a* $`d`$*-regular digraph on* $`n`$ *vertices and let* $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_d\}`$ *be a dicycle factorization of* $`D`$*. Then there is a labeling of* $`V(\stackrel{}{L}D)`$ *such that*

$$M(\stackrel{}{L}D)=(J_dI_n)\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}M(H_i).$$

## 1 Proof of the theorem

The proof of the theorem is based on two simple observations and a result proved by Hasunuma and Shibata  (see also Kawai *et al.* ).

###### Lemma 1

Let $`D`$ be a $`d`$-regular digraph. Then $`D`$ has a dicycle factorization. In particular, if $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_d\}`$ is a dicycle factorization of $`D`$ then $`M(H_1),M(H_2),\mathrm{},M(H_d)`$ are permutation matrices such that

$$M(D)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}M(H_i).$$

Two digraphs $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are said to be *isomorphic* if there is a permutation matrix $`P`$ such that $`PM(D)P^1=M(D^{})`$. If $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are isomorphic we then write $`DD^{}`$. An $`n`$*-dicycle*, denoted by $`\stackrel{}{C}_n`$, is a digraph with vertex-set $`\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ and arc-set $`\{(v_1,v_2),\mathrm{},(v_{n1},v_n),(v_n,v_1)\}`$. A $`d`$-*spiked* $`n`$*-dicycle* is the digraph obtained from $`\stackrel{}{C}_n`$ as follows: for every vertex $`v_iV(\stackrel{}{C}_n)`$, we add $`d`$ new vertices $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_d`$; we connect $`v_i(\stackrel{}{C}_n)`$ to the vertices $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_d`$, obtaining the arcs $`(v_i,w_1),(v_i,w_2),\mathrm{},(v_i,w_d)`$.

###### Lemma 2

Let $`D`$ be a $`d`$-spiked $`n`$-dicycle. Then $`D\stackrel{}{L}D`$.

Let $`D`$ be a digraph and let $`H`$ be a spanning subdigraph of $`D`$. The *growth* of $`D`$ derived by $`H`$ is the digraph denoted by $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H\right)`$ and defined as follows: for every pair of vertices $`v_i,v_jV(D)`$, if $`(v_i,v_j)A(H)`$ then $`(v_i,v_j)A(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H\right))`$; for every vertex $`v_iV(D)`$, we add new vertices $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_l`$, where $`l=d_D^+\left(v_i\right)d_H^+\left(v_i\right)`$; we connect $`v_iV(D)`$ to the vertices $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_l`$, obtaining the arcs $`(v_i,w_1),(v_i,w_2),\mathrm{},(v_i,w_l)`$.

###### Lemma 3 ()

If $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_k\}`$ is a decomposition of a digraph $`D`$ then

$$\{\stackrel{}{L}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D(H_1),\stackrel{}{L}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D(H_2),\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{L}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_k\right)\}$$

is a decomposition of a digraph $`D^{}\stackrel{}{L}D`$.

Proof. \[Proof of the theorem\] Let $`D`$ be a $`d`$-regular digraph on $`n`$ vertices $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n`$. Let $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_d\}`$ be a dicycle factorization of $`D`$. The vertices of $`H_j\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_d\}`$ are denoted as $`(H_j,v_1),(H_j,v_2),\mathrm{},(H_j,v_n)`$. Let us construct $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right)`$. For every vertex $`(H_j,v_i)V(H_j)`$, we add $`d1`$ new vertices to $`H_j`$. We label these new vertices by pairs of the form $`(H_l,v_m)`$, for all $`lj`$ and $`v_m`$ such that $`(v_i,v_m)A(H_l)`$. In addition, $`((H_j,v_i),(H_l,v_m))A(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right))`$. The digraph $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right)`$ has $`nd`$ vertices. If we label the row number $`(j1)n+i`$ of $`M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right))`$ by the vertex $`(H_j,v_i)`$, the adjacency matrix of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right)`$ is the $`(dn)\times (dn)`$ block-matrix

$$M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right))=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟎}\\ X_j\\ \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),$$

where

$$X_j=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}M\left(H_1\right)& M\left(H_2\right)& \mathrm{}& M\left(H_j\right)& \mathrm{}& M\left(H_{d1}\right)& M\left(H_d\right)\end{array}\right).$$

Notice that $`M\left(H_j\right)`$ is the $`jj`$-th block of $`M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right))`$. Thus, we have

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=j}{\overset{d}{}}}M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_i\right))=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M\left(H_1\right)& M\left(H_2\right)& \mathrm{}& M\left(H_d\right)\\ M\left(H_1\right)& M\left(H_2\right)& \mathrm{}& M\left(H_d\right)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ M\left(H_1\right)& M\left(H_2\right)& \mathrm{}& M\left(H_d\right)\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(J_dI_n){\displaystyle \underset{i=j}{\overset{d}{}}}M(H_j).`$
Observe that, for every $`1jd`$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right)`$ is the disjoint union of the $`d`$-spiked cycles corresponding to the orbits of the permutation associated to $`H_j`$. It follows from Lemma 2 that, for every $`1jd`$,

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D(H_j)\stackrel{}{L}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D(H_j).$$

Then, for the chosen labeling,

$$M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right))=M(\stackrel{}{L}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D(H_j))$$

and

$$N=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}M(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D\left(H_j\right))=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}M(\stackrel{}{L}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_D(H_j)).$$

Now, by Lemma 3, $`N=M(\stackrel{}{L}D)`$.

Remark The graph operation transforming a digraph $`D`$ in its line digraph can be naturally iterated: $`\stackrel{}{L}^kD:=\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{L}^{k1}D`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be an alphabet of cardinality $`d`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$ be the set of all the words of length $`k`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The $`d`$*-ary* $`k`$*-dimensional de Bruijn* *digraph*, denoted by $`B(d,k)`$, is defined as follows: the vertex-set of $`B(d,k)`$ is $`V(B(d,k))=\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$; for every pair of vertices $`v_i,v_j`$, we have $`(v_i,v_j)A(B(d,k))`$ if and only if the last $`k1`$ letters of $`v_i`$ are the same as the first $`k1`$ letters of $`v_j`$. Let $`K_d^+`$ be the complete digraph on $`d`$ vertices with a loop at each vertex. Fiol, Yebra and Alegre  proved that $`B(d,k)\stackrel{}{L}^{k1}K_d^+`$. This result, together with the theorem, gives

$$M(B(d,2))(J_dI_d)\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}M(H_i),$$

where $`\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_d\}`$ is any dicycle factorization of $`K_d^+`$.

*Acknowledgments* The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments that improved this paper.


text:
# Modified dynamics of weakly coupled BEC’s Josephson Junction (BJJ)

## I Introduction

Since Bose-Einstein condensation was first detected in 1995 anderson1995 , there have been rapid and critical developments in experimental techniques stamper1998a ; stamper1998b ; hall1998a ; catali2001 ; andrews1997 . In 1997, interference fringes in two overlapping condensates were observedandrews1997 . Consequently in 1998, the superposition of condensed atoms in different hyperfine levels was created stamper1998a ; stamper1998b . And the evolution of the relative phase of two coupled condensates was measured by interferometry techniques hall1998a ; hall1998c . In 2001, the direct observation of an oscillating atomic current in one-dimensional array Josephson junctions was realized catali2001 . With these precise manipulation of Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC’s), it has enhanced the possibility of tailoring the new quantum systems to a degree not possible with other quantum systems, like superfluid. And the studies of spatial coherence naturally raise the question of measurement and exploration of temporal phase coherence between two condensates.

Theoretically, with the approximation of non-interacting atoms and small-amplitude Josephson oscillations, some aspects of temporal phase coherence have been investigated in the context of BEC by means of Josephson junctions javan1986 ; dalfovo1996 . Yet many important features of this subject remained to be explored. A non-excitation system of interacting bosons confined within an external potential can be described by a macroscopic wave function, which has the meaning of an order parameter and satisfies the nonlinear Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation dalfovo1999 . The semiclassical tunnelling quantum dynamics using GP equation has been studied raghava1999 . And many interesting phenomena such as macroscopic quantum self-trapping (MQST) milburn1997 ; smerzi1997 ; raghava1999  and $`\pi `$ states smerzi1997 ; raghava1999  were predicted in a weakly coupled double BEC. In those works, the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation (DNLSE) has served as a powerful tool for describing the boson Josephson junction (BJJ) stamper1998a ; stamper1998b . But so far, many investigations have cast doubts on the validity of the DNLSE for conserved quasiparticles interacting with a boson field raghava1999b . The objections are not to the GP equation itself , but to the quasiparticle approximation instead. The earlier results at the condition of short time scales obtained through the DNLSE in the context of coupled quasiparticle-boson systems were verified by the fully quantum version of the BJJ tunnelling model stamper1998b ; hall1998a . But on long time scales, the MQST in symmetric traps, which is predicted by DNLSE, was found to be destroyed in fully quantum dynamics catali2001 .

As revealed in other contextraghava1999b , the MQST (or z-symmetry breaking) in a translationally invariant Hamiltonian is an artifact of the factorization assumption inherent in the semiclassical dynamics. In the DNLSE procedure, atoms are assumed to be localized in either of the traps with discrete wavefunctions. Then, the quantum states for the total BJJ system is the superposition of those eigenstates in each trap individually. Furthermore, the population distribution is determined through the calculation of time dependent Schrödinger equation. Compared to the fully quantum dynamics, in the semiclassical description, the quantum thermodynamic equilibrium for BJJ system is overlooked. And a stationary BJJ is not restricted to its ground state with a lowest energy. A consequent result is the artifact of MQST, which would not break down in the semiclassical description even on the condition of long time scales.

Compared to previous works, the BJJ is assumed to occupy its ground state in present study. And a corresponding lowest energy condition was deduced, based on which the semiclassical dynamics was modified. The numerical calculation of the modified dynamics revealed that the MQST was auto-avoided. Also, it was found that the BJJ oscillated with an inherent frequency, which was only related to the Josephson energy.

In the following Sec. II, the equilibrium behavior of BJJ is discussed, and the lowest energy state is found under a condition of a fixed relationship between the population distribution and the quantum states of BEC’s. In Sec. III, the semiclassical dynamics is modified by introducing the stationary condition into the DNLSE procedure. In Sec. IV, the tunnelling dynamics for BJJ with symmetric and asymmetric traps is discussed and some numerical results are given.

## II The equilibrium behavior of weakly coupled BJJ

The effective many-body Hamiltonian describing atomic BEC in a double-well trapping potential $`V_{trap}(r)`$ can be written in the second-quantization form as chen2002

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle d^3r\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V_{trap}]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_0}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3r\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}}.`$ (1)
Here $`m`$ is the atomic mass and $`U_0=4\pi a\mathrm{}^2/m`$ ($`a`$ denotes the s-wave scattering length, measuring the strength of the two-body atomic interaction). The Heisenberg atomic field operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ satisfy the standard bosonic commutation relation $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(r,t),\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(r^{},t)]=\delta (rr^{})`$. In the quasiparticle approximation, one can expand the field operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ in terms of two local modes

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(r,t){\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\widehat{a}_i(t)\psi _i(r).`$ (2)
Here $`[\widehat{a}_i(t),\widehat{a}_i^{}(t)]=\delta _{ij}`$, and $`\psi _i(r)`$ stands for the local mode function of either well and satisfies

$`{\displaystyle d^3r\psi _i^{}(r)\psi _i(r)}\delta _{ij}.`$ (3)
Substituting Eq. (2) into Hamiltonian (1), the two-mode approximation of $`H`$ is yielded

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}(E_i^0\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i+\lambda _i\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_i)(J\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2+J^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}),`$ (4)
where the parameters are estimated by milburn1997

$`E_i^0={\displaystyle d^3r\psi ^{}[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V_{trap}]\psi _i},`$
$`\lambda _i={\displaystyle \frac{U_0}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3r|\psi _i|^4},`$ (5)
$`J={\displaystyle d^3r[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\psi _1^{}\psi _2+V_{trap}\psi _1^{}\psi _2]}.`$
Here the interactions between atoms in different wells are neglected as in the weakly coupled BEC’s. Defining two local number operators $`\widehat{n}_i=\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i`$, it is easy to verify that the total number operator $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2=N_T`$ represents a conserved quantity. After neglecting the constant term, the two-mode Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ can be rewritten aschen2002 :

$`\widehat{H}^{}=E_c(\widehat{n}\widehat{n}_g)^2(J\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2+J^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}),`$
$`\widehat{n}=(\widehat{n}_1\widehat{n}_2)/2,`$
$`E_c=\lambda _1+\lambda _2,`$ (6)
$`\widehat{n}_g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2E_c}}[(E_2^0E_1^0)+(N_T1)(\lambda _1\lambda _2)].`$
Here $`\widehat{n}`$ is the number difference operator, $`E_c`$ is the “charging energy” and $`\widehat{n}_g`$ is known as the “gate charge” makhlin2001 .

Generally, the BJJ system woks in Fock regime, which gives $`E_cJ`$, and Hamiltonian (II) can be well approximated by

$`\widehat{H}^{}=E_c(\widehat{n}\widehat{n}_g)^2.`$ (7)
A BJJ system in ground state should yield a minimized energy (or say a maximized entropy) and the Hamiltonian (7) should be approximate zero, which gives

$`\widehat{n}=\widehat{n}_g.`$ (8)
Eq. (8) denotes the relationship between the population distribution and “gate charge” of an stationary BJJ system in its energy ground state. It is important to notice that the “gate charge”, which is related to the eigenstates of BEC in the either trap, is determined by two components, i.e. the boson-field interaction and self interaction, as shown in Eq. (II). In the present work, the number difference $`\widehat{n}=\widehat{n}_g`$ is not necessarily an integer, and the artifact of the factorization of assumption inherent in the semiclassical dynamics is automatically avoided. In this work, the boson-field interaction energy is considered as independent of the number difference $`n`$, while the self interaction energy is shifted by the atom numbers in either trap dalfovo1999 .

## III Modified tunnelling dynamics

In the DNLSE procedure, the wavefunction Eq. (2) is rewritten in the quasiparticle form, with

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,t){\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\varphi _i(t)\psi _i(r),`$
$`\varphi _{1,2}(t)=\sqrt{N_{1,2}(t)}e^{i\theta _{1,2}(t)},`$ (9)
where $`N`$ and $`\theta `$ denote the population and phase shift of BJJ, and $`\varphi _i`$ represents the local mode function $`\widehat{a}_i(t)`$. Then, the Hamiltonian (II) is reformed to

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1}{t}}=(E_1^0+\lambda _1N_1)\varphi _1J\varphi _2,`$
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2}{t}}=(E_2^0+\lambda _2N_2)\varphi _2J\varphi _1.`$ (10)
Defining the fractional population imbalance and relative phase andrews1997  as

$`z(t)=(N_1(t)N_2(t))/N_T,`$
$`\beta (t)=\theta _1(t)\theta _2(t).`$ (11)
Eq.(10) becomes

$`\dot{z}(t)=\sqrt{1z(t)^2}\mathrm{sin}[\beta (t)],`$
$`\dot{\beta }(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }E/(2J)+{\displaystyle \frac{z(t)}{\sqrt{1z(t)^2}}}\mathrm{cos}[\beta (t)].`$ (12)
Here $`t`$ has been rescaled to a dimensionless time $`t2J/h`$. And $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ denotes the particle energy difference between atoms in either traps, which acts as an asymmetric parameter in the tunnelling quantum dynamic of BJJ. In present work, the BJJ system is assumed to stay at its ground state. So the stationary condition Eq. (8) should be met. By introducing Eq. (8), Eq. (III) should be modified. It was found that the dynamic equations keep its form as shown by Eq. (III), but with the energy difference modified to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E=(E_1^0E_2^0)/2.`$ (13)
And the total conserved energy is given by

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2J}}\mathrm{\Delta }Ez\sqrt{1z^2}\mathrm{cos}\beta .`$ (14)
Eq. (III) can be rewritten in the Hamiltonian form raghava1999

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{\beta }},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{z}}.`$ (15)
In deducing Eq. (III), we have put forward the fact that at low oscillation frequency, the BJJ system would stay in its lowest energy state, say ground state, and the population distribution would be related to the “gate charge”. In the previous tunnelling quantum dynamic description of BJJ, the GP equation describing the mean-field dynamics of a BEC is reformed to the bimodal discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation, and the calculation is carried out by solving self-consistent equation in each trap respectively willian1999 . It would bring about artifact since the equilibrium behavior has been overlooked. And a consequent result of previous tunnelling dynamics is the MQST raghava1999b . Generally, MQST is based on the condition that the initial conserved energy

$`H_0=H[z(0),\beta (0)]>1,`$ (16)
where $`z(0)`$ and $`\beta (0)`$ are the initial values of $`z`$ and $`\beta `$ respectively. In the earlier work raghava1999 , the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the function of population imbalance $`z`$ , which would result in some certain initial value of $`z`$ satisfying Eq. (16). Thus the BJJ system would maintain in MQST state even at the condition of long time scales. Compared to the previous work, a equilibrium condition Eq. (8) was introduced to modify DNLSE procedure in present work. It was found the artifact induced by DNLSE is auto-avoided because in the BJJ with symmetric traps the expression $`H_0=\sqrt{1z}\mathrm{cos}\beta 1`$ is satisfied by any given $`z(0)`$ and $`\beta (0)`$. Naturally, because the tunnelling quantum dynamics behavior is restricted by equilibrium condition, it is a self-consisted result of Eq. (8) and Eq. (III) that the oscillation frequency should be independent of initial condition $`z(0)`$ and $`\beta (0)`$.

## IV Tunneling dynamics of BJJ with symmetric and asymmetric traps

### IV.1 The symmetric trap case

For a symmetric BEC Josephson Junction (BJJ), the motion equations (III) is given by

$`\dot{z}(t)=\sqrt{1z(t)^2}\mathrm{sin}[\beta (t)],`$
$`\dot{\beta }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{z(t)}{\sqrt{1z(t)^2}}}\mathrm{cos}[\beta (t)],`$ (17)
with a conserved energy $`H=\sqrt{1z^2}\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. The ground state is a symmetric stationary solution of Eq. (IV.1), with a conserved energy and $`E_{}=1`$ and

$`\beta =2n\pi ,`$
$`z=0.`$ (18)
The next stationary state with higher energy $`E_+=1`$ is an antisymmetric solution with

$`\beta =(2n+1)\pi ,`$
$`z=0.`$ (19)
The imbalanced initial population, i.e. $`z(0)0`$, would result in an oscillating solution of Eq. (IV.1), as shown in Fig. 1. It is seen that for a given $`z(0)`$, the population imbalance oscillates around it’s zero-value, and the z-symmetry of bi-mode BJJ is preserved. Meanwhile, the oscillation amplitude $`A`$ is determined by the initial population imbalance $`z(0)`$, i.e. $`A=|z(0)|`$.

### IV.2 The asymmetric trap case

When the trap is asymmetric, the energy difference is not equal to zero, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0`$. The numerical solution of Eq. (III) is given in Fig.2 with the trap asymmetry number $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/2J=1`$ and $`z(0)=0`$, $`0.4`$, and $`0.7`$ respectively. It is shown that the population imbalance $`z(t)`$ oscillates around its mean value $`\overline{z}`$ with an amplitude $`A=|z(0)\overline{z}|`$. Also the $`z(t)`$ plotted against relative phase $`\beta (t)`$ is given in Fig.3. It is expected that when $`z(0)=\overline{z}=0.447`$, oscillating amplitude would be zero, i.e. $`A=0`$, and the BJJ system should arrive at a stationary state. The corresponding ground state is obtained with the symmetric phases,

$`\beta =2n\pi ,`$
$`z=\overline{z}.`$ (20)
The next stationary state with higher conserved energy is given by

$`\beta =(2n+1)\pi ,`$
$`z=\overline{z},`$ (21)
with antisymmetric phases. Moreover, as shown in Eq. (III), the stationary state may be arrived only on the condition of $`z(0)=\overline{z}`$, and is independent of its initial relative phases.

It is important to notice that, both in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, the oscillation frequency $`f`$ is independent of either the trap asymmetry number $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/2J`$ or the initial value $`z(0)`$. It is the inherent character of BJJ, which is only related to the Josephson energy $`J`$, with

$`f{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{J}}`$ (22)
Since Josephson energy is determined by the interwell potential height, it is experimentally feasible to testify the modified dynamics through Eq.22. In fact,it has provided a testification of the present schemecataliotti2001 .

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, the tunnelling quantum dynamics of bimodal BJJ system is modified under an assumption that the BEC’s is tend to keep on the ground state with a lowest energy. And the lowest energy is determined by the population distribution. The dynamics of BJJ with symmetric and asymmetric traps is discussed with the modified equations. Compared with previous works, the MQST is auto-avoided in this work, as has been testified by previous experimental works. Also, it is revealed that the BJJ oscillates with its inherent frequency, which is only determined by the Josephson energy. This has been testified experimentally. To the end, it is necessary to point out that it remains to be seen how quasipaticle excitation and energy dissipation of BEC would affect the tunnelling dynamics.

###### Acknowledgements.

The discussion with Prof. Zeng-bing Chen is very helpful to this work. And supports by National Nature Science Fund of China (10134010) and the Youth Foundation of the University of Science and Technology of China are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Measuring White Dwarf Accretion Rates via their Effective Temperatures

## 1. Introduction

Cataclysmic variables (CVs; Warner 1995) are formed when the low-mass stellar companion of a WD, exposed during a common envelope event, finally (on timescales of $`0.110`$ Gyr) fills the Roche lobe as a result of long term angular momentum losses. The WD will cool during this time; a $`0.20M_{}`$ He WD would have $`T_c=3.3\times 10^6\mathrm{K}`$ at 4 Gyr (Althaus & Benvenuto, 1997), whereas a $`0.6M_{}`$ C/O WD would have $`T_c=2.5\times 10^6\mathrm{K}`$ in 4 Gyr (Salaris et al., 2000). These WDs have effective temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}45005000`$ K just before mass transfer starts. However, once the Roche lobe is filled, the WD accretes material at $`\dot{M}10^{11}10^8M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (e.g. Howell, Nelson, & Rappaport 2001) and can be reheated (Sion, 1991) to higher $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$’s.

Dwarf Novae (DN) are the subset of CVs with low time-averaged rates $`\dot{M}<10^9M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and thermally unstable accretion disks. The transfer of matter onto the WD occurs in outbursts that last a few days to a week once every month to year (or even longer in some systems). Most DN have orbital periods $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}<2`$ hours, below the “period gap”, with fewer above the gap (see Shafter, 1992). During accretion disk quiescence, the $`\dot{M}`$ onto the WD is often low enough that the system’s UV (and sometimes optical) emission is dominated by light from the WD surface, allowing for a measurement of the WD $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, nearly all of which exceed $`10,000`$ K (Sion, 1999). Thus, the WD is hotter than expected for its age, providing evidence of the thermal impact of prolonged accretion on the WD (Sion, 1995). Townsley & Bildsten (2003) (hereafter TB) have calculated $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and its dependence on $`\dot{M}`$, the WD mass, $`M`$, and core temperature, $`T_c`$. In this paper we now use that work to constrain these parameters from the measured $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$’s.

The gravitational energy released when a particle falls from a large distance to the stellar surface ($`GM/R`$) is deposited near the photosphere and is rapidly radiated away. This energy does not penetrate inwards with the inflowing material, as the time it takes the fluid to move inward is much longer than the time it takes for heat to escape. This eliminates the outer boundary condition and instead points to the importance of energy release deep in the accreting H/He envelope due to both gravitational energy release and a low level of nuclear “simmering” (TB). We begin in §2 by reviewing our work and showing that the best constrained quantity from a measured $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is $`\dot{m}\dot{M}/4\pi R^2`$. At very low $`\dot{M}`$’s, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ also depends on $`T_c`$. However, in this regime, we can calculate $`T_c`$ self consistently (TB), removing it from consideration.

In §3 the $`\dot{m}`$’s implied by the available measurements are presented and compared to CV evolutionary scenarios. A detailed comparison is presented for DN with $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}2`$ hours, showing that the observed $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$’s imply that either $`M>0.6M_{}`$ or $`\dot{M}`$ is larger than implied by gravitational radiation losses alone. We close in §4 with a discussion of future work, especially the seismology of accreting WDs.

## 2. The Relation of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to $`\dot{M}`$

The high quality UV spectra of quiescent DN from the STIS instrument on *Hubble Space Telescope*, e.g. Howell et al. (2002), Szkody et al. (2002c) and many of the references in the table appearing in Winter & Sion (2003), yield accurate measurements of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. However, the lack of accurate distance information prohibits the measurement of the WD radius, and hence mass, motivating the identification of a physical parameter which is best constrained by $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ alone. The intent of this section is to demonstrate that, without knowledge of $`R`$ or $`M`$, the best constrained parameter is the accretion rate per unit area, $`\dot{m}`$.

Our previous work (TB) presented a detailed discussion of the impact of accretion on the thermal structure of a WD. For this paper we are primarily interested in the predictions for the surface luminosity, $`L(M,\dot{M},T_c)`$, for which we showed that the strongest dependence is $`L\dot{M}T_c/\mu m_p=4\pi R^2\sigma _{SB}T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4`$ and thus $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4\dot{M}/4\pi R^2=\dot{m}`$, even for different masses. The prime variance in this simple mapping is from the change in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as the mass of the accumulated layer, $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$, increases between classical novae (CN). In discussing our theoretical results we use the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ range for $`0.05M_{\mathrm{ign}}M_{\mathrm{acc}}0.95M_{\mathrm{ign}}`$, which represents where an observed WD is most likely to be found. We set $`X_{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}=0.001`$ throughout as the difference between this and similar predictions for $`X_{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}=0.005`$ is less than the uncertainty due to the unknown $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. Figure 1 shows the range of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ traversed as a function of $`\dot{m}`$ for $`M=0.6`$-$`1.2M_{}`$, showing that $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ provides a reasonable constraint on $`\dot{m}`$ even when $`M`$ is not known. A $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=15,000`$ K implies that $`0.4\times 10^3\dot{m}1.3\times 10^3`$ g cm-2 s-1, whereas a $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=30,000`$ K implies that $`1.0\times 10^2\dot{m}1.7\times 10^2`$ g cm-2 s-1.

The insensitivity of $`L`$ to $`M`$ is the strongest qualitative difference between our calculation and Sion’s (1995) estimate of $`L0.2\dot{M}GM/R`$, made from the steady state models of Iben (1982). While Iben’s (1982) models are steady state in the sense of $`L_{\mathrm{core}}=0`$, they were for high accretion rates, $`\dot{M}=1.5\times 10^8M_{}`$ yr-1 for the best discussed models, with one at $`\dot{M}=1.5\times 10^9M_{}`$ yr-1, and use steadily burning shells. Such a steady state is inappropriate at the low $`\dot{M}`$’s discussed here, where the burning is always unstable. Iben’s (1982) models are also qualitatively very different from ours: in our models compressional energy released in the accreted H/He shell provides the outgoing luminosity and helps to establish the equilibrium configuration of the core, whereas in Iben’s (1982) models, the compressional heating term is entirely in the core, a contribution which is likely small (see Appendix A of TB). The results of TB are complementary to Godon & Sion (2002), which focuses on the response of the WD to the short-timescale $`\dot{M}`$ variations during DN outbursts.

The last parameter dependence to explore is $`T_c`$, the WD core temperature. As discussed in TB, DN below the period gap have adequate time to reach an equilibrium core temperature, $`T_{c,\mathrm{eq}}`$, that depends on $`\dot{M}`$ and $`M`$. However, DN above the period gap have not been accreting long enough for $`T_c`$ to reach $`T_{c,\mathrm{eq}}`$. Figure 1 shows how the traversed $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ range depends on $`T_c`$ for a $`M=0.6M_{}`$ WD. The curves show $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for $`T_c=T_{c,\mathrm{eq}}`$, $`0.75T_{c,\mathrm{eq}}`$ and $`0.5T_{c,\mathrm{eq}}`$. Due to a strong core/envelope decoupling for $`\dot{M}>10^{10}M_{}`$ yr-1 (TB), the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ range is nearly independent of $`T_c`$. For lower $`\dot{M}`$’s, the WD core temperature should be close to the equilibrium value, allowing us to use $`T_{c,\mathrm{eq}}`$ as representative when finding $`\dot{m}`$.

## 3. Inferring Accretion Rates from $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ Measurements

Figure 2 shows the $`\dot{m}`$’s inferred from the measured $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$’s tabulated in Winter & Sion (2003), with the following modifications: for WX Cet and VY Aqr we use the single-temperature fitted values, for CU Vel we correct the misquoted value, for AL Com we use a measurement longer after superoutburst (Szkody et al., 2002d), and we add GW Lib (Szkody et al., 2002b) and DW UMa (Szkody et al., 2002d). This observational $`\dot{m}`$-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ relation shows clear evidence for a drop in $`\dot{m}`$ below the period gap.

The relationship between $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and $`\dot{M}`$ is still a very active area of theoretical inquiry and one that we hope our work can illuminate. The expectations from “standard” CV evolution (Howell et al., 2001) for $`M=0.6M_{}`$ (solid line) and $`1.1M_{}`$ (dashed line) are shown in Figure 2. In this disrupted magnetic braking scenario, $`\dot{M}`$ is set by magnetic braking above the period gap and by gravitational radiation below the period gap. Our deduced $`\dot{m}`$’s are lower than the expected values above the period gap. It is important that we are inferring the long-term $`\dot{M}`$, averaged over the thermal time of the radiative (nondegenerate) layer $`c_PT_cM_{\mathrm{nd}}/L10^4(\dot{M}/10^{10}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1)^{0.75}`$ years for $`M=0.8M_{}`$ (TB), so that this discrepancy cannot be due to a temporarily low $`\dot{M}`$. Although selection effects favor low $`\dot{M}`$’s above the period gap, since such systems are more likely to have clean WD spectra, Patterson’s (1984) estimates of $`\dot{M}`$ for the systems above the gap in Figure 2 are not systematically below his estimates for other CVs. The most recently improved calibration of the magnetic braking law, using spin-down of open cluster stars (Andronov, Pinsonneault, & Sills, 2003), yielded $`\dot{M}`$’s above the period gap at least a factor of ten lower than Howell et al. (2001), falling below our inferences, so that braking in CVs must be enhanced over that responsible for the spin down of noninteracting low mass stars.

In Figure 2, we also show Patterson’s (1984) deduction from observations, $`\dot{M}5.1\times 10^{10}(P_{\mathrm{orb}}/4\mathrm{hr})\mathrm{M}_{}`$ yr-1, for $`M=0.6M_{}`$ (dotted line) and $`1.0M_{}`$ (dot-dashed line). Our points are consistent with Patterson (1984) above the period gap, within the uncertainty in his estimates. Below the gap, however, our measurements are roughly a factor of 3 above his. The Patterson (1984) estimates also suffer from the absence of reliable distances, but in a more direct way than ours, making systematic errors difficult to quantify.

The best quality data are for CVs below the period gap, and Howell et al. (2002) and Szkody et al. (2002c) provide examples of these measurements with a discussion of how the uncertainty in the surface gravity, $`g`$, affects the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ results. We display our predictions for the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ ranges along with observed values for $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}<2`$ hrs in Figure 3. The $`\dot{M}`$-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ relation expected from gravitational radiation losses for $`M=0.6M_{}`$ is from Kolb & Baraffe (1999), and we use the same mass-radius relation for the donor to find $`\dot{M}`$-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ for $`M=1.0M_{}`$. This gives $`\dot{M}=3.6\times 10^{11}`$ and $`5.1\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ yr-1 for $`M=0.6`$ and $`1.0M_{}`$ respectively at $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=1.5`$ hours. Due to a difference in the donor mass-radius relation, these differ slightly from the values of Howell et al. (2001) shown in Figure 2, where $`\dot{M}=4.6\times 10^{11}`$ and $`6\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ yr-1 for $`M=0.6`$ and $`1.1M_{}`$ at $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=1.5`$ hours.

The $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ measurements shown by circles are again from the table in Winter & Sion (2003) (with the modifications discussed earlier). The error bars indicate systematic errors due to the unknown WD mass, as the spectral fits cannot independently constrain $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`g`$, and represent the range of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ obtained for $`\mathrm{log}g=8\pm 0.5`$ ($`M=0.3`$-$`0.9M_{}`$). All spectral measurements of these CV WD $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$’s are subject to this same uncertainty. The data with displayed error bars are the *best* measurements, and others have similar or larger uncertainies. The diamonds show $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for magnetic systems (Sion 1999; Gänsicke et al. 2001; Belle et al. 2003). The estimated masses for the two magnetic systems at 1.9 hours are 0.5 and $`0.6M_{}`$ Schwope et al., 1993; Schmidt, Stockman, & Grandi, 1983, for the lower and higher respectively, placing their measured $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ very close to that expected from our work.

When the WD mass, and thus radius, is known, $`\dot{M}`$ can be directly constrained. The filled points are systems which have relatively secure WD masses from eclipse timing (Patterson 2001), in order of increasing $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and in units of $`M_{}`$ the masses are $`0.9\pm 0.15`$, $`0.82\pm 0.05`$, $`0.61\pm 0.04`$, and $`0.84\pm 0.09`$ for WZ Sge, OY Car, HT Cas, and Z Cha. The best $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ measurement is that for WZ Sge (Sion et al., 1995) giving $`\dot{M}=6.4_{1.71.4}^{+1.7+3.9}\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ yr-1 where the first errors represent the unconstrained value of $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ and the second the uncertain mass. If the gravitational radiation prediction of $`\dot{M}`$ (Kolb & Baraffe, 1999) is taken as a lower limit, then comparison of these CVs to the predicted $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$’s of Figure 3 yield a maximum WD mass. For example, none of the CVs denoted with filled circles can have $`M`$ in excess of $`M_{}`$, since a more massive WD would yield a higher $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ than observed.

If the current $`\dot{M}`$-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ relation predicted from gravitational radiation is correct, this comparison favors WD masses near $`0.91.0M_{}`$. However, the systems with measured masses indicate another possible interpretation, that $`M0.85M_{}`$ for many systems but $`\dot{M}`$ is slightly greater than that predicted by Kolb & Baraffe (1999). The fact that the lower bound of measured values lies roughly parallel to what is expected for post-turnaround objects provides the exciting possibility that the turnaround is at roughly $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=1.3`$ hours and the objects with the lowest $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ values, HV Vir and EG Cnc, are post-turnaround CVs. Under this interpretation, our work would indicate that the $`\dot{M}`$’s for these post-turnaround objects are much higher than that expected from current modelling of evolution under the influence of gravitational radiation. Such an “extra” angular momentum loss has been mentioned by Patterson (2001) as a way to understand the location of the period minimum.

## 4. Conclusions

We have used our theoretical work on accreting WDs (Townsley & Bildsten, 2003) to translate measurements of CV WD $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$’s into measurements of $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}/4\pi R^2`$, the accretion rate per unit WD surface area averaged over the thermal time of the radiative envelope ( $`1000`$ years). Since the predictions of TB for $`L(M,\dot{M},T_c)`$ are insensitive to $`T_c`$ (except where its value can be found self-consistently) we allowed for a range of WD masses, $`0.6`$-$`1.2M_{}`$, and accumulated envelope masses, $`0.05M_{\mathrm{ign}}M_{\mathrm{acc}}0.95M_{\mathrm{ign}}`$, to obtain a well-quantified uncertainty on $`\dot{m}`$ from the observed $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. We find evidence that above the period gap ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>3`$ hours) DN accretion rates are slightly overestimated by CV evolution models (Howell et al., 2001), but that angular momentum loss is quite enhanced compared to spin down of isolated low-mass stars (Andronov, Pinsonneault, & Sills, 2003). Below the period gap, $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}<2`$ hours, we find that $`\dot{M}`$ is larger than that predicted by current models of gravitational radiation losses (Kolb & Baraffe, 1999) when $`M=0.6M_{}`$, indicating either larger $`M`$ or higher $`\dot{M}`$.

It is well known that an isolated WD will pulsate when its $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is in the approximate range 11000-12000 K (Bergeron et al., 1995). While a difference in the outer atmospheric composition, H/He in an accreting WD versus pure hydrogen in the isolated case, will shift this range, it is likely that a similar pulsation mechanism will be active in accreting WDs. Our calculations indicate that accreting WDs with $`M=0.6`$-$`1.0M_{}`$ should be near this range when $`\dot{M}=`$ few$`\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ yr-1. This $`\dot{M}`$ is typical of that expected in CVs when accretion is driven by gravitational radiation losses, $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}<2`$ hours (Kolb & Baraffe, 1999). In fact one system, GW Lib, has been found which does exhibit precisely this type of variability (van Zyl et al. 2000; Szkody et al. 2002b). Using the interior models developed in TB, we are now undertaking a seismological study of these systems. This offers the tantalizing possibility of measuring the WD mass, spin and mass of the accumulated H/He layer.

Since the minimum light of $`\dot{M}<10^{10}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ DN in quiescence is determined by the hot WD, we can now calculate just how deep the large-scale optical surveys are probing into the predicted large population of CVs with very low mass companions ($`<0.1M_{}`$) (Howell, Rappaport, & Politano, 1997). A typical survey complete to $`V=20`$ would find all $`0.9M_{}`$ ($`0.6M_{}`$) WDs with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}>8500`$ K (7000 K) that are within 200 pc (Bergeron, Wesemael, & Beauchamp, 1995), and thus all DN with $`\dot{M}>0.8(1.0)\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ yr-1, including most DN below the period gap that have not yet reached the period minimum. Selection of the faint CVs is still a challenge; color-selected surveys utilize their unusual combination of a hot WD plus a main sequence M star (see Townsley & Bildsten 2002 for an earlier discussion and application to CVs in Galactic Globular Clusters). The second round of discoveries of faint CV’s from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), sensitive to $``$20th magnitude, have just been announced (Szkody et al., 2003). Based on the initial set of 19 CV’s and their orbital period distribution, Szkody et al. (2002a) claim that a large fraction of the 400 eventual CV discoveries will be of the low $`\dot{M}`$ variety below the period gap. Marsh et al. (2002) have also reported their discovery of three such systems in the 2dF survey, sensitive to $``$21st magnitude, and expect to have about 20 low $`\dot{M}`$ systems when the survey is complete.

We thank Ed Sion for numerous conversations, Paula Szkody for up to date information on the DN observations, and Boris Gänsicke and Steve Howell for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants PHY99-07949 and AST02-05956. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant AR-09517.01-A from STScI, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. D. T. was an NSF Graduate Fellow and L. B. is a Cottrell Scholar of the Research Corporation.


text:
# A 3D Optical Spectroscopy Study of Low Surface Brightness Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

Low Surface Brightness galaxies are ideal laboratories to study the dark matter (DM) properties and it is still debated whether their dark haloes are cuspy or core-dominated (de Blok et al. 2001, Marchesini et al. 2002, Swaters et al. 2003).

FP interferometry is a powerful tool for studying the DM properties of LSBs for two major reasons:
$``$ the accurate determination of the DM distribution in galaxies requires high angular resolution observations (see eg. Blais-Ouellette et al. 1999),
$``$ 3D spectroscopy like FP provides more accurate kinematical parameters and rotation curves than long-slit observations as it samples the whole velocity field of a galaxy.

Using a new generation of detectors with unprecedented sensitivity (Gach et al. 2002), we began a campaign of FP observations of LSBs in order to study the kinematics of the ionized gas and their dynamics (Chemin et al. in prep).

## 2. Observations, results and discussion

The H$`\alpha `$ emission line in UGC 628 and UGC 5005 was observed on October 2002 and April 2003 (resp.) at the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope, using FaNTOmM111http://www.astro.umontreal.ca/fantomm, a scanning FP interferometer coupled with a photon counting camera. The angular resolution is 0.49” and the spectral sampling is 7 km/s for UGC 5005 and 16 km/s for UGC 628. Exposure times are of the order of 3h per galaxy.

Figures 1 and 2 present some provisional results. Figure 1 shows the velocity fields of UGC 628 and UGC 5005. Figure 2 shows the mass models (Blais-Ouellette et al. 2001) for UGC 5005 with the pseudo-isothermal (ISO) sphere (left) and the NFW  (right) DM halo profiles.

A dozen objects were observed as of date. The high angular resolution FP observations will allow a detailed study of LSBs velocity fields and rotation curves and their DM content. We will also study the effects of non-circular motions on their mass distribution (Chemin et al. in prep).

## References

Blais-Ouellette, S., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 2123

Blais-Ouellette, S., Amram, P., & Carignan, C. 2001, AJ, 121, 1952

de Blok, W. J. G., McGaugh, S. S., & Rubin, V. C. 2001, AJ, 122, 2396

Gach, J.-L., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 1043

Marchesini, D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 575, 801

Swaters., R. A., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 732

van der Hulst, J. M., et al. 1993, AJ, 106, 548


text:
# 𝑆𝑈(𝑁) Gauge Theories Near 𝑇_𝑐Talk presented by B. Lucini.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Originally proposed as a possible way of solving QCD , the large $`N`$ limit of $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories plays an important role for our understanding of this class of theories.
It has been shown numerically  that several quantities at zero temperature have a well-defined large $`N`$ limit and that deviations from that limit at finite $`N`$ are small and accounted for by a $`𝒪(1/N^2)`$ correction (the first expected correction by perturbative arguments) all the way down to $`N=2`$. In  similar features were observed at finite temperature. In particular, for the deconfinement temperature $`T_c`$ it was found

$`T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }=0.582(15)+0.43(13)/N^2.`$ (1)
Here we extend the investigation of . We study $`SU(N)`$ groups for $`N=2,3,4,6,8`$. New improved results for both $`T_c`$ and $`\sqrt{\sigma }`$ help us to keep under better control the extrapolation to infinite $`N`$.
In the following we will discuss our numerical results for the critical temperature and the latent heat $`L_h`$ as a function of $`N`$ and what the observed behaviour at finite $`N`$ may imply for the physics at finite temperature in the large $`N`$ limit. This work is based on , to which we refer the reader for a more detailed discussion.

## 2 LATTICE SETUP

In our numerical simulations we have used the Wilson action

$$S=\beta \underset{p}{}\left\{1\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{ReTr}U_P\right\},$$
(2)
where $`\beta =2N/g^2`$, with $`g`$ the coupling of the theory, $`U_P`$ is the path ordered product of the links around the plaquette $`P`$ and the links are $`SU(N)`$ matrices. The sum is performed over all the plaquettes $`P`$. The lattice size is $`L`$ in three directions and $`N_t`$ (with $`N_tL`$) in the fourth one. We call spatial directions the three of equal size and temporal direction the remaining one.
The system can be regarded either as a statistical system in four dimensions with the role of temperature played by $`\beta `$ or as a three-dimensional quantum field theory at finite temperature, with the physical temperature given by

$`T_c=1/N_ta(\beta ),`$ (3)
$`a`$ being the lattice spacing. Thermodynamical quantities have been obtained via a finite size study in the critical region of susceptibilities like the specific heat and the susceptibility of the Polyakov loop.

## 3 CRITICAL TEMPERATURE

The critical temperature is unambiguously defined only in the thermodynamic limit. On a finite lattice, one usually takes as a definition the value at which the susceptibility of some observable relevant for the transition has a peak. More specifically, one defines the pseudocritical coupling $`\beta _c(N_t,L)`$ as the $`\beta `$ at which the chosen observable displays a peak at fixed $`L`$, $`N_t`$. Then the value of the critical coupling is given by a fit to the finite size scaling relation

$`\beta _c(N_t,L=\mathrm{})=\beta _c(N_t,L)+hL^{1/\nu },`$ (4)
where, if $`d`$ is the number of spatial dimensions, we get $`\nu =1/d`$ for a first order phase transition and $`\nu <1/d`$ for a second order one. The value of $`\beta _c(N_t,L=\mathrm{})`$ does not depend on the chosen observable.
In principle the order of the phase transition can be extracted from the very same procedure used for determining $`\beta _c(L=\mathrm{})`$. However, in practise that proves to be hard: using (4) as a fit ansatz gives large errors on $`\nu `$. For this reason, we have determined this exponent from the scaling of the maximum of a susceptibility. In fact, from general arguments

$`\chi _{max}(N_t,L=\mathrm{})L^{\gamma /\nu },`$ (5)
where $`\gamma `$ is the critical exponent governing the scaling of the considered observable. The fitted value must satisfy the constraint $`0<\gamma /\nu d`$, with the upper bound saturated by first order phase transitions.
The cleaner signal for the fit (5) is generally given by the specific heat, from which we get evidence for a first order phase transition for $`N>2`$. Inserting this information back into eq. (4), we obtain $`\beta _c(N_t,\mathrm{})`$. Next, by measuring the string tension at zero temperature at that value of $`\beta `$, we get $`T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }`$.
We have determined $`\beta _c(L=\mathrm{})`$ for at least three values of $`N_t`$, chosen in such a way to avoid any bulk phase for $`N4`$. This allows us to obtain the continuum limit of $`T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }`$111Our finite size analysis has been performed in full only at $`N_t=5`$. For other values of $`N_t`$, we have studied one lattice size in the thermodynamic regime and then we have used the scaling with $`\beta `$ of $`h`$ in eq. (4) to determine $`\beta _c`$..
The final step is the extrapolation to $`N=\mathrm{}`$. We find

$`T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }=0.596(4)+0.453(30)/N^2.`$ (6)
Our data for $`T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }`$ as a function of $`1/N^2`$ are plotted in fig. 1. Despite the increased precision, which reflects on a noticeable reduction of the error bars with respect to (1), still the leading correction in $`1/N^2`$ accurately describes the data all the way down to $`SU(2)`$.

## 4 LATENT HEAT

At finite $`N3`$ the deconfinement phase transition is first order. First order phase transitions are characterised by a latent heat, i.e. a difference in action between the confined and the deconfined vacuum at $`T=T_c`$222Here we are referring to the latent heat of the statistical system, which is related to the jump of the gluon condensate across the transition in the quantum theoretical system.. The latent heat (per site) can be obtained from the infinite volume limit of the maximum of the specific heat in the following way:

$`L_h(N_t)=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta _c(L,N_t)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{C_{max}(L,N_t)}{6L^3}}}\right).`$ (7)
We have measured $`L_h`$ for $`N_t=5`$ and $`N3`$, and we have found that its value increases with $`N`$. Assuming a leading $`𝒪(1/N^2)`$ correction, our results at finite $`N`$ can be extrapolated to $`N=\mathrm{}`$ (cfr. fig. 2). We obtain a finite value for $`L_h`$ in that limit, which implies that the transition is first order at $`N=\mathrm{}`$. The negative coefficient for the correction indicates that the strength of the transition increases with $`N`$.

## 5 SURFACE AND FINITE SIZE EFFECTS

A consequence of the increasing strength of the phase transition is that a stronger interface separates the confined and the deconfined vacua at larger $`N`$. Hence the life time of a metastable state at fixed spatial volume increases as $`N`$ is increased, suggesting that it becomes infinite at $`N=\mathrm{}`$ even for $`\beta `$ close to but different from $`\beta _c`$. In that case, we would have two stable states in a finite region of $`\beta `$’s. Interpreted in terms of the Master Field , this suggests the possibility that this field is not unique: at infinite $`N`$ there must be more than one Master Field, separated from each other by infinite energy barriers. The interplay between the different vacua at finite but large $`N`$ guarantees a rich physics in the limiting case.
When we vary the volume, we observe that as $`N`$ increases (a) the thermodynamical limit is reached earlier and (b) finite size corrections are smaller. This suggests that at large $`N`$ the scaling regime is obtained for $`L=N_t+ϵ`$, with $`ϵ0`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$. If we reduce $`L`$ below $`N_t`$, the system undergoes a deconfinement phase transition due to the breaking of a spatial $`(N)`$ symmetry. This has been investigated from a different perspective in . The breaking of a spatial $`(N)`$ symmetry could be prevented by twisting the boundary conditions in all spatial directions. In this way a finite temperature regime can be obtained for $`L<N_t`$. It is then plausible that at infinite $`N`$ the spatial volume can be shrunk to a single plaquette. This naturally connects to the twisted Eguchi-Kawai model .

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

Our results for $`T_c`$ and $`L_h`$ indicates that a sensible large $`N`$ limit exists for $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories also at finite temperature. Deviations from that limit at finite $`N`$ are small and can be accounted for by a leading $`𝒪(1/N^2)`$ correction. Our extended range of $`N`$ (up to eight) reveals some interesting scenarios for the physics at $`N=\mathrm{}`$. At present we are extending this analysis to other observables.