text:
# The MAGIC Cherenkov Telescope for gamma ray astronomy

## 1. Introduction

Gamma ray astronomy has provided in the las few years spectacular results, led by the success of the CGRO (Compton Gamma Ray Observatory) satellite mission which revealed that the high energy Universe was more exciting than expected. During its lifetime, the EGRET telescope onboard the CGRO provided an all-sky survey above 100 MeV consisting of 271 sources (Hartman et al. 1999). Apart of the remarkable detection of 66 AGN Blazars, the vast majority of these sources are still unidentified. Almost during the same period, the ground-based gamma ray astronomy has also been developed. The technique consists of the detection of the atmospheric Cherenkov light emitted by the particle showers initiated by gamma radiation on entering into the atmosphere. This Cherenkov flash lasts for a few ns. The Whipple Cherenkov telescope opened this ground-based era by the detection of the Crab Nebulae in 1989. Then, extragalactic Blazar sources not seen by satellites were also discovered by using this technique. Other instruments based on the same principle have confirmed the Whipple results (HEGRA, CANGAROO, CAT) and nowadays about a dozen gamma ray sources have been detected to emit in the TeV energy range. The observations done by satellites measured well below around 10 GeV, while the existing Cherenkov telescopes have detected sources above 300 GeV. This energy gap, which is still virtually unexplored, is really important to understand which is the origin of the cut-off on the spectra which will explain the lack of sources measured by the Cherenkov telescopes in comparison to EGRET.

The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma Imaging Cherenkov) telescope was designed in 1998 (Barrio et al. 1998) with the main goal of being the Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope (IACT) with the lowest gamma energy threshold possible with the technological improvements affordable and based on the experience acquired with the first generation of Cherenkov telescopes. By using this detection technique, which provides much large effective areas (and much superior flux sensitivity) than satellite detectors, good angular resolution, acceptable energy resolution and a well tested capability to separate gammas from backgrounds, eventually a plethora of new sources will be discovered since for most of known sources the energy spectrum is of power-law nature and therefore they should exhibit a much higher flux in that energy region than at higher energies.

The 17 m diameter f/D=1 MAGIC telescope is the largest of the new generation of IACTs. MAGIC is located in the Canarian island of La Palma (28.8 N, 17.9 W) at the Roque de los Muchachos observatory (ORM), 2200 m above sea level. Its 241 m2 parabolic dish is composed of 964 $`49.5\times 49.5`$ cm2 all-aluminum spherical mirror tiles mounted on a lightweight ($`<10`$ ton) carbon fiber frame. The parabolic shape was chosen to minimize the time spread of the Cherenkov light flashes on the camera plane, which allows to reduce the rate of fake events induced by night-sky background light. Mirrors are grouped in panels of three or four, which can be oriented during the telescope operation through a novel active mirror control system to correct for the possible deformations of the telescope structure.

The camera is made of 577 good quantum efficiency, fast photomultipliers with hemispherical photocatode that allows for light double-crossing. Each photomultiplier is coupled to a small light collecting cone to maximize the active surface of the camera. An special wavelength-shifting coating provides red extended sensitivity and allows for light-trapping, which increases the photomultiplier effective quantum efficiency. The total field of view of the camera is of about 4. The photomultiplier signals are transmitted to a distant Control House ($``$150 m) by using analog optical fiber signals. Signals are processed by a multilevel trigger system and 300 MHz FADC are used for pulse digitalization.

While all other new generation Cherenkov telescopes aim at the improvement of sensitivity and energy resolution in the 100 GeV regime by using stereoscopic systems of relatively small (10 m) telescopes, MAGIC, through the choice of a single, larger reflector, will achieve the lowest energy threshold among IACTs, of about 30 GeV. Its altazimuth mount can point to anywhere in the sky in about 20 seconds, a unique feature which is essential for the study of transient events like GRBs.

## 2. The Physics Goals

The main research targets that will be addressed by MAGIC are of a wide nature. They cover subjects as:

* Measurements of the AGNs energy flux above 30 GeV which will allow to determine the gamma ray horizon and eventually extract the cosmological parameters and the extragalactic background light density. Fast flares will be used to constrain Quantum Gravity effects. Multi-wavelength observation campaigns will allow to determine the emission processes that occurs in these sources.
* The systematic study of galactic gamma emitters such as Supernova Remnants, Plerions, X-ray binaries, Pulsars, unidentified EGRET sources, etc. where the observation in this energy range might allow to discriminate between different acceleration mechanisms and might hopefully lead to the identification of the main sources of cosmic rays up to about 1015 GeV.
* Due to the MAGIC fast slewing, the observation of Gamma Ray Bursts in the new energy window will be possible.
* Due to its low energy threshold and high sensitivity, MAGIC will be a good instrument for searches of Dark Matter annihilation signals into gamma rays (Flix et al. 2003).

## 3. The Present Status

The construction of the foundation for the MAGIC telescope started in September 2001 and just few months later the whole telescope structure was completed (December 2001). Mirror installation started in summer 2002 and now of about 200 m2 of mirror area are already on place (Figure 1). The Active Mirror Control has proven to be very precise and fast. The telescope drive system was installed during past year and has recently being commissioned up the highest speed which turns out to lead to a maximum repositioning time of 20 seconds. The tracking system has been calibrated using bright star pointings. The camera was installed on the site in November 2002 and has been commissioned in March 2003 after the winter break.

The 1st and 2nd level trigger systems have been already installed and commissioned as well as the whole computing system for the telescope control and DAQ. The installation of the FADC system was completed after some on-place tests and measurements with the whole readout chain have already been performed. Almost all subsystems are integrated into a central control. During June 2003 first Cherenkov images were recorded by using the whole Data Acquisition Chain (Figure 2), as well as light pulses using a novel calibration system, which is being used to characterize the whole telescope.

The construction of a definitive Control House with an unique shape inspired upon the island Dancing-Dwarf traditions has almost reached completion. All the systems are being moved the the Control House, before the official inauguration which will take place on the 10th October 2003. The telescope system are being extensively and intensively checked now and observations of the Crab Nebulae (the standard candle for high energy sources) by this winter will allow us to understand and check the whole detector. We expect to start regular observations by the end of this year 2003.

## 4. summary

The MAGIC telescope is in its final commissioning phase and it is expected to start regular observations by the end of this year. If the telescope behaves as expected, it will soon be able to provide exciting results on a wide variety of astrophysical phenomena.

### Acknowledgments.

J. Flix would like to acknowledge all the organizers for the very nice and productive conference.

## References

Barrio J. A. et al. 1998, MPI-PhE-98-5.

Flix J. et al. in these proceedings.

Hartman R.C. et al. 1999, ApJS 123, 79.


format: text

text:
# Isometries of a D3-brane space

## I Introduction

In the supergravity approximation for low energy string theory one finds non trivial background solutions known as Dp-branesHS . These objects were later identified as solitons in string theoryPo . The ten dimensional geometry generated by a large number of coincident D3-branes has a limit corresponding to an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space. This limit is an essential ingredient for the duality found by Maldacena between string theory in $`AdS`$ spaces and supersymmetric conformal field theories on their boundariesMalda1  ($`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence). Prescriptions detailing this correspondence were presented in GKP ; Wi  where it was shown how to calculate boundary correlation functions from the $`AdS`$ bulk string theory (for a review and a wide list of references seeMalda2 ). Furthermore it was shortly pointed out Wi  that this duality can be understood as a realization of the holographic principleHOL1 ; HOL2 ; HOL3 . This principle states that in a quantum theory with gravity (as is the case of string theory) all the information contained in some spatial region can be mapped on a corresponding boundary. This principle was inspired by the study of quantum aspects of black hole entropyBHE1 ; BHE2 .

In this article we are going to study the isometries of the ten dimensional space generated by D3-branes. We will also consider the Killing equations and the corresponding isometries in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ limit. As it is well known $`AdS_{n+1}`$ space is maximally symmetric with isometry group $`SO(2,n)`$ which is isomorphic to the conformal group defined in an $`n`$ dimensional flat space. Here we obtain a simple explicit realization of this isomorphism using Poincaré coordinates. These coordinates are important in the study of the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence, as for example in calculating boundary correlation functions. Previous studies on the isometries of $`AdS`$ or asymptotically $`AdS`$ spaces include IA1 ; GKP ; Pe ; IA2 ; IA3 . Also some aspects of the compactification of $`AdS`$ space and its relation to the D3-brane space were discussed in BB1 .

For a general space with coordinates $`x^\mu `$, infinitesimal isometries are defined by the condition of invariance of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ under the transformationsCA

$$x^\mu =x^\mu +ϵ\xi ^\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ is an arbitrary infinitesimal parameter. This implies the Killing equations

$$_\mu \xi _\nu +_\nu \xi _\mu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(2)
or explicitly

$$_\mu \xi _\nu +_\nu \xi _\mu 2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma \xi _\sigma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(3)
where the Christoffel symbols are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma =\frac{1}{2}g^{\sigma \rho }\left[\frac{g_{\mu \rho }}{x^\nu }+\frac{g_{\nu \rho }}{x^\mu }\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{x^\rho }\right].$$

## II D3-Brane space isometries

The invariant measure $`ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ of the ten dimensional geometry generated by a large number $`N`$ of coincident D3-branes can be written asHS ; GKP

$$ds^2=\left(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4}\right)^{1/2}(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2)+\left(1+\frac{R^4}{r^4}\right)^{1/2}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)$$
(4)
where $`R^4=N/2\pi ^2T_3`$ and $`T_3`$ is the tension of a single D3-brane. Changing the axial coordinate according to: $`z=R^2/r`$, the metric takes the form:

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\sqrt{f(z)}\left(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)+\frac{R^2}{\sqrt{f(z)}}\left(\frac{dz^2}{z^2}+d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right),$$
(5)
where

$$f(z)=\frac{z^4}{z^4+R^4}.$$

From now on we take the Euclidean version of this metric so that $`(t,\stackrel{}{x})x^i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$. The coordinates of $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5`$ are represented as $`\theta ^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},5`$, assumed to be orthogonal: $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2=\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \alpha }(d\theta ^\alpha )^2`$. This implies the following non vanishing $`z`$ dependent Christoffel symbols

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(z)2}{z}}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0j}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(z)}{z}}\delta _j^i`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[f(z)]^2}{z}}\overline{\delta }_{ij}`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{[\alpha \alpha ]}(\theta )z(1f(z))\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\beta }^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(z)1}{z}}\delta _\beta ^\alpha .`$ (10)
Our notation is: $`zx^0`$ , Latin indices ($`i,j,k,l,\mathrm{}`$) correspond to the variables $`x^i`$ and Greek indices ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}`$) to the angular variables of $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ are in general non vanishing but are independent of $`z`$ (and $`x^i`$). The subscript $`[\alpha ]`$ means that we are not summing over this index. Note also that $`\delta _j^i,\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$ are the usual Kronecker tensors and we are defining the symbols $`\overline{\delta }_{ij}`$ and $`\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ to be one when their indices are equal and zero otherwise, so that they are not tensors in this curved space-time.

For this D3-brane space the Killing equations (3) become

$`_i\xi _j`$ $`+`$ $`_j\xi _i{\displaystyle \frac{2[f(z)]^2}{z}}\overline{\delta }_{ij}\xi _0=0`$ (11)
$`_0\xi _i`$ $`+`$ $`_i\xi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{2f(z)}{z}}\xi _i=0`$ (12)
$`_0\xi _0`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2f(z)}{z}}\xi _0=0`$ (13)
$`_i\xi _\alpha `$ $`+`$ $`_\alpha \xi _i=0`$ (14)
$`_0\xi _\alpha `$ $`+`$ $`_\alpha \xi _0+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{1f(z)}{z}}\xi _\alpha =0`$ (15)
$`_\alpha \xi _\beta `$ $`+`$ $`_\beta \xi _\alpha +2z(f(z)1)\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }F_{[\alpha ]}(\theta )\xi _0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma \xi _\gamma =0.`$ (16)
It is simpler to solve the corresponding equations for the contravariant Killing vectors that read

$`\overline{\delta }_{jk}_i\xi ^k`$ $`+`$ $`\overline{\delta }_{ik}_j\xi ^k{\displaystyle \frac{2f(z)}{z}}\overline{\delta }_{ij}\xi ^0=0`$ (17)
$`\overline{\delta }_{ik}_0\xi ^k`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(z)}}_i\xi ^0=0`$ (18)
$`_0\xi ^0`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(z)2}{z}}\xi ^0=0`$ (19)
$`\overline{\delta }_{ik}_\alpha \xi ^k`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{f(z)}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }_i\xi ^\beta =0`$ (20)
$`_\alpha \xi ^0`$ $`+`$ $`z^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }_0\xi ^\beta =0`$ (21)
$`_\sigma \stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }\xi ^\sigma `$ $`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\beta \sigma }_\alpha \xi ^\sigma +\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \sigma }_\beta \xi ^\sigma +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{(f(z)1)}{z}}\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{g}_{[\alpha \alpha ]}(\theta )\xi ^0=0.`$ (22)
Equation (19) constrains the dependence of $`\xi ^0`$ on the coordinate $`z`$ to the form

$$\xi ^0=z[f(z)]^{1/4}G(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )$$
(23)
where $`G(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )`$ is some function to be determined. Now, equation (17) takes the form

$$\overline{\delta }_{jk}_i\xi ^k+\overline{\delta }_{ik}_j\xi ^k=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\overline{\delta }_{ij}[f(z)]^{5/4}G(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )$$
(24)
Taking $`i=j`$ in the above equation we obtain $`[f(z)]^{5/4}G(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )=(1/d)_k\xi ^k`$ where $`d=4`$ is the dimension of the space spanned by the coordinates $`x^i`$. Inserting this back into eq. (24) we get

$$\overline{\delta }_{jk}_i\xi ^k+\overline{\delta }_{ik}_j\xi ^k\frac{1}{2}\overline{\delta }_{ij}_k\xi ^k=0$$
(25)
which is the conformal group equation (for coordinates $`x^i`$). From this equation we get:

$$\left[\overline{\delta }_{ij}_k_k+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_i_j\right]_l\xi ^l=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(26)
This tells us that all the second derivatives of $`_l\xi ^l`$ with respect to the $`x^i`$ variables vanish. This determines the general quadratic form of $`\xi ^i`$ in the coordinates $`x^j`$, as usual in the conformal group transformations. Then taking into account equation (24) we find

$$\xi ^i=x^k\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)+a^i(\theta ^\alpha ,z)+\left[x^i\lambda (\theta ^\alpha )+x^jx^jd^i(\theta ^\alpha )2x^ix^jd^j(\theta ^\alpha )\right]\frac{z^5}{(R^4+z^4)^{5/4}}$$
(27)
where $`\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)=\omega ^{ki}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)`$. Substituting this result in eq. (24) we find

$$G(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )=\lambda (\theta ^\alpha )2x^jd^j(\theta ^\alpha ).$$

Now imposing equation (18) we find

$`x^k_0\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)`$ $`+`$ $`_0a^i(\theta ^\alpha ,z)+\left[x^i\lambda (\theta ^\alpha )+x^jx^jd^i(\theta ^\alpha )2x^ix^jd^j(\theta ^\alpha )\right]_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^5}{(R^4+z^4)^{5/4}}}\right)`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`2z[f(z)]^{3/4}d^i(\theta ^\alpha )`$
Comparing the terms with the same power of $`z`$ and $`x^i`$ we conclude that

$$\lambda =0$$

$$_0\omega ^{ik}=0$$

$$d^i=0$$

$$_0a^i=0,$$

so that $`G(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )=0`$. Then from eqs. (23) and (27) we find

$`\xi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (29)
$`\xi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`x^k\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha )+a^i(\theta ^\alpha ).`$ (30)
Using the result $`\xi ^0=0`$ in eq. (21) we get the condition:

$$_0\xi ^\alpha =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(31)
Now, since both $`\xi ^\alpha `$ and $`\xi ^i`$ are independent of the coordinate $`z`$, equation (20) can only be satisfied if both terms vanish independently. This implies that: (i) $`\omega ^{ik}`$ and $`a^i`$ are also independent of coordinates $`\theta ^\alpha `$, that means they are constants; (ii) $`\xi ^\alpha `$ are also independent of coordinates $`x^i`$.

So, the isometries of the ten dimensional D3-brane system can finally be written as

$`\xi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (32)
$`\xi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`a^i+\omega ^{ij}x^j`$ (33)
$`\xi ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\alpha (\theta ).`$ (34)
where $`\xi ^\alpha (\theta )\xi ^\alpha (\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^5)`$ represent the usual isometries of $`S^5`$.

These solutions show that this space is not invariant for transformations in the coordinate $`z`$. This could be expected due to the presence of different factors of $`z`$ in the D3-brane metric (5). Note that the isometries in the $`x^i`$ coordinates correspond to ten independent parameters $`a^i`$ and $`\omega ^{ij}`$. These isometries are isomorphic to Poincaré transformations in 4 dimensional flat space. Furthermore there is an $`S^5`$ invariance in the $`\theta ^\alpha `$ coordinates with 15 independent parameters since $`S^n`$ spaces are maximally symmetric.

## III AdS limit

In the limit $`z>>R`$ the D3-brane metric eq. (5) takes the form of an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ space

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\left(dz^2+(dx^i)^2\right)+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,$$
(35)
where the $`AdS_5`$ space with radius $`R`$ is represented by Poincaré coordinates ($`z,x^i`$) with $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$. For this metric the Christoffel symbols are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0i}^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\delta _i^j`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\overline{\delta }_{ij}`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^0`$ $`=`$ $`0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\alpha }^\beta `$ (39)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ are independent of $`z`$ and $`x^i`$ , as in the D3-brane space. Note that the symbols (36)-(39) can also be obtained from the ones in the brane system eqs. (6)-(10) considering the limit $`z>>R`$ such that $`f(z)1R^4/z^4`$.

The Killing equations now take the form

$`\overline{\delta }_{jk}_i\xi ^k`$ $`+`$ $`\overline{\delta }_{ik}_j\xi ^k{\displaystyle \frac{2}{z}}\overline{\delta }_{ij}\xi ^0=0`$ (40)
$`\overline{\delta }_{ik}_0\xi ^k`$ $`+`$ $`_i\xi ^0=0`$ (41)
$`_0\xi ^0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\xi ^0=0`$ (42)
$`\overline{\delta }_{ik}_\alpha \xi ^k`$ $`+`$ $`z^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }_i\xi ^\beta =0`$ (43)
$`_\alpha \xi ^0`$ $`+`$ $`z^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }_0\xi ^\beta =0`$ (44)
$`_\sigma \stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }\xi ^\sigma `$ $`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\beta \sigma }_\alpha \xi ^\sigma +\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \sigma }_\beta \xi ^\sigma =0.`$ (45)
We follow the same procedure as in the previous section to find the isometries in this case. From equation (42) we find

$$\xi ^0=zG(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )$$
(46)
In this case the solution for eq. (40) reads

$$\xi ^i=x^k\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)+\stackrel{~}{a}^i(\theta ^\alpha ,z)+x^i\lambda (\theta ^\alpha )+x^jx^jd^i(\theta ^\alpha )2x^ix^jd^j(\theta ^\alpha )$$
(47)
where again $`\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)=\omega ^{ki}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)`$ and $`G(x^i,\theta ^\alpha )=\lambda (\theta ^\alpha )2x^jd^j(\theta ^\alpha )`$ as in the D3-brane case.

Now imposing equation (41) we find

$$x^k_0\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)+_0\stackrel{~}{a}^i(\theta ^\alpha ,z)=2zd^i(\theta ^\alpha ).$$
(48)
Note that this equation, in contrast to the corresponding D3-brane equation (28), does not imply the vanishing of $`\lambda `$ and $`d^i`$ (and consequently $`\xi ^0`$) but only

$$_0\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha ,z)=0$$

$$_0\stackrel{~}{a}^i(\theta ^\alpha ,z)=2zd^i(\theta ^\alpha ),$$

that means $`\omega ^{ik}=\omega ^{ik}(\theta ^\alpha )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}^i(\theta ^\alpha ,z)=z^2d^i(\theta ^\alpha )+a^i(\theta ^\alpha )`$.

Then from eqs. (43) and (44) we see that $`\omega ^{ik},d^i,a^i`$ and $`\lambda `$ do not depend on $`\theta ^\alpha `$. Furthermore $`\xi ^\alpha `$ can only depend on the $`\theta `$ coordinates. So the isometries in this case finally read

$`\xi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda 2d^ix^i)z`$ (49)
$`\xi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`a^i+\omega ^{ij}x^j+\lambda x^i+d^ix^jx^j2x^ix^jd^j+z^2d^i`$ (50)
$`\xi ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\alpha (\theta ).`$ (51)
The 15 independent parameters $`a^i,\omega ^{ij},d^i,\lambda `$ of eqs. (49) and (50) represent the invariances of the $`AdS_5`$ space. This enlarges the isometries with respect to the D3-brane space. This happens due to the non vanishing $`\xi ^0`$ in opposition to the previous case. The $`S^5`$ isometries represented by (51) are the same as in the D3-brane case. Note that the isometries of the $`AdS_5`$ and $`S^5`$ are independent as expected. Furthermore, the $`AdS_5`$ and $`S^5`$ spaces are both maximally symmetric so the isometry group of metric (35) has 30 independent parameters.

Using these results, we now analyze the relation between the $`AdS`$ isometries and the induced isometries on surfaces of constant $`z`$. First we consider a surface $`z=constant0`$. The subgroup of isometries in this case corresponds to those with $`\xi ^0=0`$ which implies $`\lambda =0`$ and $`d^i=0`$. Then in this case we find Poincaré invariance

$$\xi ^i=a^i+\omega ^{ij}x^j$$
(52)
in such a surface. Additionally these surfaces also have $`S^5`$ isometries. So we see that the isometries of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ at a fixed $`z0`$ correspond exactly to the ones of the ten dimensional D3-brane system.

The very important particular case of the surface $`z=0`$ corresponds to the $`AdS`$ boundary. On this surface the condition $`\xi ^0=0`$ does not imply the vanishing of $`\lambda `$ and $`d^i`$, as can be seen from equation (49). These parameters remain arbitrary so the isometries on the boundary are

$$\xi ^i=a^i+\omega ^{ij}x^j+\lambda x^i+d^ix^jx^j2x^ix^jd^j.$$
(53)
These isometries correspond to infinitesimal conformal transformations on the $`x^i`$ coordinates.

Let us now comment on the relations between the isometry subgroups in the bulk and on the boundary. First note that dilatations on the boundary, defined by $`\lambda 0`$ and the other parameters vanishing in eq. (53) correspond to dilatations in the five dimensional $`AdS`$ space coordinates given by eqs.(49),(50) with the same choice of parameters. Second, translations and rotations on the boundary given by non vanishing $`a^i`$ and $`\omega ^{ij}`$ imply the same transformations in the $`AdS`$ bulk with fixed value of the $`z`$ coordinate. Finally special conformal transformations on the boundary given by non vanishing $`d^i`$ correspond to the bulk isometries

$`\xi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`2d^ix^iz`$ (54)
$`\xi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`d^i(x^jx^j+z^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x^ix^jd^j.`$ (55)
This represents a special conformal transformation in the coordinates $`x^\mu =(z,x^i)`$ with parameter $`d^\mu =(0,d^i)`$.

In summary, we found the isometries of the D3-brane space-time. Then we considered the $`AdS`$ limit where we have shown explicitly that the isometry group acts on the boundary as the conformal group. This result is a simple realization in Poincaré coordinates of the isomorphism between these two groups. This is an essential ingredient for the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mauricio Calvão for reading the manuscript and for interesting discussions. The authors are partially supported by CNPq, FINEP , CAPES and FAPERJ \- Brazilian research agencies.


text:
# Density of states of disordered Dirac particles: Infinitely many operators with negative scaling dimensions and freezing transitions

## Abstract

The global density of states (GDOS) close to the band center $`\epsilon =0`$ for a particle hopping on a square lattice and subjected to disorder that preserves the bipartite symmetry of the lattice is computed using field theoretical methods. The GDOS diverges like $`|\epsilon |^1\mathrm{exp}\left(c|\mathrm{ln}\epsilon |^\kappa \right)`$ with $`\kappa =2/3`$ in agreement with a prediction by Motrunich et al.Motrunich02  and in disagreement with an older prediction by GadeGade93  ($`\kappa =1/2`$).

The problem of two-dimensional ($`2D`$) disordered Dirac particles, particles with a relativistic dispersion subjected to several types of quenched randomness, has attracted a lot of interest since 1994.Ludwig94  Indeed, it is related to a broad class of models such as the $`2D`$ random phase $`XY`$ model, dirty $`d`$-wave superconductors, or the Chalker-Coddington model for the plateau transition in the integer quantum Hall effect, in which disorder plays an essential role. In spite of its relative simplicity, it can exhibit a rich variety of phenomena which appears to be specific to critical behavior induced by disorder. Multifractality is one example thereof.

Multifractal scaling implies that the scaling regime in the vicinity of criticality is encoded by an infinite set of independent relevant scaling exponents, the multifractal spectrum in short. On general grounds, the multifractal spectrum must fulfill the condition of monotonicity. Implementing this condition is a challenge to the common lore of local field theoretical techniques.

We consider a problem of Anderson localization defined on a $`2D`$ lattice where a particle is hopping on a square lattice in the background of $`\pi `$-flux phase and subjected to weak uncorrelated bond-disorder that preserves the sublattice symmetry and time-reversal invariance.Hatsugai97  The trademark of this model, the HWK model, is the sublattice symmetry present for any given realization of the disorder. Numerical studies offer strong evidences that typical wavefunctions at the band center are neither localized nor delocalized but are multifractalHatsugai97  and that the density of states (DOS) is singularRyu02 . This disorder induced critical behavior at the band center is caused by the sublattice symmetry. After taking the continuum limit, the HWK model reduces to two flavors of Dirac particles subjected to an imaginary Abelian random vector potential and a complex valued random mass.

It is known that monotonicity of the multifractal spectrum for the zero-modes of one flavor of $`2D`$ Dirac particles subjected to a white-noise random vector potential is implemented in a rather dramatic fashion, namely by the termination of the multifractal spectrum.Chamon96  In analogy to thermodynamics, one can recast the termination of the multifractal spectrum as a freezing transition.Castillo97  From a field theoretical perspective, the termination of the multifractal spectrum in this model is closely related to the existence of an infinite set of operators with negative scaling dimensions whose renormalization group (RG) flows are governed by a non-linear diffusion equation, the Kolmogorov-Petrovsky-Piscounov (KPP) equation.Mudry96 ; Carpentier00  In this article, we sketch how, within field theory, the global (i.e., self-averaging) density of states (GDOS) in the HWK model is governed by the same KPP equation and diverges at the band center $`\epsilon =0`$ as $`|\epsilon |^1\mathrm{exp}\left(c|\mathrm{ln}\epsilon |^\kappa \right)`$ with $`\kappa =2/3`$ in agreement with a prediction by Motrunich et al.Motrunich02  and in disagreement with an older prediction by GadeGade93  ($`\kappa =1/2`$).

We start from the continuum limit of the HWK model. The Hamiltonian is given by ($`\sigma `$’s are the Pauli matrices and the unit $`2\times 2`$ matrix)

$`H_{\text{HWK}}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& D_{\text{HWK}}\\ D_{\text{HWK}}^{}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (3)
$`D_{\text{HWK}}`$ $`=i\sigma _\mu _\mu +i\sigma _\mu A_\mu +i\sigma _0A_0+\sigma _3A_3,`$ (4)
where $`𝑨=(A_1,A_2)^2`$ is the purely imaginary random vector potential, $`A_0`$ the purely imaginary random scalar potential (chemical potential), and $`A_3`$ the random mass potential. We assume that all potentials are white-noise Gaussian distributed with vanishing means and with the variances specified by $`\overline{A_\mu ^{}(x)A_\nu ^{}(y)}=g_A^{}\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta (xy)`$, for $`\mu ,\nu =1,2`$, and $`\overline{A_\mu ^{}(x)A_\nu ^{}(y)}=g_M^{}\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta (xy)`$, for $`\mu ,\nu =0,3`$. Disorder averaging is denoted by an overline. We employ the supersymmetric (SUSY) method and introduce four-component Grassmann fields $`\overline{\psi }`$, $`\psi `$, and their bosonic partners $`\overline{\beta }`$, $`\beta `$ to represent the resolvent $`\left(H_{\text{HWK}}\epsilon +i\eta \right)^1`$ of the HWK Hamiltonian in a given realization of the disorder. The advantage of the SUSY representation is that disorder averaging over the resolvent reduces to a Gaussian integration and induces an effective interacting theory with action $`S_{\epsilon i\eta }`$ for the fields $`\overline{\psi }`$, $`\psi `$, $`\overline{\beta }`$, and $`\beta `$.

Before characterizing the statistical distribution of the DOS, we need to understand the action $`S_{\epsilon i\eta =0}`$. When the random mass perturbation is switched off, $`g_M^{}=0`$, and at the band center, $`\epsilon i\eta =0`$, the resulting effective interacting field theory $`S_{}`$ defines a conformal field theory (CFT) with $`gl(2|2)`$ current algebra symmetry for any value of $`g_A^{}`$.Guruswamy00  It is also known that $`g_M^{}>0`$ is exactly marginal whereas $`g_A^{}`$ is marginally relevant with the non-perturbative beta function $`\beta _{g_A^{}}^{}=(g_M^{}\zeta ^{})^2/(2\pi ^2)`$, $`\zeta ^{}=(1+g_M^{}/\pi )^1`$.Guruswamy00  More precisely, switching on a finite $`g_M^{}>0`$ demotes the CFT to the status of a nearly conformal invariant theory (NCFT).Guruswamy00  Although conformal invariance is now broken, correlators for the currents generating the $`gl(2|2)`$ algebra can nevertheless be computed non-perturbatively in $`g_A^{}`$ and $`g_M^{}`$. Furthermore, a weak form of Wick theorem still holds in the NCFT. This is all we will need to compute the GDOS.

To calculate the energy dependence of the GDOS, which we assume to be identical to that of the disorder-average local density of states (LDOS) $`\nu _{\mathrm{av}}(\epsilon )`$, one must reinstate a finite complex energy, i.e., a $`GL(2|2)`$ symmetry breaking perturbation $`𝒜_{N=1}=\overline{\psi }\psi +\overline{\beta }\beta `$ is added to the action $`S_{\epsilon i\eta =0}`$ with the complex energy $`\epsilon i\eta `$ as a coupling constant. The RG flow of the expectation value for $`\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(x)+\beta (x)\overline{\beta }(x)`$ in the critical theory perturbed by a finite but small energy under an infinitesimal rescaling $`𝔞𝔞e^{dl}`$ of the ultra-violet cutoff $`𝔞`$ gives the Callan-Symanzik equation obeyed by $`\nu _{\mathrm{av}}(\epsilon )`$.

The energy perturbation $`𝒜_1`$ is one member of an infinite set of operators with negative anomalous scaling dimensions.Mudry02  Other members, $`𝒜_N=\frac{1}{N!}(A_1)^N+\mathrm{}`$, from this set are generated through the operator product expansion (OPE)Mudry02  $`𝒜_N\times 𝒜_N^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}N+N^{}\\ N\end{array}\right)𝒜_{N+N^{}}+\mathrm{}`$. The anomalous scaling dimension $`x_N^{}`$ of $`𝒜_N`$ isMudry02

$`x_N^{}`$ $`=\zeta ^{}[1+𝒪(g_M^{})]N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^{}}{\pi }}\zeta ^2+𝒪(g_M^{})\right]N^2.`$ (5)
As the relevance of $`𝒜_N`$ grows with $`N`$ or $`g_A^{}`$, all $`𝒜_N`$ must be taken into account on an equal footing when performing a RG analysis of $`\nu _{\mathrm{av}}(\epsilon )`$.

The perturbed action needed to perform a consistent RG analysis of $`\nu _{\mathrm{av}}(\epsilon )`$ is obtained by adding to $`S_{\epsilon i\eta =0}`$ the perturbations $`_{N=1}^{\mathrm{}}Y_N^{}𝔞^{x_N2}d^2r𝒜_N(r)`$. An expansion of the one-point correlation function $`\nu _{\mathrm{av}}(\epsilon )`$ up to second order in the “fugacities” $`Y_N^{}`$ shows that it obeys a Callan-Symanzik equation characterized by infinitely many one-loop $`\beta `$-functions $`\beta _{Y_N^{}}^{}dY_N^{}/dl`$,

$`\beta _{Y_N^{}}^{}=(2x_N^{})Y_N^{}+\pi {\displaystyle \underset{N^{}=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ N^{}\end{array}\right)Y_N^{}^{}Y_{N^{}N^{}}^{}`$ (8)
with the initial condition $`Y_N^{}(l=0)=(\epsilon i\eta )/𝔞^{x_1^{}2}`$, together with an anomalous scaling operator that couples the expectation value of $`\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(x)+\beta (x)\overline{\beta }(x)`$ to all higher powers thereof. This Callan-Symanzik equation is thus an infinite set of coupled differential equations.

To treat all $`𝒜_N`$ on equal footing, we define the generating function

$`\stackrel{~}{G}(y,l)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^ne^{ny}}{n!}}Y_n^{}(l).`$ (9)
The RG equation for this generating function reduces to a non-linear diffusion equation of the KPP-type,Carpentier00

$`_l^{}\stackrel{~}{G}=\left(\zeta ^{}_y^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^{}\zeta ^2}{\pi }}_y^2\right)\stackrel{~}{G}+2\stackrel{~}{G}(\stackrel{~}{G}1)`$ (10)
with the initial condition $`\stackrel{~}{G}(y,0)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\epsilon i\eta }{𝔞^{x_1^{}2}}e^y\right)`$. A detailed study of the asymptotic ($`l\mathrm{}`$) solution of Eq. (10) suggests that the GDOS $`\nu _{\mathrm{av}}(\epsilon )`$ is governed by the “equivalent” Callan-Symanzik equationMudry02

$`0`$ $`=\left[z_A^{}\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }}+\beta _{g_A^{}}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{g_A^{}}}\left(2z_A^{}\right)\right]\nu _{\mathrm{av}}^{}(\epsilon ).`$ (11)
The infinite set of coupling constants $`Y_N^{}`$ together with the infinite dimensional anomalous scaling operator have been replaced by a single coupling constant $`z_A^{}`$, the dynamical scaling exponent, that relates a change of the typical energy scale to a rescaling of length. From the perspective of Eq. (10), $`z_A^{}`$ is uniquely defined as the velocity of the asymptotic wave front solution. It scales as $`g_A^{}`$ for $`g_A^{}\zeta ^2<2\pi `$ whereas it scales as $`\sqrt{g_A^{}}`$ for $`g_A^{}\zeta ^22\pi `$. A freezing transition must necessarily take place at $`g_A^{}\zeta ^2=2\pi `$ as $`g_A^{}`$ is marginally relevant. Equation (11) can be solved. The most interesting case is that of weak disorder $`g_A^{}(l=0)\zeta ^21`$ at the bare level. Sufficiently far away from the band center, i.e., when the sublattice symmetry is completely broken by the perturbing bare energy, the GDOS is flat. Upon approaching the band center, the sublattice symmetry manifests itself by a power-law behavior of the GDOS when the marginal relevance of the Abelian random vector potential can be neglected. At lower energies the relevance of $`g_A^{}(l)\zeta ^21<2\pi `$ cannot be neglected anymore and the GDOS starts to increase in a Gade-like manner. Arbitrary close to the band center the relevance of $`g_A^{}(l)\zeta ^22\pi `$ dominates everything else in that the random vector potential induces a strongly fluctuating LDOS (in a log-normal manner). In the strong disorder regime $`g_A^{}(l)\zeta ^22\pi `$, $`z_A^{}`$ has undergone the freezing transition that is responsible for zero-modes displaying localized behavior instead of multifractalityChamon96  and the GDOS diverging with the exponent $`\kappa =2/3`$ instead of $`\kappa =1/2`$Motrunich02 .

In summary, the HWK model is described in the continuum limit by a NCFT in which we identified infinitely many operators with negative anomalous scaling dimensions. These operators reflect the broad distribution of the LDOS and enter in the field theoretical computation of the GDOS through a Callan-Symanzik equation made up of infinitely many differential equations. From a detailed study of the RG equation obeyed by a generating function for an infinite subset of relevant fugacities we identified a scale dependent dynamical exponent that quantifies the change in the typical energy scale due to a rescaling of length. We then conjectured that the GDOS obeys an equivalent Callan-Symanzik equation made of a finite number of differential equation and whose solution agrees with the prediction from Motrunich et al. for the GDOS in the HWK model.


text:
# A New Non-Parametric Approach to Galaxy Morphological Classification

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The evolution of the physical structure of galaxies is one of the keys to understanding how matter in the universe assembled into the structures we see today. The most accessible tracer of a galaxy’s physical structure is its morphology, i.e. the organization of its light (stars and dust), as projected into our line of sight and observed at a particular wavelength. As we examine more distant galaxies, we find that galaxy morphologies become increasingly chaotic. The disk and spheroidal structures abundant in the local universe disappear at early times in the universe (e.g. Abraham et al. 1996, Abraham & van den Bergh 2002). The emergence of the local Hubble sequence of spiral and elliptical galaxies at late times is one of the predictions of the hierarchical picture of galaxy assembly.

While the first morphological studies sought to describe the variety of galaxy shapes and forms, the goal of present-day morphological studies is to tie the spatial distribution of stars to the formation history of the galaxy. A major obstacle to this goal has been the difficulty in quantifying morphology with a few simple, reliable measurements. One tack is to describe a galaxy parametrically, by modeling the distribution of light as projected into the plane of the sky with a prescribed analytic function. For example, bulge-to-disk light ratios may be computed by fitting the galaxy with a two-component profile, where the fluxes, sizes, concentrations, and orientations of the bulge and disk components are free parameters (Peng et al. 2002, Simard et al. 2002). This B/D ratio correlates with qualitative Hubble type classifications, although with significant scatter. Unfortunately, there is often a fair amount of degeneracy in the best-fitting models and B/D ratios, and structures such as compact nuclei, bars, and spiral arms introduce additional difficulty in fitting the bulge and disk components (e.g. Balcells et al 2003). A related approach is to fit a single Sersic profile to the entire galaxy (Blanton et al. 2003a). Profiles with high Sersic indices are interpreted as bulge-dominated systems, while low Sersic indices indicate disk-dominated systems. However, not all bulges have high Sersic index values - some are exponential in nature (Carollo 1999), so not all objects with bulges will produce intermediate or high Sersic indices. Both the one-component and multiple-component fitting methods assume that the galaxy is well described by a smooth, symmetric profile \- an assumption that breaks down for irregular, tidally disturbed, and merging galaxies.

Non-parametric measures of galaxy morphology do not assume a particular analytic function for the galaxy’s light distribution, and therefore may be applied to irregulars as well as standard Hubble type galaxies. Abraham et al. (1994, 1996) introduced the concentration index $`C`$ (which roughly correlates with a galaxy’s B/D ratio) and Schade et al. (1995) put forward rotational asymmetry $`A`$ as a way to automatically distinguish early Hubble types (E/S0/Sa) from later Hubble types (Sb/Sc) and classify irregular and merging galaxies. Subsequent authors modified the original definitions to make $`C`$ and $`A`$ more robust to surface-brightness selection and centering errors (Wu 1999, Bershady et al. 2000, Conselice et al. 2000). The third quantity in the “$`CAS`$” morphological classification system is a measure of a galaxy’s residual clumpiness $`S`$, which is correlated with a galaxy’s color and star-formation rate (Isserstedt & Schindler 1986; Takamiya 1999; Conselice 2003). Other more computer-intensive approaches to galaxy classification such as artificial neural networks and shapelet decomposition have also been applied to local and distant galaxies. Artificial neural networks are trained by an astronomer on a set of galaxies of known morphological type and use a combination of size, surface-brightness, concentration, and color to classify galaxy types (Odewahn et al. 1996, Naim et al. 1997). “Shaplets” deconstruct each galaxy’s image into a series of Hermite polynomials (Refregier 2003, Kelly & McKay 2004). The eigen-shapes produced by shapelet decomposition are often difficult to interpret by themselves, and the additional step of principle component analysis is performed to classify galaxies.

While $`CAS`$ is perhaps the most straightforward of the non-parametric methods, it is not without its weaknesses. Because concentration is measured within several circular apertures about a pre-defined center, it implicitly assumes circular symmetry, making it a poor descriptor for irregular galaxies. Asymmetry is more sensitive to merger signatures than concentration, but not all merger remnant candidates are highly asymmetric, and not all asymmetric galaxies are mergers (e.g. dusty edge-on spirals). Finally, the clumpiness determination requires one to define a galaxy smoothing length, which must be chosen carefully to avoid systematic effects dependent on a galaxy image’s point spread function (PSF), pixel scale, distance, and angular size. Also, the bulges of highly concentrated galaxies give strong residuals which are not due to star-forming regions and must be masked out when computing $`S`$.

In this paper, we examine two new non-parametric ways of quantifying galaxy morphology which circumvent some of the problems with the “$`CAS`$” system. We use the Gini coefficient, a statistic used in economics to describe the distribution of wealth within a society. It was first adapted for galaxy morphology classification by Abraham et al. (2003) to quantify the relative distribution of flux within the pixels associated with a galaxy. It is correlated with concentration, but does not assume that the brightest pixels are in the geometric center of the galaxy image. We also define a new indicator, $`M_{20}`$, which describes the second-order moment of the brightest 20% of the galaxy. While similar to the concentration index, $`M_{20}`$ is more sensitive to merger signatures like multiple nuclei and does not impose circular symmetry. In §2, we modify Abraham’s definition of the Gini coefficient in order to make it applicable to distant galaxies and we define $`M_{20}`$. In §3, we test the robustness of these statistics to decreasing $`S/N`$ and resolution, and find that at average $`S/N`$ per galaxy pixel $`>2`$ and spatial resolutions $`<`$ 500 pc, they are reliable to within 10%. We also compare the robustness of $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$ to $`CAS`$. In §4, we compare the ability of $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$ to classify local Hubble-type and merging galaxies to the $`CAS`$ system. Finally in §5, we examine the near-ultraviolet/optical morphologies of 49 $`1.7<z<3.8`$ Lyman break galaxies and attempt to classify these LBGs as ellipticals, spirals, or merger candidates.

## 2 MEASURING GALAXY MORPHOLOGIES

### 2.1 The Gini Coefficient

The Gini coefficient is a statistic based on the Lorenz curve, the rank-ordered cumulative distribution function of a population’s wealth or, in this case, a galaxy’s pixel values (Abraham et al. 2003). The Lorenz curve is defined as

$$L(p)=\frac{1}{\overline{X}}_0^pF^1(u)𝑑u$$
(1)
where $`p`$ is the percentage of the poorest citizens or faintest pixels, F(x) is the cumulative distribution function, and $`\overline{X}`$ is the mean over all (pixel flux) values $`X_i`$ (Lorenz 1905). The Gini coefficient is the ratio of the area between the Lorenz curve and the curve of “uniform equality” where $`L(p)=p`$ (shaded region, Figure 1) to the area under the curve of uniform equality ($`=1/2`$). For a discrete population, the Gini coefficient is defined as the mean of the absolute difference between all $`X_i`$:

$$G=\frac{1}{2\overline{X}n(n1)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|X_iX_j|$$
(2)
where $`n`$ is the number of people in a population or pixels in a galaxy. In a completely egalitarian society, $`G`$ is zero, and if one individual has all the wealth, $`G`$ is unity. A more efficient way to compute $`G`$ is to first sort $`X_i`$ into increasing order and calculate

$$G=\frac{1}{\overline{X}n(n1)}\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}(2in1)X_i$$
(3)
(Glasser 1962).

For the majority of local galaxies, the Gini coefficient is correlated with the concentration index, and increases with the fraction of light in a compact (central) component. In a study of 930 SDSS Early Data Release galaxies, Abraham et al. (2003) found $`G`$ to be strongly correlated with both concentration and surface brightness. However, unlike $`C`$, $`G`$ is independent of the large-scale spatial distribution of the galaxy’s light. The correlation between $`C`$ and $`G`$ exists because highly concentrated galaxies have much of their light in a small number of pixels. High $`G`$ values may also arise when very bright galaxy pixels are not found in the center of a bulge. Therefore $`G`$ differs from $`C`$ in that it can distinguish between galaxies with shallow light profiles (which have both low $`C`$ and $`G`$) and galaxies where much of the flux is located in a few pixels not at the projected center (which have low $`C`$ but high $`G`$).

In practice, the application of the Gini coefficient to galaxy observations requires some care. One must have a consistent definition of the pixels belonging to the galaxy in order to measure the distribution of flux within those pixels and compare that distribution to other galaxies. The inclusion of “sky” pixels will systematically increase $`G`$, while the exclusion of low-surface brightness “galaxy” pixels will systematically decrease $`G`$. Abraham et al. (2003) measure $`G`$ for galaxy pixels which lie above a constant surface-brightness threshold. This definition makes the direct comparison between high-redshift galaxies and the local galaxy population difficult because of the $`(1+z)^4`$ surface-brightness dimming of distant galaxies. Therefore, we attempt to create a segmentation map of the galaxy pixels in a way that is insensitive to surface-brightness dimming. The mean surface brightness $`\mu (r_p)`$ at the Petrosian radius $`r_p`$ is used to set the flux threshold above which pixels are assigned to the galaxy. The Petrosian radius is the radius $`r_p`$ at which the ratio of the surface brightness at $`r_p`$ to the mean surface brightness within $`r_p`$ is equal to a fixed value, i.e.

$$\eta =\frac{\mu (r_p)}{\overline{\mu }(r<r_p)}$$
(4)
where $`\eta `$ is typically set to 0.2 (Petrosian 1976). Because the Petrosian radius is based on a curve of growth, it is largely insensitive to variations in the limiting surface brightness and $`S/N`$ of the observations. This revised definition should allow better comparison of $`G`$ values for galaxies with varying surface brightnesses, distances, and observed signal-to-noise..

The galaxy image is sky-subtracted and any background galaxies, foreground stars, or cosmic rays are removed from the image. The mean ellipticity and position angle of the galaxy is measured using IRAF task ellipse. The Petrosian “radius” (or semi-major axis length) is measured for increasing elliptical apertures, rather than circular apertures. While the Petrosian radius determined by the curve of growth within circular apertures is similar to that determined from elliptical apertures for most galaxies, elliptical apertures more closely follow the galaxy’s true light profile and can produce very different $`r_p`$ values for edge-on spirals. To create the segmentation map, the cleaned galaxy image is first convolved with a Gaussian with $`\sigma =r_p/5`$. This step raises the signal of the galaxy pixels above the background noise, making low-surface brightness galaxy pixels more detectable. Then the surface brightness $`\mu `$ at $`r_p`$ is measured and pixels in the smoothed image with flux values $`\mu (r_p)`$ and less than 10 $`\sigma `$ from their neighboring pixels are assigned to the galaxy. The last step assures that any remaining cosmic rays or spurious noise pixels in the image are not included in the segmentation map. This map is then applied to the cleaned but unsmoothed image, and the pixels assigned to the galaxy are used to compute the Gini coefficient.

Even when the pixels assigned to a galaxy are robustly determined, the distribution of flux within the pixels will depend on the signal-to-noise ratio ($`S/N`$) as noise smears out the flux distribution in the faintest pixels. This is illustrated in the left of Figure 2 by adding increasing Poisson sky noise to the S0 galaxy NGC4526 image, and recalculating the segmentation map and Gini coefficient. We define the average signal-to-noise per galaxy pixel $`<S/N>`$ as

$$<S/N>=\frac{1}{n}\underset{n}{\overset{i}{}}\frac{S_i}{\sqrt{\sigma _{sky}^2+S_i}}$$
(5)
where $`S_i`$ is pixel $`i`$’s flux, $`\sigma _{sky}`$ is the sky noise, and $`n`$ is the number of galaxy pixels in the segmentation map. As $`<S/N>`$ decreases, the distribution of measured flux values in the faintest pixels becomes broader. The measured Gini coefficient increases because low surface-brightness galaxy pixels are scattered to flux values below the mean sky level, resulting in negative flux levels for the faintest pixels assigned to the galaxy by our smoothed segmentation map. We note that, while the Poisson noise redistributes all the pixel flux values, the effects are significant only for pixels with intrinsic flux values $`3\sigma _{sky}`$. Therefore, as a first order correction, we compute the Gini coefficient of the distribution of absolute flux values:

$$G=\frac{1}{\overline{|X|}n(n1)}\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}(2in1)|X_i|$$
(6)
Low-surface brightness galaxy pixels with flux values scattered below the sky level are reassigned positive values (right of Figure 2). This correction recovers the “true” Gini coefficient to within 10% for images with $`S/N>2`$; at very low $`S/N`$ values, even the brightest galaxy pixels are strongly affected by noise and the Gini coefficient is not recoverable. In Figures 3-4, we show the final segmentation maps used to compute the Gini coefficient as contour maps for eight galaxies of varying morphological type (Table 1).

### 2.2 The Moment of Light

The total second-order moment $`M_{tot}`$ is the flux in each pixel $`f_i`$ multiplied by the squared distance to the center of the galaxy, summed over all the galaxy pixels assigned by the segmentation map:

$$M_{tot}=\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}M_i=\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}f_i((x_ix_c)^2+(y_iy_c)^2)$$
(7)
where $`x_c,y_c`$ is the galaxy’s center. The center is computed by finding $`x_c,y_c`$ such that $`M_{tot}`$ is minimized.

The second-order moment of the brightest regions of the galaxy traces the spatial distribution of any bright nuclei, bars, spiral arms, and off-center star-clusters. We define $`M_{20}`$ as the normalized second order moment of the brightest 20% of the galaxy’s flux. To compute $`M_{20}`$, we rank-order the galaxy pixels by flux, sum $`M_i`$ over the brightest pixels until the sum of the brightest pixels equals 20% of the total galaxy flux, and then normalize by $`M_{tot}`$:

$`M_{20}\mathrm{log10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_iM_i}{M_{tot}}}\right)`$ $`\mathrm{while}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f_i<0.2f_{tot}`$ (8)
Here $`f_{tot}`$ is the total flux of the galaxy pixels identified by the segmentation map and $`f_i`$ are the fluxes for each pixel $`i`$, order such that $`f_1`$ is the brightest pixel, $`f_2`$ is the second brightest pixels, and so on. The normalization by $`M_{tot}`$ removes the dependence on total galaxy flux or size. We find that defining $`M`$ with brighter flux thresholds (e.g. 5% of ftot) produce moment values that are unreliable at low spatial resolutions (§2.3), while lower flux threshold lead to a less discriminating statistic.

While our definition of $`M_{20}`$ is similar to that of $`C`$, it differs in two important respects. Firstly, $`M_{20}`$ depends on $`r^2`$, and is more heavily weighted by the spatial distribution of luminous regions. Secondly, unlike $`C`$, $`M_{20}`$ is not measured within circular or elliptical apertures, and the center of the galaxy is a free parameter. We shall see in §3 that these differences make $`M_{20}`$ more sensitive than $`C`$ to merger signatures such as multiple nuclei. In Figures 3 and 4, we display the segmentation maps and the regions containing the brightest 20% of the flux for the eight test galaxies.

### 2.3  Concentration, Asymmetry, and Smoothness

Concentration is defined in slightly different ways by different authors, but the basic function measures the ratio of light within a circular or elliptical inner aperture to the light within an outer aperture. We adopt the Bershady et al. (2000) definition as the ratio of the circular radii containing 20% and 80% of the “total flux” :

$$C=5\mathrm{log10}\left(\frac{\mathrm{r}_{80}}{\mathrm{r}_{20}}\right)$$
(9)
where $`r_{80}`$ and $`r_{20}`$ are the circular apertures containing 80% and 20% of the total flux, respectively. For comparison to the most recent studies of galaxy concentration, we use Conselice’s (2003) definition of the total flux as the flux contained within 1.5 $`r_p`$ of the galaxy’s center (as opposed to Bershady’s definition as the flux contained within 2 $`r_p`$). For the concentration measurement, the galaxy’s center is that determined by the asymmetry minimization (see below). In Figures 3-4, we over-plot $`r_{80}`$ and $`r_{20}`$ for eight galaxies of varying morphological type in the far left-hand panels.

The asymmetry parameter $`A`$ quantifies the degree to which the light of a galaxy is rotationally symmetric. $`A`$ is measured by subtracting the galaxy image rotated by 180 degrees from the original image (Abraham et al. 1995, Wu 1999, Conselice et al. 2000).

$$A=\underset{i,j}{}\frac{|I(i,j)I_{180}(i,j)|}{|I(i,j)|}B_{180}$$
(10)
where $`I`$ is the galaxy’s image and $`I_{180}`$ is the image rotated by 180 about the galaxy’s central pixel, and $`B_{180}`$ is the average asymmetry of the background. $`A`$ is summed over all pixels within 1.5 $`r_p`$ of the galaxy’s center. The central pixel is determined by minimizing $`A`$. The asymmetry due to the noise must be corrected for, and it is impossible to reliably measure the asymmetry for low $`S/N`$ images. In Figures 3-4, we display the residual $`II_{180}`$ image and the 1.5 $`r_p`$ aperture in the second column. Objects with very smooth elliptical light profiles have a high degree of rotational symmetry. Galaxies with spiral arms are less symmetric, while extremely irregular and merging galaxies are often (but not always) highly asymmetric.

The smoothness parameter $`S`$ has been recently developed by Conselice (2003), inspired by the work of Takamiya (1999), in order to quantify the degree of small-scale structure. The galaxy image is smoothed by a boxcar of given width and then subtracted from the original image. The residual is a measure of the clumpiness due to features such as compact star clusters. In practice, the smoothing scalelength is chosen to be a fraction of the Petrosian radius.

$$S=\underset{i,j}{}\frac{|I(i,j)I_S(i,j)|}{|I(i,j)|}B_S$$
(11)
where $`I_S`$ is the galaxy’s image smoothed by a boxcar of width 0.25 $`r_p`$, and $`B_S`$ is the average smoothness of the background. Like $`A`$, $`S`$ is summed over the pixels within 1.5 $`r_p`$ of the galaxy’s center. However, because the central regions of most galaxies are highly concentrated, the pixels within a circular aperture equal to the smoothing length 0.25 $`r_p`$ are excluded from the sum. In Figures 3-4, we display the residual $`II_S`$ images, and the 0.25 and 1.5 $`r_p`$ apertures in the third column. $`S`$ is correlated with recent star-formation (Takamiya 1999, Conselice 2003). However, because of its strong dependence on resolution, it is not applicable to poorly resolved and distant galaxies.

## 3 RESOLUTION AND NOISE EFFECTS

In order to make a fair comparison of the measured morphologies of different galaxies, we must understand how noise and resolution affect $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$. This is particularly important when comparing local galaxies to high-redshift galaxies, as the observations of distant galaxies are generally of lower signal-to-noise and resolution than those of local galaxies. We have defined $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$ in the previous sections in an attempt to minimize systematic offsets with noise and resolution. Nevertheless, any measurement is ultimately limited by the $`S/N`$ of the observations. Also, the PSF and finite pixel size of the images may introduce increasing uncertainties to the morphologies as the resolution decreases and small-scale structures are washed out.

We have chosen eight galaxies of varying morphological type (Figures 3 and 4; Table 1) to independently test the effects of decreasing $`S/N`$ per pixel and physical resolution (pc per pixel) on the measurements of $`G`$, $`M_{20}`$, $`C`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$. For the $`S/N`$ tests, random Poisson noise maps of increasing variance were added to the original sky-subtracted image. For each noise-added image, we measured $`r_p`$, created a new segmentation map, measured $`<S/N>`$ for galaxy pixels assigned by the segmentation map, and measured $`G`$, $`M_{20}`$, $`C`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$. Noisy galaxy images were created and measured 20 times at each $`S/N`$ level, and the mean changes in the morphological values with $`<S/N>`$ are plotted in Figure 5. To simulate the effect of decreasing resolution, we re-binned the galaxy images to increasingly large pixel sizes. Re-binning the original galaxy images increases the $`S/N`$ per pixel, so additional Poisson sky noise ($`\sigma _{sky}`$) was added to the re-binned image such that average $`<S/N>`$ was kept constant with decreasing resolution. Again, we measured $`r_p`$, created a segmentation map, and computed the average change $`G`$, $`M_{20}`$, $`C`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$ with resolution for 20 simulations at each resolution step (Figure 6).

We find that $`G`$, $`M_{20}`$, and $`C`$ are reliable to within $``$ 10% ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ 0.05, 0.2, and 0.3 respectively) for galaxy images with $`<S/N>2`$. $`A`$ systematically decreases with $`<S/N>`$, but generally shows offsets less than 0.1 at $`<S/N>5`$. $`S`$ also systematically decreases with $`<S/N>`$, and has decrements less than 0.2 at $`<S/N>5`$. Decreasing resolution, however, has much stronger effects on the morphology measurements. $`C`$ and $`M_{20}`$ show systematic offsets greater than $``$ 15% ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0.5`$ and 0.3, respectively) at resolution scales worse than 500 pc, as the cores of the observed galaxies become unresolved. $`G`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$, on the other hand, are relatively stable to decreasing spatial resolution down to 1000 pc. As a galaxy’s image becomes less resolved, the observed curve of growth changes resulting in larger $`r_p`$ values, and therefore producing slightly higher $`G`$ values as the segmentation map grows accordingly. At the lowest resolutions, the observed biases in $`C`$, $`A`$ and $`S`$ appear to be a function of Hubble type: the E-Sbc galaxies are biased to higher $`A`$ and $`S`$ and lower $`C`$, while both the Sd and mergers are biased toward lower $`A`$ and the merger remnants are biased to higher $`C`$. On the other hand, on the Sc and Sd galaxies show $`G`$ offsets $`>`$ 20% ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0.1`$) at resolutions between 1000 and 2000 pc.

## 4 LOCAL GALAXY MORPHOLOGIES

### 4.1 Frei and SDSS Local Galaxy Samples

We have measured $`G`$, $`M_{20}`$, $`C`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$ at both $`4500`$Å and $`6500`$Å for 104 local galaxies taken from the Frei et al. (1996) catalog. The Frei catalog galaxies are a representative sample of bright, well-resolved, Hubble-type galaxies (E-S0-Sa-Sb-Sc-Sd), and have been used as morphological standards by a number of authors (Takamiya 1999; Wu 1999; Bershady et al. 2000; Conselice et al. 2000; Simard et al. 2002). The galaxies were observed by Frei et al. (1996) with either the 1.5 meter telescope at Palomar Observatory or the 1.1 meter telescope at Lowell Observatory. The Palomar images were taken in the Thuan-Gunn $`g`$ and $`r`$ filters ($`\lambda _{eff}=`$ 5000Å, 6500Å) at plate scale = 1.19 ″ per pixel and typical PSF FWHM $``$ 2-3 ″. The Lowell images were taken in the $`B_J`$ and $`R`$ pass-bands ($`\lambda _{eff}`$ = 4500Å, 6500Å) at a plate scale = 1.35 ″ per pixel and typical PSF FWHM $``$ 3-5 ″. In Table 2, we give $`G`$, $`M_{20}`$, $`C`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$ as measured in $`R`$/$`r`$ and $`B_J`$/$`g`$ for each of the galaxies.

We have also obtained the images of 9 Frei galaxies and 44 other galaxies selected by their $`u`$-band brightness ($`u<14`$) from the SDSS Data Release 1 database (Abazajian et al. 2003). The morphologies of the SDSS sample were measured in the $`u`$, $`g`$ and $`r`$-bands ($`\lambda _{eff}`$ = 3600Å, 4400Å, and 6500Å respectively; Table 3). The SDSS plate scale is 0.4″ per pixel and the $`r`$-band PSF FWHM values are typically $``$ 1.3-1.8 ″(Stoughton et al. 2002). We find that the mean absolute difference between the SDSS and Frei observations are :

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}\delta G=0.02\hfill & \delta M_{20}=0.12\hfill & \delta C=0.11\hfill & \delta A=0.04\hfill & \delta S=0.09,\hfill & r/R\mathrm{band}\hfill \\ \delta G=0.02\hfill & \delta M_{20}=0.11\hfill & \delta C=0.14\hfill & \delta A=0.05\hfill & \delta S=0.14,\hfill & g/B\mathrm{band}\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
In addition, we have analyzed $`B`$-band images of 22 nearby dwarf irregular galaxies from the Van Zee (2001) sample (Table 4). We have selected galaxies from the original Van Zee sample with minimal foreground star contamination and $`<S/N>`$ $``$ 2. These images were obtained at the Kitt Peak 0.9 m telescope and have PSF FWHM $``$ 1.4-2.3 ″and a plate scale=0.688 ″.

In Figures 7-8, we examine the dependence of $`C`$, $`A`$, $`S`$, $`G`$, and $`M_{20}`$ on the observed near-ultraviolet/optical wavelength. For the majority of galaxies, the difference between the observed morphologies at $``$ 4500Å ($`B/g`$)and 6500Å ($`R/r`$) are comparable to the observational offsets between the SDSS and Frei observations of the same galaxies in the same bandpass. The observed changes in $`C`$, $`G`$, and $`M_{20}`$ from $``$ 3600Å ($`u`$) to $``$ 6500Å ($`r`$) are also consistent with observational scatter. The SDSS $`u`$-band observations often have too low $`S/N`$ to obtain reliable asymmetries. This may also produce the increased scatter in $`S`$. Nevertheless, late-type galaxies generally have higher clumpiness values and slightly higher $`M_{20}`$ values at 3600 Å than 6500 Å. A handful of galaxies (many of which are edge-on spirals) show much larger morphological changes at bluer wavelengths. The S0 galaxy UGC1597 has an obvious tidal tail, and it has higher $`g`$-band $`A`$, $`S`$, and $`G`$ values and a lower $`g`$-band $`C`$. Several mid-type spirals have significantly higher $`M_{20}`$ values in $`B/g`$ than in $`R/r`$. These include NGC3675, an Sb with prominent dust features, and NGC 5850, an Sb with a star-forming ring.

Previous studies have noted small offsets in concentration and asymmetry from $`U`$ and $`B`$ to $`R`$, with much stronger shifts at wavelengths $``$ 2500Å (Brinchmann et al. 1998, Conselice et al. 2000, Kuchinski et al. 2001). We see similar trends of slightly higher $`B/g`$ asymmetries for late-type spirals ($`0.05`$) and lower $`B/g`$ concentrations for most galaxies ($`0.1`$). However, given that these trends are smaller than the difference between different observations of the same galaxy at the same wavelength, we conclude that morphological K-corrections to $`C`$ and $`A`$ are not very substantial for most normal galaxies observed redward of rest-frame $`35004000`$ Å. The late-type spirals show small but systematic trends of stronger clumpiness and higher second order moments at bluer wavelengths.

In Figure 9, we examine the $`GM_{20}`$ morphologies of local galaxies observed in both the $`R/r`$ and $`B/g`$-bands. The distribution of local galaxies is very similar at both wavelengths, with E/S0s showing high $`G`$ and low $`M_{20}`$ values, Sa-Sbc at intermediate $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$ values, and most late-type spirals and dI with low $`G`$ and higher $`M_{20}`$ values. Most edge-on galaxies (barred symbols) show $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$ values consistent with the mean values for their Hubble type. One notable exception is the S0 NGC4710, which has a prominent dust lane and $`G=0.50`$, $``$ 0.1 lower than for other E/S0s. The majority of local galaxies lie below the rough dividing line plotted in Figure 9. Four out of the 22 dIs lie above this line. Two of these are classified as star-bursting dwarfs (UGC11755 and UGCA439), and a third has the bluest $`UB`$ color gradient in the sample (UGC5288; Van Zee 2001). The other outliers are UGC10991 which appears to have a tidal tail and star-forming knots, and UGC10310 which has two very bright knots in its outer arms that may be foreground stars. As we discuss in the next section, most ULIRGs lie above this dividing line. While a few truly star-bursting dIs are $`0.04`$ in G above the normal galaxy sequence at blue wavelengths, it appears that dIs will not seriously contaminate the merger/interacting galaxies classified by $`GM_{20}`$.

### 4.2 Merger Indicators

One of the primary goals of morphological studies is to quantitatively identify interacting and merging galaxies. Towards this end, Abraham (1996) and Conselice (2000, 2003) have used combinations of concentration, asymmetry, and smoothness to roughly classify “normal” galaxies as early and late-types, as well as to distinguish mergers from these normal types. Abraham (2003) also found that for a large sample of normal galaxies, the Gini coefficient is strongly correlated with concentration, color, and surface brightness, and therefore may be as efficient as concentration at quantifying galaxy morphologies. Here we compare the effectiveness of our definition of the Gini coefficient (Equation 6) to $`C`$ at classifying local galaxy types and identifying merger candidates. We also expect that $`M_{20}`$ will be strongly correlated to $`C`$, due to their similar definitions, and therefore examine the $`GM_{20}`$ correlation and compare it to the $`CG`$ relation found by Abraham et al. (2003).

In Figures 10-14, we compare the $`R/r`$-band morphological distributions of our local galaxy sample to archival HST WFPC2 F814W observations of 73 ultra-luminous infrared galaxies with $`11.5`$ log($`L_{FIR}/L_{}`$) $`12.5`$ and $`<S/N>2`$ (ULIRGs; Borne et al. 2000, HST Cycle 6 program 6346, Table 5). ULIRGs often show morphological signatures of on-going or recent merger events in the form of high asymmetries, multiple nuclei, and tidal tails (Wu et al. 1998, Borne et al. 2000, Conselice et al. 2000, Cui et al. 2001). We have divided the ULIRG sample into objects with “single”, “double”, or “multiple” nuclei as classified by Cui et al. 2000 by counting the number of surface brightness peaks with FWHM $`>`$ 0.14 ″ and $`M_I<17.0`$ separated by less than 20 kpc projected. We also identify ULIRGs in projected pairs as IRAS sources with projected separations greater than 20 kpc and less than 120 kpc. The ULIRG sample has a mean redshift of $`0.2`$, therefore the F814W bandpass ($`\lambda _{eff}=`$ 8200Å) samples the rest-frame light at $`6800`$Å. Given the 0.14 ″ PSF of the WF camera, ULIRGs at $`z<0.25`$ are spatially resolved to better than $``$ 500 pc, and may be directly compared to the local galaxy $`r/R`$-band observations.

Most ULIRGs lie above the $`GM_{20}`$ correlation for normal galaxies (Figure 10, bottom panels), while many ULIRGs overlap with the $`CG`$ and $`CM_{20}`$ correlations for normal galaxies (Figure 11). Normal local galaxies also segregate more cleanly from the ULIRGs sample in $`GA`$ and $`GS`$ than $`CA`$ and $`CS`$ (Figures 12-13). In particular, the Gini coefficient of edge-on spirals galaxies is more consistent with the values obtained for face-on spirals. Also, ULIRGs with double or multiple nuclei generally have higher Gini coefficients relative to their concentrations than most normal galaxies. $`GM_{20}`$ is slightly less effective at identifying single-nuclei ULIRGs than $`GA`$ and $`GS`$; however, $`M_{20}`$ is a more robust indicator at low $`S/N`$ than $`A`$ and $`S`$ and at low resolution than $`S`$ (Figures 5-6), and therefore may be applied to fainter galaxy populations. We find that $`M_{20}`$ in combination with $`C`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$ is not effective at separating the ULIRGs from the normal galaxy population (Figures 12 and 14). In Table 6, we give the results of a series of two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests (Fasano & Franceschini 1987) applied to the ULIRGs and $`R/r`$-band normal galaxy observations for each combination of $`C`$, $`A`$, $`S`$, $`G`$, and $`M_{20}`$. For all the tests, the probability that the ULIRGs and normal galaxies are drawn from the same parent sample is less than $`10^6`$.

While the ULIRG population as a whole occupies a different region of $`CASGM_{20}`$ space than our SDSS and Frei galaxy samples, we also find significant differences between ULIRGs in well-separated pairs, ULIRGs with single nuclei, and ULIRGs with double or multiple nuclei (Table 6). ULIRGs in pairs show the smallest offsets from the normal galaxy sample. Double and multi-nuclei ULIRGs show the greatest changes in morphology, with typically large $`M_{20}`$ and $`A`$ values. Single-nucleus ULIRGs appear similar to paired ULIRGs, but can also have higher $`G`$ and $`C`$. Two dimensional KS tests show that the multi- and double-nuclei ULIRGs are distinct from the single-nucleus ULIRGs and paired ULIRGs with greater than 97% and 90% confidence, respectively. The multi- and double-nuclei ULIRGs have a greater than 5% probability of being drawn from the same sample, while single-nucleus ULIRGs and ULIRGs in pairs have a greater than 12% probability of being drawn from the same sample.

## 5 GALAXY MORPHOLOGIES AT REDSHIFT $`>2`$

One of the major successes of the hierarchical paradigm of galaxy formation has been the discovery of large fractions of morphologically-irregular galaxies at $`z>1`$ (e.g. Driver et al. 1995; Abraham et al. 1996; Odewahn et al. 1996; Abraham & van den Bergh 2001). Many of these galaxies are excellent merger candidates, and suggest merger fractions between 25-40% at $`0.5<z<2`$. However, morphological studies of the most distant galaxies - the Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) - have produced confusing and conflicting conclusions. Initial HST WFPC2 observations of the rest-frame far-ultraviolet morphologies of 20 $`z>3`$ galaxies found that they possessed one or more compact “cores” with sizes similar to present-day spiral bulges (Giavalisco et al. 1996). More recent ACS observations of large numbers of $`2<z<6`$ LBGs have confirmed ultraviolet half-light radii between 1.5 and 3.5 kpc and concentrations similar to local bulges and ellipticals (Ferguson et al. 2003). However, these LBGs have an ellipticity distribution more like disk galaxies than ellipsoids, leading to the conclusion that LBGs are drawn from a mixture of morphological types. Rest-frame optical observations in the near-infrared with NICMOS have shown that the observed LBG morphologies are not a strong function of wavelength (Papovich et al. 2001; Dickinson 1999), and that LBGs have internal far-UV - optical color dispersions much smaller than $`z1`$ galaxies (Papovich 2002). LBGs are significantly bluer than local galaxies, and it is likely that their ultraviolet and optical morphologies are dominated by young stars. Their small sizes, high concentrations, and high star-formation rates suggest that many are precursors to local spiral bulges. However, surface-brightness dimming may prevent the detection of faint tidal tails and some appear to possess multiple nuclei. In a recent study of the optical morphologies of the Hubble Deep Field North galaxies, Conselice et al. (2003) found that 7 out of 18 $`z<3`$, $`M_B<21`$ galaxies possess corrected asymmetries greater than 0.35, implying that up to 50% are recent mergers. However, as we found in §4, asymmetry is not as sensitive by itself at detecting merger remnants as it is in combination with $`C`$ or $`G`$. Here we re-examine the optical morphologies of the HDFN high-redshift galaxy sample using $`C`$, $`G`$, and $`M_{20}`$, and we attempt to classify these galaxies as ellipticals, disks, or recent mergers.

The Hubble Deep Field North has 27 spectroscopically-confirmed high-redshift galaxies and 70 additional candidates with $`1.7<z<4`$ and $`H<25.0`$ (Papovich et al. 2001 and references therein) . At these redshifts, the near-ultraviolet and optical regions of the galaxies spectral energy distributions have been shifted to redward of 1 $`\mu `$m, and therefore require infrared observations to directly compare their morphologies to the rest-frame near-UV/optical morphologies of local galaxies. The HDFN has been observed with the NICMOS camera 3 in the F110W ($`J`$) and F160W ($`H`$) band-passes ($`\lambda _{eff}=1.1\mu `$m, $`1.6\mu `$m) down to a 10 $`\sigma `$ limiting magnitude of 26.5 (Dickinson 1999, HST Cycle 7 program 7817). Most of the HDFN LBGs are fainter than $`H=23.0`$; therefore, to increase their signal-to-noise per pixel, we have measured the morphologies of the LBG sample in a summed F110W and F160W image. The effective central wavelength of the summed LBG observations is $`1.3\mu `$m. Galaxies at $`z2`$ and 3 are observed at rest-frame wavelengths 4300Å and 3250Å respectively. Out of our initial sample of 97 $`H<25`$ $`1.7<z3.8`$ galaxies, 33 galaxies with $`1.7<z<2.3`$ and 16 galaxies with $`2.3z3.8`$ have $`<S/N>>2.0`$ (Table 7). We also give estimates of the rest-frame $`M_B`$ in AB magnitudes, computed by interpolating between the $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K_s`$ fluxes and assuming $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0.7, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 0.3 cosmology.

The NICMOS images offer the highest available resolution at near-UV/optical wavelengths for these galaxies. Nevertheless, the physical resolution of the $`z>2`$ galaxies is significantly worse than that for the local galaxy images. The dithered NIC3 observations have a pixel scale = 0.08″ per pixel and a PSF FWHM = 0.22 ″. At $`z2`$ this corresponds to a physical pixel scale of $`670`$ pc and PSF FWHM $``$ 1.8 kpc. Our simulations in §3 showed that these resolutions produce strong biases in the measured morphologies which are often a function of morphological type. The well-defined correlations of local galaxy morphologies are likely to change significantly with these biases. Therefore we compare the LBG morphologies to local galaxy images which have been measured from degraded $`u`$-band and $`B/g`$-band images. The galaxies are selected to lie in the same $`(M_BM^{})`$ range (Figure 15), assuming $`M^{}=20.1`$ locally (Blanton et al. 2003b) and $`M^{}=22.9`$ at $`z2`$ (Shapley et al. 2001). This selection tests a “passive” evolutionary scenario, in which the local galaxies were brighter in the past but did not evolve morphologically. We select local galaxies observed in $`B/g`$ with $`3.5(M_BM^{})1.0`$ to compare to a similarly selected $`z2`$ sample, and local galaxies observed in $`u`$ with $`2.5(M_BM^{})0.5`$ to compare to the $`z3`$ sample.

The local galaxies images were first deconvolved in the standard way in IDL: we divide the Fourier transform of the image by the Fourier transform of the PSF, and compute the inverse Fourier transform of the result. Next they were re-binned to the pixel scale of galaxies observed at $`z=2`$ (670 pc per pixel) or $`z=3`$ (616 pc per pixel), and convolved with the NIC3 PSF (FWHM = 0.22″= 2.75 pixels). The galaxy fluxes were scaled to the count rate for an $`M^{}`$ galaxy at $`z=2`$ or $`z=3`$ observed by NICMOS in $`F110W`$ \+ $`F160W`$. Finally, a blank region of NICMOS HDFN combined $`F110W`$ $`+`$ $`F160W`$ image was added to the redshifted galaxy images to simulate the effects of sky noise. (Note that we do not conserve the luminosities of the local galaxy sample. Many local galaxies would not be visible at $`z=23`$ in the rest-frame $`u`$ or $`B`$, and Lyman break galaxies are typically two magnitudes brighter than local galaxies. Our simulations in §3 suggest that at $`<S/N>>2`$, spatial resolution will dominate any morphological biases.)

We find that the poor spatial resolution of $`z=23`$ galaxies is expected to significantly bias their observed morphologies. In Table 8, we give the simulated mean biases in $`C`$, $`A`$, $`S`$, $`G`$, and $`M_{20}`$ for early, mid, and late-type galaxies at $`z=2`$ and $`z=3`$ observed at $``$ 1.3$`\mu `$m. A scatter of $`0.13`$ is introduced to the $`A`$ measurements, making it ineffective at distinguishing between early and late-type galaxies. $`S`$ also has large uncertainties at these resolutions, and large biases for E/S0s as a result of their unresolved centers. $`C`$ and $`M_{20}`$ are also significantly biased as a function of morphological type, but have a greater dynamical range and therefore are still useful. $`G`$ remains a reliable unbiased diagnostic out to at least $`z3`$ for the NICMOS HDFN plate scale and PSF (Table 8).

Given these biases, the some of the observed LBG morphologies appear to be similar to the morphologies of local early-type galaxies (Figures 16-17). However, some of the $`z23`$ galaxies have higher Gini coefficients and/or asymmetries than expected from the degraded local galaxy images (Figure 16), and one $`z3`$ object has a double nucleus, resulting in a much higher asymmetry and $`M_{20}`$ than any of the degraded local galaxy images. We have applied a series of two-dimensional KS-tests to the LBG sample and degraded local galaxy simulations, similar to the ones used in §4 (Table 9). We find that the $`z`$ 2 LBG sample has a less than $`0.4\%`$ probability of matching the degraded $`B/g`$ band local galaxy morphologies for all combinations of $`CAGM_{20}`$, except for $`CM_{20}`$ where systematic biases are the strongest. The $`z3`$ LBGs are more likely to be drawn from a populations of galaxies with “normal” morphologies ($`>`$ 2% probability); however fewer galaxies are observed in the $`z3`$ and the $`u`$-band local galaxy samples, and one galaxy is highly asymmetric. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the $`z2`$ galaxies have morphologies identical to local elliptical/S0 or spiral galaxies; rather their high $`G`$ and moderate $`A`$ values suggest that they are more like the ULIRG population (Figures 10-12).

## 6 SUMMARY

We have re-defined the Gini coefficient in Equation 6 as a statistic for measuring the distribution of flux values within a galaxy’s image, and introduced $`M_{20}`$ (Equation 8), the second-order moment of the brightest 20% of the galaxy’s flux. These two indices are complementary, non-parametric morphology measures. We have tested robustness of $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$ to decreasing $`S/N`$ and resolution and found them to change by less than 10% for average $`S/N`$ per pixel $``$ 2 and resolutions better than 500 pc. At worse resolutions, $`C`$, $`A`$, and $`M_{20}`$ have systematic biases which are a function of Hubble type, while $`S`$ becomes unreliable. $`G`$, on the other hand, appears to be remarkably stable at low resolutions and therefore is a powerful tool for classifying the morphologies of high-redshift galaxies.

We have measured $`C`$, $`A`$, $`S`$, $`G`$, and $`M_{20}`$ from the near-UV/optical images of 170 local E-S0-Sa-Sb-Sc-Sd-dI galaxies, 73 $`z0.2`$ ULIRGs, and 49 $`1.7<z<3.8`$ Lyman break galaxies. We find that:

1)Normal Hubble-type galaxies follow a tight $`GM_{20}C`$ sequence. Early-type and bulge-dominated systems have high Gini coefficients and concentrations and low second-order moments as a result of their bright and compact bulges. Shallower surface brightness profiles, spiral arms, and off-center star clusters give late-type disks lower Gini coefficients and concentrations and higher second-order moments.

2) In combination with $`A`$ and $`S`$, $`G`$ is more effective than $`C`$ at distinguishing ULIRGs from normal Hubble types. We also find that most ULIRGs lie above the $`GM_{20}`$ sequence and can be identified by by their higher $`G`$ and $`M_{20}`$ values. The high Gini coefficients arise from very bright compact nuclei, while multiple nuclei and bright tidal features produce large second-order moments.

3) ULIRGs with double and multiple nuclei have a statistically different distribution in morphology space than single nuclei ULIRGs. ULIRGs with double/multiple nuclei typically have higher second-order moments and asymmetries and slightly lower concentrations than single nuclei ULIRGs. Singly-nucleated ULIRGs are more likely to possess low asymmetries and low second-order moments, and often have higher concentrations and Gini coefficients than ULIRGs in well-separated galaxy pairs.

4) Many of HDFN galaxies at $`z2`$ have higher rest-frame $`B`$-band Gini coefficients and asymmetries than expected for local elliptical and spiral galaxies degraded to the same resolution. Instead, these objects are most similar in morphology to local ULIRGs.

Our revised Gini coefficient has proven itself to be a highly robust and unbiased non-parametric morphological indicator for $`z>2`$ galaxies observed at HST NICMOS resolution, and therefore has opened a window into the morphologies and assembly of the earliest galaxies. At lower redshifts, and in combination with $`M_{20}`$, $`A`$, and $`S`$, the Gini coefficient allows us to more precisely classify galaxy morphologies and identify merger candidates. In our next paper, we analyze a suite of hydrodynamical galaxy merger simulations to predict the evolution of merging galaxies in G-M-C-A-S morphology space. These simulations will explore a range of merger mass ratios, orbital parameters, and star-formation feedback efficiencies, and will trace the spatial distribution of dark matter, gas, and old and new stars as a function of time (Cox et al. 2004).

We would like to thank T.J. Cox and P. Jonsson for their valuable input and careful reading of this manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge C. Conselice for his comments and access to his morphology analysis code, M. Dickinson for use of the NICMOS Hubble Deep Field North observations, and the anonymous referee for their useful suggestions. Support for J.L. was provided by NASA through grant number 9515 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. J.P. acknowledges support from NSF through grant AST-0205944 and NASA through NAG5-12326. P.M. acknowledges support by NASA through grants NAG5-11513 and GO-09425.19A from the Space Telescope Science Institute.

This work is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute, and observations from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.


text:
# ON A SUM INVOLVING THE PRIME COUNTING FUNCTION 𝜋(𝑥)

 J.-M. De Koninck and A. Ivić, Topics in Arithmetical Functions, Notas de Matemática 43, North-Holland, Amsterdam etc., 1980.

 A. Ivić, The Riemann zeta-function, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985.

 L. Panaitopol, A formula for $`\pi (x)`$ applied to a result of Koninck-Ivić, Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde 5/1(2000), 55-56.

Aleksandar Ivić

Katedra Matematike RGF-a

Universitet u Beogradu

-Dušina 7, 11000 Beograd

Serbia and Montenegro

aivicmatf.bg.ac.yu, aivicrgf.bg.ac.yu