text:
# On the Number of Elements Needed in a POVM Attaining the Accessible Information

## Abstract

We investigate an symmetric set of three quantum states in three dimensions with interesting properties, which we call the lifted trine states. We show that for the ensemble consisting of the three lifted trine states taken with equal probabilities, the POVM measurement realizing the accessible information must contain six projectors, giving a counter-example to a conjecture of Levitin.

Keywords: Quantum measurement; Accessible information; POVM’s

Accessible information was one of the first information-theoretic quantities investigated with respect to quantum systems. The accessible information of an ensemble of quantum states is the maximum mutual information obtainable between the states of the ensemble and the outcomes of a POVM (positive operator valued measurement) on these states. In this paper, we investigate how complicated a measurement which achieves the accessible information must be. Davies’ theorem gives a maximum on the number of elements of the POVM needed to attain the accessible information; namely, if the ensemble being considered is contained in a $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space, then at most $`d^2`$ elements are needed in an optimal POVM. When all the states are real, this bound can be improved to $`d(d1)/2`$ . C. Fuchs and A. Peres  have done numerical studies on ensembles containing only two elements. They found no examples where more than $`d`$ states were needed; that is, they found that the optimal measurement could always be a von Neumann measurement. In two dimensions, this was proved by Levitin , who also conjectured that in $`d`$ dimensions, if the number of quantum states in the ensemble is at most $`d`$, a von Neumann measurement is sufficient to attain the accessible information. In this paper, we give an ensemble of three real quantum states in three dimensions, where a POVM attaining the accessible information must contain at least six elements, the maximum by Davies’ theorem.

We investigate the accessible information of an ensemble consisting of three quantum states we call the lifted trine states, with equal probabilities on these states. The lifted trine states are obtained by starting with the two-dimensional quantum trine states: $`(1,0)`$, $`(1/2,\sqrt{3}/2)`$, $`(1/2,\sqrt{3}/2)`$, introduced by Holevo  and later studied by Peres and Wootters . We add a third dimension to the Hilbert space of the trine states, and lift all of the trine states out the plane into this dimension by an angle of $`\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{\alpha }`$, so the states become $`(\sqrt{1\alpha },0,\sqrt{\alpha })`$, and so forth. We will be dealing with small $`\alpha `$ (roughly, $`\alpha <.1`$), so that they are close to being planar. This is the most interesting regime. When the trine states are lifted further out of the plane, they start behaving in relatively uninteresting ways until they are close to being vertical; then they start being interesting again, but this second regime is beyond the scope of this paper. The lifted trine states are thus:

$`T_0(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{1\alpha },0,\sqrt{\alpha })`$
$`T_1(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\alpha },\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\sqrt{1\alpha },\sqrt{\alpha })`$ (1)
$`T_2(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\alpha },\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\sqrt{1\alpha },\sqrt{\alpha })`$
When it is clear what $`\alpha `$ is, we may drop it from the notation and use $`T_0`$, $`T_1`$, and $`T_2`$.

In this section, we find the accessible information for this ensemble of lifted trine states. The accessible information is defined as the maximal mutual information between the trine states (with probabilities $`\frac{1}{3}`$ each) and the elements of a POVM measuring these states. Because the lifted trine states are real vectors, it follows from the version of Davies’ theorem for real states  that there is an optimal POVM with at most six elements, all the components of which are real. The lifted trine states are three-fold symmetric, so by symmetrizing we can assume that the optimal POVM is three-fold symmetric (possibly at the cost of introducing extra POVM elements). Also, the optimal POVM can be taken to have one-dimensional elements $`E`$, so the elements can be described as vectors $`|v_i`$ where $`E_i=|v_iv_i|`$. This means that there is an optimal POVM whose vectors come in triples of the form: $`\sqrt{p}P_0(\varphi ,\theta )`$, $`\sqrt{p}P_1(\varphi ,\theta )`$, $`\sqrt{p}P_2(\varphi ,\theta )`$, where $`p`$ is a scalar probability and

$`P_0(\varphi ,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$
$`P_1(\varphi ,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}(\theta +2\pi /3),\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}(\theta +2\pi /3),\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$ (2)
$`P_2(\varphi ,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}(\theta 2\pi /3),\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}(\theta 2\pi /3),\mathrm{sin}\varphi ).`$
Suppose that the optimal POVM has several such triples, which we call $`\sqrt{p_1}P_b(\varphi _1,\theta _1)`$, $`\sqrt{p_2}P_b(\varphi _2,\theta _2)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\sqrt{p_m}P_b(\varphi _m,\theta _m)`$. It is easily seen that the conditions for this set of vectors to be a POVM are that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}p_i\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _i)=1/3\mathrm{and}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}p_i=1.$$
(3)
The formula for accessible information $`I_A`$ can be broken into pieces so that each triple contributes a linear amount to $`I_A`$. That is, $`I_A`$ is the weighted average (weighted according to $`p_i`$) of some contribution $`I(\varphi ,\theta )`$ from each $`(\varphi ,\theta )`$. To show this, recall that $`I_A`$ is the mutual information between the input and the output, and this can be expressed as the entropy of the input less the entropy of the input given the output, $`H(X_{\mathrm{in}})H(X_{\mathrm{in}}|X_{\mathrm{out}})`$. The term $`H(X_{\mathrm{in}}|X_{\mathrm{out}})`$ naturally decomposes into terms corresponding to the various POVM outcomes, and there are several ways of assigning the entropy of the input $`H(X_{\mathrm{in}})`$ to the various POVM elements in order to complete this decomposition. Following this analysis eventually gives the same answer as is obtained below (and is in fact how I arrived at it). I briefly sketch this analysis so as to give the intuition behind it, and then go into detail in a second analysis, which is superior in that it explains the form of the answer.

For each $`\varphi `$, and each $`\alpha `$, there is a $`\theta `$ that optimizes $`I(\varphi ,\theta )`$. This $`\theta `$ starts out at $`\pi /6`$ for $`\varphi =0`$, decreases until it hits 0 at some value of $`\varphi `$ (which depends on $`\alpha `$), and stays at $`0`$ until $`\varphi `$ reaches its maximum value of $`\pi /2`$. For a fixed $`\alpha `$, by finding (numerically) the optimal value of $`\theta `$ for each $`\varphi `$ and using it to obtain the contribution to $`I_A`$ attributable to that $`\varphi `$, we get a curve giving the optimal contribution to $`I_A`$ for each $`\varphi `$. If this curve is plotted, with the $`x`$-value being $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ and the $`y`$-value being the contribution to $`I_A`$, an optimal POVM is obtained from the set of points on this curve whose average $`x`$-value is $`1/3`$ (from Eq. 3), and whose average $`y`$-value is as large as possible given this constraint on the $`x`$-values. A simple convexity argument shows that we only need at most two points from the curve to obtain this optimum, and that we will need one or two points depending on whether the relevant part of the curve is concave or convex. For small $`\alpha `$, it turns out that the relevant piece of the curve is convex, and we need two $`\varphi `$’s to achieve the maximum. Each of these $`\varphi `$’s corresponds to a triple of POVM elements. One of the $`(\varphi ,\theta )`$ pairs is $`(0,\pi /6)`$, and the other is $`(\varphi _\alpha ,0)`$ for some $`\varphi _\alpha >\mathrm{arcsin}(1/\sqrt{3})`$. The formula for this $`\varphi _\alpha `$ will be derived later.

The analysis in the remainder of this section shows that this six-outcome optimal POVM can be described in a different way, which unifies the optimal measurements for the different $`\alpha `$’s. For small $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha <\gamma _1`$ for some constant $`\gamma _1`$), we first take the trine $`T_b(\alpha )`$ and make a partial measurement which either projects it down to the $`x,y`$ plane or lifts it further out of the plane so that it becomes the trine $`T_b(\gamma _1)`$. (Note that $`\gamma _1`$ is independent of $`\alpha `$.) If the trine was projected into the $`x,y`$ plane, we make a second measurement using the POVM with outcome vectors $`\sqrt{2/3}(0,1)`$ and $`\sqrt{2/3}(\pm \sqrt{3}/2,1/2)`$. This is the optimal POVM for trines in the $`x,y`$-plane. If the trine was lifted up, we use the von Neumann measurement that projects onto the basis containing $`(\sqrt{2/3},0,\sqrt{1/3})`$ and $`(\sqrt{1/6},\pm \sqrt{1/2},\sqrt{1/3})`$. If $`\alpha `$ is larger than $`\gamma _1`$ (but still smaller than $`8/9`$) we skip the first partial measurement, and just use the above von Neumann measurement. Here, $`\gamma _1`$ is obtained by numerically solving a fairly complicated equation; we suspect that no closed form expression for $`\gamma _1`$ exists. The value of $`\gamma _1`$ is .061367, which is $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ for $`\varphi =.25033`$ radians ($`14.343^{}`$).

We now give more details on this decomposition of the POVM into a two-step process. We first apply a partial measurement which does not extract all of the quantum information, i.e., it leaves a quantum residual state that is not completely determined by the measurement outcome. Formally, we apply one of a set of matrices $`A_i`$ satisfying $`_iA_i^{}A_i=I`$. If we start with a pure state $`|v`$, we observe the $`i`$’th outcome with probability $`v\left|A_i^{}A_i\right|v`$, and in this case the state $`|v`$ is taken to the state $`A_i|v`$. For our purposes, we choose as the $`A_i`$’s the matrices $`\sqrt{p_i}M(\varphi _i)`$ where

$$M(\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \end{array}\right)$$
(4)
The $`\sqrt{p_i}M(\varphi _i)`$ will form a valid partial measurement if and only if $`_ip_i\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _i)`$ $`=`$ $`1/3`$ and $`_ip_i=1`$, the same conditions \[Eq. (3)\] as for the $`P_b(\varphi _i,\theta _i)`$. By first applying the above $`\sqrt{p_i}M(\varphi _i)`$, and then applying the von Neumann measurement with the three basis vectors

$`V_0(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta ),\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}(\theta ),\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}})`$
$`V_1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta +2\pi /3),\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}(\theta +2\pi /3),\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}})`$ (5)
$`V_2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta 2\pi /3),\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}(\theta 2\pi /3),\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}})`$
we obtain the POVM given by the vectors $`\sqrt{p_i}P_b(\theta _i,\varphi _i)`$; checking this is simply a matter of verifying that $`V_b(\theta )M(\varphi )=P_b(\theta ,\varphi )`$. Now, after applying $`\sqrt{p_i}M(\varphi _i)`$ to the trine $`T_0(\alpha )`$, we get the vector

$$(\sqrt{3/2}\sqrt{1\alpha }\sqrt{p_i}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i,0,\sqrt{3}\sqrt{\alpha }\sqrt{p_i}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _i).$$
(6)
This is just the state $`\sqrt{p_i^{}}T_0(\alpha _i^{})`$ where $`T_0(\alpha _i^{})`$ is the trine state with

$$\alpha _i^{}=\frac{\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _i}{\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _i+\frac{1}{2}(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _i}$$
(7)
and

$$p_i^{}=3p_i\left[\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +\frac{1}{2}(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \right]$$
(8)
is the probability that we observe this trine state, given that we started with $`T_0(\alpha )`$. Similar formulae hold for the trine states $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$. We compute that

$$\underset{i}{}p_i^{}\alpha _i^{}=\underset{i}{}3p_i\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _i)=\alpha .$$
(9)
Also notice that the first stage of this process, the partial measurement which applies the matrices $`\sqrt{p_i}M(\varphi _i)`$, reveals no information about which of $`T_0`$, $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ that we started with. Thus, by the chain rule for classical Shannon information , the accessible information obtained by our two-stage measurement is just the weighted average (the weights being $`p_i^{}`$) of the maximum over $`\theta `$ of the Shannon mutual information $`I_{\alpha _i^{}}(\theta )`$ between the outcome of the von Neumann measurement $`V(\theta )`$ and the trines $`T(\alpha _i^{})`$. By convexity, it suffices to use only two values of $`\alpha _i^{}`$ to obtain this maximum. In fact, the optimum is obtained using either one or two values of $`\alpha _i^{}`$ depending on whether the function

$$I_\alpha ^{}=\underset{\theta }{\mathrm{max}}I_\alpha ^{}(\theta )$$

is concave or convex over the appropriate region. In the remainder of this section, we give the results of computing (numerically) the values of this function $`I_\alpha ^{}`$, and we show that for small enough $`\alpha `$ it is convex, so that we need two values of $`\alpha ^{}`$. We will then show that obtaining this maximum requires a POVM with six outcomes.

We need to calculate the Shannon capacity of the channel whose input is one of the three trine states $`T(\alpha ^{})`$, and whose output is determined by the von Neumann measurement $`V(\theta )`$. Because of the symmetry, we can calculate this using only the first projector $`V_0`$. The Shannon mutual information between the input and the output is $`H(X_{\mathrm{in}})H(X_{\mathrm{in}}|X_{\mathrm{out}})`$, which is

$$I_\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{log}_23+\underset{b=0}{\overset{2}{}}V_0(\theta )|T_b(\alpha ^{})^2\mathrm{log}\left(V_0(\theta )|T_b(\alpha ^{})^2\right).$$
(10)
We compute that the $`\theta `$ giving the maximum $`I_\alpha ^{}`$ is $`\pi /6`$ when $`\alpha ^{}=0`$, decreases continuously to 0 at $`\alpha ^{}=.056651`$ and remains 0 for larger $`\alpha ^{}`$. (See Fig. 1.) This value $`.056651`$ corresponds to an angle of .24032 radians ($`13.769^{}`$). This $`\theta `$ was determined by using the computer package Maple to numerically find the point at which $`dI_\alpha (\theta )/d\theta =0`$.

By plugging this optimum $`\theta `$ into the formula for $`I_\alpha ^{}`$, we obtain the optimum von Neumann measurement of the form $`V`$ above. We believe that this is also the optimal generic von Neumann measurement, but we have not proved this. The maximum of $`I_\alpha ^{}(\theta )`$ over $`\theta `$, and curves that show the behavior of $`I_\alpha ^{}(\theta )`$ for constant $`\theta `$, are plotted in Fig. 2. We can now observe that the first part of the curve is convex, and thus that for small $`\alpha `$ the best POVM will have six projectors, corresponding to two values of $`\alpha ^{}`$. We calculate that for trine states with $`\alpha <.061367`$, the two values of $`\alpha ^{}`$ giving the maximum accessible information are $`0`$ and $`.061367`$; we will let $`\gamma _1=.061367`$ be this second value. The trine states $`T(\gamma _1)`$ make an angle of .25033 radians ($`14.343^{}`$) with the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. The accessible information thus obtained is plotted in Fig. 3.

We can now invert the formula for $`\alpha ^{}`$ (Eq. 7) to obtain a formula for $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi )`$, and substitute the value of $`\alpha ^{}=\gamma _1`$ back into the formula to obtain the optimal POVM. We find

$`\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{1+\alpha \left(\frac{23\gamma _1}{\gamma _1}\right)}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{1+29.591\alpha }}`$
where $`\gamma _1=.061367`$ as above. Thus, the elements in the optimal POVM we have found for the trines $`T(\alpha )`$, when $`\alpha <\gamma _1`$, are the six vectors $`P_b(\varphi _\alpha ,0)`$ and $`P_b(0,\pi /6)`$, where $`\varphi _\alpha `$ is given by Eq. 11 and $`b=0,1,2`$. We must also prove there are no other POVM’s which attain the same accessible information. The argument above shows that any optimal POVM must contain only projectors chosen from these six vectors: only those two values of $`\alpha ^{}`$ can give the maximum capacity, and for each of these values of $`\alpha ^{}`$ there are only three projectors in $`V(\theta )`$ which can maximize $`I_\alpha ^{}`$ for these $`\alpha ^{}`$. It is easy to check that there is only one set of probabilities $`p_i`$ which make the above six vectors into a POVM, and that none of these probabilities are 0 for $`0<\alpha <\gamma _1`$. Thus, for the lifted trine states with $`0<\alpha <.061367`$, there is only one POVM maximizing accessible information, and it contains six elements, the maximum possible for real states by a generalization of Davies’ theorem .


format: text

text:
# Evidence for the singlet-dimer ground state in an 𝑆 = 1 antiferromagnetic bond alternating chain

## Abstract

Susceptibility, ESR and magnetization measurements have been performed on single crystals of an $`S`$=1 bond alternating chain compound: \[Ni(333-tet)($`\mu `$-NO2)\](ClO4) (333-tet = $`N`$,$`N`$’-bis(3-aminopropyl)propane-1,3-diamine) and the compound doped with a small amount of Zn. We observed an anomalous angular dependence in the Zn-doped sample. These behaviors are well explained by the model based on the VBS picture for the singlet-dimer phase. The picture implies that the free spins of $`S`$=1 with a positive single-ion anisotropy are induced at the edges of the chains without forming the singlet-dimer.

For the last two decades, studies of quantum spin systems have spread not only to linear-chain Heisenberg antiferromagnets (LCHA’s) but also to LCHA’s with complicated interactions, e.g., bond alternating interaction and next-nearst-neighbor interaction. The variety of the ground states appearing in these systems attracts much attention. Among them, the $`S=1`$ antiferromagnetic bond alternating chain (BAC) has been the subject of great interest, because the system shows two different singlet ground states with an excitation gap, so-called singlet-dimer and Haldane, depending on the bond alternating ratio $`\alpha `$ between two different neighboring exchange constants, the excitation spectrum is gapless only at the phase separating point. These theoretical predictions have been checked by some numerical calculations and confirmed by recent experimental works (magnetization and susceptibility measurements).

The singlet-dimer and the Haldane states can be characterized distinctly by the representation based on the VBS(Valence-Bond-Solid) picture which was proposed by Affleck $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙}.`$ for the $`S`$=1 LCHA with a biquadratic term. According to this picture, spin-1 is obtained by symmetrization of two spin-1/2 variables. The Haldane state is constructed out of valence bonds connecting each neighboring pair of spin-1/2 as shown in Fig. 1(a). On the other hands, the siglet-dimer state consists of two valence bonds in coupled pair of spin-1 as shown in Fig. 1(b). We shall consider the situation of nonmagnetic impurity doping. In this case, the Haldane state becomes nearly fourfold degenerate because of two $`S`$ =1/2 degrees of freedom emerging at the both edges adjacent to the impurities as shown in Fig. 1(c). This interesting feature in the Haldane state has been firstly observed by the ESR experiment of Cu-doped NENP well known as a candidate compound for the $`S`$=1 LCHA. Applying this scenario to the singlet-dimer state, $`S`$ = 1 degrees of freedom are induced at the decoupled sites neighboring the impurities as shown in Fig. 1(d). It should be stressed that the single-ion anisotoropy is relevant only to the case of the $`S`$ = 1. In other words, the knowledge of the anisotoropy informs us whether the ground state is in the singlet-dimer phase or the Haldane phase. Therefore, the experimental study on the dilute system becomes a powerful method to investigate the ground state nature.

In this paper, we report the results of susceptibility, ESR and magnetization measurements performed on single crystals of the BAC compound: \[Ni(333-tet)($`\mu `$-NO2)\](ClO4) (333-tet = $`N`$,$`N`$’-bis(3-aminopropyl)propane-1,3-diamine) (abbreviated as NTENP) and the compound doped with a small amount of Zn (abbreviated as NTENP:Zn) . The experimental results are analyzed by the model based on the VBS picture and we will discuss the ground state of the BAC.

NTENP crystallizes in the triclinic system, space group $`P\overline{1}`$. The lattice constants and angles at room temperature are $`a`$=10.747(3)Å, $`b`$=9.413(2)Å, $`c`$=8.789(2)Å, $`\alpha `$=95.52(2), $`\beta `$=108.98(3) and $`\gamma `$=106.83(3). The chain is composed of Ni2+ ions bridging through nitrito groups. The nitrito groups are disordered as is common in this kind of compound. Each chain is well isolated by ClO$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ counter anions through which no hydrogen bonds exist. The most important feature is that the inversion centers place not on the Ni2+ ions but on the nitrito groups and two different bond distances of 2.142(3) and 2.432(6) Å exist through them. As a result, this compound is expected to be the BAC. Escuer $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙}.`$ estimated the alternating ratio to be $`\alpha `$ = 0.88 by the susceptibility measurement of the polycrystalline sample.

Susceptibility data were collected with SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design’s MPMS-XL7L) and magnetization measurements were performed by using a pulse magnet at KYOKUGEN in Osaka University. ESR measurements were carried out with a homemade spectrometer installed at RIKEN. We used the single crystals of pure and impure samples about 20 mg with an approximate dimension of 2mm $`\times `$ 2mm $`\times `$ 2mm for susceptibility and magnetization measurements. For the impure sample, a Zn concentration was estimated to be 3.5 $`\pm `$ 0.4 at.% by a chemical analysis. Figure 2 shows the temperature dependence of the susceptibilities ($`\chi (T)`$) of NTENP and NTENP:Zn. The magnetic fields ($`H`$) are applied parallel and perpendicular to the chains for both samples. First we go into details about the pure NTENP. The $`\chi (T)`$’s have a round maximum at about 50 K for $`H`$ // chain and 53 K for $`H`$ chain. The maximum value of the $`\chi (T)`$ for $`H`$ // chain is larger than that for $`H`$ chain by about 10 %. With decreasing temperature further, the $`\chi (T)`$’s of both axes fall gradually toward zero, showing that the compound has the singlet ground state with a finite spin gap. We calculated the $`\chi (T)`$ for $`H`$ // chain by Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method (96 sites). The Hamiltonian is defined as

$`_{chain}=J{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L/2}{}}}(𝑺_{2i1}𝑺_{2i}+\alpha 𝑺_{2i}𝑺_{2i+1})`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}}D(S_i^z)^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\mu _\mathrm{B}𝑺_i\stackrel{~}{g}𝑯,`$ (2)
where $`J`$ is the nearest neighbor exchange constant for the strong bond, $`\alpha `$ the bond alternating ratio, $`L`$ the size of the chain, $`𝑺_i`$ the $`S`$=1 spin operator at the site of $`i`$, $`D`$ the uniaxial single-ion anisotropy constant, $`S_i^z`$ the $`z`$-component of $`𝑺_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ the $`g`$-tensor, $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ the Bohr magneton, and $`𝑯`$ the magnetic field. The chain direction is assumed to be the principal $`z`$-axis. Then the $`\chi (T)`$ along the chain is well reproduced by the parameters of $`\alpha `$ = 0.45, $`J/k_B`$ = 54.2 K, $`g`$ = 2.14 and $`D/J`$ = 0.25 ($`D/k_B`$ = 13.6 K) as shown in Fig. 3(a). Thus, the ground state of this compound must be in the singlet-dimer phase. The main reason for disagreement between our result and the $`\chi (T)`$ obtained by Escuer $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙}.`$ must be that the $`\chi (T)`$ of a polycrystal sample was analyzed without taking anisotropies of the single-ion and the $`g`$-values into account in the previous work.

Next we mention the case of NTENP:Zn. Below about 50 K, the $`\chi (T)`$’s exhibit anomalous behaviors depending on the field direction, though the $`\chi (T)`$’s at high temperatures are quite similar to those of pure NTENP. For $`H`$ // chain, the $`\chi (T)`$ remains almost flat from 50 K to 5 K, and then drops suddenly toward zero as if a long range ordering or a spin-Peierls transition occurs. On the other hand, the $`\chi (T)`$ of $`H`$ chain decreases slightly below about 50 K and rises markedly around 15 K with decreasing temperature further. The coincidence of the $`\chi (T)`$’s of the impure sample with those of the pure one in the high temperature region shows that in spite of impurity doping the bulk nature of the BAC does not change so much. Let us discuss the ground state properties in view of the VBS picture. As we mentioned before, this compound must have the singlet-dimer ground state, therefore, $`S`$ =1 free spins are expected to be induced at the edges of the chain broken by Zn2+ ions and to behave anisotropically because of the single-ion anisotropy.

For a microscopic discussion of this picture, we performed ESR measurements of NTENP:Zn and show the frequency-field diagram for $`H`$ // chain (see Fig. 4). Observed ESR lines correspond to transitions between the singlet and the doublet states separated by the uniaxal single-ion anisotropy as shown in the inset of Fig. 4. It is noteworthy that the level crossing occurs at 3.5 T lower than the transition field originated from the spin gap of the bulk BAC as discussed later in the magnetization measurements. According to the analysis based on the model of $`S`$=1 free spin with $`D`$-term, the Hamiltonian is given by

$$_{edge}=D^{}(s^z)^2\mu _\mathrm{B}𝒔\stackrel{~}{g}^{}𝑯,$$
(3)
where $`𝒔`$, $`D^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}`$ are the spin operator, the uniaxal single-ion anisotoropy constant and $`g`$-tensor of the edge spin $`s`$, respectively. The ESR results gave us these parameters of $`D^{}/k_B`$ = 5.12 K and $`g_{//}^{}`$ = 2.17 for $`H`$ // chain. We notice that the $`D^{}`$ of the edge spin differs from the $`D`$ of the bulk chain. For $`H`$ chain, we got the $`g_{}^{}`$ = 2.13. The detail of the result will be published elsewhere.

Let us now return to the $`\chi (T)`$ analysis of NTENP:Zn. If the length $`L`$ of the chains broken by Zn2+ is enough longer than the correlation length of the system, the edge spins may behave independently. Yamamoto calculated the spin correlation legth $`\xi _{SS}`$ of the BAC system and the singlet-dimer ground state with $`\alpha `$ = 0.45 has $`\xi _{SS}`$ 5.8. In fact the chain length of this compound is estimated to be about 30 sites on the average according to the Zn concentration of $`x`$ = 0.035. We ignore the case that Zn2+ ions are placed side by side because of the low concentration of Zn. Then, the $`\chi (T)`$ of NTENP:Zn $`\chi _{imp}`$ can be written as

$$\chi _{imp}=(12x)\chi _{chain}+x\chi _{edge},$$
(4)
where the $`\chi _{chain}`$ is the $`\chi (T)`$ of the bulk chain part and $`\chi _{edge}`$ is that of the edge part. Concretely speaking, we used the $`\chi (T)`$ of the pure sample as $`\chi _{chain}`$ and calculated exactly the $`\chi (T)`$ of the $`S`$ = 1 free spin with $`D`$-term as $`\chi _{edge}`$ using the parameters of $`g`$ and $`D^{}`$ obtained from the ESR measurement. Figure 3(b) shows the comparison between the results of the expetiment and the calculations with a fitting parameter $`x`$. The anomalous angular dependence can be well explained by this superposition model for $`x=0.033`$. This $`x`$ value is reasonable for our chemical analysis.

In order to confirm the validity of this model, we have performed magnetization ($`M(H)`$) measurements. The experimental and calculated results are shown in Fig. 5 together with the $`M(H)`$ curves of the pure NTENP in the inset. For the pure NTENP, the $`M(H)`$ is almost zero below $`H_c`$ = 9.3 T and 12.4 T for $`H`$ // chain and $`H`$ $``$ chain, respectively ($`H_c`$: transition field). As the magnetic fields are applied further, we observe sharp increases with a convex curvature and then the $`M(H)`$’s increase almost linearly. It is obvious that these transitions are attributed to the level crossing between the singlet ground state and the excited triplet one. The $`H_c`$ for $`H`$ // chain is given by the following equation

$$H_{c//}=\frac{E_gD/3}{g_{//}\mu _B},$$
(5)
where $`E_g`$ is the energy gap of the BAC. We obtained $`E_g/J`$ = 0.33 ( $`E_g/k_B`$ = 17.9 K) showing that the ground sate is in the singlet-dimer phase with $`\alpha 0.43`$.

For $`H`$ // chain in the NTENP:Zn, we observe a sharp $`M(H)`$ bend around 3 T and a steep increase around 9 T. On the other hand, the $`M(H)`$ of $`H`$ chain seems to be typical of a paramagnet below about 12 T, where the $`M(H)`$ shows a further increase. There is no doubt that these transitions at high fields come from the bulk chain of this compound. We emphasize that a sharp $`M(H)`$ bend around 3 T along the chain likely arises from the level crossing of the lowest states due to the edge spin as seen in the ESR experiment. Thus, we compare the $`M(H)`$ curves to the calculated curves with the same equation as in the $`\chi (T)`$ analysis. The $`M(H)`$ of NTENP:Zn $`M_{imp}`$ is given by

$$M_{imp}=(12x)M_{chain}+xM_{edge},$$
(6)
where the $`M_{chain}`$ is the $`M(H)`$ of the pure NTENP and the $`M_{edge}`$ is the $`M(H)`$ calculated from the $`S`$ = 1 free spin with $`D`$-term. Here the same parameters as in the $`\chi (T)`$ analysis were used. We obtained a qualitatively good agreement, although the $`M(H)`$ increases above the transition fields are not very steep as those of the pure NTENP. The possible reason is that the system consists of assembly of the finite chains with different lengths. The gap energy decreases and converges a finite value with increasing the chain length. Therefore the average transition field shifts to the high field side and the transition must become broad. Besides, we can not deny the possibility that the interaction between the edge spins and the bulk spins affects these magnetic properties to some extent.

In conclusion, we have performed susceptibility, ESR and magnetization measurements of single crystals of the bond alternating chain compound NTENP and NTENP doped with a small amount of Zn. These experimental results shows that this compound has the singlet-dimer ground state with $`\alpha `$ = 0.45 . Furthermore we have firstly observed the edge state of the bond alternating chain, which is well described by the VBS picture that the free spins of $`S`$ = 1 with a positive single-ion anisotropy are induced at the sites without forming the singlet-dimer.

This study was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, and by the MR Science Research Program of RIKEN. M. Hagiwara thanks to K. Katsumata for access to the ESR spectrometer installed at RIKEN. Thanks are also due to the Chemical Analysis Unit in RIKEN.


text:
# Asphericity of galaxy clusters and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect

## 1 Introduction

Over the last few years, studies on galaxy clusters using X-ray emission observations have been a source of a tremendous increase in the litterature, especially those using Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect. The SZ effect (Sunyaev & Zel’dovich Sun72 (1972), Rephaeli Rep95 (1995), Birkinshaw Bir99 (1999)) is one of the major sources of secondary anisotropies of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) arising from inverse Compton scattering of the microwave photons by hot electrons in clusters of galaxies.
Many different works have been developed during recent years leading to the use of this effect for studies of cosmology (Bernstein & Dodelson Ber90 (1990); Aghanim, de Luca, Bouchet et al. Agh97 (1997); Barbosa, Bartlett, Blanchard et al. Bar96 (1996); Bartlett, Blanchard & Barbosa Bar98 (1998); Cooray Coo98 (1998)). Observations in the millimetre and submillimetre wavebands (Perrenod & Lada Per79 (1979); Chase et al. Cha87 (1987); Silverberg et al. Sil97 (1997)) give important information on the characteristics of clusters of galaxies. For example, by combining the SZ intensity change and the $`X`$-ray emission observations, and solving for the number density distribution of electrons responsible for both these effects (after assuming a certain geometrical shape), the angular diameter distance to galaxy clusters can be derived. Assuming a cosmological model, this leads to an estimate of the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ (Holzapfel, Arnaud, Ade et al., Hol97 (1997) for Abell 2163; Birkinshaw & Hughes, Bir94 (1994) for Abell 2218).
The SZ effect thus offers the possibility to put important constraints on the cosmological models. For this reason, different projects to measure the SZ effect are under way for example the MITO instrument (De Petris, Aquilina, Canonico et al., Dep96 (1996)) or (the longer term) the Planck mission (ESA report Esa97 (1997)).
The SZ effect is difficult to measure accurately, since systematic errors can be significant. For instance, Inagaki, Suginohara & Suto (Ina95 (1995)) made an analysis of the reliability of the Hubble constant determination based on the SZ effect.
An additional effect arises if the cluster has a peculiar velocity (kinematic effect). Several papers discussed the influence of the kinematic effect on the measurement of the thermal SZ effect (De Luca, Désert & Puget, Del95 (1995); Audit & Simmons, Aud99 (1999) for transverse clusters velocities). Note that the kinematic effect can thus be used to infer the peculiar velocity of clusters of galaxies, if the value of the Hubble constant is known (Rephaeli & Lahav, Rep91 (1991); Haehnelt & Tegmark, Hae96 (1996)). Another possible distortion on the SZ effect is due to gravitational lensing (Blain, Bla98 (1998); Roettiger et al., Roe97 (1997)).
The extension and the geometry of hot gas distribution in clusters of galaxies is also an important source of systematic errors in the SZ effect. Cooray (Coo98 (1998)) showed that projection effects of clusters can affect the calculations of the Hubble constant and the gas mass fraction. Recently, Sulkanen (Sul99 (1999)) showed that galaxy cluster shapes can produce systematic errors in $`H_0`$ measured via the SZ effect. It is thus necessary to know, at least approximately, the shape of the clusters, for instance, if they are oblate or prolate (Cooray Coo2000 (2000), Hughes & Birkinshaw hubi98 (1998)) or have a more general geometry.
The $`\beta `$-model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano Cav76 (1976)) is widely used in $`X`$-ray astronomy to parametrize the gas density profile in clusters of galaxies by fitting their surface brightness profile. Nevertheless, fitting an aspherical distribution with a spherical $`\beta `$-model can lead to an important inaccuracy (see Inagaki, Suginohara & Suto Ina95 (1995)).
The aim of this paper is to investigate the influence of the shape and the finite extension of an ellipsoidal cluster gas distribution on the SZ effect, and to discuss the possible errors induced in the inferred value for $`H_0`$. The paper is organized as follows:
In Section 2 we present the calculations of the SZ effect and the $`X`$-ray surface brightness for an ellipsoidal shape with an isothermal profile and a finite cluster extension. Details of the calculations are reported in two appendices.
Section 3 is then devoted to a quantitative discussion of the incidence of these effects on the SZ measurements, in particular, the finite extension and the geometry (prolate and oblate) of the cluster. The influence of a polytropic thermal profile on the SZ measurements is also considered.
The discussion and conclusion are given in Section 4.

## 2 Basic equations of the SZ effect and the X-ray surface brightness for an ellipsoidal geometry

Different $`X`$-ray surface brightness measurements in clusters of galaxies clearly indicate an asphericity of the cluster shape. Fabricant, Rybicki & Gorenstein (Fab84 (1984)) showed a pronounced ellipticity for the cluster Abell 2256 which indicates that the underlying density profile is aspherical. Allen et al. (All93 (1993)) reached the same conclusion for the profile of Abell 478, and Hughes, Gorenstein & Fabricant (Hug88 (1988)) for the Coma cluster. It is thus of relevance to study the influence of non-spherical shape on the results of clusters which have been reported so far.
Given the above results, we have assumed an ellipsoidal $`\beta `$ model:

$$n_e(r_x,r_y,r_z)=n_{eo}\left[1+\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_y^2}{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}\right]^{3\beta /2},$$
(1)
where $`n_{eo}`$ is the electron number density at the center of the cluster and $`\beta `$ is a free fitting parameter, which lies in the range $`1/2\beta 1`$. The set of coordinates $`r_x`$, $`r_y`$ and $`r_z`$, as well as the half axes of the ellipsoid, $`\zeta _1`$, $`\zeta _2`$ and $`\zeta _3`$, are defined in units of the core radius $`r_c`$ of the corresponding spherical shape.

The fractional temperature decrement $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{SZ}`$ of the cosmic microwave background due to the SZ effect is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_{SZ}=f(\omega )y$$
(2)
with

$$f(\omega )=\left[\frac{\omega (e^\omega +1)}{e^\omega 1}4\right],\mathrm{where}\omega =\frac{h\nu }{k_BT_{CMB}}\mathrm{and}$$
(3)
$`T_{CMB}`$ is the temperature of the cosmic background radiation at $`z=0`$ ($`T_{CMB}=2.728\pm 0.002`$ K, Fixsen et al. Fix96 (1996)) and $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant. The Compton parameter $`y`$ is defined as

$$y=2r_c_0^l\frac{k_BT_e}{m_ec^2}\sigma _Tn_e𝑑r_y.$$
(4)
We have chosen the line of sight to be along the $`r_y`$ axis. $`l`$ is the maximal extension of the hot gas in units of the core radius $`r_c`$ along the line of sight, $`T_e`$ the temperature of the hot gas, $`m_e`$ the electron mass, $`\sigma _T`$ the Thomson cross section and $`c`$ the speed of light.
The $`X`$-ray surface brightness of a cluster is given by:

$$S_X=\frac{r_c}{2\pi (1+z)^3}_0^ln_e^2ϵ_X𝑑r_y,$$
(5)
where $`z`$ is the redshift of the cluster, which takes into account the cosmological transformation of the spectral surface brightness, $`ϵ_X`$ the spectral emissivity of the gas, which can be approximated by a typical value (for $`T_e3\times 10^7`$ K, Sarazin Sar86 (1986)):

$$ϵ_X=ϵ\sqrt{T_e}\mathrm{with}ϵ3.0\times 10^{27}n_p^2\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(6)
where $`n_p`$ denotes the proton number density. The thermal SZ effect and the $`X`$-ray surface brightness depend on the temperature profile and of course on the density profile. We consider in the following an isothermal profile. The influence of a polytropic thermal profile is discussed in Section 3.

### 2.1 Isothermal profile

In this case (with $`T_e=T_{eo}`$) the Compton parameter and the surface brightness depend only on the density profile

$$y=\frac{k_BT_{eo}n_{eo}r_c\sigma _T}{m_ec^2}I_{SZ}\mathrm{with}I_{SZ}=2_0^l\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}𝑑r_y,$$
(7)
$$S_X=\frac{ϵ\sqrt{T_{eo}}n_{eo}^2r_c}{4\pi (1+z)^3}I_{S_X}\mathrm{with}I_{S_X}=2_0^l\left(\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}\right)^2𝑑r_y,$$
(8)
where we introduce the structure integrals $`I_{SZ}`$ and $`I_{S_X}`$, which depend only on the geometry and the extension $`l`$ of the cluster along the line of sight $`r_y`$.
With the structure integrals calculated in Appendix A, we obtain for $`y`$ and $`S_X`$:

$`y(r_x,r_z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT_{eo}\sigma _Tn_{eo}\zeta _2r_c}{m_ec^2}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}}`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`\left[B({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})B_m({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right]`$
$`S_X(r_x,r_z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵn_{eo}^2\sqrt{T_{eo}}\zeta _2r_c}{4\pi (1+z)^3}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}\right)^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`\left[B(3\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})B_m(3\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right],`$
where the cut-off parameter $`m`$, which depends also on the extension $`l`$ of the cluster, is:

$$m=\frac{1+(r_x/\zeta _1)^2+(r_z/\zeta _3)^2}{1+(r_x/\zeta _1)^2+(r_z/\zeta _3)^2+(l/\zeta _2)^2}.$$
(11)
For the ratio between $`y^2`$ and $`S_X(r_x,r_z)`$ we thus obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{y^2(r_x,r_z)}{S_X(r_x,r_z)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda T_{eo}^{3/2}\zeta _2r_c\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2}{\left[B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]}},`$
$$\mathrm{where}\lambda =\frac{4\pi (1+z)^3}{ϵ}\times \left[\frac{k_B\sigma _T}{m_ec^2}\right]^2.$$

## 3 Errors obtained in the quantities $`y,S_X`$ and $`H_0`$

### 3.1 Finite extension of clusters

Since the hot gas in a real cluster has a finite extension, each of the observed quantities of the Compton parameter and X-ray surface brightness will be smaller than that estimated based on the assumption that $`l\mathrm{}`$. The incomplete beta-function $`B_m`$ in Eqs. (9) and (10) can be seen as a correction term due to the finite extension, which together with the geometry of the cluster, enters through the $`m`$-parameter (see Appendices). As an illustration we report here the analysis of the influence of this correction for the simplest cluster case: isothermal $`\beta =2/3`$-model with a spherical density profile (i.e. $`\zeta _1=\zeta _2=\zeta _3=1`$), and a line of sight going through the cluster center (i.e. $`r_x=r_z=0`$). The reason for this choice is to be able to neglect, in this case, geometrical effects and thus to focus only on the modification due to the finite extension.

In Fig. (1) we have plotted the parameter $`m`$ as a function of $`l`$ for an isothermal $`\beta =2/3`$-model. We notice that high values of $`l`$ correspond to small values of $`m`$, which is almost vanishing for $`l>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$, and, therefore, the correction for the finite extension becomes negligible ($`m\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for $`l\mathrm{}`$).

We denote $`y(\mathrm{})`$ and $`S_X(\mathrm{})`$, respectively, as the expressions of the Compton parameter and of the X-ray surface brightness for a cluster with infinite extension, and $`y(l)`$ and $`S_X(l)`$ as the same expressions for a cluster with a finite extension $`l`$ along the line of sight. The relative errors $`ϵ_y^{fini}`$ on the Compton parameter and $`ϵ_S^{fini}`$ on the surface brightness are defined by the expressions:

$$ϵ_y^{fini}=\frac{y(\mathrm{})y(l)}{y(\mathrm{})}\mathrm{and}ϵ_S^{fini}=\frac{S_X(\mathrm{})S_X(l)}{S_X(\mathrm{})}.$$
(13)
¿From Eqs. (9) and (10) we can easily estimate these ratios which are

$$ϵ_y^{fini}=\frac{B_m(3/2\beta 1/2,1/2)}{B(3/2\beta 1/2,1/2)}\mathrm{and}ϵ_S^{fini}=\frac{B_m(3\beta 1/2,1/2)}{B(3\beta 1/2,1/2)}.$$
(14)
For a spherical density profile, a line of sight through the cluster center and an infinite extension, we obtain from Eq. (12):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{y^2(\mathrm{})}{S_X(\mathrm{})}}=\lambda T_{eo}^{3/2}r_c{\displaystyle \frac{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2}{B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}}.`$ (15)
We introduce $`\theta _c=r_c/D_A`$ the angular core radius, where $`D_A`$ is the angular diameter distance of the cluster:

$$D_A=\frac{𝒞}{H_0}\mathrm{where}𝒞=\frac{c}{q_0^2}\frac{q_0z+(q_01)(\sqrt{1+2q_0z}1)}{(1+z)^2}.$$
(16)
With Eq. (15) we can estimate the Hubble constant $`H_0(\mathrm{})`$ for an infinitely extended cluster by:

$$H_0(\mathrm{})=\lambda ^{}T_{eo}^{3/2}\frac{S_X(\mathrm{})}{y^2(\mathrm{})}\theta _c\frac{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2}{B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}\mathrm{with}\lambda ^{}=\lambda 𝒞$$
(17)
and for a finite extension $`l`$, we get instead

$$H_0(l)=\lambda ^{}T_{eo}^{3/2}\frac{S_X(l)}{y^2(l)}\theta _c\frac{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2}{\left[B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]}.$$
(18)
Obviously, $`S_X`$ and $`y^2`$ are observed quantities and thus the ratios $`S_X(\mathrm{})/y^2(\mathrm{})`$ and $`S_X(l)/y^2(l)`$ are in the following both set equal to the measured value $`\left(S_X/y^2\right)_{obs}`$. This way, for our example, we get for the relative error for the estimation of the Hubble constant, due to assuming an infinite extension rather than a finite one, the expression:

$$ϵ_{H_0}^{fini}=\frac{H_0(\mathrm{})H_0(l)}{H_0(\mathrm{})}=1\frac{B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2}{B^2(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\left[B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]}.$$
(19)
In Fig. (2) we plot the relative error as a function of the finite extension $`l`$ for a spherical isothermal $`\beta =2/3`$-model. For $`l\mathrm{}`$ the relative errors on the Compton parameter, the X-ray surface brightness and the Hubble parameter become, of course, negligible. For instance, for a cluster with a finite extension of about 10 times $`r_c`$, the relative error with respect to the assumption of an infinite extension is only about 6 % for the Compton parameter. For the X-ray surface brightness, the relative error due to the finite extension is much smaller, for instance an error of about 4% is obtained if the cluster has an extension of only about 2 times $`r_c`$. Nevertheless, for clusters with a small extension (3$`r_c`$) with respect to their core radius, the error in $`ϵ_y^{fini}`$ becomes quite substantial ($`20`$%) for the Compton parameter.
These estimations are in accordance with the results of Inagaki et al. (Ina95 (1995)). The net effect when one considers infinite clusters is thus to overestimate the value of the temperature decrement and the X-ray surface brightness.
The influence of the finite extension on the Hubble constant given in Eq. (19) is larger. Indeed, the Hubble parameter is overestimated by almost 20%, when considering for instance a cluster with infinite extension as compared to one with an extension of 7$`r_c`$ (cf. Fig. 2).

### 3.2 Polytropic index

Although the isothermal distribution is often a reasonable approximation of the actual observed clusters, some clusters do show non-isothermal features. Henriksen & Mushotzky (hen85 (1985)) have suggested that the isothermal model cannot be consistently applied to gas distributions in clusters. Indeed, Markevitch et al. (Mar98 (1998)) find that the temperature profiles of some clusters can be approximately described by a polytrope. More recently, Ettori et al. (Ett00 (2000)), with a combined analysis of the BeppoSAX and ROSAT-PSPC observations, showed that a polytropic profile with index $`\gamma =1.16\pm 0.03`$ fits the temperature distribution of the cluster A3562 very closely.
As a consequence, within the virial regions of typical clusters of galaxies, the gravitating mass, the gas mass and the gas fraction can vary quite substantially, compared to that obtained assuming an isothermal profile (Ettori & Fabian Ett99 (1999), Ettori Ett00 (2000), Ettori et al. Eta00 (2000)). It is interesting, therefore, to investigate the variations due to a polytropic equation of state on SZ quantities.
A polytropic thermal profile has the following form:

$$T_e=T_{eo}\left[\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}\right]^{\gamma 1},$$
(20)
where the subscript $`o`$ denotes the values in the cluster center and $`\gamma `$ is the polytropic index. The isothermal profile is obtained by setting $`\gamma =1`$.
Then the Compton parameter and surface brightness are given by

$$y^{poly}=2\frac{k_BT_{eo}n_{eo}r_c\sigma _T}{m_ec^2}_0^l\left[\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}\right]^\gamma 𝑑r_y$$
(21)
$$S_X^{poly}=\frac{ϵ\sqrt{T_{eo}}n_{eo}^2r_c}{2\pi (1+z)^3}_0^l\left(\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma }{2}+\frac{3}{2}}𝑑r_y.$$
(22)
Similarly to the calculations in Section 2, we find for $`y^{poly}`$ and $`S_X^{poly}`$:

$`y^{poly}(r_x,r_z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT_{eo}\zeta _2r_c\sigma _Tn_{eo}}{m_ec^2}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta \gamma +\frac{1}{2}}`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`\left[B({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta \gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})B_m({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta \gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right],`$
$`S_X^{poly}(r_x,r_z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\sqrt{T_{eo}}n_{eo}^2\zeta _2r_c}{4\pi (1+z)^3}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta (\frac{\gamma }{2}+\frac{3}{2})+\frac{1}{2}}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`\left[B({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})B_m({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right].`$
The relative error by considering a polytropic profile (index $`poly`$) as compared to an isothermal profile (index $`iso`$), can be expressed as follows, assuming for simplicity an infinite extension of the cluster,

$`ϵ_y^{poly}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_{iso}y_{poly}}{y_{iso}}}`$
$`=`$ $`1\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_x}{\zeta _1}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_z}{\zeta _3}}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}\beta (\gamma 1)}\times {\displaystyle \frac{B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \gamma \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}{B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}}`$
for the Compton parameter and

$`ϵ_S^{poly}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(S_X\right)_{iso}\left(S_X\right)_{poly}}{\left(S_X\right)_{iso}}}`$
$`=`$ $`1\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_x}{\zeta _1}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_z}{\zeta _3}}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{3}{4}\beta (\gamma 1)}\times {\displaystyle \frac{B(\frac{3}{2}\beta (\frac{\gamma }{2}+\frac{3}{2})\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}{B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}}`$
for the surface brightness.
The corresponding error for the Hubble constant turns out to be

$$ϵ_H^{poly}=\frac{\left(H_0\right)_{iso}\left(H_0\right)_{poly}}{\left(H_0\right)_{iso}}=1\frac{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \gamma \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}{\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right]^2B(\frac{3}{2}\beta (\frac{\gamma }{2}+\frac{3}{2})\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})},$$
(27)
when taking measurements along the line of sight going through the cluster center. The relative errors defined above for polytropic indices between 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. (3).

Already, a small deviation from the isothermal case ($`\gamma =1`$) leads to significant relative errors and thus to quite different values of the observable quantities. For instance, assuming an isothermal instead of a polytropic profile with index $`\gamma =1.2`$ leads to an overestimation of 20%, 4% and 34% for the quantities $`y,S_X`$ and $`H_0`$, respectively.

### 3.3 Geometrical effect

In order to compare the relative errors induced by geometrical effects, i.e. the difference between ellipsoidal and spherical geometries, we choose the parameters of the cluster for both geometries such that we get the same value for the emission integral EI, defined by Sarazin (Sar88 (1988)) as:

$$\mathrm{EI}=n_e^2𝑑V,$$
(28)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the cluster. We consider, for simplicity, the case where the various integrals are approximated by assuming an infinite extension: after some algebra (see Appendix A for the change of variables) we get the following expression for the emission integral for a spherical geometry:

$$EI_{sph}=\pi ^{3/2}n_{eo}^2r_c^3\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\beta \frac{3}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\beta )},$$
(29)
and for an ellipsoidal geometry:

$$EI_{ell}=\pi ^{3/2}n_{eo}^2\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3r_c^3\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\beta \frac{3}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\beta )}.$$
(30)
Thus the equal emission condition $`EI_{sph}=EI_{ell}`$ requires $`\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3=1`$.
In the following we will consider the two axisymmetric cases prolate (cigar shaped) with symmetry axis $`r_x`$, thus $`\zeta _2=\zeta _3=\sqrt{1/\zeta _1}`$, and oblate (pancake shaped), where the symmetry axis is given by $`r_z`$, and thus $`\zeta _2=\zeta _1`$ and $`\zeta _3=1/\zeta _1^2`$.

We introduce $`ϵ_y^{geom}`$ and $`ϵ_S^{geom}`$ as the geometrical relative error between ellipsoidal and spherical geometry for the Compton parameter and the surface brightness, respectively,

$$ϵ_y^{geom}=\frac{y_{sph}y_{ell}}{y_{sph}}\mathrm{and}ϵ_S^{geom}=\frac{\left(S_X\right)_{sph}\left(S_X\right)_{ell}}{\left(S_X\right)_{sph}},$$
(31)
and thus find<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Remember that the set of coordinates ($`r_x,r_y,r_z`$), as well as the half axes of the ellipsoid ($`\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\zeta _3`$), are given in units of the core radius $`r_c`$.

$$ϵ_y^{geom}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\zeta _2\left(\frac{1+\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}{1+r_x^2+r_z^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{and}$$
(32)
$$ϵ_S^{geom}=1\zeta _2\left(\frac{1+\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}{1+r_x^2+r_z^2}\right)^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(33)
In Figs. (4) and (5) we have plotted the geometrical relative error as a function of the flattening of the profile $`\zeta _1/\zeta _3`$ for the Compton parameter $`ϵ_y^{geom}`$ and the surface brightness $`ϵ_S^{geom}`$, respectively. We consider three different lines of sight, $`(r_x,r_z)`$ = (1,0), (1,1) and (0,1), given in units of the core radius $`r_c`$.
Fig. (4) shows, that the line of sight (1,0) in the prolate case leads to almost the same error of the Compton parameter as the line of sight (0,1) in the oblate case. For a flattening of 50% (i.e. $`\zeta _1/\zeta _3=1.5`$) we get an overestimation of about 2% by using a spherical cluster shape instead of an ellipsoidal one. The other lines of sight lead in the prolate case to overestimations of up to 19%, while in the oblate case the Compton parameter is underestimated by almost 22%.
Due to a quadratic dependance on the density profile, the surface brightness is more affected by a flattened shape. The line of sight (1,1) shows in both cases (prolate and oblate) an overestimation of about 8%. Towards (0,1) the surface brightness is overestimated in both cases by up to 30%, while the view towards (1,0) results in an underestimation of 24% for a prolate deformation and almost 38% in the oblate case.

In the case of an infinite extension approximation from Eq. (12) we get

$$\frac{y^2(r_x,r_z)}{S_X(r_x,r_z)}=\lambda T_{eo}^{3/2}\zeta _2r_c\times \left(1+\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\times \frac{B^2(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}{B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}.$$
(34)
Again, the ratio $`y^2/S_X`$ ratio is set equal to the observed value and leads then to the relative error on the Hubble constant:

$$ϵ_H^{geom}=\frac{\left(H_0\right)_{sph}\left(H_0\right)_{ell}}{\left(H_0\right)_{sph}}=1\zeta _2\left(\frac{1+\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}}{1+r_x^2+r_z^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(35)
Fig. (6) shows in the axisymmetric ellipsoidal cases, prolate and oblate, the influence of a flattening of the cluster profile up to 50%. The prolate case results in a systematic overestimation of the Hubble constant, by considering a spherical instead of a flattened profile. Depending on the line of sight, this error goes up to 22%. Underestimations of up to 33% arise in the oblate case.
We summarize in Table (1) the relative errors on the $`y`$-parameter, the surface brightness and the Hubble constant that appear by considering a spherical instead of a flattened ellipsoidal shape with, as an example, an axis ratio of 1.2. Negative values indicate that the considered quantity is underestimated, whereas positive values that it is overestimated.

In the general triaxial case (i.e. not necessarily prolate or oblate), estimating the Hubble constant is more difficult. We can compute the angular diameter distance $`D_A`$ and thus the Hubble constant by measuring the angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _3`$, defined as the angular ellipsoidal core radii $`\theta _1=\zeta _1r_c/D_A`$ and $`\theta _3=\zeta _3r_c/D_A`$, but we have no observational access to the corresponding angle $`\theta _2`$. On the contrary, in the case of a spherical profile it is sufficient to measure, as we have seen in section (3.1), the value of $`y`$ and $`S_X`$ towards the center of the cluster in order to evaluate the Hubble constant. We do not discuss further the geometrical relative error for a general triaxial cluster.

### 3.4 Projection effect

Ruiz (Rui76 (1976)) and Stark (Sta77 (1977)) have discussed the projection onto the sky of luminosity distributions which have an ellipsoidal form. This problem has also been treated by Fabricant, Rybicki & Gorenstein (Fab84 (1984)). The projection effect is expected to broaden the measurements of the temperature decrement and the surface brightness as mentioned by Cooray (Coo98 (1998)).
In order to evaluate the projection effect we assume an ellipsoidal geometry. As an example, we take the case of an infinite cluster extension with isothermal profile and a prolate form.
The profile of the cluster is supposed to be rotated by an angle $`\theta `$ around the $`r_z`$ axis. For comparison, we consider a prolate profile with a major half axis along $`r_x`$, which has the same projected image on the sky, i.e. on the ($`r_x,r_z`$)-plane. We then compute the difference on the resulting $`y`$-parameter and surface brightness between these two profiles. The structure integrals $`I^{proj}`$ and $`I^{rot}`$ are given in Appendix B, where we have computed the $`y`$ parameter and the surface brightness of a cluster both for a rotated coordinate system, with an angle $`\theta `$, and by considering its projection onto the sky.
The relative error can be quantified as

$$ϵ_I^{proj}=\frac{I^{proj}I^{rot}}{I^{proj}}.$$
(36)
It is a pure geometrical effect and thus the same for the $`y`$ parameter, the surface brightness and the Hubble constant.

In Figs. (7) and (8) we have plotted the relative error due to the projection effects as a function of the rotation angle $`\theta `$ and the axes ratio $`\zeta _1/\zeta _3`$ of the ellipsoid.

The maximal $`\theta `$ is assumed to be $`\pi /40.785`$, for which we find an underestimation of almost 17%. The influence of the axes ratio turns out to be less than 5%.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

We have calculated the relative error caused by assumptions regarding finite extension, a polytropic temperature profile, ellipsoidal geometry and projection effects, on the measurements of the X-ray surface brightness, the SZ temperature decrement and the determination of the Hubble constant. Although the X-ray data have improved dramatically in the last decade, it is still difficult to determine the internal structure of clusters from X-ray imaging alone, because such images supply only projected temperature and surface brightness information, without further indications of the internal gas dynamics. Nevertheless, recent observations show indirectly that many clusters are still dynamically evolving (see Mohr et al. mo95 (1995)).
Cooray (Coo2000 (2000)) has discussed intrinsic cluster shape, in particular considering axisymmetric models such as oblate and prolate ellipsoids, using the Mohr et al. (mo95 (1995)) cluster sample. Their study shows that clusters do indeed have aspherical profiles, which are more likely described as prolate rather than oblate ellipsoids. Nevertheless, Mohr et al. (mo95 (1995)) remarked that they cannot rule out the possibility that clusters are intrinsically triaxial.

Pierre et al. (Pie96 (1996)) studied with ROSAT the rich lensing cluster Abell 2390 and determined its gas and matter content. They found that on large scales the $`X`$-ray distribution has an elliptical shape with an axis ratio of minor to major half axis of $`\zeta _1/\zeta _31.33`$. Using our results we see that this corresponds to a relative error in the $`y`$ parameter of up to 10%, depending on the line of sight and the shape of the cluster (prolate or oblate, see Fig. 4). The surface brightness measurements lead to errors of up to 25% (see Fig. 5) and thus the Hubble constant is overestimated by about 23% (see Fig. 6).

An unresolved temperature gradient in the gas affects the gas profile and thus the total mass derived assuming hydrostatic equilibrium. If such a gradient is present, the true temperature in the central region may be higher than the emission-weighted temperature generally used. As an example, Grego et al. (gre2000 (2000)) observed in Abell 370 a slow decline of the temperature with radius. The temperature falls to half its central value within 6-10 core radii. This temperature profile can be approximately described by a gas with a polytropic index of $`\gamma =1.2`$, which in itself is already an important modification with respect to an isothermal profile and could lead to a relative error $`ϵ_H^{poly}`$ of 37% in the evaluation of the Hubble constant (see Fig. 3).
Furthermore, the optical and X-ray observations of this cluster show a possible bimodal mass distribution. Thus, the combined temperature and geometry effects must be taken into account to obtain reliable values for such parameters as the gas and total matter content. A similar polytropic index ($`\gamma =1.16`$) has also been found for Abell 3562 (Ettori et al. Ett00 (2000)).

Cooling flows in galaxy clusters can substantially change the temperature profiles, especially in the inner regions. Schlickeiser (Sch91 (1991)) and Majumdar & Nath (maju2000 (2000)) have investigated the changes induced by a cooling flow in the temperature and density profiles, and their implications on the SZ effect. We notice that for a polytropic distribution, the density profile can still be well approximated by a $`\beta `$ profile, whereas for cooling flow solutions the density becomes quite different. For example, Vikhlinin et al. (vik99 (1999)) showed that outside the cooling flow region, the $`\beta `$-model describes the observed surface brightness closely, but not precisely. In this context, Majumdar & Nath (maju2000 (2000)) found that the presence of a cooling flow in a cluster can lead to an overestimation of the Hubble constant determined from the SZ decrement. Recently, Mauskopf, Ade, Allen et al. (maus2000 (2000)) determined the Hubble constant from $`X`$-ray measurements obtained of the cluster Abell 1835 with ROSAT and from the corresponding millimetric observations of the SZ effect with the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Infrared Experiment (Suzie) multifrequency array receiver. Assuming an infinitely extended, spherical gas distribution with an isothermal equation of state, characterized by $`\beta =0.58\pm 0.02`$, $`T_{eo}=9.8_{1.3}^{+2.3}`$ keV and $`n_{eo}=5.64_{1.02}^{+1.61}\times 10^2`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, they found a value of $`H_o=59_{28}^{+38}`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> Mpc<sup>-1</sup> for the Hubble constant. In Fig. (9) we show the influence of geometry and of assumptions of finite extension on this result using the same input parameters. Fig. (9a) shows that for a spherical geometry, $`H_o`$ displays a strong dependence on the cluster extension. Fig. (9b) gives the value of $`H_o`$ assuming an infinite extended ellipsoid shaped cluster (instead of a spherical geometry), as a function of its axis ratio $`\zeta _1/\zeta _3`$.

In summary, we see that it is crucial to know the shape of a cluster and its temperature profile. For this problem, the new X-ray satellites have the necessary spatial and spectral resolution to remove the effects of contaminating sources in the field and to measure the spatial variation of the cluster temperature. In this context it will be better for future studies to focus on nearby cluster samples, which are less subject to observational selection effects (as mentioned by Roettiger et al., (Roe97 (1997))).

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Andreas Obrist, Sabine Schindler and Yoel Rephaeli for interesting discussions. We are grateful to the referee for useful comments. This work has been supported by the D<sup>r</sup> Tomalla Foundation and by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

## Appendix A

Structure integral for the $`y`$ parameter
The structure integral for the SZ effect is given by the expression

$$I_{SZ}(r_x,r_z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_0^l\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}𝑑r_y,$$
(37)
where $`n_e`$ is the density profile of the electrons, $`n_{eo}`$ the central density of the cluster and $`l`$ the maximum extension of the hot gas on the line of sight $`r_y`$, in units of the core radius $`r_c`$. With an ellipsoidal density profile, we obtain

$$I_{SZ}(r_x,r_z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_0^l\left[1+\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_y^2}{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}\beta }𝑑r_y,$$
(38)
where $`r_i,\zeta _i`$ and $`l`$ are given in units of the core radius $`r_c`$. With the definition of a function $`G`$ and transforming the variable of integration from $`r_y`$ to $`\xi `$ such that

$$G(\xi )=\left(1+\xi \right)^{3\beta /2}\mathrm{with}\xi =\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_y^2}{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2},$$

we obtain after some algebra the structure integral

$$I_{SZ}(r_x,r_z)=_\eta ^{\eta +(l/\zeta _2)^2}G(\xi )(\xi \eta )^{1/2}𝑑\xi ,\mathrm{where}\eta =\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}.$$
(39)
Finally, with a last change of variable,

$$\alpha =\frac{1+\eta }{1+\xi },$$

we get

$$I_{SZ}(r_x,r_z)=\zeta _2(1+\eta )^{3(\beta +1)/2}_m^1\alpha ^{(3\beta 3)/2}(1\alpha )^{1/2}𝑑\alpha $$
(40)
with

$$m=\frac{1+\eta }{1+\eta +(l/\zeta _2)^2}.$$

The structure integral turns out to be

$$I_{SZ}(r_x,r_z)=\zeta _2(1+\eta )^{\frac{3}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}}\left[B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right],$$
(41)
where we introduced the Beta and the incomplete Beta functions defined by

$$B(a,b)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)}$$

and

$$B_m(a,b)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(a+b)},$$

with the Gamma and the incomplete Gamma-functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$, respectively.

$`X`$-ray surface brightness
The structure integral for the $`X`$-ray surface brightness is given by

$$I_{S_X}=2_0^l\left[\frac{n_e}{n_{eo}}\right]^2𝑑r_y.$$
(42)
With the same transformations, as given above, we get

$$I_{S_X}(r_x,r_z)=\zeta _2(1+\eta )^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}\left[B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})B_m(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\right].$$
(43)
## Appendix B

Projection effects on the $`y`$ parameter The rotation in the ($`r_x,r_y`$)-plane around $`r_z`$ with an angle $`\theta `$ leads to the density profile:

$$n_e^{rot}(r_x,r_y,r_z,\theta )=n_{eo}\left[1+\frac{(r_x\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_y\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{(r_y\mathrm{cos}\theta r_x\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}\right]^{3\beta /2}.$$
(44)
The rotation angle $`\theta `$ is the angle between the major half axis of the rotated ellipse in the $`(r_x,r_y)`$ plane and the $`r_x`$-axis. The line of sight is taken to be along the $`r_y`$-axis.
To investigate the projection effects we will compare a rotated cluster with respect to the $`r_z`$ axis with its projection on the ($`r_x,r_z`$) plane, corresponding to the sky plane. We assume an infinite extension and an isothermal profile.
The rotated structure integral for the $`y`$ parameter turns out to be

$$I_{SZ}^{rot}(r_x,r_z,\theta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left[1+\frac{(r_x\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_y\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}{\zeta _1^2}+\frac{(r_y\mathrm{cos}\theta r_x\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}\right]^{3\beta /2}𝑑r_y.$$
(45)
After some algebra and with the same kind of variable changes as in Appendix A, we get (assuming an infinite cluster extension for the structure integral):

$$I_{SZ}^{rot}(r_x,r_z,\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\zeta _1^2}}}(1+\eta _\theta )^{\frac{3}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}}B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}),$$
(46)
with

$$\eta _\theta =\frac{r_x^2}{\zeta _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\zeta _2^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }+\frac{r_z^2}{\zeta _3^2}.$$

On the other hand, the projection of this cluster on the observed sky plane in the infinite cluster extension case leads to the density profile

$$n_e^{proj}(r_x,r_y,r_z)=n_{eo}\left[1+\frac{r_x^2}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_1^2}+\frac{r_y^2}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_2^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_3^2}\right]^{3\beta /2},$$
(47)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta _1}`$ is the maximum value that we get along the $`r_x`$ axis in units of $`r_c`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_1=\sqrt{\zeta _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\zeta _2^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta },$$

moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta _3}/\stackrel{~}{\zeta _2}=\zeta _3/\zeta _2=1`$ (prolate).
The projected structure integral for the $`y`$ parameter turns out to be

$$I_{SZ}^{proj}(r_x,r_z,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\zeta _2}(1+\stackrel{~}{\eta _\theta })^{\frac{3}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}}B(\frac{3}{2}\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$$
(48)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta _\theta }=\frac{r_x^2}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta _1}^2}+\frac{r_z^2}{\stackrel{~}{\zeta _3}^2}.$$

$`X`$-ray surface brightness For the structure integral of the $`X`$-ray surface brightness we find in the case of the rotated cluster

$$I_{S_X}^{rot}(r_x,r_z,\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\zeta _2^2}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\zeta _1^2}}}(1+\eta _\theta )^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}),$$
(49)
and for the projected case

$$I_{S_X}^{proj}(r_x,r_z,\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\zeta _2}(1+\stackrel{~}{\eta _\theta })^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}B(3\beta \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}).$$
(50)


text:
# Asymptotically exact spectral estimates for left triangular matrices

## 1 Binary left triangular matrices

By an $`n\times n`$ left triangular matrix with binary entries we mean the matrix $`A_n=(a_{ij})`$ whose entries up to (and including) the secondary diagonal are ones, while all others are zeros, i.e. $`a_{ij}=1`$ if and only if $`1inj+1`$. Despite its very classical appearance spectral properties of such matrices were not known, probably due to the fact that for a finite matrix size $`n`$ there is no reasonable representation for the spectrum. Denote by $`\lambda _1^{(n)},\lambda _2^{(n)},\mathrm{},\lambda _n^{(n)}`$ the eigenvalues of the matrix $`A_n`$ ordered by their modules (in the decreasing order) and by $`\{e_k^{(n)}\}_{k=1}^n`$ the corresponding orthogonal system of eigenvectors (which exists due to symmetry of the matrix). As usual by $`(e)_i`$ we denote the $`i`$-th entry of the vector $`e𝐑^n`$ and by $`e`$ – its $`𝐋^2`$-norm.

We start from numerical results. It turns out that numerically with very high accuracy for each fixed $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ the dependence of the k-th eigenvalue $`\lambda _k^{(n)}`$ is linear on $`n`$. From this result one might expect that the determinant $`\mathrm{det}(A_n)`$ grows as $`n^n`$ for large $`n`$, however expanding the matrix with respect to the last line one shows that $`\mathrm{det}(A_n)=(1)^{n+1}`$. So there is no surprise that another numerical test shows that for a fixed value $`n`$ the modules of eigenvalues $`|\lambda _k^{(n)}|`$ decay hyperbolically on $`k`$. The following statement gives an asymptotic representation for the spectrum, which confirms these numerical findings.

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`A_n`$ be the left triangular matrix. Then for each fixed $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$

$$\lambda _k^{(n)}=(1)^{k+1}\frac{n}{(k1/2)\pi }+O(1),$$

$$(e_k^{(n)})_i=\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{(k1/2)(i1)}{n}\pi \right)+O(1/n).$$

The proof is based on the following statements. First notice that $`(A_nv)_i=_{j=1}^{ni+1}v_j`$ for any vector $`v𝐑^n`$.

###### Lemma 1.1

For any $`C^1`$ function $`f:[0,1][1,1]`$ with the derivative not exceeding 1 by absolute value we have

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni+1}{}}f((j1)/n)=n\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni+1}{}}f((j1)/n)\frac{1}{n}=n_0^{1\frac{i1}{n}}f(s)𝑑s+O(1).$$

Proof. Direct computation.

###### Lemma 1.2

The operator $`L:f(x)_0^{1x}f(s)𝑑s`$ considered as an operator acting in the space $`𝐋^2`$ has the complete system of orthogonal eigenfunctions

$$E_k(x):=\mathrm{cos}((k1/2)\pi x)$$

with eigenvalues

$$\mu _k:=(1)^{k+1}\frac{1}{(k1/2)\pi }$$

for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Indeed,

$$_0^{1x}\mathrm{cos}((k1/2)\pi s)𝑑s=\frac{1}{(k1/2)\pi }\mathrm{sin}((k1/2)\pi s)|_0^{1x}$$

$$=\frac{1}{(k1/2)\pi }\mathrm{sin}((k1/2)\pi (1x))=\frac{(1)^{k+1}}{(k1/2)\pi }\mathrm{cos}((k1/2)\pi x).$$

###### Lemma 1.3

Let the equality $`Av=\mu v+\xi `$ be satisfied for a symmetric matrix $`A`$, two vectors $`v,\xi 𝐑^n`$ with $`\xi \epsilon v`$ and a scalar $`\mu `$. Then the closest to $`\mu `$ eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of the matrix $`A`$ satisfies the inequality $`|\lambda \mu |\epsilon `$ and if its multiplicity is equal to 1, then the corresponding eigenvector $`e`$ is such that $`evO(\epsilon )v`$.

Proof. Probably this statement is not quite new (see for example close statements in ), however since we were not able to find exact references to needed estimates we give a sketch of the proof. Notice that $`(A\xi v^{}/v^2)v=\mu v`$, i.e. the vector $`v`$ is the eigenvector of the perturbed matrix $`A_\mu :=A\xi v^{}/v^2`$. Indeed,

$$A_\mu v=\mu v+\xi \xi v^{}v/v^2=\mu v+\xi \xi =\mu v.$$

On the other hand,

$$\xi v^{}/v^2\frac{\xi }{v}\epsilon .$$

Thus the matrix $`A_\mu `$ can be considered as an $`\epsilon `$-perturbation of the symmetric matrix $`A`$. Thus the desired estimates can be obtained by the standard perturbation argument.

Moreover, to prove the first inequality about the closest eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ one can use a more direct argument . Namely, for $`\mu =\lambda `$ the inequality becomes trivial, while otherwise

$$v(A\mu I)^1(A\mu I)v=\frac{1}{|\mu \lambda |}\xi .$$

Thus

$$|\mu \lambda |\frac{\xi }{v}\epsilon .$$

Proof of Theorem 1.1. It suffices to show that for each $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ a projection to the space of piecewise constant functions of the $`k`$-th eigenvector of the linear operator $`L`$ introduced in Lemma 1.2 satisfies the equality of type described in Lemma l=apr with $`\epsilon =O(1)`$. Let $`𝐏_n:C^1([0,1]𝐑^1,R^n)`$ be a projection operator acting from the space of $`C^1`$ functions $`f:[0,1]𝐑^1`$ to $`𝐑^n`$ defined as follows:

$$(𝐏_nf)_i:=f((i1)/n).$$

Then, according to Lemma 1.1, the following equality holds true:

$$A_n𝐏_nE_k=n\mu _k𝐏_nE_k+\xi $$

for a vector $`\xi 𝐑^n`$ such that $`\xi O(1)`$. Now the application of Lemma 1.3 finishes the proof.

## 2 Properly scaled left triangular matrices

Results of the previous section might be generalized for a more general class of left triangular matrices. Let $`\varphi :[0,1](0,1]`$ be a $`C^1`$ positive function. We define a family of $`n\times n`$ left triangular matrices generated by the function $`\varphi `$ as follows: $`(A_n^\varphi )_{i,j}:=\varphi ((ji+1)/n)`$ for $`ij`$ and zero otherwise. Clearly the binary left triangular matrices satisfy this property for $`\varphi 1`$.

Again similarly to the argument in the previous section one can prove the asymptotically linear dependence on $`n`$ of the eigenvalues of the matrix $`A_n^\varphi `$ using the property that the main contribution to the “shape” of eigenvectors comes from the corresponding eigenfunctions of the integral operator $`L_\varphi :f(x)_0^{1x}\varphi (s)f(s)𝑑s`$.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`\mu `$ and $`f_\mu `$ be respectively an eigenvalue and an eigenfunction of the operator $`L_\varphi `$ (i.e. $`L_\varphi f_\mu =\mu f_\mu `$). Then for each positive integer $`n`$ there exists an eigenvalue $`\lambda =n\mu +O(1)`$ and an eigenvector $`e𝐑^n`$ of the matrix $`A_n^\varphi `$ such that $`(e)_i=f_\mu ((i1)/n)+O(1/n)`$ for each $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$.

Since in this more general case we are not able to give an explicit expression for the asymptotic spectrum, we shall demonstrate also another (more direct) way to derive the asymptotic linearity of the spectrum. Assume that the function $`\varphi `$ is nonincreasing and denote by $`S_1^n`$ the set of $`C^1`$ monotonically decreasing concave positive functions $`f:[0,1][0,1]`$ with $`f(0)=1`$ and by $`𝐒_1^n𝐑^n`$ – the set of vectors $`v`$ such that $`v_i:=f((i1)/n)`$ for some $`fS_1^n`$. We introduce also the following nonlinear operator $`B_n:𝐑^n𝐑^n(\mathrm{})^n`$ defined by the relation: $`(B_nv)_i:=(A_n^\varphi v)_i/(A_n^\varphi v)_1`$.

###### Lemma 2.1

The set $`𝐒_1^n`$ is invariant with respect to the operator $`B_n`$ and for any vector $`v𝐒_1^n`$ the sequence $`\{B_n^mv\}_m`$ converges as $`m\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝐋^2`$-norm to the leading eigenvector $`e_1^{(n)}`$ of the matrix $`A_n^\varphi `$.

Proof. Since the coordinates of the vector $`v`$ are positive we get that for any $`i`$

$$(A_n^\varphi v)_{i+1}(A_n^\varphi v)_i=\varphi ((ni+1)/n)v_{ni+1}<0.$$

On the other hand, due to the fact that the coordinates of the vector $`v`$ decrease monotonically we obtain

$$(A_n^\varphi v)_{i+1}2(A_n^\varphi v)_i+(A_n^\varphi v)_{i1}=\varphi (\frac{ni+2}{n})v_{ni+2}\varphi (\frac{ni+1}{n})v_{ni+1}$$

$$=\varphi (\frac{ni+1}{n})(v_{ni+2}v_{ni+1})\left(\varphi (\frac{ni+1}{n})\varphi (\frac{ni+2}{n})v_{ni+2}\right)v_{ni+2}$$

$$<\varphi (\frac{ni+1}{n})(v_{ni+2}v_{ni+1})<0.$$

These two inequalities prove the monotonicity and the concavity of $`A_n^\varphi v`$ respectively. The normalization by the positive number $`(A_n^\varphi v)_1`$ finishes the proof of the first statement of Lemma 2.1. Now noticing that the matrix $`A_n^\varphi `$ has only non negative entries we derive the second statement from the well known Perron theorem.

Thus choosing vectors $`v`$ from the set $`𝐒_1^n`$ providing the smallest and the largest contribution to $`(A_n^\varphi v)_1`$ (namely $`(\stackrel{~}{v})_i=(ni+1)/n`$ and $`(\widehat{v})_i1`$ respectively) we immediately obtain that

$$n/2_0^1(1s)\varphi (s)𝑑s+O(1)\lambda _1^{(n)}n_0^1\varphi (s)𝑑s+O(1).$$

In a similar (but somewhat involved) way one can study also other eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this matrix.

## 3 Application to chaotic dynamics

Now we apply above results for the analysis of ergodic properties of a certain family of chaotic maps. We refer the reader for the necessary definitions and statements for example to .

Fix a positive integer $`n`$ and consider a piecewise linear map map $`T_n:[0,1][0,1]`$ from the unit interval into itself defined as

$$T_n|_{[(i1)/n,i/n)}(x):=\frac{i}{n}x$$

for all $`i\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. This map is topologically mixing and its second iterate is piecewise expanding (i.e. the modulus of the derivative of the map is larger than $`1`$ for all points where it is well defined), therefore this map has a unique absolutely continuous invariant measure (see ).

###### Lemma 3.1

The topological entropy of the map $`T_n`$ satisfies the equality $`h_{\mathrm{top}}(T_n)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2n}{\pi }+O(1)\right)`$.

Proof. Notice that the map $`T_n`$ is Markov with respect to the partition to its intervals of monotonicity, i.e. it maps each interval of monotonicity to the union of some other intervals of monotonicity. Therefore one can construct the corresponding topological dynamics  as a shift operator $`\sigma _n`$ in the state of sequences $`\overline{y}=\{y_1,y_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ with the alphabet consisting of $`n`$ symbols (i.e. $`y_i\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`(\sigma _n\overline{y})_j:=y_{j+1}`$), satisfying the property that for each $`k\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ the symbol $`k`$ may be followed by any symbol from the set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},nk+1\}`$, but not the symbol from the complement to this set. Thus the corresponding transition matrix $`A_n`$  (matrix consisting of zeros and ones, describing possible transitions between symbols of the alphabet under the dynamics) is the left triangular binary $`n\times n`$ matrix. Now since the topological entropy $`h_{\mathrm{top}}`$ for both the Markov map $`T_n`$ and the shift operator $`\sigma _n`$ is known to be equal to the logarithm of the largest eigenvalue of the transition matrix  we derive from Theorem 1.1 the desired relation for the topological entropy.


text:
# THE RADIAL WAVEFUNCTIONS OF A HEAVY-LIGHT MESON CALCULATED ON A LATTICE

## References


text:
# REFERENCES

What can be inferred from surrogate data testing?

In a recent Letter Paluš and Novotná  reported statistical evidence based on surrogate data testing for linearity that a driven nonlinear oscillator is the mechanism underlying the sunspot cycle.

While their result might be true we doubt the formal correctness of their conclusion. Surrogate data testing for linearity  tests the null hypothesis that a linear, Gaussian, stationary, stochastic dynamical process underlies the data, including a possible invertible, static nonlinear observation function. To perform the test a feature is chosen that can capture a violation of the null hypothesis. This feature is evaluated for the original time series and for numerous realizations of a process which only exhibits the linear statistical properties of the given data. A significant deviation of the feature evaluated for the original time series from the simulated distribution suggests a rejection of the null hypothesis. The feature is usually chosen according to a specific type of alternative hypothesis on the underlying dynamics. In their Letter Paluš and Novotná  chose the amplitude-frequency correlation as a property of nonlinear (driven) oscillators. But the rejection of the null hypothesis based on a certain feature does not, in general, give evidence that the specific type of alternative that has motivated the choice of the feature is present. To provide evidence for a specific alternative one has to show that the chosen feature has high power to detect the violation by which it was motivated but no power to detect other types of violations. Unfortunately, the null hypothesis under consideration is such restrictive that the possible alternatives span a huge class of processes, see e.g. .

With respect to the amplitude-frequency correlation considered in by Paluš and Novotná their Letter, for example, if the frequency of a second order linear stochastic process is modulated with time, the resulting process analytically shows an amplitude-frequency correlation . A physically more plausible alternative hypothesis for the sun spot data arises from solar physics, see  for review: The sun spots are an effect of the dynamics of the magnetic field of the sun which exhibits a 22 years cycle. This dynamics, a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo, is described by a nonlinear partial differential equation which is eventually stochastically driven. The sun spot number represent a very specific mapping from the spatio-temporal magnetic field to a scalar time series. Since nonlinear driven partial differential equations include nonlinear driven oscillators as special cases, the latter can not be distinguished from the former based on surrogate data for the sun spots.

Summarizing, a significant amplitude-frequency correlation is a feature of driven nonlinear oscillators, but it is not a specific feature of these type of processes. Thus, the specific alternative of a driven nonlinear oscillator can not be concluded from a rejection of the null hypothesis.

Generally speaking, assuming that (1) no process in nature is indeed a linear, Gaussian, stationary, stochastic dynamical one and (2) that one is using a feature that is capable to detect the actual deviation, without any further information about the process, the only thing one can infer from surrogate data testing is whether there are enough data for the power of the test to be large enough to reject the by assumption untrue null hypothesis.

J. Timmer
Fakultät für Physik
Hermann - Herder - Str. 3
79104 Freiburg, Germany
e-mail: jeti@fdm.uni-freiburg.de

PACS: 05.45.Tp