text:
# The SZ effect contribution to WMAP: A Cross-Correlation between WMAP and ROSAT

## 1 Introduction

The recent release of the WMAP data (Bennett et al. 2003a) has opened a new window for studies of large-scale structure based on the well known Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect (SZ effect) (Sunyaev & Zel’dovich, 1972). The SZ effect shifts the spectrum of the CMB photons to higher frequencies. This shift is redshift-independent and proportional to the product of the electron column density with the average temperature along the line of sight. The electron temperature and optical depth due to Thomson scattering are particularly high inside galaxy clusters. Thus, the SZ effect is a good tracer of clusters, even for those at high redshift. Around galaxy clusters, a diffuse, possibly filamentary, distribution of hot gas is believed to be present. These filaments have not been definitively detected due to their low contrast compared with the background (either CMB or X-ray backgrounds). The same electrons which cause the SZ effect will also emit X-rays (XR) by bremsstrahlung emission. Therefore, one expects the SZ effect and the X-ray emission of galaxy clusters and filaments to be spatially correlated. Since the X-ray background and the CMB are not correlated (except at very large scales where there could be a correlation due to the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (Crittenden & Turok 1996, Boughn et al. 1998), the cross-correlation of an X-ray map with the CMB should enhance the signal of clusters and filaments with respect to the background. This fact motivates the present study.

We will be interested in studying the cross-correlation $`SZXR`$ (where $``$ stands for cross-correlation). The main advantage of a cross-correlation analysis is that it is possible to highlight signals which otherwise would not be detected in any of the bands independently (like weak clusters and filaments). Therefore, a cross-correlation analysis should, in principle, be more sensitive to the low mass range than standard studies which first need to detect the objects. This may have important implications for studies of the cluster physics like pre-heating which are more sensitive to the low mass range. Cross-correlation studies can be then considered as complementary of the standard analysis based on galaxy clusters.

To study the cross-correlation signal we need to define a statistical object to quantify this correlation. We will use the power spectrum of the $`SZXR`$ map as such an object. We will also use the so-called cross-power spectrum (cross-correlation of the Fourier modes). The advantages/disadvantages of using the power spectrum of the product and the cross-power spectrum will be highlighted in section 3.

There are several advantages to using the power spectrum and cross-power spectrum over other statistical objects. First, they contain useful information at different scales. For instance the 0 mode accounts for the correlation coefficient of the two maps. Higher modes will contain information about the fluctuations at smaller scales. The modelling of the power spectrum is also easier and it can easily account for the uncertainties in the assumptions made in the model, as we will see below. The power spectrum will also tell us something about the contribution of clusters and filaments to the CMB power spectrum. Previous papers have claimed an excess in the CMB power spectrum (Pearson et al. 2002; Bond et al. 2002). It is not yet clear whether this excess could be caused by the SZ effect signal or just be inadequately subtracted residuals (compact sources or residual noise). An independent estimation of the SZ effect power spectrum would help to clarify this point.

The reader is encouraged to refer to the recent literature for a more detailed description of the modelling of the power spectrum. In particular he/she may find interesting the general discussion given in Cooray & Sheth (2002), a SZ-oriented discussion in Komatsu & Seljak (2002) and Zhang & Wu (2003), or an X-ray oriented vision in Diego et al. (2003). For the WMAP results, the reader should refer to Bennett et al. (2003a) and for ROSAT data he/she can find all the relevant information in Snowden et al. (1997). There are also several interesting discussions of cross-correlations between CMB and X-ray data sets (Kneissl et al. 1997, Boughn et al 1998), and the expected cross-correlation between WMAP and SDSS (Peiris & Spergel 2000).
She/he may also find interesting the recent results on cross-correlating WMAP with radio and X-ray sources looking for the ISW effect (Boughn & Crittenden 2003, Nolta el al. 2003). Finally, the reader will find interesting the discussion in Bennett et al. (2003b) where they find a 2.5$`\sigma `$ correlation signal between WMAP and the 242 Abell-type clusters in the XBACS catalogue (Ebeling et al. 1996). In this work the Hubble constant is set equal to 100 $`h`$ km s-1 Mpc, with $`h`$ generally taken to be 0.7.

## 2 WMAP vs ROSAT: CMB vs X-rays

Before starting any description of the model, it is useful to give a brief description of the two data sets which are going to be used here (the reader should consult the original papers for a more detailed description). WMAP data consists of 5 all-sky maps at five different frequencies (23 Ghz $`<`$ $`\nu `$ $`<`$ 94 Ghz). At low frequencies, these maps show strong galactic emission (synchrotron and free-free). The highest frequency maps (41-94 Ghz) are the cleanest in terms of galactic contaminants and will be the most interesting for our purpose. The WMAP data is presented in a special format which conserves the size of the pixels and their shape (within small deviations) over the sky. This pixelisation (HEALPIX111available at http://www.eso.org/science/healpix.) is very appropriate for power spectrum computation. Within this pixelisation, the data is presented with a pixel size of $`6.9`$ arcmin (Nside=512 in HEALPIX ). This pixel size over-samples the beam and also is smaller than the pixel size of ROSAT. We will repixelise the maps to the next level (Nside=256, pixel $`13.75`$ arcmin). This minimum scale ($`13.75`$ arcmin) will define a maximum multipole ($`l=767`$) beyond which the data does not contain additional information. The units of the WMAP data are temperature fluctuations with respect to the background ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$).
We will focus on one basic linear combination of the WMAP data, the differenced $`QW`$ bands of the $`1^{}`$ smoothed version of the original data. This differencing completely removes the main contaminant in this work, the CMB, leaving a residual dominated by galactic and extragalactic foregrounds as well as filtered instrumental noise.
On the other hand, the ROSAT All-Sky Survey data (RASS, see Snowden et al. 1997) is presented in a set of bands ($`0.12`$ keV). Low energy bands are highly contaminated by local emission (local bubble and Milky Way galaxy) while high energy bands show an important contribution from extragalactic AGN’s. The optimal band for our purposes will be the band R6 ($``$ 0.9-1.3 keV). This band is the best in terms of instrumental response, background contamination and cluster vs AGN emission. The pixel size is 12 arcmin and the units are cts/s/arcmin2. The ROSAT maps have been cleaned from the most prominent point sources (AGN’s above 0.02 cts/s in the R6+R7 band). However, we should note that for the above threshold (0.02 cts/s), the survey source catalogue was not complete and there are still some very hard bright sources which were not removed from the data. More importantly for our problem is the fact that together with the point sources, a fraction of the clusters above the 0.02 cts/s threshold were also removed from the maps of the diffuse X-ray background. This may introduce a systematic error in our interpretation of the signal which we should account for. We will come to this point later.
Due to the different pixel size, we have repixelised the ROSAT R6 band using HEALPIX and the same resolution level (Nside=256).
Although the R6 band is the cleanest in terms of galactic and AGN contamination, it still contains very strong emission coming from the galactic disk. In order to maximise the extragalactic signal, we restrict our analysis to regions outside the galactic plane. In particular, we will consider only a clean portion of the sky above $`b=40^{}`$ and $`70^{}<\mathrm{}<250^{}`$ which will also exclude the contribution from the north-galactic spur. This optimal area of the sky covers $`9\%`$ of the sky.

As mentioned in the introduction, a CMB map will contain distortions due to the SZ effect and an X-ray map will show some structure due to the same hot and dense plasma. However, there are many differences between the two emission sources which should be well understood before modelling the power spectrum of the cross-correlation. The distortions in the CMB map are proportional to the integral of the electron density times its temperature along the line of sight. When we take the integrated signal across the area of the plasma cloud, we find that (assuming $`T=const`$),

$$S_{SZ}=S_o\frac{TM}{D_a(z)^2}$$
(1)
That is, the total emission depends only on the total pressure of the plasma cloud, but not on its geometry. The constant $`S_o`$ includes all the proportionality constants (baryon fraction, frequency dependence and units, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ or mJy). On the contrary, the X-ray emission by the same plasma is proportional to an integral involving the square of the electron density times the square-root of its temperature. If we now calculate the total emission from the cloud of plasma we find the surprising result that the total emission depends very much on the geometry of the cloud. This comes from the fact that the bremsstrahlung X-ray emission involves two particles and therefore the denser parts of the cloud will have a much larger emission rate than the less dense parts. Meanwhile, the SZ effect can be very well modelled if we only know the amount of gas and its temperature, whereas the X-ray emission involves one more unknown degree of freedom, the density profile of the electron cloud which is poorly known. Actual observations of the X-ray emission in galaxy clusters find that the observed total emission cannot be simply reconciled with the predictions from analytical models. We need to include additional phenomena in the models (pre-heating, cooling flows, clumpiness) to explain this discrepancy. This suggests that pure modelling of the X-ray emission can produce predictions which are far away from the observations. In this paper, we will try to overcome this problem by modelling the X-ray emission using phenomenological forms which match the observations. Thus, we will model the total X-ray emission as;

$$S_{XR}=\frac{L_x}{4\pi D_l(z)^2}=\frac{L_oT^\alpha (1+z)^\psi }{4\pi D_l(z)^2}$$
(2)
where $`L_x`$ is the X-ray luminosity and the parameters $`L_o,\alpha `$ and $`\psi `$ will be chosen to match the observed $`L_xT`$ relation. In modelling the temperature in both equations (1 and 2) we will use the relation,

$$T=T_oM_{15}^\beta (1+z)^\varphi $$
(3)
The specific values of $`T_o,\beta `$ and $`\varphi `$ will be discussed later.
The X-ray flux must be converted into the flux units of the R6 band. We do this following Diego et al. (2003).

## 3 Power spectrum of the product and cross-power spectrum

The previous discussion relates the mm and the X-ray emission from the same plasma. However, our two data sets will include other components which could (and eventually will) show a spatial correlation between the two maps. A good way to highlight this correlation is by using the power spectrum of the product map and compare it with the power spectrum of the product of two statistically similar maps with no spatial correlation between them. This can be done by just rotating one of the maps (so the spatial correlation disappears). This approach is different to the standard one where one looks for correlations in the Fourier modes (cross-power spectrum). This second approach renders good results when the signal responsible for the correlation is extended. When one looks for correlations due to compact signals, the former approach renders better results. The reason is that a cross-correlation of the Fourier modes is equivalent to a convolution of the two maps. In this convolution, the spatial information of the compact sources is partially lost since it is diluted over the Fourier plane. In the absence of noise, both approaches should give the same results. However, when the noise is present, the correlation between the Fourier modes is only evident at large scales since at small scales, their correlation produces a signal which is much weaker than the oscillations (around 0) of the non-correlated noise. On the contrary, by multiplying the two maps in real space we make full use of the spatial correlation between the sources before going to the Fourier space. We have tested the performance of the power spectrum of the product against the cross-power spectrum of the Fourier modes with simulations which try to reproduce the characteristics of our data sets. Our results confirm that the power spectrum of the product maps is more sensitive than the standard cross-power spectrum. However, the power spectrum of the product has one drawback. It is very sensitive to single fluctuations in both maps. If we have a $`5\sigma `$ fluctuation in each map, then after multiplying the final fluctuation will be much larger and may dominate the power spectrum. On the contrary, the cross-power spectrum is much more stable. In this work we will look at both quantities.

Before modelling the power spectrum of the product maps and their cross-power spectrum, it is interesting to discuss what else we expect to contribute. We can split our data in two components, signal and residual. The signal in our case will be the emission (mm or X-ray) of galaxy clusters and filaments. The residual will include all the rest. That is, the CMB, all the foregrounds, unresolved radio sources and the instrumental noise for the case of the WMAP data and non-removed AGN’s (see above), galactic emission, residuals left after corrections for solar flares, and/or cosmic rays plus a small contribution coming from intrinsic instrumental read-out noise in the ROSAT case.
When we cross-correlate the WMAP and ROSAT maps, there will be a contribution to the power spectrum coming from these residuals. Even if the WMAP and ROSAT residuals are not correlated, the power spectrum of the product map will show features which are common to some (or both) of the residuals. These features will produce a power spectrum which will be different from 0. Only the monopole (equal to the correlation coefficient) will be 0 if there is no correlation between the maps. Then, the fact that the maps are not correlated does not mean that the power spectrum of the maps must be 0. In order to say whether or not the power spectrum of the product map contains a correlated signal the easiest way to do it is just to rotate one of the maps before we multiply them in real space. If there is a significant correlation between the maps the power spectrum of the product of one map times the rotated map will be smaller than the power spectrum when the rotation angle is 0. The power spectrum will reach a minimum for a rotation angle larger than the correlation length of the two maps. We will call this minimum the background power spectrum. If the maps are not correlated, the power spectrum after rotating one of the maps will be roughly the same as the power spectrum if we do not rotate them and similar to the background power spectrum.

On the other hand, if the maps are not correlated, the cross-power spectrum as a function of the multipole, will oscillate around 0 (with mean value $`0`$). The identification of a correlated signal in the cross-power spectrum is in principle easier since no rotation of one of the maps is required. The cross-power spectrum will oscillate around 0 if there is no correlation between the maps and will deviate from 0 if there is a correlation.

### 3.1 Power spectrum of the product maps

The power spectrum of the product maps is defined as:

$$C_l^{}=<a_{lm}a_{lm}^{}>$$
(4)
where the $`a_{lm}`$ are the spherical harmonics coefficients (and their conjugates $`a_{lm}^{}`$) of the product map (WMAPxROSAT) and the average is over the $`2\mathrm{}+1`$ coefficients with the same $`\mathrm{}`$. This power spectrum can be expressed as the sum of two power spectra:

$$C_l^{}=C_{l,\xi }^{}+C_{l,c}^{}$$
(5)
with $`C_{l,\xi }^{}`$ the power spectrum of the product of the residuals and $`C_{l,c}^{}`$ the power spectrum due to the cluster (and filament) correlations between the mm and X-ray band. The previous equation follows from the assumption that the cluster and filament signal is not correlated with the residual (all the signal which is not due to clusters). This discussion can be illustrated with a simple example. In figure 1 we consider a case where the CMB data contains just CMB (simulated) and the SZ effect. We cross-correlate this simulated map with the real ROSAT R6 data and with a randomised version of ROSAT. The SZ effect emission was simulated based on a catalogue of more than 2700 Abell & Zwicky galaxy clusters (over $`80`$ % of the sky). The masses were computed from the richness and the distances by calibrating the magnitude of the 10th brightest member with the known distances of 700 clusters. Both masses and distances can be very inaccurate when calculated following this process. SZ effect total fluxes were computed using equation 1. The noise of ROSAT was simulated by randomising the positions of the pixels of ROSAT. This technique has the advantage that the noise map has exactly the same pdf as the original data but no real structure. From figure 1 we can see how in fact the cross-correlation of the CMB map plus $`SZ_{Abell}`$ with the ROSAT has significant power at small scales. When we cross-correlate with the randomised ROSAT this power disappears (dotted line). The same thing happens when we cross-correlate ROSAT with a $`180^{}`$ rotation of the Abell catalogue plus CMB (dashed line). It is important to note that even in the case where we cross-correlate $`CMB+SZ_{Abell}`$ with the ROSAT noise, the resulting map still has structure at large scales.

For modelling the term $`C_{l,c}^{}`$, we only need to know something about the cluster distribution and their signal in each band. Basically, this term will be the contribution of two terms,

$$C_{l,c}^{}=C_{l,c}^{}(2h)+C_{l,c}^{}(1h)$$
(6)
The first term accounts for the two-halo contribution and it includes the contributions to the power spectrum due to the cluster-cluster spatial correlation. This term will be significant only at very large scales. However, as we will see later, the power spectrum at large scales will be dominated by the power spectrum of the cross-correlated residuals, $`C_{l,\xi }^{}`$. Also, the large scales will be affected by the window function of our optimal area (Sliwa et al. 2001). Therefore, the large scales ($`\theta >20^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{}<10`$)) will not be used used here. Since the modelling of the two-halo component is a rather complicated process involving several assumptions about the bias and its evolution and that it only contributes significantly to the large scales we will not consider the two-halo contribution in this work. The main contribution at small scales will come from the single-halo contribution ($`C_{l,c}^{}(1h)`$). This is just given by,

$$C_{l,c}^{}(1h)=𝑑z\frac{dV(z)}{dz}𝑑M\frac{dN(M,z)}{dM}p_l(M,z)$$
(7)
where $`dV(z)/dz`$ is the volume element, $`dN(M,z)/dM`$ is the cluster mass function and $`p_l(M,z)`$ is the power spectrum (multipole decomposition) of the $`SZXR`$ cross-correlated 2D profile of a cluster with mass $`M`$ at redshift $`z`$. In this work we will assume Press-Schechter for the mass function (Press & Schechter 1974) although other approaches (more realistic) could be easily incorporated into the previous formula.

The term $`p_l(M,z)`$ can be modelled as

$$p_l(M,z)=p_o(M,z)f(l,M,z)$$
(8)
where $`p_o`$ is just the total signal of the $`SZXR`$ cross-correlated 2D profile and $`f(l,M,z)`$ contains the multipole dependence which depends only on the geometry of the 2D profile. This term can be fitted numerically by the following expression (with typical error less than 10 % up to $`\mathrm{}=1000`$),

$$f(l,M,z)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l,R_c})+\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l,R_c}})\right)$$
(9)
with,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l,R_c}=l^2R_c^{2/(0.97+0.68e4/R_c)}$$
(10)
where the core radius, $`R_c`$, is given in rads. Equations (9) and (10) are valid for a $`\beta `$-model with $`\beta =2/3`$ truncated at the virial radius. Different $`\beta `$-models will produce a different multipole profile. The effects of the profile will be discussed later. The central density is irrelevant for us since we normalise the total signal using equations 1 and 2. The only relevant parameters will be the core radius and the ratio $`p=virial/core`$ radius which we set to $`p=10`$.
In terms of observable quantities, $`p_o`$ can be expressed as,

$$p_o(M,z)=4\pi |Mean|^2$$
(11)
where $`Mean`$ is the mean signal of the cluster on the sky. That is, the sky-averaged product of the mm signal times the X-ray signal.

$$S_{SZ}(\theta )=S_{SZ}\frac{A(\theta )}{Tot(A)}$$
(12)
$$S_{XR}(\theta )=S_{XR}\frac{B(\theta )}{Tot(B)}$$
(13)
where the terms $`S_{SZ}`$ and $`S_{XR}`$ are given by equations 1 and 2 respectively. The factors $`A(\theta )/Tot(A)`$ and $`B(\theta )/Tot(B)`$ account for the profile dependence of the signal. It is important to include them because, as compared with the power spectrum in the X-rays or the SZ effect (see Diego et al. 2003), $`Mean`$ will depend on the assumed profile. From the two previous equations, it is easy to show that,

$$Mean=\frac{S_{SZ}S_{XR}}{4\pi }\frac{Tot(AB)}{Tot(A)Tot(B)}$$
(14)
where $`Tot(AB)`$ is the integrated 2D profile of the cross-correlated $`SZXR`$ image while $`Tot(A)`$ and $`Tot(B)`$ are the integrated profiles of the SZ effect and X-ray 2D profiles respectively.

Then, the only additional information we need to compute the cluster $`SZXR`$ power spectrum is to define the scaling relations (equations 1 and 2) and give an expression for the core radius as a function of mass and redshift. For the scaling relations, we will use the best fitting model found in Diego et al. (2001). The advantage of using this model is that the combinations of parameters of this model produce a good fit to several cluster data sets (mass function, temperature function, X-ray luminosity and flux functions). Later we will discuss other alternatives. For the core radius, we will assume that this is given by the expression;

$$R_c=\frac{R_v}{p}=r_oM_{15}^{1/3}(1+z)^1h^1Mpc$$
(15)
We will assume that the core radius is a constant fraction of the virial radius. We will take this fraction (concentration parameter) as $`p=10`$ ($`R_v=pR_c`$). We summarise our reference model in table 1. We will use this model just for illustration purposes.

Once we have defined our model, we can compute the power spectrum (equation 7).

### 3.2 Cross-power spectrum

The $`SZXR`$ cross-power spectrum of ($`C_{\mathrm{}}(X)`$) is defined as;

$$C_{\mathrm{}}(X)=<a_\mathrm{}m^{SZ}a_\mathrm{}m^{XR^{}}>$$
(16)
where $`a_\mathrm{}m^{SZ}`$ are the coefficients of the spherical harmonics decomposition of the SZ effect map and $`a_\mathrm{}m^{XR^{}}`$ are the complex conjugate of the coefficients of the cluster XR map. The modelling of the cross-power spectrum is difficult since it involves the direct modelling of the $`a_\mathrm{}m`$ instead of their dispersion, $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$, however, under certain special conditions this complicated modelling can be simplified enormously.
If we impose that the cluster XR map is proportional to the SZ effect map, then their corresponding $`a_\mathrm{}m`$’s will obey the same proportionality and the problem of modelling the cross-power spectrum can be solved easily. We have to point out that the above situation does not occur in reality but we will show how the previous assumption is a good approach.
If we look at equations 1 and 2 we realise that in the particular case where we take $`TM^{0.54}`$ (Nevalainen et al. 2000) and $`L_xT^{2.85}`$ (e.g Markevitch 1998, Arnaud & Evrard 1999), then, at low redshift the total SZ effect signal is proportional to the cluster X-Ray flux. If one chooses to use a different scaling relation for $`TM`$ then the scaling in $`L_xT`$ should be changed accordingly in order to make the SZ signal proportional to the XR flux. For instance, a relation like the standard $`TM^{2/3}`$ would require a relation like $`L_xT^{2.5}`$ which is still a good description of the observations for massive clusters.
When we calculate the flux in the R6 band and transform flux to cts/s (see Diego et al. 2003) we introduce an extra dependence on the cluster temperature which breaks the proportionality. However, this extra dependence with T is weak for clusters above $`3`$ keV and could be easily compensated with a slightly different exponent in the $`L_xT`$ relation. Also, there is a different dependency with redshift in the SZ signal and X-ray flux, but at small redshift ($`z<0.1`$, $`D_a(z)D_l(z)`$) the redshift does not play a significant role. Also in Diego et al. (2003), the authors shown that the X-ray cluster power spectrum is dominated by the low redshift population and the intermediate mass clusters ($`T[3,10]`$ keV). Under these circumstances, we can make use of the above cosmological coincidence ($`a_\mathrm{}m(XR)a_\mathrm{}m(SZ)`$ when $`TM^{0.54}`$ and $`L_xT^{2.85}`$) and we can easily model the cross-power spectrum.

$$C_{\mathrm{}}(X)=<a_\mathrm{}m^{SZ}a_\mathrm{}m^{XR^{}}>=KC_{\mathrm{}}^{SZ}=\sqrt{C_{\mathrm{}}^{XR}C_{\mathrm{}}^{SZ}}$$
(17)
where $`K`$ is the proportionality constant, $`a_\mathrm{}m^{XR}=Ka_\mathrm{}m^{SZ}`$ and we have used the fact that $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{XR}=K^2C_{\mathrm{}}^{SZ}`$. The properties of the cross-power spectrum are then a combination of the properties of the individual spectra of the SZ effect and the X-ray. These properties have been discussed in the literature and we will not repeat them again (Komatsu & Seljak 2002, Zhang & Wu 2003, Diego et al. 2003). However, we will explore the properties of the power spectrum of the product maps in more detail in the next section.

## 4 The Power spectrum of CMB$``$X-ray as a probe

From the discussion in the previous sections, we have seen that we could expect a cluster signal in the the power spectrum of $`WMAPROSAT`$. This signal can be used to constrain the cosmological model and/or the cluster physics ($`TM`$, $`L_xT`$ relations, and cluster geometry). Using equation 7, we can predict the power spectrum of clusters for a wide variety of cosmological models and different assumptions about the physics of the plasma. In figure 2 we show some examples of the dependence of the cluster power spectrum with the cosmological parameters. The dependence with the cluster physics is shown in figure 3.

The power spectrum shows an important dependence with $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and a weaker dependence with the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This plot illustrates the enormous possibilities of the power spectrum as an independent cosmological discriminator. The drawback is that the power is also very sensitive to the physics of the plasma (figure 3) so one must be very careful with the selection of the scaling relations and the density profile in order to not introduce a bias in the resulting cosmological parameters. However, we can turn this apparent problem into a productive way of studying the intra-cluster physics. If the cosmological model is known with some accuracy, then one can use the power spectrum as a way to constrain for instance the extension of the plasma cloud. From figure 3, it is interesting to see how when the concentration parameter changes from 5 to 20, the power increases a factor 50 (at $`\mathrm{}500`$). This is a unique dependence which cannot be observed when one looks at the power spectrum of clusters in the mm or X-ray band (Komatsu & Seljak 2002, Diego et al. 2003). Only when we cross correlate these bands, we can make evident the dependence of the normalisation of the power on the geometry of the cluster (see equation 14). Also interesting is to see the dependence of the power with the scaling relations. In figure 3 we only illustrate the dependence with the scaling exponents $`\alpha `$ and with the normalisation constants $`L_o`$ and $`T_o`$. The dependence with $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ is weak since the power is dominated by low redshift clusters.

It is possible to trace back the dependence of the power spectrum on the scaling relations by just looking at equations 14, 1 and 2. In the case of $`L_o`$ the dependence is just $`C_lL_o^2`$. In the case of $`T_o`$ the dependence is a little more complicated since it also enters in the band correction ($`B_{corr}=exp(E_{min}(1+z)/kT)exp(E_{max}(1+z)/kT)`$) for bremsstrahlung, $`C_l(T_oB_{corr})^2`$. The power shows a weak dependence with the $`\beta `$ exponent. A smaller exponent $`\beta `$ will increase the temperature of the clusters with masses below $`M_{15}=10^{15}h^1M_{}`$ and will decrease the temperature of clusters above that mass. The total luminosity of the clusters with $`M>M_{15}`$ will also increase as $`T^\alpha `$. However, this increase is compensated by the smaller X-ray band-correction which peaks at $`T1`$ keV and decreases for larger temperatures. The strong dependence of the power with $`\alpha `$ is easier to follow since in this case the temperature does not change (and neither does the band-correction). In this case, a smaller $`\alpha `$ will produce a smaller X-ray luminosity ($`L_x`$) and consequently a smaller power ($`C_lL_x^2`$).

## 5 The WMAP$``$ROSAT power spectrum and cross-power spectrum

In order to maximise the signal-to-noise ratio, we have created a new template of WMAP based on a linear combination of some of its bands. Since the CMB is frequency-independent, two maps at two different frequencies which have been filtered with the same beam will contain exactly the same amount of CMB per pixel. In our case, the CMB is going to be the mayor contaminant so we should try to remove it. This can be done easily if we just subtract one band from the other. In our case we will subtract the W band from the Q band map (both of them smoothed with $`1^{}`$). By doing this we will maximise, the SNR of the SZ effect with respect to the noisy background. The resulting map will have a linear combination of the filtered noise of the two bands, plus foregrounds plus the SZ effect. The last one will have a signal proportional to the Compton parameter times a factor, $`Correction(QW)`$, equal to,

$$Correction(QW)=\frac{_Qf(\nu )𝑑\nu }{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _Q}\frac{_Wf(\nu )𝑑\nu }{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _W}$$
(18)
where the integrals are over the corresponding bandwidths ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$) and $`f(\nu )`$ is the well known frequency dependence of the SZ effect. On the other hand, since the maps have been smoothed, when we cross-correlate the (Q-W) band map with ROSAT, we have to keep in mind that, after smoothing, the 2D profile of the clusters in the CMB map will have a 2D profile different from the 2D $`\beta `$-model. We will also include this fact in our calculations. Finally, as we pointed out before, we will consider only a clean portion of the sky ($`b>40^{}`$ $`70^{}<\mathrm{}<250^{}`$) to minimise the correlations introduced by the galaxy. In this area of the sky we have also removed two bright point sources which were not removed in ROSAT, MRK 0421 and RBS 0768. In particular we found that one of these sources (MRK 0421) was an important source of correlation between WMAP and ROSAT (a similar correlation was found in Kneissl et al. 1997). This X-ray source is known to be also a powerful radio source. In order to avoid being dominated by a single bright source we also removed the central part of the cluster A1367 which shows a very intense central emission which could produce spurious signals due to fortuitous alignments with the WMAP. However, the results proved to be insensitive to the exclusion of the central part of this source.

The power spectrum of (Q-W) $`WMAPROSAT`$ is shown in figure 4. As we pointed out before, the fact that the power spectrum is different from 0 does not mean that there is a correlation. To test whether or not the two maps are correlated we have to rotate one of them by several rotation angles and see if there is a trend in the power spectrum toward smaller values when we increase the rotation angle. After rotating WMAP several degrees ($`0.2^{}<\theta <30^{}`$) we did not find any significant deviation in the power spectrum of the product map. The power spectrum of the rotated maps oscillates around 20 % in both directions (up and down) for different rotation angles. This means that what we observe in figure 4 is just the background power spectrum we should see if there is not a significant correlation between the WMAP and ROSAT maps.

We obtain the same negative result when we look at the cross-power spectrum (figure 5). In this case we do not observe any significant deviation from 0. This is not surprising since, the cross-power spectrum is less sensitive to correlations at small scales. Furthermore, the range of $`\mathrm{}`$’s at which is more sensitive (low $`\mathrm{}`$’s) is affected by the window of our selected area of the sky. Also, the error bars due to cluster cosmic variance are larger at low $`\mathrm{}`$’s. In figure 5 we do not show the error bars which should include all the above factors and also the errors due to the systematic effects (see below). Their computation is not a trivial task and they are of no use in our case since we can not claim any clear detection in the cross-power spectrum. However, it is important to note that the error bars in the cross-power spectrum will be less affected by the systematics than the power spectrum of the product maps. For instance, the normalisation of the cross-power spectrum will not depend on the assumptions made on the internal distribution of the gas (i.e core radius) in the clusters as it happens in the case of the power spectrum of the product maps. The cross-power spectrum will be then an interesting quantity with future data due to its superior stability compared with the power spectrum of the product map.

We show a smoothed version of the cross-power spectrum in figure 6. We have rebinned the cross-power spectrum in bins of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=20`$ in order to get a smooth version but still is difficult to see any significant deviation from 0. Error bars in this case are just the dispersion of the individual data points in each bin.

The estimation of the cross-power spectrum (and the power spectrum of the product maps) at large scales is affected by large error bars due to the cosmic variance (of galaxy clusters). These error bars are inversely proportional to the area of the sky used in the analysis (9 % in our case). A small area may contain a cluster population which is not representative of the mean cluster population. Cosmic variance can be an important problem for the cross-power spectrum but is not a major problem for the power spectrum of the maps since it is more sensitive to the small scales where our area of the sky is large enough to make the errors due to cosmic variance small.

Although we do not detect any signal neither with the power spectrum of the product maps nor the cross-power spectrum, we can still use this fact to set some constraints on the model. In figures 4 and 5 we compare the measured power and cross-power with three different models where we change the parameter $`\sigma _8`$ (the models are listed in table 2). This simple comparison tell us that the only way to accommodate models with high $`\sigma _8`$ is by reducing the luminosity of the clusters, and/or their temperature and/or increasing their sizes (decreases the power at small scales). They could also be accommodated if the SZ effect is significantly contaminated by point sources so the net distortion in the CMB is smaller than if the cluster signal is just pure SZ effect.
In the next section we will see how high $`\sigma _8`$ can be also marginally accommodated if we account for the possible systematic effects.

## 6 Systematics

As already mentioned before, one of the main sources of systematic error in our conclusions could be the fact that in the ROSAT diffuse X-ray background map some of the clusters were removed together with the point sources. This could contribute to explain the lack of correlation between ROSAT and WMAP data. It is difficult to estimate the overall effect of this cluster signal subtraction since only a portion of the clusters having fluxes larger than 0.02 cts/s (in R6+R7) were removed from the data. The brightest clusters can still be seen in the data. In figure 7 we show the reduction in power due to galaxy cluster subtraction for the model with $`\sigma _8=1`$. The top line is the power spectrum when we assume that no cluster has been removed from the ROSAT data (model C). The lines below the top one correspond to models where (from top to bottom) we assume that all clusters with fluxes larger than 0.02 cts/s (in R6+R7) and core radius smaller than 5, 10 and 15 arcmin respectively have been removed (15 arcmin corresponds roughly to the maximum extent of the PSF of ROSAT). The plot shows how we can have overestimated the theoretical power spectrum by an order of magnitude at small scales (the cross-power spectrum shows a weaker dependence and the reduction in power is roughly a factor 3 in the worst case).

The second source of systematic errors in our conclusions is in the uncertainties in the cluster scaling relations. The models considered in table 2 are just examples of scaling relations which more or less reproduce the observations but the reality is that the exact form of the underlying scaling relations is unknown. In figure 8 we try to account for this possible source of systematic error by pushing the parameters of the models to the limits of the observational constraints. The thin solid line corresponds to model C in table 2 and after assuming that all clusters with fluxes larger than 0.02 cts/s (in R6+R7) and with core radius smaller than 15 arcmin have been removed from the ROSAT diffuse maps (bottom dotted line in figure 7). In the dotted lines we change the parameters of table 2, $`T_o=8`$ (top), $`T_o=8,r_o=0.16`$ (middle) and $`T_o=8,r_o=0.16,L_o=1.0`$ (bottom). The exponents $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ were already close to the minimum of the observational constraints. If we increase them, the power spectrum will increase as well (see figure 3). From figure 8 we see that models with $`\sigma _8=1`$ are marginally consistent with the lack of correlation only when we push down the cluster scaling relations to the observational limits and when we consider the pessimistic situation where all clusters with fluxes larger than 0.02 cts/s (in R6+R7) and with core radius smaller than 15 arcmin have been removed from the ROSAT diffuse maps.

## 7 Conclusions

Using the power spectrum of the product maps and the cross-power spectrum we do not detect any correlation between WMAP (Q-W) map and the diffuse ROSAT X-ray background maps. Our estimators (power spectrum of the product maps and cross-power spectrum) are dominated by the signals of the uncorrelated residuals. Also, the lack of a high frequency channel in WMAP does not allow to optimise the CMB subtraction while keeping (or even enhancing) the SZ signal. The linear combination of Q-W bands removes a significant fraction of the SZ signal which makes more difficult the detection of any correlation. However, the fact that we do not observe a correlation can be used to set limits on the model. A low value of $`\sigma _8`$ could naturally explain the lack of correlation. However, this can be also partially explained by the fact that during the point source subtraction process in the ROSAT maps (Snowden et al. 1997), a significant fraction of the compact clusters having fluxes larger than 0.02 cts/s (in R6+R7) may have been removed together with the point sources. This would introduce a bias in the theoretical models which would over-predict the correlation signal. Therefore, because of the uncertainties in the data and the modelling process, the presented constraints are less constraining on $`\sigma _8`$ than current results from X-ray cluster samples.
Due to the uncertainties in the data and our partial knowledge of the cluster scaling relations, our constraints should be interpreted with caution by a conservative reader. After understanding the different systematics, the reader must choose whether or not he/she wants to believe the constraints presented in this work.

However, to illustrate the capabilities of the method, we have considered a pessimistic scenario where the scaling relations are pushed down to the observational limits and we account for the possible systematic error introduced by the cluster removal in ROSAT data we find that high values of $`\sigma _8`$ ($`\sigma _8>1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$) seem to be difficult to reconcile with the absence of an observed correlation. Due to the systematics, our constraints on $`\sigma _8`$ are weak but they illustrate the capabilities of the method which should render much better results with high quality data.

Since our constraints are basically limited by the uncertainties in the data, a similar analysis carried out on the 4yr WMAP data and on an updated version of the Snowden et al. (1997) diffuse X-ray background maps (with a more careful point source removal) should render much better constraints or even a detection of the cross-correlation signal. Although WMAP’s sensitivity to clusters is much poorer than ROSAT, the cross-correlation of both maps should enhance weak cluster signals not detected in any of the maps individually making the correlation maps an ideal data set to look for weak cluster signals. In particular, distant clusters will produce a weak signal in ROSAT while they can produce a significant signal in WMAP. Moreover, an analysis based on the cross-correlated maps is more sensitive to the cluster model than a similar analysis on the X-ray or SZ maps individually. This opens the door to interesting studies of the cluster physics using the power spectrum if one assumes that the cosmological model is known. In these studies, one of the major advantages compared with classical studies will be that one can use the raw data since there is no need to detect the clusters or to estimate their total fluxes extrapolating their observed profile.

We also have shown how to model the power spectrum of the product map and the cross-power spectrum with an intuitive model based on empirical observations (cluster scaling relations) rather than pure modelling of the electron density. The cluster power spectrum of CMB$``$X-ray experiments can be a powerful technique in future cosmological studies but can also be useful for studying the physics of the intra-cluster plasma.

The fact that high values of $`\sigma _8`$ seem to be difficult to reconcile with the absence of significant correlation could also be used to rule out the possibility that the excess in ACBAR and CBI is due to SZ effect (at least for Gaussian models of structure formation). We illustrate this point in figure 9 where we compare the power spectrum of the SZ effect for the models in table 2 with the recent estimate of the CMB power spectrum by WMAP (solid line) and with estimates from ACBAR (Kuo et al. 2003) and CBI (Pearson et al. 2002). The model C ($`\sigma _8=1`$) does not explain the excess in power in the high-$`\mathrm{}`$ regime. For comparison we also show a model (dotted line) with the same cosmological model ($`\sigma _8=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$) but with a higher normalisation in the $`TM`$ relation ($`T_o=9`$ keV) and with a smaller core radius normalisation ($`r_o=0.1h^1Mpc`$). This model can be compared with the $`\sigma _8=1`$ models in Bond et al. (2002). The dotted line model produces more power than model C because of the higher temperature of the clusters and their smaller size (which increases the power at small scales). However, this model should produce a detectable signal in the power spectrum of the product map (similar to the top dotted line in figure 8) even in the pessimistic case where we consider that all clusters with fluxes larger than 0.02 cts/s (in R6+R7) and core sizes smaller than 15 arcmin are removed from the ROSAT data (and $`L_o=1`$). It seems difficult to explain the excess in CBI/ACBAR as due to SZ effect with models which does not show a correlation between WMAP (Q-W) and ROSAT. At this point it is worth mentioning that non-Gaussian models of structure formation (e.g Mathis et al. 2003) could make the trick since they can produce a low correlation signal in WMAPxROSAT (basically given by the low redshift population) while producing a high SZ power (also sensitive to the high-redshift cluster population).

## 8 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mark Halpern, Andrew Jaffe, Eichiiro Komatsu, and Pasquale Mazzota for useful comments and discussion. This research has been supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Community programme Improving the Human Research Potential and Socio-Economic knowledge under contract number HPMF-CT-2000-00967. We thank the WMAP and ROSAT teams for making the data available to the public. The WMAP data is available at http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/. ROSAT data is available at http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/cgi-bin/rosat/rosat-survey. Some of the results in this paper have been derived using the HEALPix (Górski, Hivon, and Wandelt 1999) package.


format: text

text:
# Network Landscape from a Brownian Particle’s Perspective

(February 11, 2003)

## Abstract

Given a complex biological or social network, how many clusters should it be decomposed into? We define the distance $`d_{i,j}`$ from node $`i`$ to node $`j`$ as the average number of steps a Brownian particle takes to reach $`j`$ from $`i`$. Node $`j`$ is a global attractor of $`i`$ if $`d_{i,j}d_{i,k}`$ for any $`k`$ of the graph; it is a local attractor of $`i`$, if $`jE_i`$ (the set of nearest-neighbors of $`i`$) and $`d_{i,j}d_{i,l}`$ for any $`lE_i`$. Based on the intuition that each node should have a high probability to be in the same community as its global (local) attractor on the global (local) scale, we present a simple method to uncover a network’s community structure. This method is applied to several real networks and some discussion on its possible extensions is made.

A complex networked system, such as an organism’s metabolic network and genetic interaction network, is composed of a large number of interacting agents. The complexity of such systems originates partly from the heterogeneity in their interaction patterns, aspects of which include the small-world Watts and Strogatz (1998) and the scale-free properties Barabási and Albert (1999); Faloutsos et al. (1999) observed in many social, biological, and technological networks Strogatz (2001); Albert and Barabási (2002); Dorogovtsev and Mendes (2002). Given this high degree of complexity, it is necessary to divide a network into different subgroups to facilitate the understanding of the relationships among different components Girvan and Newman (2002); Ravasz et al. (2002).

A complex network could be represented by a graph. Each component of the network is mapped to a vertex (node), and the interaction between two components is signified by an edge between the two corresponding nodes, whose weight is related to the interaction strength. The challenge is to dissect this graph based on its connection pattern. We know that to partition a graph into two equally sized subgroups such that the number of edges in between reaches the absolute minimum is already a NP-complete problem, a solution is not guaranteed to be found easily; however it is still a well-defined question. On the other hand, the question $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$How many subgroups should a graph be divided into and how?” is ill-posed, as we do not have an objective function to optimize; and we have to rely on heuristic reasoning to proceed.

If we are interested in identifying just one community that is associated with a specified node, the maximum flow method Ford and Fulkerson (1979) turns out to be efficient. Recently, it is applied to identifying communities of Internet webpages Flake et al. (2000). An community thus uncovered is usually very small; and for this method to work well one needs a priori knowledge of the network to select the source and sink nodes properly. Another elegant method is based on the concept of edge betweenness Freeman (1977). The degree of betweenness of a edge is defined as the total number of shortest paths between pair of nodes which pass through it. By removing recursively the current edge with the highest degree of betweenness, one expects the connectivity of the network to decrease the most efficiently and minimal cutting operations is needed to separate the network into subgroups Girvan and Newman (2002). This idea of Girvan and Newman Girvan and Newman (2002) could be readily extended to weighted graphs by assigning each edge a length equalling its reciprocal weight. Furthermore, in the sociology literature, there is a relatively long tradition in identifying communities based on the criteria of reachability and shortest distance (see, e.g., Wasserman and Faust (1994)).

In this paper, a new method of network community identification is described. It is based on the concept of network Brownian motion: If an intelligent Brownian particle lives in a given network for a long time,what might be its perspective of the network’s landscape? We suggest that,without the need to removing edges from the network, the node-node distances $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$measured” by this Brownian particle can be used to construct the community structure and to identify the central node of each community. This idea is tested on several social and biological networks and satisfiable results are obtained. Several ways are discussed to extend and improve our method.

Consider a connected network of $`N`$ nodes and $`M`$ edges. Its node set is denoted by $`V=\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ and its connection pattern is specified by the generalized adjacency matrix $`A`$. If there is no edge between node $`i`$ and node $`j`$, $`A_{ij}=0`$; if there is an edge in between, $`A_{ij}A_{ji}>0`$ and its value signifies the interaction strength (self-connection is allowed). The set of nearest-neighbors of node $`i`$ is denoted by $`E_i`$. A Brownian particle keeps moving on the network, and at each time step it jumps from its present position (say $`i`$) to a nearest-neighboring position ($`j`$). When no additional knowledge about the network is known, it is natural to assume the following jumping probability $`P_{ij}=A_{ij}/_{l=1}^NA_{il}`$ (the corresponding matrix $`P`$ is called the transfer matrix). One verifies that at time $`tM`$ the probability $`\rho (k)`$ for the Brownian particle to be at any node $`k`$ is nonvanishing and equals to $`_lA_{kl}/_{m,n}A_{mn}`$, proportional to the total interaction capacity $`_lA_{kl}`$ of node $`k`$.

Define the node-node distance $`d_{i,j}`$ from $`i`$ to $`j`$ as the average number of steps needed for the Brownian particle to move from $`i`$ through the the network to $`j`$. From some simple linear-algebra calculation Kolman (1973) it is easy to see that

$$d_{i,j}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{1}{IB(j)}\right)_{il},$$
(1)
where $`I`$ is the $`N\times N`$ identity matrix, and matrix $`B(j)`$ equals to the transfer matrix $`P`$ except that $`B_{lj}(j)0`$ for any $`lV`$. The distances from all the nodes in $`V`$ to node $`j`$ can thus be obtained by solving the linear algebraic equation $`[IB(j)]\{d_{1,j},\mathrm{},d_{N,j}\}^T=\{1,\mathrm{},1\}^T`$. We are mainly interested in sparse networks with $`M=O(N)`$; for such networks there exist very efficient algorithms Tewarson (1973); Davis and Duff (1999) to calculate the root of this equation. If node $`j`$ has the property that $`d_{i,j}d_{i,k}`$ for any $`kV`$, then $`j`$ is tagged as a global attractor of node $`i`$ ($`i`$ is closest to $`j`$ in the sense of average distance). Similarly, if $`jE_i`$ and $`d_{i,j}d_{i,l}`$ for any $`lE_i`$, then $`j`$ is an local attractor of $`i`$ ($`i`$ is closest to $`j`$ among all its nearest-neighbors). We notice that, in general the distance from $`i`$ to $`j`$ ($`d_{i,j}`$) differs from that from $`j`$ to $`i`$ ($`d_{j,i}`$). Consequently, if $`j`$ is an attractor of $`i`$, node $`i`$ is not necessarily also an attractor of $`j`$.

If a graph is divided into different subgroups, on the local scale we intuitively expect that each node $`i`$ will have a high probability to be in the same subgroup as its local attractor $`j`$, since among all the nearest-neighboring nodes in $`E_i`$, node $`j`$ has the shortest $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$distance” from node $`i`$. For simplicity let us just assume this probability to be unity (a possible improvement is discussed later). Thus, we can define a local-attractor-based community (or simply a $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$L-community”) as a set of nodes $`L=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m\}`$ such that (1) if node $`iL`$ and node $`j`$ is an local attractor of $`i`$, then $`jL`$, (2) if $`iL`$ and node $`k`$ has $`i`$ as its local attractor,then $`kL`$, and (3) any subset of $`L`$ is not a L-community. Clearly, two L-communities $`L_a`$ and $`L_b`$ are either identical ($`L_aL_b`$) or disjoint ($`L_aL_b=\mathrm{}`$). Based on each node’s local attractor the graph could be decomposed into a set of L-communities.

According to the same intuitive argument, on the global scale we expect that each node will have a high probability to be in the same community as its global attractor, and if assume this probability to be unity we can similarly construct the global-attractor-based communities ($`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$G-communities”) based on the global-attractor of each node. For small networks, we expect the L- and G-community structures to be identical; while for large networks, each G-community may contain several L-communities as its subgroups. A community could be characterized by its size $`N_c`$ and an instability index $`I_c`$. A node $`i`$ in community $`C`$ is referred to as unstable if its total direct interaction with nodes in any another community $`C^{}`$, $`_{kC^{}}A_{ik}`$, is stronger than its total direct interaction with other nodes in its own community, $`_{kC\backslash i}A_{ik}`$. $`I_c`$ is the total number of such nodes in each community. We can also identify the center of a community (if it exists) as the node that is the global attractor of itself.

Now we test the above-mentioned simple method on some well-documented networks whose community structures are known. The first example is the social network recorded by Zachary Zachary (1977). This network contains $`34`$ nodes and $`77`$ weighted edges, and it was observed to spontaneously fission into two groups of size $`16`$ and $`18`$, respectively Zachary (1977) (these two groups are marked by two colors in Fig. 1A). The results of our method is shown in Fig. 1A. Community $`L_1`$ contains $`11`$ elements (node $`13`$ is unstable and has stronger direct interaction with $`L_2`$), $`L_2`$ has $`6`$ elements (node $`9`$ has stronger direct interaction with $`L_3`$), and $`L_3`$ has $`17`$ elements. Nodes $`1`$ (the manager), $`3`$, and $`34`$ (the officer) are the corresponding centers. We find that for this network the G-communities coincide with the L-communities.

As another example, the scientific collaboration network of Santa Fe Institute Girvan and Newman (2002) is considered. The giant connected component contains $`118`$ nodes and $`200`$ weighted edges, the weights are assigned according to the measure in Newman (2001). The present method divides the network into six L-communities, see Fig. 1B. All the nodes in community $`L_1`$ (size $`14`$), $`L_2`$ ($`41`$), $`L_4`$ ($`8`$), $`L_5`$ ($`26`$), and $`L_6`$ ($`17`$) are locally stable, and one node in $`L_3`$ has stronger direct interaction with community $`L_6`$. Same as the above example, the G-community structure is also identical to the L-community structure. Girvan and Newman divided this network into four major groups by recursively removing edges of highest degree of betweenness Girvan and Newman (2002): the largest of which was further divided into three subgroups and the second largest was divided into two subgroups. There are still some minor differences between the six subgroups obtained by the present method and those obtained in Girvan and Newman (2002), which may be attributed to the fact that, in the treatment of Girvan and Newman (2002) the network was regarded as unweighted.

The method is further tested on a relatively more complicated case, the foot-ball match network compiled by Girvan and Newman Girvan and Newman (2002). It contains $`115`$ nodes and $`613`$ unweighted edges. These $`115`$ teams were distributed into $`12`$ conferences by the game organizers. Based on the connection pattern, the present method divides them into $`15`$ L-communities, of which $`11`$ are locally stable: $`L_2`$ (size $`9`$), $`L_3`$ ($`13`$), $`L_4`$ ($`14`$), $`L_5`$ ($`10`$), $`L_6`$ ($`8`$), $`L_7`$ ($`6`$), $`L_8`$ ($`7`$), $`L_9`$ ($`6`$), $`L_{10}`$ ($`4`$), $`L_{11}`$ ($`6`$), and $`L_{13}`$ (size $`9`$). One element of $`L_1`$ (size $`9`$) has stronger interaction with $`L_{10}`$, and one element of $`L_{12}`$ (size $`10`$) has stronger interaction with $`L_3`$, and all the elements of $`L_{14}`$ (size $`2`$) and $`L_{15}`$ (size $`2`$) are locally unstable. The G-communities of this network are also identical to the L-communities. In Fig. 1C the community structure of this network is shown, where nodes belonging to each identified community are located together, and the different colors encode the actual $`12`$ conferences Girvan and Newman (2002). Figure 1C indicates that the predicted communities coincide very well with the actual communities. The community structure obtained by the present method is also in very good correspondence with that obtained by Girvan and Newman Girvan and Newman (2002) based on edge betweenness.

The above-studied networks all have relatively small network sizes and the identified G-communities coincide with the L-communities. Now we apply our method to the protein interaction network (yeast core Xenarios et al. (2000); Deane et al. (2002)) of baker’s yeast. The giant connected component of this network contains $`1471`$ proteins and $`2770`$ edges (assumed to be unweighted, since the interaction strengths between the proteins are generally undetermined). The present method dissect this giant component into $`14`$ G-communities (Table. 1) and into $`69`$ L-communities ($`11`$ of them contain one locally unstable node, $`15`$ of them have $`2`$-$`7`$ locally unstable nodes, all the others are stable). The relationship between the G- and L-communities is demonstrated in Fig 1D, where proteins are grouped into L-communities and those of the same G-community have the same color. We see from Fig. 1D that if two nodes are in the same L-community, they are very probable to be in the same G-community. The largest G-community ($`G_1`$) contains more than half of the proteins and is centered around nucleoporin YMR047C, which, according to SWISS-PROT description Bairoch and Apweiler (2000), is $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$an essential component of nuclear pore complex” and $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$may be involved in both binding and translocation of the proteins during nucleocytoplasmic transport”. YMR047C interact directly only with $`39`$ other proteins (it is even not the most connected node in the system), but associated with it is a group of $`935`$ proteins as suggested by the present method. The protein interaction network may be evolved to facilitate efficient protein transportation by protein-mediated indirect interactions.

What will happen if the protein YMR047C is removed from the network? The resulting perturbed system has $`1463`$ nodes and $`2729`$ edges, and we find that its L-community structure does not change much. Altogether $`72`$ L-communities are identified, and most of them contain more or less the same set of elements as in the unperturbed network. However, there is a dramatic change in the G-community structure. There are now $`21`$ G-communities (the largest of which has $`574`$ proteins), while $`G_1`$ of the original system breaks up into eight smaller G-communities. It was revealed that the most highly connected proteins in the cell are the most important for its survival, and mutations in these proteins are usually lethal Jeong et al. (2001). Our work suggests that, these highly connected proteins are especially important because they help integrating many small functional modules (L-communities) into a larger unit (G-community), enabling the cell to perform concerted reactions in response to environment stimuli.

In the above examples, the network studied are all from real-world. We have also tested the performance of our method to some artificial networks generated by computer. To compare with the result of Ref. Girvan and Newman (2002), we generated an ensemble of random graphs with $`128`$ vertices. These vertices are divided into four groups of $`32`$ vertices each. Each vertex has on average $`16`$ edges, $`z_{\mathrm{out}}`$ of which are to vertices of other groups, and the remaining are to vertices within its group; all these edges are drawn randomly and independently in all the other means. Using the method of Girvan and Newman, it was reported Girvan and Newman (2002) that when $`z_{\mathrm{out}}<6`$ all the vertices could be classified with high probability. Our present method in its simplest form could work perfectly only when $`z_{\mathrm{out}}<2.5`$. In the artificial network, the vertices are identical with each other in the statistical sense and there is no correlation between the degrees of two neighboring edges. Our method seems not to be the best for such kind of random networks.

In summary, we have suggested a simple way of grouping a graph of nodes and edges into different subgraphs based on the node-node distance measured by a Brownian particle. The basic idea was applied to several real networked systems and very encouraging results were obtained. The concept of random walking was also used in some recent efforts to facilitate searching on networks (see, e.g., Tadić (2002); Guimerà et al. (2002)), the present work may be the first attempt in applying it on identifying network community structure. Some possible extensions of our method are immediately conceivable: First, in the present work we have assumed that a node will be in the same community as its attractor with probability $`1`$. Naturally, we can introduce a $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$inverse temperature” $`\beta `$ and suppose that node $`i`$ be in the same community as node $`j`$ with probability proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta d_{i,j})`$. The present work discusses just the zero temperature limit. We believe that the communities identified at zero temperature will persist until the temperature is high enough. Second, we can construct a gross-grained network by regarding each L-community as a single node, and defining the distance from one L-community to another as the average node-node distance between nodes in these two communities. The present method can then be applied, and the relationship between different L-communities can be better understood. Third, for very large networks, it is impractical to consider the whole network when calculating node-node distance. Actually this is not necessary, since the length of the shortest path between a given node and its attractor should be small. We can therefore focus on a localized region of the network to identify the attractor of a given node.

Furthermore, based on the distance measure of the present paper, we can define a quantity called the dissimilarity index for any two nearest-neighboring nodes. Nearest-neighboring vertices of the same community tend to have small dissimilarity index, while those belonging to different communities tend to have high dissimilarity index. Extensions of the present work will be reported in a forthcoming paper zhou2003 .

An interesting task is to use extended versions of the present method to explore the landscape of the Internet’s autonomous system Faloutsos et al. (1999) and that of the metabolic network of E. coli Selkov Jr et al. (1998); Ravasz et al. (2002).

I am grateful to M. Girvan and M. E. J. Newman for sharing data and to Professor R. Lipowsky for support.


text:
# Detection of the Neutrino Fluxes from Several Sources

## Abstract

It is considered the detection of neutrinos moving from the opposite directions. The states of the particle of the detector interacting with the neutrinos are connected with the P-transformation. Hence only a half of neutrinos gives contribution into the superposition of the neutrino states. Taking into account the effect of the opposite neutrino directions the total neutrino flux from several sources are in the range 0.5–1 of that without the effect. The neutrino flux from nuclear reactors measured in the KamLAND experiment is $`0.611\pm 0.085(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.041(\mathrm{syst})`$ of the expected flux. Calculations for the conditions of the KamLAND experiment yield the neutrino flux taking into account the effect of the opposite neutrino directions, 0.555, of that without the effect that may account for the neutrino flux observed in the KamLAND experiment.

Let two equal neutrino fluxes move towards the neutrino detector from the opposite directions. The first neutrino flux moves from the $`x`$ direction, and the second neutrino flux moves from the $`x`$ direction. The probability of the weak interaction of the particle of the detector with a single neutrino is given by

$$w=|\psi _1\psi _2|g|\psi _\nu \psi _p|^2$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the weak coupling, $`\psi _p`$ is the state of the particle of the detector, $`\psi _\nu `$ is the state of neutrino, $`\psi _1`$, $`\psi _2`$ are the states of the particles arising in the interaction. The probability given by eq. (1) is too small to register the event in a single interaction of the particle of the detector with the neutrino. The probability of the event is a sum of probabilities of a number of interactions.

To define the probability of interaction of the particle of the detector with two neutrinos moving from the opposite directions one should form the superposition of the particle of the detector and neutrino states. The state of the particle interacting with the neutrino moving from the $`x`$ direction and the state of the particle interacting with the neutrino moving from the $`x`$ direction are connected with the P-transformation

$$|\psi _p(x)=P|\psi _p(x).$$
(2)
Then the superposition of the particle and neutrino states should be given by

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|\psi _\nu [|\psi _p(x)+|\psi _p(x)]`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|\psi _\nu [|\psi _p(x)+P|\psi _p(x)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|\psi _\nu +P|\psi _\nu ]|\psi _p(x).`$
Since the P-transformation is forbidden for neutrino, one cannot form the superposition given by eq. (3). Hence only a half of neutrinos moving from the opposite directions gives contribution into the superposition of the neutrino states. Therefore the sum of probabilities of interaction of the particle with neutrinos moving from the opposite directions is two times smaller than that for the case when all neutrinos move in one and the same direction

$$w_{}=0.5w_{}$$
(4)
Let the detector measure the neutrino fluxes $`F_i`$ from $`N`$ sources placed in the plane $`xy`$. When not taking into account the effect of the opposite neutrino directions given by eq. (4) the total neutrino flux is

$$F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}F_i.$$
(5)
To take into account the effect of the opposite neutrino directions given by eq. (4) write down the neutrino flux in the form

$$F_i=F_{ix}+F_{iy}$$
(6)
where

$$F_{ix}=F_i\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha $$
(7)
$$F_{iy}=F_i\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha $$
(8)
where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between the direction to the source and the axis $`x`$. When taking into account the effect of the opposite neutrino directions given by eq. (4) the total neutrino flux is

$$F^{}=0.5\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}F_i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{F}_{ix}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{F}_{iy}\right)$$
(9)
where one should sum the fluxes $`\stackrel{}{F}_{ix}`$, $`\stackrel{}{F}_{iy}`$ as vectors. One can see that the neutrino flux given by eq. (9) are within the range 0.5–1 of the neutrino flux given by eq. (5).

In the KamLAND experiment Kam , it is measured the flux of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from distant nuclear reactors. The ratio of the number of observed events to the expected number of events is reported KC  to be $`0.611\pm 0.085(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.041(\mathrm{syst})`$. Using the data on the location and thermal power of reactors insc  one can estimate the neutrino flux from reactors which is approximately proportional to the thermal power flux $`P_{th}/4\pi L^2`$, where $`P_{th}`$ is the reactor thermal power, $`L`$ is the distance from the detector to the reactor. Hence one can estimate the effect of the opposite neutrino directions through the ratio of the neutrino flux calculated with eq. (9) and that calculated with eq. (5). More than $`99\%`$ of the neutrino flux measured in the KamLAND experiment comes from Japanese and Korean nuclear reactors. So in the first approximation one can calculate the neutrino flux only from Japanese and Korean nuclear reactors. Calculations for the conditions of the KamLAND experiment yield the ratio of the neutrino flux taking into account the effect of the opposite neutrino directions and that without this effect, 0.555. Thus the effect of the opposite neutrino directions may account for the neutrino flux observed in the KamLAND experiment. Note that the value 0.555 is obtained with the use of the specification data on the reactor thermal power. To obtain the real value one should use the operation data on the reactor thermal power for the period of measurement.


text:
# Is Correlation Important in Explaining the Charge Transport in Disordered Molecular Solids ?

## Abstract

We have examined the electrical transport in disordered molecular solids. It has been found that mobility is a function of electric field and temperature due to hopping conduction. Several theoretical models for charge transport in disordered solids have been debated over the role of spatial and energetic correlation in these systems and such correlations have been recently shown to explain the universal electric field dependence of mobility. We have compared and evaluated the applicability of different theoretically proposed models using very simple experimental results and based on our extensive analysis, we have found that correlation is important to explain the electrical transport in these systems.

Recently, considerable debatedhd ; snn ; pep  is going on regarding the charge carrier transport in disordered organic molecular solids(DOMS) because of two reasons: first, their application in display devices and second, the fundamental understanding of charge transport in these materials. There are several distinguishing features of these solids, (i) they are composed of organic molecules, held together loosely by weak van der Waals type intermolecular coupling while the intramolecular coupling is strong; (ii) the absence of long range order in these disordered materials lead to the localization of the electronic wave function and the formation of a broad Gaussian density of states(GDOS) and the most important one is (iii) the carrier mobility $`\mu `$ exhibits a nearly universal Poole-Frenkel(PF) behaviorlbs ; dhd1

$$\mu (E)=\mu (0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma \sqrt{E}\right)$$
(1)
where $`\mu (0)`$ and $`\gamma `$ are temperature dependent quantities, known as the zero field mobility and the field activation of the mobility, respectively. In DOMS, hopping among the molecular sites having comparable energies, describes the transport of charge carriers through the GDOS of highest occupied molecular orbital(HOMO) and/or lowest unoccupied molecular orbital(LUMO).

There are several models to explain the universal feature of carrier mobility $`\mu `$(Eq.1) observed in wide class of organic solids. Gillwdg  first attempted to describe the experimental data with the following empirical form of zero field mobility $`\mu (0)`$ and field activation of mobility $`\gamma `$, $`\mu (0)=\mu _0exp[\mathrm{\Delta }/(k_BT)]`$ and $`\gamma =B[1/(k_BT)1/(k_BT_0)]`$, where $`\mu _0`$ is the zero field temperature independent mobility, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the zero-field activation energy, and $`B`$ and $`T_0`$ are parameters of the model. There are several conceptual problems with this phenomenological description and the most important are (i) the empirical Gill’s formula lacks theoretical justification and the significance of different parameters($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`B`$ and $`T_0`$) are not well understood in the context of the physical properties of the system and (ii) the empirical formula for $`\gamma `$ predicts the negative field dependence for $`TT_0`$, which deviates from the universal feature(PF) of carrier transport in these materials. It is now recognized that the spatial fluctuations in the potential energy of the charge carriers in DOMS results the PF behavior of carrier mobilitydhd ; snn ; pep . There are two competing models, debating over the role of correlation on the spatial fluctuations in these systems. Bassler and co-workershb  proposed the uncorrelated Gaussian disorder model(UGDM) and provided support to PF behavior of mobility using Monte Carlo simulation. The UGDM describes the carrier transport as a biased random walk among the dopant molecules with Gaussian-distributed random site energies. UGDM lead to following form of $`\mu (0)`$ and $`\gamma `$

$$\mu (0)=\mu _0\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{2}{3}\widehat{\sigma }\right)^2\right\},\gamma =C(\widehat{\sigma }^2\mathrm{\Sigma })$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{\sigma }=\sigma /kT`$, $`\sigma `$ is the width of the Gaussian distribution of the hopping sites energies, and $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are parameters of the model. In this case, $`\mu (0)`$ and $`\gamma `$ have $`1/T^2`$ dependence, instead of $`1/T`$ dependence as in case of Gill’s empirical formula. Although UGDM explainshb  some features of experimental data and provides support for PF behavior of carrier mobility, several discrepancies emerge with uncorrelated description of Gaussian disorder model, which will be discussed later. The most important criticismlbs1  against UGDM is its’ inability to reproduce the PF behavior over wider range of electric field. Garstein and Conwellyng  first showed that a spatially correlated potential is required for the description of PF behavior of mobility for wider range of electric field. Dunlop and co-workersdhd ; snn  have shown analytically in 1D and numerically in 3D that the interaction of charge carriers with permanent dipoles located on either dopant or host molecules give rise to PF behavior of mobility. Essentially, this correlated Gaussian disorder model(CGDM) is based on long-range correlation between charge carriers and the molecular electric dipole. They have shown that this interaction gives rise to random potential energy landscape with long-range spatial correlations $`<U(0)U(r)>\sigma ^2a/r`$, where a is the minimal charge-dipole separation or the lattice constant of the molecular solid. CGDM gives the following form of $`\mu (0)`$ and $`\gamma `$

$$\mu (0)=\mu _0\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{3}{5}\widehat{\sigma }\right)^2\right\},\gamma =A\left(\widehat{\sigma }^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\left(\frac{ea}{\sigma }\right)^{1/2}$$
(3)
where $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are parameters of the model. Here, $`\mu (0)`$ has a $`1/T^2`$ dependence(same as in UGDM) but $`\gamma `$ has a $`1/T^{3/2}`$ dependence. In this letter, we present the measurements on charge carrier mobility $`\mu `$ and its field activation $`\gamma `$ as a function of temperature and electric field. The experimental results are analyzed within UGDM and CGDM. It has been found that correlated transport model CGDM successfully explains the experimental data emphasizing the important role of correlation in explaining the transport mechanism in disordered organic solids.

We have chosen two different metal-phthalocyanines(MePc), Copper-phthalocyanine(CuPc) and Zinc-phthalocyanine(ZnPc) for our investigations because of their high chemical stability, ease to prepare the devices and reproducibility of experimental data, which is a major problem with most other organic solids due to their degradation with time. Details about the MePc-based single layer devices are given in Ref.akmsg  and Ref.akmsg1 . In this letter, we report the experimental investigation on charge carrier transport in hole only devices based on metal/MePc/metal structures. In this case, by properly choosing contacting metals, current injection and transport due to holes have been investigated. Indium tin oxide(ITO) has work function(4.75eV) very close to the ionization potential(4.8eV) of MePcgp , resulting the ITO/MePc interface as an Ohmic contact. Fig.1 shows the current-voltage(J-V) characteristics of ITO/CuPc/Al and ITO/CuPc/Cu at room temperature. The experiment consisted of two steps. First: the current due to hole injection from ITO was measured by supplying it to positive bias and second: the current due to hole injection from Cu and Al was measured by reversing the polarity of the bias voltage(i.e., biasing Al and Cu electrodes positively). It is clear from Fig.1 that J-V characteristics in case of ITO/MePc/Cu display almost symmetric behavior in both cases(hole injection either from ITO, or from Cu electrodes). This is because in both cases there is small energy barriers of 0.05eV in case of ITO/MePc and 0.2eV in case of Cu/MePc interface, giving rise to space charge limited(SCL) bulk current when either ITO or Cu is positively biased. It has been shownakmsg ; psd , for Schottky energy barrier(SEB) less than about 0.3-0.4eV, the current flow is due to SCLpeb ; ajc ; pmbw . But, in case of ITO/MePc/Al devices, J-V characteristics displays asymmetric and rectification-like behavior. Current density increases by almost five order of magnitude by reversing the polarity of the bias. As discussed before, when ITO is positively biased, current is due to SCL and when Al is positively biased, current is due to injection limited and reduced by several order of magnitude due to the existence of SEB of 0.6eV at MePc/Al contact. It has been shown by usakmsg  that this injection limited current $`J_{inj}`$ from a metal electrode to disordered organic semiconductor can be described by the relation, $`J_{inj}\psi ^2\mu exp(\varphi _B/k_BT)exp(f^{1/2})`$, $`\psi `$ is a slow varying function of E, $`\varphi _B`$ is SEB and $`f=e^3E/2\pi ϵ(k_BT)^2`$, proposed by Shen et. al.yshen .

Inset of Fig.1 shows the temperature dependent SCL current in ITO/MePc/Al structure made out of 200nm thick active organic layer of CuPc. At low bias, J-V characteristic follow the slope of 2 in log(J)-log(V) plot, but as the bias increases the slope increases gradually to higher value. A numerical workoutakmsg1  has been used by solving Poission’s equation, $`dE(x)/dx=ep(x)/ϵ`$ and $`J(x)=ep(x)\mu (x)E(x)`$ simultaneously, and assuming PF form(Eq.1) of the carrier mobility. Here, $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant of MePc and $`p(x)`$ is the hole density at position x and the boundary condition is taken at the Ohmic contact(ITO/MePc interface) with hole density(at $`x=0`$) of $`2.5\times 10^{19}cm^3`$, which is the density of states of HOMO in MePc. The simulated results are shown as solid lines in inset of Fig.1 at different temperatures. The excellent agreement of the simulated and the experimental data confirms PF behavior of carrier mobility and the thermally activated hopping transport. Fig.2 shows the temperature dependence of conductivity $`\sigma (T)`$ for CuPc. Linear dependence of $`log(\sigma )`$ on $`1/T^{1/4}`$ validates the variable range hopping(VRH)nfm , $`\sigma (T)=\sigma _0exp\{(T_1/T)^{1/4}\}`$, where $`\sigma _0`$ is the temperature independent conductivity and $`T_1`$ is the characteristic temperature. The inset shows the dependence of $`\sigma _0`$ at different electric field and linear dependence of $`log(\sigma _0)`$ on $`\sqrt{E}`$ signifies the PF behavior in charge carrier transport conclusively. Hence the experimental data presented in Fig.1 and Fig.2 establish the carrier transport process, which is thermally activated hopping with field dependent mobility.

Now, we compare our experimental data with the uncorrelated(UGDM) and correlated(CGDM) theoretical models proposing the stretched exponential electric field dependence of $`\mu `$. At every temperature, $`\mu (0)`$ and $`\gamma `$ are obtained from the experimental data and plotted in Fig.3 and Fig.4. Fig.3 shows the temperature dependence of the $`\mu (0)`$ and $`\gamma `$ according to UGDM and the apparent linear dependence of ln$`\mu (0)`$ on $`1/T^2`$ and $`\gamma `$ on $`1/T^2`$ can be described by Eq.(2). Values of temperature independent mobility $`\mu _0`$, width of the energy spread $`\sigma `$, and the constant $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are determined from the ln$`\mu (0)`$ vs. $`1/T^2`$ and $`\gamma `$ vs. $`1/T^2`$ plots, and given in Table I. Main feature of UGDM is the non-Arrehenious behavior of the temperature dependence of mobility, which is the consequence of hopping conduction in GDOS. But, there are several discrepancies in this description, (i) fitting is not as good as in case of CGDM, which will be discussed next; (ii) the intercept of $`\gamma `$ vs. $`1/T^2`$(shown in Fig.3) gives positive value resulting negative value of parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$(given in Table I), but according to UGDM(Eq.2), it should be negative, which is a fundamental problem with UGDM, and (iii) it has been observed that there is no specific trend in the values of $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is a scaling parameter in the model and cannot be linked to the physical parameters of the system.

Fig.4 shows the temperature dependence of $`\mu (0)`$ and $`\gamma `$ according to CGDM, described by Eq.(3). Values of the parameters $`\mu _0`$, $`\sigma `$, $`a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are determined from the straight line plots of ln$`\mu (0)`$ vs. $`1/T^2`$ and $`\gamma `$ vs. $`1/T^{3/2}`$ and given in Table I. Following observations have been made regarding the CGDM description of the experimental data, (i) linear dependence of ln$`\mu (0)`$ on $`1/T^2`$ and $`\gamma `$ on $`1/T^{3/2}`$ is evident in Fig.4 and straight line fit is excellent and better than that in UGDM; (ii) for all samples the intercept of $`\gamma `$ vs. $`1/T^{3/2}`$ gives negative values, according to CGDM(Eq.3); (iii) the experimental value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are 1.2 in CuPc and 1.4 in ZnPc, which are very close to the predicted value 1.97snn ; (iv) the width of the Gaussian distribution $`\sigma `$ is 100meV in CuPc and 120meV in Zn-Pc and similar values for $`\sigma `$ are commonly observed in other molecular solids; (v) the lattice constant($`a`$) has been found to be 19$`\AA `$ in CuPc and 17$`\AA `$ in ZnPc, are in excellent agreement with the reportedrr  experimental values determined by X-Ray diffraction and (vi) MePc molecules are symmetric, so the dipole moment $`p`$ should be zero or very small, but the symmetry of the individual molecule may be lowered in solid state, so, in any case $`p`$ should be very small, which is corroborated by the estimated small value of $`p`$(=0.3D) for CuPc using the relation $`\sigma =2.35ep/ϵa^2`$, according to CGDMsnn .

The UCDM and CGDM share the common feature regarding the temperature dependence of $`\mu (0)`$ due to similar distribution of hopping sites energies, but the temperature dependence of field activation parameter $`\gamma `$ decides critically the importance of spatial correlation and decides the mechanism of carrier transport in organic molecular solids. Though CGDM explains the experimental data successfully, there are some limitations with this model. The positional disorder is not included in the present form of CGDM, but large values of disorder parameters $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in NPPDAsnn , AlQggm  and MePc signify the importance of the positional disorder. In CGDM, it has been shown that long-range interaction between charge carriers and permanent dipole moments of doped molecules in polymers and host molecules leads to spatial correlation. However, it has been pointed out by Yu et. al.zgy  that the mechanism responsible for PF behavior in different conjugated polymers and molecules cannot be due to only charge-dipole interaction, because PF behavior has been universally observed in several doped and undoped polymers and molecules with or without permanent dipole moment. Hence, in addition to charge-dipole interaction there may be another mechanism responsible for spatial correlation, which is a fundamental requirement for PF behavior. Yu et. al.zgy  have shown using first principle quantum chemical calculation that the thermal fluctuations in the molecular geometry can lead to spatial correlation. It has been shown that the primary restoring force for the thermal fluctuation is steric and intermolecular, which lead to spatially correlated fluctuation in the energies of the localized states. Further experimental investigations are in progress to identify the exact origin of spatial correlation in molecules with and without dipole moments.

In summary, we have studied the mechanism of carrier transport in disordered molecular solids by means of simple experiments. We have (i) shown that the carriers conducts through hopping; (ii) given evidences for the universal electric field dependence($`ln(\mu )\sqrt{E}`$) of carrier mobility and (iii) presented a comparison of the transport properties with uncorrelated and correlated disorder model. We have shown that $`E`$ and $`T`$ dependence of experimental data can be fitted and described within the correlated Gaussian disorder model, signifying the important role of both energetic and spatial disorder on the carrier transport in these materials. The origin of correlation has been discussed. We hope present analysis would lead to further experimental and theoretical investigations focusing the exact origin and role of correlation on transport properties of disordered molecular solids.

Table.I. Temperature independent zero field mobility $`\mu (0)`$, width of energy spread $`\sigma `$($`\sigma _I`$ in UGDM and $`\sigma _{II}`$ in CGDM) and different scaling parameters $`C`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in UGDM and $`a`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in CGDM for CuPc and ZnPc are given.

|  | $`\mu _0`$ | $`\sigma _I`$ | $`C`$ |  | $`\sigma _{II}`$ | $`a`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | in | in | in | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ | in | in | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ |
|  | $`\frac{cm^2}{Vs}`$ | meV | ($`\frac{cm}{V}`$)$`^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ |  | meV | $`\AA `$ |  |
| CuPc | $`3.0\times 10^8`$ | 95 | $`6.9\times 10^4`$ | -3.18 | 100 | 19 | 1.4 |
| ZnPc | $`1.7\times 10^8`$ | 110 | $`4.5\times 10^4`$ | -4.24 | 120 | 17 | 1.2 |

Figure caption.

Room temperature J-V characteristics for single layer hole only CuPc device with thickness of 200nm. Empty circles represent the data when ITO is positively biased and empty squares represent the data when ITO is negatively biased. Inset shows the J-V characteristics of bulk limited current in ITO/CuPc/Al at different temperature staring at 320K and then at the interval of 40K. Empty circles show experimental data and solid lines represent the simulated data.

Temperature dependence of conductivity of CuPc. Empty circles are experimental data and solid line is fit with straight line. Inset shows the electric field dependence of temperature independent conductivity. Solid line is fit with PF dependence of mobility.

Temperature dependence of the field activation parameter $`\gamma `$ and zero field mobility $`\mu (0)`$(inset) for CuPc obtained from the theoretical fit to the experimental data, according to the UGDM(Eq.2).

Temperature dependence of the field activation parameter $`\gamma `$ and zero field mobility $`\mu (0)`$(inset) for CuPc obtained from the theoretical fit to the experimental data, according to the CGDM(Eq.3).


text:
# Non-minimal Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory and the composite Fermion model

## Acknowledgements

We thank A.L.M.A. Nogueira and D. Barci for fruitful discussions and H. Belich Jr. and M. Messias Jr. for reading the manuscript.


text:
# Hard X-ray Observations of Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables

## 1. Introduction

Hard X-ray ($`>`$ 2 keV) emission from polars is believed to originate from the post-shock region at the base of the accretion column (see Patterson 1994) on the accreting white dwarf. X-ray studies of eclipsing polars are particularly valuable for understanding the geometry of the accretion region, and to learn about the interaction of matter with the magnetic field near the coupling region, the stellar masses, the shock height, and the temperature distribution near the white dwarf surface. A hard X-ray study of polars with large area and broad-band X-ray detectors like the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on board the ($`RXTE`$) satellite provides an excellent opportunity to learn about these effects and to estimate the mass of the white dwarf by measuring the maximum temperature of the post-shock plasma.

We have analyzed the X-ray data obtained of 5 Polars and 1 Intermediate Polar (IP) as listed in Table 1 along with some of their important properties. The dates of the observations of each source and the mean count rate in the 2–20 keV band are given in Table 2. Most of the observations have the source in the center of the field of view of PCA, except for the 2002 observation of V1432 Aql which is intentionally offset to minimize the contribution of flux from NGC6814.

## 2. 2-20 keV Light Curves of Polars

X-ray light curves of V2301 Oph and V1432 Aql in the 2-20 keV energy band are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively for each of the long observations. Several total eclipses were seen clearly in V2301 Oph and along with previous observations used to derive an improved ephemeris for the system: HJD = 2448071.02051(2) + 0.0784499794(10)E. The out-of-eclipse intensity of V 2301 Oph changes on daily and monthly timescales, while the light curve shape and the eclipse ingress and egress remain unchanged (see Fig. 1). The spectral hardness ratio is, however, found to remain constant throughout. These intensity variations, therefore, lead to luminosity variations and suggest that the mass accretion rate varies on these timescales. V1432 Aql also shows complete eclipses (the small residual amount $``$10% of the peak is due to contamination by NGC 6814) in both the observations shown in Fig. 2. Several dips are seen between the phases 0.35 to 0.52, and rapid flickering is observed near the maximum in the highly complicated light curve of V1432 Aql. Total eclipses have also been observed in the 2–20 keV light curves of EP Dra and GG Leo shown in Fig. 3. The residual count rate in EP Dra is fully accounted for by contribution from a nearby ($``$8.3away) cluster of galaxies A2317. V834 Cen shows yearly intensity variations (Fig. 3) with changing maximum intensity as a function of phase while the minimum intensity remains the same. It was not detectable in 2002, and therefore, presumed to have a entered a very low state.

## 3. TV Col: Spin and Orbital Periods

A 5 day long X-ray observation of an intermediate polar, TV Col, is reported here for the first time. The power spectral distribution of its light curve obtained by using the CLEAN (see Norton, Beardmore & Taylor 1996) method and thus removing the window function, is shown in Fig. 4. It clearly displays the presence of a sinusoidal oscillation (spin period) at 1910s and that of modulation due to orbital period of 5.5h. Several other peaks due to various harmonics and side bands of the spin, orbital period and the precession period of 4d (see Norton et al. 1996; Retter et al. 2002) are also seen. In particular, power is detected at side-band frequencies corresponding to periods of 5.2h, 5.8h, and 6.2h (or beats between the orbital and precession period).

## 4. X-ray Spectra of Polars

The hard X-ray emission is believed to originate from the hot gas in the post-shock region gradually cooling and settling on to the white dwarf. It is, therefore, expected that the post-shock region should have a temperature gradient with a low temperature at the bottom of the accretion column and high near the shock front, and a continuous temperature distribution in between. Multi-temperature plasma models are therefore required to quantify the temperature distribution and line emission (Done, Osborne & Beardmore 1995). In addition, the pre-shock material is exposed to hard X-rays thus ionizing it, which can give rise to complex absorption effects. A considerable fraction of hard X-rays from the post-shock region, can also be reflected by the white dwarf surface. Hence, it is important to take into account all the above processes while characterizing the X-ray emission. Several spectral models ranging from the simple thermal bremsstrahlung to plasma emission models with continuous emission measure (cevmekl), and cooling flow were used to fit the X-ray spectra. The best fit spectral parameters derived from two models : thermal bremsstrahlung plus absorption, and cevmekl with ionised absorber and reflection are shown in Table 3. The 2–10 keV flux values given in Table 3 are in units of 10-11 ergs cm-2 s-1. The errors and the range of values for the parameters listed in the table are with 90% confidence. The thermal bremsstrahlung models always required the presence of an emission line component (a broad Gaussian) with the line energy indicating the dominance of the plasma emission from Fe XV or FeXVI over fluorescence of cold Fe. The cevmekl models describe the physical situation much better. These models indicate subsolar abundance for Fe and provide a maximum temperature that is somewhat lower than that derived from the simple bremsstrahlung models (Table 3). The best fit maximum temperatures from Model 2 were used to estimate the mass of the white dwarf in these systems. The estimated masses (Table 3) are consistent, within errors, with the previous estimates given by Ramsay (1997) using a more realistic spectral model.

## References

Augusteijn, T., Heemskerk, M.H.M., Zwarthoed, G.A.A., & van Paradijs, J. 1994, A&AS, 107, 219 (A94)

Bailey, J., Axon, D. J., Hough, J. H., Watts, D. J., Giles, A. B., & Greenhill J. G., 1983, MNRAS, 205, 1P (B83)

Barrett, P., O’Donoghue, D., & Warner, B. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 759 (BDW)

Barwig, H., Ritter, H., & B$`\ddot{a}`$rnbantner, O., 1994, A&A, 288, 204 (BRB)

Burwitz, V., Reinsch, K., Schwope, A. D., et al., 1998, A&A, 331, 262 (Bur98)

Cropper, M., 1990, Space Sci.Rev., 54, 195 (C90)

Done, C., Osborne, J. P., & Beardmore, A. P., 1995, MNRAS, 276, 483.

Geckeler, R. D. & Staubert, R., 1997, å, 325, 1070 (GS)

Hellier, Coel, 1993, MNRAS, 264, 132 (H93)

Hessman, F. V., Beuermann, K., Burwitz, V., de Martino, D., & Thomas, H. C., 1997, A&A, 327, 245 (Hess97)

Jensen, K. A., Nousek, J. A., & Nugent, J. J., 1982, ApJ, 261, 625 (JNJ)

Mason, K., O., Middleditch, J., Cordova, F., A., et al., 1983, ApJ, 264, 575 (M83)

Norton, A. J., Beardmore, A. P. & Taylor, P., 1996, MNRAS, 280, 937

Patterson, J., 1994, PASP, 107, 307

Patterson, J., Skillman, D. R., Thorstensen, J. & Hellier, C., 1995, PASP, 107, 307 (P95)

Ramsay, G., 1997, MNRAS, 290, 99

Remillard, R. A., Stroozas, B. A., Tapia, S. & Silber, A., 1991, ApJ, 379, 715 (RSTS)

Retter, A., Hellier, C., Augusteijn, T., Naylor, T., et al., 2002, MNRAS, in press (R02)

Schlegel, E. M., 1999, AJ, 117, 2494 (S99)

Schmidt, G. D., & Stockman, H. S., 2001, ApJ, 548, 410 (SS)

Schwope, A., D., & Mengel, S., 1997, Astron. Nachr., 318, 25 (SM).

Schwope, A., D., Thomas, H., C., Beuermann, K., & Reinsch, K., 1993, A&A, 267, 103 (S93)

Silber, A. D., Remillard, R. A., Horne, K. A. & Bradt, H. V. 1994,ApJ, 424, 955(SRHB)

Steiman-Cameron, T. Y., & Imamura, J. N., 1999, ApJ, 515, 404 (SI)

Szkody, P., Armstrong, J., & Fried, R., 2000, PASP, 112, 228 (Sz00).

Watson, M. G., Rosen, S. R., O’Donoghue, D., et al., 1995, MNRAS, 273, 681. (W95)