text:
# Hierarchy and Up-Down Parallelism of Quark Mass Matrices

## I Introduction

The masses and flavor mixing angles of six quarks are free parameters in the standard electroweak model, but their values can directly or indirectly be determined from a number of experiments . The fact that three quark masses in each (up or down) sector perform a strong hierarchy is a big puzzle to particle physicists, so is the hierarchy of three quark mixing angles. Theoretical attempts to solve the puzzle, e.g., those starting from supersymmetric grand unification theories or from superstring theories , are encouraging but have not proved to be very successful. Phenomenologically, the common approach is to find out simple textures of quark mass matrices, from which a bridge between the hierarchy of quark mixing angles and that of quark masses can naturally be established . The flavor symmetries hidden in such textures might finally provide us with useful hints towards the underlying dynamics responsible for the generation of quark masses and the origin of $`CP`$ violation.

The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix $`V`$ arises from the mismatch between the diagonalization of the up-type quark mass matrix $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and that of the down-type quark mass matrix $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ . Without loss of generality, one may arrange $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ to be Hermitian in the framework of the standard model or its extensions which have no flavor-changing right-handed currents . There exist two reciprocal ways to explore possible relations between the hierarchy of $`V`$ and that of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$:

(a) Taking account of a specific texture of the Hermitian quark mass matrix $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ or $`M_\mathrm{D}`$, which might result from a new flavor symmetry and its explicit breaking or rely on some plausible theoretical arguments, one may do the unitary transformation

$`O_\mathrm{U}^{}M_\mathrm{U}O_\mathrm{U}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _u& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta _c& 0\\ 0& 0& \delta _t\end{array}\right),`$ (1)
$`O_\mathrm{D}^{}M_\mathrm{D}O_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _d& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta _s& 0\\ 0& 0& \delta _b\end{array}\right),`$ (2)
where $`\delta _i`$ stands for the mass eigenvalue of the $`i`$-quark. Then the CKM matrix $`V`$ is given as $`V=O_\mathrm{U}^{}O_\mathrm{D}`$, from which the quark mixing angles can be expressed in terms of the ratios of quark masses (and other unfixed parameters of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$). This normal approach has extensively been discussed in the literature .

(b) Taking account of the experimentally-allowed pattern of $`V`$ and making some proper assumptions to decompose $`V`$ into $`V=O_\mathrm{U}^{}O_\mathrm{D}`$ (e.g., the principle of “naturalness” disfavors any severe fine-tuning of or delicate cancellations between relevant parameters in the unitary transformation matrices $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`O_\mathrm{D}`$), one may construct the Hermitian quark mass matrices $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ through

$`M_\mathrm{U}`$ $`=`$ $`O_\mathrm{U}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _u& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta _c& 0\\ 0& 0& \delta _t\end{array}\right)O_\mathrm{U}^{},`$ (3)
$`M_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`O_\mathrm{D}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _d& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta _s& 0\\ 0& 0& \delta _b\end{array}\right)O_\mathrm{D}^{}.`$ (4)
This reverse approach has also attracted some attention in the literature .

In this Brief Report, we present a further study of the relationship between the CKM matrix and the quark mass matrices by following approach (b). Our main goal is to derive the phenomenologically-favored textures of Hermitian quark mass matrices from the CKM matrix. We are guided by the hierarchy of quark masses, the hierarchy of the CKM matrix elements and the afore-mentioned principle of naturalness. The only assumption that we need to make is the structural parallelism between up- and down-quark mass matrices. Such an empirical assumption should essentially be true, if two quark sectors are governed by the same dynamics. We arrive at two explicit textures of quark mass matrices, which were not obtained in Ref. . One of them is particularly interesting, as its form is somehow similar to the Ans$`\ddot{a}`$tze proposed by Rosner and Worah  and by Roberts et al . A careful comparison shows that our pattern of quark mass matrices is compatible with the ansatz advocated in Ref. , while the Rosner-Worah pattern is not favored by the present experimental data.

## II Hierarchy and up-down parallelism

The hierarchy of quark flavor mixing can clearly be seen from the Wolfenstein parametrization of the CKM matrix $`V`$ :

$$V\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^4& \lambda & p\lambda ^3\\ \lambda & 1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\left(1+4A^2\right)\lambda ^4& A\lambda ^2\\ q\lambda ^3& A\lambda ^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(2qA\right)\lambda ^4& 1\frac{1}{2}A^2\lambda ^4\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where $`pA(\rho i\eta )`$, $`qA(1\rho i\eta )`$, and the terms of or below $`𝒪(\lambda ^5)`$ have been neglected. Current experimental data yield $`\lambda 0.22`$, $`A0.83`$, $`\rho 0.17`$ and $`\eta 0.36`$ . Thus we have

$`|p|`$ $`=`$ $`A\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.33},`$ (6)
$`|q|`$ $`=`$ $`A\sqrt{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.75}.`$ (7)
We find that $`|p|/|q|2\lambda `$ holds and $`|V_{ub}|=|p|\lambda ^3`$ is actually of $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$.

To construct the Hermitian quark mass matrices $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ from $`V`$ through Eq. (2), the key point is to determine the unitary transformation matrices $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`O_\mathrm{D}`$. As the physical quark masses $`(m_u,m_c,m_t)`$ or $`(m_d,m_s,m_b)`$ approximately perform a geometrical hierarchy at a common energy scale (e.g., the electroweak scale $`\mu =M_Z`$ ),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_t}}\zeta ^2,`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}\lambda ^2,`$ (9)
where $`\zeta `$ is of $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ and can be defined as $`\zeta \kappa \lambda ^2`$ with $`\kappa 𝒪(1)`$, we are allowed to expand the matrix elements of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ or $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ in powers of $`\zeta `$ or $`\lambda `$. Provided two quark sectors are governed by the same dynamics, $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ are then expected to have approximately parallel structures characterized respectively by the perturbative parameters $`\zeta `$ and $`\lambda `$. This up-down parallelism would be exact, if the geometrical relations in Eq. (5) held exactly (i.e., $`m_u/m_c=m_c/m_t=\zeta ^2`$ and $`m_d/m_s=m_s/m_b=\lambda ^2`$). Note that the parallelism between $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ implies the parallelism between $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`O_\mathrm{D}`$, whose textures can respectively be expanded in terms of $`\zeta `$ and $`\lambda `$. Since the CKM matrix $`V=O_\mathrm{U}^{}O_\mathrm{D}`$ deviates from the unity matrix only at the $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ level, both $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`O_\mathrm{D}`$ must be close to the unity matrix in the spirit of naturalness. It is therefore instructive to expand $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`O_\mathrm{D}`$ as follows:

$`O_\mathrm{U}`$ $`=`$ $`I+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(Z_n^\mathrm{U}\zeta ^n\right),`$ (10)
$`O_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`I+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(Z_n^\mathrm{D}\lambda ^n\right),`$ (11)
where $`I`$ stands for the unity matrix, and $`Z_n^\mathrm{U}`$ or $`Z_n^\mathrm{D}`$ (for $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) denotes the coefficient matrix of $`\zeta ^n`$ or $`\lambda ^n`$. While $`Z_n^\mathrm{U}Z_n^\mathrm{D}`$ should in general hold, the simplest possibility is $`Z_n^\mathrm{U}=Z_n^\mathrm{D}`$ ($`Z_n`$), equivalent to the exact parallelism between $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`O_\mathrm{D}`$. In this especially interesting case, the expressions of $`Z_1`$, $`Z_2`$, $`Z_3`$ and $`Z_4`$ can concretely be determined from Eqs. (3) and (6):

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \kappa & 0\\ \kappa & \frac{1}{2}& A\\ 0& A& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
$`Z_3`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\kappa & 0& p\\ 0& \kappa & 0\\ q& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
$`Z_4`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{8}\left(1+4\kappa ^2\right)& \frac{1}{2}\kappa \left(1+2\kappa ^2\right)& A\kappa \\ \frac{1}{2}\kappa \left(12\kappa ^2\right)& \frac{1}{8}\left(1+4\kappa ^2+4A^2\right)& A\kappa ^2\\ 0& A\kappa ^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(A2p^{}\right)& \frac{1}{2}A^2\end{array}\right).`$ (15)
We see that the complex $`CP`$-violating phase enters $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ or $`O_\mathrm{D}`$ at the level of $`𝒪(\zeta ^3)`$ or $`𝒪(\lambda ^3)`$. As a straightfoward consequence of $`\zeta 𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$, the contribution of $`O_\mathrm{D}`$ to $`V`$ is dominant over that of $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ to $`V`$.

With the help of Eqs. (6) and (7), we are now able to derive the hierarchical textures of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ from Eq. (2). Note that the quark mass eigenvalues $`(\delta _u,\delta _c,\delta _t)`$ and $`(\delta _d,\delta _s,\delta _b)`$ in Eq. (2) may be either positive or negative. Without loss of generality, we take $`\delta _t=m_t`$ and $`\delta _b=m_b`$. The other four mass eigenvalues can be expressed, in view of Eq. (5), as follows:

$`\delta _u`$ $`=`$ $`r_u\zeta ^4m_t,`$ (16)
$`\delta _c`$ $`=`$ $`r_c\zeta ^2m_t;`$ (17)
and

$`\delta _d`$ $`=`$ $`r_d\lambda ^4m_b,`$ (18)
$`\delta _s`$ $`=`$ $`r_s\lambda ^2m_b,`$ (19)
where $`|r_u||r_c||r_d||r_s|𝒪(1)`$ holds. Then we arrive at the results of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$:

$`M_\mathrm{U}`$ $``$ $`m_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(r_u+r_c)\zeta ^4& \stackrel{~}{r}_c\zeta ^3& p_\zeta ^{}\zeta ^3\\ \stackrel{~}{r}_c\zeta ^3& r_c\zeta ^2& A\zeta ^2\\ p_\zeta ^{}\zeta ^3& A\zeta ^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
$`M_\mathrm{D}`$ $``$ $`m_b\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(r_d+r_s)\lambda ^4& \stackrel{~}{r}_s\lambda ^3& p_\lambda ^{}\lambda ^3\\ \stackrel{~}{r}_s\lambda ^3& r_s\lambda ^2& A\lambda ^2\\ p_\lambda ^{}\lambda ^3& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (21)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{r}_c`$ $``$ $`r_c\left(1+\kappa \zeta \right),`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{~}{r}_s`$ $``$ $`r_s\left(1+\kappa \lambda \right),`$ (23)
and

$`p_\zeta ^{}`$ $``$ $`p+\kappa A\zeta ,`$ (24)
$`p_\lambda ^{}`$ $``$ $`p+\kappa A\lambda .`$ (25)
We see that the parallelism between $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ in Eq. (10) is not exact (e.g., $`p_\zeta ^{}pp_\lambda ^{}`$), even though the exact parallelism between $`O_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`O_\mathrm{D}`$ has been assumed in our calculations.

Note that the sign uncertainties of quark mass eigenvalues may lead to two distinct textures of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$. If $`r_u`$ (or $`r_d`$) and $`r_c`$ (or $`r_s`$) have the same sign, the (1,1) element of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ (or $`M_\mathrm{D}`$) amounts approximately to $`2r_c\zeta ^4`$ (or $`2r_s\lambda ^4`$). In this case, we obtain

$`M_\mathrm{U}`$ $``$ $`m_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2r_c\zeta ^4& \stackrel{~}{r}_c\zeta ^3& p_\zeta ^{}\zeta ^3\\ \stackrel{~}{r}_c\zeta ^3& r_c\zeta ^2& A\zeta ^2\\ p_\zeta ^{}\zeta ^3& A\zeta ^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (26)
$`M_\mathrm{D}`$ $``$ $`m_b\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2r_s\lambda ^4& \stackrel{~}{r}_s\lambda ^3& p_\lambda ^{}\lambda ^3\\ \stackrel{~}{r}_s\lambda ^3& r_s\lambda ^2& A\lambda ^2\\ p_\lambda ^{}\lambda ^3& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (27)
If the signs of $`r_u`$ (or $`r_d`$) and $`r_c`$ (or $`r_s`$) are opposite to each other, however, a very significant cancellation must appear between them This cancellation does not involve two different quark sectors, thus it has no conflict with the principle of naturalness mentioned before.. In this case, the (1,1) elements of $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}`$ are expected to be of or below $`𝒪(\zeta ^5)`$ and $`𝒪(\lambda ^5)`$, respectively. Then we are led to a somehow simpler texture of quark mass matrices:

$`M_\mathrm{U}`$ $``$ $`m_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \stackrel{~}{r}_c\zeta ^3& p_\zeta ^{}\zeta ^3\\ \stackrel{~}{r}_c\zeta ^3& r_c\zeta ^2& A\zeta ^2\\ p_\zeta ^{}\zeta ^3& A\zeta ^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (28)
$`M_\mathrm{D}`$ $``$ $`m_b\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \stackrel{~}{r}_s\lambda ^3& p_\lambda ^{}\lambda ^3\\ \stackrel{~}{r}_s\lambda ^3& r_s\lambda ^2& A\lambda ^2\\ p_\lambda ^{}\lambda ^3& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (29)
The textures of Hermitian quark mass matrices in Eqs. (13) and (14) result naturally from the quark mass hierarchy and the up-down parallelism. Therefore they can be regarded as two promising candidates for the “true” quark mass matrices in an underlying effective theory of quark mass generation at low energies.

## III Comparison with two existing Ans$`\ddot{𝐚}`$tze

Now let us compare the texture of quark mass matrices obtained in Eq. (14) with two existing Ans$`\ddot{a}`$tze proposed by Rosner and Worah (RW) in Ref.  and by Roberts, Romanino, Ross and Velasco-Sevilla (RRRV) in Ref. . Note that quark mass matrices of both RW and RRRV forms are symmetric instead of Hermitian. Their consequences on quark flavor mixing and $`CP`$ violation are essentially unchanged, however, if the Hermiticity is imposed on them . For this reason, we consider the Hermitian versions of the RW and RRRV Ans$`\ddot{a}`$tze and compare them with Eq. (14).

The RW ansatz of quark mass matrices is based on a composite model of spin-1/2 particles  and its Hermitian form can be written as

$`_\mathrm{U}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{2}\alpha _\mathrm{U}^{}& \alpha _\mathrm{U}^{}\\ \sqrt{2}\alpha _\mathrm{U}^{}& \beta _\mathrm{U}& \sqrt{2}\beta _\mathrm{U}\\ \alpha _\mathrm{U}^{}& \sqrt{2}\beta _\mathrm{U}& \gamma _\mathrm{U}^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (30)
$`_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{2}\alpha _\mathrm{D}^{}& \alpha _\mathrm{D}^{}\\ \sqrt{2}\alpha _\mathrm{D}^{}& \beta _\mathrm{D}& \sqrt{2}\beta _\mathrm{D}\\ \alpha _\mathrm{D}^{}& \sqrt{2}\beta _\mathrm{D}& \gamma _\mathrm{D}^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (31)
where $`\alpha _\mathrm{U}^{}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{D}^{}`$ are complex parameters so as to accommodate the observed effects of $`CP`$ violation in the quark sector . Comparing between Eqs. (14) and (15), we find that the latter could basically be reproduced from the former, if the following conditions were satisfied:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{~}{r}_c|}{|p_\zeta ^{}|}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{|r_c|}}\sqrt{2},`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{~}{r}_s|}{|p_\lambda ^{}|}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{|r_s|}}\sqrt{2}.`$ (33)
In view of Eqs. (8) and (9) as well as Eqs. (11) and (12), we immediately realize that the relations in Eq. (16) are impossible to hold. Hence the RW texture is actually incompatible with ours given in Eq. (14). Does this incompatibility imply the disagreement between the RW ansatz and current experimental data? We find that the answer is affirmative. Since the (1,2) and (1,3) elements of $`_\mathrm{U}`$ or $`_\mathrm{D}`$ in Eq. (15) are comparable in magnitude, we are led to the prediction

$$|V_{td}||V_{ub}|\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda ^3$$
(34)
in the leading-order approximation. Such a result is obviously inconsistent with the present experimental data, which require $`|V_{ub}|𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{td}||p|/|q|2\lambda `$. Thus the RW texture of quark mass matrices, no matter whether it is Hermitian or symmetric, is no longer favored in phenomenology.

The Hermitian RRRV ansatz of quark mass matrices  takes the form This texture is indeed similar to the one discussed by Branco et al in Ref. .

$`_\mathrm{U}`$ $`=`$ $`m_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& b_\mathrm{U}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^3& c_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^4\\ b_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^3& ϵ_\mathrm{U}^2& a_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^2\\ c_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^4& a_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (35)
$`_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`m_b\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& b_\mathrm{D}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^3& c_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^4\\ b_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^3& ϵ_\mathrm{D}^2& a_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^2\\ c_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^4& a_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (36)
where $`ϵ_\mathrm{U}^{}\sqrt{m_c/m_t}`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{D}^{}\sqrt{m_s/m_b}`$ stand respectively for the expansion parameters of up- and down-quark sectors, and the remaining parameters $`(a_\mathrm{U}^{},b_\mathrm{U},c_\mathrm{U}^{})`$ and $`(a_\mathrm{D}^{},b_\mathrm{D},c_\mathrm{D}^{})`$ are all of $`𝒪(1)`$ in magnitude. From Eqs. (8) and (9), we obtain the relation between $`ϵ_\mathrm{U}^{}`$ (or $`ϵ_\mathrm{D}^{}`$) and $`\zeta `$ (or $`\lambda `$) as follows:

$`ϵ_\mathrm{U}^{}`$ $``$ $`\zeta \sqrt{|r_c|},`$ (37)
$`ϵ_\mathrm{D}^{}`$ $``$ $`\lambda \sqrt{|r_s|}.`$ (38)
In addition, we find

$`|a_\mathrm{U}^{}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{|r_c|}},`$ (39)
$`|b_\mathrm{U}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa \zeta }{\sqrt{|r_c|}}},`$ (40)
$`|c_\mathrm{U}^{}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|p_\zeta ^{}|}{\zeta |r_c|^2}};`$ (41)
and

$`|a_\mathrm{D}^{}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{|r_s|}},`$ (42)
$`|b_\mathrm{D}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa \lambda }{\sqrt{|r_s|}}},`$ (43)
$`|c_\mathrm{D}^{}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|p_\lambda ^{}|}{\lambda |r_s|^2}}.`$ (44)
It is obvious that the moduli of $`(a_\mathrm{U}^{},b_\mathrm{U},c_\mathrm{U}^{})`$ and $`(a_\mathrm{D}^{},b_\mathrm{D},c_\mathrm{D}^{})`$ are all of $`𝒪(1)`$, consistent with the assumption made in Ref.  §§§Note that $`|c_\mathrm{U}^{}|\lambda /\zeta 1/\lambda `$ may be around 4.5, but it has little impact on the global fit of the RRRV ansatz to current experimental data .. Hence the RRRV ansatz is compatible with our texture of quark mass matrices given in Eq. (14) and favored by current experimental data on quark flavor mixing.

It is worth remarking that a simplification of the RRRV ansatz to the following four-zero texture

$`_\mathrm{U}`$ $`=`$ $`m_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& b_\mathrm{U}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^3& 0\\ b_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^3& ϵ_\mathrm{U}^2& a_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^2\\ 0& a_\mathrm{U}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{U}^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (45)
$`_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`m_b\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& b_\mathrm{D}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^3& 0\\ b_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^3& ϵ_\mathrm{D}^2& a_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^2\\ 0& a_\mathrm{D}^{}ϵ_\mathrm{D}^2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (46)
would give rise to the prediction $`|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}|\sqrt{m_u/m_c}0.06`$  for reasonable values of $`m_u`$ and $`m_c`$ , which is difficult to agree with the present experimental result $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|_{\mathrm{ex}}0.09`$ . Such a discrepancy implies that the interesting four-zero pattern of quark mass matrices in Eq. (22) might no longer be favored Note, however, that the general four-zero texture of Hermitian quark mass matrices can still be in good agreement with current experimental data. See Ref.  for detailed discussions..

Comparing Eq. (18) with Eqs. (15) and (22), we see that the (1,3) elements of $`_\mathrm{U}`$ and $`_\mathrm{D}`$ should be neither larger than or comparable with their neighboring (1,2) elements nor vanishing or negligibly small. This observation is particularly true for $`M_\mathrm{D}`$, which contributes dominantly to the CKM matrix $`V`$.

## IV Summary

We have derived two phenomenologically-favored textures of Hermitian quark mass matrices from the CKM matrix. Our starting points of view include the hierarchy of quark masses, the hierarchy of the CKM matrix elements and the principle of naturalness. The main assumption that we have made is the structural parallelism between up- and down-quark mass matrices, which is expected to be true if two quark sectors are governed by the same dynamics.

We have compared one of the obtained textures with two existing Ans$`\ddot{a}`$tze of quark mass matrices, proposed by Rosner and Worah and by Roberts et al. It turns out that the Rosner-Worah ansatz is no more favored in phenomenology, while the ansatz of Roberts et al is in good agreement with current experimental data.

We hope that our results for the structures of quark mass matrices may serve as useful guides to model building, from which some deeper understanding of quark masses, flavor mixing and $`CP`$ violation can finally be achieved.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.


format: text

text:
# The 1000 Brightest HIPASS Galaxies: H i Mass Function and Ω_HI

## 1. Introduction

Estimates of the H i mass function (HiMF), the distribution function of galaxies as a function of H i mass, have been based on very small samples of galaxies. The most extensive blind H i surveys to date, the Arecibo H i Strip Survey (AHISS, Zwaan et al. 1997) and the Arecibo Dual-Beam Survey (ADBS, Rosenberg & Schneider 2002) resulted in 66 and 265 galaxy detections, respectively. On the contrary, state of the art measurements of the optical equivalent of the HiMF, the galaxy luminosity function (LF), are based on samples of typically a few $`\times 10^5`$ galaxies (Folkes et al. 1999, Norberg et al. 2001, 2dF; Blanton et al. 2001, SDSS). These large area, low redshift surveys have resulted in a very accurate census of the local galaxy population and have shown that the power law faint-end slope of the LF is ‘flat’ ($`\alpha =1.2`$) down to the lowest luminosities ($`M_B5\mathrm{log}h_{75}<15`$). The shape of the LF and the derived integral cosmological luminosity density $`\rho _L`$ provide important constraints to galaxy evolution models. However, for an accurate assessment of the distribution and content of baryons in the universe, it is important to also measure the HiMF with high accuracy.

The H i Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS) is a blind survey of the whole southern sky south of $`\delta =25^{}`$ in the velocity range $`1200<cz<12700\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Analysis of the extragalactic component of the survey is ongoing and the final galaxy sample is estimated to have $`7000`$ entries. This deep catalog is expected to make important contributions to the mapping and understanding of large scale structure, the interpretation of QSO absorption-lines, analysis of galaxy groups and clusters, etc. Here we use the first product of the HIPASS database, the HIPASS Bright Galaxy Catalog (BGC, Koribalski et al. 2003), which consists of the 1000 galaxies with the highest peak flux densities. This sample is four times as large as the next largest H i selected galaxy sample (ADBS) and therefore enables a more careful analysis of the shape of the HiMF as well as its dependence on various galaxy parameters.

An accurate measurement of the HiMF is highly relevant to several modern astrophysical problems. Firstly, the HiMF provides a measurement of the cosmological mass density of H i, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, in the local universe. This is an important benchmark in the mapping out of the evolution of the neutral gas mass density from before the epoch of reionization, when the vast majority of baryons was in the form of H i, to the present epoch where the mass in stars outweighs that in neutral gas (Lanzetta, Wolfe & Turnshek 1995, Storrie-Lombardi & Wolfe 2000). At intermediate redshifts, damped Ly-$`\alpha `$ systems are used to trace the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, but because of their low number density $`dN/dz`$ at low $`z`$, damped Ly-$`\alpha `$ can not be used to accurately measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ at $`z=0`$.

Secondly, the shape of the HiMF faint-end slope provides useful input to galaxy formation models. Both the LF and the HiMF are required to link the local galaxy population to the model prediction, since both functions measure different baryonic components of galaxies. The HiMF measures the distribution of mass of the innate cool gas in galaxies, whereas the LF describes the distribution of light emission of processed material (i.e. stars), which is non-trivially linked to its mass. Many dwarf galaxies have large gas fractions (e.g., Roberts & Haynes 1994), which means that the HiMF is closely related to the low mass end of the total mass function of galaxies. Of course, this relation breaks down in regions of high galaxy density, where gas poor dwarf elliptical galaxies dominate the number counts of low mass galaxies. Measuring the low mass end of the mass function is specifically interesting with regard to Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory, which predicts an abundance of low mass objects, which might be detectable in 21cm. However, the detectability could be decreased if gas is ejected by early supernovae (Dekel & Silk 1986; Babul & Rees 1992; Babul & Ferguson 1996) or photoevaporized by the cosmic UV background during reionization (Barkana & Loeb 1999). Also at lower redshifts can ionization by the UV background of lower column density regions of H i disks have an effect on the slope of the HiMF (Corbelli, Salpeter, & Bandiera 2001).

Recently, there has been considerable controversy over the faint-end slope of the HiMF. Zwaan et al. (1997) found a slope of $`\alpha =1.2`$, consistent with previous estimates based on optically selected galaxies (Briggs & Rao 1993). Similar values for $`\alpha `$ were found by Kraan-Korteweg et al. (1999). Schneider, Spitzak & Rosenberg (1999) report a flat HiMF with an extremely steep low-mass slope below $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=10^8`$. In a more recent analysis Rosenberg & Schneider (2002) advocated a faint-end slope of $`\alpha =1.53`$.

The aim of this paper is to calculate the HiMF with higher accuracy using the HIPASS BGC, the largest sample of H i selected galaxies available to date. Particular emphasis is directed toward understanding possible biases in the calculation of the HiMF. In Section 2 we briefly summarize the HIPASS specifics and describe the BGC. In Section 3 various estimators of the HiMF are discussed and a new method, the 2-dimensional stepwise maximum likelihood method is described. The H i mass function is presented in Section 4, which includes a detailed discussion on possible biases that may influence the HiMF calculation. In Section 5 the results are compared to previous measurements of the HiMF. The contribution of different galaxy types is discussed in Section 6. Section 7 presents a discussion on the H i mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$, and in Section 8 the selection function of the survey is discussed. Finally, in Section 9 the conclusions are presented. We use $`H_0=75\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ throughout this paper.

## 2. The HIPASS Bright Galaxy Catalog

The BGC (Koribalski et al. 2003) is a catalog of the 1000 galaxies with the largest H i peak flux densities111In the remainder of this paper we refer to ‘peak flux density’ as ‘peak flux’. $`S_\mathrm{p}`$ in the southern sky ($`\delta <0^{}`$). The sample is based on HIPASS, for which the observing strategy and reduction details are described in Barnes et al. (2001). Here we briefly summarize the HIPASS survey strategy.

The observations were conducted in the period from 1997 to 2000 with the Parkes222The Parkes telescope is part of the Australia Telescope, which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. 64-m radio telescope, using the 21-cm multibeam receiver (Staveley-Smith et al. 1996). The telescope scanned along strips of $`8^{}`$ in declination and data were recorded for thirteen independent beams, each with two polarizations. A total of 1024 channels over a total bandwidth of 64 MHz were recorded, resulting in a channel separation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=13.2\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and a velocity resolution of $`\delta v=18\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ after Tukey smoothing. The total velocity coverage is $`1200`$ to $`12700\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. After bandpass calibration, continuum subtraction and gridding into $`8^{}\times 8^{}`$ cubes, the typical rms noise is 13 mJy/beam. This leads to a $`3\sigma `$ column density limit of $`6\times 10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for gas filling the beam. The spatial resolution of the gridded data is $`15\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$.

An automatic galaxy finding algorithm (see Kilborn et al. 2002) was applied to the HIPASS data set to identify all sources with $`S_\mathrm{p}>60`$ mJy. The list of potential detections was inspected by eye to separate radio frequency interference and bandpass ripples from real H i sources. Since the noise in the HIPASS data is considerably higher at low Galactic latitude, the list of detections was complemented with $`|b|<3^{}`$ detections from the H i Zone of Avoidance survey (Henning et al. 2000). Furthermore, to avoid confusion with the Milky Way Galaxy and high velocity clouds, the range $`|v|<350\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ was excluded from the list and substituted with known nearby galaxies. From the resulting list the 1000 galaxies with the highest H i peak fluxes were selected, resulting in a selection limit of $`S_\mathrm{p}>116`$ mJy. Further details of the selection, as well as properties of the BGC galaxies, are given in Koribalski et al. (2003). An important point to note here is that only four BGC sources outside the Zone of Avoidance ($`b>5^{}`$) have no optical counterpart on the Digitized Sky Survey. One is obscured by the LMC, one is a tidal cloud of NGC 2442 (Ryder et al. 2001) and the other two have heliocentric velocities $`<500\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and are probably Magellanic debris (Koribalski et al. 2003).

HIPASS achieves 100% coverage over the southern sky, and has a very uniform noise level. However, there are regions of the sky near strong sources of radio continuum, where the noise level is elevated. Near such sources, it is possible that we are missing bright galaxies. As above, the typical rms noise level is 13 mJy/beam. However, above an rms noise level of 23 mJy/beam, the faintest BGC objects are detected with a signal-to-noise ratio of no more than 5 in each velocity channel. Within the BGC velocity range, 2.5% of all southern HIPASS spectra have an rms noise greater than 23 mJy/beam. This gives a useful upper limit to the incompleteness of the BGC.

## 3. Calculating the HI Mass Function

### 3.1. Methods

We define the H i mass function $`\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ as the space density of objects in units of $`h_{75}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. The HiMF is normally calculated per decade of H i mass, and plotted on a logarithmic scale. For fitting purposes, we use the Schechter function (Schechter, 1976) defined by

$$\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}})dM_{\mathrm{HI}}=\theta ^{}(\frac{M_{\mathrm{HI}}}{M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}})^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(\frac{M_{\mathrm{HI}}}{M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}})dM_{\mathrm{HI}},$$
(1)
characterized by the three parameters $`\alpha `$, $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$, and $`\theta ^{}`$, which define the slope of the power-law, the H i mass corresponding to the ”knee”, and the normalization, respectively.

The $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method originally developed by Schmidt (1968) to study the evolution of quasars, simply consists of summing in H i mass bins the reciprocals of $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the volume corresponding to the maximum distance $`D_{\mathrm{lim},i}`$ at which an object can be detected. This is a popular method for determining H i mass functions because the values of $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ can be readily evaluated for every survey if the survey sensitivity is well-understood (see Zwaan 1997, Rosenberg & Schneider 2002, Kilborn 2000). The method also works well for surveys that are not purely flux-limited, but where the survey selection is a complicated function of various galaxy parameters and telescope properties. For the BGC, $`D_{\mathrm{lim},i}`$ can simply be found by multiplying the distance $`D_i`$ at which the object is detected with $`(S_i/S_{\mathrm{lim}})^{1/2}`$, where $`S_i`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ are the peak flux of object $`i`$ and the limiting peak flux of the sample, which is 116 mJy.

The main concern about the $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method is that it is potentially sensitive to the influence of large scale structure. The $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method intrinsically assumes that the galaxy population used to evaluate luminosity functions or mass functions is homogeneously distributed in space. In sensitivity-limited samples (as opposed to volume-limited samples), a correlation exists between the mass or luminosity of objects and the distance at which they are preferentially found. Underdense or overdense regions may therefore yield under or over-representation of objects of corresponding mass or luminosity. Maximum likelihood techniques (Sandage, Tamman & Yahil 1979 \[STY\] and the stepwise maximum likelihood method \[SWML\] Efstathiou, Ellis & Peterson 1988) are designed to be insensitive to density fluctuations and it is therefore important to test whether these methods can be employed for our H i selected galaxy sample.

The key of the maximum likelihood techniques is to find the parent distribution $`\theta `$ which yields the maximum joint probability of detecting all objects in the sample. The probability that a galaxy with H i mass $`M_{\mathrm{HI},i}`$ be detected can be expressed as

$$p(M_{\mathrm{HI},i}|D_i)=\frac{\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI},i})}{_{M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}}(D_i)}^{\mathrm{}}\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}})𝑑M_{\mathrm{HI}}},$$
(2)
where $`M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}(D_i)}`$ is the minimal detectable H i mass at distance $`D_i`$ in Mpc. Put differently, $`p(M_{\mathrm{HI},i}|D_i)`$ is the fraction of galaxies in the survey volume with H i mass $`M_{\mathrm{HI},i}`$ that are near enough to be brighter than the survey detection limit. Finding for which $`\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ the product of the probabilities,

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{g}}{}}p_i,$$
(3)
is maximal, then gives the maximum likelihood solution for the mass function. The disadvantage of this procedure is that it is parametric, that is, it requires an analytical expression for $`\theta `$, which is usually taken to be the Schechter function, as in Eq 1. The stepwise maximum likelihood method (SWML) is a modification of this procedure, and measures $`\theta `$ at fixed intervals of $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ by iteration. This procedure does not depend on a functional form for $`\theta `$.

As described above the maximum likelihood estimators require the calculation of $`M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}}(D_i)`$, the minimal detectable H i mass at distance $`D_i`$. For a hypothetical sample limited by integrated H i flux, this parameter could be simply calculated by $`M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}}(D)=2.36\times 10^5D^2S𝑑V_{\mathrm{lim}}`$, where $`S𝑑V_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is the integrated flux limit in Jy $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`D`$ is the distance in Mpc. For optical redshift surveys the analogous value of minimal detectable luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}(D)`$ can be determined since optical redshift surveys are generally flux-limited, and maximum likelihood methods can be readily applied. H i selected samples are seldom integrated flux-limited, but instead the detectability of signals depends on both the velocity width $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ and peak flux $`S_\mathrm{p}`$ (Zwaan et al. 1997, Rosenberg & Schneider 2000), or in the case of the BGC, solely on $`S_\mathrm{p}`$. Therefore, a unique relation between distance and the minimal detectable H i mass does not exist, and the standard maximum likelihood techniques can not be employed.

In principle, for every galaxy in the sample a parameter $`M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}}(D_i,P_i)`$ can be calculated, which is the minimal detectable H i mass at distance $`D_i`$, with profile shape $`P_i`$ equal to that of galaxy $`i`$. Rosenberg & Schneider (2002) apply this method to their ADBS sample and find an HiMF with faint-end slope $`\alpha =1.53`$. However, this method can lead to incorrect measurements of the HiMF. The SWML essentially consists of determining for each bin $`k`$ in $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ the volume accessible to that H i mass, by summing the reciprocals of space densities of galaxies that could be detected in the volume out to the maximum distance at which a galaxy in bin $`k`$ could be detected. A summation over all galaxies with $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}<M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}}(D_i,P_i)`$ is not the same.

In the following we briefly demonstrate that this implementation of the maximum likelihood technique for the BGC can result in a severe overestimation of the faint-end slope $`\alpha `$. We fill volumes equal to that of the BGC with synthetic galaxy samples using HiMFs with slopes $`\alpha =1.0`$ and $`\alpha =1.4`$. The galaxies follow a general trend of $`\mathrm{\Delta }VM_{\mathrm{HI}}^{1/3}`$, similar to what is observed in the BGC, and we introduce scatter on all galaxy properties equal to that seen in the BGC. Next we select from these volumes all galaxies with $`S_\mathrm{p}>116\mathrm{mJy}`$, and calculate the HiMF following the SWML method as described above. From these synthetic peak flux selected samples we also select integrated flux-limited subsamples, for which $`S_{\mathrm{int}}>25\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and also apply the SWML method to these samples. We test by means of a $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ test that the cutoff at $`S_{\mathrm{int}}>25\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ provides a statistically complete subset. Finally, the $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method is applied to both the peak flux-limited samples and the integrated flux-limited subsamples. All simulations are performed 100 times.

The results are presented in Figure 3.1. The top two panels represent the results from the SWML method and the bottom two panels those from the $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method. In each panel the solid lines show the input Schechter function, the circles the measured HiMFs for the peak flux limited samples and the open squares the measured HiMF for the integrated flux limited subsamples. The dashed line is a Schechter function fit to the points.

Both methods recover the input HiMF very well if they are applied to the integrated flux limited subsamples. However, this figure illustrates clearly that the SWML method results in a severe overestimation of the faint-end slope if it is applied to the peak flux limited samples.

We note that the examples presented here are specific to the BGC. To which degree the output HiMF is in error depends very strongly on the selection function of the H i survey and there are situations possible in which the SWML coincidentally gives the correct answer.

### 3.2. The 2-dimensional SWML method (2DSWML)

On galaxy samples that are other than flux-limited, other parameters have to be included in the maximum likelihood calculation of the space density of objects. For a given H i source at distance $`D`$, the peak flux is directly proportional to its H i mass $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, and inversely proportional to the velocity width over which the flux is distributed. Therefore, the velocity width is the second parameter we have to include in the maximum likelihood analysis. A 2-dimensional maximum likelihood algorithm can then be employed to find the true galaxy distribution. In the following we use $`w_{20}`$, the profile width measured at 20% of peak intensity, as a measurement of the velocity width.

The probability of detecting galaxy $`i`$ with H i mass $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^i`$ and velocity width $`w_{20}^i`$ at distance $`D_i`$ is given by

$`p(M_{\mathrm{HI}}^i,w_{20}^i|D_i)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}}^i,w_{20}^i)}{_{w_{20}=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{M_{\mathrm{HI}}=M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}}^i}^{\mathrm{}}\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}},w_{20})𝑑M_{\mathrm{HI}}𝑑w_{20}}},`$ (4)
where

$$M_{\mathrm{HI},\mathrm{lim}}^i(w_{20})=M_{\mathrm{HI}}^i\frac{S_{\mathrm{lim}}}{S_i}\frac{w_{20}}{w_{20}^i}$$
(5)
is the minimal H i mass the galaxy could have to be detectable at distance $`D_i`$ if it had a velocity width $`w_{20}`$, and $`\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}},w_{20})`$ is the 2-dimensional density distribution function. However, we have no a priori knowledge of the functional form of $`\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}},w_{20})`$, which implies that a parametric maximum likelihood method (STY) can not be applied.

Alternatively, we can define the logarithmically binned 2-dimensional density distribution function

$$\theta _{jk}=\theta (M,W),$$
(6)
where

$$j=1,\mathrm{},N_M\mathrm{and}k=1,\mathrm{},N_W,$$
(7)
and $`N_M`$ and $`N_W`$ are the number of bins in $`M`$ and $`W`$, respectively, and we define

$$M=\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{HI}})\mathrm{and}W=\mathrm{log}(w_{20}).$$
(8)
The logarithm of the likelihood of detecting all galaxies in the sample can now be expressed as

$`\mathrm{ln}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{g}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{M}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{W}}{}}}V(M_iM_j,W_iW_k)\mathrm{ln}\theta _{jk}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{g}}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{M}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{W}}{}}}H_{ijk}\theta _{jk}\right)+c,`$ (9)
where $`c`$ is a constant and $`V`$ is a function defined by

$$V(x,y)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,|x|\mathrm{\Delta }M/2\mathrm{and}|y|\mathrm{\Delta }W/2\hfill \\ 0,\mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array},$$
(10)
which makes the first sum only go over galaxies in bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }M\mathrm{\Delta }W`$. The function $`H_{ijk}`$ is defined as the fraction of the bin accessible to source $`i`$:

$$H_{ijk}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }M\mathrm{\Delta }W}_{W=W_k\mathrm{\Delta }W/2}^{W^+}_{M=M^{}}^{M_j+\mathrm{\Delta }M/2}𝑑M𝑑W,$$
(11)
where

$$M^{}=\mathrm{max}(M_j\mathrm{\Delta }M/2,\mathrm{min}(M_j+\mathrm{\Delta }M/2,M_{\mathrm{lim},i})),$$

$$M_{\mathrm{lim},i}=M_i+\mathrm{log}(S_{\mathrm{lim}}/S_i)W_i+W_k,$$

$$W^+=\mathrm{min}(W_k+\mathrm{\Delta }W/2,\mathrm{max}(W_k\mathrm{\Delta }W/2,W_{\mathrm{lim},i})),$$

$$W_{\mathrm{lim},i}=W_i\mathrm{log}(S_{\mathrm{lim}}/S_i)M_i+M_j.$$

This implies that

$`H_{ijk}=1\mathrm{if}M_iM_jW_i+W_k+`$
$`\mathrm{log}(S_{\mathrm{lim}}/S_i)+\mathrm{\Delta }W/2+\mathrm{\Delta }M/2<0`$
$`H_{ijk}=0\mathrm{if}M_iM_jW_i+W_k+`$
$`\mathrm{log}(S_{\mathrm{lim}}/S_i)\mathrm{\Delta }W/2\mathrm{\Delta }M/2>0.`$
Maximum likelihood solutions for $`\theta _{jk}`$ are now found by differentiating $``$ and applying the usual additional constraint to fix the normalization (see e.g., Efstathiou et al. 1988). We then arrive at

$`\theta _{jk}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{g}}{}}}V(M_iM_j,W_iW_k)}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{g}}{}}}H_{ijk}\mathrm{\Delta }M\mathrm{\Delta }W\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{M}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{W}}{}}}\theta _{lm}H_{ilm}\mathrm{\Delta }M\mathrm{\Delta }W\right)^1}},`$ (12)
and most likely values for $`\theta _{jk}`$ are found by iterating Eq. 12. Stable solutions for $`\theta _{jk}`$ are usually found after $`25`$ iterations.

Finally, the HiMF can be calculated from

$$\theta (M_j)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_W}{}}\theta (M_j,W_k).$$
(13)
In the remainder of this paper we refer to this method as the 2-dimensional stepwise maximum likelihood method or 2DSWML. A very similar technique was used by Loveday (2000) to calculate the $`K`$-band luminosity function from a $`B`$-band selected galaxy sample. The implementation of the 2DSWML method described in this paper is designed to work on the peak flux limited BGC, but the method could be adjusted to work on samples other than peak flux limited. This will be of particular interest for the full sensitivity HIPASS galaxy catalog (Meyer et al. 2003a) for which the selection criteria are a combination of peak flux and velocity width.

### 3.3. The selection function

Whereas for the $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method the normalization of the mass function is automatically determined, for the maximum likelihood methods the normalization has to be determined afterwards. First we have to evaluate the selection function $`S(D)`$, which describes the probability that an object at distance $`D`$ is detected by the survey. For a flux-limited sample the selection function would normally be calculated with

$$S(D)=\frac{_{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{lim}}(D),M_{\mathrm{low}})}^{M_{\mathrm{high}}}\theta (M)𝑑M}{_{M_{\mathrm{low}}}^{M_{\mathrm{high}}}\theta (M)𝑑M},$$
(14)
where $`M_{\mathrm{high}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{low}}`$ are the highest and lowest values of $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ in the sample. For our 2-dimensional distribution function this would translate to

$$S(D)=\frac{_{W_{\mathrm{low}}}^{W_{\mathrm{high}}}_{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{lim}}(D,W),M_{\mathrm{low}})}^{M_{\mathrm{high}}}\theta (M,W)𝑑M𝑑W}{_{W_{\mathrm{low}}}^{W_{\mathrm{high}}}_{M_{\mathrm{low}}}^{M_{\mathrm{high}}}\theta (M,W)𝑑M𝑑W},$$
(15)
where $`W_{\mathrm{high}}`$ and $`W_{\mathrm{low}}`$ are the highest and lowest values of $`\mathrm{log}w_{20}`$ in the sample and $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}(D,W)`$ is the minimal detectable H i mass of a galaxy with log profile width $`W`$ and at distance $`D`$ Mpc. The problem is that we can not derive an analytical expression for $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}(D,W)`$. It would be possible to derive an empirical relation for $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}(D,W)`$, but it is far better to simply make use of the actual data. Therefore, we evaluate the selection function in Eq. 15 for each galaxy individually and then average the values of $`S(D_i)`$ in bins of distance.

The mean galaxy density $`\overline{n}`$ is then determined by correcting the measured distance distribution of objects by the selection function. There are various methods described in the literature of determining $`\overline{n}`$ (Davis & Huchra 1982, Willmer 1997). Here we choose to use the minimum-variance estimator (Davis & Huchra 1982), but tests with different estimators gave very similar results. In the calculation of $`\overline{n}`$, the selection function is weighted with the inverse of the second moment of the two-point correlation function, which we set to $`J_3=8000h_{75}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ (Meyer et al. 2003b). The value of $`\overline{n}`$ is found to be very insensitive to the exact value of $`J_3`$. Since at very low and high distances the number of galaxies is small, the selection function is not accurately known in those regions. We therefore choose to limit the calculation of $`\overline{n}`$ to $`0.001<S(D)<0.1`$, which roughly corresponds to the distance range $`10<D<50`$ Mpc. Limiting the calculation to this distance range also ensures that the overdense volume within two correlation lengths around the Milky Way Galaxy is not taken into account in the calculation of $`\overline{n}`$. Finally, we normalize the H i mass function by setting

$$_{W_{\mathrm{low}}}^{W_{\mathrm{high}}}_{M_{\mathrm{low}}}^{M_{\mathrm{high}}}\theta (M,W)𝑑M𝑑W=\overline{n}.$$
(16)
### 3.4. Testing the 2DSWML method

Before applying the 2-dimensional SWML method to the BGC, we run a number of simulations to test whether the method produces reliable results. Similarly to the simulations in Section 3.1 we fill volumes with synthetic galaxy samples and select sources from the volume in the same manner as the BGC is selected. The galaxy samples are constructed such that the distribution and the correlation statistics of peak flux, velocity width and H i mass are similar to those of the BGC and the samples typically contain $`1000`$ galaxies. Each test is based on 100 simulations.

Figure 3.4 shows the results of three different tests. In the left panels the input HiMFs are represented by solid lines, whereas the measured HiMFs are shown by open symbols and errorbars. In the right panels the thin-lined histograms show the redshift distribution of the simulated data and the solid lines are the reconstructed selection functions multiplied by $`\mathrm{\Omega }D^2\mathrm{\Delta }D\overline{n}`$. The thin dashed lines represent $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties on the selection functions. From top to bottom we show simulated data based on 1) a faint-end slope $`\alpha =1.1`$ and an overdensity at $`30`$ Mpc, 2) $`\alpha =1.5`$ and an underdensity at $`20`$ Mpc, and 3) $`\alpha =1.3`$ and an underdensity at $`30`$ Mpc and an overdensity at $`10`$ Mpc.

It is clear that the 2DSWML method is capable of recovering the input HiMF with high accuracy, independent of strong over- and underdensities in the redshift distribution of galaxies. Also our implementation of the calculation of the selection function gives satisfactory results. The selection function corresponds well with the overall redshift distribution and is insensitive to strong density variations. Motivated by the success of the 2DSWML method on synthetic data, we choose to apply it to BGC. The results are described in the next section.

## 4. Results

A greyscale representation of the density distribution function $`\theta _{jk}`$ is shown in Figure 4. This function is calculated with bin sizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }W=0.1`$. This choice of bin sizes results in a $`24\times 15`$ grid containing $`360`$ bins $`dMdW`$, of which 144 contain galaxies. The mean occupancy of the bins is therefore 7 galaxies per bin. In Figure 4 we also plot the data points on which the analysis is based. It is clear that the low mass bins contain very few galaxies, which explains the noisy character of the lower left part of the figure. Not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between the H i mass of a galaxy and its observed velocity width. Note that the plotted velocity width is the observed width of the H i signals, uncorrected for galaxy inclination.

A comparison between the greyscales and the black points illustrates that a peak flux limited sample is, at a particular H i mass, slightly biased toward galaxies with low velocity widths, or alternatively, at a particular velocity width, slightly biased toward galaxies with high H i masses. Although the survey contains a large fraction of high H i mass, low velocity width galaxies, the true space density of these objects is very low.

The H i mass function can now be found by applying Eq. 13 to the 2-dimensional density distribution $`\theta _{jk}`$. The result is shown in Figure 4, where the dots show the measured space density of objects per decade of H i mass and the solid line is the best fit Schechter function with parameters $`\alpha =1.30\pm 0.08`$, $`\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}/\mathrm{M}_{})=9.79\pm 0.06`$, and $`\theta ^{}=(8.6\pm 2.1)\times 10^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. The Schechter function provides an excellent fit to the data. In fact, thanks to the large sample size and hence small Poisson errors, we convincingly show here for the first time that the H i mass function of galaxies can be satisfactorily described by a Schechter function. Note, however, that the shape and the normalization of the HiMF are determined without using a Schechter function as an assumption about the intrinsic shape of the HiMF.

The uncertainties on the Schechter parameters are determined with the jackknife error estimator (Lupton 1993). This is simply done by dividing the sample into 24 equal regions of sky and calculating the H i mass function 24 times, leaving out a different region each time. A Schechter function is fitted to each mass function and the errors on the parameters are found by

$$\sigma _x^2=\frac{N1}{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(x\overline{x})^2,$$
(17)
where $`N=24`$. The quoted uncertainties therefore include statistical errors and incorporate the effects of large scale structure, but they do not include systematic errors.

As is normally the case in these fits, the errors in $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ are correlated in the sense that steeper faint-end slopes imply higher values of $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$. The correlation coefficient between $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is $`r=0.28`$, but due to the small number of jackknife samples ($`N=24`$), the error on $`r`$ is large.

The 2-dimensional distribution function $`\theta _{jk}`$ can also be integrated along lines of constant velocity width to obtain the ‘velocity width function’, the space density of objects as a function of velocity width, or, after inclination correction, as a function of rotational velocity. This analysis will be the topic of a forthcoming paper.

### 4.1. Biases in the calculation of the HiMF

In the following we investigate the influence of various selection effects on the shape of the HiMF and on the measurement of the integral H i mass density. The effects of the biases are summarized in Table 1.

#### 4.1.1 Noise on H i detection spectra

The BGC consist of the brightest galaxies in the total HIPASS galaxy sample and therefore the signal to noise of the detections is high. The average rms noise in the HIPASS data is 13 mJy/beam per 18.0 km/s, which means that with the BGC detection limit of 116 mJy the lowest possible S/N level would be 9. In reality, because the detections are spread out over more than one resolution element, the S/N ratios are generally higher. However, since most detections are much wider than one resolution element, the measured peak flux is often an overestimation of the galaxy’s noise-free peak flux. This becomes increasingly important for flat-topped profiles in which a large fraction of the channels are close to the peak flux.

We test this selection bias by adding Gaussian noise with a rms dispersion of $`13`$ mJy to the H i profiles of synthetic galaxy samples which resemble the BGC, and selecting galaxies by their measured peak flux. Next we calculate HiMFs from these samples using the 2DSWML method. Two extreme situations are tested, one in which all profiles are Gaussian, and one in which all profiles are double-horned. Figure 4.1.1 shows the true HiMF of the simulated galaxies as a solid line, the recovered HiMF for double-horned profiles as open circles and the recovered HiMF for Gaussian profiles as crosses.

For both cases the selection bias causes a small global overestimation of the HiMF. For the Gaussian profiles, $`\alpha `$ is overestimated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha 0.03`$, whereas for the double-horned profiles the change in $`\alpha `$ is negligible. For the BGC, which is dominated by galaxies showing double-horned profiles, the integral H i mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is probably overestimated by less than $`15\%`$.

#### 4.1.2 The Eddington effect

Another possible source of error in the H i mass function is the so-called ‘Eddington effect’. This effect causes a steepening of the low mass slope due to distance uncertainties. For the vast majority of the BGC galaxies distances are calculated from their recessional velocities and peculiar velocities can introduce errors in these distance estimates and hence in the H i masses. In a relatively nearby sample such as the BGC the Eddington effect is potentially much more important than for deeper surveys like the AHISS survey, for which the peak of the galaxy distance distribution is much higher and relative distance uncertainties are smaller.

To test the severeness of the Eddington effect, we add Gaussian noise to the recessional velocities in our synthetic galaxy samples and select galaxies from the samples similar to the selection of the BGC. The results are summarized in Figure 4.1.2. The solid line shows the input HiMF and the symbols show the recovered HiMFs for samples for which dispersions of 50 (squares), 100 (triangles), 200 (crosses) and 400 (circles) $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ are added. Each simulation is performed 100 times. The 2DSWML method has been used to calculate the HiMFs.

Figure 4.1.2 shows that the Eddington effect is a potentially important bias in our analysis. If a velocity dispersion of 200 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is added to our synthetic galaxy samples, the measured HiMF slope increases from $`\alpha =1.30`$ to $`\alpha =1.43`$. For a velocity dispersion of 100 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$$`\alpha `$ rises to $`1.36`$, for 50 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ the change in $`\alpha `$ is no longer measurable. As expected, the Eddington effect has almost no influence on the measured space density of sources around $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$, therefore the effect on the integral H i mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is small. The inset in Figure 4.1.2 shows the recovered selection function $`S(D)`$ for each of the simulations, compared to the selection function of a galaxy sample without added noise to the distances (dashed line). The selection functions have been multiplied with $`D^2`$ and are normalized to a peak value equal to unity. The x-axis is logarithmic to better show the effects on the selection function at small distances. This clearly illustrates that the Eddington effect artificially steepens the selection function at small distances.

Our model of adding Gaussian noise to the recessional velocities of galaxies oversimplifies the true peculiar velocity distribution. The real dispersion is a function of local density (Strauss, Ostriker & Cen 1998) and should be directional to some degree, instead of random. However, Sheth & Diaferio (2001) recently showed that the expected peculiar velocity distribution in CDM simulations is nearly Gaussian. The 1-D pairwise peculiar velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{12}`$ is found to be $`300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ on scales of $`1h_{100}^1`$ Mpc (e.g. Jing, Börner & Suto 2002) and lower on smaller scales. This value compares to a velocity noise of $`\sigma =2^{1/2}\sigma _{12}=212\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Clusters of galaxies contribute significantly to this high value and the velocity field outside of clusters, where late-type galaxies dominate the statistics, is known to be much colder (e.g. Strauss et al. 1998). For example, Willick et al. (1997) find $`\sigma =125\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for local ($`cz<3000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) spiral galaxies. More locally, the velocity field is even colder than this: the peculiar velocity dispersion of galaxies within 5 Mpc of the Milky Way Galaxy is only 60 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Schlegel et al. 1994). Considering the latter two values, our simulations with dispersions of $`50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ probably define the boundaries of realistic test of the Eddington effect. From Figure 4.1.2 we conclude that our estimated HiMF probably overestimates the steepness of the faint end slope $`\alpha `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha <0.05`$. Over the range of H i masses where we can reliably measure the HiMF, the H i mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is maximally overestimated by 8%.

Our results are different from Rosenberg & Schneider (2002) who find that for their sample the Eddington effect is unimportant even for a dispersion of 600 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This difference can be explained by the difference in survey depth between the BGC and the ADBS. In the analysis of the deep HIPASS catalog, the Eddington effect will be less important.

Of course, the H i mass estimates of the nearest galaxies suffer the most from the distance uncertainties. A solution would be to impose a lower distance limit to the galaxy sample above which the distance uncertainties are believed to be small. However, for samples other than integrated flux limited, imposing a lower distance limit causes a slight drop of the HiMF at low H i masses. This happens because in the low H i mass bins only those galaxies will be selected that have a high peak flux compared to other galaxies of the same H i mass at the same distance.

#### 4.1.3 Inclination effects

The inclination of galaxies might lead to two independent biases in the HiMF determination. One effect, H i self-absorption, is discussed in the next subsection (4.1.4). Here we investigate the effect that in the galaxy selection procedure a minimal velocity width $`w_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is applied, below which galaxy signals can not be reliably distinguished from radio frequency interference (RFI). Since galaxies with low inclinations have smaller velocity widths, this selection effect might lead to a underrepresentation of face-on galaxies. Via the Tully-Fisher relation (Tully & Fisher 1977) and the relation between H i mass and optical luminosity (e.g., Roberts & Haynes 1994), it is known that galaxies with low H i masses have lower velocity widths. The selection bias therefore becomes progressively more important for dwarf galaxies, possibly causing a flattening of the H i mass function. Lang et al. (2002) were the first to calculate the severeness of this effect and concluded that for their sample of galaxies the HiMF could be underestimated by 18.7% at $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=2\times 10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Here we make specific calculations for the BGC.

The velocity width measured at 50% of the peak flux, $`w_{50}`$, can be written as

$$w_{50}=(w_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2i+w_{\mathrm{tur}}^2)^{1/2}+w_{\mathrm{inst}},$$
(18)
where $`w_0`$ is the intrinsic velocity spread due to rotation, $`w_{\mathrm{tur}}`$ is the velocity width due to turbulence in the gas layer, and $`w_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ is the contribution of instrumental broadening to the velocity width. For $`w_{\mathrm{tur}}`$ we adopt the conservative value of 6 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from Verheijen & Sancisi (2001) and for $`w_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ we use the Bottinelli et al. (1990) estimate of $`w_{\mathrm{inst}}=0.13\times \delta v`$, where $`\delta v`$ is the velocity resolution. For our case, where $`\delta v=18\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, we find that $`w_{\mathrm{inst}}=2.3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

For detections to be included in the BGC, signal must be found in at least two consecutive channels. The BGC is limited to sources with $`S_\mathrm{p}>116\mathrm{mJy}`$, but the original search limit was approximately 50% lower, at 60 mJy (see Koribalski et al. 2003). We therefore assume that the minimal velocity width for inclusion in the BGC, $`w_{\mathrm{min}}`$, applies to the 50% level and hence $`w_{50}>w_{\mathrm{min}}=26.4\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Following Lang et al. (2002), we can calculate from Eq. 18 the minimal inclination angle $`i_{\mathrm{min}}`$ that a galaxy needs to have for it to be included in the sample:

$$i_{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{arcsin}\{\frac{(w_{\mathrm{min}}w_{\mathrm{inst}})^2w_{\mathrm{tur}}^2}{w_0^2}\}^{1/2}.$$
(19)
Using the values given above we find that $`i_{\mathrm{min}}=13.5^{}`$ for $`w_0=100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`i_{\mathrm{min}}=6.7^{}`$ for $`w_0=200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Recall that $`w_0`$ is the total velocity width of a galaxy, which is twice the rotational velocity.

From this we can estimate $`\zeta `$, the fraction of galaxies potentially missed at every $`w_0`$, by integrating from $`i=0`$ to $`i=i_{\mathrm{min}}`$ over a randomly oriented sample:

$`\zeta ={\displaystyle _0^{i_{\mathrm{min}}}}\mathrm{sin}idi=1\mathrm{cos}i_{\mathrm{min}}=`$
$`1\{1{\displaystyle \frac{(w_{\mathrm{min}}w_{\mathrm{inst}})^2w_{\mathrm{tur}}^2}{w_0^2}}\}^{1/2}.`$ (20)
We find that the values for $`\zeta `$ are very small: $`\zeta =2.7\%`$ ($`0.7\%`$) for $`w_0=100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (200 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). We note that our adopted values for $`w_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{tur}}`$ are very conservative, and much higher values can be found in the literature. With higher values of $`w_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{tur}}`$ the resulting $`\zeta `$ would become even smaller.

Finally, in order to express $`\zeta `$ as a function of H i mass, we need to adopt a relation between $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ and $`w_0`$. Lang et al. (2002) adopt the relation $`w_0=0.42M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{0.3}`$, where in their case $`w_0`$ is derived from $`w_{20}`$. Here we use $`w_{50}`$ and find that $`w_0=0.35M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{0.3}`$ is a better fit to the BGC data. We note, however, that the scatter in the correlation between $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ and $`w_0`$ is very large. An expression of $`\zeta `$ as a function of $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ should therefore be regarded as illustrative. If we boldly apply the relation, we find that $`\zeta =10\%`$ $`(5\%)`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=2\times 10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ $`(5\times 10^7\mathrm{M}_{})`$.

In Figure 4.1.3 we show the effect of the inclination bias. The solid line is an HiMF with $`\alpha =1.30`$ and $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}=9.80`$, and the dotted line is what would have been measured if galaxies with low inclination angles were missed in the survey. The dashed line is the same, but here we test the extreme case that $`w_{\mathrm{tur}}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{inst}}`$ are negligible. The inset shows $`\mathrm{\Theta }(M_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ on a linear scale to better show the differences between the lines. The inclination bias only becomes apparent at very low H i masses, implying that only the last two bins of our measured HiMF are slightly affected by the bias. Over the H i mass range where the HiMF is measured, the mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is only underestimated by approximately $`1\%`$.

#### 4.1.4 H i self-absorption

In the Milky Way Galaxy the cold neutral phase of the interstellar medium can be seen as H i self-absorption (HISA) against the H i background (e.g., Knapp 1974, Gibson et al. 2000). It is not well known to what extent this HISA reduces the 21cm emission line flux of external galaxies. Deep, high resolution 21cm maps of nearby spirals (Braun 1997) show that between 60 and 90% of the H i flux comes from of a network of cool gas ($`T<300\mathrm{K}`$), which is expected to have a high opacity. However, not may instances of H i absorption against background continuum sources is observed in these regions. Dickey et al. (2000) find that in the Small Magellanic Cloud the abundance of cool-phase gas is only 15%, a factor of two lower than what is found in the Milky Way Galaxy. The temperature of this gas is very low, typically 40 K or less. From detailed absorption studies they calculate the HISA correction as a function of column density, and find that the correction is negligible for $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}<3\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and rises to 1.4 at $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. These low correction values agree with the analysis of Zwaan, Verheijen and Briggs (1999), who find that the column density distribution function of galaxies follows $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}^3`$, expected for optically thin gas, up to $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=8\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

Haynes & Giovanelli (1984) plotted the H i mass of galaxies as a function of inclination and measured $`f_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, the ratio of HISA corrected to measured flux, for different morphological types. Zwaan et al. (1997) considered the effect of HISA on the HiMF, and based on Haynes & Giovanelli’s (1984) result they found that the average value of $`f_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ for a randomly oriented galaxy sample is approximately 1.10. They concluded that $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ would increase by no more than 10% if HISA effects were taken into account. The integral density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ could be underestimated by $`15\%`$, maximally. Lang et al. (2002) addressed the issue of HISA by plotting the distribution of inclination angles of their HIJASS galaxies, and found that the number of highly inclined galaxies is lower than what is expected for a randomly oriented sample. From this they derive that $`f_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is 1.25 and that $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ could be underestimated by as much as $`25\%`$.

In Figure 4.1.4 the distribution of the cosine of inclination angle $`i`$ of cataloged BGC galaxies is drawn as a solid line (see Jerjen et al. 2003 for optical properties of the BGC sample). For a randomly oriented sample the distribution should be flat. The BGC distribution is clearly under-abundant at low and high inclination, suggesting the effects of HISA at high $`i`$ and the minimal velocity width effect (see Section 4.1.3) at low $`i`$. However, also shown in Figure 4.1.4 is the $`\mathrm{cos}i`$ distribution for the 1000 brightest southern optically selected galaxies from LEDA (dashed line), and the 1000 brightest southern optically selected galaxies with available 21cm data (dotted line). All distributions are indistinguishable. This implies that the distribution of $`\mathrm{cos}i`$ is not determined by HISA and minimal velocity width, but by the inclination measurements available from the literature. As was discussed by Huizinga & van Albada (1992), purely circular isophotes are seldom observed in galaxies, leading to an apparent underrepresentation of face-on disks. On the other end of the distribution, three different effect cause a deficit of galaxies. Firstly, due to dust obscuration, highly inclined galaxies drop out of the optical sample. These galaxies are also likely to be missed when our H i selected sample is cross-correlated with optical catalogs. Secondly, the intrinsic thickness of galaxies causes uncertainties in $`i`$, especially for highly inclined galaxies. This effect causes the spike at $`\mathrm{cos}i=0`$ and may cause a deficit at low $`i`$. Thirdly, HISA might cause a underrepresentation of high $`i`$ galaxies. However, since the optical information on the BGC is incomplete, it is not possible to disentangle the effects of HISA and optical dust extinction. We therefore conclude that based on the information at hand, no meaningful measurement of the effects of HISA can be made. In absence of reliable intrinsic measurements, we adopt the externally measured value of 15% underestimation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, derived from the results of Zwaan et al. (1997).

#### 4.1.5 Confusion

The relatively coarse spatial resolution of the HIPASS survey ($`15\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$) causes confusion of some signals with neighboring galaxies. Via ATCA follow-up observations and comparison with literature values, Koribalski et al. (2003) identified in the BGC 11 compact groups and 44 pairs of galaxies whose signals might chance to coincide in frequency. Furthermore, there are 67 sources that are flagged as ‘confused’.

It is expected that some of the confused sources would not make it into the BGC if they were resolved because their peak flux would drop below the selection limit. In that case we could overestimate the normalization of the HiMF as artificial sources would enter the sample. On the other hand, if the unconfused sources had peak fluxes above the selection limit, galaxies would shift to higher mass bins, leading to an overestimation of $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$.

We test the two extremes by splitting all sources marked as ‘confused’ or ‘pair’ into two sources of equal H i mass, and distinguish two cases: 1) the peak flux of the new sources is equal to that of their parent source, but their velocity width is halved, 2) the velocity width of the new sources is equal to that of their parent source, but the peak flux is halved. In this case only the new sources that have $`S_\mathrm{p}>116\mathrm{mJy}`$ are counted. For case 1) we find that $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$ drops by $`15\%`$, $`\theta ^{}`$ increases by $`15\%`$, and $`\alpha `$ does not change significantly. Since the changes in $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$ are balanced, there is no nett effect on the H i mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$. In case 2) the changes in $`\theta ^{}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$ are comparable, but additionally there is a marginal decrease in $`\alpha `$ of $`0.02`$. As in this case some sources drop below the detection limit, $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ drops slightly with $`2\%`$.

#### 4.1.6 Cosmic variance

In this section we investigate to what extent the shape of the HiMF depends on the region of the sky that is investigated. Previous blind H i surveys were based on relatively small regions of sky (66 degrees2 for the AHISS and 430 degrees2 for the ADBS), whereas the present analysis is based on a survey covering $`2\times 10^5`$ degrees2. This large area would be expected to guarantee a fair sampling of the local volume, but on the other hand, the BGC is a shallow survey compared to the AHISS and the ADBS.

Figure 4.1.6 shows 2DSWML HiMFs for the four different quadrants of the southern sky. Around $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$, the variation in the HiMFs is only mild, but at $`10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ the estimated space density varies with a factor 5, with the first quadrant being the most deviant one. Not only is the estimated average density lowest there, but the low mass end is also flatter. The cosmic variance is also reflected in the number of sources in each quadrant. The third quadrant contains 313 sources, whereas the fourth quadrant contains only 159 sources.

This exercise shows that selecting small regions of sky for galaxy surveys can introduce substantial uncertainties in the estimated space density of galaxies. We stress, however, that several properties of a survey define its immunity against large scale structure: the sensitivity, the covered area of sky, and the shape of the covered area. The former two properties together define the search volume of the survey. Surveys like the AHISS and the ADBS cover small declination ranges, but $`24^\mathrm{h}`$ in RA, whereas the HIPASS SCC survey covers more square degrees but is concentrated only on the South celestial cap. In addition, the immunity against large scale structure depends on whether the search volume extends well beyond the local overdensity surrounding the Milky Way Galaxy.

To quantify these statements and test the sensitivity to large scale structure of blind H i surveys, we compute for each survey the number of $`10^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ and $`20^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ cells that are probed for galaxies with different H i masses. The sizes of 10 and 20 Mpc are chosen because they span the typical sizes of voids in the local universe (Hoyle & Vogeley 2002; Plionis & Basilakos 2002). For a survey to be insensitive to large scale structure it seems reasonable to require that it probes several of such cells. Note that in the calculation of the number of cells we do not require that all cells are fully probed, but instead we calculate the number of cells from which each survey selects its detections. The results are given in Table 2, which also shows the search volumes for different H i masses for all surveys.

An important conclusion is that all surveys, except for the strip surveys AHISS and ADBS, select their $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ sources from only one $`20^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ cell, and at most a few $`10^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ cells. At $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ most surveys cover a large number of cells, although the shallow, large scale samples selected from HIPASS still probe fewer cells than the other surveys. At $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=10^{10}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ all surveys are probably insensitive to large scale structure effects. Since these are the H i masses that dominate the total H i mass density (see Section 7), measurements thereof based on HIPASS data are very secure.

Of course, this analysis may be too complementary to the strip surveys. Although these surveys go through many more cells than the large scale surveys, their sensitivity to large scale structure is not reduced as much as suggested by Table 2, because their cells are not fully sampled. This can also be seen from the number of galaxies that the different surveys detect at each H i mass. The ADBS detected seven galaxies with $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}<10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$, whereas the BGC has 38 galaxies in that mass range. Surely, the larger search volume and higher number of galaxies in the BGC must reduce its susceptibility to the effects of large scale structure.

### 4.2. Comparison with other methods

Here we compare the results of the 2DSWML analysis of the BGC with those from other, more conventional estimators. Figure 4.2 shows the results of the standard $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method represented by open circles, and the standard SWML application to a integrated flux limited subsample ($`S_{\mathrm{int}}>25\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) is shown by grey triangles. For comparison, the 2DSWML solution is also reproduced in this figure by a solid line. The lower panel of Figure 4.2 shows the averaged $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ values for each bin in H i mass. The circles and triangles represent the total BGC and the integrated flux-limited subsample, respectively, and values of $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ are calculated on the bases of their respective selection criteria.

The HiMFs from the 2DSWML method and the standard $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method are in very good agreement. This is particularly striking since the latter method makes no corrections for the effects of large scale structure which are obviously present in our data (see Koribalski et al. 2003). The mean value of $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for the $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method is $`0.503\pm 0.009`$, supporting the fact that the sample is statistically complete and that the effects of large scale structure average out over the whole sample. Zwaan et al. (1997) tested the effects of density variations on their $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ determination of the HiMF and also concluded that their calculation was insensitive to large scale structure. For H i masses $`<10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method finds higher space densities than the 2DSWML method. This is most likely the result of the fact that these galaxies are all drawn from the very local universe ($`<10`$ Mpc, see Figure 4.2), which we know to be overdense. Also the Poisson errors on these points are very high since they are based on small numbers of galaxies.

The SWML HiMF is also in good agreement with both other methods, but the uncertainties on the space densities for $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}<10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ are large because the integrated flux limited subsample contains only a small number of low mass galaxies. The mean $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ value is $`0.500\pm 0.013`$, which suggests that the integrated flux limited subsample is complete.

## 5. Comparison to other surveys

In the previous section we have shown that the results on the HiMF are internally consistent. We now compare the results with those of previous H i surveys. In Figure 5 we reproduce the best fit Schechter function to the BGC HiMF as a thick solid line. In addition we plot the HiMFs from the Arecibo H i Strip Survey (AHISS, Zwaan et al. 1997, dotted line), the Arecibo Slices (AS, Schneider et al. 1998), the Arecibo Dual Beam Survey (ADBS, Rosenberg & Schneider 2002, dashed line) and the HIPASS South Celestial Cap (SCC, Kilborn 2000, long-dashed line). The ranges over which the Schechter function have been plotted indicate the H i mass bracket within which the HiMFs have been reliable determined from the different surveys. All curves have been converted to $`H_0=75\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The Schechter parameters of the various HiMFs are given in Table 3.

All curves agree very well at the high mass end, which can also be seen from the value of $`\mathrm{log}M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$, which is $`9.8`$ for all surveys. Discrepancies arise at the low mass end, where Zwaan et al. (1997) found $`\alpha =1.2`$ and Rosenberg & Schneider found $`\alpha =1.53`$. Undoubtedly, part of these differences can be explained by small number statistics, but different treatments of the survey completeness and different HiMF estimators may also cause discrepancies.

The AHISS (Zwaan et al. 1997) and the ADBS (Rosenberg & Schneider 2002) are both drift-scan surveys performed with the Arecibo telescope. The AHISS is more sensitive with an $`1\sigma `$ rms noise of $`0.75`$ mJy/beam compared to $`3.5`$ mJy/beam per 32 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the ADBS, but the sky coverage of the ADBS was much larger which is reflected in the number of detections: 66 in the AHISS and 265 in the ADBS. Both galaxy samples are based on by-eye examinations of the H i spectra, which means that the completeness limits have to be calculated a posteriori. Assessing the completeness limits of the drift-scan surveys is complicated because the sensitivity is a function of declination offset, which is particularly important if side-lobe detections have to be taken into account (AHISS). Zwaan et al. (1997) derived an analytical expression for the ‘detectability’ of sources, Rosenberg & Schneider (2002) used a large number of synthetic sources to test their completeness. One of the differences in the analysis of both surveys is the treatment of the variation of sensitivity $`S`$ with velocity width, which can be expressed as $`S\mathrm{\Delta }V^\beta `$. Assuming optimal smoothing and uncorrelated noise, the expected value of $`\beta `$ is 0.5, which was adopted by Zwaan et al. (1997). Rosenberg & Schneider (2002) argue that $`\beta =0.75`$ which leads to a reduced sensitivity to large line width sources, and hence, via the Tully-Fisher relation, to a reduced sensitivity to high H i mass sources.

With a peak flux limit of 116 mJy, the BGC is a relatively shallow survey compared to the ADBS and the AHISS. However, thanks to the BGC’s large sky coverage, the number counts at the low mass end are better than those from AHISS and ADBS, and the BGC HiMF extends to lower H i masses than either of the Arecibo surveys. This low sensitivity causes all low mass galaxy detections to be at small distances (see Figure 4.2), which implies that the Eddington effect might have a significant influence on the HiMF shape.

Davies et al. (2001) recently advocated an HiMF slope of $`\alpha 2`$, which they derived by extracting H i spectra from the HIPASS public release data base, and compare the distance distribution of detections with what would be expected for different HiMFs. This method intrinsically assumes that a relationship exists between distance and the minimal detectable H i mass at that distance. We have argued in Section 3.1 that this assumption does not hold for H i selected galaxy samples. The validity of the Davies et al. (2001) result is therefore unclear.

## 6. Dependence of the HiMF on galaxy type

The BGC was cross-correlated with the LEDA data base to find matches with cataloged galaxies (see Jerjen et al. 2003). In addition to this, Ryan-Weber et al. (2002) searched for uncataloged BGC galaxies on the Digitized Sky Survey, and determined morphological types for these new galaxies. In total, morphological type information is now available for 892 galaxies out of our total sample of 1000. The 108 unclassified galaxies consist mainly of galaxies at low Galactic latitude, groups or pairs for which a unique match between H i signal and optical galaxy could not be made, or detections for which a cross correlation with LEDA galaxies is otherwise ambiguous.

In order to determine the morphological type dependence on the HiMF we divide the BGC into five subsets of galaxies: E-S0, Sa-Sb, Sbc-Sc, Scd-Sd, and Sm-Irr. Not surprisingly for an HI selected sample, the subset of early-type galaxies contains only 43 galaxies, which is marginally sufficient to calculate a meaningful HiMF. In addition, we calculate the HiMFs for galaxy samples divided into ‘late’ and ’early’, where galaxy types later than Sb are regarded as ‘late’.

Figure 6 shows the H i mass functions for different morphological types. We have chosen to apply the $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ method here, because the subsamples are uncomfortably small for a 2-dimensional analysis. For reference, the best fit HiMF for the total BGC is indicated by a dotted line in each panel. Best fit Schechter functions to the individual HiMFs are also shown, but note that for the E-S0 subsample the normalization and $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$ are very poorly defined. All HiMFs are multiplied by $`1000/892`$ to correct for the incompleteness in morphological classification. Table 4 includes the best-fit Schechter parameters for all morphological types.

There is no clear variation in the HiMF slope between types Sa and Sd, the HiMF is flat with $`\alpha 1.0`$. Only for galaxies in the Sm-Irr bin, we see a steepening of the HiMF to $`\alpha =1.4`$. This effect is very similar to what is found for optical luminosity functions (Marzke et al. 1998). Zwaan et al. (2001) used the Marzke et al. (1998) luminosity functions and fitted relations between H i mass and optical luminosity to derive type specific H i mass functions. These are in good agreement with what is found here, and also show a steepening for the very late-type galaxies. Apparently, both the number density of low luminosity and low H i mass galaxies are dominated by late-type galaxies.

Another conclusion from Figure 6 is that the characteristic mass $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$ is much higher for types Sbc-Sc than for the other types. This reflects that most galaxies with high H i masses are of types Sbc-Sc, and that these types are the most dominant contributors to the total H i mass density.

Similarly, the HiMF can be divided into galaxies of different optical surface brightness. The question of how much low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies contribute to the local H i density and the total local baryon budget has been addressed before by several authors. Based on local galaxy samples with targeted 21cm spectroscopic follow-up, Briggs (1997a, 1997b) concluded that LSB galaxies make a $`10\%`$ addition to the total H i mass density. Zwaan, Briggs & Sprayberry (2001) used the AHISS to find that galaxies with central surface brightness $`>23.0\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$ contribute $`18\%`$ to the H i density. The luminosity density contained in LSB galaxies is also found to be low (Sprayberry et al. 1997, Driver 1999, de Jong & Lacey 2000, Zwaan et al. 2001).

Measurements of optical surface brightness for the BGC are drawn from LEDA. We choose to use the mean effective surface brightness $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which is defined as the mean surface brightness inside the aperture enclosing one-half the total light. Unfortunately, the measurements are not complete: only for 600 galaxies in the BGC sample is $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ available. The uncertainties in the HiMFs for LSB and high surface brightness (HSB) galaxies are therefore large. We divide the sample into two subsamples, where we use $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}=24.0\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$ as the boundary between a LSB and a HSB galaxy. This separation results in 96 LSB and 504 HSB galaxies. For a exponential disk, the value of $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}=24.0\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$ compares to a central surface brightness of $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}=22.2\mathrm{mag}\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$. The values of $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are uncorrected for inclination and dust extinction.

Figure 6 shows HiMFs for the LSB and HSB subsamples. Both are corrected by a factor $`1000/600`$ to account for the incompleteness in surface brightness measurements. Similarly to what was found by Briggs (1997a), we see that the HiMF for LSB galaxies is steeper ($`\alpha =1.35`$) than that for HSB galaxies ($`\alpha =1.2`$). The obvious reason for this is that there is a relation between surface brightness and H i mass, in the sense that LSB galaxies have lower total H i masses. LSB galaxies therefore increasingly populate the lower H i mass bins, resulting in a steeper H i mass function compared to HSB galaxies. Nonetheless, LSB galaxies contribute only very little to the total H i mass density. Based on the Schechter fits we find that this contribution is $`15\%`$.

## 7. The H i mass density

Figure 7 shows the H i mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ contained in galaxies of different H i mass. The heavy solid line shows the converted best-fit Schechter function, and the dotted and dashed lines show the H i mass densities derived by Zwaan et al. (1997) and Rosenberg & Schneider (2002), respectively. The bivariate H i mass density distribution in the ($`M_{\mathrm{HI}},W_{20}`$) plane is shown in Figure 7. This figure clearly shows that the gas mass density is dominated by galaxies with H i masses around $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$ and velocity widths of $`250`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

The total H i mass density contained by galaxies in the local universe is calculated with $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\alpha )M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}`$, and is found to be $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=(6.9\pm 1.1)\times 10^7h_{75}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. A straight summation of $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}\theta (M_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ using the points in Figure 4 gives a slightly lower value of $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=(6.6\pm 1.1)\times 10^7h_{75}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ because this calculation does not include the extensions of the Schechter fit beyond the region where we can measure it reliably. Taking into account all biases as summarized in Table 1, we find $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=(6.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^7h_{75}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ or $`(4.1\pm 0.7)\times 10^{33}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where the error is the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty derived with the jackknife method, which includes random errors and the effects of large scale structure. For comparison, Zwaan et al. (1997) found $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=4.3\times 10^7h_{75}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ and using Rosenberg & Schneider’s (2002) Schechter parameters we find $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=7.1\times 10^7h_{75}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. Briggs (1990) used luminosity functions and a conversion factor from luminosity to H i mass to find $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=7.0\times 10^7h_{75}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$, a value very close to our measurement.

Converting $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}`$ to the more convenient $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, the H i mass density as a fraction of the critical density of the universe, we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}=(3.8\pm 0.6)\times 10^4h_{75}^1`$ and after making a correction for the 24% helium mass fraction we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{atomic}}=(4.8\pm 0.8)\times 10^4h_{75}^1`$. This measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is very robust because the galaxies that contribute most to the gas density are also the ones that dominate the counting statistics ($`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=10^910^{10}\mathrm{M}_{}`$). Uncertainties in the faint-end slope $`\alpha `$ therefore contribute little to the total error in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ . Furthermore, since these galaxies are found at large distances, and therefore over a large region of the sky, the effects of large scale structure are unimportant.

Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles (1998) estimated that the mass fraction in molecular gas is approximately 80% of that of atomic gas. Keres, Yun & Young (2002) measure the CO luminosity function and derive that the mass fraction in molecular gas is approximately 60%. Averaging these two values, we find that the total mass density in cool gas in the local universe is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cool}\mathrm{gas}}=7.6\times 10^4h_{75}^1`$. To put these numbers into perspective, the most recent determination of the baryon density via the primeval deuterium abundance is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{baryon}}h_{75}^2=0.035\pm 0.004`$ (Burles, Nollett & Turner 2001). Microwave background anisotropy measurements give slightly higher values (e.g., de Bernardis et al. 2000). We estimate from this that cool gas in galaxies makes up approximately 2% of the total baryon density in the local universe. The total mass in diffuse ionized intergalactic gas is much higher than this. From low redshift HST spectra Penton, Shull, & Stocke (2000) derived that the mass density in the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest is approximately 20% of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{baryon}}`$.

Our derived value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is approximately 5 times lower than that at redshifts $`24`$ (Ellison et al. 2001, Péroux et al. 2001, Storrie-Lombardi, McMahon, & Irwin 1996). A gradual conversion from neutral gas to stars in the disks of galaxies is generally believed to cause this decline in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ (Lanzetta et al. 1995, Pei, Fall & Hauser 1999), but recent results on high column density QSO absorption-line systems at intermediate redshifts have confused this picture. Lane (2000) searched for intermediate $`z`$ 21cm absorption in Mgii selected systems, and used Mgii statistics to bootstrap the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ values. The same statistics was used by Rao & Turnshek (2000) for a Ly-$`\alpha `$ survey of $`z<1.65`$ Mgii selected systems. Both authors find values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}(z<1.65)`$ consistent with those at higher redshifts, indicating that the neutral gas density does not evolve strongly from high $`z`$ to the present. Churchill (2001) recently performed an unbiased survey for low-$`z`$ Mgii systems and used the same statistics for Mgii systems as Rao & Turnshek did, and derived $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}(z=0.05)`$, which is a factor 5 larger than our results. The uncertainties on all these measurements are very large as they suffer from small number statistics. The evolution of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ from $`z=2`$ to the present time therefore remains very uncertain and more intermediate redshift optical and 21cm surveys are required to constrain the evolution of H i.

## 8. The BGC Selection Function

As described in Section 3.3, the 2DSWML method allows us the calculate the selection function of the BGC. The selection function is an important input into calculations of clustering in the BGC, like the 2-point correlation function (Meyer et al. 2003b). It is therefore interesting to test whether the calculated selection function $`S(D)`$ is a valid approximation of the true selection of the survey.

In Figure 7 we compare the measured redshift distribution of BGC galaxies with the distribution implied by the derived selection function. The overall redshift distribution agrees well with the calculated smooth curve. This is also reflected in the predicted number counts of galaxies from the selection function, which is 0.0456 galaxies/degree2. This is only 6% lower than the measured number count in the BGC of 0.0485 galaxies/degree2. This implies that if we had used the number counts to normalize the HiMF similar to what is occasionally done for optical LFs (e.g., Norberg et al. 2001), we would have found essentially the same normalization.

By comparing $`N(D)`$ with the smooth curve, two overdensities become apparent: one at $`22`$ Mpc and one at $`36`$ Mpc. See Koribalski et al. (2003) for a detailed discussion of the large-scale structure in the BGC. Also shown in Figure 7 is the redshift distribution of the integrated flux limited subsample, and the predicted distribution calculated with Eq. 14. The same density structure can be seen here, although less pronounced than for the full galaxy sample.

## 9. Conclusions

We have used the HIPASS Bright Galaxy Catalog (BGC, Koribalski et al. 2003) consisting of the 1000 southern galaxies with highest peak flux densities, to measure the H i mass function (HiMF) of galaxies in the local universe. This is the largest sample of galaxies ever used to measure the HiMF, and contains galaxies over the H i mass range from $`\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{HI}}/\mathrm{M}_{})+2\mathrm{log}h_{75}=6.8`$ to $`10.6`$. We develop a bivariate stepwise maximum likelihood method to measure the HiMF. This method solves for H i mass and velocity width, and then integrates over velocity width to find the HiMF. We show that this method is a reliable estimator and insensitive to the effects of large scale structure. The resulting HiMF can be well fit with a Schechter function with parameters $`\alpha =1.30\pm 0.08`$, $`\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{HI}}^{}/\mathrm{M}_{})=9.79\pm 0.06h_{75}^2`$, and $`\theta ^{}=(8.6\pm 2.1)\times 10^3h_{75}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. We find that the faint-end slope of the HiMF is dependent on morphological type. Late-type galaxies show the steepest faint-end slopes and these galaxies dominate the statistics at low H i masses. We extensively test the influence of possible biases in the HiMF determination, including peculiar motions of galaxies, inclination effects, selection biases and large scale structure, and quantify these biases. The integral H i mass density in the local universe is found to be $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}=(6.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^7h_{75}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$, contributing a fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{HI}}=(3.8\pm 0.6)\times 10^4h_{75}^1`$ of the critical density of the universe.