format: text

text:
# 1 Location of variable stars in fields MM1 and MM7. The symbols have the following meaning: circles, stars in the CPVS (U97); crosses, stars found by SKU01; squares, long-period variables discovered by Z98 and WS98, large circles, the OGLE-I microlensing events, OGLE#9 in field MM7-A and OGLE#14 in field MM1-A. The new variable stars we found are shown as small dots. The grey areas indicate the OGLE-II fields (labeled).

Reanalysis of the OGLE-I Observations with the Image Subtraction Method

I. Galactic bar fields MM1-A, MM1-B, MM7-A, and MM7-B111Based on observations obtained in the Las Campanas Observatory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

by

A. P i g u l s k i, Z. K o ł a c z k o w s k i and G. K o p a c k i

Wrocław University Observatory, Kopernika 11, 51-622 Wrocław, Poland

E-mails: (pigulski, kolaczk, kopacki)@astro.uni.wroc.pl

Received …

ABSTRACT

As a result of the reanalysis of the OGLE-I observations by means of the image subtraction method, we present the first part of a catalog, consisting of the data for variable stars in four Galactic fields observed by the OGLE-I, viz. MM1-A, MM1-B, MM7-A, and MM7-B. In total, 2016 variable stars have been found. This increased the number of known variable in these fields stars more than twofold. We comment on the detectability of the variable stars in previous studies.

Some interesting findings are also discussed. Among others, we found 45 $`\delta `$ Scuti stars (38 are new) including several multiperiodic objects. Detailed analysis of the light curves of 47 RR Lyrae stars (24 are new detections) allowed us to find five stars which exhibit nonradial pulsations and one RRd star. Three RRab stars are members of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Sgr dSph). We also find four objects which are probably galactic RV Tauri stars and one W Virginis star which seems to belong to Sgr dSph. This is the first Population II Cepheid found in this satellite galaxy and dSph other than the Fornax one.

For eclipsing EW-type binaries, which are the most abundant variables in our catalog, we investigate the amplitude and period distributions. A comparison with the previous OGLE-I catalogs indicates that we found more stars with smaller amplitudes. Finally, in addition to the two microlensing events discovered previously in these fields, we find five more.

Keywords: Stars: Variables – Stars: $`\delta `$ Scuti – Stars: RR Lyrae – Catalogs

1. Introduction

Thousands of variable stars have been discovered in the central regions of our Galaxy by the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE), a long-term microlensing project which in June 2001 entered its third stage of operation, OGLE-III222See http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~ogle/. In the first part of the project (OGLE-I; Udalski et al. 1992), observations were collected in four seasons (1992–1995) with the 1-m Swope telescope of the Las Campanas Observatory. Twenty 15 $`\times `$ 15 fields (see below) have been monitored frequently enough to allow reliable time-series analysis.

During the second part of the OGLE project (OGLE-II; Udalski et al. 1997b), carried out in the years 1997–2000, observations were obtained with a dedicated 1.3-m Warsaw Telescope at the same observatory. A new, 2K $`\times `$ 2K CCD detector was used in a drift-scan mode, resulting in a 2K $`\times `$ 8K frame covering a field of view of 14 $`\times `$ 57.

Almost all Galactic fields observed by the OGLE are very rich in stars. The profile-fitting photometry in such fields is severely affected by crowding. This reduces detectability of variable stars. Fortunately, a new method of finding variable stars in crowded fields, based on image subtraction, has been developed when the OGLE-II project was in operation (Alard and Lupton 1998; Alard 2000). Since the method proved to be very efficient in the detection of variable stars in crowded fields, it was implemented by Woźniak (2000) in his Difference Image Analysis (DIA) package and then applied to the OGLE-II observations of 49 Galactic fields. This analysis resulted in a catalog consisting of $``$200,000 candidates for variables in the central regions of the Galaxy (Woźniak et al. 2002).

The methods, direct profile fitting and image subtraction, are complementary and, when used together, provide complete information on the incidence of the variability in the observed fields.

Although most OGLE-I fields have been covered by the OGLE-II and are observed within the OGLE-III projects carried out with better detectors, there are still several reasons why the reanalysis of the OGLE-I observations with the image subtraction can yield valuable results. Firstly, in view of the completness the method provides, its application would certainly yield new variable stars. Next, for those stars which were already discovered, the DIA would provide better photometry. From the point of view of a study of the long-term behavior of variable stars, it is a very good reason. Finally, a comparison of the detectability by the image subtraction and profile-fitting methods is possible.

The OGLE-I data cover twenty fields (BWC, BW1 to BW11, MM1-A, MM1-B, MM3, MM5-A, MM5-B, MM7-A, MM7-B, and GB1) with a number of frames suitable for time-series analysis. Except for the fields BW9–BW11, GB1, MM1-A/B and MM3 which were not observed in 1992, observations in four seasons, 1992–1995, are available.

In this series of papers we plan to provide a complete information on the variability of stars in these twenty OGLE-I fields, based on the results of reanalysis of the OGLE-I observations by means of the DIA. We will include also the less numerous (20–50 per field) $`V`$-filter observations, reported for variable stars by Szymański et al. (2001) only. In the present paper, the first of the series, we report the results of the search in four fields, MM1-A, MM1-B, MM7-A, and MM7-B, located in the Galactic bar, a few degrees north-east of the Baade’s Window (BW). The second paper will include fields MM3, MM5-A, MM5-B and GB1, while the third one, all twelve BW fields. Since the adjacent OGLE-I fields slightly overlap, we shall report the observations of a given variable star including data from all overlapping fields.

The variables discovered earlier in the OGLE-I data are briefly summarized in the next section. The method we use to search for variable stars is outlined in Sect. 3, whereas the fourth section describes the entries of the catalog we provide. Section 5 includes the comparison of the detectability of variable stars. Finally, comments on different types of variable stars are given in Sect. 6.

2. Known Variables

As far as the catalogs of variable stars are concerned, so-far published results from the OGLE-I data are the following. The most important one is the Catalog of Periodic Variable Stars (CPVS) containing 2861 periodic variables with the mean $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ magnitude brighter than 18 mag. The catalog has been published for sixteen of the twenty fields mentioned above in five papers (Udalski et al. 1994; 1995a,b; 1996; 1997a). A similar catalog was not published for four fields, MM1-A, MM1-B, GB1, and MM3. Additions to the CPVS include a list of 116 long-period and non-periodic variable stars published by Żebruń (1998, hereafter Z98), 11 variables discovered in the vicinity of 20 microlensing events found in the OGLE-I data (Woźniak and Szymański 1998, hereafter WS98), and recently published catalog of 2084 periodic variables (Szymański et al. 2001; hereafter SKU01), mainly fainter than $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ 18 mag. Variable stars in the latter paper were divided into two categories: contact binaries and pulsating variable stars.

The known variable stars discovered in the four OGLE-I fields under consideration (MM1-A, MM1-B, MM7-A, MM7-B) are summarized in Table 1. For the OGLE-I microlensing events (MLE), their numbers from WS98 (preceded by “#”) are given. Other variables found by WS98 are labeled as VAR. SKU01 discoveries are reported separately for their contact binaries (EW) and pulsating stars (P). Figure 1 shows the equatorial coordinates of variable stars. As we mentioned earlier, CPVS includes variable stars for the fields MM7-A and MM7-B (Udalski et al. 1997a, hereafter U97), but not for MM1.

T a b l e 1

Variables discovered by U97, Z98, WS98 and SKU01 in four analyzed OGLE-I fields: MM1-A, MM1-B, MM7-A, and MM7-B.

| OGLE-I | Number of variables (only new) | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| field | U97 | Z98 | WS98 (VAR + MLE) | SKU01 (EW + P) | Total |
| MM1-A |  | 9 | 0 + 1 (#14) | 156 + 78 | 244 |
| MM1-B |  | 5 | 1 + 0 | 131 + 55 | 192 |
| MM7-A | 182 | 4 | 0 + 1 (#9) | 72 + 15 | 274 |
| MM7-B | 112 | 7 | 0 + 0 | 48 + 24 | 191 |
| Total | 294 | 25 | 1 + 2 | 407 + 172 | 901 |

It has to be noted that rectangle areas around MM1 and MM7 OGLE-I fields shown in Fig. 1 contain no objects listed in the General Catalog of Variable Stars (GCVS, Kholopov et al. 1988), the Name Lists 67–76 which followed that catalog (see Kazarovets et al. 2001), and the New Catalogue of Suspected Variable Stars (Kukarkin et al. 1982) with the Supplement (Kazarovets et al. 1998).

The MM1 fields have been partly covered by OGLE-II field BUL\_SC18 and MACHO field 101, whereas the MM7 fields were covered by OGLE-II fields BUL\_SC16 and BUL\_SC17 and MACHO field 178 (see Fig. 1).

The third part of the All Sky Automated Survey (ASAS-3, Pojmański 2002) will also cover this area, but the catalog of variables from this part of the sky has not been published yet. It will, however, contain variable stars which are brighter than the saturation limit for stars in the OGLE-I data ($`I_\mathrm{C}`$ 14 mag).

3. The Method

The calibrated OGLE-I observations used in our analysis have been kindly made accessible to us by Prof. Andrzej Udalski. They were obtained through two filters, matching Gunn $`i`$ and Johnson $`V`$ bands (the former is easily transferable to Cousins $`I_\mathrm{C}`$, see Udalski et al. 1992). Most observations were carried out with the Gunn $`i`$ filter. Before starting reductions we excluded some frames polluted by scattered light and those with short exposure times. The number of frames used in the final calculations is given in Table 2. In this table, we specify the frames which were used to calculate the reference image. The frames used as reference ones in astrometric interpolations are shown with boldface in the fiftth column.

Using the information provided with the frames, we have chosen frames with the smallest seeing and low background to calculate the reference image needed for image subtraction (See Table 2). Typically, 6–7 frames in the Gunn $`i`$ filter and 3–4 frames in the Johnson $`V`$ filter were used for this purpose.

T a b l e 2

Data for the OGLE-I fields studied in this paper

| OGLE-I | Coordinates (field center) | |  | Number | Frames used to create |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| field | $`\alpha _{2000}`$ | $`\delta _{2000}`$ | Filter | of frames | a reference image |
| MM1-A | 18h06m49.5s | $``$26o3759′′ | $`V`$ | 23 | 10295, 10609, 11470 |
|  |  |  | $`i`$ | 143 | 10053, 10108, 10460, 10610, |
|  |  |  |  |  | 10865, 11469, 11779 |
| MM1-B | 18h06m49.7s | $``$26o5057′′ | $`V`$ | 22 | 10210, 10297, 11471 |
|  |  |  | $`i`$ | 132 | 10054, 10109, 10250, 10822, |
|  |  |  |  |  | 10866, 11290, 11468 |
| MM7-A | 18h10m53.2s | $``$25o5415′′ | $`V`$ | 26 | 11263, 11606, 12016, 12211 |
|  |  |  | $`i`$ | 168 | 10204, 10443, 10547, 11456, |
|  |  |  |  |  | 11590, 11734 |
| MM7-B | 18h11m39.8s | $``$25o5505′′ | $`V`$ | 26 | 11264, 11303, 12017, 12212 |
|  |  |  | $`i`$ | 171 | 10101, 10158, 10444, 10548, |
|  |  |  |  |  | 11455, 11637, 11735 |

The procedure of the image subtraction has been explained in detail in the original papers (Alard and Lupton 1998, Alard 2000, Woźniak 2000) and will not be repeated here. We only mention that the image subtraction algorithm requires a reference image which is subsequently convolved with a kernel in order to match seeing in a given image and then subtracted from it. As a result, difference image is obtained. The difference images can be stacked to form a “variability map” which is used for detecting variables. The reference image and the variability map for a given field (and filter) were obtained by means of the DIA package of Woźniak (2000). The 2K $`\times `$ 2K images were divided into 8 $`\times `$ 8 = 64 square sub-fields which have been processed independently. However, the variable search procedure implemented in the DIA turned out not to detect many apparent variable stars in the variability map. We therefore replaced it by the Daophot (Stetson 1987) FIND routine run on the variability map. The output was a list of candidates for variable stars which has been sent back to the DIA which calculated light curve for each candidate.

In an ideal case, all stars appearing in the variability map should be variable. For several reasons this was not the case. For the OGLE-I data, a huge number of spurious candidates for variables has been produced by the chip defects. Typically, about 20,000 variable candidates per field have been obtained. Only 2–3% of them appeared to be true variables. In order to extract them in an automatic way, we calculated the AoV periodogram of Schwarzenberg-Czerny (1996) in the range between 0 and 30 d-1 for each candidate. In order to increase the detection efficiency, the light curves have been first cleaned for outliers (we used 5$`\sigma `$ clipping) and observations with large errors (they were not rejected from further analysis, however). The AoV periodogram provides the parameter $`\theta `$ which has been used as a threshold. It has to be noted that this procedure allows also detection of non-periodic variables since such variables yield high peaks in the vicinity of 0 and 1 d-1.

After this step, we were usually left with 700–1000 candidates for variables in a field. A light curve of each of these stars was checked visually, period(s) refined, and the classifications made. The script we used created a single plot showing: (i) flux difference as a function of time, (ii) phase diagram (the correct period could be selected from the list of highest peaks in periodogram, allowing also its doubling, a common case for eclipsing binaries), (iii) a part of the periodogram in the vicinity of the strongest peak, (iv) a part of the reference image and variability map with the analyzed star centered. At this stage, observations in both filters were used.

4. The Catalog

In total, we found 2016 variable stars in the four OGLE-I fields analyzed in this paper (see Table 3). As we shall discuss in Sect. 5, we have recovered 84% of variable stars discovered by previous investigators and, in addition, found 1255 new variables. This means that we increased the number of variables in fields MM1 and MM7 more than twofold.

T a b l e 3

The number of variables discovered in fields MM1 and MM7 according to class. The thirteen classes of variables are defined in Sect. 4.2.

|  | T y p e o f v a r i a b i l i t y | | | | | | | | | | | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Field | DSCT | RRc | RRab | CEP | Mira | EW | EB | EA | SIN | NSIN | PER | APER | MLE | Total |
|  | K n o w n | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| MM1 | 2 | 5 |  |  |  | 289 | 18 | 12 |  |  | 15 | 4 | 1 | 346 |
| MM7 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 1 |  | 220 | 20 | 62 | 6 | 7 | 68 | 8 |  | 415 |
| Both | 7 | 10 | 13 | 1 |  | 509 | 38 | 74 | 6 | 7 | 83 | 12 | 1 | 761 |
|  | N e w | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| MM1 | 26 | 6 | 17 | 4 | 9 | 229 | 23 | 122 | 45 | 29 | 290 | 43 | 3 | 846 |
| MM7 | 12 |  | 1 |  | 2 | 151 | 6 | 39 | 31 | 25 | 119 | 21 | 2 | 409 |
| Both | 38 | 6 | 18 | 4 | 11 | 380 | 29 | 161 | 76 | 54 | 409 | 64 | 5 | 1255 |
|  | A l l | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| MM1 | 28 | 11 | 17 | 4 | 9 | 518 | 41 | 134 | 45 | 29 | 305 | 47 | 4 | 1192 |
| MM7 | 17 | 5 | 14 | 1 | 2 | 371 | 26 | 101 | 37 | 32 | 187 | 29 | 2 | 824 |
| Both | 45 | 16 | 31 | 5 | 11 | 889 | 67 | 235 | 82 | 61 | 492 | 76 | 6 | 2016 |

The two MM1 fields, MM1-A and MM1-B, slightly overlap (Fig. 1). The same is true for the two MM7 fields. This means that some variables can be found in both fields. We therefore report the variables using designations which indicate only a combined field, MM1 or MM7.

The parameters of all variable stars we found are given in Tables 4a (field MM1) and 4b (field MM7), available in the full form in the Acta Astronomica Archive (see cover page) and our WWW page

> http://www.astro.uni.wroc.pl/ldb/ogle1/

Here, only a sample page of Table 4b is shown. The tables include: star name, its equatorial coordinates, classification (see Sect. 4.2), period(s), reference magnitude and color, number of data points and cross-identifications with previous OGLE catalogs. If no cross-identification is given, the variable is a new one.

We also present our results in a graphical form. A sample plot is displayed in Fig. 2. The plots showing light curves and finding charts can be found on our WWW page as gzipped PostScript files. The following file names have been used: $`<`$field$`>`$_$`<`$variability class$`>`$\[\_$`<`$sequential number$`>`$\].ps; for example file “MM1\_EW\_2.ps” includes the second page with the light curves and finding charts for EW-type eclipsing binaries in the field MM1. If there was only one page for a given class, no sequential number was given.

T a b l e 4b

Variable stars in field MM7. The full table is available in an electronic form only. Here, the entries for the first 50 stars are shown as an example.

| Var. name | $`\alpha _{2000.0}`$ | $`\delta _{2000.0}`$ | Var. type | Period \[d\] | $`N_I`$ | $`N_V`$ | $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ | ($`VI_\mathrm{C}`$) | Cross-identifications |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MM7-0001 | 18 10 34.39 | $``$25 48 28.5 | DSCT | 0.04604239 | 165 | 25 | 15.526 | 0.969 |  |
| MM7-0002 | 18 10 26.50 | $``$25 48 36.8 | DSCT | 0.04959108 | 157 | 0 | 17.718 | 1.563 |  |
| MM7-0003 | 18 11 47.40 | $``$25 48 08.8 | DSCT | 0.05584052 | 164 | 19 | 16.026 | 1.383 |  |
|  |  |  |  | 0.05701629 |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | 0.0636008 |  |  |  |  |  |
| MM7-0004 | 18 11 04.87 | $``$25 56 47.6 | DSCT | 0.06580976 | 162 | 26 | 14.979 | 0.793 |  |
| MM7-0005 | 18 11 55.37 | $``$25 55 19.5 | DSCT HADS | 0.06583299 | 167 | 23 | 17.445 | 1.417 | OGLE MM7-B V87 (DSCT) |
| MM7-0006 | 18 10 20.77 | $``$25 52 07.8 | DSCT | 0.06674510 | 165 | 26 | 16.985 | 1.161 |  |
|  |  |  |  | 0.0686684 |  |  |  |  |  |
| MM7-0007 | 18 10 22.39 | $``$25 48 02.6 | DSCT | 0.06808241 | 159 | 25 | 16.331 | 1.176 |  |
| MM7-0008 | 18 12 02.43 | $``$25 53 32.2 | DSCT | 0.0732052 | 160 | 22 | 15.761 | 1.190 |  |
| MM7-0009 | 18 10 28.65 | $``$25 49 11.3 | DSCT HADS | 0.07884756 | 166 | 25 | 17.242 | 1.143 | OGLE MM7-A V103 (DSCT) |
| MM7-0010 | 18 10 41.83 | $``$25 54 56.0 | DSCT | 0.08860681 | 165 | 26 | 16.813 | 1.150 |  |
|  |  |  |  | 0.0904652 |  |  |  |  |  |
| MM7-0011 | 18 10 49.84 | $``$25 56 47.4 | DSCT | 0.0934265 | 160 | 26 | 15.616 | 1.097 |  |
| MM7-0012 | 18 11 08.12 | $``$26 00 56.3 | DSCT | 0.09588007 | 166 | 25 | 16.379 | 1.224 |  |
|  |  |  |  | 0.1247319 |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | 0.0766860 |  |  |  |  |  |
| MM7-0013 | 18 10 48.67 | $``$25 52 58.5 | DSCT HADS | 0.15885904 | 150 | 21 | 16.932 | 1.396 | OGLE MM7-A V88 (DSCT) |
| MM7-0014 | 18 12 06.28 | $``$25 52 13.1 | DSCT | 0.1677467 | 169 | 23 | 17.135 | 1.793 |  |
| MM7-0015 | 18 10 32.14 | $``$25 59 55.7 | DSCT | 0.1723239 | 159 | 26 | 15.465 | 2.060 |  |
| MM7-0016 | 18 10 22.80 | $``$25 53 04.7 | DSCT HADS/EW | 0.1972421 | 162 | 0 | 18.882 |  | SKU MM7A.19894 (EWs) |
| MM7-0017 | 18 10 26.01 | $``$25 58 54.7 | DSCT/EW | 0.2066995 | 155 | 25 | 17.433 | 1.757 | OGLE MM7-A V139 (EW) = |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | = SKU MM7A.4811 (EWs) |
| MM7-0018 | 18 10 54.50 | $``$25 49 42.4 | RRc | 0.22759215 | 147 | 26 | 15.942 | 1.125 | OGLE MM7-A V44 (RRc) |
| MM7-0019 | 18 10 49.72 | $``$25 48 24.0 | RRc | 0.2749935 | 161 | 26 | 17.048 | 1.568 | OGLE MM7-A V94 (RRc) |
| MM7-0020 | 18 11 33.45 | $``$25 55 08.3 | RRc | 0.2867497 | 157 | 21 | 15.802 | 1.330 | OGLE MM7-B V14 (RRc) |
| MM7-0021 | 18 10 35.61 | $``$25 52 51.8 | RRc | 0.2878246 | 156 | 26 | 16.180 | 1.534 | OGLE MM7-A V47 (RRc) |
| MM7-0022 | 18 10 39.85 | $``$25 59 15.0 | RRc NR | 0.3066806 | 168 | 26 | 16.030 | 1.251 | SKU MM7A.34501 (EWa, |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | P = 0.64918 d) |
|  |  |  |  | 0.3245838 |  |  |  |  |  |
| MM7-0023 | 18 10 48.96 | $``$25 56 29.8 | RRab | 0.4436107 | 146 | 26 | 16.349 | 1.175 | OGLE MM7-A V26 (RRab) |
| MM7-0024 | 18 10 32.07 | $``$25 59 36.2 | RRab | 0.4938028 | 168 | 26 | 15.619 | 1.741 | OGLE MM7-A V25 (RRab) |
| MM7-0025 | 18 11 18.64 | $``$26 00 41.3 | RRab | 0.52984105 | 330 | 48 | 16.068 | 1.449 | OGLE MM7-A V20 (RRab) |
| MM7-0026 | 18 11 12.65 | $``$25 49 37.5 | RRab | 0.5304776 | 318 | 49 | 15.969 | 1.593 | OGLE MM7-A V34 (RRab) |
| MM7-0027 | 18 11 40.09 | $``$25 51 02.8 | RRab | 0.5332197 | 164 | 23 | 15.860 | 1.319 | OGLE MM7-B V13 (RRab) |
| MM7-0028 | 18 12 03.44 | $``$25 58 22.2 | RRab | 0.5391315 | 165 | 23 | 15.569 | 1.492 | OGLE MM7-B V6 (RRab) |
| MM7-0029 | 18 11 00.07 | $``$25 57 38.0 | RRab | 0.5408001 | 155 | 26 | 15.025 | 1.534 | OGLE MM7-A V2 (RRab) |
| MM7-0030 | 18 11 30.96 | $``$25 56 01.8 | RRab | 0.5538256 | 170 | 23 | 16.350 | 1.263 |  |
| MM7-0031 | 18 12 00.30 | $``$25 53 19.9 | RRab | 0.5593891 | 153 | 22 | 15.629 | 1.423 | OGLE MM7-B V8 (RRab) |
| MM7-0032 | 18 11 14.73 | $``$25 51 46.6 | RRab | 0.5670927 | 162 | 23 | 15.847 | 1.295 | OGLE MM7-A V16 (RRab) |
| MM7-0033 | 18 11 51.14 | $``$25 58 11.8 | RRab | 0.590028 | 167 | 23 | 15.793 | 1.209 | OGLE MM7-B V7 (RRab) |
| MM7-0034 | 18 11 44.86 | $``$25 58 03.1 | RRab | 0.616314 | 165 | 0 | 18.545 | 2.197 | SKU MM7B.75698 (P) |
| MM7-0035 | 18 11 47.90 | $``$25 52 23.2 | RRab | 0.6180556 | 160 | 23 | 17.369 | 1.649 | OGLE MM7-B V63 (RRab) |
| MM7-0036 | 18 11 36.71 | $``$25 49 06.7 | RRab | 0.8812044 | 167 | 23 | 15.607 | 1.622 | OGLE MM7-B V12 (RRab) |
| MM7-0037 | 18 11 12.01 | $``$25 55 51.1 | EW | 0.23476895 | 320 | 48 | 18.086 | 1.859 | SKU MM7A.168828 (EWs) |
| MM7-0038 | 18 11 05.38 | $``$25 55 03.1 | EW | 0.2634260 | 157 | 25 | 14.841 | 1.673 |  |
| MM7-0039 | 18 11 25.78 | $``$26 00 21.4 | EW | 0.2637791 | 96 | 0 |  |  |  |
| MM7-0040 | 18 11 50.72 | $``$25 52 39.1 | EW | 0.2670858 | 167 | 23 | 18.591 | 2.089 | SKU MM7B.108382 (EWa) |
| MM7-0041 | 18 10 43.62 | $``$26 00 44.2 | EW | 0.2690071 | 160 | 0 |  |  | SKU MM7A.65167 (EWa) |
| MM7-0042 | 18 10 54.51 | $``$25 49 11.2 | EW | 0.2722634 | 162 | 0 |  |  |  |
| MM7-0043 | 18 11 22.51 | $``$25 53 10.7 | EW | 0.2779473 | 138 | 0 | 17.318 | 1.749 |  |
| MM7-0044 | 18 10 49.20 | $``$25 51 12.7 | EW | 0.2788253 | 155 | 0 | 18.230 |  |  |
| MM7-0045 | 18 11 35.76 | $``$25 58 39.6 | EW | 0.2794520 | 167 | 0 | 18.183 | 2.087 |  |
| MM7-0046 | 18 10 54.08 | $``$25 54 38.3 | EW | 0.2842176 | 163 | 24 | 18.689 | 1.613 | SKU MM7A.109242 (P) |
| MM7-0047 | 18 11 35.90 | $``$25 54 59.1 | EW | 0.2877905 | 159 | 22 | 17.576 | 1.783 |  |
| MM7-0048 | 18 11 09.85 | $``$25 55 39.6 | EW | 0.2884005 | 326 | 49 | 17.538 | 1.652 | OGLE MM7-A V138 (EW) |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | = SKU MM7A.168261 (EWa) |
| MM7-0049 | 18 11 51.36 | $``$26 00 56.4 | EW | 0.2931527 | 157 | 0 | 19.493 | 2.063 |  |
| MM7-0050 | 18 10 58.47 | $``$25 51 26.3 | EW | 0.2932039 | 154 | 0 | 19.623 |  |  |

Typically, three panels for a given star are presented in a plot (see Fig. 2). For periodic stars and stars with a dominating period shorter than 25 days the left-hand panel shows the light curve as a phase diagram. For periodic stars with dominating period longer than 25 days and stars classified as APER, MLE and MIRA the light curve is presented as a function of heliocentric Julian day (this is not shown in Fig. 2). The star name (Sect. 4.1), period (P) or dominating period (D) as well as cross-identifications are also plotted in this panel. The right-hand top panel shows a finding chart of 99 $`\times `$ 99 pixels (43′′ $`\times `$ 43′′) from the frame used as a reference one and oriented roughly in such a way that north is up, east to the left. The variable star is centered and encircled with a light-grey circle. Some additional informations on the star (classification, coordinates, magnitudes) are given in the right-hand bottom panel.

For some stars, more than one plot is presented. This has been done for short-period multiperiodic stars, when in addition to a phase diagram showing original data folded with the main period, we also show all detected periodicities separately (that is, folded after removing the other ones, see Fig. 2 for MM7-0022). In a few cases, when a strong trend was apparent, we removed it and show the phase diagram once again, but freed from the trend. In such cases plots contain a remark “trend removed”. When the data from two overlapping fields are combined, an encircled letter “C” is plotted right of our star name (see plots for MM7-0025 and MM7-0037 in Fig. 2).

There were some variable stars which were too faint or too crowded to be detected by Daophot in the reference image. In such cases, a correct transformation from fluxes to magnitudes (see Sect. 4.4) could not be performed. For these stars we do not give the mean magnitudes and/or colors in plots and tables. However, in order to show the light curves of all stars on the magnitude scale, we assumed that the magnitudes of these stars are close to the limiting magnitude in the reference frame and did the transformation. This helps to estimate the amplitude, but it must be remembered that the magnitudes of these stars could be unreliable.

4.1. Designation of variables

The already known variables from the OGLE catalogs will be referred to using designations introduced by their authors. The CPVS introduced the names of variable stars consisting of a field designation, letter “V” and a sequential number. In this catalog (see, e.g., U97) the stars were arranged according to the decreasing mean brightness. The microlensing events were numbered separately (OGLE #1 to OGLE #20; WS98). Z98 introduced new designations for his long-period variables (e.g., OGLE-LT-V011). On the other hand, SKU01 and WS98 use for their variables the numbers from the OGLE photometric database. We shall refer to these variables using the following abbreviations: SKU for SKU01 and WS for WS98, original field name and star number, e.g., SKU MM1B.24085. The OGLE catalogs provide the coordinates and finding charts, so that the proper identification or cross-identification is rather easy.

The extensions of some of the above-mentioned numbering systems could be somewhat misleading. Therefore, we decided to introduce our own designations consisting of the field name (without division into part A or B, if two adjacent fields were observed) and a four-digit number, e.g., MM1-0019. The stars in Tables 4a and 4b and in the plots described above are presented in groups, according to the classification scheme explained in the next subsection. Within a given group, the stars are arranged according to the increasing period (or dominating period), except for aperiodic stars and microlensing events which are presented in the order of increasing right ascension.

4.2. The classification scheme

Many variable stars reported in this paper are periodic or multiperiodic. In the process of classification of these stars we have taken into account the following features: period(s), amplitude, the shape of the light curve, and—in some cases—the location in the color-magnitude diagram. As far as the stars with periods below $``$1 d are concerned, the classification was quite easy and rather unambiguous. Among stars with longer periods, only the Miras are easily recognizable.

The following types of variability have been attributed to the periodic pulsating stars:

* DSCT – $`\delta `$ Scuti stars. If the light curve had the $`I_\mathrm{C}`$-filter full amplitude larger than 0.1 mag, the designation HADS (high-amplitude $`\delta `$ Scuti star) was given in addition to DSCT. Note that some of the HADS, especially with the shortest periods, can be Population II pulsators, known as SX Phoenicis stars.
* RRc – RR Lyrae stars of Bailey type c. We also included one RRd star (double-mode RR Lyrae star) into this group. For RRc stars with nonradial modes present, the “NR” designation has been added (this applies also to RRab stars).
* RRab – RR Lyrae stars of Bailey type ab.
* CEP – Cepheid variables and RV Tauri stars.
* MIRA – Miras.

Classifying eclipsing binaries we have adopted an old system based on the morphology of the light curve which divides these stars into three categories. These are: W Ursae Majoris-type (EW), $`\beta `$ Lyrae-type (EB), and Algol-type (EA). However, the distinction between EB and EA or EB and EW depends on the quality of the light curve. Consequently, the classification of the eclipsing binaries is somewhat arbitrary for some stars. If a distinct O’Connell effect was observed, the designation “OC” was added.

The presence of large scatter causes that two stars with light curves of exactly the same shape can be classified in a different way. There is, however, no way to avoid this problem. Hence, for some stars double classification is given (e.g. EW/DSCT) in the order of the authors’ preference.

The classification of stars that show periodicities longer that $``$1 d is more difficult. Most of these stars were classified as miscellaneous (MISC) in the CPVS. Some are strictly periodic, but there are too many possible types of variability in a given range of periods to make a correct classification. If the light curve is non-sinusoidal or there is an evidence of multiperiodicity, a final decision can be sometimes made. Such is the case of some ellipsoidal variables. We finally decided to divide the stars into the three following categories:

* SIN – Stars with sinusoidal light curves showing the evidence of a single periodicity. This category may include such variables as the monoperiodic Slowly Pulsating B-type (SPB) stars, $`\alpha ^2`$ Canum Venaticorum stars, $`\gamma `$ Doradus stars, also some ellipsoidal variables (with half the orbital period) and chromospherically active stars, etc.
* NSIN – Stars with strictly periodic light curves, which are evidently non-sinusoidal. The ellipsoidal variables (“ELL” designation added) can present such light curves, but other types of variability are also possible in this group.
* PER – Stars with a dominating periodicity, but showing also amplitude and/or phase changes or the periodic changes superimposed on the variability on a longer time-scale. A majority of semi-regular variables fall into this category.

In addition, stars showing aperiodic behaviour were classified as:

* APER – Stars that show aperiodic light variations. It has to be noted that stars with linear light changes that might arise from high proper motion (see Eyer and Woźniak 2001, Soszyński et al. 2002), but also from the intrinsic light variation, were not included in our catalog.
* MLE – Microlensing events.

4.3. Multiperiodicity

The correct period (or periods) of a light variation was decided during the classification process and was found by means of the AoV periodogram using solely the $`I_\mathrm{C}`$-filter data. The final period reported in Tables 4a and 4b represents, however, a refined value obtained from a nonlinear least-squares solution. The least-squares fit was done also for non-sinusoidal light curves; in such a case the appropriate number of harmonics was fitted to the data. Depending on the accuracy of the period determination, periods are given with a different number of digits.

The search for multiperiodicity was made only for some groups of stars, namely DSCT, RRc, RRab, CEP and some SIN and PER stars with the shortest periods. This reflects the scientific interests of the authors. The results are discussed in Sect. 6. Thus, it is still possible that some stars we do not announce to be multiperiodic, especially from the SIN and PER groups have, in fact, multiple periods.

4.4. Conversion from the fluxes to magnitudes

The DIA provides differential fluxes in arbitrary units. In order to convert the fluxes into magnitudes we first derived the instrumental magnitudes of all stars in the reference frame by means of a standard profile-fitting photometry, namely using Daophot package of Stetson (1987). This was done for each of the four fields (MM1-A, MM1-B, MM7-A, MM7-B) and the two filters (Johnson $`V`$, Gunn $`i`$) separately. The instrumental magnitudes, $`p=\{v,i\}`$, were used to derive the coefficients of the transformation equation:

$$P_k=2.5\mathrm{log}(f_0+f_k)+C,$$
(1)
where $`f_0=10^{0.4(p+C_2)}`$ was the reference flux expressed in the same units as the differential fluxes, $`f_k`$, for the $`k`$th measurement. $`P_k`$ stands for the corresponding $`k`$th measurement taken from the $`P=\{V,I_\mathrm{C}\}`$ photometry of U97 and SKU01. Using stars in common with U97 and/or SKU01, we first derived the values of $`f_0`$ and $`C`$ for each star. It appeared that $`C`$ varies slightly with the instrumental magnitude, $`p`$. Therefore, we adopted a linear form of the dependence, $`C=a+b(p15.0)`$, and derived the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ by means of the least squares. Then, with $`C(p)`$ fixed, the $`f_0`$ values were recalculated and finally, the constant $`C_2`$ was determined. The final coefficients are given in Table 5. There are many possible sources of the weak dependence of $`C`$ on $`p`$, including small nonlinearities of the detector indicated by Udalski et al. (1992). We shall not speculate on that. Taking into account the small color terms in the transformation to the standard $`VI_\mathrm{C}`$ system (Udalski et al. 1992), our transformation should give reliable standard magnitudes as well.

T a b l e 5

The coefficients of the transformation from differential fluxes to the standard $`VI_\mathrm{C}`$ magnitudes for fields MM1 and MM7.

| Field | Filter | $`a`$ \[mag\] | $`b`$ | $`C_2`$ \[mag\] | RSD \[mag\] |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MM1A | $`V`$ | 25.7827 $`\pm `$ 0.0188 | 0.0395 $`\pm `$ 0.0136 | $``$22.8063 $`\pm `$ 0.0167 | 0.096 |
|  | $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ | 25.0856 $`\pm `$ 0.0087 | 0.0238 $`\pm `$ 0.0094 | $``$22.7038 $`\pm `$ 0.0148 | 0.074 |
| MM1B | $`V`$ | 25.7786 $`\pm `$ 0.0361 | 0.0668 $`\pm `$ 0.0218 | $``$22.8267 $`\pm `$ 0.0170 | 0.130 |
|  | $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ | 25.0458 $`\pm `$ 0.0103 | 0.0225 $`\pm `$ 0.0098 | $``$22.7954 $`\pm `$ 0.0159 | 0.079 |
| MM7A | $`V`$ | 25.4173 $`\pm `$ 0.0154 | 0.0465 $`\pm `$ 0.0124 | $``$22.7987 $`\pm `$ 0.0193 | 0.025 |
|  | $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ | 25.0083 $`\pm `$ 0.0066 | 0.0392 $`\pm `$ 0.0075 | $``$22.7745 $`\pm `$ 0.0068 | 0.072 |
| MM7B | $`V`$ | 25.5806 $`\pm `$ 0.0274 | 0.0646 $`\pm `$ 0.0217 | $``$22.6753 $`\pm `$ 0.0240 | 0.062 |
|  | $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ | 25.0345 $`\pm `$ 0.0054 | 0.0145 $`\pm `$ 0.0059 | $``$22.7809 $`\pm `$ 0.0081 | 0.048 |

Having derived the coefficients $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`C_2`$ for each field/filter combination we could transform the differential fluxes for all variable stars into the standard $`VI_\mathrm{C}`$ magnitudes. However, since the instrumental magnitudes were derived by means of the profile-fitting photometry in a crowded field from a single reference frame, the errors of the transformation could be quite large. Thus, the magnitudes should be used with caution. The photometry (both the differential fluxes and the transformed magnitudes) is available on the web page given above.

The reference magnitudes of variable stars were also transformed to the standard $`VI_\mathrm{C}`$ magnitudes. They are given in Tables 4a and 4b and in our plots (see Fig. 2). Very few variable stars were not found in the reference frame. In these cases we assumed they have the instrumental magnitude close to the limiting magnitude of the photometry in a given reference frame. For these stars the reference magnitudes and/or colors were not included in Tables 4a and 4b. We used them only for plotting a star’s light curve, so that in our plots all stars would have the ordinate given in magnitudes.

4.5. Equatorial coordinates

Equatorial coordinates of variable stars were derived using their positions in the variability map. For each field we identified about 4000 stars from the Hubble Guide Star Catalog, ver. 2.2.1, and used a third-order polynomial to transform each coordinate into an appropriate equatorial one. The accuracy of the final position depends primarily on the accuracy of the position in the variability map; we estimate it to be of the order of 0.2′′. There are systematic differences up to 1′′ between our coordinates and those given in OGLE catalogs. They occur probably because of using different astrometric catalogs as a reference.

5. Comments on Detectability

It is interesting to check how many variable stars presented in the OGLE catalogs mentioned in Sect. 2 could be recovered by means of the DIA. Out of the 294 variables from the CPVS, detected in the two MM7 fields (Table 1), we have recovered 284, that is about 97%. The fact that the remaining 10 stars were not detected can be explained as follows:

* The DIA provides no photometry for stars which are overexposed in the reference frame. This is the reason why the two brightest stars in the CPVS, MM7-A V1 and MM7-B V1, were missed.
* Since some areas around overexposed pixels are marked as unusable, stars which fall there will have no DIA photometry either. This was the case for MM7-A V112 and MM7-B V100.
* There are some shifts between the frames. The DIA software detects only these variables which are located in the region common with the reference frame. Three CPVS stars, MM7-A V8, V56 and V114, were outside this region.
* If the star has a low amplitude and/or is faint, it may be too faint in the variability map to be detected by the search procedure. This was the case MM7-A V172.
* This rather rare case happens when Daophot search procedure cannot resolve variables which are very close to each other. This was the case for MM7-A V133 which is very close to MM7-A V77. In consequence, the former star was not detected.

In addition, we found one CPVS star (MM7-A V86) which can be barely seen in the variability map but was detected. However, after careful analysis we concluded that it shows no clear evidence for variability. We therefore regard it as constant so it does not appear in our catalog.

Z98 reports 26 variable stars in fields MM1 and MM7 (Table 1). One, OGLE-LT-V106, is identical with MM7-A V116, so that 25 stars are new detections. We recover them all but OGLE-LT-V108 because of point (ii). In addition, two other stars, OGLE-LT-V001 and OGLE-LT-V024, are probably not real variables, but rather high-proper motion stars, showing nearly linear change of brightness if constant position is used to get the magnitudes (Eyer and Woźniak 2001; Soszyński et al. 2002). We do not include them either.

We also detect a variable found by WS98 in field MM1-B (WS MM1B.198992). Of the two microlensing events, OGLE#9 in field MM7-A and OGLE#14 in MM1-A, we detect only the latter. The former was too faint in the variability map to be detected (see point (iv) above).

SKU01 report 591 new variable stars in fields MM1 and MM7, but some have double designations, so that there are actually 579 (407 classified as eclipsing, EW, and 172 as pulsating, P; see Table 1) new variables. We recovered 100 out of 120 EW stars (83%) and 20 out of 39 P stars (51%) in the field MM7. In fields MM1 the detection efficiencies are slightly higher. This is because the CPVS did not include this field, so the bright variable stars located there were discovered by SKU01. We found 250 out of 287 EW stars (87%) and 83 out of 133 P stars (62%) in field MM1. The main reason for non-detections is point (iv) above: stars are too faint in the variability map to be detected. Some other stars are not detected because they are very close to overexposed stars (point (ii)).

While the small difference between the detection efficiency in fields MM1 (79%) and MM7 (75%) is understandable in view of the comments given above, the large difference in the detectability of the EW (86%) and P stars (60%) is rather a surprise. Both classes have similar distribution in brightness, so that the brightness difference is not the explanation. Moreover, out of 103 P stars we recovered in this study, only eight (8%) were classified as pulsating stars in our catalog, RRc or DSCT. Remaining P variables are almost exclusively EW-type eclipsing binaries. Recalling the fact that among variables classified by SKU01 as EW we found four pulsating stars, we conclude that the algorithm used by SKU01 to distinguish eclipsing and pulsating stars by means of the Fourier coefficients apparently did not work well. The stars classified as P have probably lower amplitudes than the EW stars, as can be seen from Fig. 14 of SKU01. This explains both the large spread of Fourier coefficients in the decomposition shown by SKU01 (their Fig. 1) and much lower detection efficiency of P stars in comparison with EW stars in our catalog.

6. Comments on Individual Variable Stars

A thorough analysis of the contents of the presented catalog is out of scope of this paper. However, taking into account our personal interests, we shall discuss in detail the results for some of the variables we found.

6.1. $`\delta `$ Scuti stars

Some $`\delta `$ Scuti stars were included in the CPVS, but because this search was limited to frequencies up to only 10 d-1 and stars brighter than $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ 18 mag, it is clear that mainly High-Amplitude $`\delta `$ Scuti (HADS) stars had been detected and that many low-amplitude $`\delta `$ Scuti stars could be still found. This is indeed the case: we found 45 $`\delta `$ Scuti stars, of which only 7 were known from U97 and SKU01. Seven stars show clearly multiperiodic behaviour; as many as three significant periodicities were found in MM7-0003 and MM7-0012. Fifteen stars in field MM1 and four stars in MM7 could be classified as the HADS. The location of $`\delta `$ Scuti stars in the colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) is shown in Fig. 3. While the low-amplitude variables are mostly disk stars, the HADS, lying 1 to 3 mag below RR Lyraes, seem to be mainly at the bulge distance. The same was found by Alcock et al. (2000a) from their analysis of a much larger sample of the bulge HADS. If they are normal, evolved main-sequence HADS, this would be an indication of the presence of a not so old (age $`<`$ 1.5–2 Gyr) stellar population at those distances. However, it is more likely they are SX Phoenicis stars of the old disk/bulge population or a mixture of both.

6.2. RR Lyrae stars

These stars have large amplitudes. Therefore, we expected that, at least in fields MM7, no new variables would be detected. It appeared, however, that even in these fields we were able to find a new RRab star, MM7-0030. It avoided earlier detection because of its location close to several bright stars. Out of the remaining 5 RRc and 13 RRab stars in fields MM7, CPVS reported sixteen and SKU01 added two. One of the latter, MM7-0022 = SKU MM7A.34501, is a very interesting example of an RRc star showing two close modes with periods of $`P_1`$ = 0.3066806 d and $`P_2`$ = 0.3245838 d and almost equal amplitudes in $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ (see the left side of Fig. 2). It was classified by SKU01 as an EWs variable (EW-type eclipsing binary with similar depth of both eclipses) and period equal to 2$`P_2`$.

In fields MM1 we found 28 RR Lyrae variables. Only five of them (all of type RRc) were reported by SKU01. This is because SKU01 focused on the short-period EW-type binaries and not only RRab, but also other variables with longer periods were not presented there (see Table 3). The sample of RR Lyrae variables in field MM1 includes 11 RRc and 17 RRab stars. Among them there are five stars showing multiperiodic behaviour. The periods of all multiperiodic RR Lyrae stars we found are listed in Table 5. This table is therefore supplementary to the recent work of Moskalik and Poretti (2003). These authors analyzed the whole CPVS sample of 215 RR Lyrae stars finding 38 multiperiodic stars, including a double-mode RRd star, BW7 V30. We also find one RRd star, MM1-0033, with the radial first-overtone to fundamental period ratio equal to 0.737571 $`\pm `$ 0.000005.

Another very interesting RR Lyrae star is MM1-0046, an RRab type star showing three close equally spaced frequencies, characteristic for the Blazhko effect. In this respect the star is very similar to the star BW6 V20 analyzed in detail by Moskalik and Poretti (2003).

T a b l e 5

Multiperiodic RR Lyrae variables in fields MM1 and MM7. In parentheses, the r.m.s. errors of the last two digits of preceding numbers are given.

| Name in the |  | Primary period | Secondary period | Frequency difference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| catalog | Typea | $`P_0=f_0^1`$ \[d\] | $`P_1=f_1^1`$ \[d\] | $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=f_1f_0`$ \[d-1\] |
| MM1-0033 | RRd | 0.3049400(08) | 0.413438(07) | $``$0.860593(16) |
| MM1-0034 | RR1-$`\nu `$1 | 0.3063829(05) | 0.306245(04) | $`+`$0.001470(14) |
| MM1-0044 | RR0-$`\nu `$1 | 0.5179836(15) | 0.521618(14) | $``$0.013451(26) |
| MM1-0046 | RR0-BL | 0.5336114(12) | 0.536120(07) | $``$0.008769(13) |
|  |  |  | 0.531090(08) | $`+`$0.008897(16) |
| MM1-0051 | RR0-$`\nu `$1 | 0.5816272(14) | 0.579520(21) | $`+`$0.006249(36) |
| MM7-0022 | RR1-$`\nu `$1 | 0.3066806(14) | 0.3245838(16) | $``$0.179853(7) |

a According to Alcock et al.’s (2000c) classification scheme.

The position of the RR Lyrae variables in the CMD is shown in Fig. 3. A majority of them is located at the bulge distance as indicated by previous investigators (Udalski 1998, Alcock et al. 1998, Morgan et al. 1998), but three (MM1-0047, MM1-0054, MM7-0034) that are $``$2 mag fainter than the rest, are members of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Sgr dSph, Mateo et al. 1995; Alard 1996; Alcock et al. 1997, 1998). The other three RR Lyrae stars lie in between, they have 17.0 $`<I_\mathrm{C}<`$ 17.5 mag. These are MM1-0031 = SKU MM1A.5623, MM7-0019 = OGLE MM7-A V94 and MM7-0035 = OGLE MM7-B V63. The latter was indicated as a member of Sgr dSph by Olech (1997). However, their membership is rather doubtful and a larger interstellar extinction could also explain their position in the CMD.

6.3. Eclipsing binaries

Eclipsing binaries constitute about 60% of stars in our catalog, of them the EW-type stars are most common. This enables us to make some statistical considerations related to this type of stars. The properties of the OGLE-I EW-type binaries have been already studied by Ruciński (1995, 1997a,b, 1998a,b) using a sample of CPVS EW-type systems from nine BW fields. He found that these stars are almost evenly distributed along the line of sight and only very few had estimated distances comparable to that of the Galactic bulge. This conclusion is in good agreement with position of these stars in the CMD (Fig. 4), where they populate the left branch consisting of the main-sequence stars and stars close to the turn-off point at different distances. Several EW stars lie close to the red clump because of blending with red stars.

Many other interesting results have been given in the above-mentioned papers of Ruciński with a clear indication that EW-type binaries can play an important role in the study of stellar populations towards and even in the bulge. In his studies, the period and amplitude distributions were used frequently to constrain properties of EW-type stars. It is, therefore, interesting to compare how the newer discoveries in the OGLE-I fields, namely those of SKU01 and the one reported in this paper, affect these two distributions. Although in this study we do not analyze BW fields, but fields in the Galactic bar, it was shown by SKU01 (their Fig. 9) that at least the period distribution of EW stars for the bar fields (MM1, MM3, MM5 and MM7) does not differ significantly from that in the BW fields.

A comparison of the period distributions is shown in Fig. 5. The distribution calculated for EW stars with periods shorter than 1 d from our catalog (solid line, 872 stars) was compared with two others: that consisting of the CPVS EW stars from fields MM7 only (104 stars) and all 496 already known stars (CPVS + SKU01). All distributions were normalized to the same number of stars. As can be seen from the figure, there is no significant difference between the distribution for our and SKU01 EW binaries. On the other hand, in comparison with CPVS we have an excess of stars with $`P<`$ 0.5 d (and consequently a deficit of stars with $`P>`$ 0.5 d). Two conclusions can be drawn from these differences: (i) in comparison with profile-fitting photometry, the DIA provides better completness, but does not reach fainter stars, (ii) the difference in limiting magnitudes of the CPVS and SKU01/our catalog resulted in different period distributions. The latter can be understood in view of the period-luminosity relation for the EW stars: at a given distance, a contact binary with shorter orbital period consists of smaller (and cooler) components and thus is fainter.

We also compared the amplitude distributions (Fig. 6). The analyzed samples of stars are slightly different, because now we used all EW stars with $`I_\mathrm{C}<`$ 19 mag at the phase of maximum light. In addition, we excluded all variable stars that were not detected in the reference frame. As can be seen from Fig. 6, we found relatively more low-amplitude stars than did SKU01, although—as expected—many faint EW stars with small amplitudes are not detected (see the right panel of Fig. 6).

6.4. Cepheids, RV Tauri Stars and Miras

Classical Cepheids trace relatively young population, so they are not expected to be present in the Galactic bulge. Moreover, owing to their high luminosities, they should be overexposed in the OGLE-I observations even at the bulge distance. However, some Population II Cepheids and RV Tauri stars could be present and detected. The latter stars are not always easily recognized from long-period Population II Cepheids and are closely related to them (Wallerstein 2002), so we discuss them jointly.

There are four stars in our catalog which were classified as RV Tauri stars (we use designation CEP for them as explained in Sect. 4.2). All show alternating deeper and shallower minima in the light curve, characteristic for this group (see, e.g., Pollard et al. 1996). Their (doubled) periods range from about 23 days for MM7-0820 to 105 d for MM1-1179. The fifth star which was included in the CEP group, MM1-1176, is the most interesting. According to its period equal to 11.2 d, large amplitude and an asymmetric light curve (see Fig. 7), it could be Population II Cepheid of W Virginis type. However, it is very faint and red; $`I_\mathrm{C}`$ 19.0 mag, $`(VI_\mathrm{C})`$ 2.6 mag. Assuming it has an intrinsic color $`(VI_\mathrm{C})_0`$ 0.5 mag and adopting $`A_{I_\mathrm{C}}`$ = 1.57$`E(VI_\mathrm{C})`$ (Dean et al. 1978) we get $`I_{\mathrm{C},0}`$ 15.7 mag. Giving the mean distance modulus of Sgr dSph of 17–17.5 mag and its extended structure, MM1-1176 could be indeed a W Virginis-type star, the first known in this galaxy. So far, Population II Cepheids were found only in one of the nine Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies, namely the Fornax one (Bersier and Wood 2002). Since Population II Cepheids are in a very short AGB or post-AGB evolutionary phase, they can be found only in populous dwarf galaxies. Fornax and Sagittarius dSphs are the two most luminous galaxies of this type among the Milky Way Galaxy satellites (van den Bergh 2000).

We find also 11 Miras, all are new variable stars. They were, however, detected mainly at the phase close to the minimum light.

6.5. Microlensing events

Six stars showing a single event of brightness increase were found. We cannot exclude the possibility that they are eruptive stars, but the most plausible explanation is that they all are microlensing events. Only one of them, OGLE #14, was known earlier (see WS98). As an example, we show in Fig. 8 the light curve of MM1-1189, and also two maps of the region, a reference frame made of the frames well outside the epoch of the event and the frame when the star was brightest. The star is practically not visible in the reference frame, being blended with another faint star. It is, however, clearly seen in the other frame despite much poorer seeing.

It is difficult to say how many new microlensing events will be found in the remaining 16 OGLE-I fields, but because there were only two known in fields MM1 and MM7, we expect at least to double their number in the OGLE-I data. The full analysis of these events will be carried out as soon as all the OGLE-I fields are catalogued. It is interesting to note that the application of image subtraction led to doubling the number of detected microlensing events also in OGLE-II (Udalski et al. 2000, Woźniak et al. 2001) and MACHO (Alcock et al. 2000b) data.

6.6. Other stars

The largest number of new discoveries came for stars we classified as SIN, NSIN, PER, and APER — 85% of them are new variables. As can be seen in Fig. 9, they populate mostly the red branch of the CMD. However, some are relatively blue. It is therefore possible that some SIN or PER stars with periods shorter than 4 d, shown as circles in Fig. 9, are slowly pulsating B-type (SPB) stars.

There are two interesting stars among those classified as APER. The first one is MM1-1151 = OGLE-LT-V035 classified by Żebruń (1998) as an R Coronae Borealis-type variable. It is also the bluest variable star we found (Fig. 9). The other, MM7-0813, shows several eruptions during the time covered by observations. It is identical with OGLE II BUL\_SC17\_4122, classified recently as a dwarf nova by Cieslinski et al. (2003).

Acknowledgements

It is a great pleasure to express our appreciation to the whole OGLE team for their superb work and especially for their policy to present the data as soon as possible to the astronomical community. In particular, we thank Prof. A. Udalski for making available the original OGLE-I observations of the Galactic fields. We also thank Dr. P. Woźniak for allowing us to use his DIA package and K. Żebruń and I. Soszyński for explaining its details. The comments of Prof. M. Jerzykiewicz were very helpful for improving the paper.

This work was supported by the KBN grant 2 P03D 006 19.

REFERENCES:

Alard, C. 1996, Astrophys. J., 458, L17.

Alard, C. 2000, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 144, 363.

Alard, C., and Lupton, R.H. 1998, Astrophys. J., 503, 325.

Alcock, C. et al. 1997, Astrophys. J., 474, 217.

Alcock, C. et al. 1998, Astrophys. J., 492, 190.

Alcock, C. et al. 2000a, Astrophys. J., 536, 798.

Alcock, C. et al. 2000b, Astrophys. J., 541, 734.

Alcock, C. et al. 2000c, Astrophys. J., 542, 257.

Bersier, D., and Wood, P.R. 2002, Astron. J., 123, 840.

Cieslinski, D., Diaz, M.P., Mennickent, R.E., and Pietrzyński, G. 2003, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 115, 193.

Dean, J.F., Warren, P.R., and Cousins, A.W.J. 1978, Monhly Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 183, 569.

Eyer, L., and Woźniak, P.R. 2001, Monthly Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 327, 601.

Kazarovets, E.V., Samus, N.N., and Durlevich, O.V. 1998, Inf. Bull. Var. Stars 4655.

Kazarovets, E.V., Samus, N.N., and Durlevich, O.V. 2001, Inf. Bull. Var. Stars 5135.

Kholopov, P.N. et al. 1988, General Catalog of Variable Stars, ed. 4, Moscow: Nauka Publishing House.

Kukarkin, B.V. et al. 1982, New Catalogue of Suspected Variable Stars, Moscow: Nauka Publishing House.

Mateo, M., Kubiak, M., Szymański, M., Kałużny, J., Krzemiński, W., and Udalski, A. 1995, Astron. J., 110, 1141.

Morgan, S.M., Simet, M., and Bargenquast, S. 1998, Acta Astron., 48, 341.

Moskalik, P., and Poretti, E. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 398, 213.

Olech, A. 1997, Acta Astron., 47, 183.

Pojmański, G. 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 397.

Pollard, K.R., Cottrell, P.L., Kilmartin, P.M., and Gilmore, A.C. 1996, Monthly Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 279, 949.

Ruciński, S.M. 1995, Astrophys. J., 446, L19.

Ruciński, S.M. 1997a, Astron. J., 113, 407.

Ruciński, S.M. 1997b, Astron. J., 113, 1112.

Ruciński, S.M. 1998a, Astron. J., 115, 1135.

Ruciński, S.M. 1998b, Astron. J., 116, 2998.

Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1996, Astrophys. J., 460, L107.

Soszyński, I. et al. 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 143.

Stetson, P.B. 1987, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 99, 191.

Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., and Udalski, A. 2001, Acta Astron., 51, 259 (SKU01).

Udalski, A. 1998, Acta Astron., 48, 113.

Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kałużny, J., Kubiak, M., and Mateo, M. 1992, Acta Astron., 42, 253.

Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., Szymański, M., Kałużny, J., Mateo, M., and Krzemiński, W. 1994, Acta Astron., 44, 317.

Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kałużny, J., Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., and Krzemiński, W. 1995a, Acta Astron., 45, 1.

Udalski, A., Olech, A., Szymański, M., Kałużny, J., Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., and Krzemiński, W. 1995b, Acta Astron., 45, 433.

Udalski, A., Olech, A., Szymański, M., Kałużny, J., Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., Krzemiński, W., and Stanek, K.Z. 1996, Acta Astron., 46, 51.

Udalski, A., Olech, A., Szymański, M., Kałużny, J., Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., Krzemiński, W., and Stanek, K.Z. 1997a, Acta Astron., 47, 1 (U97).

Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., and Szymański, M. 1997b, Acta Astron., 47, 319.

Udalski, A., Żebruń, K., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., and Woźniak, P.R. 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 1.

van den Bergh, S. 2000, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 112, 529.

Wallerstein, G. 2002, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 114, 689.

Woźniak, P.R. 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 451.

Woźniak, P.R., and Szymański, M. 1998, Acta Astron., 48, 269 (WS98).

Woźniak, P.R., Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., and Żebruń, K. 2001, Acta Astron., 51, 175.

Woźniak, P.R., Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., and Żebruń, K. 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 129.

Żebruń, K. 1998, Acta Astron., 48, 289 (Z98).


text:
# Squeezed-input, optical-spring, signal-recycled gravitational-wave detectors

## I introduction

Gravitational waves (GW) have long been predicted by Albert Einstein using the theory of general relativity, but so far have not been directly observed Thorne87 . Currently, an international array of first-generation, kilometer-scale laser interferometric gravitational-wave detectors, consisting of GEO 600 geo02 , LIGO LIGO , TAMA 300 TAMA  and VIRGO VIRGO , targeted at gravitational-waves in the acoustic band from 10 Hz to 10 kHz, is going into operation. These first-generation detectors are all Michelson interferometers with suspended mirrors. Injecting a strong carrier light from the bright port, the anti-symmetric mode of arm-lengths oscillations (e.g. excited by a gravitational wave) yields a sideband modulation field in the anti-symmetric (optical) mode which is detected at the dark output port. To yield a high sensitivity to gravitational waves, long arm lengths of 300 m up to 4 km and circulating laser power in the order of 10 kW are going to be realized in 2003 with the help of the technique of power recycling DHKHFMW83pr .

GEO 600 is the only first-generation detector that not only uses power recycling, but also includes the more advanced technique of signal recycling Mee88 . The idea of signal recycling is to retro-reflect part of the signal light at the dark port back into the interferometer, establishing an additional cavity which can be set to resonate at a desired gravitational-wave frequency. Signal recycling leads to a well known (optical) resonance structure in the interferometer’s sensitivity curve. This resonance can already beat the standard quantum limit (SQL) BCh01a ; BCh01b , which is the upper bound for the sensitivity of conventional interferometers without signal recycling and with conventional input and output optics. A further benefit of signal recycling is the reduced optical loss due to imperfect mode matching from the mode healing effect SMe91 . The next-generation detectors currently being planned are likely to use this technique, for example the Advanced LIGO (LIGO II) GSSW99 .

Buonanno and Chen also predict a second, opto-mechanical resonance in signal-recycled interferometers, around which the interferometer gains sensitivity, and can also beat the standard quantum limit BCh01a ; BCh01b ; BCh02a ; BCh03a . Their work has been limited to signal-recycled interferometers with arm cavities, or interferometers with one single end mirror in each arm, and with infinitely heavy beamsplitters. In all cases considered, coherent vacuum was entering the interferometer’s dark port, i.e. no additional input and output optics were investigated. On the other hand, Kimble et al. investigated these additional input and output optics for the conventional LIGO detector topology without signal-recycling KLMTV01  building on earlier work on squeezed-input interferometers Cav81 ; Unruh82 ; GLe87 ; JRe90 ; PCW93  and variational-output interferometers VMa93 ; VZu95 ; VMa96a ; VMa96b ; VZu98 .

In this paper, we investigate the benefit of squeezed light with frequency-dependent squeezing angle injected into the interferometer’s dark port and also the benefit of frequency-dependent (variational) homodyne readout, using the two-photon input-output formalism of quantum optics CSc85  . In sections III and IV of this paper we derive analytical expressions for the optimized frequency dependencies of squeezing angle and homodyning angle for optical-spring signal-recycled interferometers, respectively. For definiteness, our results are presented using the Michelson topology of GEO 600. Unlike the LIGO, VIRGO and TAMA 300 interferometers, GEO 600 has folded arms and no arm cavities (Fig. 1). We plot and compare the spectral densities of the quantum noise of the GEO 600 topology without and with additional input and output optics. Using the coupling parameter of Advanced LIGO, the results are readily applicable to the proposed LIGO topology.

## II Signal recycling

By placing a mirror in the dark port of an interferometer a cavity between this so-called signal-recycling mirror and the two end mirrors of the interferometer is formed. The length of this cavity can be tuned independently and can be made resonant at some signal frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus the signal is recycled and amplified due to an increased interaction time. The original idea of the signal-recycling (SR) topology, i.e. a mirror in the dark port, was due to Meers Mee88 , who proposed its use for dual-recycling, which is the combination of power- and signal-recycling. Later, Mizuno et al. MSNCSRWD93 ; Mizuno95  and Heinzel et al. Heinzel99 ; HMSRWD96  proposed the scheme of resonant sideband extraction, which uses a detuned signal-recycling mirror to extract the signal from high-finesse arm cavities. Both schemes of tuned and detuned signal-recycling cavities have been experimentally demonstrated by Heinzel et al. HSMSWWSRD98  and Freise et al. FHSMSLWSRWD00  with the 30 m laser interferometer in Garching near Munich. Recently the GEO 600 interferometer in Ruthe near Hannover has been completed by the implementation of the signal-recycling mirror. Since GEO 600 has no Fabry-Pérot cavities (Fig. 1) the SR-mirror will be operated at or close to resonance. Relevant technical parameters of GEO 600 are summerized in Table 1.

Whereas it was well known that signal-recycled interferometers exhibit an optical resonance, Buonanno and Chen BCh01a ; BCh01b  have recently shown that SR-interferometers exhibit a second resonance, which is opto-mechanical. This resonance stems from the classical opto-mechanical coupling of the light field with the anti-symmetric mode of the otherwise free mirrors BCh02a : in detuned signal-recycling schemes, the phase-modulation sidebands induced by a gravitational wave are partly converted into amplitude modulations, which beat with the carrier field, producing a motion-dependent force and acting back on the test masses. This classical back-action force can be thought of as generated by an optical spring. The optical spring makes the test masses no longer free, and can shift their resonant frequencies upwards into the detection band. The interferometer gains sensitivity on and around this resonance, and can beat the standard quantum limit BCh01a ; BCh01b ; BCh02a . Whereas the optical resonance is primarily determined by the detuning of the SR-cavity with respect to the carrier-frequency $`\omega _0`$ (Fig. 5.8 in HarmsDipl ), the opto-mechanical resonance appears at a specific sideband frequency of the carrier light which depends on the interferometer’s topology, the mirror masses $`m`$, the light-power $`P`$ inside the interferometer and the detuning $`\varphi `$ of the SR cavity from its resonance. The opto-mechanical coupling of the light field with the anti-symmetric mode of the interferometer also leads to the phenomenon of ponderomotive squeezing BMa67 , i.e. the amplitude and phase quantum noise become correlated. This quantum effect is automatically considered by the formalism revealing the optical-spring behaviour. However, as pointed out in BCh01b , in SR interferometers the ponderomotive squeezing only seems to be a secondary factor that enables the interferometer to beat the SQL, whereas the classical resonant amplification of the signal provides the main factor.

The investigations led by Buonanno and Chen focused on the topology of the proposed Advanced LIGO configuration, which consists of a dual-recycled Michelson-interferometer with a Fabry-Pérot cavity in each arm. Due to the weak laser power at the beamsplitter, the opto-mechanical coupling of the light with the beamsplitters free oscillation was neglected. In contrast, GEO 600 is a dual-recycled interferometer that builds up a high intensity field by means of a power-recycling (PR) mirror in the bright port of the interferometer. Therefore, the motion of the beamsplitter (BS) in GEO 600 is affected by power fluctuations of fields impinging from different directions. Nevertheless, assuming that the laser is shot-noise limited, the opto-mechanical coupling at the beamsplitter exerts only minor changes on the noise spectrum of the output. It can intuitively be understood that the quantum back-action noises associated with the arm mirrors, which have a reduced mass of $`1/5`$ the actual mirror mass due to folding the arms, clearly dominates the beamsplitter of $`m_{\mathrm{BS}}=9.3\mathrm{kg}`$. Throughout this paper we do not consider the effect of radiation-pressure noise on the beamsplitter. This has also been studied but will be presented in detail elsewhere Harms03b . Henceforth the term “ideal GEO 600” refers to the interferometer with opto-mechanical coupling of the beamsplitter neglected.

The optical noise in an interferometer can be expressed in terms of the (single-sided) noise spectral density $`S_h`$ of the output field normalized by the transfer function of the signal. The noise spectral density is obtained from the input-output relation, which maps the numerous input fields $`\overline{𝐢}_n`$ and the gravitational-wave signal $`h=\mathrm{\Delta }L/L`$ onto the detected output field $`\overline{𝐨}`$. Here we note that no additional noise due to the quantization of the test masses has to be considered. The sole forms of quantum noise affecting the output noise in interferometric gravitational wave detectors are the shot noise and the radiation pressure noise BGKMTV02 .

The following calculations are most easily accomplished in the Caves-Schumaker two-photon formalism CSc85 , where the optical fields are decomposed into amplitude and phase quadratures, which can then be put together into a vector, e.g., for the output field of the interferometer

$$\overline{𝐨}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{o}_1\\ \widehat{o}_2\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{o}_{1,2}`$ are the output amplitude and phase quadratures. The input-output relation for a lossless SR interferometer can be cast into the following form:

$$\overline{𝐨}=\frac{1}{M}\left[𝐓\overline{𝐢}+\overline{𝐬}h\right].$$
(2)
Here, $`𝐓`$ designates a $`2\times 2`$-matrix. Its four components are HarmsDipl :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T_{11,22}& =& \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[(1+\rho ^2)\left(\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )+\frac{𝒦}{2}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )\right)2\rho \mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Phi })\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill T_{12}& =& \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}\tau ^2\left(\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )+𝒦\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi )\right),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill T_{21}& =& \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}\tau ^2\left(\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )𝒦\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi )\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
and $`M`$ is given by

$$M=1+\rho ^2\mathrm{e}^{4\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}2\rho \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )+\frac{𝒦}{2}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )\right).$$
(4)
Thus, $`𝐓`$ contains an overall phase factor $`\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. $`\rho `$ and $`\tau `$ denote the amplitude reflectivity and transmissivity of the SR mirror. The signal transfer functions $`\overline{𝐬}`$ for the two quadratures are given by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{s}_1& =& \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}\tau \left(1+\rho \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \widehat{s}_2& =& \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}\tau \left(1+\rho \mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{ı}\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Remarkably, the input-output relations are formally identical for both configurations, Advanced LIGO and ideal GEO600. Their distinguishing properties lie in the definition of the opto-mechanical coupling-constant $`𝒦`$, the standard quantum-limit $`h_{\mathrm{SQL}}`$ and the phase-angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which are also functions of the modulation-frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

A phase-sensitive measurement (i.e. homodyne or heterodyne) yields a photocurrent which depends linearly on a certain combination of the two output quadrature-fields:

$$\widehat{o}_\zeta =\widehat{o}_1\mathrm{cos}\zeta +\widehat{o}_2\mathrm{sin}\zeta ,$$
(6)
where $`\zeta `$ is the homodyne angle (i.e. the angle of homodyne detection). The radiation-pressure forces acting on the mirrors are proportional to the amplitude quadrature and the motion-induced sideband fields are excitations of the light’s phase quadrature.

The noise spectral density when detecting the quadrature $`\widehat{o}_\zeta `$ is determined by the transfer matrix $`𝐓`$ and the signal transfer-functions $`\overline{𝐬}`$. It assumes the form \[see, e.g., Ref. BCh01a \],

$$S_h=\frac{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\zeta & \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)\mathrm{𝐓𝐓}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta \\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\zeta & \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)\overline{𝐬}\overline{𝐬}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta \\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)},$$
(7)
provided that the input field $`\overline{𝐢}`$ entering from the dark port is a coherent vacuum field. Since $`\overline{𝐬}`$ is a complex vector, the product $`\overline{𝐬}\overline{𝐬}^{}`$ represents a symmetrized product

$$\overline{𝐬}\overline{𝐬}^{}_{\mathrm{sym}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{𝐬}\overline{𝐬}^{}+\overline{𝐬}^{}\overline{𝐬}^\mathrm{T}).$$
(8)
The same holds for the matrix product $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐓}^{}`$ in the nominator. Its symmetrization becomes necessary, if a more general interferometer topology is considered with complex coupling constant $`𝒦`$. The expression in Eq. (7) for the noise spectral density is valid for any optical system whose transfer function can be given the form of Eq. (2).

Using Eq. (7) and the parameters and definitions in Table 1 and 2 we are now able to plot the linear noise spectral density of the ideal GEO 600 topology for output quadrature fields of arbitrary values of the angle $`\zeta `$. Fig. 2 shows the two spectral densities $`S_h(\zeta =0)`$ and $`S_h(\zeta =\frac{\pi }{2})`$ compared with the SQL (straight solid line). It can be seen that for both quadrature angles the SQL is beaten at frequencies around $`30\mathrm{Hz}`$. This noise minimum is due to the opto-mechanical resonance (i.e. the optical-spring effect). The second minimum at around $`200\mathrm{Hz}`$ corresponds to the optical resonance of the SR cavity. This resonance can also beat the SQL when higher reflectivities of the SR mirror $`\rho `$ are used. For further comparison, the quantum noise limit of a conventional GEO 600 without signal-recycling is also given (solid line in the upper part of Fig. 2). The dashed lines represent the two contributions to this (conventional) limit, the uncorrelated white shot noise and the radiation-pressure noise ($`f^2`$). The limit given here is calculated for a circulating light power of $`P=10\mathrm{kW}`$ that reaches the SQL at $`3\mathrm{Hz}`$ and of course can never beat the SQL. It is interesting to note that light powers of around $`1\mathrm{MW}`$ are needed to shift the conventional limit downwards to get standard quantum noise limited sensitivity at around $`100\mathrm{Hz}`$ (not shown in Fig. 2).

In the next two sections we investigate how the sub-SQL spectral noise densities of signal-recycled gravitational wave detectors can be further improved by squeezed light injected into the dark port of the interferometer and by a frequency dependent read-out scheme.

## III Signal recycling and squeezed light input

As first proposed by Caves Cav81 , squeezed light can be employed to reduce the high power requirements in GW interferometers. Later Unruh Unruh82  and others GLe87 ; JRe90 ; PCW93 ; KLMTV01  have found and proven in different ways that squeezed light with a frequency dependent orientation of the squeezing ellipse can reduce the quantum noise down to values beyond the standard quantum limit.This research was done on interferometer topologies without signal-recycling. Chickarmane et al. CDh96 ; CDRGBM98  investigated the squeezed-input signal-recycled interferometer at low laser powers, i.e. the shot-noise limited case. In this section we consider the squeezed-input signal-recycled interferometer at high laser powers including the effect of back-action noise.

As discussed in Sec. IVB of Ref. KLMTV01 , squeezed vacuum is related to the ordinary coherent vacuum state by an unitary operator

$$|\text{in}=S(r,\lambda )|0,$$
(9)
where $`r`$ is the squeezing parameter, and $`\lambda `$ the squeezing angle (for an introduction to squeezed light see for example WallsMilburn ). Alternatively, we can transform the input state back to the vacuum state, by

$$|\text{in}S^{}(r,\lambda )|\text{in}=|0,$$
(10)
and at the same time transform the input quadrature operators accordingly \[Eq. (A8) of Ref. KLMTV01 \],

$`\overline{𝐢}`$ $``$ $`S^{}(r,\lambda )\overline{𝐢}S(r,\lambda )`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`𝒟(\lambda )𝒮(r)𝒟(\lambda )\overline{𝐢},`$
where

$$𝒟(\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}\lambda & \hfill \mathrm{sin}\lambda \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}\lambda & \hfill \mathrm{cos}\lambda \end{array}\right),𝒮(r)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^r& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill e^r\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
From Eq. (11), we also see that a squeezed vacuum with squeezing angle $`\lambda `$ can be obtained from a second-quadrature squeezing by applying a rotation of $`𝒟(\lambda )`$ (note the minus sign). Any further rotation of quadratures will also add (with a minus sign) to the squeezing angle.

The input-output relation of the lossless interferometer with fixed beamsplitter becomes

$$\overline{𝐨}=\frac{1}{M}\left[𝐓𝒟(\lambda )𝒮(r)𝒟(\lambda )\overline{𝐢}+\overline{𝐬}h\right],$$
(13)
implying a noise spectral density of

$$S_h=\frac{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\zeta & \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)𝐓𝒟(\lambda )𝒮(2r)𝒟(\lambda )𝐓^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta \\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\zeta & \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)\overline{𝐬}\overline{𝐬}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta \\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)}$$
(14)
Note that here $`𝐓`$ is a real matrix with an overall phase factor in front (cf. Eq. (3)). Fig. 3 shows an array consisting of 7 curves (thin lines) where the quadrature angle $`\zeta =\pi /2`$ is constant and the frequency independent squeezing angle $`\lambda `$ is varied. In all cases the squeezing parameter $`r`$ has been set to unity. Interestingly a variation of the frequency-independent squeezing angle causes a frequency shift of both resonances. For comparison, the standard quantum limit (straight line) and the spectral noise density in the quadrature at $`\zeta =\pi /2`$ without squeezed input is also given (dashed line). As we can see, each individual frequency-independent value for $`\lambda `$ can be advantageous to the case without squeezing only in a certain frequency band. Obviously, the envelope of the minima of the squeezed input array, as also drawn in the graph (lower bold line), is physically meaningful since it can in principle be realized by applying squeezed light with a squeezing angle optimized for each side-band frequency. Such light is called frequency-dependent squeezed light and yields a broad-band improvement in the quantum noise limited sensitivity. In the final paragraphs of this section we now derive an analytical expression for the optimized spectral noise density. Suppose now the squeezing angle $`\lambda `$ can be an arbitrary function of frequency, and $`r`$ is always positive, then as we can tell from Eq. (14), the optimal $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ should make

$$𝒟(\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }))𝐓^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta \\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
or

$$\mathrm{tan}\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{T_{11}\mathrm{cos}\zeta +T_{21}\mathrm{sin}\zeta }{T_{12}\mathrm{cos}\zeta +T_{22}\mathrm{sin}\zeta };$$
(16)
yielding an optimal noise spectrum of

$$S_h^{\mathrm{SI}}=e^{2r}\frac{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\zeta & \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)\mathrm{𝐓𝐓}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta \\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\zeta & \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)\overline{𝐬}\overline{𝐬}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta \\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta \end{array}\right)}.$$
(17)
This expression turns out to be identical to the noise spectral density without squeezing in Eq. (7) being suppressed by a factor of $`e^{2r}`$. This result can be understood intuitively as follows. The input quadrature field is going to be rotated (and possibly ponderomotively squeezed) by the matrix $`𝐓`$ before being detected. The minimal noise quadrature of the squeezed state should therefore be rotated conversely before being injected into the interferometer, such that the detector always “sees” the minimal noise.

Squeezed vacuum can be generated with a variable but frequency-independent squeezing angle $`\lambda `$ (see for example BISM98 ). A frequency-dependent squeezing angle can be obtained subsequently by filtering the initial squeezed light through detuned Fabry-Pérot (FP) cavities, as proposed by Kimble et al. KLMTV01 , which can rotate the quadratures in a frequency dependent way. For small frequencies ($`\mathrm{\Omega }c/L_{\mathrm{FP}}`$), a detuned FP cavity of length $`L_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ rotates the reflected quadrature in the following way:

$$\overline{𝐚}^{\mathrm{out}}=e^{i\alpha _\mathrm{m}}𝒟(\alpha _\mathrm{p})\overline{𝐚}^{\mathrm{in}}$$
(18)
with

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _+\pm \alpha _{})$$
(19)
and

$$\alpha _\pm =2\mathrm{arctan}(\xi \pm \mathrm{\Omega }/\delta ).$$
(20)
where $`\xi `$ is defined by the resonant frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{FP}}`$ and by $`\delta `$ which is the half-linewidth of the cavity: $`\omega _{\mathrm{FP}}=\omega _0\xi \delta `$. As further shown by Purdue and Chen in Appendix A of Ref. PCh02 , several such Fabry-Pérot filter cavities can be combined to give a broad category of frequency dependent rotation angles. Adopting their formulas \[cf. Eqs. (A.8)—(A.14)\] into our context, we found that, in order to realize an additional squeezing angle $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with the form of

$$\mathrm{tan}\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{_{k=0}^nB_k\mathrm{\Omega }^{2k}}{_{k=0}^nA_k\mathrm{\Omega }^{2k}},|A_n+iB_n|>0.$$
(21)
we first need to obtain an initial frequency independent squeezed state with

$$\lambda _0=\mathrm{arg}(A_niB_n),$$
(22)
and then filter this squeezed light with $`n`$ filters whose complex resonant frequencies differ from $`\omega _0`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J^{\mathrm{res}}\delta _J\xi _Ji\delta _J`$, $`J=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, with $`\{\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_J^{\mathrm{res}}\}`$ being the $`2n`$ roots of the characteristic equation:

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(A_kiB_k)\mathrm{\Omega }^{2k}=0.$$
(23)
\[Note that $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_J^{\mathrm{res}}\}`$ are the $`n`$ roots with the appropriate sign of imaginary part, in our case negative.\]

Suppose the readout quadrature $`\zeta `$ is frequency independent, from the ideal input-output relation of GEO 600, we see that the desired $`\lambda `$ from Eq. (16) is indeed of the form of Eq. (21) when $`\mathrm{\Omega }L/c`$ is expanded to the leading order <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that, one has to take $`\mathrm{\Omega }L/cT_{\mathrm{SR}}\varphi 𝒦`$ in order to get a meaningful expansion.. Two filter cavities are necessary for the generic case. However, as we look at the low-power limit, only one such filter is necessary. In this case, the input-output relation rotates the input quadratures into the output quadratures following the same law as a detuned cavity. Naturally, as we go through Eqs. (22) and (23), we find that the required initial additional squeezing angle is

$$\lambda _0=\zeta \pi /2,$$
(24)
which puts the minor axis of the noise ellipse onto the $`\zeta `$ quadrature, while the required cavity has resonant frequency

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{filter}\mathrm{res}}=\frac{\varphi _{\mathrm{FP}}c}{L_{\mathrm{FP}}}i\frac{c\tau _{\mathrm{FP}}^2}{4L_{\mathrm{FP}}},$$
(25)
which is just “opposite” to the signal-recycling resonant frequency,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{SR}\mathrm{res}}\omega ^{\mathrm{SR}}i\gamma ^{\mathrm{SR}}=\frac{\varphi c}{L}i\frac{c\tau ^2}{4L},$$
(26)
and cancels the rotation induced by signal-recycling. For full-power GEO 600 interferometers, the initial additional squeezing angle is still given by Eq. (24), while the frequency-dependent part requires two cavities determined by the following characteristic equation:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega ^{\mathrm{SR}}+i\gamma ^{\mathrm{SR}})(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega ^{\mathrm{SR}}i\gamma ^{\mathrm{SR}})\frac{10P\omega _0}{m_\mathrm{M}Lc}(\omega ^{\mathrm{SR}}+2e^{i\zeta }\mathrm{sin}(\zeta )\gamma ^{\mathrm{SR}})=0.$$
(27)
It is straightforward to solve for the four roots (in two pairs) of the characteristic equations. The corresponding transmissivity $`\tau `$ of the input mirror and the detuning $`\varphi `$ of the filter cavity can be derived from these roots by virtue of Eq. (25).

## IV Signal recycling, squeezed light input and variational output

As shown by Kimble et al. KLMTV01 , the quantum noise spectral density of a conventional interferometer without signal-recycling can benefit simultaneously from both, frequency-dependent squeezed light input and frequency-dependent homodyne read-out. In this section we investigate the optical-spring signal-recycled interferometer with corresponding additional input and output optics. We start from the result of the previous section and vary the angle $`\zeta `$ of homodyne detection.

Fig. 4 shows an array of noise spectral densities of the output quadrature with varying detection angle $`\zeta `$ which is here still frequency independent. The input vacuum at the dark port is optimally squeezed with squeezing parameter $`r=1`$. Obviously, the array is bounded from below. This boundary corresponds to the optimized quantum noise spectral density of the signal-recycled interferometer. One member of the array is highlighted by a bold dashed line. Comparing the dashed curve with the optimized noise spectral density, one can see that the variational output provides a further improvement of the interferometer’s performance which is mainly an increased bandwidth of the sub-SQL sensitivity. At some frequencies the noise is reduced by a factor of 10. We emphasize that the optimized noise spectrum presented can not be further improved for this interferometer topology without increasing the squeezing parameter $`r`$ of the input vacuum. Obviously, our results are also significant without any squeezing of the input vacuum. The plots in Fig. 4 are not altered except for a shift upwards by a factor of $`e^r`$.

In the final part of this section we give an analytical expression of the lower boundary starting from Eq. (17). $`S_h^{\mathrm{SI}}`$ has to be minimized with respect to the detection angle $`\zeta `$. One method to find the minimum noise is to determine analytically the minimum of the function $`S_h^{\mathrm{SI}}(\zeta )`$. Then, a lengthy but straightforward calculation leads to a conditional equation for the optimized detection angle $`\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ of the following form <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2A similar analytic expression has also been obtained independently by Buonanno and Chen, but remained unpublished.:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}& \mathrm{sin}\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_{11}& Q_{12}\\ Q_{12}& Q_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(28)
Representing a general SR interferometer, the coefficients of the symmetric quadric $`𝐐`$ are complex (and complex-valued) functions of the interferometers’ parameters ($`𝒦,\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{}`$) which determine the input-output relation Eq. (2). It is more convenient to express them in terms of the elements of the two symmetrized matrices $`𝒮=\overline{𝐬}\overline{𝐬}^{}_{\mathrm{sym}}`$, $`𝒯=𝐓𝐓^{}_{\mathrm{sym}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Q_{11}& =& 𝒮_{11}(𝒯_{12}+𝒯_{21})𝒯_{11}(𝒮_{12}+𝒮_{21}),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill Q_{12}& =& 𝒮_{11}𝒯_{22}𝒯_{11}𝒮_{22},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill Q_{22}& =& 𝒯_{22}(𝒮_{12}+𝒮_{21})𝒮_{22}(𝒯_{12}+𝒯_{21}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
In general, Eq. (28) has two solutions corresponding to a local minimum and a local maximum of the noise density:

$$\zeta _\pm =\mathrm{arccot}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{Q}_{11}}\left(\pm \sqrt{det𝐐}+\mathrm{Q}_{12}\right)\right].$$
(30)
The minimum of the noise spectral density is given by inserting $`\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}=\zeta _{}`$ into Eq. (17). The optimized detection angle $`\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is shown in Fig. 5 together with the optimized squeezing angle $`\lambda _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ of the input field which depends on $`\zeta _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ according to Eq. (16). The form of both curves suggests that the filtering of the input and output light is accomplishable. Due to the frequency dependence of the squeezing and detection angle, one has to investigate first if an expansion in the form of Eq. (21) yields an expression which represents a manageable number of filter cavities. Furthermore, both spectra in Fig. 5 are sensitive to small changes of the parameters. Therefore, we do not propose a specific number of filter cavities needed to realize the frequency dependence.

## V Conclusion

We have shown that the quantum-noise limited sensitivity of signal-recycled interferometers, like GEO 600 or LIGO II, can be improved by additional input and output optics. Although an optical-spring signal-recycled interferometer can already beat the standard quantum limit and ponderomotively generates squeezed light our results show that squeezed light input is compatible leading to a quantum noise reduction by the squeezing factor $`e^{2r}`$ (in power). Variational output optics was proven to provide an additional benefit to the quantum noise limited sensitivity of signal-recycled interferometers. Our work augments the results by Buonanno and Chen BCh01a ; BCh01b ; BCh02a ; BCh03a  and by Kimble et al. KLMTV01  and synthesizes their investigations.
We have provided fully optimized homodyning and squeezing angles, expressible in analytical formulas, although they are probably not easily achievable using the technique proposed by Kimble et al., which uses detuned FP cavities as optical filters. However, in the special (sub-optimal) case with frequency-independent homodyning angle but frequency-dependent input squeezing angle, we found the optimal (frequency-dependent) input squeezing angle to be achievable by applying two subsequent filters on a frequency-independent squeezed light. We did not analyze the effect of optical losses, but as pointed out by Kimble et al., the frequency-dependent input squeezing technique is less susceptible to optical losses than the variational readout and squeezed-variational schemes. A thorough study of optical losses will be published in a separate paper Harms03b .

We acknowledge A. Freise, H. Lück, G. Heinzel and B. Willke for many discussions providing us with valuable insight into signal-recycled interferometers. The research of YC is supported by the National Science Foundation grant PHY-0099568 and by the David and Barbara Groce fund at the San Diego Foundation. The author thanks the Albert-Einstein-Institut in Hannover for support during his visit. The author also thanks Alessandra Buonanno for collaboration in numerous earlier works, from which his contributions to this paper benefit.